913 réponses à ce sujet

[CroGamer002]

[quote]a.m.p wrote...

And there's an entire legion of Reapers on Earth.[/quote]

Sovereign took part in the battle only after the arms opened. Until then he rammed one cruiser. The rest of the damage was done by the geth fleet, who are now on our side.

[/quote]

No, geth armada taken care of Citadel Defense Fleet, however Sovy alone fought of Alliance fleets.

[a.m.p]

Mesina2 wrote...

No, geth armada taken care of Citadel Defense Fleet, however Sovy alone fought of Alliance fleets.

One fleet. The fifth fleet. That lost eight cruisers.

[CroGamer002]

a.m.p wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

No, geth armada taken care of Citadel Defense Fleet, however Sovy alone fought of Alliance fleets.

One fleet. The fifth fleet. That lost eight cruisers.

According to ME3 EMS screen, 3 fleets were in trying to take down Soverign.


And this 8 cruisers were taken down by geth if you save Destiny Ascension.



Did you even play ME1?

[a.m.p]

Mesina2 wrote...

According to ME3 EMS screen, 3 fleets were in trying to take down Soverign.


And this 8 cruisers were taken down by geth if you save Destiny Ascension.



Did you even play ME1?

That is a very interesting question to ask a person who has a 35-page long thread compiling lore from throughout the trilogy about how to fight reapers without magic off buttons.

Yes. I did play ME1.

There are a few references to what fleet is fighting Sovereign. Joker says "The entire Arcturus fleet". That can be one fleet or multiple fleets. Wiki says the fifth fleet is called the Arcturus fleet. In ME 2 (link that I've given in previous post) Shepard talks specifically about the fifth fleet. Nobody says anything about any other fleets fighting Sovereign until ME3 arrives and tells us the reapers can't be beaten conventionally. That isn't the only retcon to make reapers more powerful.

It is ironic, that to make their unfathomable space-gods definitely unbetable they had to throw away whole plotlines and chunks of lore. And even that didn't quite work.

Anyway, it's getting late here. More on this issue tomorrow.

Modifié par a.m.p, 12 mai 2012 - 08:33 .

[Byronic-Knight]

a.m.p wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

a.m.p wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Convectional victory is NOT possible.

Best case scenario going convectional is Pyrrhic victory for Reapers.

Why? Apart from Hackett saying it's not possible three of four times, why?

Replay ME1 ending.


Sovereign alone devastated Alliance Fleets and he was also sitting duck.

And only reason why they take him down is because Shepard killed Saren husk avatar that Sovy assumed control over and link was severed why he was still controlling him so put him "shock" that made him go offline, which includes his shields.


And there's an entire legion of Reapers on Earth.

Sovereign took part in the battle only after the arms opened. Until then he rammed one cruiser. The rest of the damage was done by the geth fleet, who are now on our side.

Also, the fleet was shooting him with highly ineffective kinetic weapons, that are supposed to be mostly replaced by Thanix cannons by ME3.

As for the entire legion of reapers at Earth, we did some counting on this thread. Based on the cutscenes and common sense, there can not be more than a few hundred sov-class ones at Earth and no more than a few thousand total all around the galaxy for the plot of ME3 make even a little sense.

Whereas we have the forces of the entire galaxy at our disposal. That's why I mentioned Hackett. His dialogue is literally the single thing in the whole trilogy that a conventional victory would directly contradict.
And then there is the various funny lore that can help fighting them more effectively. Starting with actually using the citadel as the relay control hub it is, just against reapers, and down to various nukes and antimatter weapons, FTL projectiles, FTL projectiles with nukes and antimatter warheads on them, cyberwarfare and anything else you might wish.

This is mostly a reply to Mesina2 but I just wanted to reïterrate those two very crucial points (three if you take into account the bit about Thanix cannons being "widely used" according to the codex, despite NONE being seen fired in the final approach to Earth). 

I’ve also been thinking about Hackett’s dreaded five words concerning conventional victory (although, Liara says it also a couple of times), and wondered what exactly he means by "we" and "conventionally". 

The first time you hear him say it is right after you leave Earth, when he redirects you to Mars (Liara says it for the first time on the Normandy after you rescue her from the archive). 

Now, if by "we", Hackett only means the military at Earth that was just blindsided in the same manner of the troops at Pearl Harbor magnified by a thousand, then he is absolutely right. Even if said military was prepared for the attack, there would be no chance of Earth alone repelling the Reapers. 

Following that, he says it just about every time you talk to him on the vid-comm, solely focused on the Crucible and only valueing Shepard’s efforts if it nets the project minds to decipher the plans and hands to build it. In almost no capacity does he acknowledge or commend the enormous armada that Shep is slowly building. Oddly, however, when he boards the Normandy to give said enormous armada a pre-battle pep talk, he doesn’t mention his consistent-up-until-that-point pessimism regarding the possibility of Reaper defeat. 

"We will not fall. We will prevail," I believe are his exact words. 

This negativity has two functions. 

