913 réponses à ce sujet

[a.m.p]

Following the debate on the price necessary to balance the proposed ending with the existing ones, I made two more polls to adress this question.
For those who want a conventional victory, please come here and tell how much you are willing to sacrifice for it.
For those who oppose an easy win that would undermine existing options, please come here and tell how much needs to be sacrificed to not make it an easy win.(The 'nothing should be enough option' is there too).
Let's measure the necessary level of grimdark.

Modifié par a.m.p, 23 avril 2012 - 02:07 .

[cindercatz]

Ok, voted and commented in the poll, thought I'd copy/paste my response here.

So:
" I think it should basically depend on your EMS. It's impossible to save everyone in your squad, but depending on your EMS, you have a choice of who to save in a series of events during the battle. If you have very low EMS, most die, if very high EMS, you sacrifice a few.

Optionally, Shepard can sacrifice him/herself to save more of the squad. If EMS is very low, Shepard dies along with most of the squad. LI survives all scenarios, unless EMS is low and Shepard refuses to sacrifice him/herself to save them.

In all scenarios, Earth takes heavy casualties, as do the allied fleets. If EMS is high, the Battle for Earth is won, and significant survivors remain across all species. The allies go on to win the war. If EMS is very low, the Battle for Earh is lost, casualties are much higher, and the Reapers win. If medium low, the Battle for Earth is lost, but the war eventually won. Medium high EMS, the Battle for Earth is a push (both sides take severe casualties and withdraw), but there are more survivors and the allies win.

*When I refer to squad, I mean the entire squad across all three games. All of the surviving squad members should have visible roles during the final battle, encomposing that "series of events" I mentioned.

**I also reject the idea that this option results in "countless more casualties". It is the better option and therefore should be made clear to be such. Besides, how could any amount of standard warfare equal the destruction of the relays? If BioWare wants to remain consistent with their options, you see that wave basically disintegrating half the normandy, so the destruction of the relays must be a widely destructive event, not a Reaper off switch. "

Also, I'd prefer BioWare to basically adopt the indoctrination theory wholesale, and then, if you reject starchild in the dream sequence, this is what results. If you choose "destroy", this still occurs, but there are later repercussions with EDI and the Geth. If you choose "synthesis", Shepard and a number of the human troops are fully indoctrinated and become enemies during the battle. If you choose "control", Shepard is indoctrinated and must be killed by his squad, which also takes a casualty or two in that scene.

Modifié par cindercatz, 23 avril 2012 - 06:21 .

[a.m.p]

cindercatz wrote...

Ok, voted and commented in the poll, thought I'd copy/paste my response here.

So:
" I think it should basically depend on your EMS. It's impossible to save everyone in your squad, but depending on your EMS, you have a choice of who to save in a series of events during the battle. If you have very low EMS, most die, if very high EMS, you sacrifice a few.

Optionally, Shepard can sacrifice him/herself to save more of the squad. If EMS is very low, Shepard dies along with most of the squad. LI survives all scenarios, unless EMS is low and Shepard refuses to sacrifice him/herself to save them.

In all scenarios, Earth takes heavy casualties, as do the allied fleets. If EMS is high, the Battle for Earth is won, and significant survivors remain across all species. The allies go on to win the war. If EMS is very low, the Battle for Earh is lost, casualties are much higher, and the Reapers win. If medium low, the Battle for Earth is lost, but the war eventually won. Medium high EMS, the Battle for Earth is a push (both sides take severe casualties and withdraw), but there are more survivors and the allies win.

*When I refer to squad, I mean the entire squad across all three games. All of the surviving squad members should have visible roles during the final battle, encomposing that "series of events" I mentioned.

**I also reject the idea that this option results in "countless more casualties". It is the better option and therefore should be made clear to be such. Besides, how could any amount of standard warfare equal the destruction of the relays? If BioWare wants to remain consistent with their options, you see that wave basically disintegrating half the normandy, so the destruction of the relays must be a widely destructive event, not a Reaper off switch. "

Right, thanks for coming to the thread, much more convenient here.

