246 réponses à ce sujet

[Raynulf]

There's a bit of a disconnect between many people over this topic (including the OP): The Crucible being a "necessity", and the multitude of codex articles (often ret-cons) attempting to state why were introduced in ME3 to justify the use of the crucible. None of this information was available and applicable at earlier times, because it was invented only when the Crucible was.

Ultimately, the writers wished to put Shepard in the god-position of being the one pushing the button to change the universe, and so created the McGuffin and 'justifications' to allow it to function. The problem is that they did so very, very poorly, as evidenced by continued discussion and dissatisfaction over it.

Most of the game paints a very different picture (internal consistency issue), and the premise behind the Crucible and how it functions falls flat. If they wanted it to be clear and unambiguous that conventional victory was impossible, it is very simple to do so:

• SHOW tens of thousands of reapers.
• DESTROY the Citadel as a stationary command center
• RUN the defence fleets around the galaxy as a mobile command center
• HIDE the Crucible construction project in some far flung backwater
• KILL those who stand and fight against the reaper onslaught.

That would be clear "we cannot win conventionally". Not the "Miracle at Palaven", not playing MP making the reapers being pushed back, and certainly not chilling on the Citadel drinking beer with Aria.

In Short: Most people who argue for a conventional victory are looking at the story established in Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2. What was introduced in Mass Effect 3 as a second-rate excuse for the Crucible is not actually relevant.

This is a story. Things only exist when they are written into existance. And good stories are consistent - the Crucible plot isn't.

a.m.p wrote...

I feel like I have to defend my favorite FTL torpedoes.

We don't have formulas for how ME FTL works, do we? It's not like we can sceintifically prove whether an imaginary projectile traveling faster than light using imaginary technology will do enough damage to an imaginary kinetic barrier.

My original idea was based on this codex entry, that basically says this: "If we could do that, it would kill them. But we can't do it, because safeguards." The Taetrus story shows that we can remove the safeguards. It does not require an advanced AI, a guy at home did it.

Looking at it: So do I.

Let me quote another article from the codex:

Mass Effect wikia wrote...

If the field collapses while the ship is moving at faster-than-light speeds, the effects are catastrophic. The ship is snapped back to sublight velocity, the enormous excess energy shed in the form of lethal Cherenkov radiation.

And: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

Now to quote an important hole in the ME3 "No suicide ramming for you!"

Mass Effect wikia wrote...
If a ship's FTL plotter finds a significant object in the path of a planned jump, the FTL drive refuses to fire in the first place. This is not a perfect safety feature--the sensors can only scan for objects within a reasonable distance at light speed, and a navigator must plot the rest of the course

Okay.

How about Option B: Don't put scanners on the Torpedo. It travels at FTL speeds, so self-guidance isn't actually necessary.

Or maybe it just flat-out isn't acceptable to have something FTL directly into something - maybe if it hits another mass effect field (e.g. kinetic barrier) it is immediately kicked out, shedding good old Cherenkov radiation (tremendous amounts of UV which bypasses kinetic barriers) and slamming harmlessly into the reaper's shields. Fine.

How about Option C: Get above dumb-fire torpedo. Put in it a good sized nuke. 50 megatons sounds nice - a good 1000+ dreadnought shots worth of punch. Now fire it from a good light second away (300,000km, under a milisecond for the torp to travel that far) - having it either do a hard-stop due to shutting down its mass effect core, or by hitting the reaper's barriers. Sudden radiation detonates explosives to detonate plutonium to compress and fuse hydrogen to make the whole thing go boom.

How about Option D: As we've established in Mass Effect 1 that antimatter is used regularly - indeed, in every bloody military ship around. Its also used by a corporate (read, group that care about cost effectiveness, unlike the military) defense system warheads.

What does this mean? It means that for that to be the case, the technology must be available to generate (ref: masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Cyone) and contain large quantities of antimatter in a relatively cost-effective manner.

It also means that, to be funny, we can replace our above nuke example with an antimatter warhead - which is even more reliable.


Again: Once it was established that reapers could be killed, writing a winnable conventional (if mind-bogglingly hard) war that hinges on the actions of the hero who saw this all coming is not that hard.

Writing out conventional victory as a possibility is harder - and in this instance I don't think the writers pulled it off.

[Raynulf]

SaleemRa wrote...

Absolutely and this is something that I have said many times, there is insufficient data so it could go either way. My personal opinion though is that weaponized anti matter is not applicable in universe due to the fact that it is not even considered by the in game characters for whatever reason. If down the road Bioware releases a book or comic which  even hints at its use I will retract my opinion as then it we would have the data we need.

To answer this:

Mass Effect 1 wrote...

Peak 15 has a safety system called Code Omega which is activated if there is a critical containment failure. The facility shuts off power, hoping the cold will deactivate or kill any escaped experiments, and Mira (the VI that runs Peak 15) is purged from the system. Back at Port Hanshan, the executive board then votes whether or not to destroy the facility from orbit, with an antimatter warhead from one of the orbiting battle stations.

