531 réponses à ce sujet

[Qeylis]

Creighton72 wrote...

Element Zero is the start of the game, read the opening. The game is not a constructed reality, it's a work of fiction. You agree that reality has nothing to do with it then call it reality. What you seem to miss is that the Reapers are plot armored. Why are the Reapers unbeatable? Because the author simply makes them that way. That's plot armoring. He gives you no facts about why they are unbeatable, it's just stated and nothing works against them, unless they need something to work against them. The Crucible, what is that? Is it explained? No, it's simply a plot device with a built in push button victory. The magic science of the game is not exactly set in stone, it wavers a lot. Now you also seem to miss the fact that the Author can beat the reapers if he wants to. Which is exactly what I stated you agreed with this and then disagreed with me. So you don't believe that when I said the author can beat the reapers, you think he can but he can't? You might want to read the post of mine that he was responding to.

So like I said given the fact that this is a story and work of fiction, anything is possible if the author wants it to be. Including beating the reapers. To disagree with that is insane, that poster disagreed with it, you agreed with it but then tried to find a way to disagree with it. Which makes no sense.

It amazes me that people miss the simple fact that anything is possible in a story it the author wants it to be. Thus anything is possible in a given story. Are the reapers beatable? Yes they lost, so clearly they are beatable. In a science fiction universe anything is possible including a science fiction victory, to call anything unbelievable is pointless. Nothing is actually believable to begin with. So can you have an unbelievable victory in an unbelievable universe? Yes?

Wow, well said.  Anything is possible in a fictional strory if the author wants it to be possible.  Shepard killed several reapers, one of them with a worm.  The author could have had Mickey Mouse come out of nowhere, and use an eraser to wipe the Reapers from the universe if they wanted.

Oh, wait, thats exactly what they did.

Of course a conventional victory is possible, even sticking to the lore.  Several Reapers dead, one by a worm (is it 3?), the largest fleet of any cycle (because the surprise attack failed), the first discovery of Reaper Command and Control in any cycle (Star Child controls them, and he says you're the first organic to get there), allied robots with brand new Reaper level intellegence, that if you fail to save the Quarians, destroys the Quarian fleet in seconds (I admit the last one is shaky, but it could have been writen the way I said it.).

It is their story, if they wanted a conventional victory, it would have been possible.  I have shown you 4 ways they could have done it and stayed in the lore.  If they took those 4 ways and put them together with things I haven't thought of, a conventional victory is not just possible, but probable.  These ideas alone make a conventional victory the logical conclusion.  

But, in the end, the author gets whatever he wants, always.  It seems he prefers Mickey Mouse and the Eraser to Logic.  

[Aquilas]

Guys, the united species cannot beat the Reapers conventionally. They cannot. There are just too many Reapers, and their inherent technology, architecture, logistics, and organization surpass our resources, strategies, tactics, techniques, and procedures.

The Catalyst says its been running the Cycle for aeons. Could it be lying? Sure. But Shepard and company have discovered Reapers 10s of millions years old. It's more likely the Catalyst is right.

In cosmology and astronomy--academic disciplines certainly pertinent to ME--an aeon is a billion years. The Catalyst uses the plural "aeons." It may not be using our definition, true, but it is speaking to Shepard in terms Shepard can understand. So for the sake of my argument I'm going to use the definition found in astronomy and cosmology: an aeon=one billion years.

Let's say the Catalyst has been running the Cycle for only two aeons. That's plural. So that's two billion years. Two billion divided by 50K=40,000. That means there are at least 40K Sovereign-class Reapers: 40,000 (again, using my criteria). At least. Now factor in lower-class Reapers, plus their ground forces, and the allied races are hopelessly outmatched.

Reaper architecture, construction, and technology: many fans have noted how difficult it is to take down even one Reaper capital ship. Take down at least 40,000? Not doable.

Reaper logistics versus the allies' resources: the Reapers need no bases, no logistical lines of communication, no fuel, no food--they're completely self-sufficient. Even one of the security troops guarding the Normandy's war room notes this: she specifically asks how the allies can fight an enemy like that. The answer: they can't, conventionally.

Reaper organization, added to their architecture and logistics versus our strategies, tactics, techniques, and procedures: several fans have noted Sun Tzu's strategies and tactics: hit, run, be where the enemy is not; avoid direct, conventional, pitched battles with a numerically and militarily superior foe. Hackett says he'll use these methods--but he means he'll keep the forces-in-being viable enough to eventually deploy the Crucible. The Reapers aren't much on strategy or tactics; they just show up and start obliterating their foes.

So using Sun Tzu's methods sounds great, except for these factors: the Reapers are immortal, implacable, relentless. They have all the time in...all of time to complete the Cycle. They don't have to maintain political will and resolve; they don't have to worry about upcoming elections; they don't have to worry about maintaining popular support. All they have to do is complete the Cycle unimpeded by any external factors whatsoever.

