dreman9999 wrote...
So, you with no detail for how far they are in dark space can tell us how long it should take?
That only means we have a small chance of victory not a chance of coventionally beating the reapers.IanPolaris 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.
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
So the part where, in ME1, the ships fighting sovereign say "he's too powerful, we have to pull back", the times in the whole saga "just to bring down sovereign took everything we had and he was just one Reaper", the fact the Reapers have fought for millions of years, the fact the reapers have always been mentioned as god-like and tremendously powerful, the fact that it takes 4 dreadnaughts to deal serious damage (this is codex), and the fact that there are more Reapers than there were of total ships (combined from all races of the galaxy), was all ME3?IanPolaris wrote...
Nah, the Crucible and the necessity of making the Reapers invincible was pure ME3.
-Polaris
dreman9999 wrote...
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.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
JPVS wrote...
So the part where, in ME1, the ships fighting sovereign say "he's too powerful, we have to pull back", the times in the whole saga "just to bring down sovereign took everything we had and he was just one Reaper", the fact the Reapers have fought for millions of years, the fact the reapers have always been mentioned as god-like and tremendously powerful, the fact that it takes 4 dreadnaughts to deal serious damage (this is codex), and the fact that there are more Reapers than there were of total ships (combined from all races of the galaxy), was all ME3?IanPolaris wrote...
Nah, the Crucible and the necessity of making the Reapers invincible was pure ME3.
-Polaris
Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.
How can you make a eductied guess with no details given to where they were?IanPolaris wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
So, you with no detail for how far they are in dark space can tell us how long it should take?
We can make an educated guess because we know how long it took them to get from the Alpha Relay to Acturus. That's where I am getting my 7 year estimate.
-Polaris
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
dreman9999 wrote...
That only means we have a small chance of victory not a chance of coventionally beating the reapers.
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
Warrior Craess wrote...
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.
UFGSpot wrote...
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.
Warrior Craess wrote...
not correct. The reapers arrived in a local cluster in arrival (a bit less than 3 years from the end of ME1). Which takes place shortly after ME2 concludes. So 6 months = 180 days. x 30ly = 5400 ly worth of travel distance. Plenty of time to reach another relay.
OblivionDawn wrote...
Honestly, who would know better than the writers exactly how powerful the Reapers are, lol?
Conventional victory is a stright fight? And it was never made anywhere close to the fact that the reapers could be beat convetionally in ME1 or 2. The big question in ME1 AND 2 WAS HOW ARE WE GOING TO BEAT THEM? That was one of the main drive of the mission in ME2. What in ME1 or 2 even was close to point to a possible conventional victory?IanPolaris wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
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.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
Who said anything about a straight fight? All I was saying was until ME3, it was clear that the Reapers could be beaten. "Not a straight fight" ==/== using a wonder-button.
-Polaris
IanPolaris wrote...
JPVS wrote...
So the part where, in ME1, the ships fighting sovereign say "he's too powerful, we have to pull back", the times in the whole saga "just to bring down sovereign took everything we had and he was just one Reaper", the fact the Reapers have fought for millions of years, the fact the reapers have always been mentioned as god-like and tremendously powerful, the fact that it takes 4 dreadnaughts to deal serious damage (this is codex), and the fact that there are more Reapers than there were of total ships (combined from all races of the galaxy), was all ME3?IanPolaris wrote...
Nah, the Crucible and the necessity of making the Reapers invincible was pure ME3.
-Polaris
Of course the Geth fleet sat back and ate popcorn.....
-Polaris
Biotic Sage wrote...
I too can remember nothing in any of the lore that suggests anything other than isolated victories are possible. The entire Reaper force is too massive and too powerful. Their harvesting/extermination tactics perfectly designed to collapse infrastructure and wittle away at the opposition. Going to war with the Reapers would be as successful as trying to jump to the sun, some people may get a little closer, but it's all negligible because no one really has a chance trying to get to the sun in that manner. The Crucible is a different METHOD than conventional warfare. It is the back door, the plan B.
OblivionDawn wrote...
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
The people who write the lore decide the technology used in Mass Effect warfare, and therefore the military tactics invovled in that warfare. Because of that, Hackett is one of the MOST credible people when it comes to military matters.
Honestly, who would know better than the writers exactly how powerful the Reapers are, lol?
LPKerberos wrote...
Warrior Craess wrote...
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.
Let us recap so far: There is a big "Geth battleship", as they dubbed it, bombing the citadel. The rubble is still floating there and Citadel forces have taken it out of space into the citadel for processing. Do you believe that the council would not have send some scientist to research those wreckages, because this ship was, even for Geth standarts, incredibly huge and strong. Don't you think they would not want to know what it was? How to stop the Geth again with less loss.
IanPolaris 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.
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
JPVS wrote...
We are told this cycle is unique by the survivor of the previous cycle who had no information on the cycles before. The possibility of having other cycles where the races united is quite large.
Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.
Modifié par TK EL , 28 juin 2012 - 09:17 .
IanPolaris wrote...
OblivionDawn wrote...
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
The people who write the lore decide the technology used in Mass Effect warfare, and therefore the military tactics invovled in that warfare. Because of that, Hackett is one of the MOST credible people when it comes to military matters.
Honestly, who would know better than the writers exactly how powerful the Reapers are, lol?
People that plan war for a living. A general from 2,000 years ago would actually be quite competant even today. While the technology and it's tactical and strategic implications would take a lot of getting used to, the basic rules and maxims of war have not changed. MIlitary officers today still read and are still disciple of Sun Tzu (for example). The bald fact is that the people that wrote this don't think the way that real military leaders would.
-Polaris
UFGSpot wrote...
IanPolaris 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.
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
Where has it been stated that no cycle has EVER united against the Reapers. The only unique thing about our cycle is we were the first to finish the crucible and plug it in.
Retour en haut