As I said in the poll comments and will repeat here, I would be happy to see a variety of endings based on your EMS, but I was really asking for the maximum price people were willing to pay for a single hard to get max EMS option, because this is supposed to be a compromise allowing to fix most problems with least effort.

As for casualties. With all the EC rumors it's unclear how bad the relay destruction will affect the galaxy, so any conventional ending should be balanced with whtever they decide for the existing ones.

So when I said casualties I referred to people who would keep dying until the war was won - as opposed to the crucible activating and solving the reaper problem right there and then in one way or the other. I am personally  as well of the opinion that destroying the relays would hurt the galaxy much more in the long run than a longer war, that's one of the reasons I'm proposing this option.

As for IT, I see ways how it could be done without pissing off even more people, but that would require lots and lots of more content.

Modifié par a.m.p, 23 avril 2012 - 06:35 .

[cindercatz]

a.m.p wrote...

Right, thanks for coming to the thread, much more convenient here.

As I said in the poll comments and will repeat here, I would be happy to see a variety of endings based on your EMS, but I was really asking for the maximum price people were willing to pay for a single hard to get max EMS option, because this is supposed to be a compromise allowing to fix most problems with least effort.

As for casualties. With all the EC rumors it's unclear how bad the relay destruction will affect the galaxy, so any conventional ending should be balanced with whtever they decide for the existing ones.

So when I said casualties I referred to people who would keep dying until the war was won - as opposed to the crucible activating and solving the reaper problem right there and then in one way or the other. I am personally  as well of the opinion that destroying the relays would hurt the galaxy much more in the long run than a longer war, that's one of the reasons I'm proposing this option.

As for IT, I see ways how it could be done without pissing off even more people, but that would require lots and lots of more content.

I'm largely in agreement with you, except for two things:
If it's the maximum EMS, hardest to get thing, of course it should be the best possible ending. I don't believe any of the indoc sequence choices should depend on EMS, though. If you simply provide all four regardless, and you incorporate the endings into the new larger one, I think all your problems are solved. As is, something like 90% of players that have responded anywhere, so far as I know, don't support the endings as is. Convincing that other 10%, when you've got nothing but more and more personalized content to offer, I don't think is an issue.

The second is how easy or hard a compromise it would need to be. Basically, they've set a deadline for middle summer for themselves. I wouldn't care if they pushed that back further. They basically want to release it before people forget about ME3 entirely and move on, because they do have paid DLC planned. So, if mid-summer's the deadline, I still think they've got plenty of time to extend and correct their ending. I don't think anything I've suggested is unreasonable in that timeframe, considering you're basically talking about eight to ten minutes of extra cutscenes with a few choice varibles. I don't think Indoc requires any extra anything prior to the indoc sequence, or even during it, other than making rejection an option and the limited dialogue that goes with that. Also, you have to switch the three existing triggers from "if EMS = x, activate choice x" to "on". I don't think that's hard to do.

The only obstacle is in the devs' minds. If they don't want to do it, it won't happen. If they decide it might be better, they really shouldn't be afraid to change course. Rather, they should be excited, at this point. I don't think all of this is somehow too hard to do in four months of dev time.

Modifié par cindercatz, 23 avril 2012 - 06:56 .

[a.m.p]

cindercatz wrote...

I'm largely in agreement with you, except for two things:
If it's the maximum EMS, hardest to get thing, of course it should be the best possible ending. I don't believe any of the indoc sequence choices should depend on EMS, though. If you simply provide all four regardless, and you incorporate the endings into the new larger one, I think all your problems are solved. As is, something like 90% of players that have responded anywhere, so far as I know, don't support the endings as is. Convincing that other 10%, when you've got nothing but more and more personalized content to offer, I don't think is an issue.

Well. Had it been the plan from the beginning, then it could be made the best option. Let's set aside IT for a moment and take the endings literally. At this point an obvious best option available just through DLC would be more than slightly problematic.

And moreover, the one thing I personally liked about the endings is that there is no obvious best option, it's subjective (though it comes from the fact that all options are different kinds of terrible). Provided the catalyst says the truth, I can sort of see, if I put on my granma's glasses and stand on my head,  what people see in synthesis. Though for me it is bizarre and abhorrent in a number of ways. If control promised to preserve relays and end the war, that would certainly make me stop and think. And balancing the possible death of a specific race, the end of the war and the destruction of the relays, against the death of a lot of unspecified people and no certainty the war can even be won makes for an interesting dilemma.