But my argument here uses the writers' definition of conventional. Our armed forces also fight via unconventional means the writers could've used by stretching ME lore without breaking it, as they break it with Star-jar, Space Magic, and Synthesis.

The Codex mentions treaties covering biological warfare and cyber warfare. Have you ever read "The War of the Worlds" by H.G. Wells? The Martians fall to microbes--they contract illnesses and die. There are digital viruses as well. We know the Reapers are some form of synthetic-organic slurry hybrid. So given ME lore, could scientists develop a bio-cyber attack to fell the Reapers, or at least weaken them enough to be defeated using the writer's version of conventional warfare? I say yes.

But it's ordained only the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Crucible-Catalyst Hybrid Deity can present Shepard with the only options available to end the Cycle. So as long as the true gods of the ME universe--the writers--maintain their current plot the allies just can't beat the Reapers conventionally.

*Cut and pasted from a simliar thread.  I'm lazy*

Modifié par Aquilas, 28 juin 2012 - 02:24 .

[WarBaby2]

After thinking about it: Yes!

If the crucible would have done what it orignally was designed for: Disrupt the reapers systems...

[DMWW]

So given ME lore, could scientists develop a bio-cyber attack to fell the Reapers, or at least weaken them enough to be defeated using the writer's version of conventional warfare? I say yes.

To paraphrase something I said on another thread, the reapers have an awful lot of practice at this.

Reaper #1: See this interesting bio-cyber attack the organics have come up with? I'm not sure I've seen anything like it before.

Harbinger: Nah, it's like that nano-cyber-virus that was deployed by species 30,012 in cycle 9,327.

Reaper #1: Ah, those were the millenia, weren't they?... 

Harbinger: Takes you back, doesn't it? Dig the cure out of deep storage on your way over to obliterating the Elcor, if you have a moment.

[THEFRIGGINDOOMGUY!]

I would have liked to be able to blow up the Mass Relay in the Sol system. Sure, Earth would be destroyed but we're talking about desperate times.

I also think that sending a cruiser to fight a reaper is a bad idea because it can be obliterated in just one hit. If smaller ships were sent, they would be able to hold long enough to target the eye and have an advantage against the reapers because their attacks are quite slow.

[Aquilas]

DMWW wrote...

So given ME lore, could scientists develop a bio-cyber attack to fell the Reapers, or at least weaken them enough to be defeated using the writer's version of conventional warfare? I say yes.

To paraphrase something I said on another thread, the reapers have an awful lot of practice at this.

Reaper #1: See this interesting bio-cyber attack the organics have come up with? I'm not sure I've seen anything like it before.

Harbinger: Nah, it's like that nano-cyber-virus that was deployed by species 30,012 in cycle 9,327.

Reaper #1: Ah, those were the millenia, weren't they?... 

Harbinger: Takes you back, doesn't it? Dig the cure out of deep storage on your way over to obliterating the Elcor, if you have a moment.

Oh, I agree it's a stretch...like the distance from Earth to the Citadel.  But the Catalyst says Shepard's very presence on the Citadel is unique, the first time an organic made it in all the aeons Star-jar has been running the Cycle.  It's why the Cycle-Solution no longer works.  Star-jar also says the Reapers tried Synthesis Space-magic before, but organics weren't ready--the Reapers couldn't force it.  Now Shepard and the organics are.  That's a lotta cosmic dice rolls before a win for us animals--at least, the Catalyst thinks it's a win.  Actually, Star-jars' existence is preposterous given established ME lore, but that's a whole nother discussion.

Shepard has killed 3 Reapers, two of them with small arms fire.  And think of the conditions the Reapers didn't foresee for Shepard to be able to invade the Collector station and destroy the proto-human-Reaper (that's a whole nother discussion).

Given Shepard's unique status and accomplishments, again I say it's much more plausible to have a bio-cyber virus attack--or something like it, based on established ME lore--be tenable than it is to have the God of the ME Universe show up and shoot its Space Magic beam throughout the galaxy via the relays, splicing organic DNA and synthetic code into a new life form--oh by the way, that includes systems that don't have a relay.  

I'll take the new, unconventional attack based on unique conditions over Space Magic every time.

Modifié par Aquilas, 28 juin 2012 - 03:06 .

[Norwood06]

After quickly scanning this thread, the arithmetic arguments aren't going to get us anywhere, as too much about the reapers is left unexplained.

I'm perfectly ok with conventional victory not being possible. I like the idea that the Reapers are an unstoppable force, against which the only way to survive is to build a reaper device (Crucible) to alter the reaper cycle, but only in the three ways that the reaper-controller permits. Even choosing Destroy is interpreted by starkid as just hitting the reset button, after which the old conflict will repeat itself.

