122 réponses à ce sujet

[Robhuzz]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

"Technology you rely on will be affected, but those who survive should have little difficulty repairing the damage." 

the catalyst does not talk about how long it will take though.


we will master the technology - but it will take time.

even if we can understand the relay technology, it will take years to reverse engineer and repair the relays. the protheans managed it, but they were pouring unlimited resources into the project. ilos' only purpose was scientific research and development. we only have whats left on the homeworlds and many bright minds have died. 

after we rebuild the first relay, we will have to travel to ne next one. relays only work as a pair. this will take a long time and planning. we would need to stop every x lightyears to discharge and refuel. this can only be done in systems, with helium-3 and planets with a sufficent magnetophere.


we will make it - but it will take centuries or millennia.

Perhaps not. We have the now inactive Reapers on Earth with their systems (probably) undamaged. Among them their mass effect cores that the codex stated were not subject to the weaknesses of 'our' mass effect drives, theirs are also significantly more powerful and much faster. We may be able to copy that technology or even reactivate the reaper's systems and fly them manually. I guess the magic crucible beam (even the one in destroy)... destroyed the harmful systems in there and made them non sentient but didn't actually destroy every part of the reaper. Should be safe:pinched:

Modifié par Robhuzz, 09 janvier 2013 - 07:05 .

[AlanC9]

Dr_Extrem wrote...
after we rebuild the first relay, we will have to travel to ne next one. relays only work as a pair. this will take a long time and planning. we would need to stop every x lightyears to discharge and refuel. this can only be done in systems, with helium-3 and planets with a sufficent magnetophere.

Not necessarily. If there's a QEC link to an industrialized planet you can tell people on the other side of the link how to build a relay. How many QEC links are still functioning after the ending is another one of those open questions.

Well, unless primary links work like QECs themselves, and require you to physically transport a component to the destination.

[Dr_Extrem]

Robhuzz wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

"Technology you rely on will be affected, but those who survive should have little difficulty repairing the damage." 

the catalyst does not talk about how long it will take though.


we will master the technology - but it will take time.

even if we can understand the relay technology, it will take years to reverse engineer and repair the relays. the protheans managed it, but they were pouring unlimited resources into the project. ilos' only purpose was scientific research and development. we only have whats left on the homeworlds and many bright minds have died. 

after we rebuild the first relay, we will have to travel to ne next one. relays only work as a pair. this will take a long time and planning. we would need to stop every x lightyears to discharge and refuel. this can only be done in systems, with helium-3 and planets with a sufficent magnetophere.


we will make it - but it will take centuries or millennia.

Perhaps not. We have the now inactive Reapers on Earth with their systems (probably) undamaged. Among them their mass effect cores that the codex stated were not subject to the weaknesses of 'our' mass effect drives, theirs are also significantly more powerful and much faster. We may be able to copy that technology or even reactivate the reaper's systems and fly them manually. I guess the magic crucible beam (even the one in destroy)... destroyed the harmful systems in there and made them non sentient but didn't actually destroy every part of the reaper. Should be safe:pinched:

do they use eezo 2.0?  

from the codex:

%3D%3D
Mass effect fields are created through the use of element zero. Element zero can increase or decrease the mass content of space-time when subjected to an electrical current via dark energy. With a positive current, mass is increased. With a negative current, mass is decreased. The stronger the current, the greater the magnitude of the dark energy mass effect.
In space, low-mass fields allow FTL travel and inexpensive surface-to-orbit transit. High-mass fields create artificial gravity and push space debris away from starships. In manufacturing, low-mass fields permit the creation of evenly-blended alloys, while high mass compaction creates dense, sturdy construction materials.
The military makes extensive use of mobility enhancing technologies, with mass effect-utilizing fighting vehicles being standard front-line issue in most military forces. The Mako's small element zero core can reduce the vehicle's mass enough to allow a safe drop from the Normandy. Mass effect fields are also essential in the creation of shields to protect against enemy fire on the ground, and protect starships in planetary orbit or during space battles.
Many biotics can also use mass effect fields which are biologically generated and controlled. This requires intensive training, and cybernetic implants, but can produce impressive offensive or defensive effects. Some biotics' talents are not strong enough to be offensively viable, but all biotics are sensitive to the presence of mass effect fields.
However, the use of mass effect fields creates static electrical charge. In starship drive cores, this charge must be grounded at regular intervals, either by touching a planet surface or interacting with a planet's geomagnetic field, to prevent the electricity discharging into the hull and causing catastrophic damage. For biotics, this manifests as an occasional static shock when they touch metal or other people.

eezo can lower the mass of an object, by generating a dark energy field around it. this dark energy field, builds up a static eletrical charge.

the reapers cores are made out of eezo as well. the question is: from where do they get the energy and why dont they discharge? .. if their engines violate the laws of physics, we would have to understand why they do it. we cant just mount a reaper drive core on a ship and hope for the best.

btw ... reactivating a reaper core if a bad idea.

[Dr_Extrem]

AlanC9 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...
after we rebuild the first relay, we will have to travel to ne next one. relays only work as a pair. this will take a long time and planning. we would need to stop every x lightyears to discharge and refuel. this can only be done in systems, with helium-3 and planets with a sufficent magnetophere.

Not necessarily. If there's a QEC link to an industrialized planet you can tell people on the other side of the link how to build a relay. How many QEC links are still functioning after the ending is another one of those open questions.

Well, unless primary links work like QECs themselves, and require you to physically transport a component to the destination.

this is very likely ... it will still take time. there are no direct mass relay connections between the homeworlds. there are a lot of secondary relays between them - some of them, in systems without habitable planets.

[RocketManSR2]

All options should have been on the table.