For me a conventional victory, regardless of price, would still be the best option. The EMS requirement would simply signify that to get this option you need a really strong fleet, which is fair. Someone else would go for destroy to stop the war right there. Someone else would compromise by picking control. The choice would become meaningful, instead of 'choose in what color you want to see yourself die and screw over the galaxy'. People would stop and think => Art.

Also, imagine until EC is released we get no more definitive statements. Then it comes out and you get the dialogue option/interrupt to refuse. And you don't know whether that will lead to a victory or to a 'reapers win, next cycle discovers Liara's capsule' scenario. That would be one hell of an immersive moment.

Modifié par a.m.p, 23 avril 2012 - 07:47 .

[cindercatz]

a.m.p wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

I'm largely in agreement with you, except for two things:
If it's the maximum EMS, hardest to get thing, of course it should be the best possible ending. I don't believe any of the indoc sequence choices should depend on EMS, though. If you simply provide all four regardless, and you incorporate the endings into the new larger one, I think all your problems are solved. As is, something like 90% of players that have responded anywhere, so far as I know, don't support the endings as is. Convincing that other 10%, when you've got nothing but more and more personalized content to offer, I don't think is an issue.

Well. Had it been the plan from the beginning, then it could be made the best option. Let's set aside IT for a moment and take the endings literally. At this point an obvious best option available just through DLC would be more than slightly problematic.

And moreover, the one thing I personally liked about the endings is that there is no obvious best option, it's subjective (though it comes from the fact that all options are different kinds of terrible). Provided the catalyst says the truth, I can sort of see, if I put on my granma's glasses and stand on my head,  what people see in synthesis. Though for me it is bizarre and abhorrent in a number of ways. If control promised to preserve relays and end the war, that would certainly make me stop and think. And balancing the possible death of a specific race, the end of the war and the destruction of the relays, against the death of a lot of unspecified people and no certainty the war can even be won makes for an interesting dilemma.

For me a conventional victory, regardless of price, would still be the best option. The EMS requirement would simply signify that to get this option you need a really strong fleet, which is fair. Someone else would go for destroy to stop the war right there. Someone else would compromise by picking control. The choice would become meaningful, instead of 'choose in what color you want to see yourself die and screw over the galaxy'. People would stop and think => Art.

Also, imagine until EC is released we get no more definitive statements. Then it comes out and you get the dialogue option/interrupt to refuse. And you don't know whether that will lead to a victory or to a 'reapers win, next cycle discovers Liara's capsule' scenario. That would be one hell of an immersive moment.

I still like mine better.

Basically, while Destroy is a dilemma (the other two are non-starters as I see it, considered fully), it's a dilemma that forces the player to simply abandon their entire thematic premise, unless they played anti-synthetic all along. That means everybody else has an end that makes no sense. Therefore, I don't believe it's worth preserving as a face value thing. When players played again, and they saw that fourth "Reject" option, they still wouldn't know what came after, for any of the endings this time. They'd have to go with their gut, still, and see what happened following. And of course, there's still that auto-save at the end to let you go back and see the alternatives, like I did for all the existing endings (to no benefit and no loss, which is a problem). The ending scenes themselves do work, if you view them in a specific light, that being indoctrination, but there is no resolution, and the player is never personally enlightened by the game one way or another, thus currently there is no consequence to any of the endings. So they could adopt Indoc and then let consequences play out from there, in game, and solve all their problems.

The serious problem still remains that the game shipped without an ending.. but that's true right now. That won't change. So again, fully reworking it like so is preferable and the best possible outcome to the situation they put themselves in, imo.

[Raynulf]

Elyiia wrote...

If I had written it, the designs would have been left by the Reapers as a plan B in case plan A failed. However, with the tampering by each cycle there's a weakness that Shepard can exploit to destroy communications between the Reapers. Without being able to communicate they lose their strength in fighting in format and we start to fight a winning war against them.