What I'm not ok with the reaper destroyers, these reapers BW included that would be small enough for Shep to defeat. Shep's victories in ME3 where only over these new, weaker reapers. And the victories on Tuchanka and Rannoch made conventional victory seem possible. ME3 should have been Shep & friends getting pummeled again and again by reaper capital ships, cobbling together survivors into a Crucible-protection fleet as a last desperate act. As it is, the game feels like you have a chance going into the final battle.

Modifié par Norwood06, 28 juin 2012 - 03:10 .

[CaFe87]

Just wanted to link to this awesome thread by a.m.p:
http://social.biowar...ndex/11762127/1
and mine on reaper motivations:
http://social.biowar.../index/12835700

Modifié par CaFé87, 28 juin 2012 - 03:18 .

[Tonymac]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Maybe a more pertinent question is:

Is it acceptable that conventional victory is not obtainable?

It's one thing to want to be able to win conventionally. But is the disappointment with it not being possible fed more from the fact that someone wanted it to happen but didn't, or because it realistically doesn't make sense?


I was on the record a couple months ago stating that I agreed with the notion many posters had that refusing the reapers should have been a viable option, but I was also clear in stating that I'd have it result in failure because in my opinion it makes it a more interesting choice. So I'm just asking this to get a better understanding from those that are disappointed.

You know - I can buy that - we weren't prepared in this cycle to bring down the Reapers conventionally - its just  a plain and simple fact.  No one listened to Shepard.  Even after he saved the council, we got this "Ah yes, Reapers.  We have dismissed that claim." treatment.

After all, these are Reapers.  They are not cheesy puffs.  They are not stuffed ponies.  Its a 2 KM long death machine that has cleansed all advanced life in the galaxy for millions of years.  It has no pity, no remorse - and it will not stop until all life is purged.  Thats what they do.

Even then, I got the option to flip it off and tell it that it sucks, and go for death with gusto.  "So be it."  We get to refuse the Reapers, and we get to pay the price.  I think its a fitting ending, and it was pretty cool.

I might be able to see an argument where if your EMS was high enough, you could whup on them.   My last playthrough was just over 10,331 EMS (I MP a lot).  It would have been cool to watch the Reapers destroy the crucible with a laugh and then open a can of whupass.  If we had not built the crucible, then we could have used those rescources to double our fleet.  It would be neat to choose to use the Prothean data or not - and to involve all of that toil - or to buld a really huge fleet as we scour the galaxy for any tech that might help. 

But, as the story stands with the EC, I like it.  I love the endings!  I think its spot on - even if we can't whup the Reapers conventionally,  but leave ebough behind that the next cycle can win.

Modifié par Tonymac, 28 juin 2012 - 03:58 .

[Aquilas]

Tonymac wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Maybe a more pertinent question is:

Is it acceptable that conventional victory is not obtainable?

It's one thing to want to be able to win conventionally. But is the disappointment with it not being possible fed more from the fact that someone wanted it to happen but didn't, or because it realistically doesn't make sense?


I was on the record a couple months ago stating that I agreed with the notion many posters had that refusing the reapers should have been a viable option, but I was also clear in stating that I'd have it result in failure because in my opinion it makes it a more interesting choice. So I'm just asking this to get a better understanding from those that are disappointed.

You know - I can buy that - we weren't prepared in this cycle to bring down the Reapers conventionally - its just  a plain and simple fact.  No one listened to Shepard.  Even after he saved the council, we got this "Ah yes, Reapers.  We have dismissed that claim." treatment.

After all, these are Reapers.  They are not cheesy puffs.  They are not stuffed ponies.  Its a 2 KM long death machine that has cleansed all advanced life in the galaxy for millions of years.  It has no pity, no remorse - and it will not stop until all life is purged.  Thats what they do.

Even then, I got the option to flip it off and tell it that it sucks, and go for death with gusto.  "So be it."  We get to refuse the Reapers, and we get to pay the price.  I think its a fitting ending, and it was pretty cool.

I might be able to see an argument where if your EMS was high enough, you could whup on them.   My last playthrough was just over 10,331 EMS (I MP a lot).  It would have been cool to watch the Reapers destroy the crucible with a laugh and then open a can of whupass.  If we had not built the crucible, then we could have used those rescources to double our fleet.  It would be neat to choose to use the Prothean data or not - and to involve all of that toil - or to buld a really huge fleet as we scour the galaxy for any tech that might help. 

But, as the story stands with the EC, I like it.  I love the endings!  I think its spot on - even if we can't whup the Reapers, but leave ebough behind that the next cycle can.

