689 réponses à ce sujet

[Clayless]

dreamgazer wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Why is it relevant? Because choosing to destroy could/would effectively end your life, thus creating a potential negative, worst-case product of the choice. We've come full-circle.

Elaborate.

Don't know how I can further.  Process my previous explanations again, because they'd sound familiar if we proceeded.

The context of the conversation allows one to logically assume that destroying synthetic components could destroy Shepard's synthetic components, when that's, at best, an unreliable variable.  The catalyst mentioning this at all revolves around the notion that Shepard has awareness of his/her mortality, and has an active concern over it, thus proving the statement in the context of the dialogue as a reference to a negative, unreliable byproduct of the decision that would give Shepard pause.  

Of course, everything the Catalyst said was in question until after the Crucible fired.

Relaying the information that Shepard may die if he picks destroy is arguably more logical than not relaying that information. It was the Catalyst's choice to relay that information, and it was not illogical, mearly pointing that out doesn't achieve anything.

Modifié par Our_Last_Scene, 27 mai 2012 - 09:51 .

[Vox Draco]

Ji99saw wrote...
Cool story bro, by the way what did we see with our own eyes? The reapers from one point of view without any explination we could only assume they were monsters but when we got more insight we realised it is more complex "than kill them all".

Yes, believe that if it makes you happy.

All I see is Kelly Chambers liquified while she screams in agony, Humans impaled on spikes to huskify them, Samara's daughter turned into a horrible Banshee, Earth, Thessia and Palaven burning. If you want to see any good, anything deeper in all this, alright, go this way. I won't follow you there, I don't like where this is leading to.

It is always wise to look at everything from different angles. But some things are evil and cannot be justified.

[frylock23]

Jamie9 wrote...

Vox Draco wrote...

It is amazing when I read some posts here or in other threads...amazing that mere five seconds have turned a lot of gamers into Reaper-sympathizers/understanders/supporters...

Without these five minutes of text from the catalyst no one would ever have had the idea that synthesis or control could be anything but bad and silly. Before these five minutes the majority of players was all about destroying the Reapers, saving the galaxy and avenge all the liquified people...

Five minutes, a character out of nowhere and a problem that has no basis in logic is enough to make so many people forget what they had been fighting for (and against) so many hours prior. And it is amazing how they desperatly try to justify this simple truth, how they actively deny what they have experienced, seen with their own eyes, and they rather believe that what the starchild has to offer is beneficial to the galaxy...instead of remembering what all of Shepards friends and allies, as well as Shepard herself, had said about the Reapers all the time...and THIS is the only ecidence that should be important making your decision...

I should stop reading all these posts. They have nothing really new to add (me neither), and some (though not all, there are sensible supporters of control or synthesis) people have truly disgusting points of views, though I won't call names here...I should go

Hello there! I picked control, but have the virtue of being able to see many points of view. (I'd make a good profiler for the FBI )

I, and many others throughout BSN, pick control because it maintains the status quo. It doesn't wipe out any races or homogenise the galaxy. It allows for the possiblity of the Relays being rebuilt. And control also allows you the possibility of destroying the Reapers through self-sabotage.

If a Paragon picks it, it can seemingly be a more paragon version of Destroy. I still disagree with TIM. He wouldn't use it and then get rid of it. He'd keep hold of the power and use it to subjagate people.

Control tempts me, but I just can't trust it. There's one problem with the final moments of the game that steer me away from it, and it doesn't have to do entirely with the Catalyst.

TIM controls Shepard and makes her shoot Anderson.

Catalyst says the Reapers control TIM, so he can't control them.

Catalyst says Shepard CAN control the Reapers.

But, TIM controlled Shepard.

How does that even make any sense? It doesn't. It's like a loop, and there seems to be no real reason why Shepard should be able to control the Reapers if TIM couldn't. So, right now, as it stands, Control seems too easy and it looks like the real Reaper trap of the three because it demands the least sacrifice out of Shepard and the rest of the galaxy.

Maybe the EC will clear this up some and I'll have a second option I can pick, but until then, I just get a seriously bad vibe about it. And, that's not because I see it as any more less flawed than Destroy. It's just because I can't trust that it will let me do what the Catalyst says it will and accomplish anything at all.

[DevilBeast]

o Ventus wrote...

