419 réponses à ce sujet

[Jadebaby]

Oransel wrote...

Also, I'd like to point out that "realistic" card has been thrown away long long time ago. Conventional victory sounds like impossible, but it is not as impossible as Control, Destroy or Synthesis (aka ) are, yet you assume they can happen.

QFT

[Biotic Sage]

I don't understand on why people insist that "conventional" victory should be possible over the Reapers. This is a cycle that has gone on for millions of years, played out in thousands of different ways, but all to the same end. Civilizations always fight back, some I'm sure better than others (some I'm sure even better than we did; think about that huge mass effect cannon that ripped a canyon in that planet!), but all of them lose. Bioware set the parameters: the Reapers are an overwhelming, apocalyptic force. Those were the parameters since Mass Effect 1. Those have ALWAYS been the parameters. There was never any indication that the parameters were anything other than that through all three games.  Yet people still rationalize that, "Hey, maybe if we just had 2 more ships, 100 more ships, 100000 more ships, then we COULD beat them in battle!"  No.  We cannot.  That is the whole point of the Reapers.  If you can beat them in battle, then they aren't Reapers anymore.  That's not the concept Bioware came up with.

If you still can't accept these parameters then I'm really at a loss (as I'm sure Bioware is as well).

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 28 juin 2012 - 08:55 .

[IanPolaris]

OblivionDawn wrote...

Also, when the Admiral of your entire fleet says that you can't win conventionally then...

Hackett saying that you can't win is reason enough to believe it.

The problem is that Hackett isn't any smarter or more competant in military matters than the people who write him, and many of them have shown...shall we say....less than stellar familiarity with the existing lore or military sci-fi (not to mention military tactics) in general....?

-Polaris

[TK EL_]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It's one thing to feel that a conventional victory is possible. Unlocking it due to heavy multiplayer use is something that I don't think I'd be able to get behind.

I think it's safe to say that the fans have spoken on how they feel about the multiplayer experience affecting their single player game.

And yet, they purposefully made it so you could not reach 4000 EMS without MP or the other external add-ons. Isn't that hypocrisy? Not that I'm in the opinion of a conventional victory anyway

[Warrior Craess]

IanPolaris wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Oransel wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

The foundations of this were set in the timeline between ME2 and ME 3.

Here is where the problems begin. ME3 plot with Crucible does not belong to the lore. That is the route of all problems, tbh.

Exactly.  Up to the point where the crucible was introduced, the game was clearly stearing us to the idea that the Reapers could be beaten on our terms (i.e. 'conventionally') but only if everyone got their act together and only at horrific cost to themselves and the galaxy as a whole.

However, somewhere along the line the idea that the Reapers were extremely powerful but beatable got morphed into the idea that they were invincible, and the entire plot of Mass Effect essentially fell to pieces.  Pro-Tip about introducing invincible enemies:

Don't do it.

-Polaris

Again I have to point out that ME2 laid the ground work for a conventional war being a losing proposition. You do not win against an enemy by denying said enemies very existance.  Remind me again why shepard is ok with working with Cerberus?  For ME3 to have any chance of a conventional war, then Arrival would have had to happen several years after ME2 and it didn't.  (in fact you can complete it before you do anything else in ME2 -so the time line is just a tad bit short).  not to mention that all races in the galaxy would have had to believe and start preparing for the reapers.  It's not ME3's fault that conventional warfare is a no-go. 

Going by the lore, we should have had 7 years after ME1 to prepare if not a bit more, not three.

-Polaris

how are you gettin 7 years?  lets see a few months after ME1 shepard dies,  a bit later laira finds your body and turns it over to Cerberus, 2 years later ME2 occurs. 6 months after Arrival is ME3.... so unless arrival takes place roughly 4 years after the end of ME2 it's a bit more than 3 from ME1 conclusion to ME3 beginning. 

[IanPolaris]

Biotic Sage wrote...