Agreed.  I adamantly argued for the Reject ending, and I was thrilled to see it included in the EC.  I think it carries through on themes seen in ME and ME2, at least in my Shepard roleplay.  My Shepard(s) believe it's better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees (with a nod to Emiliano Zapata).  Both my Paragons and Renegades reject Saren's premise: we organics should go along with the Reapers to get along.  That includes selecting one of the choices the Catalyst selects for my Sheps.  Oh yeah Saren?  Oh yeah Sovereign?  Oh yeah Harbinger?  Oh yeah Catalyst?  Screw that.

And I fully accept the Reapers smacking down the allies if Shep chooses Rejection--see my post above.

But I'm also one of those who feel the Reject ending, as presented, is a flip-off to the fans.  Not to hijack this thread, but we should've seen and heard something like Hackett rallying the fleet: "Dammit, the Crucible didn't work!  All right then!  Let's give it our all!  Let's show the bastards we came together and fought the good fight to the very end!  Give 'em hell!"  Then we see a cutscene similar to the one in the Quarian vs. Geth final conflict, depending on the choice we make.

But nope--we see Shepard alone, slouching forlornly on the Citadel, a long-distance camera shot away, making Shepard small and almost insignificant.  No close-up showing Shepard resolutely accepting organics' fate, or cheering the allies on, or anything like it.

What's more, if you shoot Star-jar before using the pipes or beam, you immediately get the Reject ending.  Couldn't shooting the kid be the first step in the Destroy option?  Couldn't the kid laugh mockingly in Shepard's face and point to the Magic Pipe?  Nope.  Shoot Star-jar=fail.  Are you telling me that's not a direct response to lotsa videos showing Shep blasting Star-jar in vain?  C'mon now.

Anyhow, back on point: Reject's content is spot-on, even if it's presentation isn't.  Sure, it'd be great to achieve a conventional or uncoventional victory minus the Crucible, but as I said above, the writers make it impossible.

Modifié par Aquilas, 29 juin 2012 - 12:01 .

[XFeroxX]

Spartas Husky wrote...

XFeroxX wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

You forgot. The Aria's fleet. BLue Suns fleet, private military contractors ships. Eclipse, Blood pack. The Rachni. Cerberus deserters Citadel fleets deploy carriers. Which turn out to be very effective as well. batarians, the terminus systems. There are **** load of dreadnaughts sitll unaccounted for. Because reapers didn't attack the terminus systems in force, they jumped from batarian to citadel space. So that is another double size of your current estimates.

Even Doubling the amount of Dreadnoughts to 200, with the Reapers only having 20,000, thats still 1/10 the size, but with the amount of cruisers and the extra forces your talking about then yes itd help tons, but with those massive numbers you'd still expect massive casualties. I forgot to also mention Carriers, which are mentioned often in the game but the Turians have a few but they are an alliance specialty. All told, the fighters and frigates focusing on the destroyers and Oculi, leaving cruisers and dreadnoughts open to concentrate on Sovys and you've got a much less bleak situation unfloding than you might have otherwise

Actually some of your calculation is wrong. And thus way off. As we've seen with the protheans. Not every cycle yields a reaper. EDI could only surmise as to why some species do not yield them, or maybe they aren't advanced enough, enough numbers?... not sure given protheans wide spread. But Not all cycles yield a reaper, and with casualties from cycles. It means unless we know the rate of rejection to reaper form. We can only surmise
A. their number stagnate
B. Their numbers might actually dwindle.

GIven the view of the  planet earth, I'd say is the 2nd. it also adds weight to the reapers plans. Attack overwhelmingly from a single point and spread out picking out pockets of resistance. If your force is so overwhelimg, tactically separating your enemies is more time consuming and resourcefully wasteful than amazing them all in one place. Meaning the reapers do not want an open confrontation. For what reasons I can only imagine, but if I had to guess is because their best tool, aside from their superior technology is catching their enemy offguard. If not they stand to loose alot more than gained.

Given by the Reapers being stalled in palaven itself by a combined front, and reapers not simply overwheling positions in space like they do in ground battles, leads me to believe the core foundation of your guess work is way off. If they had as many numbers in space as they do on the ground they would simply work as husks, overwhelimg and never stopping. However when holding their ground against a similar force +/- they actually begin to loose numbers. And again given the earth cutscene, they aren't darkening the sky of earth by a longshot, meaning there are nowhere near even a thousand of them at earth. And given that they all concentrated on it... means their numbers are incredibly small; which also leads me to surmise that the rate of failure of turning civilizations into a soverign class reaper is ridiculously high.