Shepard Wins wrote...

Inb4 control people storming in with pitchforks and torches.

And Synthesis people.

Do they even exist?? *hurries behind a flameshield*

[Vox Draco]

Jamie9 wrote...

Hello there! I picked control, but have the virtue of being able to see many points of view. (I'd make a good profiler for the FBI )

I, and many others throughout BSN, pick control because it maintains the status quo. It doesn't wipe out any races or homogenise the galaxy. It allows for the possiblity of the Relays being rebuilt. And control also allows you the possibility of destroying the Reapers through self-sabotage.

If a Paragon picks it, it can seemingly be a more paragon version of Destroy. I still disagree with TIM. He wouldn't use it and then get rid of it. He'd keep hold of the power and use it to subjagate people.

As I said, a lot of people pick synthesis or control out of good intentions. I tried to look at this, I am able to play the devil's advocate game. But it doesn't change for me to the better. Everyone that has tried to control the Reapers has failed, and no character introduced in the last five minutes will now all of a sudden convince me that Shepard is the chosen one to accomplish this, using the Reapers all of a sudden for good or fly them into the sun.

If you are able to ignore these things, I feel happy for you. I looked at it this way, and came to the conclusion that if the Reapers remain, the galaxy cannot be truly free

[frylock23]

Ji99saw wrote...

Vox Draco wrote...

It is amazing when I read some posts here or in other threads...amazing that mere five seconds have turned a lot of gamers into Reaper-sympathizers/understanders/supporters...

Without these five minutes of text from the catalyst no one would ever have had the idea that synthesis or control could be anything but bad and silly. Before these five minutes the majority of players was all about destroying the Reapers, saving the galaxy and avenge all the liquified people...

Five minutes, a character out of nowhere and a problem that has no basis in logic is enough to make so many people forget what they had been fighting for (and against) so many hours prior. And it is amazing how they desperatly try to justify this simple truth, how they actively deny what they have experienced, seen with their own eyes, and they rather believe that what the starchild has to offer is beneficial to the galaxy...instead of remembering what all of Shepards friends and allies, as well as Shepard herself, had said about the Reapers all the time...and THIS is the only ecidence that should be important making your decision...

I should stop reading all these posts. They have nothing really new to add (me neither), and some (though not all, there are sensible supporters of control or synthesis) people have truly disgusting points of views, though I won't call names here...I should go

Cool story bro, by the way what did we see with our own eyes? The reapers from one point of view without any explination we could only assume they were monsters but when we got more insight we realised it is more complex "than kill them all". And we have Proof Quarians Vs. Geth had no one involved they would have destroyed the Quarians or they would have died out on ships

The Reapers had ample opportunity to make themselves better understood, and they chose not to even try. How many times did Shepard ask? I think mine asked every time she had the opportunity, and every time the answer was "You're too puny and stupid to understand" or something like it.

That sort of response does not engender understanding nor does it foster brotherly feeling.

[MisterJB]

Sisterofshane wrote...
You can't even prove that, just like you couldn't prove that the turians were trying to make us into a "client" race.

Talk to Eve:
"Shepard: All krogans just want to shoot at anyone who looks at them wrong.
Eve: What other option do they have?"

And there are more quotes.

As for the turians, it matches their MO and imperialistic nature.
You don't kill someone and then discover where they live and kill its entire family just because that someone was driving on the wrong side of the road.

[Ji99saw]

Vox Draco wrote...

Ji99saw wrote...
Cool story bro, by the way what did we see with our own eyes? The reapers from one point of view without any explination we could only assume they were monsters but when we got more insight we realised it is more complex "than kill them all".

Yes, believe that if it makes you happy.

All I see is Kelly Chambers liquified while she screams in agony, Humans impaled on spikes to huskify them, Samara's daughter turned into a horrible Banshee, Earth, Thessia and Palaven burning. If you want to see any good, anything deeper in all this, alright, go this way. I won't follow you there, I don't like where this is leading to.

It is always wise to look at everything from different angles. But some things are evil and cannot be justified.

Thank You I will, I'm one of the last few people on these forums with an open mind and I'm not ashamed of it.

But I do respect your Opinion

Modifié par Ji99saw, 27 mai 2012 - 10:19 .

[o Ventus]

MisterJB wrote...

