531 réponses à ce sujet

[Rip504]

Zelto wrote...


Civillian casualties are irrelivent (Sorry). Its millitary losses that matter so the billions dead dont really come into it

yea,because the reapers are not killing our Military. Lol

Qeylis wrote...

Based on Assumption. Maybe destroying the Citadel would have no affect. Maybe the Reapers have a failsafe,as they did not need the Citadel until they found out we were going to use it to destroy them. If it held so much value,even after Sovereign's failed attempt,shouldn't  it have been their first target? Not every other single thing in the galaxy? Citadel is a running program,destroy it and destroy the option to change the Reaper's objectives. They just keep Reaping as they are programed to. They are individuals. They are not dependent upon the Citadel as proven in ME3.

M25105 wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

One dead Reaper. Billions of lives lost. Do the math. Conventional victory is a Joke.

They have Killed Billions and have taken multiple worlds in a short period of time. So a long war is a joke. They have killed Billions,we have killed what? If we are extremely lucky, maybe 10 Reapers.

So if they Have killed more then 10 billion people,which seems very plausible.That is 1 Reaper for every 1 billion dead. How is that in our favor? How is losing life at an alarming rate proof for conventional victory? It took the majority of our forces to board the Citadel,not retake Earth.

Earth is under Reaper control until the Crucible is fired,and by this time most of our forces have been lost. As hinted at in the EC. All of the life already lost,the countless ships we see blowing up etc.

What?It didn't take a billion lives lost to kill of Sovereign you know. In fact he would've been wasted quite fast if it wasn't for the Geth armada he brought with him. And the cut scene as the ships enters Earths system shows how the reapers take losses.

Wow you named one Reaper,whom killed more then one of our ships. Great Job. Geth Armada lol,now imagine a Reaper Armada,o wait it happens in ME3,and the Citadel is LOST. I also did not see dead Reapers at the begining of ME3,maybe I should go youtube it real quick. Or maybe you should.

www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par Rip504, 27 juin 2012 - 10:16 .

[Spartas Husky]

Well u cant blow the relay. Is not like is instantenous. They can all flee, while their primary source of their goal is gone. They aren't defeated, u just baked earth and thats it. not hard to escape a relay going nova unless your stuck groundside.

[Sharkey1337]

I would love to see a conventional win with an extraordinary high EMS score. Perhaps to make it more realistic for you naysayers, maybe they could destroy the Citadel, thus destroying the Catalyst (aka Reaper Collective Intelligence), weakening the Reapers for easier decimation. Obviously Shepard would die being on the Citadel, but it's a sacrificial choice I would make if my Shepard wanted to completely reject the Reapers by not making one of the 3 choices.

After rejecting the Catalyst, Shepard could contact Hackett and tell him to order all ships to fire on the Citadel. There's no reason why Shepard wouldn't be able to make the call as he was JUST talking to Hackett before talking to the Catalyst.

[Ridwan]

Rip504 wrote...

Zelto wrote...


Civillian casualties are irrelivent (Sorry). Its millitary losses that matter so the billions dead dont really come into it

yea,because the reapers are not killing our Military. Lol

Qeylis wrote...

Based on Assumption. Maybe destroying the Citadel would have no affect. Maybe the Reapers have a failsafe,as they did not need the Citadel until they found out we were going to use it to destroy them. If it held so much value,even after Sovereign's failed attempt,shouldn't  it have been their first target? Not every other single thing in the galaxy? Citadel is a running program,destroy it and destroy the option to change the Reaper's objectives. They just keep Reaping as they are programed to. They are individuals. They are not dependent upon the Citadel as proven in ME3.

M25105 wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

One dead Reaper. Billions of lives lost. Do the math. Conventional victory is a Joke.

They have Killed Billions and have taken multiple worlds in a short period of time. So a long war is a joke. They have killed Billions,we have killed what? If we are extremely lucky, maybe 10 Reapers.

So if they Have killed more then 10 billion people,which seems very plausible.That is 1 Reaper for every 1 billion dead. How is that in our favor? How is losing life at an alarming rate proof for conventional victory? It took the majority of our forces to board the Citadel,not retake Earth.

Earth is under Reaper control until the Crucible is fired,and by this time most of our forces have been lost. As hinted at in the EC. All of the life already lost,the countless ships we see blowing up etc.