I thought it was implied that not getting a reaper was a rarity and theres little eidence of dwindling numbers in each cycle. The Turians held them off due to the use of weapons of mass destruction on the ground and superior tactics in space. Though I do agree with you're basic premise that their numbers may not be 20K, We'd have to make assumtptions for prrevious cycles that theres is 0 evidence for, whereas my calculations have little evidence, but i feel that this cycle is all i have to base it on. Yes even a couple hundred in one battle is still a lot , but considering the billions of years theyve possilbly been operating for, theyd have to be unsuccessful in the majority, which is a lot of wasted cycles. The Reaper Master AI hinted that every cycle is respresented and saved by a Reaper, and though we know thats not 100% true, that some races don't make it that far, This is all semantics though. The numbers themselves don't say much compared to the capabilities of ech ship, and even with those numbers and that many destroyers, its still a mighty hard battle to win. 

And this isn't for you, but i see arguments like "a military force has tried before, or if it hasn't won yet it can't win" but you fail to consider that the same was said of tthe crucible until it actually worked. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't write off the argument that it could. It is wholly possible, but like I've stressed, ONLY under the right conditions.

[shodiswe]

You would need an empire from a different galaxy to jump in and wipe out all reapers... just before enlaving everyone and sending them to mines and other less attractive job allocations while they sip on the spoils of their conquest...

[Broham]

 Earlier in the thread I stated that the lore of Mass Effect told us defeating the reapers conventionally would be very unlikely. The lore also leads us to believe the reapers have been successfully culling the galaxy for millennia. It is likely that past cycles have slowed them down (protheans for instance) or "made them bleed" but never defeated them outright.

Reading other responses, I completely agree that the best "unconventional" way to defeat the reapers would come in by destroying or disabling the citadel. That should be where the Refusal ending leads. 

Someone likely mentioned it before (didn't read every response) but if Shepard refuses the Starchild, Shepard should then be able to radio someone, briefly explain the situation (citadel = reaper control system) and get all the assets brought to the fight to concentrate on destroying or at least disabling the citadel. High assets determine the success or lack of.

In the end, the loss is heavy (Shepard still dies in the crucible and/or citadel destruction) but the reapers are ultimately defeated by doing something unconventional and never considered destroy the citadel  . (Again, lore in Mass Effect tells us this cycle should be capable of destroying or heavily damaging the citadel (torpedos and dreadnought class slugs targeting the exposed inner sections...))

Who knows, the destruction of the citadel could even preserve the reapers. They were created from past conquered civilizations. ME1 and ME2 painted them as sentient machines before ME3 demoted them to "tools of the Starchild". Without the citadel and Starchild pulling the strings or indoctrinating them, the reapers could be freed

It would have been nice if Bioware went a route like this. But, anyway...

[Aquilas]

IanPolaris wrote...

XFeroxX wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

You forgot. The Aria's fleet. BLue Suns fleet, private military contractors ships. Eclipse, Blood pack. The Rachni. Cerberus deserters Citadel fleets deploy carriers. Which turn out to be very effective as well. batarians, the terminus systems. There are **** load of dreadnaughts sitll unaccounted for. Because reapers didn't attack the terminus systems in force, they jumped from batarian to citadel space. So that is another double size of your current estimates.

Even Doubling the amount of Dreadnoughts to 200, with the Reapers only having 20,000, thats still 1/10 the size, but with the amount of cruisers and the extra forces your talking about then yes itd help tons, but with those massive numbers you'd still expect massive casualties. I forgot to also mention Carriers, which are mentioned often in the game but the Turians have a few but they are an alliance specialty. All told, the fighters and frigates focusing on the destroyers and Oculi, leaving cruisers and dreadnoughts open to concentrate on Sovys and you've got a much less bleak situation unfloding than you might have otherwise

I don't buy that the Reapers have 20,000 Sovereign class ships though.  Even if I accept 1billion years, the 20,000 figure assumes that the Reapers find one suitable race to make a Sovereign class from, and that there have been no casualties during this time.  I think both propositions are highly dubvious.  For example, during the Prothean cycle, we know that the Prothean Empire had a primary race and many client races, but we KNOW that none of them were suitable (first posited by EDI in ME2 and later indirectly confirmed by Javik who wasn't familiar with Reaperfication despite his long experience fighting the Reapers in his cycle).

Not only that, but the Reapers don't behave like they have 20,000 Sovereign class Ships.  If they did, there would be no reason not to Zerg Rush the Citadel, Earth, Palaven, and then Thessia.  Get rid of those targets fast with overwhelming firepower and numbers and the galaxy is yours.  Didn't happen that way.  Why?  Apparently lack of numbers.  The Reapers are extremely sensitive to taking losses because even losing a Destroyer means losing an entire race and all it's knowledge.  If you have the overwhelming numbers you suggest, they should have Zerg rushed.  They didn't.

Conclusion:  They don't have to the numbers to avoid taking (for them) unacceptable losses.