As for the turians, it matches their MO and imperialistic nature.
You don't kill someone and then discover where they live and kill its entire family just because that someone was driving on the wrong side of the road.

That's EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID.

Like it nor not, that's why it happened.

[Archontor]

MisterJB wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...
You can't even prove that, just like you couldn't prove that the turians were trying to make us into a "client" race.

Talk to Eve:
"Shepard: All krogans just want to shoot at anyone who looks at them wrong.
Eve: What other option do they have?"

And there are more quotes.

As for the turians, it matches their MO and imperialistic nature.
You don't kill someone and then discover where they live and kill its entire family just because that someone was driving on the wrong side of the road.

Except the only client race they have are the volus who are somewhat independant and basically exist in a symbiotic relation with the turians. Frankly a simillar set up with humanity would be a good thing, the other races would take us more seriously and we could gain access to technology quickly and without conflict.

and before you say the Turians would leave us to burn in a crisis they are some of the first to pledge their services to helping us in ME3 and devote troops to protecting Irune even though those troops could be used to defend palaven.

[Jamie9]

frylock23 wrote...

Control tempts me, but I just can't trust it. There's one problem with the final moments of the game that steer me away from it, and it doesn't have to do entirely with the Catalyst.

TIM controls Shepard and makes her shoot Anderson.

Catalyst says the Reapers control TIM, so he can't control them.

Catalyst says Shepard CAN control the Reapers.

But, TIM controlled Shepard.

How does that even make any sense? It doesn't. It's like a loop, and there seems to be no real reason why Shepard should be able to control the Reapers if TIM couldn't. So, right now, as it stands, Control seems too easy and it looks like the real Reaper trap of the three because it demands the least sacrifice out of Shepard and the rest of the galaxy.

Maybe the EC will clear this up some and I'll have a second option I can pick, but until then, I just get a seriously bad vibe about it. And, that's not because I see it as any more less flawed than Destroy. It's just because I can't trust that it will let me do what the Catalyst says it will and accomplish anything at all.

I understand entirely. In fact, I encourage you to follow your gut feeling. If control gives you a bad vibe, then you shouldn't pick it.

As the ending stands at the moment, you have to trust the Catalyst. You have to pick one of it's three choices. I'm sure the Extended Cut will clarify most of the qualms we have (I hope) so we can make a much more informed decision.

The way I say it in regards to TIM: TIM couldn't control the Reapers because he was indoctrinated, whereas Shepard isn't indoctrinated and has an extremely strong will so he can, at least for a time (of course, unless you believe in IT, in which case you'll always pick destroy).

My brain can't even compute how TIM could control Shepard and Anderson anyway? How would he control their movements? He seemingly uses some sort of biotics... and I know, I went through Sanctuary, but that only held evidence of working on husks, not living beings.

So, yeah, my point being that all 3 options are very shaky at the moment. Everything we debate is speculative, but based upon pieces of evidence.

Stick with your gut though. It's usually right.

[Sisterofshane]

MisterJB wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...
You can't even prove that, just like you couldn't prove that the turians were trying to make us into a "client" race.

Talk to Eve:
"Shepard: All krogans just want to shoot at anyone who looks at them wrong.
Eve: What other option do they have?"

And there are more quotes.

As for the turians, it matches their MO and imperialistic nature.
You don't kill someone and then discover where they live and kill its entire family just because that someone was driving on the wrong side of the road.

Mass Effect: Evolution explains the reason the Turians wanted Shanxi.  Beyond the initial incident, there most likely would have been no further conflict if Desolas had not decided he needed the Reaper Device.  It had nothing to do with trying to enslave humans.

And we already know that the Krogan are violent.  You need to qualify that the Genophage has made them more violent.  I believe that it was the opposite.

This, however, is why you are the close-minded one.  You cannot see beyond generalization of race and species, and even then you only see shortfalls.

[MASSEFFECTfanforlife101]

JB, I didn't make this thread for you to question our opinions. I created this thread so that those who support can finally come here and be among others who agree, make friends, etc. You have your opinion, and we have ours. Why are you making such a big deal about us choosing to Destroy? Shouldn't you be only focusing on what your believe in, rather than berating others for thinking differently, Saying "close-minded" was a bit low, even for you. It is only our opinion, and there is no right or wrong one, not even yours.