What?It didn't take a billion lives lost to kill of Sovereign you know. In fact he would've been wasted quite fast if it wasn't for the Geth armada he brought with him. And the cut scene as the ships enters Earths system shows how the reapers take losses.

Wow you named one Reaper,whom killed more then one of our ships. Great Job. Geth Armada lol,now imagine a Reaper Armada,o wait it happens in ME3,and the Citadel is LOST. I also did not see dead Reapers at the begining of ME3,maybe I should go youtube it real quick. Or maybe you should.

www.youtube.com/watch

Yeah cause that cut scene when the fleet you mobilise entered Earths system totally didn't exist.

[chuckles471]

If they made it possible, no one in their right mind would pick the others IMO. "We can kill all the reapers and tell the catalyst to blow himself. Hell yeah."

And this is coming from someone who has only picked reject and liked the losing aspect . Better to die on your feet, than bent over a table for eternity.

[XXIceColdXX]

I think conventional victory should at least be possible .

Maybe not right now , but with future DLC I assume it will bring new war assets. Possibly powerful enough to give the Reapers a scare.

Then if a conventional victory was possible it would be awesome.

[Rip504]

M25105 wrote...

My mistake,I thought you were speaking of the opening scene. I have accounted for Reaper ships lost during the scene in question.

[Hyrist]

The answer several times is no.

The game says so on multiple occasions. Admeral Hacket must say it himself five time. Liara has said it. It is displayed heavily and talked about incessantly during the plot

But more to the point:

Even if the full might of the Galaxy could defeat the Reapers, the opportunity to do so would have been exhausted by the time you found out the options brought about by the use of the Crucible were unacceptable.  At that point, the Galaxy's forces are already committed to the use of the Crucible and have taken heavy casualities they normally would not have suffered had they not taken the gamble.

Additionally is also no way Shepard or anyone else could know of the flaws of the Crucible's function before this point.

- and even if there was some other way, and some knowledged learned that no, the Crucible would not work, the Reapers were advancing too
quickly at that point. The gamble was made at the beginning to commit to
the Crucible plan and stick to it. To suddenly shift gears from it
would require not an ending re-write, but a GAME rewrite, and that's not feasable at all.

But strictly on the topic of could the reapers be defeated conventionally. The answer of the characters involved in the war itself was a resounding "no." Anything else is irrelevant. Even if it was physically possible to do otherwise, eveysingle military power in the galaxy was intimidated to the point of paralyisis, they spent TWO GAMES on that point.

The Crucible was a despiration tactic because Galaxy was desperate, the intended impact of Refusal was that 'crap, we gambeled and now we can't go back on it without losing.'

Personally, those that favor Refusal, also favor refusing orders for their superiors. Worse, those who call call Synthasis  and favor Refusal are being Hypocritical while doing so. To be honest, none of the choices allow 'free will and freedom' for all contributers, but that's another discusion.

It is not possible within the game's context and the realistic outlook of the universe to defeat the Reapers Conventionally. If 100 hours of gameplay indicating this does not convince you, then you won't be convinced by a conversation on the forum either, as you decided to just turn a blind eye to a plot you diddn't agree with.

[Rip504]

chuckles471 wrote...

If they made it possible, no one in their right mind would pick the others IMO. "We can kill all the reapers and tell the catalyst to blow himself. Hell yeah."

And this is coming from someone who has only picked reject and liked the losing aspect . Better to die on your feet, than bent over a table for eternity.

I do not see destroy in this same light.

"The needs of the many,outweigh the needs of a few."

Modifié par Rip504, 27 juin 2012 - 10:27 .

[Auztin]

I will admit that it is possible because you do Mass Effect & Mass Effect 3 but the kicker is that it's like The Alamo they could have defeated them but just so many Reapers.You be overrunned eventually.It just fits.
I always go with Destroy.Get these mother****ing Reapers off my mother****ing planet.

Modifié par Auztinito, 27 juin 2012 - 10:32 .

[playoff52]

Hicks233 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.

 - Well... you bring all these forces together, and they're going to get anhilated so that we can use some thing and... noodles and then something will happen.. with lights and stuff... you get a lecture as well! Won't that be fun! With science and things! Fun! Science!

Someone please pay this man. This will forever be how I remember the endings.

[Helios969]

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.

