215 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

o Ventus wrote...

During the timespan of the games, it probably is simple. I could argue very simple.

How many examples are we given of an AI or a VI that ceases to function due to lack of maintenance? The VI on the Hugo Gernsback survived ~13 years on its own.

Yes. And little else did. So what's your point? A VI survives. What is a VI going to do on it's own?
I'm talking about the actual machinery used to farm. Droids, tractors, floating harvesters, whatever they use. Stuff full of moving parts. That is inevitably going to break down no matter how well it's maintained.

Modifié par The Angry One, 03 juin 2012 - 05:39 .

[Omanisat]

o Ventus wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

You're applying real world principles with a fictional universe that is both set in the future and populated by hyper-advanced alien species. It isn't remotely beyond the realm of disbelief to think that most (if not all) of the agriculture can be handled by a VI program that only requires upkeep and maintenance. The colonies you visit in-game have been established for well over a few centuries, so again, it's entirely plausible to assume they have some form of self sustenance, in medicine, food, and industrialization, at least to a point.

Again, what happens when machinery starts to break down and the places capable of making replacements are cut off?
Management by VI means nothing.

As long as there is at least 1 person (with proper training and knowledge) to maintain the technology, the technology should function.

Of course, there would be more than only 1 person on a colony or homeworld that bears inhabitants.

You're assuming the colonies are industrially retarded and can't manufacture simple parts on their own.

What if the part you need isn't simple? Being the most knowledgeable person in the world won't help you if you need part X and you don't have it.

[Omanisat]

o Ventus wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

As long as there is at least 1 person (with proper training and knowledge) to maintain the technology, the technology should function.

Of course, there would be more than only 1 person on a colony or homeworld that bears inhabitants.

You're assuming the colonies are industrially retarded and can't manufacture simple parts on their own.

A fully automated farming infrastructure is going to be made up of far more than "simple parts".
The naivete here is staggering.

During the timespan of the games, it probably is simple. I could argue very simple.

How many examples are we given of an AI or a VI that ceases to function due to lack of maintenance? The VI on the Hugo Gernsback survived ~13 years on its own.

The VI was offline for nearly a year as they were fixing it. It then wasn't activated for nearly 10 years. Having a computer sit around for that long is not the same as having it run for 10 straight years.

[o Ventus]

The Angry One wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

During the timespan of the games, it probably is simple. I could argue very simple.

How many examples are we given of an AI or a VI that ceases to function due to lack of maintenance? The VI on the Hugo Gernsback survived ~13 years on its own.

Yes. And little else did. So what's your point? A VI survives. What is a VI going to do on it's own?
I'm talking about the actual machinery used to farm. Droids, tractors, floating harvesters, whatever they use. Stuff full of moving parts. That is inevitably going to break down no matter how well it's maintained.

Glyph and the Shadow Broker ship. Glyph maintained the internals of the ship just fine, and it's a VI. Surely the Broker's ship is a bit more advanced than farming equipment.

[General User]

Omanisat wrote...

General User wrote...

Omanisat wrote...
I'm not saying there wouldn't be survivors, it's quite likely there are many worlds the Reapers never hit. What I'm saying the the worlds they did hit would be toast.

I'm not sure the Reapers really completly destroyed many worlds this time around.  maybe they would have gotten around to it eventually.  But from the start of the War to the end they seemed to be almost exclusively focused on military targets and population centres. 

Besides, even if a world was "toast", it could be repopulated/colonized by other colonies in the area that were less toasty.

You don't have to vapourize the entire planet's surface to render it uninhabitable, at least for the immidiate future. 

http://en.wikipedia..../Nuclear_winter

The American Geophysical Union released a study in 2006 that stated an enchange or 50 Hiroshima sized weapons would release enough ash and smoke into the atmosphere to cool the planet for 1-2 years at the minimum. It would also destroy the ozone layer.

A single capital class reaper can generate a yield of around 460 kilotons, around 39 times the yield of the Hiroshima bomb. 30 minutes of bombardment could easily exceed the required amount.

Nuclear winter is  largely a trite Hollywood plot device, granted that may make it well at home in Mass Effect.  There have been 1000+ above ground nuclear detonations on planet Earth since 1945, representing hundreds of megatons, with no adverse global environmental effects of any note. 

And besides, a cool planet is not an unihabitable one.  Especially not when "cooled" for so brief a period.