Modifié par MASSEFFECTfanforlife101, 27 mai 2012 - 10:06 .

[Jamie9]

Vox Draco wrote...

As I said, a lot of people pick synthesis or control out of good intentions. I tried to look at this, I am able to play the devil's advocate game. But it doesn't change for me to the better. Everyone that has tried to control the Reapers has failed, and no character introduced in the last five minutes will now all of a sudden convince me that Shepard is the chosen one to accomplish this, using the Reapers all of a sudden for good or fly them into the sun.

If you are able to ignore these things, I feel happy for you. I looked at it this way, and came to the conclusion that if the Reapers remain, the galaxy cannot be truly free

I agree. The Reapers aim to control our development so we're not free until we remove them from the equation. When the Extended Cut comes out, I'll be able to make a more informed decision on whether I interpreted Control correctly.

I don't want to metagame my Shepard though, so I'm only going to go on the info we're given before the choices (presumably, there'll be lots of new dialogue).

[MASSEFFECTfanforlife101]

I see the quote, "We Destroy them, or they Destroy us" in two ways: Destroy the Reapers, before they end up destroying us not only physically, but ALSO mentally, if you know what I mean? Saren, Matriarch Benezia, the Geth (Those who Worshiped the "Old Machines"), TIM, Cerberus, Dr. Amanda Kenson, and even Henry Lawson, are examples.

Modifié par MASSEFFECTfanforlife101, 27 mai 2012 - 10:16 .

[Vox Draco]

Jamie9 wrote...
I don't want to metagame my Shepard though, so I'm only going to go on the info we're given before the choices (presumably, there'll be lots of new dialogue).

I am with you on this. I try to avoid any information we see or are supposed to see after the choice is made, including the Breathe, the Reapers leave or the Relays blown up etc. They should not influence the decision, which only leaves the kid's lines and what we saw before in the games.

But I'll be honest: If the EC somehow clarifies that blue is indeed paragon and all the good stuff happens there, if only you kill your Shepard...I will still ignore it. Even if Synthesis is clarified to be the best thing ever, if only your Shepard dies, I will ignore it...

Not sure how my Paragon-Sheps will react to this, but I value their life higher than anything else, and I hope they will understand when I still choose them over the galaxy's well-being...

*sigh* I really hope the EC won't take this away from me. It is the only fear I've got...that Shepard is doomed to die no matter what, or will only survive if she is a total genocidal maniac...I am getting depressed I am afraid...*sigh*

[MisterJB]

Archontor wrote...
Except the only client race they have are the volus.

I'm fairly certain I read somewhere they have more we don't see.
Read up on turian military doctrine. They destroy their enemy's entire military strenght and make them client races. This implies it has happened more than once. Regardless, it matches what happened during the FCW.

who are somewhat independant and basically exist in a symbiotic relation with the turians.

It's a bloody extorsion racket. Work for us, pay our taxes or we stop protecting you.

Frankly a simillar set up with humanity would be a good thing, the other races would take us more seriously and we could gain access to technology quickly and without conflict.

So, you would actually just give up human sovereignity?
Humans have already created three different types of technology that were adapted by the other races and not the other way around. And we did this without submitting ourselves. Well, more than we did when we joined the Citadel, anyway.

and before you say the Turians would leave us to burn in a crisis

Of course they would.

 

they are some of the first to pledge their services to helping us in ME3 and devote troops to protecting Irune even though those troops could be used to defend palaven.

All of that only after we got the krogans to help them.
And they only came to Earth because the Citadel was in orbit. Previously, I did not see a single instance of turian assisting humans.

[Ji99saw]

o Ventus wrote...

Ji99saw wrote...

LOL, yes because they are  cold and ruthless because they can completly destroy organics at any time, and are they are the only reasons organics were uplifited.?


They can do whatever they want with SciFi as long as people are willing beleive in the Lore and it's their IP

So now you right off wholecharacters because they debunk your argument? Nice try

You pretty said it here just like we have choices at the end depending on what we think is right. IF shperad would have said that he hates synthesis (lets pretend through auto dialogue) and the player chooses syntheisis at the end the dialogue becomes invalid and shep is ultimitly changed no matter what he said

Ruthless (adj): having or showing no compassion for others.