Perhaps I haven't read enough of the lore (too lazy really) but I fail to understand why we cannot win "conventionally" (i.e. no crucible.)  Is Reaper-plating and kinetic barriers such that they can withstand a massive object accelerated at FTL speeds?  Do you know what kind of force would be unleashed by say a fist-sized object made from tungsten traveling at the speed of light?  Incredible, unreal.  (We need a math/physics person to calculate that.)  We can crash an asteroid going much slower into a mass relay (supposedly indestructable) and destroy it, but not a Soveriegn-class Reaper.  Apparently also impervious to nuclear detonations, yet if you shoot one repeatedly in the firing chamber (ala Independence Day) they go down.

Apparently by conventional, the writers meant charging straight in with guns blazing, in which case, yeah, pretty stupid if the Krogan are setting the strategy.

I most certainly would have made conventional victory possible (maybe hire some military tacticians to think outside the box) perhaps sacrificing Earth along with a couple other systems to accomplish the mission a requirement.  I think Alliance brass would approve the go ahead if it meant eliminating the Reaper threat.

Modifié par Helios969, 27 juin 2012 - 10:37 .

[Zelto]

Hyrist wrote...

The answer several times is no.

The game says so on multiple occasions. Admeral Hacket must say it himself five time. Liara has said it. It is displayed heavily and talked about incessantly during the plot

But more to the point:

Even if the full might of the Galaxy could defeat the Reapers, the opportunity to do so would have been exhausted by the time you found out the options brought about by the use of the Crucible were unacceptable.  At that point, the Galaxy's forces are already committed to the use of the Crucible and have taken heavy casualities they normally would not have suffered had they not taken the gamble.

Additionally is also no way Shepard or anyone else could know of the flaws of the Crucible's function before this point.

- and even if there was some other way, and some knowledged learned that no, the Crucible would not work, the Reapers were advancing too
quickly at that point. The gamble was made at the beginning to commit to
the Crucible plan and stick to it. To suddenly shift gears from it
would require not an ending re-write, but a GAME rewrite, and that's not feasable at all.

But strictly on the topic of could the reapers be defeated conventionally. The answer of the characters involved in the war itself was a resounding "no." Anything else is irrelevant. Even if it was physically possible to do otherwise, eveysingle military power in the galaxy was intimidated to the point of paralyisis, they spent TWO GAMES on that point.

The Crucible was a despiration tactic because Galaxy was desperate, the intended impact of Refusal was that 'crap, we gambeled and now we can't go back on it without losing.'

Personally, those that favor Refusal, also favor refusing orders for their superiors. Worse, those who call call Synthasis  and favor Refusal are being Hypocritical while doing so. To be honest, none of the choices allow 'free will and freedom' for all contributers, but that's another discusion.

It is not possible within the game's context and the realistic outlook of the universe to defeat the Reapers Conventionally. If 100 hours of gameplay indicating this does not convince you, then you won't be convinced by a conversation on the forum either, as you decided to just turn a blind eye to a plot you diddn't agree with.

Personally I would suggest that it is only the game play within ME 3 that suggest it. And I personally think they the reapers numbers where inflated in ME 3 to make that possible.

Vigil say's it took the reapers years to wipe out the protheian planets and centuries before they completed the harvesting and retreated. Yet in ME 3 it took them months, sorry but personnally that doesnt add up. Either they were taking it easy before or there is suggenly a lot lot more reapers than in just one cycle previously

[flanny]

yes, the reapers have never had to face a cycle that's had such an opportunity to study their technology.

The thanix cannon for instance is more than capable of taking on the reaper destroyers, it would only be a matter of destroying the sovereign class ships. easier said than done i know but it's certainly a possibility

[Karolus_V]

Zelto wrote...

Hyrist wrote...

The answer several times is no.

The game says so on multiple occasions. Admeral Hacket must say it himself five time. Liara has said it. It is displayed heavily and talked about incessantly during the plot

But more to the point:

Even if the full might of the Galaxy could defeat the Reapers, the opportunity to do so would have been exhausted by the time you found out the options brought about by the use of the Crucible were unacceptable.  At that point, the Galaxy's forces are already committed to the use of the Crucible and have taken heavy casualities they normally would not have suffered had they not taken the gamble.

Additionally is also no way Shepard or anyone else could know of the flaws of the Crucible's function before this point.