[Omanisat]

o Ventus wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

During the timespan of the games, it probably is simple. I could argue very simple.

How many examples are we given of an AI or a VI that ceases to function due to lack of maintenance? The VI on the Hugo Gernsback survived ~13 years on its own.

Yes. And little else did. So what's your point? A VI survives. What is a VI going to do on it's own?
I'm talking about the actual machinery used to farm. Droids, tractors, floating harvesters, whatever they use. Stuff full of moving parts. That is inevitably going to break down no matter how well it's maintained.

Glyph and the Shadow Broker ship. Glyph maintained the internals of the ship just fine, and it's a VI. Surely the Broker's ship is a bit more advanced than farming equipment.

I don't imagine Glyph did very much hands-on maintenance. It would detect an issue, flag it, someone would go to storage, get a replacement part off the shelf and fix it.

[The Angry One]

o Ventus wrote...

Glyph and the Shadow Broker ship. Glyph maintained the internals of the ship just fine, and it's a VI. Surely the Broker's ship is a bit more advanced than farming equipment.

It's the Shadow Broker's ship. You don't think any required replacement parts will be delivered if necesarry?
It also probably has on board manufacturing capabilities since it was designed to be self sufficient. Not comparable at all.

Modifié par The Angry One, 03 juin 2012 - 05:51 .

[Omanisat]

General User wrote...

Omanisat wrote...

General User wrote...

Omanisat wrote...
I'm not saying there wouldn't be survivors, it's quite likely there are many worlds the Reapers never hit. What I'm saying the the worlds they did hit would be toast.

I'm not sure the Reapers really completly destroyed many worlds this time around.  maybe they would have gotten around to it eventually.  But from the start of the War to the end they seemed to be almost exclusively focused on military targets and population centres. 

Besides, even if a world was "toast", it could be repopulated/colonized by other colonies in the area that were less toasty.

You don't have to vapourize the entire planet's surface to render it uninhabitable, at least for the immidiate future. 

http://en.wikipedia..../Nuclear_winter

The American Geophysical Union released a study in 2006 that stated an enchange or 50 Hiroshima sized weapons would release enough ash and smoke into the atmosphere to cool the planet for 1-2 years at the minimum. It would also destroy the ozone layer.

A single capital class reaper can generate a yield of around 460 kilotons, around 39 times the yield of the Hiroshima bomb. 30 minutes of bombardment could easily exceed the required amount.

Nuclear winter is  largely a trite Hollywood plot device, granted that may make it well at home in Mass Effect.  There have been 1000+ above ground nuclear detonations on planet Earth since 1945, representing hundreds of megatons, with no adverse global environmental effects of any note. 

And besides, a cool planet is not an unihabitable one.  Especially not when "cooled" for so brief a period.

No, it's not. It's functionally identical to the effects of largescale volcanic eruptions, which we know can affect the climate.

And the reason that nuclear testing didn't initiate a nuclear winter is because they were detonated one at a time in the middle of the Nevada desert or on some tiny atoll or in the middle of the Siberian tundra. The thing all these places have in common is there is almost nothing burnable there. It's the fires started by the exchange which genetrate massive amounts of smoke that trigger the shift.

Imagine if one of those weapons went off in the middle of a city, full of burnable materials. Or in the middle of a huge field of grains.

[eran5005]

Jassu1979 wrote...

Now, people have talked a lot about the destruction of the relays, pondering whether their destruction would obliterate the systems they were in, hypothesizing about the potential of re-building them, arguing about whether or not the fleet in Sol system can return home, etc.

But I think few people have actually considered what cutting the supply lines like that actually means: it doesn't really matter whether the species of the galaxy will eventually be able to invent a technology that fills the gap - right there and then, it means that billions throughout the war-torn galaxy WILL die, even if the explosions were harmless.

No relays - no interstellar traffic. No interstellar traffic - no supply lines. No supply lines - billions of casualties. The worst thing that can happen to a disaster area is being cut off - and that is exactly what happens to pretty much every planet in the Mass Effect universe.

An all-out interstellar war with a huge armada of giant killer machines has dire consequences?? NO WAY! who would have ever thought it could happen??
Seriously now, if the galaxy would have ended the war without any serious lasting damage i would have been extremly disappointed! The ending was disappointing in MANY aspects, but this one at least, was well done IMO - i wanted to see the scant few survivors crawl out from the ruins of their cities and planets, in complete disbelief that they actually made it, that they are alive! I wanted to see an entire galaxy trying to recover and start nearly from scratch, struggeling to rebuild and recover. That is the only proper outcome from a struggle like this (again IMO).