Futhermore if you take a look at the graphics, you can get an idea of how many Reapers are about.  For example, when the Reapers concentrated in the Sol system to keep us away from the citadel, it's pretty easy to calculate out with just a couple of easy (symetrical) assumptions the total number of Sovereign class ships in the Sol system.  It works out to be about 600.  Since this is where the Reapers are strongest, 600 has to represent a significant chunk of their fleet.  There are other posts and threads that go into a lot more detail but the upshot is this:

The Reaper Capital Fleet (Sovereign class) probably numbers from 4-6 thousand or so.  That's still a huge number to defeat, but not impossible.

-Polaris 

Ermmm....assuming the Reapers concentrated the bulk of their forces and Zerg-rushed the key species' home worlds is no different than using the Catalyst's aeons-long timeline to compute Reaper numbers.  It's an assumption based on conjecture.  It's just as plausible the Reapers assessed the key species' miltary strength and dedicated sufficient forces to get the job done.  Economy of force is a time-honored military principle.  Big galaxy, don'tcha know.

What about the galaxy map just prior to the climactic battle for Earth?  I haven't counted the Reaper-controlled systems, but the map is pretty much covered.  If you cruise to one of those systems, you're chased by Reapers on-station.  Just because four Reapers chase the Normandy doesn't mean there are only four Reapers in the system.  Again, economy of force is pertinent.  How many Reaper ships would they commit to catching that pesky Normandy?

I'm one of the people who compute Reaper ship strength by using the Catalyst's aeons-long timeline, and I use the definition found in cosmology and astronomy: an aeon=one billion years.  The Catalyst says "aeons"--plural, as in more than one. Yep, I make an assumption.  And I acknowledge the Catalyst may be lying, but when you think about it, why would it need to?  When Sovereign says Reaper numbers will darken the skies of every world when they return, why would he lie?  Sovereign pooh-poohs the notion Shepard and the other organics pose any threat to the Reapers whatsoever.  Does Sovereign need to conduct psyops?  No.  He has aeons of experiential evidence to discount any organic challenge.

In the closing Arrival scene, Harbinger calls Shepard an annoyance.  Even given Shepard's successes, Harbinger has no reason at all to think organics in Shepard's cycle can overcome the Reaper hordes. 

I've seen other computational methodologies using the ME2 final scene and the "Take Back Earth" trailer.  I've used them myself, but only representationally.  What about Reapers outside the camera's field of view:  peripherally out of view, behind the camera, or simply out of the camera's range?  Counting Reapers in cutscenes seems more than a little unreliable.

Anyhow, given the evidence at hand I believe limiting total Reaper capital ships to 6,000 is optimistic at best, if not wishful thinking at worst.

Modifié par Aquilas, 28 juin 2012 - 08:20 .

[Qeylis]

So I guess you have all decided that they can't be defeated unless god kills them. Only god can stop the Reapers. Lame.

If god is the only one that can stop them, then Shepard was an idiot. Why would he fight something that only god can stop? He was not god! Star Child was god. Lame.

Personally, I don't like the idea of playing as the galaxies worst idiot for the last five years! This outcome is unacceptable, and stupid.

Could this invincible force be defeated? Of course. The conditions have to be right, but any invincible force can be defeated. Germanic tribes beat the Roman Empire. Greeks (Alexander) beat Persia. The World beat the technologically superior Germans and their allies. America beat the worlds greatest power, England (or Britain). Afghanistan beat the USSR. North Vietnam beat the USA.

The idea that you can't defeat a superior force is idiotic. Inferior forces have defeated superior ones many times. Their overconfidence could be a factor, I don't know, but it is stupid to think that we couldn't defeat the Reapers conventionally. We saw them defeated, with guns, many times. Sovereign ring any bells?

And Its a freaking story!!! Seriously people, get real! They could have said any freaking thing and it would have been true (except Star Child, so bad that we have to make up reasons for him to not exist.)

I've already mentioned reasons they could have used to make a conventional victory possible. Other people have mentioned other reasons. We are all right. Its a story, and in the end, if the writer decides that they can be beaten conventionally, they can. Nothing we debate here makes any difference. The lore supports a conventional victory. The necessity of a god to defeat them is wildly illogical.

Why am I playing as Shepard if god is the only one in the universe that can defeat the Reapers. Shouldn't I be playing as god?

Modifié par Qeylis, 28 juin 2012 - 07:04 .

[Psile_01]

Aquilas wrote...

Guys, the united species cannot beat the Reapers conventionally. They cannot. There are just too many Reapers, and their inherent technology, architecture, logistics, and organization surpass our resources, strategies, tactics, techniques, and procedures.

The Catalyst says its been running the Cycle for aeons. Could it be lying? Sure. But Shepard and company have discovered Reapers 10s of millions years old. It's more likely the Catalyst is right.