I don't understand on why people insist that "conventional" victory should be possible over the Reapers. This is a cycle that has gone on for millions of years, played out in thousands of different ways, but all to the same end. Civilizations always fight back, some I'm sure better than others (some I'm sure even better than we did; think about that huge mass effect cannon that ripped a canyon in that planet!), but all of them lose. Bioware set the parameters: the Reapers are an overwhelming, apocalyptic force. Those were the parameters since Mass Effect 1. Those have ALWAYS been the parameters. There was never any indication that the parameters were anything other than that through all three games. If you still can't accept it then I'm really at a loss (as I'm sure Bioware is as well).

Because it was heavily implied all the way through arrival (ME2) that the Reapers while awesomely powerful weren't invincible and weren't unstoppable.  That didn't change until the start of ME3 and the Crucible.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Warrior Craess wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Oransel wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

The foundations of this were set in the timeline between ME2 and ME 3.

Here is where the problems begin. ME3 plot with Crucible does not belong to the lore. That is the route of all problems, tbh.

Exactly.  Up to the point where the crucible was introduced, the game was clearly stearing us to the idea that the Reapers could be beaten on our terms (i.e. 'conventionally') but only if everyone got their act together and only at horrific cost to themselves and the galaxy as a whole.

However, somewhere along the line the idea that the Reapers were extremely powerful but beatable got morphed into the idea that they were invincible, and the entire plot of Mass Effect essentially fell to pieces.  Pro-Tip about introducing invincible enemies:

Don't do it.

-Polaris

Again I have to point out that ME2 laid the ground work for a conventional war being a losing proposition. You do not win against an enemy by denying said enemies very existance.  Remind me again why shepard is ok with working with Cerberus?  For ME3 to have any chance of a conventional war, then Arrival would have had to happen several years after ME2 and it didn't.  (in fact you can complete it before you do anything else in ME2 -so the time line is just a tad bit short).  not to mention that all races in the galaxy would have had to believe and start preparing for the reapers.  It's not ME3's fault that conventional warfare is a no-go. 

Going by the lore, we should have had 7 years after ME1 to prepare if not a bit more, not three.

-Polaris

how are you gettin 7 years?  lets see a few months after ME1 shepard dies,  a bit later laira finds your body and turns it over to Cerberus, 2 years later ME2 occurs. 6 months after Arrival is ME3.... so unless arrival takes place roughly 4 years after the end of ME2 it's a bit more than 3 from ME1 conclusion to ME3 beginning. 

The Reapers had to get to our galaxy from Dark Space.  That should have given the Galaxy at least 7 years not three even with Reaper FTL.

-Polaris

[dreman9999]

IanPolaris wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

I don't understand on why people insist that "conventional" victory should be possible over the Reapers. This is a cycle that has gone on for millions of years, played out in thousands of different ways, but all to the same end. Civilizations always fight back, some I'm sure better than others (some I'm sure even better than we did; think about that huge mass effect cannon that ripped a canyon in that planet!), but all of them lose. Bioware set the parameters: the Reapers are an overwhelming, apocalyptic force. Those were the parameters since Mass Effect 1. Those have ALWAYS been the parameters. There was never any indication that the parameters were anything other than that through all three games. If you still can't accept it then I'm really at a loss (as I'm sure Bioware is as well).

Because it was heavily implied all the way through arrival (ME2) that the Reapers while awesomely powerful weren't invincible and weren't unstoppable.  That didn't change until the start of ME3 and the Crucible.

-Polaris

That was to imply that they had a fatal weakness. The crucible was it. That does not mean they are beat able via conventional means.

[IanPolaris]

TK EL wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It's one thing to feel that a conventional victory is possible. Unlocking it due to heavy multiplayer use is something that I don't think I'd be able to get behind.

I think it's safe to say that the fans have spoken on how they feel about the multiplayer experience affecting their single player game.

And yet, they purposefully made it so you could not reach 4000 EMS without MP or the other external add-ons. Isn't that hypocrisy? Not that I'm in the opinion of a conventional victory anyway

Not only that but after promising that exactly this thing wouldn't be done?  I think THAT is why fans are irate about using MP to get needed EMS and IMHO rightfully so.  Pro-tip:  Change the Asset Values.

-Polaris

[UFGSpot]

Biotic Sage wrote...