[The Angry One]

eran5005 wrote...

Jassu1979 wrote...

Now, people have talked a lot about the destruction of the relays, pondering whether their destruction would obliterate the systems they were in, hypothesizing about the potential of re-building them, arguing about whether or not the fleet in Sol system can return home, etc.

But I think few people have actually considered what cutting the supply lines like that actually means: it doesn't really matter whether the species of the galaxy will eventually be able to invent a technology that fills the gap - right there and then, it means that billions throughout the war-torn galaxy WILL die, even if the explosions were harmless.

No relays - no interstellar traffic. No interstellar traffic - no supply lines. No supply lines - billions of casualties. The worst thing that can happen to a disaster area is being cut off - and that is exactly what happens to pretty much every planet in the Mass Effect universe.

An all-out interstellar war with a huge armada of giant killer machines has dire consequences?? NO WAY! who would have ever thought it could happen??
Seriously now, if the galaxy would have ended the war without any serious lasting damage i would have been extremly disappointed! The ending was disappointing in MANY aspects, but this one at least, was well done IMO - i wanted to see the scant few survivors crawl out from the ruins of their cities and planets, in complete disbelief that they actually made it, that they are alive! I wanted to see an entire galaxy trying to recover and start nearly from scratch, struggeling to rebuild and recover. That is the only proper outcome from a struggle like this (again IMO).

Exactly why do you need the relays down for that? Billions had already died, and planets were devastated.
The relays on top of this is idiotic. It's the difference between a devastated galaxy recovering and a devastated galaxy falling into a permanent dark age.

[Averdi]

Tigerman123 wrote...

It wasn't really my point that there would be no deterioration in living standards in the short run, just that most essential goods like food or mass produced clothing would be too cheap to be worth exporting

I don't understand your meaning here.  Cheap is a relative term, often determined by scarcity.  Food is "cheap" prior to the reaper invation, my guess is that it would be extremely expensive after.  If I can grow food and a source of demand is at all close enough to ship to, then I suspect I'm about to be one rich mofo.  Perhaps not in old cash, but in whatever tech or goods that demanding world/base can produce.

EDIT: Ah, I see.  You mean food wouldn't be traded prior to the reaper invasion because its return wasn't worth the price to trade?  Maybe, but I doubt it.  There's still lots of agriculture (and other low-cost) trade around the world today, even though it is relatively cheap.  The issue is relative costs, not absolute ones.  I maintain that it would still be comparative advantages sufficient to motivate food trade - it's just that food would be a lot more expensive after the reapers.

You are assuming that the mass relays completely negate costs, but they don't. To export a good you'd have to build a spaceship with an extremely expensive eezo core to reach the system's relay, or as is the case with the majority of planets, to reach the planet at all since the majority of systems don't have relays. You'd also have to transport the good from the point of manufacture to some hub where it can be taken into space and then again on the importing planet. In what cases would it be economical to do that? After all, international corporations frequently establish manufacturing plants in foreign countries to save on transportation costs; Coke is generally made and bottled in the country where it's then sold.

I'm not assuming that, but I do assume that the mass relays dramatically lower cost to trade, which I'm positive they do.  I think you overestimate trade frictions.

To get oil from Saudi Arabia you need to: pump it, build and utilize infrastructure to transport it to specific depots on the coast, build large and expensive ships capable of sailing an ocean, then actually ship it, then offload it, and again ship it to demanding customers!  Back in the 1800s they even did simliarly long and complex voyages to send tea from India to England!  Yet this trade was all economical.

I'm aware of other business models, and I don't discout them.  But international companies tend to be vertically integrated - they produce input A here, then ship it there, where it's incorporated into good B.  They often do locate certain production facilites in the market to be served, but that doesn't mean that they don't rely on trade, or that those production lines could continue if trade was cut.

Most planets should be able to be self sufficient in food, the galaxy isn't made up of overpopulated worlds with billions of souls, the majority of planets have less than a billion inhabitants. Is there even a non homeworld with a population of over a billion? There would be no reason to establish a significant colony on a world incapable of producing food and so I

If, as you posit, trade costs are (prohibatively) high, then there's great chance that worlds are self-sufficient in terms of food.  I don't believe that, however.  Again, the ability to produce food isn't sufficient evidence for it's actual production.  A colony world rich in eezo may well find that, though he could do some farming, it's much more profitable to mine eezo and export it, then buy his food.  If trade were cut, there would be an adjustment period while he switches from (now relatively worthless) eezo to farm production.  Depending on how long that takes, he or his neighbor may starve in the meantime.