Here is a corporation, whose domestic security option is to launch an (note, not "the", an) antimatter warhead from one of the orbiting battle stations (plural).

Couple that with Cyone and similar antimatter production facilities mentioned throughout the game, and the fact that antimatter is available in every populated system (aka Fuel Depots - the Normandy runs on antimatter, not hydrogen) means that antimatter as a fuel source is by no means rare (or everyone would be bat**** insane to rely on it as a fuel source for their military).

It's not used for the same reason than in Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda, the ships defense nanites were used: Once. Turning up the gravity under the invaders was used: Once. And so on. Because they employ multiple writers who aren't always consistent and regularly either forget or simply ignore things to bend the narrative along the paths they desire.

It's not unusual. It's also dissapointing, as it chips away at internal consistency and immersion in the story.

[SaleemRa]

Raynulf wrote...

Mass Effect 1 wrote...

Peak 15 has a safety system called Code Omega which is activated if there is a critical containment failure. The facility shuts off power, hoping the cold will deactivate or kill any escaped experiments, and Mira (the VI that runs Peak 15) is purged from the system. Back at Port Hanshan, the executive board then votes whether or not to destroy the facility from orbit, with an antimatter warhead from one of the orbiting battle stations.

Here is a corporation, whose domestic security option is to launch an (note, not "the", an) antimatter warhead from one of the orbiting battle stations (plural).

Couple that with Cyone and similar antimatter production facilities mentioned throughout the game, and the fact that antimatter is available in every populated system (aka Fuel Depots - the Normandy runs on antimatter, not hydrogen) means that antimatter as a fuel source is by no means rare (or everyone would be bat**** insane to rely on it as a fuel source for their military).

It's not used for the same reason than in Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda, the ships defense nanites were used: Once. Turning up the gravity under the invaders was used: Once. And so on. Because they employ multiple writers who aren't always consistent and regularly either forget or simply ignore things to bend the narrative along the paths they desire.

It's not unusual. It's also dissapointing, as it chips away at internal consistency and immersion in the story.

Thanks for pointing that out Raynulf but your referencing an orbital bombardment weapon fired from an orbital platform against a geographical location that cant avoid incoming fire, not a fighter based weapon system to be used against a moving target as was implied earlier. Anti matter Torps especially when used in that way make sense you can build them large enough to encorporate suspension systems and what not and your garaunteed to hit the target. I still dont think it would work as a fighter based system, what happens when you miss? How far along will that shell travel before it detonates? How big would the blast radius be? What happens when the fighter is destroyed and anti matter containment is lost especially when said fighter is still in formation?

No with fighter based anti matter munitions assuming the capacity to make them is in place the dangers it poses to the force using it is just too high. It is just not feasable. I've already mentioned why I dont feel kamikaze ships would work, anti matter torps could however, assuming you could launch them from a distance which would not mean mutual annihilation without them getting shot down and detonated in the first place, the risks are enormous though.

 

[savionen]

I agree with Raynulf.

Having a high Readiness Rating says that you're winning in key points against the Reapers.

Conventional victory seemed completely possible, until 90% through the game. Hackett suddenly stopped talking about it and the only story option was to finish the Crucible. Hackett even says earlier in ME3 that he'll take EITHER troops or scientists to work on the Crucible. He acts as if there's two options. First playing the game I thought the Crucible was just a huge cannon that you needed enough EMS to complete, in order to have a better chance against the Reapers ala upgrading the Normandy in ME2.

ME3 even seems full of mixed messages. It seems to me that perhaps they originally planned on having the player able to wage a conventional war OR use the Crucible, but then changed it late in production.

[SaleemRa]

@Raynulf with regards to your idea on the dumbfire Anti matter FTL drone, remember ship to ship combat is not done via manual aiming, no such thing as a guy sitting behind the turret pulling the trigger. The gunner cant even see the target and relies on telemetry data from sensors which the reapers have demonstrated can be spoofed (as per rannoch and earth).

So even if you were only 300k km away it would still be too far away to be effective or even accurate. You would effectively need line of sight and in that case your most likely dead before you can launch. In addition to that, what happens when you miss? Those torps would not be able to sustain containment indefinitely, how far will they travel before self detonation. If an FTL cruiser hitting a planet is devastating then anti matter warheads hitting it at FTL speeds would probably destroy it - The whole point is to stop the reapers and save earth not turn it into a cinder.

I wont dismiss it as being effective when it worked but it would probably only work a couple of times before the reapers figured out the tactic and compensate for it - something that they can do.

@savionen destroying husks is very different to destroying reaper capital ships. Galactic readiness is boosted by on the ground missions in MP not naval battles.

Modifié par SaleemRa, 05 mai 2012 - 02:32 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Don't worry OP, I didn't forget about this thread. Responding to each point takes a while.