I don't understand on why people insist that "conventional" victory should be possible over the Reapers. This is a cycle that has gone on for millions of years, played out in thousands of different ways, but all to the same end. Civilizations always fight back, some I'm sure better than others (some I'm sure even better than we did; think about that huge mass effect cannon that ripped a canyon in that planet!), but all of them lose. Bioware set the parameters: the Reapers are an overwhelming, apocalyptic force. Those were the parameters since Mass Effect 1. Those have ALWAYS been the parameters. There was never any indication that the parameters were anything other than that through all three games. If you still can't accept it then I'm really at a loss (as I'm sure Bioware is as well).

This. People complain the Crucible was a Deus Ex Machina (yes it was) and it still would be if it made us able to win in a straight up fight.

And the cycles have repeated for BILLIONS of years. You said what I was trying to get across. Cycles have fought back before. They've managed to kill a few Reapers. But that all inevitably lost. Killing Sovreign and saying that's proof we could win is silly for example. Go look at the Derelect Reaper. Someone killed it, and they are dead and gone. They lost.

[Biotic Sage]

IanPolaris wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

I don't understand on why people insist that "conventional" victory should be possible over the Reapers. This is a cycle that has gone on for millions of years, played out in thousands of different ways, but all to the same end. Civilizations always fight back, some I'm sure better than others (some I'm sure even better than we did; think about that huge mass effect cannon that ripped a canyon in that planet!), but all of them lose. Bioware set the parameters: the Reapers are an overwhelming, apocalyptic force. Those were the parameters since Mass Effect 1. Those have ALWAYS been the parameters. There was never any indication that the parameters were anything other than that through all three games. If you still can't accept it then I'm really at a loss (as I'm sure Bioware is as well).

Because it was heavily implied all the way through arrival (ME2) that the Reapers while awesomely powerful weren't invincible and weren't unstoppable.  That didn't change until the start of ME3 and the Crucible.

-Polaris

Yes, they aren't unstoppable.  Just like Sovereign wasn't unstoppable, or the one on Rannoch.  You can beat them individually.  The entire Reaper fleet though, it's a gods and titans kind of thing.  It's an unstoppable force.  That's the entire concept of the Reapers.  It severely undermines the entire concept of the Reapers if we can just get a few more ships and then suddenly be able to beat them in combat.  Thank god Bioware didn't listen to the fans to THAT extent because that would have made the entire trilogy and the "ominous threat" of the Reapers laughable.

[JPVS]

IanPolaris wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

Also, when the Admiral of your entire fleet says that you can't win conventionally then...

Hackett saying that you can't win is reason enough to believe it.

The problem is that Hackett isn't any smarter or more competant in military matters than the people who write him, and many of them have shown...shall we say....less than stellar familiarity with the existing lore or military sci-fi (not to mention military tactics) in general....?

-Polaris

True, but I'm sure any one can run numbers. Even if each dreadnaugh had thanix cannons, it would still take 2 dreadnaughts to bring down 1 Reaper capitol ship. Now you have hundreds of those Reapers to face but less than 50 dreadnaughts. And even with the cruisers (like I previously said, 5  cruisers = 1 dreadnaught, no? More than that then dreadnaughts would have been pointless) armed with thanix, you'd still need 4 to 5 thousand of them.
Plus, each Reaper can run a dreadnaught or a cruiser, destroying them without taking damage.

It is mathematically impossible without a trumph card like the Crucible.

[dreman9999]

IanPolaris wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Oransel wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

The foundations of this were set in the timeline between ME2 and ME 3.

Here is where the problems begin. ME3 plot with Crucible does not belong to the lore. That is the route of all problems, tbh.

Exactly.  Up to the point where the crucible was introduced, the game was clearly stearing us to the idea that the Reapers could be beaten on our terms (i.e. 'conventionally') but only if everyone got their act together and only at horrific cost to themselves and the galaxy as a whole.

However, somewhere along the line the idea that the Reapers were extremely powerful but beatable got morphed into the idea that they were invincible, and the entire plot of Mass Effect essentially fell to pieces.  Pro-Tip about introducing invincible enemies:

Don't do it.