In cosmology and astronomy--academic disciplines certainly pertinent to ME--an aeon is a billion years. The Catalyst uses the plural "aeons." It may not be using our definition, true, but it is speaking to Shepard in terms Shepard can understand. So for the sake of my argument I'm going to use the definition found in astronomy and cosmology: an aeon=one billion years.

Let's say the Catalyst has been running the Cycle for only two aeons. That's plural. So that's two billion years. Two billion divided by 50K=40,000. That means there are at least 40K Sovereign-class Reapers: 40,000 (again, using my criteria). At least. Now factor in lower-class Reapers, plus their ground forces, and the allied races are hopelessly outmatched.

Reaper architecture, construction, and technology: many fans have noted how difficult it is to take down even one Reaper capital ship. Take down at least 40,000? Not doable.

Reaper logistics versus the allies' resources: the Reapers need no bases, no logistical lines of communication, no fuel, no food--they're completely self-sufficient. Even one of the security troops guarding the Normandy's war room notes this: she specifically asks how the allies can fight an enemy like that. The answer: they can't, conventionally.

Reaper organization, added to their architecture and logistics versus our strategies, tactics, techniques, and procedures: several fans have noted Sun Tzu's strategies and tactics: hit, run, be where the enemy is not; avoid direct, conventional, pitched battles with a numerically and militarily superior foe. Hackett says he'll use these methods--but he means he'll keep the forces-in-being viable enough to eventually deploy the Crucible. The Reapers aren't much on strategy or tactics; they just show up and start obliterating their foes.

So using Sun Tzu's methods sounds great, except for these factors: the Reapers are immortal, implacable, relentless. They have all the time in...all of time to complete the Cycle. They don't have to maintain political will and resolve; they don't have to worry about upcoming elections; they don't have to worry about maintaining popular support. All they have to do is complete the Cycle unimpeded by any external factors whatsoever.

But my argument here uses the writers' definition of conventional. Our armed forces also fight via unconventional means the writers could've used by stretching ME lore without breaking it, as they break it with Star-jar, Space Magic, and Synthesis.

The Codex mentions treaties covering biological warfare and cyber warfare. Have you ever read "The War of the Worlds" by H.G. Wells? The Martians fall to microbes--they contract illnesses and die. There are digital viruses as well. We know the Reapers are some form of synthetic-organic slurry hybrid. So given ME lore, could scientists develop a bio-cyber attack to fell the Reapers, or at least weaken them enough to be defeated using the writer's version of conventional warfare? I say yes.

But it's ordained only the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Crucible-Catalyst Hybrid Deity can present Shepard with the only options available to end the Cycle. So as long as the true gods of the ME universe--the writers--maintain their current plot the allies just can't beat the Reapers conventionally.

*Cut and pasted from a simliar thread.  I'm lazy*

Personally, I'm a fan of the hit and run tactics. It is true that conventionally hit and run tactics work on large, occupying armies because the armies typically lose resolve but they would actually be even more effective against the reapers because they do not reproduce. At all. Ever. Kill a reaper and that reaper is gone for good and there will never be one to replace it. Contrast that with the allied fleets. Granted, much of their production ability has been hampered, but there is no reason to think that they can't rebuild. Hell, they built the crucible there is no reason to think that they can't put together some factories that churn out war vessels. Also, the amazing advantage of the Geth is forgotten. Think of what can be accomplished with such an ally. The geth can run a production facility 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Add to that the fact that there is probably a way for them to pilot crafts remotely as just programs and you have strike forces that can engage reapers with very little risk. Take into the consideration the technology that allowed Shepard to enter the Geth server, and this advantage can be applied to all races. Remotely piloting dreadnaughts would be possible, and that would conserve the human resources.

Also you presume that the Reapers are some kind of master tacticians but no evidence has been presented to back this up. Their battle strategy so far seems to be attacking with vastly superior forces and technology and obliterating anything that moves. They have literally been fighting the exact same war for a billion years. Hell, it they had a much more difficult time when Shepard eliminated their main advantage in game 1 by keeping them from teleporting in via the citadel. In other words, they are good in a straight up fight but how effective are they against the tactics described? My guess is not very. It might take generations, but I think that the reapers could slowly be whittled down to nothing seeing as how it takes them 50,000 years to make a new one.

[Aquilas]

@ Psile_01

Please re-read my paragraph about Reaper strategy and tactics--we're in perfect agreement. The Reapers' "strategy and tactics" involve showing up in a system and methodically obliterating opposing forces. They don't really worry much--or at all, actually--about operational deception, feints, misdirection, etc. "Reapers smash!"