1) It shows that Hackett is realistic regarding the devastating power of the Reapers, and that he does care enough about the people under his command to take an enormous gamble on a device noöne knows the precise funcition of in the vague hope of it being a weapon that could keep him from sending those people into a meat grinder. 

2) It gives Shepard another, unneeded reason to travel across the galaxy and recruit various races to aid in the fight---or, in this case, the construction of a device which, again, noöne knows the function of. Why unneeded? Because there has already been a reason for such recruitment to be necessary that was already established and seamlessly woven into the plot: The blinking Reapers!! You know, that terrible, interstellar menace that has been saying since the first game that they were coming, that all life was doomed to be harvested, and was introduced in the very first mission of said first game. 

Now, about convention. I know this has been discussed before, but what exactly is it?

Is convention what you have been doing since the first game---"Us against the unknown. Killing it with big guns. Good times."

If so, then a conventional victory is absolutely possible considering you killed Sovereign with a big gun, the derelict Reaper orbiting Mnemosyne was killed by a very big gun---which, whatever happened to that? TIM claims they traced the trajectory of the shot. Why did noöne think to start producing those?---the Reaper destroyer on Rannoch was killed by a big gun (several, the point still stands), the "Hades Cannon" destroyer was one-hit-killed by a Cain (not an excessively large gun considering it can be used by foot-soldiers---seriously give one to every infantryman until your stock runs out), and a capital Reaper had two legs blown off from a big gun from a freaking cruiser, and the fact that all the forces at your command (nearly, anyway) have miniaturised Reaper guns mounted on them, which the codex indicates partially bypasses or ignores kenetic barriers of all sorts.

The Reapers are not invicible. Anyone who thinks that is (borderline) indoctrinated, and has surrendered themselves to the awe of their size or power. Devastating though they might be on both counts, they are still physical constructs whose bonds may be shattered, melted, smashed, crushed, or exploded. 

Or does convention refer to tactics. 

If so, then conventional tactics---i.e. charging headlong into the Reaper ranks firing your gun---isn’t going to work. It is readily apparent that such a strategy will result in naught but defeat and/or obliteration of anyone foolish enough to attempt it. 

However, it is pretty well established that Reapers cannot fire backward. That is their Achilles heel, as it were. And yet, in every place you see them in force, especially on the ground (i.e. Earth and Palaven’s moon) nobody even considers getting behind them, with a Thanix cannon that is established as being both capable of at least partially bypassing Reaper shields and "widely used" by the Alliance military---being that they can be mounted on something as small as a fighter---and, one would assume, since they’re the ones that reverse-engineered the tech, the Turian military. The Asari were using hit-and-run tactics to great success before the Reapers simply ignored them, and you have to take into account Thessia was not supplemented by any outside force. The Turians retreated for the same reason (they would attack, the Reapers would take out a ship or two, wittling their military down, but they were largely being ignored, so they decided to regroup). 

That is where the combination of every military in the galaxy comes in---something we all sensed was coming in the third game regardless of the unnecessary Crucible plot-device. It is why the "problem" of Hackett being the big confidence-damper that he is could be easily be fixed by adding an exchange similar to the one I suggest a few pages back: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11091594/21#11515380

And regarding his nagativity/realism of the situation, shortly after you first find the Crucible plans, you can ask Hackett point blank what he would do if the Crucible either didn’t work or didn’t do what everyone thought it did (if it wasn’t a weapon). His answer?

"Then we take the fleets to Earth and take our chances." 

Judging by the "best" (most complete) force you are able to amass, your chances look pretty good. Shepard could just as easily radio Hackett and tell him the Crucible is a no-go. 

Also, as I and others has suggested, there could always be the possibility of hacking the Reaper’s communication network. Besides the fact that you procure a possible piece of tech they (ostensibly) use to identify one another in the IFF from the Reaper orbiting Mnemosyne---I say ostensibly because it isn’t explained in much detail other than "they use an advanced friend-foe system"---as well as an arbitrary fetch quest in ME3 involving the procurement of another, unexplained piece of Reaper code. Why is that not put to any use beyond "we need it for the Crucible. . . somehow."? 

Anytime you hack a mech using powers (hack/sabatoge), but most notably the YMIR mech in Garrus’ recruitment mission in ME2 (with a bypass console), the thing that you disrupt is always their "friend-foe targeting system."

This mechanic could easily be integrated into the Crucible, and even the Catalyst, since the Catalyst lives in the Citadel, meaning---unless they’re truly going with "mystical ghost thing that just set up shop at the Citadel" instead of "hologram being projected by a piece of Reaper tech (since they built the thing) that’s essentially their brain (or something similar)"---they could modify and/or reconfingure all the Reaper code they have (including the portion that Legion uploads, now conceivably still inside the Geth neural network) into something that disrupts the Reaper identifiers so as to have them shooting at one another instead of the Fleets, plugging said repurposed code into the Citadel’s "brain", using the Crucible as a sort of antenna, amplifying and projecting said signal to the Reapers.