In the mean time, was anyone kind of taken aback the first time Hackett and Liara talk about being unable to defeat the Reaper conventionally?

I know I was. It was a real 'wait, wtf?' moment for me. How the **** do you know Hackett? Or you Liara? And why am I forced to agree?

Was that not exactly what ME1 and ME2 were building up to? You uniting the galaxy to fight the Reapers? The Crucible is just such an ass-pull its ridiculous. If BioWare wanted us to find a magic 'solve anything' machine they could have telegraphed it a bit earlier. Why not do something that makes a little bit more sense, like perhaps utilize some of those plot elements you've already established, like Ilos, and the Collector Base, instead of using the nearest Move controller as inspiration for the next Maguffin?

[a.m.p]

SaleemRa wrote...

@Raynulf with regards to your idea on the dumbfire Anti matter FTL drone, remember ship to ship combat is not done via manual aiming, no such thing as a guy sitting behind the turret pulling the trigger. The gunner cant even see the target and relies on telemetry data from sensors which the reapers have demonstrated can be spoofed (as per rannoch and earth).

So even if you were only 300k km away it would still be too far away to be effective or even accurate.

I'd like to remind the thread that we're talking fictional physics, fictional sensors and fictional computing here. We have zero information on how precise the course can be calculated and how accurate our sensors are. It's fiction. All the writers had to do in this case is say that it's accurate enough. I can totally see how a 2-kilometer long fat reaper in the middle of empty space is not particularly hard to locate. And they would have a perfectly justified weapon to tip the balance of the war.

About destroying Earth.
If you look at the cutscene, you may notice that according to the codex Earth should alredy be destroyed, considering the fleet is firing directly at it with their kinetic weapons. Remember sir Isaac Newton. So I tend to disregard cutscene tactics when coming up with ideas.
In this case - don't fire your FTL projectiles at Earth. Change the approach vector.
Moreover, if killing the majority of the reapers in one battle would require destroying Earth, I'd agree to destroy Earth.

And the only way reapers can compensate for something coming at them at FTL from out of their deathbeam range - is fast evasive maneuvers. High accelerations. Which requires them to lower their mass and weaken their shields, according to the codex. Which makes them more vulnerable for all other kinds of weapons that we have.

Modifié par a.m.p, 05 mai 2012 - 03:07 .

[lillitheris]

The Night Mammoth wrote...
I know I was. It was a real 'wait, wtf?' moment for me. How the **** do you know Hackett? Or you Liara?

Hackett got her the Mars gig.

…

Readiness is not an in-game mechanic, and therefore irrelevant.

[Elyiia]

SaleemRa wrote...

Raynulf wrote...

Mass Effect 1 wrote...

Peak 15 has a safety system called Code Omega which is activated if there is a critical containment failure. The facility shuts off power, hoping the cold will deactivate or kill any escaped experiments, and Mira (the VI that runs Peak 15) is purged from the system. Back at Port Hanshan, the executive board then votes whether or not to destroy the facility from orbit, with an antimatter warhead from one of the orbiting battle stations.

Here is a corporation, whose domestic security option is to launch an (note, not "the", an) antimatter warhead from one of the orbiting battle stations (plural).

Couple that with Cyone and similar antimatter production facilities mentioned throughout the game, and the fact that antimatter is available in every populated system (aka Fuel Depots - the Normandy runs on antimatter, not hydrogen) means that antimatter as a fuel source is by no means rare (or everyone would be bat**** insane to rely on it as a fuel source for their military).

It's not used for the same reason than in Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda, the ships defense nanites were used: Once. Turning up the gravity under the invaders was used: Once. And so on. Because they employ multiple writers who aren't always consistent and regularly either forget or simply ignore things to bend the narrative along the paths they desire.

It's not unusual. It's also dissapointing, as it chips away at internal consistency and immersion in the story.

Thanks for pointing that out Raynulf but your referencing an orbital bombardment weapon fired from an orbital platform against a geographical location that cant avoid incoming fire, not a fighter based weapon system to be used against a moving target as was implied earlier. Anti matter Torps especially when used in that way make sense you can build them large enough to encorporate suspension systems and what not and your garaunteed to hit the target. I still dont think it would work as a fighter based system, what happens when you miss? How far along will that shell travel before it detonates? How big would the blast radius be? What happens when the fighter is destroyed and anti matter containment is lost especially when said fighter is still in formation?

No with fighter based anti matter munitions assuming the capacity to make them is in place the dangers it poses to the force using it is just too high. It is just not feasable. I've already mentioned why I dont feel kamikaze ships would work, anti matter torps could however, assuming you could launch them from a distance which would not mean mutual annihilation without them getting shot down and detonated in the first place, the risks are enormous though.

It's too high based on assumptions though. Mass Effect is a fictional universe, if you can explain it it can work. We could have had a mission where we're alerted to a major breakthrough in containment of anti matter by Gianna Parasini (giving her a role in ME3). Upon landing on Noveria, we have to fight Cerberus forces (completing the fighter base quest reduces the soldiers trying to access the data).