The reason they leave the Citadel in control of the cycle until that point is to try and force a last fight, because at that point they're going to win in a straight battle. The reason they leave the beam open is so that we'll decimate our own troops trying to reach it. The reason they only have a Destroyer guarding the beam is because it really doesn't even matter if they reach it or not.

In a dream-world where I was in control of the writing for Mass Effect 3, I would have (and actually did expect something like this):

The reapers, on reaching the location where we destroyed the relay in Arrival, split into a number of smaller swarms and FTL to nearby relays. During this time: Shepard has been detained on Earth for trial and the Spectres (the invisible hand of the council) have figured out how to control the Citadel, allowing it to 'break the link' between relays of their choice - as all relays need to go from one to another, it means no amount of tampering on one end can make it 'work'.
 
After 6 months these swarms reach the relays and start expanding, one such splinter fleet hits earth, interrupting Shepards trial and forcing him and the Normandy to flee through the relay moments before it is shut down, along with most others in the area.

After some initial confusion, lines of communication are reopened and the following scenario is established as the basis of the game: 

• The bulk of the reaper fleet are 'trapped' within one corner of the galaxy, whose relays are all offline.
• Dozens of smaller reaper 'destroyers' are scattered among the galaxy as scout craft, which are not currently engaging allied forces.
• Systems adjacent to Reaper territory are deemed "threatened" at are being evacuated, with their relays 'online' only for breif windows.
• Rest of the galaxy has working relays and is preparing for war.
• At best speed, the reapers will take 2 years to reach the Citadel (they almost certainly have a large fleet heading straight there), giving a hard time limit for the game.

The Council, acting on information from their Spectre agents, behaves like a competent organisation and pitches in immediately, without dithering about. However, their assets are limited, and although they have ordered war-time rapid production of ships and weapons, they combined are not enough to stop the reapers.

Shepard then spends the game performing three types of missions

1) Reaper Missions: Brutal, terrifying encounters with Reapers themselves (usually scout vessels), as they attempt to sabotage the organic war effort from behind the lines (attacking production facilities, indoctrinating small colonies as sleeper agents etc). There should be at least 1-2 per chaper, and generally speaking be fairly individual and climactic.

2) War Support: Missions about gaining support, evacuating people, prepping defenses. Rannoch & Tuchanka are both good examples (and both threads need resolving).

3) Quest for The Sword These missions focus on searching for means to fight the Reapers more effectively, and where Cerberus (see below) comes in. Concepts include: Cerberus FTL core technology, Collector tech & beam weapons (which ignore kinetic barriers), Prothean tech advances from Ilos, Cerberus biotic shielding tech. And so on.

The results of these three, coupled with having splintered the reaper swarm, allow a shot at victory.

Breaking the game up into segments, each with it's own climax (much how most games are), and each having a cutscene of Earth being ravaged by reapers (about 1 billion dead/liquified per year) rather than dream sequences. Preferably using landmarks in the background for player recognition (even if a little cliche), to appropriately get across that this is your home, and you should care.

The Climax
The climax of the game would start with the Citadel fight Mk 2, however only a relatively small fleet actually arrived here, far smaller than the one that hit Earth (which was vast). Analysis of the wreckage and war data reveals that the bulk of the reaper fleet... is parked on Earth, harvesting humanity to build a new, and more powerful Reaper (again, reveal about humans being ideal foodstock).

The fleets then assemble every shred of war asset you have and go to reclaim Earth before they convert humanity into the Deathstar (so to speak).

Arriving at earth, the allies fight the reapers, but they have already assembled the main shell of the Megareaper and although immobile it is inpregnable to weapons fire, and Shepard has to lead a ground team to infiltrate and destroy the thing from within - because the gameplay is about Shepard and his gun. 

Cerberus
After the events of Mass Effect 1, I would have written Cerberus' vast advances in tech and financing to be a result of reaper 'patronage'. The Illusive Man (TIM) would have been very subtley indoctrinated to believe he was obtaining this tech behind the reapers back, and using it against them, all the while the Reapers increasing their hold over his organisation as a covert force to use against the organics.