Alternatively, it could be uploaded into any one of the destroyed Reaper shells you encounter, have some of the Geth you liberate feign betrayal and upload it once the Reapers accept them. Just spit-balling. 

Given those possibilities (which are never even entertained, let alone explored) then a victory that is unconventional is also possible, and one that does not rely on an unneeded super weapon to be injected into the narrative. .

And, once again, for Reaper numbers: images.wikia.com/masseffect/images/6/69/Reaper_fleet.png 

This picture is the most you see at any one point on screen in the entire trilogy. They are numbered, in this picture, to be about 300. Accounting for the cut off around the edges, you could conceivably place a multiple of that picture (roughly) on every edge and corner---multiplying that picture and those number by eight---and only get 2400 capital Reapers total.

Considering that in-game, you never see more than five (maybe six) on the ground at once---I believe the most you ever see on the surface of a planet is when you’re leaving Vancouver---and the most you see in space in ME3 is at the final approach to Earth, which a.m.p. has noted to be about 200, coupled with the fact that they have "consolidated forces" to protect the Citadel, meaning that a majority of them are there, hovering over Earth, the 2400 figure, I think, is an exaggeration. I would number them, all told, at 2000, at most, but reasonably (given what we’ve seen), put them at around 1500-1800, plus the cannon fodder of destroyers, which has been established as being pretty susceptable to any sort of artillery fire (Cains, Fleets, the Thanix missle that is introduced at the last moment and seemingly for the sole purpose of a generic "go here, hold position" mission). 

Now, taking everything into account---Thanix cannons that (somewhat) ignore kenetic barriers being outfitted to a vague, wide number of ships, including fighters; our forces being decimated at the beginning due poor preparation; an abundance of Reaper tech in the form of code that could potentially be repurposed by Liara, Tali, EDI, and/or the entire galactic scientific community working in tandem to nullify Reaper shields and/or disrupt their targetting systems, confusing and disorienting their forces; the fact that all we have to do is circle around to a Reaper’s rear to fire without fear of retaliation; the fact that you enter the final fight with every race at your side, including the Geth forces that dominated the battle of the Citadel in ME1, fully prepared---a conventional victory is very much achievable, though, perhaps only in the sense of "you shoot them, they die." 

It would not be easy by any means, and there would be losses, but there is nothing that says we can’t beat them conventionally except for Hackett, a fallible mortal, saying we can’t. 

*apologies for yet another wall-o-text*

Modifié par Byronic-Knight, 13 mai 2012 - 12:56 .

[Byronic-Knight]

Mesina2 wrote...

a.m.p wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

No, geth armada taken care of Citadel Defense Fleet, however Sovy alone fought of Alliance fleets.

One fleet. The fifth fleet. That lost eight cruisers.

According to ME3 EMS screen, 3 fleets were in trying to take down Soverign.


And this 8 cruisers were taken down by geth if you save Destiny Ascension.



Did you even play ME1?

This was pointed out to be a retcon about ten (or so) pages back: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11091594/27#11579167

[Raynulf]

Byronic-Knight wrote...

This was pointed out to be a retcon about ten (or so) pages back: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11091594/27#11579167

It isn't even the only one.

Having played ME1 through 5 or 6 times (I forget) over a couple of years, not once did I ever come to the conclusion that killing Robo-Saren and Sovereign's shields going down was anything other than coincident timing implemented for dramatic purposes.

Why?

- It doesn't follow logically from any established fictional science in the game
- It is inconsistent with the character of Sovereign that has been established
- It would a trite and overused cliche that panders to player ego in a rather patronising fashion ("Of course all the credit goes to Shepard, he/she's the hero after all!").

So when did this become cannon? In the Mass Effect 3 codex.

When did the battle against Sovereign cease being just the 5th fleet (which does not suffer as great losses if you don't save the Destiny Ascension)? In Mass Effect 3

When did the "data cache" on Mars become a colossal Prothean library? In Mass Effect 3

When did the citadel stop being a control center for the mass relays? In Mass Effect 3

When did the reapers become impossible to beat without a magic off button? In Mass Effect 3.


You can continue like this for a while. My point is pretty simple: Mass Effect 3 retconned much of the previously established plot points in an attempt to justify the Crucible. The crucible wasn't brought in because it was needed, the writers wanted to include it, and deliberately contradicted the previous installments to try to justify it.

The problem is: They did a half-job, probably due to the decision to go with it as a mandatory magic off-button coming late in the development process and not having the time/resources to go back and revise the rest of the game to suit.

[Elyiia]

Mesina2 wrote...

a.m.p wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

No, geth armada taken care of Citadel Defense Fleet, however Sovy alone fought of Alliance fleets.

One fleet. The fifth fleet. That lost eight cruisers.

According to ME3 EMS screen, 3 fleets were in trying to take down Soverign.

And this 8 cruisers were taken down by geth if you save Destiny Ascension.

Did you even play ME1?