You might think it sounds very similar to how we discover the Crucible but it has two very distinct differences. One, it doesn't introduce the plans to something that has been the single piece of information passed down through countless cycles. Two, it's not found in a data cache that we've had access to for decades. You could explain that one of the NDC hosted companies understood the threat of the Reapers and started to develop weapons that could aid in the war.

Add in some scienitific explainations and you have a way to defeat the Reapers that isn't introduced and shown in a ridiculous way.

[Noelemahc]

not a fighter based weapon system to be used against a moving target as was implied earlier.

Yet again we return to Point A. Reapers can EITHER move very fast OR have very powerful shields. Please take note that in actual combat situation when fired upon they are hella slow and cumbersome and most of their weapons are forward-mounted forward-arc only. Something that most 4X players will "MWAHAHA" at with derision =)

. It is just not feasable. I've already mentioned why I dont feel kamikaze ships would work, anti matter torps could however, assuming you could launch them from a distance which would not mean mutual annihilation without them getting shot down and detonated in the first place, the risks are enormous though.

You could totally Geth those kamikazes. Getting them destroyed wouldn't hurt the Geth, extra incentive to either have convinced Daro'Xen to side with you (when/if her quest is eventually restored) or save the Geth. They are far more useful in real-world combat than Quarians are. All they can do is pump out lots of dumb firepower. Geth pump out less firepower, but it's so smart, it can get doctorates in relativistic physics.

In this case - don't fire your FTL projectiles at Earth. Change the approach vector.

Fire at an angle. Who cares if Aldebaran is destroyed? Last we checked, it was uninhabited, right? Besides, ends justify the means, no Reapers: no hindrance of organic life to grow back from wherever we accidentaly torched it.

You might think it sounds very similar to how we discover the Crucible but it has two very distinct differences. One, it doesn't introduce the plans to something that has been the single piece of information passed down through countless cycles. Two, it's not found in a data cache that we've had access to for decades. You could explain that one of the NDC hosted companies understood the threat of the Reapers and started to develop weapons that could aid in the war.

Or, better yet, simply wanted to develop something it could make big bucks off. That one's always easy to believe, considering WHAT people research on Noveria =)

Modifié par Noelemahc, 05 mai 2012 - 03:36 .

[SaleemRa]

a.m.p wrote...

I'd like to remind the thread that we're talking fictional physics, fictional sensors and fictional computing here. We have zero information on how precise the course can be calculated and how accurate our sensors are. It's fiction. All the writers had to do in this case is say that it's accurate enough. I can totally see how a 2-kilometer long fat reaper in the middle of empty space is not particularly hard to locate. And they would have a perfectly justified weapon to tip the balance of the war.

About destroying Earth.
If you look at the cutscene, you may notice that according to the codex Earth should alredy be destroyed, considering the fleet is firing directly at it with their kinetic weapons. Remember sir Isaac Newton. So I tend to disregard cutscene tactics when coming up with ideas.
In this case - don't fire your FTL projectiles at Earth. Change the approach vector.
Moreover, if killing the majority of the reapers in one battle would require destroying Earth, I'd agree to destroy Earth.

And the only way reapers can compensate for something coming at them at FTL from out of their deathbeam range - is fast evasive maneuvers. High accelerations. Which requires them to lower their mass and weaken their shields, according to the codex. Which makes them more vulnerable for all other kinds of weapons that we have.

AMP you should also remind yourself about how targeting works in ME. Its in the codex, I suggest you take a look or better yet boot up ME2 and talk to EDI about it. Telemetry is sent to the batteries, battery control dictates how the shots are fired. Rannoch and Earth already establish that long range bombardment of a reaper is difficult due interference when it comes to establishing a firing solution. So according to the fictional physics, sensors and computing capacity in universe it is still not an easy thing to do, the fiction backs this up.

According to some those shots are not kinetic rounds but rather torpedoes, of course the same issues apply but a normal torpedo self detonating is not the same as anti matter going off. One just blows up (not necessarily with all its full destructive potential) the other chain reacts once containment is lost and blows up with maximum yeild, big big difference. I do have a question for you though, how do you change your attack vector when your launching from 300k km away? Also if your close enough to see a reaper that would mean they can see you, additionally your willing to sacrifice earth then you too are playing the wrong game because saving earth is a central theme. Your doing it all to defeat the reapers AND save the earth.

Yes the reapers have to reduce their kinetic barriers to turn but and maneuver but even a destroyer on a planets surface requires a pinpoint attack to cause any damage, what makes you think the same tactic would do anything to a sovvy class? In the turian ambassadors words "we have dismmised those claims".