- and even if there was some other way, and some knowledged learned that no, the Crucible would not work, the Reapers were advancing too
quickly at that point. The gamble was made at the beginning to commit to
the Crucible plan and stick to it. To suddenly shift gears from it
would require not an ending re-write, but a GAME rewrite, and that's not feasable at all.

But strictly on the topic of could the reapers be defeated conventionally. The answer of the characters involved in the war itself was a resounding "no." Anything else is irrelevant. Even if it was physically possible to do otherwise, eveysingle military power in the galaxy was intimidated to the point of paralyisis, they spent TWO GAMES on that point.

The Crucible was a despiration tactic because Galaxy was desperate, the intended impact of Refusal was that 'crap, we gambeled and now we can't go back on it without losing.'

Personally, those that favor Refusal, also favor refusing orders for their superiors. Worse, those who call call Synthasis  and favor Refusal are being Hypocritical while doing so. To be honest, none of the choices allow 'free will and freedom' for all contributers, but that's another discusion.

It is not possible within the game's context and the realistic outlook of the universe to defeat the Reapers Conventionally. If 100 hours of gameplay indicating this does not convince you, then you won't be convinced by a conversation on the forum either, as you decided to just turn a blind eye to a plot you diddn't agree with.

Personally I would suggest that it is only the game play within ME 3 that suggest it. And I personally think they the reapers numbers where inflated in ME 3 to make that possible.

Vigil say's it took the reapers years to wipe out the protheian planets and centuries before they completed the harvesting and retreated. Yet in ME 3 it took them months, sorry but personnally that doesnt add up. Either they were taking it easy before or there is suggenly a lot lot more reapers than in just one cycle previously

I think the Reapers were doing the safe route with the protheans, for various reasons:

1/The Protheans were more advanced than our cycle, so more casualties to be expected if not careful.

2/The relays were disconnected, so the Reapers have massive strategic superiority, so they can concentrate forces to decimate even strongholds, without near any loss,negating near all Prothean power.In our cycle this didnt happened thanks to the Protheans.

3/The Reapers entered the galaxy through the citadel, destroying in the process the galactic government. In our cycle this didnt happen, so they have to hurry and spread out, to ensure the different races are occupied in their own planets.

4/The Reapers in our cycle were late, they were going to be harvesting sooner, but for various reasons they couldn't (Prothean sabotage of the keepers, the end of Rachni wars, destroying sovereign). They are machines failing their timetables.

[Fweeba]

Let's do some quick calculations.
Reapers say they've been harvesting for aeons, let's use an estimate of a billion years. Assuming one cycle per 50,000 years, and one reaper sovereign class per cycle, that comes out to 20,000 ships.
Assuming half have been destroyed by random events over the aeons, that's 10,000 capital ships. Not including the destroyers. And it takes a hell of a lot of firepower to destroy even ONE of those.

And this is using some estimates on the low end. I doubt half of the reapers have been destroyed, so it's probably closer to 15,000, and didn't they say one reaper per RACE? Not cycle. So probably more than one reaper capital per cycle, closer to five or six. So using incredibly low end estimates, we still get a number of reaper's that could smash the galaxy.

No, I don't think conventional victory is possible.

[Creighton72]

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.

Is conventional victory acceptable? Of course it is, but in this case it's a story and the victory or lose is going to be whatever the author or authors say it is. Would it be realistic? That question is pretty easy to answer. Of course it is if the author writes it that way. In a universe that bends physics over the whipping table and features space magic, your pretty much given umlimted options. In a universe where a person can kill an enemy buy punching through his kenetic barrier that is capable of stopping hand held rail gun rounds anything is possible. Realism is kind of out the door, while it has some realistic aspects. Given the limited startagies used in the game and lack of actual combat expertiese displayed by it's leaders, of course your going to lose.  Nobody seems to have a clue how to fight or plan a battle. You have stealth capable ships but you only make one, none of the enemies has demontrated anything close to the power of a conventional nuke. Wow a Reaper can cut a building in half. You ever seen what a Nuke does to a city?