Did you? Here's some fun facts for you, prior to ME3 Hacket was only in command of the Fifth Fleet. The Fifth fleet alone is called the Arcturus Fleet.

We lose 8 ships, you're seriously trying to claim 8 cruisers is effectively the same as a whole fleet (3x0.333...). Those 8 ships are taken down by Geth ships only, Sovvy is responsible for 0 Alliance casualties.

Really, the only thing that battle tells us is the effectiveness of a Geth fleet before Reaper upgrades.

[CroGamer002]

Elyiia wrote...

We lose 8 ships, you're seriously trying to claim 8 cruisers is effectively the same as a whole fleet (3x0.333...). Those 8 ships are taken down by Geth ships only, Sovvy is responsible for 0 Alliance casualties.

Elyiia wrote...
Sovvy is responsible for 0 Alliance casualties

THEN WHAT IS THIS?!

[Elyiia]

Mesina2 wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

We lose 8 ships, you're seriously trying to claim 8 cruisers is effectively the same as a whole fleet (3x0.333...). Those 8 ships are taken down by Geth ships only, Sovvy is responsible for 0 Alliance casualties.

Elyiia wrote...
Sovvy is responsible for 0 Alliance casualties

THEN WHAT IS THIS?!

Fine, Sovvy is responsible for 3 ships. One Alliance, one unidentified and rams one Turian ship. My point still stands, it's the Fifth fleet no matter what the ME3 Codex retcons.

[TheShadowWolf911]

Mesina2 has you there.

[CroGamer002]

Elyiia wrote...

Fine, Sovvy is responsible for 3 ships. One Alliance, one unidentified and rams one Turian ship. My point still stands, it's the Fifth fleet no matter what the ME3 Codex retcons.

1st, he taken down 3 Alliance ships in that cutscenes.

2nd, after that scene someone demands to retreat since that thing is too strong

3rd we see a giant debrief of destroyed Alliance ships afterwards so it's more then 3 ships



Also, you guys are basing this thing on only one Reaper capital ship that lost 2 tentacles in 1 cutscene.

As for Thanix canon?
How much it can do against Reaper shields? Please tell me.
And don't cause you can't.

Modifié par Mesina2, 13 mai 2012 - 07:57 .

[a.m.p]

And Raynulf has everyone.

We're supposed to accept that paragon Shepard in that interview, when asked about alliance losses, would remember by name only the 8 ships that were lost specifically to geth in the 5 minutes that the Ascension was saved, and not the rest of the ships lost in the battle that might not be lost, if the fleet wasn't weakened by saving the council.

This is why retcons are generally bad. They tend to turn characters into idiots and stories into a miserable mess.

[a.m.p]

Mesina2 wrote...

1st, he taken down 3 Alliance ships in that cutscenes.

2nd, after that scene someone demands to retreat since that thing is too strong

3rd we see a giant debrief of destroyed Alliance ships afterwards so it's more then 3 ships

And we know for sure that all that debris is alliance? Because the turians lost 20 cruisers in that battle.

Also, you guys are basing this thing on only one Reaper capital ship that lost 2 tentacles in 1 cutscene.

What, conventional victory? No. We're basing it on tons of lore that supports it. As for cutscenes, I personally use them only for counting ships because actual tactics shown in them have nothing to do with ME-style space combat and they are mostly there to look good.

As for Thanix canon?
How much it can do against Reaper shields? Please tell me.
And don't cause you can't.

Well, neither can you, right? We don't have numbers. We know it's more effective than kinetic weapons and is widely spread, but we never see it fire. We don't know how much more effective and how widely spread.

[Elyiia]

Mesina2 wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

Fine, Sovvy is responsible for 3 ships. One Alliance, one unidentified and rams one Turian ship. My point still stands, it's the Fifth fleet no matter what the ME3 Codex retcons.

1st, he taken down 3 Alliance ships in that cutscenes.

2nd, after that scene someone demands to retreat since that thing is too strong

3rd we see a giant debrief of destroyed Alliance ships afterwards so it's more then 3 ships



Also, you guys are basing this thing on only one Reaper capital ship that lost 2 tentacles in 1 cutscene.

As for Thanix canon?
How much it can do against Reaper shields? Please tell me.
And don't cause you can't.

a.m.p already answered the first point, 8 ships from the Alliance were lost. Between 6-7 were lost because of the Geth.

And please, actually read the thread, we're basing it on actual evidence. Some empirical, some not. Thanix canons are barely even considered as a weapon despite the fact the Codex claimed it could almost bypass a Reaper's shield.

[CroGamer002]

Screw it, won't bother to tell you anymore what really happen there since you refuse.

But I'll tell this.

You want to make Reapers a total joke and make Crucible a giant waste of time and resources.

No, really.
We take heavy casualties with Crucible so why even bother to do it if convectional means are there.

In other words, you need re-rewrite not just last mission but also Mars, Thessia and everything else that had word Crucible in it.

Otherwise it makes no f*cking sense to even bother to make Crucible if convectional victory is possible and either way we would have massive casualties.
And would make Hackett an idiot then.