Regarding using Sun Tzu's strategy and tactics, I go back to the Reapers' inherent architecture and constitution, combined with their modus operandi. They're immortal, implacable, and relentless--they have all of eternity to complete the Cycle. They manufacture new troops with every planet they conquer, and by conquering those planets they systematically deny the allies refuge and resource replenishment. Basically, there isn't enough time or space to outrun the Reapers. Inevitably they'll outlast the allies and run them to ground.

Also, remember each Reaper capital ship can run kamikaze missions with virtual impunity, can crush an allied capital ship in its "tentacles," and one-shot kill a dreadnought with its death ray. That's just one Sovereign-class ship, and there are lots and lotsa them.

I'd love to have some kind of conventional option available, and the writers could've provided one, but the way the narrative goes now a conventional victory just isn't possible.

[eye basher]

Jagri wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

I believe it is, but you'd be looking at galactic grimdark for a few hundred years of geurilla tactics. Reapers can't replenish their numbers, allied forces can. This assumes that someone in the galaxy has a grasp of appropriate tactics for the situation.... unlike everyone involved in Priority: Earth.

Silence! When has long grueling guerrilla warfare ever let a inferior force defeat a superior force... Oh wait... But still nothing beats space magic!

You don't get it do you the reapers have no soldiers you are supplying them the soldiers they take your people and turn them against you if the reapers need supplys they take yours if the reapers need soldiers they take yours.

[dirty console peasant]

Yes; Suicide mission with all 12 squad mates surviving.

[Allan Schumacher]

Could this invincible force be defeated? Of course. The conditions have to be right, but any invincible force can be defeated. Germanic tribes beat the Roman Empire. Greeks (Alexander) beat Persia. The World beat the technologically superior Germans and their allies. America beat the worlds greatest power, England (or Britain). Afghanistan beat the USSR. North Vietnam beat the USA.

Have there been any recent occurrences of ants defeating human beings though? Particularly if those human beings have made it a goal to destroy the ants?

I don't think your analogies work because the level of technological superiority is not on the same level as the Reapers vs. society. (I actually disagree with some of the claims you have about who had technological superiority).

[Pelle6666]

Lets just pretend that the next cycle managed to defeat the reapers with conventional means if you go with the refusal option.

[nrcrane]

The writers wanted it to be impossible to win conventionally so they did just that. It's a work of fiction so they could have easily done otherwise, and I think it was a mistake that they didn't. A conventional means of victory would have had a much more satisfying and climatic ending then the reaper off switch that was given.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Could this invincible force be defeated? Of course. The conditions have to be right, but any invincible force can be defeated. Germanic tribes beat the Roman Empire. Greeks (Alexander) beat Persia. The World beat the technologically superior Germans and their allies. America beat the worlds greatest power, England (or Britain). Afghanistan beat the USSR. North Vietnam beat the USA.

Have there been any recent occurrences of ants defeating human beings though? Particularly if those human beings have made it a goal to destroy the ants?

I don't think your analogies work because the level of technological superiority is not on the same level as the Reapers vs. society. (I actually disagree with some of the claims you have about who had technological superiority).

Science Daily: Fire Ants Can Attack Humans In Homes Or Health Care Facilities.

The ants won.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 28 juin 2012 - 10:54 .

[nrcrane]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Could this invincible force be defeated? Of course. The conditions have to be right, but any invincible force can be defeated. Germanic tribes beat the Roman Empire. Greeks (Alexander) beat Persia. The World beat the technologically superior Germans and their allies. America beat the worlds greatest power, England (or Britain). Afghanistan beat the USSR. North Vietnam beat the USA.

Have there been any recent occurrences of ants defeating human beings though? Particularly if those human beings have made it a goal to destroy the ants?

I don't think your analogies work because the level of technological superiority is not on the same level as the Reapers vs. society. (I actually disagree with some of the claims you have about who had technological superiority).

Not sure if your analogy works either. Do ants have miniature rocket launchers to fight back, and various other weapons? Maybe one ant size rocket launcher wouldn't be enough but maybe a 1,000?

[Dragoonlordz]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Could this invincible force be defeated? Of course. The conditions have to be right, but any invincible force can be defeated. Germanic tribes beat the Roman Empire. Greeks (Alexander) beat Persia. The World beat the technologically superior Germans and their allies. America beat the worlds greatest power, England (or Britain). Afghanistan beat the USSR. North Vietnam beat the USA.

Have there been any recent occurrences of ants defeating human beings though? Particularly if those human beings have made it a goal to destroy the ants?

I don't think your analogies work because the level of technological superiority is not on the same level as the Reapers vs. society. (I actually disagree with some of the claims you have about who had technological superiority).

Ever seen the film Phase 5? If not might be worth checking out. I saw when I was a child and it was disturbing. It is based on normal ants and humanity destroying what it does not understand. The outcome is very, very surprising at the end of the film (imho) also very creepy.