[Sepharih]

 @OP
I haven't read your entire post, but having looked over it quickly, I can safely say that it's not going to change my position, and that I still favor a conventional victory.  Why?Because citing Lore, numbers, and boiling this all down to mathmatics to show how something is impossible/implausible all overlooks a very important and relevant detail.

We are talking about a fictional story.  In the realm of fiction, outside of story tellling conventions, the rules of the universe are at the whim of the writer, so therefore anything is possible.
That's not to say that it's completely ok to just throw all the rules you have established out at the last minute when its convenient for you (ala space magic), but lore is something that changes and gets altered all the time in storytelling.

What's far more important in fiction is to adhere to the themes of your story.  It's often been pointed out that Mass Effect is a universe in the same vein as TV shows like Star Trek.  To use that show as an example, while the science is a part of the universe which has well established lore, the show very often contradicts its rules and handwaves tons of things with technobable here or there for the needs of the plot in each episode.

A conventional victory with an armada and galaxy of Shepard's own making standing behind him fits the themes of Determinism versus fatalism and unity with diversity far far more than a lame done to death plot device like the crucible does IMO.
The science and lore of the universe might be kind of shakey on that scenario...but all that's needed is a little technobable here and an additional plot point or two there and suddenly it's not so inconsistent with lore.

[SaleemRa]

Noelemahc wrote...

not a fighter based weapon system to be used against a moving target as was implied earlier.

Yet again we return to Point A. Reapers can EITHER move very fast OR have very powerful shields. Please take note that in actual combat situation when fired upon they are hella slow and cumbersome and most of their weapons are forward-mounted forward-arc only. Something that most 4X players will "MWAHAHA" at with derision =)

. It is just not feasable. I've already mentioned why I dont feel kamikaze ships would work, anti matter torps could however, assuming you could launch them from a distance which would not mean mutual annihilation without them getting shot down and detonated in the first place, the risks are enormous though.

You could totally Geth those kamikazes. Getting them destroyed wouldn't hurt the Geth, extra incentive to either have convinced Daro'Xen to side with you (when/if her quest is eventually restored) or save the Geth. They are far more useful in real-world combat than Quarians are. All they can do is pump out lots of dumb firepower. Geth pump out less firepower, but it's so smart, it can get doctorates in relativistic physics.

In this case - don't fire your FTL projectiles at Earth. Change the approach vector.

Fire at an angle. Who cares if Aldebaran is destroyed? Last we checked, it was uninhabited, right? Besides, ends justify the means, no Reapers: no hindrance of organic life to grow back from wherever we accidentaly torched it.

For the first part see my response to AMP. It barely works with a destroyer, might not do jack with a cap ship. Second part, you wont lose the geth but your still loosing materiel, how do you build new ships with no shipyards?

Elyiia, I agree if you can imagine or explain it, it can work but here lies the problem it wasnt so therefore it cannot. Unless it was actualy present in universe then there is no precedent for it. Saying the writers could add it in is applying real world possibilities to a fictional setting. I could also say that infantry rifles could get retconned to fire nukes at a full automatic rate, doesnt mean it can happen or is going to.

Modifié par SaleemRa, 05 mai 2012 - 03:52 .

[glacier1701]

 Antimatter containment is actually working technology at this present time. It is not something theorectical. The ONLY limitation is that it takes an enormous amount of energy to produce antimatter at the present state of affairs. In the ME universe we know that production of antimatter is an everyday occurence because it is a fuel used in military ships because it can produce large amounts of energy in small packages thus allowing more space to be devoted to other functions shipboard. Since it is used in the ME universe it is not beyond reason to suggest that even small amounts of antimatter can be moved around without the need of huge containers. The ONLY concern (if we want to put it into a fighter sized deliverable package) is can it be minaturized enough.

 As to the question of what happens if it misses is easily solved in so far as it can be fused so that AFTER a set amount of time it self destructs. Not an unreasonable solution and better than what happens if a dreadnought misses with its weapon and the battle is around a planet!!! The ONLY downside I can see is that the question of FRIENDLY FIRE and FIRE CONTROL are going to be paramount concerns. Basically put once the lines of battle have become mixed you'd want to use OTHER ammo otherwise your misses could start taking out your own forces. In so far as it was shown within ME3 the initial opening of the Battle around Earth is when that massed firepower of antimatter would have been the ideal use for it. Quite literally you'd have wiped out the Reaper fighters (laser balls or whatever those things were) and done a lot of damage to the Reapers themselves thus allowing time for precise shots on target as the range closed.

 Indeed you'd most probably see a change in that the battle fleet would actually cease to close and would try to hold the range open so that the best use of the antimatter ammo could be made. Anyways the whole point is that there exists a viable technology within the ME universe (as evidenced by the codex) that could be used instead of the Crucible. As pointed out somewhere above the fact of the Crucible shows up the fact that the overal direction of the story is being conducted by someone who has, in the past, stated publically that they knew little of the lore of the ME universe and was using a player maintained lore WIKI to see what the actual lore of the universe was!!!