So yeah, let's not get this option if Reapers can be defeated by this.



Oh and BTW, Thanix canon is overrated.

[Elyiia]

Mesina2 wrote...

Screw it, won't bother to tell you anymore what really happen there since you refuse.

But I'll tell this.

You want to make Reapers a total joke and make Crucible a giant waste of time and resources.

No, really.
We take heavy casualties with Crucible so why even bother to do it if convectional means are there.

In other words, you need re-rewrite not just last mission but also Mars, Thessia and everything else that had word Crucible in it.

Otherwise it makes no f*cking sense to even bother to make Crucible if convectional victory is possible and either way we would have massive casualties.
And would make Hackett an idiot then.

So yeah, let's not get this option if Reapers can be defeated by this.

Oh and BTW, Thanix canon is overrated.

Refuse? You're the one refusing the evidence. Only 8 Alliance ships were lost in the battle for the Citadel, this is irrifutable fact.

The only logical way the Crucible can exist in our cycle is if it is a Reaper trap designed to waste resources. The only reason it is so forced on us is because the plot was written for the Crucible, not the Crucible was written for the plot.

Hacket already is shown to be an idiot.

[a.m.p]

Mesina2 wrote...

Screw it, won't bother to tell you anymore what really happen there since you refuse.

But I'll tell this.

You want to make Reapers a total joke and make Crucible a giant waste of time and resources.

No, really.
We take heavy casualties with Crucible so why even bother to do it if convectional means are there.

In other words, you need re-rewrite not just last mission but also Mars, Thessia and everything else that had word Crucible in it.

Otherwise it makes no f*cking sense to even bother to make Crucible if convectional victory is possible and either way we would have massive casualties.
And would make Hackett an idiot then.

So yeah, let's not get this option if Reapers can be defeated by this.



Oh and BTW, Thanix canon is overrated.

If you say so.

I would like to point out that Hackett is already an idiot, reapers are already a joke, it already makes no sense to build the crucible and it is not really necessary to rewrite anything.

Crucible is plan A, that could solve the reaper problem immediately. If crucible for whatever reason is a no-go (it seems to destroy relays, and has other highly unlpleasant side effects, no to mention, the reaper boss wants us to turn it on), there should be a plan B. Which is, according to Hackett himself "take our chances".

I want to ask you one question.
If there never was a crucible in ME3. If you bought the game, started it, were asked to make an armada to fight reapers, did that, and then successfully fought reapers, would you consider them a joke then? In other words, do you really think an off-button in necessary in this story?

Modifié par a.m.p, 13 mai 2012 - 08:29 .

[Raynulf]

Mesina2 wrote...

You want to make Reapers a total joke and make Crucible a giant waste of time and resources.

A) The reapers are already a total joke.

They weren't in ME1 or ME2, but in Mass Effect 3 they are relegated to the moronic underlings of a non-sensical AI avatar who (of all things) took the form of a glowing spacekid. The fact that they are completely eliminated as a credible antagonist in the last 15 minutes of the game is one of the most dissapointing things about the ending.

Yes and no.

The crucible plot arc was asinine and poorly implemented, however for better or worse they did implement it: But they never actually explained what it did, because no one knew - it was all a big mystery.

What I would love them to do is make it re-establish the cosmic horror of the reapers by having it be a trap. A failsafe against organics who didn't fall for the citadel ploy, who would build it in the hope of having a magic weapon to fight the reapers with minimal casualties, and instead would cause their doom. Shepard's role is then discovering its true purpose and turning it on the reapers themselves - preferably by using it as a giant bomb (Michael Bay has a point).

Presently, the entire existance of the crucible and its application in the plot hinges on both the reapers and current civilisation being morons. So yes, there would be much love for an 'out'

Mesina2 wrote...

We take heavy casualties with Crucible so why even bother to do it if convectional means are there.

Because the conventional-method losses will be much, much higher, as the war will be longer and bloodier.

No, really. The crucible destroys/pacifies every reaper in the galaxy in a few minutes of rainbows. Conventional victory would require ship by ship destruction of the reaper fleet, then centuries of hunting down those who scattered while they attack supply lines and vulnerable colonies to create armies of indoctrinated agents to wreak chaos upon civilisation.

Don't believe me? Watch the endings again. Shepard (usually) dies. Earth is saved. Everyone he cares about minus Anderson steps out on Eden grinning like an idiot. Hu-friggin-rah. Problem is: It makes no sense given the previous 100+ hours of the story.

To quote Richard Dansky (who has much to say on writing for games), with some bolding for effect:

Richard Dansky wrote...

The onus falls on writers to make climactic scenes worthwhile. The villain (if the narrative calls for such a character) needs to be sufficiently threatening, evil and villainous that it does indeed feel like the ultimate challenge. The threat must be sufficiently intense in its potential emotional impact to leave little doubt that this is the culmination of the story. In other words, the stakes need to be high enough that the players will feel they have accomplished something by winning - something other than making it to the end of the game. And, of course, all the narrative threads, and all the clues and hints and revelations must lead naturally to the final encounter.