Basically the author used the theme of no matter what you hit the enemy with it just won't work. They didn't really give you reasons for this other than they are very powerful. They are plot armored, so of course you can't win. However if the author said well they have a few weaknesses, then you can win. In this case the author just says no. If you were just going by what has been displayed in the game, weather it was for dramatic effect or part of the story, then yeah you should be able to beat them. Gorilla tactics would clearly seem like the best option, WMD suicide bombers, etc. Come on in a universe that features space magic anything is really possible. Heck just draw in as many reapers as you can to one area and blow the relay. Your going ot have a lot of dead reapers. Take your ships that have FTL drives, aim them at the reapers and punch it. Do you know how much mass an object has when approaching light speed? It would be like hitting a reaper with a planet. But the author chose not to use that kind of stuff, and the good guys tend to be idiots when it comes to tactics. So you have a plot armored enemy and stupid heroes. Authors choice.

Modifié par Creighton72, 27 juin 2012 - 10:58 .

[Dessalines]

To think this is to think you know better than every character that was designed in the game to tell you what is happening in the game.... Think about that for a moment. It is like thinking that Krogan's don't need Mordin to do a cure, they just need to believe in good thoughts.
Conventional means is not even possible. It would make the entire threat of the Reapers pathetic. Basically, what you are saying that throughout time that no civlization had enough fire power, or enough unified diveristy to destroy the Reapers until our time. It is silly.

[Broham]

According to the lore established in ME1; no a conventional victory would not be possible.

Think about it, in ME1 it is discovered a sentient machine race (named "reapers" by the protheans) wipes out advanced galactic civilizations roughly every 50,000 years. It is a difficult concept to believe and accept. If it were believable, no one could hope to understand why this event would even occur. But it did occur countless times every 50,000 years. No one, no race, no past civilization has ever been able to stop it. Slow it maybe, but clues in ME1 show it was always an inevitability.

By the end of ME1, we see ONE reaper rip through some of the galaxy's fighting force. Sure, the forces were unprepared. Sure, a united galaxy may offer better resistance. The fact remains, if the reapers start a full-scale harvest, that cycle is through. That is the fact we are given in ME1 and throughout ME2... unless some "unconventional" means of fighting back or "intervention" were to occur it is game over.

From the beginning, the ME series was a fight against the inevitable.

[JKA_Nozyspy]

MrRag wrote...

Anything would be better than a deus ex machina ending, even an unrealistic ending. The Crucible should have been a weapon against the Reapers, not a space magic machine. The Catalyst should have been an object, some sort of power source. It was all good until the starchild showed up.

I agree with you 100%

[Qeylis]

JKA_Nozyspy wrote...

MrRag wrote...

Anything would be better than a deus ex machina ending, even an unrealistic ending. The Crucible should have been a weapon against the Reapers, not a space magic machine. The Catalyst should have been an object, some sort of power source. It was all good until the starchild showed up.

I agree with you 100%

This

[Fdmatt]

Hell even if it meant blowing up the Relays in all the major systems. Sure the species' loose their homeworlds but then it's the combined force of the pissed off galaxy versus what scattered Reaper forces remain.

[Parker Stephenson]

it could've been possible but not advised. true either way is a gamble: go for the crucible or guerilla tactic the hell out of the reapers. only problem with that is the ground forces you have to fight. had they gone guerilla on the reapers every person dead (any race) gives the reapers another soldier to fight. Only way to avoid this is to burn the bodies of the dead (which was never seen in ME) then comes the fact that reapers would destroy all food and ammunition sources (as most smart tacticians would go for). starving an enemy is genius and after running out of ammo what do you use? rocks? conventional strategy had a less percent chance of success then the already less then percentage chance that the crucible working had. So the answer your seeking is you'd probably end up dead faster on conventional then with going all in on the crucible idea

[nikola8]

It is impossible. I'm now doing another ME3 playthrough and there are already a few times early in the game where they say that the Crucible is the "only way" to defeat the Reapers and that conventional warfare is impossible. Additional proof can be found in the fact that the Reapers can use indoctrination and also can turn local populations into husks/cannibals/marauders/banshees/etc. to continually replenish their on-foot ranks. Considering the fact that Reapers can wage a cycle's extermination over hundreds of years, they can use attrition to beat the civilizations of the galaxy. If they ever truly felt threatened, they could always retreat for a few decades, wait for Shepard (who has their attention) to die naturally, and then attack again. The Crucible is really the only way to beat them.

[Fdmatt]

They say the Crucible is the only way to defeat the Reapers yet right until they deliver the goddamned thing they don't even know what it does! Kasumi says so.

I can't wrap my head around the sheer lunacy of that!