[IntoTheDarkness]

a great thread. I personally hate the conventional victory theory more than the crucible, but I still hate the crucible regardless for being a clueless deus-ex-machina. I know it is another topic, but if you could also justify the crucible's existence(like how the 'smart' reapers would overlook such weapon in development over millions of years), it would further strengthen your point that conventional victory is relatively less viable option.

For tl;dr: I agree. I was kinda getting sick of people coming with even more ridiculous stories to replace current ridiculous super weapon.

[shodiswe]

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

a great thread. I personally hate the conventional victory theory more than the crucible, but I still hate the crucible regardless for being a clueless deus-ex-machina. I know it is another topic, but if you could also justify the crucible's existence(like how the 'smart' reapers would overlook such weapon in development over millions of years), it would further strengthen your point that conventional victory is relatively less viable option.

For tl;dr: I agree. I was kinda getting sick of people coming with even more ridiculous stories to replace current ridiculous super weapon.

It's possible the reapers planted the crucible... Maybe the Catalyst has an AI shackle that prohibit's the Catalyst from controllign evolution and doing thins like Synthesis on it's own... so it staged the whole thing in an atempt to make someone that's not reaper controlled to flip the switch...

It's possible every cycle had a modified sentient like Shepard but each and everyone of them faield to reach the citadel or complete the crucible... or simply didn't persue it... or a countles amout of other options.

The idea that the Crucible designs and repeated construction atempts could have remaiend unknown to the reapers for millions of years seems unlikely... Therefor it stands to reason the Reapers didn't fear it. They might even embrace the idea and possibilities it represents.

[shodiswe]

It does however anoy me that Shepard has no questions or doubt about the Catalysts agenda and whi it's being so helpful. It's not liek the catalyst can stop shepard from making whatever choice he or she wants after being given the choices..

The part about having the Reapers help you achive your victory and willingly surrenderign the information needed to destroy them... I can't see how that was good writing... It's what hurt the ending the most imo.

[a.m.p]

SaleemRa wrote...

AMP you should also remind yourself about how targeting works in ME. Its in the codex, I suggest you take a look or better yet boot up ME2 and talk to EDI about it. Telemetry is sent to the batteries, battery control dictates how the shots are fired. Rannoch and Earth already establish that long range bombardment of a reaper is difficult due interference when it comes to establishing a firing solution. So according to the fictional physics, sensors and computing capacity in universe it is still not an easy thing to do, the fiction backs this up.

Long range orbital bombardment of a relatively small detstoryer on a planet either in a hot desert or in the middle of a war zone is difficult. How does that mean that we can't locate a big hulking reaper in empty space?

And how long does the range needs to be? Numbers. We don't have numbers. What's the effective range of the reaper beams? How much distance does the projectile need to reach the necessary speed on impact? What is that necessary speed? All those factors and many more would affect the range if we would develop something like this in the real world. In a fictional universe we (or rather they, the writers) can take a vaguely explained concept and answer all those questions by saying "it works". Or if they have previously established something to be very hard to do, they can always point at the best and brightest minds of the galaxy (the ones that are normally thrown at the crucible) and say "after months of work they sorted that problem out". As long as it doesn't directly contradict their fictional physics, they would be fine.

I do have a question for you though, how do you change your attack vector when your launching from 300k km away?

If I'm launching from this distance I am expecting to be able to hit a 2-kilometer reaper from this distance. In case it evades I need to make sure there isn't Earth right behind it.

Also if your close enough to see a reaper that would mean they can see you, additionally your willing to sacrifice earth then you too are playing the wrong game because saving earth is a central theme.

I thought saving galactic civilization was the central idea and all the Earth saving was more an artifact of marketing strategies than anything else. I guess this way it would make sense, sort of. With the current endings we get to save Earth and doom said galactic civilization.

About the mass reduction on sov-class reapers - the Battle of Palaven codex entry:

Knowing that the Reapers' weapons had a longer effective range than any of his own, Coronati made a short, daring FTL jump--landing his dreadnoughts in the middle of the Reaper fleet. The dreadnoughts then turned to line up their main guns on the Reapers, which also needed to turn to fire on the turians. This ploy used the Reapers' size against them--because they could turn faster, and their concentrated firepower downed several Reaper capital ships.

That was done because of their need to lower mass to make those fast turns. Also, the turns aren't that fast, because the turians managed to actually kill multiple reapers before they turned and destoryed the dreadnaughts.

[Kyle Dei]

That bit about the Battle of Palaven, the only reason the Turians disengaged was because Reaper Destroyers bypassed the Turian fleet and started hitting Palaven.

Here's why the whole 'make a line and everybody fire at once' doesn't work. Your flanks are vulnerable. "Reapers aren't vulnerable like that" - What they gonna do? Shoot through their allies? Amateurs.

Modifié par Kyle Dei, 05 mai 2012 - 05:15 .