Often, a game story climax offers few opportunities for actual writing. The player is too busy playing. The trick can be letting the player make the final leap to what must happen, sliding effortlessly into the desired outcome and borne forward on the story's momentum. The climax should fee like the character has been working relentlessly towards this moment, just as the player has been. Conversely, a game climax that is detached from the story, bringing in a new enemy with no connection to the previous story, can weaken or destroy a game's effect entirely.

There are a host of other gems by Dansky and many others who contribute to IDGA, such as commentary to make sure that the player is playing, and not simply observing your story unfold, as well as the dangers and difficulties of attempting forced-failure in a videogame setting (Kai Leng follows his example of how not to do it pretty much perfectly).

Even if I, to borrow from Paul Barrnet (Ref: www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-presents/5650-Senior-Creative-Director-EA-BioWare-Keynote), am not a "Game Maker", there exists extensive and thoughtful (and damning) discussion on such topics by those who are.

What I am is a customer whose money pays for Bioware's games (make no mistake, they are making an selling a product), and am highly dissatisfied with the product that was delivered, especially considering the advertising.

But back you you, my customer-comrade.

Mesina2 wrote...

In other words, you need re-rewrite not just last mission but also Mars, Thessia and everything else that had word Crucible in it.

Otherwise it makes no f*cking sense to even bother to make Crucible if convectional victory is possible and either way we would have massive casualties.

Actually... no. You don't need to rewrite anything other than the last 10 minutes or so - the game would be better if they did and actually spent the time and resources needed to do a non-rushed intro sequence and just excised the crucible from the story altogether... but they don't need to to implement a conventional victory, at all.

Revealing that the crucible doesn't do what people were hoping it might would be enough to make conventional victory necessary. Alternatively, conventional victory which preserves the relays at the cost of orders of magnitude higher losses over the course of the war would be a viable addition to the intended 'moral quandry': Control, Destroy, Synthesis or Fight (keep relays and rapid reconstruction, but lose 10x or 100x as many people).

Mesina2 wrote...
And would make Hackett an idiot then.

The game did that already: He's been blindsided by the reaper fleet, got trounced and immediately lept on a magic button as "The Only Way" while having absolutely no idea what it does. So instead of building ships, weapons, block-busting missile swarm launchers or anything else... he drives the production of a giant... thing... on the grounds it will do... something... and then there might be profit

That's not a competent military leader.

Mesina2 wrote...
Oh and BTW, Thanix canon is overrated.

Arguably.

Reaper + Shields = Resists enormous damage.
Reaper - Shields = One-shotted by a single torpedo from the Normandy
Anything that can bypass shields = Fun times for all the family.

Is that the Thanix? Well, according to what they keep writing in Mass Effect 2 and 3's codex it was, as it was in the ME2 cutscene... but the cinematics in ME3 apparently needed the reapers to be vastly stronger... yep, you guessed it, to justify the crucible.


Honestly, the fact that after ME1 and ME2 people can argue that a conventional victory over the reapers is less plausible than the Space Magic that is synthesis boggles my mind. But each to their own, I guess.


EDIT: 

Mesina2 wrote...
Screw it, won't bother to tell you anymore what really happen there since you refuse.

Also: Please keep it civil. There's really no need nor justification for insults or aggressive posts.

Modifié par Raynulf, 13 mai 2012 - 09:45 .

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Aww, it's so touching to see people protecting the Reapers. "Leave them alone!", "Don't diminish them". heh.

[a.m.p]

Meanwhile I went and looked through the ME1 cinematics again.
This is right before the Normandy finishes Sovereign, the very final moments of the battle.

To be fair, there aren't any turian ships shooting sovereign.
Anyway, I marked the areas with debris red. There are eight that may or may not all be debris from separate cruisers.
At the same time there are at least 18 undamaged alliance cruisers visible. The cutscene also shows some geth ships inside the arms. They are mostly exploding.
There are not multiple fleets here and there is definitely not enough debris to say that a third of of three fleets is lost here.

[a.m.p]

Raynulf wrote...

Revealing that the crucible doesn't do what people were hoping it might would be enough to make conventional victory necessary. Alternatively, conventional victory which preserves the relays at the cost of orders of magnitude higher losses over the course of the war would be a viable addition to the intended 'moral quandry': Control, Destroy, Synthesis or Fight (keep relays and rapid reconstruction, but lose 10x or 100x as many people).

This is what I keep saying everytime I can. The current ending is not a choice not because we have three identical cutscenes. ME2 had that too, just without the green option.
It is not a choice because we don't get to choose to turn (or not turn) on the doomsday we-don't-know-what-it-does device that our enemy wants us to turn on.

[Byronic-Knight]

Mesina2 wrote...

Also, you guys are basing this thing on only one Reaper capital ship that lost 2 tentacles in 1 cutscene.

And the fact that said capital ship was damaged to such an extent by a cruiser---a class of ship below the dreadnought that we’re supposed to need four of to destroy a capital ship.