Modifié par Averdi, 03 juin 2012 - 06:11 .

[General User]

The Angry One wrote...
They're also brought in because of their logistical capabilities, able to evacuate survivors and bring in supplies.
With the relays down, you can do neither. Moreover all those ships also need supplies, and they're going to run out.
They don't have the space to evacuate the billions of survivors on Earth nor anything to feed them with.

Earth is not dead.  And the ability to move survivors out of the more devastated regions and into more intact ones, as well as locating, stockpiling and distributing supplies are thing Admiral Hackett's fleet all but certainly can do.  Imperfectly perhaps, but still doable.

Nor is the remaining population of Earth entirely helpless and dependent either.

The Angry One wrote...
How long is that discipline going to last in these circumstances? Eventually, a shooting war is going to break out as various factions are carved out among the surviving fleet, vying for resources.

Nonsense!  With a few exceptions, of whom the krogan are the only major one, the Allied forces that followed Shepard to Earth were disciplined, cohesive forces, not gangs of bandits.

[General User]

Omanisat wrote...

General User wrote...

Omanisat wrote...

General User wrote...

Omanisat wrote...
I'm not saying there wouldn't be survivors, it's quite likely there are many worlds the Reapers never hit. What I'm saying the the worlds they did hit would be toast.

I'm not sure the Reapers really completly destroyed many worlds this time around.  maybe they would have gotten around to it eventually.  But from the start of the War to the end they seemed to be almost exclusively focused on military targets and population centres. 

Besides, even if a world was "toast", it could be repopulated/colonized by other colonies in the area that were less toasty.

You don't have to vapourize the entire planet's surface to render it uninhabitable, at least for the immidiate future. 

http://en.wikipedia..../Nuclear_winter

The American Geophysical Union released a study in 2006 that stated an enchange or 50 Hiroshima sized weapons would release enough ash and smoke into the atmosphere to cool the planet for 1-2 years at the minimum. It would also destroy the ozone layer.

A single capital class reaper can generate a yield of around 460 kilotons, around 39 times the yield of the Hiroshima bomb. 30 minutes of bombardment could easily exceed the required amount.

Nuclear winter is  largely a trite Hollywood plot device, granted that may make it well at home in Mass Effect.  There have been 1000+ above ground nuclear detonations on planet Earth since 1945, representing hundreds of megatons, with no adverse global environmental effects of any note. 

And besides, a cool planet is not an unihabitable one.  Especially not when "cooled" for so brief a period.

No, it's not. It's functionally identical to the effects of largescale volcanic eruptions, which we know can affect the climate.

And the reason that nuclear testing didn't initiate a nuclear winter is because they were detonated one at a time in the middle of the Nevada desert or on some tiny atoll or in the middle of the Siberian tundra. The thing all these places have in common is there is almost nothing burnable there. It's the fires started by the exchange which genetrate massive amounts of smoke that trigger the shift.

Imagine if one of those weapons went off in the middle of a city, full of burnable materials. Or in the middle of a huge field of grains.

Two of them did.  And both cities were able to return to their pre-bombing population levels within ten years.  Sorry, but the facts are plain as day: nukes are city-killers, not planet-killers.

[eran5005]

The Angry One wrote...

eran5005 wrote...

Jassu1979 wrote...

Now, people have talked a lot about the destruction of the relays, pondering whether their destruction would obliterate the systems they were in, hypothesizing about the potential of re-building them, arguing about whether or not the fleet in Sol system can return home, etc.

But I think few people have actually considered what cutting the supply lines like that actually means: it doesn't really matter whether the species of the galaxy will eventually be able to invent a technology that fills the gap - right there and then, it means that billions throughout the war-torn galaxy WILL die, even if the explosions were harmless.

No relays - no interstellar traffic. No interstellar traffic - no supply lines. No supply lines - billions of casualties. The worst thing that can happen to a disaster area is being cut off - and that is exactly what happens to pretty much every planet in the Mass Effect universe.