-Polaris

Again I have to point out that ME2 laid the ground work for a conventional war being a losing proposition. You do not win against an enemy by denying said enemies very existance.  Remind me again why shepard is ok with working with Cerberus?  For ME3 to have any chance of a conventional war, then Arrival would have had to happen several years after ME2 and it didn't.  (in fact you can complete it before you do anything else in ME2 -so the time line is just a tad bit short).  not to mention that all races in the galaxy would have had to believe and start preparing for the reapers.  It's not ME3's fault that conventional warfare is a no-go. 

Going by the lore, we should have had 7 years after ME1 to prepare if not a bit more, not three.

-Polaris

how are you gettin 7 years?  lets see a few months after ME1 shepard dies,  a bit later laira finds your body and turns it over to Cerberus, 2 years later ME2 occurs. 6 months after Arrival is ME3.... so unless arrival takes place roughly 4 years after the end of ME2 it's a bit more than 3 from ME1 conclusion to ME3 beginning. 

The Reapers had to get to our galaxy from Dark Space.  That should have given the Galaxy at least 7 years not three even with Reaper FTL.

-Polaris

So,  you with no detail for how far they are in dark space can tell us how long it should take?

[IanPolaris]

dreman9999 wrote...
That was to imply that they had a fatal weakness. The crucible was it. That does not mean they are beat able via conventional means.

Not really.  The only hint about something like that happened at Lair of the Shadowbroker when Liara mentions the old Shadowbroker thought there might be other ways to fight and survive the reapers.  Nothing about a DEM or 'hidden off switch' (and indeed IIRC we were promised that ME3 would not have such a thing.....which seems rather odd in hindsight).

Nah, the Crucible and the necessity of making the Reapers invincible was pure ME3.

-Polaris

[Warrior Craess]

LPKerberos wrote...


The races have armys on their own, even before the reaper thread. And as soon as the first hit came, they would potentially support them with every bullet they have. Even if they never believed the Reaper thread, they still found technology on Sovereign to be potentially usefull in combat, and they converted it to guns (I.g Thanix cannons.).

I hate people simply assume that "The Council played poker for 3 years.". They have researched the wreckage of Sovereign and found some pretty usefull stuff. Not the W.I.N - Button, but stuff that could give them a little edge.

did you play the games? did you listen to anything the council said? not once was it even implied that they believed in the reaper threat. 

Only the turians made anything useful, they created the thanix cannon. It's possible that some private corporation stole some of the reaper tech and devloped something. Sadly no corporation has the financial weight of a government. only so much can be done if the funding is limited. 

[dreman9999]

UFGSpot wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

I don't understand on why people insist that "conventional" victory should be possible over the Reapers. This is a cycle that has gone on for millions of years, played out in thousands of different ways, but all to the same end. Civilizations always fight back, some I'm sure better than others (some I'm sure even better than we did; think about that huge mass effect cannon that ripped a canyon in that planet!), but all of them lose. Bioware set the parameters: the Reapers are an overwhelming, apocalyptic force. Those were the parameters since Mass Effect 1. Those have ALWAYS been the parameters. There was never any indication that the parameters were anything other than that through all three games. If you still can't accept it then I'm really at a loss (as I'm sure Bioware is as well).

This. People complain the Crucible was a Deus Ex Machina (yes it was) and it still would be if it made us able to win in a straight up fight.

And the cycles have repeated for BILLIONS of years. You said what I was trying to get across. Cycles have fought back before. They've managed to kill a few Reapers. But that all inevitably lost. Killing Sovreign and saying that's proof we could win is silly for example. Go look at the Derelect Reaper. Someone killed it, and they are dead and gone. They lost.

Deus ex machina are things that come in the last second with no explination and solves everything. That's not what the crucible is.

[Biotic Sage]

UFGSpot wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

I don't understand on why people insist that "conventional" victory should be possible over the Reapers. This is a cycle that has gone on for millions of years, played out in thousands of different ways, but all to the same end. Civilizations always fight back, some I'm sure better than others (some I'm sure even better than we did; think about that huge mass effect cannon that ripped a canyon in that planet!), but all of them lose. Bioware set the parameters: the Reapers are an overwhelming, apocalyptic force. Those were the parameters since Mass Effect 1. Those have ALWAYS been the parameters. There was never any indication that the parameters were anything other than that through all three games. If you still can't accept it then I'm really at a loss (as I'm sure Bioware is as well).