And the fact that the force that did a majority of the damage in the Battle of the Citadel before they got all their spiffy Reaper upgrades are now on our side. 

And the fact that you one-hit a destroyer with a giant Reaper AA gun mounted on it with a weapon the size of a large suitcase.

And the fact that another one was taken out by a completely blind Quarian Heavy Fleet (if that if a.m.p.’s analysis of the cutscene is accurate---just going by the Wiki) relying on a targetting laser used by Shepard.

And the fact that another one is taken out with a single Thanix missile (whatever that is).

And the fact that another is taken out by a giant worm (another point for unconventional tactics). 

And the fact that a capital ship was killed by a giant gun that made the Great Rift on Klendegon, which TIM said they found, which is somehow not put into manufacture because. . . why? 

And the fact that Reapers have a gargatuan weakspot in their entire backside, which is never exploited.

And the fact that you have a plethora of Reaper tech that is not utilised in any way beyond "we need it for the Crucible". 

Mesina2 wrote... 
As for Thanix canon?
How much it can do against Reaper shields? Please tell me.
And don't cause you can't.

The codex in ME3 claims: 

"The Thanix’s core is a liquid alloy of iron, uranium, and tungsten suspended in an electromagnetic field powered by element zero. The molten metal, accelerated to a significant fraction of the speed of light, solidifies into a projectile as it is fired, hitting targets with enough force to pierce any known shield or armor. The gun can fire reliably every five seconds."

*very late edit*
Just had a thought concerning the ever-so formidable Reaper shield and that one that gets its tentacles blown off with what appear to be standard kenetic weapons. Where did that one’s shields go?

I know, I know. . . inconsistency because explosions look cool. 

* * * * * * * * 

a.m.p wrote...

Crucible is plan A, that could solve the reaper problem immediately. If crucible for whatever reason is a no-go (it seems to destroy relays, and has other highly unlpleasant side effects, no to mention, the reaper boss wants us to turn it on), there should be a plan B. Which is, according to Hackett himself "take our chances".

 

+

Raynulf wrote...

The crucible plot arc was asinine and poorly implemented, however for better or worse they did implement it: But they never actually explained what it did, because no one knew - it was all a big mystery. 

What I would love them to do is make it re-establish the cosmic horror of the reapers by having it be a trap. A failsafe against organics who didn't fall for the citadel ploy, who would build it in the hope of having a magic weapon to fight the reapers with minimal casualties, and instead would cause their doom. Shepard's role is then discovering its true purpose and turning it on the reapers themselves - preferably by using it as a giant bomb (Michael Bay has a point).

Presently, the entire existance of the crucible and its application in the plot hinges on both the reapers and current civilisation being morons. So yes, there would be much love for an 'out'

*snip*

Actually... no. You don't need to rewrite anything other than the last 10 minutes or so - the game would be better if they did and actually spent the time and resources needed to do a non-rushed intro sequence and just excised the crucible from the story altogether... but they don't need to to implement a conventional victory, at all.

Revealing that the crucible doesn't do what people were hoping it might would be enough to make conventional victory necessary. Alternatively, conventional victory which preserves the relays at the cost of orders of magnitude higher losses over the course of the war would be a viable addition to the intended 'moral quandry': Control, Destroy, Synthesis or Fight (keep relays and rapid reconstruction, but lose 10x or 100x as many people).

THANK YOU!!

* * * * * * * * 

a.m.p wrote...

I want to ask you one question.
If there never was a crucible in ME3. If you bought the game, started it, were asked to make an armada to fight reapers, did that, and then successfully fought reapers, would you consider them a joke then? In other words, do you really think an off-button in necessary in this story?

 

That is a damn fine question, one that I would like an answer to as well. 

Modifié par Byronic-Knight, 13 mai 2012 - 09:30 .

[lillitheris]

I started a thread over on general about the pre-Reaper war strength of the Systems Alliance navy (and, by extension, the other navies).

My main problem is that I’m coming up with on the order of 10 000 cruisers. If someone has done the math (sorry, 35 pages is about 20 too many), or wants to try to puzzle it out, I’d appreciate input…

[Raynulf]

I posted much of this in another thread, but I figured I would bring across the pertinent parts:

Here's the battle for the citadel: youtu.be/heug7Aa5vWA

Cutscenes will generally be determined by three factors in order of priority:
1) What looks cool
2) What is cost effective for the coolness factor
3) What is in keeping with the setting.