An all-out interstellar war with a huge armada of giant killer machines has dire consequences?? NO WAY! who would have ever thought it could happen??
Seriously now, if the galaxy would have ended the war without any serious lasting damage i would have been extremly disappointed! The ending was disappointing in MANY aspects, but this one at least, was well done IMO - i wanted to see the scant few survivors crawl out from the ruins of their cities and planets, in complete disbelief that they actually made it, that they are alive! I wanted to see an entire galaxy trying to recover and start nearly from scratch, struggeling to rebuild and recover. That is the only proper outcome from a struggle like this (again IMO).

Exactly why do you need the relays down for that? Billions had already died, and planets were devastated.
The relays on top of this is idiotic. It's the difference between a devastated galaxy recovering and a devastated galaxy falling into a permanent dark age.

well, in the end it's a matter of opinion, so to argue about how much damage is enough is pretty useless...
I think the destruction of the relays was a nice touch, you think it was too much.
To each his own.

[Omanisat]

General User wrote...

Omanisat wrote...

General User wrote...

Omanisat wrote...

General User wrote...

Omanisat wrote...
I'm not saying there wouldn't be survivors, it's quite likely there are many worlds the Reapers never hit. What I'm saying the the worlds they did hit would be toast.

I'm not sure the Reapers really completly destroyed many worlds this time around.  maybe they would have gotten around to it eventually.  But from the start of the War to the end they seemed to be almost exclusively focused on military targets and population centres. 

Besides, even if a world was "toast", it could be repopulated/colonized by other colonies in the area that were less toasty.

You don't have to vapourize the entire planet's surface to render it uninhabitable, at least for the immidiate future. 

http://en.wikipedia..../Nuclear_winter

The American Geophysical Union released a study in 2006 that stated an enchange or 50 Hiroshima sized weapons would release enough ash and smoke into the atmosphere to cool the planet for 1-2 years at the minimum. It would also destroy the ozone layer.

A single capital class reaper can generate a yield of around 460 kilotons, around 39 times the yield of the Hiroshima bomb. 30 minutes of bombardment could easily exceed the required amount.

Nuclear winter is  largely a trite Hollywood plot device, granted that may make it well at home in Mass Effect.  There have been 1000+ above ground nuclear detonations on planet Earth since 1945, representing hundreds of megatons, with no adverse global environmental effects of any note. 

And besides, a cool planet is not an unihabitable one.  Especially not when "cooled" for so brief a period.

No, it's not. It's functionally identical to the effects of largescale volcanic eruptions, which we know can affect the climate.

And the reason that nuclear testing didn't initiate a nuclear winter is because they were detonated one at a time in the middle of the Nevada desert or on some tiny atoll or in the middle of the Siberian tundra. The thing all these places have in common is there is almost nothing burnable there. It's the fires started by the exchange which genetrate massive amounts of smoke that trigger the shift.

Imagine if one of those weapons went off in the middle of a city, full of burnable materials. Or in the middle of a huge field of grains.

Two of them did.  And both cities were able to return to their pre-bombing population levels within ten years.  Sorry, but the facts are plain as day: nukes are city-killers, not planet-killers.

Two. Over the course of 3 days. Both less then 15 kilotons. That's like saying driving a car into a wall at 100mph wouldn't kill you because doing it at 5 wouldn't. I've already said most estimates require at least 50 weapons detonated, with yields above 15kT. Individually they're city killers, collectively they're planet killers.

[Averdi]

General User wrote...

Two of them did.  And both cities were able to return to their pre-bombing population levels within ten years.  Sorry, but the facts are plain as day: nukes are city-killers, not planet-killers.

While I tend to agree with a certain skepticism of a ME nuclear winter (though if large sections of the citadel survive re-entry to make surface impact, it's a possibility), do you think that those cities, or Europe for that matter, could have made such a recovery without outside assistance?  If post-war Japan or Germany were simply left like that, with nothing going in or out, you don't think there would have been further massive destruction of those populations and societies?

Modifié par Averdi, 03 juin 2012 - 06:10 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The Angry One wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

@Angry one,
The clouds are on fire? Or are those just fires?

.....

Who cares about the clouds?

Yes, it's wrecked. But it's not beyond repair.

You have absolutely NO evidence to say that it is.
So, stop headcannoning yourself (whatever the hell that means).

It's not beyond repair if the required help is available.