This. People complain the Crucible was a Deus Ex Machina (yes it was) and it still would be if it made us able to win in a straight up fight.

And the cycles have repeated for BILLIONS of years. You said what I was trying to get across. Cycles have fought back before. They've managed to kill a few Reapers. But that all inevitably lost. Killing Sovreign and saying that's proof we could win is silly for example. Go look at the Derelect Reaper. Someone killed it, and they are dead and gone. They lost.

I don't really think that the Crucible was a deus ex machina because the Protheans are readily available evidence that with each cycle, life as a whole IS progressing toward finding a way to defeat the Reapers.  The Protheans passed on that progression, and the Crucible is a physical manifestation of that progression coming to fruition.  It is a symbol of unity, cooperation, and cosmopolitanism.

[IanPolaris]

UFGSpot wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

I don't understand on why people insist that "conventional" victory should be possible over the Reapers. This is a cycle that has gone on for millions of years, played out in thousands of different ways, but all to the same end. Civilizations always fight back, some I'm sure better than others (some I'm sure even better than we did; think about that huge mass effect cannon that ripped a canyon in that planet!), but all of them lose. Bioware set the parameters: the Reapers are an overwhelming, apocalyptic force. Those were the parameters since Mass Effect 1. Those have ALWAYS been the parameters. There was never any indication that the parameters were anything other than that through all three games. If you still can't accept it then I'm really at a loss (as I'm sure Bioware is as well).

This. People complain the Crucible was a Deus Ex Machina (yes it was) and it still would be if it made us able to win in a straight up fight.

And the cycles have repeated for BILLIONS of years. You said what I was trying to get across. Cycles have fought back before. They've managed to kill a few Reapers. But that all inevitably lost. Killing Sovreign and saying that's proof we could win is silly for example. Go look at the Derelect Reaper. Someone killed it, and they are dead and gone. They lost.

We are also told that this cycle is unique.  For starts, this cycle was able to retain it's C3I and actually organize a galaxy-wide resistance.  Apparently that's never happned before.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

dreman9999 wrote...

UFGSpot wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

I don't understand on why people insist that "conventional" victory should be possible over the Reapers. This is a cycle that has gone on for millions of years, played out in thousands of different ways, but all to the same end. Civilizations always fight back, some I'm sure better than others (some I'm sure even better than we did; think about that huge mass effect cannon that ripped a canyon in that planet!), but all of them lose. Bioware set the parameters: the Reapers are an overwhelming, apocalyptic force. Those were the parameters since Mass Effect 1. Those have ALWAYS been the parameters. There was never any indication that the parameters were anything other than that through all three games. If you still can't accept it then I'm really at a loss (as I'm sure Bioware is as well).

This. People complain the Crucible was a Deus Ex Machina (yes it was) and it still would be if it made us able to win in a straight up fight.

And the cycles have repeated for BILLIONS of years. You said what I was trying to get across. Cycles have fought back before. They've managed to kill a few Reapers. But that all inevitably lost. Killing Sovreign and saying that's proof we could win is silly for example. Go look at the Derelect Reaper. Someone killed it, and they are dead and gone. They lost.

Deus ex machina are things that come in the last second with no explination and solves everything. That's not what the crucible is.

However, the Starchild is a DEM.

-Polaris

[Oransel]

After reading this thread, I've understood how messed up ME3 plot is... Looks like I'll go with Refusal Ending, abort it after Shepard speech and then I'll go with a slides from Destroy.

[UFGSpot]

IanPolaris wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

Also, when the Admiral of your entire fleet says that you can't win conventionally then...

Hackett saying that you can't win is reason enough to believe it.

The problem is that Hackett isn't any smarter or more competant in military matters than the people who write him, and many of them have shown...shall we say....less than stellar familiarity with the existing lore or military sci-fi (not to mention military tactics) in general....?

