Cthulhu42 wrote...
I just meant against the Empire; the Thalmor are a whole different ballgame.silentassassin264 wrote...
BS. The Aldemeri Dominion would curbstomp them. They are outnumbered and outmagicked. Ondolomar put it quite simply when he described it as a simply a calm between storms. The Thalmor never had to surrender as they were winning the entire time.
silentassassin264 wrote...
Almostfaceman wrote...
HYR 2.0 wrote...
... so Control them to lose, if possible.
At least you're trying something.
.... how is Refuse "not trying something"? Isn't it a conventional attempt to defeat the Reapers? Doesn't that involve... effort?
Sure, they lose, but Shep has no crystal ball.
If you're speaking from a metagaming perspective, I would suppose one would pick Refuse as a way to say "f you" to the endings.
Hackett tells you that they are losing everywhere. The Catalyst tells you when you first say you won't use the crucible when he talks about destroy that you are outnumbered and have no chance to win. Shepard knows that the result of refuse is dooming the entire cycle. It does not require metagaming.
Foxhound2121 wrote...
Trying with those options are a trick to a refuser. If you watch the refusal ending, Liara makes it clear that they built the curcible, but it didn't work. Hence to assume that it is pointless to make and to try something else perhaps or warn them.
Almostfaceman wrote...
.... how is Refuse "not trying something"? Isn't it a conventional attempt to defeat the Reapers? Doesn't that involve... effort?
Sure, they lose, but Shep has no crystal ball.
Almostfaceman wrote...
Still, Shep would not know that refusing the choices all together would result in Starbrat having a tantrum. In this case the only way to find out, is to do it - if you're not metagaming.
Modifié par AlanC9, 17 octobre 2012 - 05:33 .
HYR 2.0 wrote...
Foxhound2121 wrote...
Trying with those options are a trick to a refuser. If you watch the refusal ending, Liara makes it clear that they built the curcible, but it didn't work. Hence to assume that it is pointless to make and to try something else perhaps or warn them.
Pretty ironic argument. Para!Shep guilt trips TIM about staking humanity's existence on Control working as he thinks.
But apparently, same rules don't apply the other way around.
AlanC9 wrote...
Almostfaceman wrote...
Still, Shep would not know that refusing the choices all together would result in Starbrat having a tantrum. In this case the only way to find out, is to do it - if you're not metagaming.
Really? As I recall , after Shep refuses, the Catalyst reminds him that not using the crucible means dooming his cycle, and Shep can either use the Crucible or not. If he doesn't... yep, they're doomed. But I'm only presuming that the second dialog lets you pull back, since if I pick that option at all my Shep's going full retard.
Foxhound2121 wrote...
Who is calling who ironic here?
Plus, refusing to choose is obviously not staking humanities existence on anything but fate.
Modifié par HYR 2.0, 17 octobre 2012 - 05:43 .
HYR 2.0 wrote...
Almostfaceman wrote...
.... how is Refuse "not trying something"? Isn't it a conventional attempt to defeat the Reapers? Doesn't that involve... effort?
Fighting conventionally is Plan-B. If the Crucible doesn't do it's job, you're going to do it anyway.
But who the hell defaults to Plan-B?Sure, they lose, but Shep has no crystal ball.
It's hopeless to fight them straight up. Every player should know this by now.
For every 1 Miracle of Palaven there are 10 Fall of Thessia's.
HYR 2.0 wrote...
Almostfaceman wrote...
.... how is Refuse "not trying something"? Isn't it a conventional attempt to defeat the Reapers? Doesn't that involve... effort?
Fighting conventionally is Plan-B. If the Crucible doesn't do it's job, you're going to do it anyway.
But who the hell defaults to Plan-B?It's hopeless to fight them straight up. Every player should know this by now.Sure, they lose, but Shep has no crystal ball.
Modifié par iakus, 17 octobre 2012 - 05:53 .
AlanC9 wrote...
Almostfaceman wrote...
Still, Shep would not know that refusing the choices all together would result in Starbrat having a tantrum. In this case the only way to find out, is to do it - if you're not metagaming.
Really? As I recall , after Shep refuses, the Catalyst reminds him that not using the crucible means dooming his cycle, and Shep can either use the Crucible or not. If he doesn't... yep, they're doomed. But I'm only presuming that the second dialog lets you pull back, since if I pick that option at all my Shep's going full retard.
TheFinalDoctor wrote...
Well in refuse, you're basically going with everything the catalyst says is crap, so him saying you're doomed if you don't use the crucible doesn't hold much water to refusersAlanC9 wrote...
Really? As I recall , after Shep refuses, the Catalyst reminds him that not using the crucible means dooming his cycle, and Shep can either use the Crucible or not. If he doesn't... yep, they're doomed. But I'm only presuming that the second dialog lets you pull back, since if I pick that option at all my Shep's going full retard.Almostfaceman wrote...
Still, Shep would not know that refusing the choices all together would result in Starbrat having a tantrum. In this case the only way to find out, is to do it - if you're not metagaming.
silentassassin264 wrote...
Almostfaceman wrote...
HYR 2.0 wrote...
... so Control them to lose, if possible.
At least you're trying something.
.... how is Refuse "not trying something"? Isn't it a conventional attempt to defeat the Reapers? Doesn't that involve... effort?
Sure, they lose, but Shep has no crystal ball.