[SaleemRa]

glacier1701 wrote...


 Antimatter containment is actually working technology at this present time. It is not something theorectical. The ONLY limitation is that it takes an enormous amount of energy to produce antimatter at the present state of affairs. In the ME universe we know that production of antimatter is an everyday occurence because it is a fuel used in military ships because it can produce large amounts of energy in small packages thus allowing more space to be devoted to other functions shipboard. Since it is used in the ME universe it is not beyond reason to suggest that even small amounts of antimatter can be moved around without the need of huge containers. The ONLY concern (if we want to put it into a fighter sized deliverable package) is can it be minaturized enough.

 As to the question of what happens if it misses is easily solved in so far as it can be fused so that AFTER a set amount of time it self destructs. Not an unreasonable solution and better than what happens if a dreadnought misses with its weapon and the battle is around a planet!!! The ONLY downside I can see is that the question of FRIENDLY FIRE and FIRE CONTROL are going to be paramount concerns. Basically put once the lines of battle have become mixed you'd want to use OTHER ammo otherwise your misses could start taking out your own forces. In so far as it was shown within ME3 the initial opening of the Battle around Earth is when that massed firepower of antimatter would have been the ideal use for it. Quite literally you'd have wiped out the Reaper fighters (laser balls or whatever those things were) and done a lot of damage to the Reapers themselves thus allowing time for precise shots on target as the range closed.

 Indeed you'd most probably see a change in that the battle fleet would actually cease to close and would try to hold the range open so that the best use of the antimatter ammo could be made. Anyways the whole point is that there exists a viable technology within the ME universe (as evidenced by the codex) that could be used instead of the Crucible. As pointed out somewhere above the fact of the Crucible shows up the fact that the overal direction of the story is being conducted by someone who has, in the past, stated publically that they knew little of the lore of the ME universe and was using a player maintained lore WIKI to see what the actual lore of the universe was!!!

Great response, I know your arguing for the anti matter thing but you highlight my concerns on antimatter in a way that I may not have been able to. There is no dispute that anti matter could work, rather in what capacity. Torpedoes are established tech but fighter based Anti matter munitions are not. Saying that it could be developed when there is no in universe precedent for it is like me saying that they could develop a rapid firing cain with 60 shots per thermal clip - its based in lore so it should be able to be done, handwavium is a powerful thing.

As I mentioned before torpedoes and missiles are self propelled weapons which my their nature are slower moving then rounds are accelerated by mass drivers. We have no way of determining if the containment system of an anti matter round could even survive the high g's associated with firing a round from a kinetic accelerator not to mention complications from the firing mechanism own magnetic field interacting with that of the containment bottle. I could see anti matter missiles being used in a first strike capacity to take out the smaller stuff in a stand off fashoin as you mentioned but I think that would be as small as it gets.

I believe the issue of missed shots would be much worse then assumed, anti matter even in small ammounts would have a very high explosive yield, even if it was fused to self detonate its going to be one pretty big explosion. Other then that great post overall.

[The Night Mammoth]

lillitheris wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...
I know I was. It was a real 'wait, wtf?' moment for me. How the **** do you know Hackett? Or you Liara?

Hackett got her the Mars gig.

Okay. 

Was that relevant? 

[SaleemRa]

a.m.p wrote...

Long range orbital bombardment of a relatively small detstoryer on a planet either in a hot desert or in the middle of a war zone is difficult. How does that mean that we can't locate a big hulking reaper in empty space?

And how long does the range needs to be? Numbers. We don't have numbers. What's the effective range of the reaper beams? How much distance does the projectile need to reach the necessary speed on impact? What is that necessary speed? All those factors and many more would affect the range if we would develop something like this in the real world. In a fictional universe we (or rather they, the writers) can take a vaguely explained concept and answer all those questions by saying "it works". Or if they have previously established something to be very hard to do, they can always point at the best and brightest minds of the galaxy (the ones that are normally thrown at the crucible) and say "after months of work they sorted that problem out". As long as it doesn't directly contradict their fictional physics, they would be fine.

As hot as that desert would be the reaper would be magnitudes hotter, your ranges in space would also be considerably longer - even if you could make the strike at comparable ranges again the target is not going to be that big all things considered. In RL a ballistic deviation of even a few degrees can result in a miss and were talking about attack in the meters range not 10's or 100's. Size is relative to engagement ranges.

As for just simply saying something works, again thats RL options intruding on the ingame setting. If Bioware wanted it to work they would have but it isnt the case. This isnt so much a case of what bioware can do but more of an issue of what can happen in the setting. Bioware could have easily decreed that everyone would listen to shepard in ME1 even if it was only in secret  but they did not and the same applies here. There is no IN UNIVERSE precedent to determine that a conventional victory was possible.

a.m.p wrote...

I do have a question for you though, how do you change your attack vector when your launching from 300k km away?