-Polaris

And as someone who is very familiar with the lore I can promise you there's nothing in it that suggests a straight up, long term sustained fight is remotely winnable. A fight here or there? A holding action? Yes. But not a sustained war of attrition. Expecially when aside from the insanely powerful capital ships you have to deal with, on the ground your dead/captured people are being converted into a never ending supply of ground forces. At some point your support infrastructure is going to cave in on itself.

[BCMakoto]

IanPolaris wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

I don't understand on why people insist that "conventional" victory should be possible over the Reapers. This is a cycle that has gone on for millions of years, played out in thousands of different ways, but all to the same end. Civilizations always fight back, some I'm sure better than others (some I'm sure even better than we did; think about that huge mass effect cannon that ripped a canyon in that planet!), but all of them lose. Bioware set the parameters: the Reapers are an overwhelming, apocalyptic force. Those were the parameters since Mass Effect 1. Those have ALWAYS been the parameters. There was never any indication that the parameters were anything other than that through all three games. If you still can't accept it then I'm really at a loss (as I'm sure Bioware is as well).

Because it was heavily implied all the way through arrival (ME2) that the Reapers while awesomely powerful weren't invincible and weren't unstoppable.  That didn't change until the start of ME3 and the Crucible.

-Polaris

This.

It is like Bioware saw some kind of movie and desperatly wanted to add the Crucible. I would not in the least be concerned about not having a conventionall victory, if it was not implied two games long. Two games, we did not know that there is such a "Weapon" out there.

"Guys, I just accidently found this super device that can turn Reapers dead.".

[Allan Schumacher]

TK EL wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It's one thing to feel that a conventional victory is possible. Unlocking it due to heavy multiplayer use is something that I don't think I'd be able to get behind.

I think it's safe to say that the fans have spoken on how they feel about the multiplayer experience affecting their single player game.

And yet, they purposefully made it so you could not reach 4000 EMS without MP or the other external add-ons. Isn't that hypocrisy? Not that I'm in the opinion of a conventional victory anyway

Given that they reigned back the EMS requirements, I'm more inclined to state that the multiplayer requirement was an error.  It's certainly a recognition that the fans were not happy with the situation.

Take that for what it's worth.  I know many feel it was intentional and I don't expect them to change their opinion based on what I have to say.

Regardless, it's been changed.

[dreman9999]

IanPolaris wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
That was to imply that they had a fatal weakness. The crucible was it. That does not mean they are beat able via conventional means.

Not really.  The only hint about something like that happened at Lair of the Shadowbroker when Liara mentions the old Shadowbroker thought there might be other ways to fight and survive the reapers.  Nothing about a DEM or 'hidden off switch' (and indeed IIRC we were promised that ME3 would not have such a thing.....which seems rather odd in hindsight).

Nah, the Crucible and the necessity of making the Reapers invincible was pure ME3.

-Polaris

This was hinted from mass effect 1 when you stunned sovergin. Sorry, it's just implies a weakness not away to beat them in a straight fight.

[Oransel]

dreman9999 wrote...

UFGSpot wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

I don't understand on why people insist that "conventional" victory should be possible over the Reapers. This is a cycle that has gone on for millions of years, played out in thousands of different ways, but all to the same end. Civilizations always fight back, some I'm sure better than others (some I'm sure even better than we did; think about that huge mass effect cannon that ripped a canyon in that planet!), but all of them lose. Bioware set the parameters: the Reapers are an overwhelming, apocalyptic force. Those were the parameters since Mass Effect 1. Those have ALWAYS been the parameters. There was never any indication that the parameters were anything other than that through all three games. If you still can't accept it then I'm really at a loss (as I'm sure Bioware is as well).

This. People complain the Crucible was a Deus Ex Machina (yes it was) and it still would be if it made us able to win in a straight up fight.

And the cycles have repeated for BILLIONS of years. You said what I was trying to get across. Cycles have fought back before. They've managed to kill a few Reapers. But that all inevitably lost. Killing Sovreign and saying that's proof we could win is silly for example. Go look at the Derelect Reaper. Someone killed it, and they are dead and gone. They lost.

Deus ex machina are things that come in the last second with no explination and solves everything. That's not what the crucible is.

Crucible is not Deus Ex Machina. It is Asspull - same with DEM, but comes earlier.