Destroying the Collector Base in ME2 would deny Shepard potential war assets (E.g. Collector-style beam weapons and better power generators), but it also ensures TIM and Cerberus can't cause too much damage during ME3, and thus you have have more ships and allies in the last battle. Cerberus are still a PITA, but nowhere near as dangerous as they could be.

Saving the Collector Base in ME2 means you get better tech, but Cerberus is a powerful and deadly organisation raising all kinds of hell around the galaxy. In the end: Fewer ships and allies in the last battle, but with better armor, shields and weapons.

Concept Tech Advances

FTL Torpedos: Missiles using a Mass Effect core with Cerberus overrides to accelerate to FTL speeds towards the target, before reversing their Mass Effect field (without decelerating) to increase their mass moments before impact. While attempting this maneuver on a ship would be suicide, an unnmanned missile - although expensive - would devastate any target it hit.

Biotic Barriers: Biotic barriers are unusually resistant to both energy and kinetic attacks, and Cerberus has been researching genetically modified tissue controlled via cybernetics that can create a biotic barrier. Although still in early development, were it employed on the scale of a spaceship, it would give a powerful, if short-duration secondary barrier that is resistant to the reaper's beam weapons.



=====


But... again, the above is just fantasy.


I'd be satisfied with a compromise where it is possible to fight them conventionally - or just sucker-punch them with an overloading Crucible power core. Because really, "Giant Bomb" is a far more reliable tactic than "Turn it on and see what happens"

[a.m.p]

@cindercatz
I like yours better too, it gets around the starchild for all endings.

@Raynulf
I like yours even better. I would so much want to play that game you're writing about. It allows characters to have brains. Cerberus as a source of illegal (before the war) FTL modifications fits perfectly.
So the megareaper would be their way of adapting to the changed situation where normal reapers can get killed?

Modifié par a.m.p, 24 avril 2012 - 07:34 .

[Byronic-Knight]

Raynulf wrote...

The Climax
The climax of the game would start with the Citadel fight Mk 2, however only a relatively small fleet actually arrived here, far smaller than the one that hit Earth (which was vast). Analysis of the wreckage and war data reveals that the bulk of the reaper fleet... is parked on Earth, harvesting humanity to build a new, and more powerful Reaper (again, reveal about humans being ideal foodstock).

The fleets then assemble every shred of war asset you have and go to reclaim Earth before they convert humanity into the Deathstar (so to speak).

Arriving at earth, the allies fight the reapers, but they have already assembled the main shell of the Megareaper and although immobile it is inpregnable to weapons fire, and Shepard has to lead a ground team to infiltrate and destroy the thing from within - because the gameplay is about Shepard and his gun.

I'd be satisfied with a compromise where it is possible to fight them conventionally - or just sucker-punch them with an overloading Crucible power core. Because really, "Giant Bomb" is a far more reliable tactic than "Turn it on and see what happens"

That whole thing was wonderful, but this climax is just tops.

Also (and this is me just thinking out loud, so to speak. . . er, type), to add something to both this and the ongoing suggestions for more conventional war, I had a realisation while posting on another thread* that goes along with an unconventional use of the Crucible.

In ME2, you capture a Reaper IFF to travel through the Omega 4 Relay. What happened to it? Admittedly it would be difficult (and the idea of invading a Megareaper works better for this idea), but what's stopping the Quarians or Salarians or Asari---or all in tandem plus EDI---modifying it so that they (the Reapers) can't tell what it is they're looking at?

IFF, in case anyone was not paying attention, stands for Identify Friend-Foe, and was used by the Collectors to pass through the O4 Relay---they were identified as Friends---so, what happens if you alter the signal sent to identify the Reapers as Foe, or even better, to scramble the signal so as to essentially do to every Reaper what you (can) do to that mech at the beginning of Garrus' recruitment mission in ME2?

Barring the possibility of invading the shell of a MegaReaper---which, again, would be epic---and therefore use said modified IFF code to turn the Reapers on their own creation before killing one-another, you could always introduce it via the Citadel/Crucible---since the Catalyst says it controls the Reapers---or even use one of the dead but not destroyed, erm, Destroyers you kill on Earth to implant the code into the network.

Again, restless musings. . .

*social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11619336/4#11636812

Modifié par Byronic-Knight, 24 avril 2012 - 07:51 .