Some rough counts from what is on camera:
- Reaper capship x 1 (Sovereign)
- Geth cruisers x 50 or so (on camera in one shot, yes, really)
- Geth frigates x manylots (they are too small to see among the nebula in most cutscenes, but there are some shown)

- Asari Dreadnought x 1 (Destiny Ascension)
- Turian Cruisers x 30 or so (on camera in one shot)

- Alliance Dreadnought x 1 (maybe... none of the big ships are distinct from one another, but lets pretend the centerpiece capship is Hackett's dreadnought).
- Alliance Cruisers x 30 odd (consistent in a couple of shots).
- Alliance Frigates x manylots (small, hard to see)

Putting aside the various frigates (which aren't very visible) this places the battle at:
Part 1: 1 Dreadnought + 30 Turian Cruisers vs 50 Geth Cruisers
If you don't intervene to save the Destiny Ascension, the Geth destroy it and 19 Turian cruisers (Sov kills 1) by the time the Citadel opens. If you do intervene, you save the Ascension (but it still retreats).

50 Geth cruisers > Best dreadnought + 30 x best cruisers around.

Conclusion: Cruisers break easily, but pack a punch.

Part 2: 1 Dreadnought + 40 Cruisers (30 Alliance, 10 Turian) vs Sovereign + remaining geth.
Result: Sovereign destroyed, remaining Geth destroyed, 8 alliance cruisers destroyed
Conclusion: 1 dreadnought-that-we-never-saw + 30 cruisers >> 1 reaper.

ALL OF THIS IS USING CONVENTIONAL MASS-ACCELERATOR CANNONS

Let's Theorycraft - Ship Power Comparison (Sensible Physics)
Mass accelerator cannons use mass effect fields to accelerate slugs to incredible speeds, and rely on kinetic energy to deal the damage. The game also carefully explains that the longer the barrel, the more time the gun can spend accelerating the round, so the faster it goes.

But how much faster? Well. Lets say you take two guns, with the second being twice as long as the first: Would it fire a slug twice as fast? No.

Because in the second half of the gun, it spends less time being subject to the acceleration the gun provides. Indeed, as S = UT + 1/2 a x t squared and v = u + a x t (assuming U = 0), that means that doubling the barrel length (S) would only increase the velocity by 40%, however it would double the kinetic energy of slug (since it's proportional to velocity squared).

So doubling the length of a gun doubles it's effective hitting power. Cool.

A Frigate is around 100-200m in length (give or take)
A Cruiser is between 400-600m in length (Alliance like 600m cruisers)
A Dreadnought is between 800-1000m in length.

Lets assume main gun lengths of: 100m (frigate), 500m (cruiser), 1000m (dreadnought).

What does this mean?
2 cruisers can deliver the same main-gun power as a dreadnought (at 40% shorter range).
10 frigates can deliver the same main-gun power as a dreadnought (at 70% shorter range).

Interesting. So what is the big deal about Dreadnoughts? Answer: According to the battle for the citadel, they have really, really good barriers.


Let's Theorycraft - Ship Power Comparison (We Like Big Guns And We Cannot Lie)
Instead of trying to apply logic and conventional physics, let's say that a gun that is twice as long fires twice as fast. Because big guns are cool.

That means doubling the length of a gun quadruples its firepower (remembering that kinetic energy = velocity squared). How does this adjust the above numbers?

4 Cruisers = 1 Dreadnought (at 1/4 the range)
100 Frigates = 1 Dreadnought (at 1/100th the range)


Let's Theorycraft - Fleet Numbers
Assuming that at any time, 40% of the cruisers are out of the I'm-focusing-on-one-of-three-ships camera shot, it would put a 'standard' fleet at around 1 dreadnought, 50 cruisers and 100 or so frigates (guessing here).

So 9 dreadnoughts and 3 carriers (at least) = 600 cruisers and 1200 frigates in the support fleets alone, with at least half that number again dedicated to patrol squadrons (given the nature of relay travel on tactics).

So by cutscene, the Alliance should have around the 3000 mark worth of ships, a third of which are cruisers.

Assuming that this kind of fleet composition is "The Norm" based on the Citadel defence fleet, multiplying out by the number of dreadnoughts in 2186 should amount to the "Council" fleet being:

Dreadnoughts/Carriers: 87 (37 Turian, 21 Asari, 16 Salarian, 12 Human, 1 Volus)
Cruisers: 7250 (3085 Turian, 1750 Asari, 1330 Salarian, 1000 human, 85 Volus)
Frigates: 14,500

Plus Geth. Plus Quarians.

The council races alone put forth the equivalent of about 5000 dreadnoughts worth of boom, using conventional weapons alone, or if we're willing to put aside physics for the sake of big guns being awesome this could be argued to be as low as 2000 dreadnoughts of boom.


Let's Theorycraft - The Thanix Cannon
The Thanix cannon description claims to allow a frigate (ignoring fighters for a second) to pack the punch of a cruiser.... how does that change the above numbers? Well. A lot.

Real physics: 11,000 dreadnoughts of boom
Big Guns Are Awesome physics: 5,500 dreadnoughts of boom

Thanix fighters are nothing to be sniffed at, but assuming they follow the pattern that Frigate+Thanix = Cruiser boom, then Fighter+Thanix = Frigate boom. So if the alliance fielded about 5000 of them, they'd add between 500 and 50 dreadnoughts of boom, depending on whether you're using real or Hollywood physics.

Oh.

Plus Quarians
Plus Geth