There are massive fires, radioactive fallout from 1km and 2 km long ships crashing, let's not forget the depleted uranium slugs all over the place (you know they use those things even though they're not in the codex right?), and all that destruction that's already been done. Let's not forget undetonated ordinance, that will get into the hands of factions. The infrastructure is gone. Cleanup is going to take decades. Clean food and clean water are going to be emergencies. Next is going to be sanitation. Wow. Next will be a cholera outbreak which will go untreated because of lack of vaccines and lack of antibiotics, followed by plague and other assorted viruses and a reduction of population to about 1 to 2 billion as people move away from plague infested areas and spread it to other areas. There are no developed nations anymore to help out. The supplies on the fleets will run out quickly. And they killed the Geth who would be the only ones able to go into infected areas and work (on destroy anyway).

The earth will recover .... in about 300 yrs. The immediate sequel on earth is "Fallout."

But for those of you who don't think the galaxy is a ****ed as it is (until the EC says otherwise), look at where the entire galactic fleets are. Where are they? At earth. In the Sol System. So for those of you who picked "Control" if Shepard can't win the battle of wills with Starbrat for control of the reapers they just keep on a reapin' (until the EC says otherwise). Grim... oh yeah, Mac, you really screwed the pooch.

Until the EC says otherwise, the LOW EMS Destroy is probably the best ending of all. It puts everyone out of their misery by exploding all of the mass relays, and just glasses earth, probably doing what Walters and Hudson wanted to do to the series... and because it destroys everything and kills everyone it's art.

Don't get me going on Synthesis, you collector you.

Face the fact, W & H did a slash and burn on the franchise by writing such a bad ending. Weekes is trying to save it.

As the game now stands the only thing that's keeping in the house is the multiplayer because I'm so sick of MW3.

[The Angry One]

General User wrote...

Earth is not dead.  And the ability to move survivors out of the more devastated regions and into more intact ones, as well as locating, stockpiling and distributing supplies are thing Admiral Hackett's fleet all but certainly can do.  Imperfectly perhaps, but still doable.

Nor is the remaining population of Earth entirely helpless and dependent either.

Earth is dead. Half the planet is on fire. It's going to suffer numerous mass accelerator misfires, it's atmosphere will be clogged with debris, it's ground and water further polluted by eezo core explosions and oh yeah, the Citadel dropping on it as a bonus.

It will be completely uninhabitable, anybody staying there after the battle is going to die.

Nonsense!  With a few exceptions, of whom the krogan are the only major one, the Allied forces that followed Shepard to Earth were disciplined, cohesive forces, not gangs of bandits.

What's that saying? All that stands between civilisation and anarchy is seven meals?
It doesn't matter how disciplined they are. Survival will take precidence. If the Turians are starving, and the Quarians have food they can't share because they need to feed their own people, then the Turians are going to take it by force. It's just that simple.

[TrulyInnovative]

Doesn't the Charon relay being destroyed wipe out the whole Sol system anyway?

[Ieldra]

Shaani wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
For everything else: why not interpret things so that the situation gets better instead of worse?

Well, people who are literally having a nervous breakdown over the ending being unsatisfying are attempting to justify being so emotional over something so silly. 

Also, some species of fans are fond of nitpicking these things as if they were real, and authorial intent did not exist. 

"If Bioware wrote an ending where Shepard lives, then surely he dies ten seconds later because I've examined every pixel of that cutscene and here's a page full of math based on my vague assumptions to explain why the people who created Shepard in the first place are wrong and I am right . . . . . "

Well, at first glance the ending does look as if Mac Walters and Casey Hudson wanted to destroy the universe and turn it all to ashes, just so that nobody else will ever have fun with it. After an initial attack of depression, I decided defiance is better than depression and wrote up a comprehensive scenario where things look a lot better, and to hell with what Walters and Hudson want me to believe.

So now I'm determined to paint the most optimistic scenarios that are still somewhat plausible. And as long as I'm not outright contradicted by game content, those will be my guideline. Fortunately, they've also been hinted at by developers who are not Walters and Hudson. I just hope they don't go overboard. Fast relay rebuilding (say, less than a hundred years) would make the difference between Control and the other endings meaningless. I'd rather have new FTL tech in Synthesis and upgraded conventional FTL travel in Destroy anyway, while in Control the relays remain. That would give the post-Reaper civilizations a specific profile created by your ending choice. 

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...