If I'm launching from this distance I am expecting to be able to hit a 2-kilometer reaper from this distance. In case it evades I need to make sure there isn't Earth right behind it.

That means your going to have to attack at a tangent to earth each time, thats just silly

a.m.p wrote...

Also if your close enough to see a reaper that would mean they can see you, additionally your willing to sacrifice earth then you too are playing the wrong game because saving earth is a central theme.

I thought saving galactic civilization was the central idea and all the Earth saving was more an artifact of marketing strategies than anything else. I guess this way it would make sense, sort of. With the current endings we get to save Earth and doom said galactic civilization.

The first thing you do is go to the citadel to get help for earth that is a central premise, there is a big cut scene for it not to mention all the dialogue about getting the fleets to save earth. Saving Earth is Shep's immediate goal, defeating the reapers is his long term one, the two arent mutually exclusive.

a.m.p wrote...
About the mass reduction on sov-class reapers - the Battle of Palaven codex entry:

Knowing that the Reapers' weapons had a longer effective range than any of his own, Coronati made a short, daring FTL jump--landing his dreadnoughts in the middle of the Reaper fleet. The dreadnoughts then turned to line up their main guns on the Reapers, which also needed to turn to fire on the turians. This ploy used the Reapers' size against them--because they could turn faster, and their concentrated firepower downed several Reaper capital ships.

That was done because of their need to lower mass to make those fast turns. Also, the turns aren't that fast, because the turians managed to actually kill multiple reapers before they turned and destoryed the dreadnaughts.

And how many times did that work? How many Dreadnoughts were destroyed? You seem to forget that while it takes 4 dreadnoughts to destroy a capital ship the reapers main gun one shots a dreadnought. There is a BIG BIG BIG difference between taking down a few enemy ships and winning conventionally against them. Ultimately this tactic would just mean you take some of those monsters down with you, it doesnt mean your going to win as a result.

[The Night Mammoth]

SaleemRa wrote...

And how many times did that work? How many Dreadnoughts were destroyed? You seem to forget that while it takes 4 dreadnoughts to destroy a capital ship the reapers main gun one shots a dreadnought. There is a BIG BIG BIG difference between taking down a few enemy ships and winning conventionally against them. Ultimately this tactic would just mean you take some of those monsters down with you, it doesnt mean your going to win as a result.

Does it? 

Maybe you should play the opening mission to ME3 again. 

[ArchDuck]

Why the Crucible may really be the only way to defeat the Reapers...

The Real Reason: Because the writer(s) wanted it to be the only way (instead of just one way or the easiest way).

[a.m.p]

SaleemRa wrote...

As for just simply saying something works, again thats RL options intruding on the ingame setting. If Bioware wanted it to work they would have but it isnt the case. This isnt so much a case of what bioware can do but more of an issue of what can happen in the setting. Bioware could have easily decreed that everyone would listen to shepard in ME1 even if it was only in secret  but they did not and the same applies here. There is no IN UNIVERSE precedent to determine that a conventional victory was possible.

There is also no in-universe precedent to determine that conventional victory would be impossible with the entire galaxy united fighting reapers. Because this has never happened before.

I am not saying that the writers actually meant conventional victory to be possible. They clearly didn't and clearly tried to (unsuccessfully) persuade the audience it wasn't possible. I am saying there is no lore contradicting it and lots of lore to support it, should they change their mind and fix the problem of a big chunk of their audience hating their ending by giving that chunk of the audience a fourth option.

That means your going to have to attack at a tangent to earth each time, thats just silly

Why? I don't want to hit my planet, so I should probably try to not hit my planet. That is also true for that whole fleet trying to bull rush the reapers in that cutscene.

The first thing you do is go to the citadel to get help for earth that is a central premise, there is a big cut scene for it not to mention all the dialogue about getting the fleets to save earth. Saving Earth is Shep's immediate goal, defeating the reapers is his long term one, the two arent mutually exclusive.

And if they were? If you had an option to kill all reapers in Sol, who also happened to be the majority of reapers altogether but had to sacrifice Earth for it? If that was that additional conventional option? That is up to personal interpretation of the character. Maybe your Shepard would never sacrifice Earth for the galaxy. Mine, while being very concerned about Earth too, ultimately would.

And how many times did that work? How many Dreadnoughts were destroyed? You seem to forget that while it takes 4 dreadnoughts to destroy a capital ship the reapers main gun one shots a dreadnought. There is a BIG BIG BIG difference between taking down a few enemy ships and winning conventionally against them. Ultimately this tactic would just mean you take some of those monsters down with you, it doesnt mean your going to win as a result.

I was pointing this bit out as an example that sovereign-class reapers do have to significantly weaken their shields when making fast turns and other fast maneuvers. I am most certainly not offering to repeat this exact scenario until all reapers die, because as you rightfully pointed out, the galactic forces would die sooner. I am saying that if they start evading the proposed FTL projectiles, they would become vulnerable to all other weapons we have.