If you're speaking from a metagaming perspective, I would suppose one would pick Refuse as a way to say "f you" to the endings.
Hackett tells you that they are losing everywhere. The Catalyst tells you when you first say you won't use the crucible when he talks about destroy that you are outnumbered and have no chance to win. Shepard knows that the result of refuse is dooming the entire cycle. It does not require metagaming.
Almostfaceman wrote..
I guess, but still you could play your character like you think the Starbrat is bluffing and/or wrong... well... if you're not metagaming there's really only one way to find out ultimately whether or not he is...
Modifié par AlanC9, 17 octobre 2012 - 05:57 .
grey_wind wrote...
Hackett also tells you that if the Catalyst can't be obtained after the battle of Cronos Station, they'll take their chances fighting conventionally. He actually implies that you can win without the damn asspull.
HYR 2.0 wrote...
Foxhound2121 wrote...
Who is calling who ironic here?
I'm calling it ironic that you're staking, not just humanity, but the whole frickin galaxy... on your hunch that the whole thing is a ploy by the catalyst.
Basically, no different than TIM staking humanity's existence on his hunch about control.Plus, refusing to choose is obviously not staking humanities existence on anything but fate.
lolwut?
You realize that can also be said for any of three options too, right?
Whatever you choose becomes their fate. Including Shepard's choice to renege the whole plan of using the Crucible.
Modifié par Foxhound2121, 17 octobre 2012 - 06:05 .
Almostfaceman wrote...
The point wasn't plan B versus plan A - you said it wasn't trying anything. My point was, it was still trying something. The wisdom of the attempt was not my point.
I still think it's more in-character for Shep to try a conventional victory, but I think that's subjective so it's not really worth arguing about. The beauty of the situation is, you do things the way you want, and if someone else does something different, it has absolutely no effect on what you did.
BatmanTurian wrote...
it's official. HYR 2.0 is the new Seival. The Troll King is dead. Long live the new Troll King.
Foxhound2121 wrote...
And you're not staking humanities existence once again on your hunch about control?
A refusing shepard obviously thought that it would be as simple as walking in a flipping an on switch. Instead, he was greeted with an entity he doesn't know anything about with logic that the reapers coveted, and then given three options he knows nothing about. A refusal shepard doesn't believe such a choice should be made with a hunch, and leaves it up to the next cycle.
Modifié par HYR 2.0, 17 octobre 2012 - 06:12 .
AlanC9 wrote...
grey_wind wrote...
Hackett also tells you that if the Catalyst can't be obtained after the battle of Cronos Station, they'll take their chances fighting conventionally. He actually implies that you can win without the damn asspull.
Um.. that isn't what the line implied. But I can see why it got edited out if people are going to interpret it the way you did.
Foxhound2121 wrote...
And you're not staking humanities existence once again on your hunch about control?
silentassassin264 wrote...
Almostfaceman wrote...
HYR 2.0 wrote...
... so Control them to lose, if possible.
At least you're trying something.
.... how is Refuse "not trying something"? Isn't it a conventional attempt to defeat the Reapers? Doesn't that involve... effort?
Sure, they lose, but Shep has no crystal ball.
If you're speaking from a metagaming perspective, I would suppose one would pick Refuse as a way to say "f you" to the endings.
Hackett tells you that they are losing everywhere. The Catalyst tells you when you first say you won't use the crucible when he talks about destroy that you are outnumbered and have no chance to win. Shepard knows that the result of refuse is dooming the entire cycle. It does not require metagaming.
grey_wind wrote...
See, if Hackett actually thought the war couldn't be won conventionally at that point, there's no way his attack on Cronos would be so brazen and neither would he be taking such a huge chance since there's no guarantee he'll even get Vendetta to tell him what the Catalyst is or that the Catalyst is even obtainable (what if it was something else that also required months of construction?).
The Battle of Cronos is too bloody large a gamble if the Crucible is the only means to victory. In the EC, Hackett just comes across as an even bigger buffoon for going along with it than he was before.
Modifié par AlanC9, 17 octobre 2012 - 06:31 .
The problem with the Battle of Cronos is that it's all or nothing. No matter what happens after that battle, Hackett tells you they HAVE to attack Earth immediately because they've given their position away (or some other reason I can't remember). So if the Catalyst is something that has to be built, or TIM destroyed Vendetta, then they are screwed unless they believe they have a chance conventionally.AlanC9 wrote...
grey_wind wrote...
See, if Hackett actually thought the war couldn't be won conventionally at that point, there's no way his attack on Cronos would be so brazen and neither would he be taking such a huge chance since there's no guarantee he'll even get Vendetta to tell him what the Catalyst is or that the Catalyst is even obtainable (what if it was something else that also required months of construction?).
If you can't get the Catalyst, or can't build it in time, then the war's lost, yep. And if you don't try to get the Catalyst... the war's lost anyway.The Battle of Cronos is too bloody large a gamble if the Crucible is the only means to victory. In the EC, Hackett just comes across as an even bigger buffoon for going along with it than he was before.
You've got it precisely backwards. If the Catalyst is the only means to victory, then any gamble whatsoever is worth taking in order to secure it. It's only if you've got a chance of victory with some other strategy that Cronos becomes risky. If Cronos/Earth is the only chance you've got, then attempting it is your only strategy no matter what your chance of success is.
Retour en haut