Cold (adj): lacking in passion, emotion, enthusiasm, ardor, etc etc.

Neither of those imply "vicious hatred", because hatred is, in itself, an emotion.

I'm not "righting" (Another English fail, congratulations) off characters because of anything. I'm dismissing their otherwise scientifically impossible traits (In a science fiction story, no less) as an unreliable source of information.

Shepard performing an action that invalidates his/her opinion is NOT Shepard changing their mind on something. If Shepard had said "Y'know what? I actually kinda like this whole Synthesis thing", then his mind was changed.

Once more those have nothing to do with the  Reapers using Logic to do what they do, and they are not cold or ruthless because they do it for the greater good, and when you used hitler you were implying some sort of vendetta.

Correcting me still doen't make  you less of an idiot for completely ignoring established lore and characters of the universe.

Here is another ex. of not needing brains for memories,   http://masseffect.wi.../Virtual_Alien. But let me guess that does not count either because it debunks your argument

[dreamgazer]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Why is it relevant? Because choosing to destroy could/would effectively end your life, thus creating a potential negative, worst-case product of the choice. We've come full-circle.

Elaborate.

Don't know how I can further.  Process my previous explanations again, because they'd sound familiar if we proceeded.

The context of the conversation allows one to logically assume that destroying synthetic components could destroy Shepard's synthetic components, when that's, at best, an unreliable variable.  The catalyst mentioning this at all revolves around the notion that Shepard has awareness of his/her mortality, and has an active concern over it, thus proving the statement in the context of the dialogue as a reference to a negative, unreliable byproduct of the decision that would give Shepard pause.  

Of course, everything the Catalyst said was in question until after the Crucible fired.

Relaying the information that Shepard may die if he picks destroy is arguably more logical than not relaying that information. It was the Catalyst's choice to relay that information, and it was not illogical, mearly pointing that out doesn't achieve anything.

Gotcha.  My perspective falls into the belief that there was clearly intent in his inclusion of that piece of dialogue, and that it held manipulative implications---all the way down to the dialogue's content itself.  If it were merely perfunctory data, he would have voiced it clearer and with more extrapolation than "even you are partly synthetic".  It's vague, and it's vague on purpose.

[Jamie9]

Vox Draco wrote...

I am with you on this. I try to avoid any information we see or are supposed to see after the choice is made, including the Breathe, the Reapers leave or the Relays blown up etc. They should not influence the decision, which only leaves the kid's lines and what we saw before in the games.

But I'll be honest: If the EC somehow clarifies that blue is indeed paragon and all the good stuff happens there, if only you kill your Shepard...I will still ignore it. Even if Synthesis is clarified to be the best thing ever, if only your Shepard dies, I will ignore it...

Not sure how my Paragon-Sheps will react to this, but I value their life higher than anything else, and I hope they will understand when I still choose them over the galaxy's well-being...

*sigh* I really hope the EC won't take this away from me. It is the only fear I've got...that Shepard is doomed to die no matter what, or will only survive if she is a total genocidal maniac...I am getting depressed I am afraid...*sigh*

There is a way to justify this as a paragon character. Every character has their flaws. I don't play my paragon character completely paragon, just mostly paragon.

Your Shepard could perhaps see that he/she could save more lives in their life which makes it worth it. How many lives has Shepard saved over the course of the Mass Effect Trilogy? Everyone, it could easily be argued.

I went through this same problem in Dragon Age: Origins, with the Warden. I see that isn't under your name tag so I'm not going to spoil anything, but suffice to say you can die in some endings. I felt my Warden could do a lot of good in the world being alive, so I kept him alive.

Your Shepard though. Just some advice from your friendly neighbourhood headcanon forumite.

[MisterJB]

Sisterofshane wrote...
Mass Effect: Evolution explains the reason the Turians wanted Shanxi.  Beyond the initial incident, there most likely would have been no further conflict if Desolas had not decided he needed the Reaper Device.  It had nothing to do with trying to enslave humans.

And in Mass Effect: Revelation, the Council states the turians were escalating their response after we took Shanxi back. It had all to do with enslaving humanity.
Here is an idea, ask us for the Monolith. We could have shared the technology. Human did it when we discovered the prothean beacon on Eden Prime.

And we already know that the Krogan are violent.  You need to qualify that the Genophage has made them more violent.  I believe that it was the opposite.