[Raynulf]

a.m.p wrote...
@Raynulf
I like yours even better. I would so much want to play that game you're writing about. It allows characters to have brains. Cerberus as a source of illegal (before the war) FTL modifications fits perfectly.

Thanks, it was very much the game I was hoping to play too

a.m.p wrote...
So the megareaper would be their way of adapting to the changed situation where normal reapers can get killed?

What I had in mind was a combination of:

A) Reapers adapting to the unprecedented scenario of the Citadel trap being used against them, and being at genuine risk of defeat (or at least victory with immense losses, which would run counter to what I interpreted of reaper mentality).

 A culmination of the Mass Effect 2 theme of the Reapers intense (almost singular) focus on humanity, and our proven viability as stock for reaper production. Mass Effect 2 made a pretty big deal about human "genetic diversity" and such, and it felt appropriate that this be expanded upon in the series finale.

[Zolt51]

Hmm, either I'm lost or this has migrated from a discussion of re-doing the ending proper to re-doing the whole game (and bits of ME2 while we're at it).

In which case I'm lost anyway.

[a.m.p]

Zolt51 wrote...

Hmm, either I'm lost or this has migrated from a discussion of re-doing the ending proper to re-doing the whole game (and bits of ME2 while we're at it).

In which case I'm lost anyway.

We might have strayed slightly off topic (not that much, since the ending simply highlights all the problems of the crucible plot that spans the whole game and a conventional option would allow to retroactively fix some of those) but we are always eager to return to it.

I would love to get more detailed feedback on the max/min price of conventional victory so it would not turn the existing endings into non-standard game overs.

[Raynulf]

Zolt51 wrote...

Hmm, either I'm lost or this has migrated from a discussion of re-doing the ending proper to re-doing the whole game (and bits of ME2 while we're at it).

In which case I'm lost anyway.

Nope, just me wandering off on a tangeant.

Purpose of the thread remains as per the OP Edit: Who posts faster than I do

Modifié par Raynulf, 24 avril 2012 - 09:02 .

[Noelemahc]

Dammit, Raynulf, now we're all going to be depressed the real ME3 isn't as awesome as what you've outlined =(

Great ideas, although I'd add the stupid option to trigger the mad rush onto Urth at ANY given moment in the game, a-la Chrono Trigger's ability to rush the very definitely final boss at any moment in the game from when you get the time machine (or, in a NG+, from any moment AT ALL). Complete with special endings for victory and failure for every attempt and combination of accrued forces and resources as a result. F.e. sure, you took back Urth, but your fleet is whittled down to scraps, and you never took back Tuchanka, which means that while your world is safe, the Reaper threat is still very much valid and present.

Maybe pull a Fallout 1, make the game not end (or go into endgame "Find and kill Harbinger" mode) until all homeworlds are liberated or annihilated -- remember how it didn't matter if you would go kill the Master in the very beginning of the game if you didn't stop the Military Base's production of supermutants?

[a.m.p]

Byronic-Knight wrote...

That whole thing was wonderful, but this climax is just tops.

Also (and this is me just thinking out loud, so to speak. . . er, type), to add something to both this and the ongoing suggestions for more conventional war, I had a realisation while posting on another thread* that goes along with an unconventional use of the Crucible.

In ME2, you capture a Reaper IFF to travel through the Omega 4 Relay. What happened to it? Admittedly it would be difficult (and the idea of invading a Megareaper works better for this idea), but what's stopping the Quarians or Salarians or Asari---or all in tandem plus EDI---modifying it so that they (the Reapers) can't tell what it is they're looking at?

IFF, in case anyone was not paying attention, stands for Identify Friend-Foe, and was used by the Collectors to pass through the O4 Relay---they were identified as Friends---so, what happens if you alter the signal sent to identify the Reapers as Foe, or even better, to scramble the signal so as to essentially do to every Reaper what you (can) do to that mech at the beginning of Garrus' recruitment mission in ME2?

Barring the possibility of invading the shell of a MegaReaper---which, again, would be epic---and therefore use said modified IFF code to turn the Reapers on their own creation before killing one-another, you could always introduce it via the Citadel/Crucible---since the Catalyst says it controls the Reapers---or even use one of the dead but not destroyed, erm, Destroyers you kill on Earth to implant the code into the network.