So now I'm determined to paint the most optimistic scenarios that are still somewhat plausible. And as long as I'm not outright contradicted by game content, those will be my guideline. Fortunately, they've also been hinted at by developers who are not Walters and Hudson. I just hope they don't go overboard. Fast relay rebuilding (say, less than a hundred years) would make the difference between Control and the other endings meaningless. I'd rather have new FTL tech in Synthesis and upgraded conventional FTL travel in Destroy anyway, while in Control the relays remain. That would give the post-Reaper civilizations a specific profile created by your ending choice. 

Control would still have advantage of not killing geth or changing everyone's dna or however you want to describe synthesis as well as not having much or any disruption to relay network. As far as relays are concerned i'm against all relays destroyed anyway. So i'd like in both synthesis and destroy high EMS to mean some relays survive the release of energy as i hate the concept of them being utterly destroyed. While i don't mind it being a hard long road to get the full network back up and running, i want getting a basic relay service up and running to be years rather than a hundred years.

[Taboo]

The Geth don't die in Destroy if they are already dead...

[Ieldra]

wright1978 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

So now I'm determined to paint the most optimistic scenarios that are still somewhat plausible. And as long as I'm not outright contradicted by game content, those will be my guideline. Fortunately, they've also been hinted at by developers who are not Walters and Hudson. I just hope they don't go overboard. Fast relay rebuilding (say, less than a hundred years) would make the difference between Control and the other endings meaningless. I'd rather have new FTL tech in Synthesis and upgraded conventional FTL travel in Destroy anyway, while in Control the relays remain. That would give the post-Reaper civilizations a specific profile created by your ending choice. 

Control would still have advantage of not killing geth or changing everyone's dna or however you want to describe synthesis as well as not having much or any disruption to relay network. As far as relays are concerned i'm against all relays destroyed anyway. So i'd like in both synthesis and destroy high EMS to mean some relays survive the release of energy as i hate the concept of them being utterly destroyed. While i don't mind it being a hard long road to get the full network back up and running, i want getting a basic relay service up and running to be years rather than a hundred years.

Apparently my concept of "a long hard road" is completely different from yours. A rebuilding time of mere years (as opposed to one of two centuries or even a millenium) would be so meaningless that they might as well not be destroyed in the first place. May I remind you that the energy of a supernova is bound up in a relay? You don't build stuff like that in mere years.
Also, I like the idea of the different scenarios developing different types of long-range FTL travel. I've outlined those in my thread Out of the dark age: relays, FTL and rebuilding galactic civilization.

[RiouHotaru]

While I'm impressed that folks continue this argument, it's obviously clear that TheAngryOne, and others, refuse to even entertain the idea that the outcome might be more optimistic, despite several claims BY THE WRITERS that the outcome is more hopeful than they conclude it to me, declaring such statements to be "damage control".

It's very clear that the "Galactic Bad End" camp doesn't want to acknowledge the possibility they could be wrong. And when the EC undoubtedly proves them wrong, they'll just handwave it away and scoff, claiming "damage control" and "retcon" and "plothole". It was the same song and dance as ME2.

When LotSB confirmed that the Shadow tried to send probes through the Omega-4 Relay and they were destroyed, Smudboy declared that to be damage control and a "shoddy fix" to a "plothole".

Most of the pro-Cerberus crowd, like Saphira and Kaiser Shepard, were firm in their belief that Cerberus had the right idea. Then ME3 revealed the Illusive Man was just stringing Shepard along. Surprisingly, even Cerberus' most staunch defenders went silent, but I'm sure they just eye-rolled the explanation away.

The fact is, you'll never get the opposing side to even consider the idea they could be incorrect, because despite the fact it's one of the founding principles of formulating a sound argument, they somehow believing acknowledging the opposition's argument weakens their position (in fact, the opposite is true, acknowledging that your argument has weak points is the sign of a GOOD argument)

[RiouHotaru]

The Angry One wrote... 
Earth is dead. Half the planet is on fire. It's going to suffer numerous mass accelerator misfires, it's atmosphere will be clogged with debris, it's ground and water further polluted by eezo core explosions and oh yeah, the Citadel dropping on it as a bonus.

It will be completely uninhabitable, anybody staying there after the battle is going to die.

Citation please.  Prove that all this contamination actually exists, or that the Citadel is dropping on Earth.

The Angry One wrote... 
It doesn't matter how disciplined they are. Survival will take precidence. If the Turians are starving, and the Quarians have food they can't share because they need to feed their own people, then the Turians are going to take it by force. It's just that simple.

 

Prove it.  You're making claims as though they were a matter of proven fact, you know that only makes you look more foolish.