This, however, is why you are the close-minded one.  You cannot see beyond generalization of race and species, and even then you only see shortfalls.

I acknowledge there are exceptions to the rule like Wrex but you are denying staten facts. The krogan rebellions were started because of overpopulation. After the genophage, the krogans kill just because, became mercenaries instead of focusing on rebuilding their species. 

[Vox Draco]

Jamie9 wrote...
There is a way to justify this as a paragon character. Every character has their flaws. I don't play my paragon character completely paragon, just mostly paragon.
Your Shepard could perhaps see that he/she could save more lives in their life which makes it worth it. How many lives has Shepard saved over the course of the Mass Effect Trilogy? Everyone, it could easily be argued.
I went through this same problem in Dragon Age: Origins, with the Warden. I see that isn't under your name tag so I'm not going to spoil anything, but suffice to say you can die in some endings. I felt my Warden could do a lot of good in the world being alive, so I kept him alive.
Your Shepard though. Just some advice from your friendly neighbourhood headcanon forumite.

*laughs* Don't get me started with Dragon Age Origins. One of my favorite games, but I never bothered to register it.

And the ending there was its own drama for me...My female warden hooked up with Allistair but...*sigh* I made some silly choices at the landsmeet and no happy end for them, but at least she lived because the other one died who also deserved to die! Another run, this time I choose rightly at the Landsmeet, but Allistair just dumps my warden after that. I was furious! Really! I went to extensive research to find out if there is a positive outcome, and found one. Had to play several hours again, but it was worth it...

And then *sigh* my Warden and myself had to...make a decision to save herself and Allistair a future together but at what cost. The headcanon there was a sad one, I can tell you. But nevertheless, they were boh alive and could live on, if not happily, then at least reasonably so. But they won't have kids on their own, and this one night...well, there were hours in their life when harsh words were said and tears flowed, but in the end everything was still good...a wonderful game, I should play it again

Thank you for the mental support. I think as long as I can see my Shepard's alive and in her Kaidan's arms, I'll find a way to live with it...

[Archontor]

MisterJB wrote...

Archontor wrote...
Except the only client race they have are the volus.

I'm fairly certain I read somewhere they have more we don't see.
Read up on turian military doctrine. They destroy their enemy's entire military strenght and make them client races. This implies it has happened more than once. Regardless, it matches what happened during the FCW.

who are somewhat independant and basically exist in a symbiotic relation with the turians.

It's a bloody extorsion racket. Work for us, pay our taxes or we stop protecting you.

Frankly a simillar set up with humanity would be a good thing, the other races would take us more seriously and we could gain access to technology quickly and without conflict.

So, you would actually just give up human sovereignity?
Humans have already created three different types of technology that were adapted by the other races and not the other way around. And we did this without submitting ourselves. Well, more than we did when we joined the Citadel, anyway.

and before you say the Turians would leave us to burn in a crisis

Of course they would.

 

they are some of the first to pledge their services to helping us in ME3 and devote troops to protecting Irune even though those troops could be used to defend palaven.

All of that only after we got the krogans to help them.
And they only came to Earth because the Citadel was in orbit. Previously, I did not see a single instance of turian assisting humans.

when it says they destroy their militaries and then form a client race it's possible this is simply what the turian culture that now represents them all did in their ancient past hence why there is only one government eventualy they all just became turian Hierarchy members.

Now it's symbiosis, the volus provided goods and services that they requested and the turians obliged and protected them in exchange for something they neeed. It's interspecies cooperation, something quite alien to you.
It is not giving up human sovereingty, the volus have heir own embassy for their own government. The fact we can pioneer new technologies suggest only the role we would largely be known for. As scientists, a dignified well paying profession.

They demonstrably did not leave us to burn, when shep asks them to help on Menae with their burning homeworld above them they say that they can't help in the sense that it isn't physically possible, which is true, the only ships leaving at that point are stealth ones and the turians can't ship an army out with the few if any they possess so they need something to weaken the reapers. Same thing for Irune and they still could have let the volus die and use those extra troops to protect actual turian worlds.

There are instances of help in the interim, the elite operatives in MP and the turian participating in a mixed-species squad on Cyone.

[MASSEFFECTfanforlife101]

What are you all hoping to see in the EC for Destroy?