Again, restless musings. . .

*social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11619336/4#11636812

Let's talk about IFFs for a moment. That is something that confuses me a lot. What is normally understood as IFF is "is an identification system designed for command and control. It enables military and national (civilian-located ATC) interrogation systems to identify aircraft, vehicles or forces as friendly and to determine their bearing and range from the interrogator." Disrupting this does give great results in modern wars.

But do reapers even need something like that in combat? They are giant hulking death machines. Do they really need specific feedback from other reapers to not mistake them for normal dreadnaughts?
So I was under the impression the IFF was less of an actual IFF and more of a key to the O4 relay.

However. We have lots of samples of reaper code, including the IFF, EDI, geth, something else I vaguely recall from a fetch quest halfway through ME3. So how about we try to mess up their communication protocols altogether? Not as good, but still much better than a highly synchronised mob of giant death machines.

On that note. How do reapers actually communicate with each other? QEC? Does each have a direct connection to every other? Or maybe there is one hub (citadel?) to which all are connected?

Modifié par a.m.p, 24 avril 2012 - 09:46 .

[Noelemahc]

On that note. How do reapers actually communicate with each other? QEC? Does each have a direct connection to every other? Or maybe there is one hub (citadel?) to which all are connected?

I don't think it has ever been elaborated. The only time we actually hear about them communicating at all is when the Rannoch Reaper says "Harbinger spoke of you" to Shepard.

So I was under the impression the IFF was less of an actual IFF and more of a key to the O4 relay.

Perhaps Reapers do not need these, but their devices (and the Collectors, maybe?) do. It was a gamble, BTW, there was no guarantee that a REAPER IFF would work with Omega-4, would'a been a funny funny death for Sheppy Shep and Co if a specific Collector IFF was necessary.

something else I vaguely recall from a fetch quest halfway through ME3

It's a nonspecific "reaper code fragment", however, it WAS said by the questgiver to be used for ECM research. So you're on the right track there, it seems.

[a.m.p]

Speculations are so much fun, aren't they.

Dear defiant colleagues. Look at this gem that I found on the Data Cache thread:

[Noelemahc]

Most awesome. Wish this was in the game. Aaargh.

[a.m.p]

Another bump for more votes disguised as a good read:
Why Changing Mass Effect’s Ending Won’t Compromise Art by Ross Lincoln at gamefront.com
I guess the good thing about the 'Art!' argument is that it can be used in a number of different ways.

[Byronic-Knight]

a.m.p wrote...

Let's talk about IFFs for a moment. That is something that confuses me a lot. What is normally understood as IFF is "is an identification system designed for command and control. It enables military and national (civilian-located ATC) interrogation systems to identify aircraft, vehicles or forces as friendly and to determine their bearing and range from the interrogator." Disrupting this does give great results in modern wars.

But do reapers even need something like that in combat? They are giant hulking death machines. Do they really need specific feedback from other reapers to not mistake them for normal dreadnaughts?
So I was under the impression the IFF was less of an actual IFF and more of a key to the O4 relay.

However. We have lots of samples of reaper code, including the IFF, EDI, geth, something else I vaguely recall from a fetch quest halfway through ME3. So how about we try to mess up their communication protocols altogether? Not as good, but still much better than a highly synchronised mob of giant death machines.

On that note. How do reapers actually communicate with each other? QEC? Does each have a direct connection to every other? Or maybe there is one hub (citadel?) to which all are connected?

Yeah, it was just something that occurred to me as something that could have been made use of---especially when you take into account that fetch-quest you mention. If it is specific to the Mass Relays, even better, since it could be modified to shut the Reapers out of the Relay network altogether. 

As I said, it was just a thought, but I was playing through ME2, and had just finished the Collector Ship mission a couple days ago, and had this thought during the "de-brief" with TIM, where he tells you that the Reapers use an Identify Friend-Foe system to use the Realys. Then, I considered the probability of EDI still being in possession of it, unless the Alliance pulled it from her system when they were modifying the Normandy (remember, she pretended to be a VI while they were poking around). But even if they latter occurred, there would be very little chance that the Alliance would simply discard such a valuable piece of tech. 

This thought runs into the problem that the IFF is never explained in any more depth than "we need it to go through the O4 Relay," so I really have no idea whether it is tied to that specific relay, or if it's a protocol the Reapers use to identify one another as Reapers, perticularly when you listen to Mordin's analysis/lamentations of the Collectors. 

"No glands, replaced by tech. No digestive system, replaced by tech. No soul. . . replaced by tech." 

And given the Reapers are that times a thousand, you can presume they have no eyes. They rely on sensors of some sort, sensors attached to servers, servers with code---code that can be analised, modified, and used for sabatoge. 

As to if Reapers communicate, I thought they were all hive-minds, like the Geth, so they share information with one another at light speed, but because they are so far advanced in comparison to the Geth, they were a combination of both platform and server hub, and as such do not necessarily need others in close proximity to them in order to be smarter. 

[a.m.p]

About reaper communication. It has to be FTL. Either QEC or something equally effective. It's assumed that they started moving from dark space immediately when Sovereign's plan failed - they somehow found out about that without the citadel relay activating. Then there's ME2 and Harbinger's ramblings that are presumably transmitted to us real-time, while he's still outside the galaxy. The olnly technology that we are aware of to match that would be QEC.

Then there's this:

The third discovery is that the object broadcasts signals and information on many different spectra. One such pulse, suspected to be similar to a quantum entanglement communicator, reaches into Reaper territory. Another broadcast is infrasound, consistent with frequencies that trigger feelings of awe and fear in humans, a known factor in Reaper indoctrination. Kenson's laboratory is filled with equipment dedicated to monitoring any signal coming from the artifact in the hopes that some clue will prove the Reapers' undoing before it's too late.

Entanglement is strictly point-to-point. To build a huge network based on it you either have to connect each individual reaper to every other, or you have to set up one central hub to which each reaper is connected and that passes information from quantum pair to quantum pair.

Have I just invented a new somewhat lore-justified reaper weakness(that could, if implemented, go with an epic mission to go, say, to dark space and bring down that central hub with your big huge fleet)?

[a.m.p]

And some more sutff:
Here's one of the crucible war assets entries:

So. We can build an eezo refinery plant from scratch exclusively to supply the crucible with eezo. But never could we ever build or relocate industrial facilities to boost our ship numbers and make new kinds of weapons.

Modifié par a.m.p, 25 avril 2012 - 03:21 .

[The Angry One]

a.m.p wrote...

And some more sutff:
Here's one of the crucible war assets entries:

*snip*

So. We can build an eezo refinery plant from scratch exclusively to supply the crucible with eezo. But never could we ever build or relocate industrial facilities to boost our ship numbers and make new kinds of weapons.

Indeed, the more I think about it the more annoyed I get.
There's a ton of industrial power there that could've been used to crank out ships like candy. But no that's not an option because Reapers need an off-button. <_<

[a.m.p]

@The Angry One
That's the most tragically hilarious part. Invent a contrived plot device and then try to justify using it at any cost to the story. We need an off-button =>unbeateble reapers. Not: unbeatable reapers => we need an off button.

And I keep thinking: wouldn't inventing all sorts of horribly destructive weapons and using them to beat reapers drop the galaxy in a very interesting situation? Society is only beginning to rebuild, struggling to maintain order, while all that destructive potential is everywhere in abundance. Wouldn't that make for a great playground for a new story, with smaller but still deadly threats and a 'save the world from itself' kind of plot?

[Byronic-Knight]

a.m.p wrote...

*snip*

Entanglement is strictly point-to-point. To build a huge network based on it you either have to connect each individual reaper to every other, or you have to set up one central hub to which each reaper is connected and that passes information from quantum pair to quantum pair.

Have I just invented a new somewhat lore-justified reaper weakness(that could, if implemented, go with an epic mission to go, say, to dark space and bring down that central hub with your big huge fleet)?

You mean like the Citadel; the home of the Catalyst; the thing that admits to controlling the Reapers? That sort of central hub? 

I'm beginning to think the writers didn't think this through very well. . .