[Robhuzz]

@Dr_Extrem

That was one of the things that was... just there. ME3 tried to retcon a lot of things to better suit its 'story' if you recall. The ME3 codex said the Reapers didn't need to discharge because... nobody knows. I didn't say I was happy about it, I most certainly wasn't but... there it is.

It's from the codex entry Reaper Capabilities:

The Reapers are technologically superior to the organic species of the galaxy -- but the degree of that superiority is a matter of debate in the intelligence community.
The Reapers' thrusters and FTL drives appear to propel them at more than twice the speed of Citadel ships. Estimates of their location in dark space suggest they can travel nearly 30 light-years in a 24-hour period.

Reaper power sources seem to violate known physical laws. Reapers usually destroy fuel infrastructure rather than attempting to capture it intact, indicating that Reapers do not require organic species' energy supplies. Consequently, the Reapers attack without regard for maintaining supply lines behind them, except to move husks from one planet to another. Unlike Citadel ships, Reapers do not appear to discharge static buildup from their drive cores, although they sometimes appear wreathed in static discharge when they land on planets.

It seems they do build up static electricity but aren't affected by it... How ingenious bioware. They also do not need fuel because... reasons. Apparently<_<

Modifié par Robhuzz, 09 janvier 2013 - 07:34 .

[fiendishchicken]

I don't think he should have to die.

The matter presented is forced suicide. What should have been victory through unity was turned into victory through 'sacrifice'. Casey Hudson doesn't realize that forced sacrifice is akin to suicide in an rpg.

My Shepard is a survivor btw.

Modifié par fiendishchicken, 09 janvier 2013 - 07:50 .

[3DandBeyond]

Robhuzz wrote...


It seems they do build up static electricity but aren't affected by it... How ingenious bioware. They also do not need fuel because... reasons. Apparently<_<

It is just that we must head canon what the fuel is.  I mean, they clearly provide references that relate to eating organics as if they are a food source (you know reaper farts propel them forward).  But then, they back away (and who wouldn't) from such an idea by making it so that organic matter is apparently broken down and used to create new reapers.  So, then perhaps something else becomes fuel, since it must.  They can't defy all known laws of everything.  However, they could use the other energy they intake-sheer processing power or mental energy.  Solar panels use sun.  Reaper use something else and convert it to energy to propel them forward.  How it does it is food for thought.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 09 janvier 2013 - 07:55 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Robhuzz wrote...

@Dr_Extrem

That was one of the things that was... just there. ME3 tried to retcon a lot of things to better suit its 'story' if you recall. The ME3 codex said the Reapers didn't need to discharge because... nobody knows. I didn't say I was happy about it, I most certainly wasn't but... there it is.

It's from the codex entry Reaper Capabilities:

The Reapers are technologically superior to the organic species of the galaxy -- but the degree of that superiority is a matter of debate in the intelligence community.
The Reapers' thrusters and FTL drives appear to propel them at more than twice the speed of Citadel ships. Estimates of their location in dark space suggest they can travel nearly 30 light-years in a 24-hour period.

Reaper power sources seem to violate known physical laws. Reapers usually destroy fuel infrastructure rather than attempting to capture it intact, indicating that Reapers do not require organic species' energy supplies. Consequently, the Reapers attack without regard for maintaining supply lines behind them, except to move husks from one planet to another. Unlike Citadel ships, Reapers do not appear to discharge static buildup from their drive cores, although they sometimes appear wreathed in static discharge when they land on planets.

It seems they do build up static electricity but aren't affected by it... How ingenious bioware. They also do not need fuel because... reasons. Apparently<_<

reasons ... cool ..


i read the codex as well. eezo 2.0 - here we come. i mean .. the faster travel speed can be explained by a bigger mass effect core.

the normandy can fly longer without the need to recharge as well. we would still need an energy source, that gives us enough juice.

nonetheless how we solve the problems, it will take lifetimes. the travel with our tech takes time and planning but the reverse engineering of the reaper tech takes time as well.

dont get me wrong .. we will make it - but every way will take its time. either research or travel time.

[clarkusdarkus]

We already died in ME2, then get rebuilt robocop style so for the life of me i dont understand why they would kill him/her off again, but then again i didnt understand why they killed u in ME2........all downhill from then in my opinion

[movieguyabw]

AlanC9 wrote...

movieguyabw wrote...

It should be the player's choice. Similar to how it was with Dragon Age Origins (damn, I love that game) we should have been presented with the choice to live or die, as opposed to a "Oh, you die in every ending." sort of thing. Yeah, we can survive in the Destroy ending, and (depending on how you interpret it) the Control ending, but we're still told flat out that both options will kill us, so we really can't choose to live, without metagaming.

I agree that Shepard doesn't have any reason to think he'll live whatever he chooses, regardless of what happens later.. But I don't see the problem with that. Can you elaborate?

The problem I see with it is it forces us to metagame if we want Shepard to survive, which shouldn't be necessary.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Robhuzz wrote...


It seems they do build up static electricity but aren't affected by it... How ingenious bioware. They also do not need fuel because... reasons. Apparently<_<

It is just that we must head canon what the fuel is.  I mean, they clearly provide references that relate to eating organics as if they are a food source (you know reaper farts propel them forward).  But then, they back away (and who wouldn't) from such an idea by making it so that organic matter is apparently broken down and used to create new reapers.  So, then perhaps something else becomes fuel, since it must.  They can't defy all known laws of everything.  However, they could use the other energy they intake-sheer processing power or mental energy.  Solar panels use sun.  Reaper use something else and convert it to energy to propel them forward.  How it does it is food for thought.

The Reapers are really

[AlanC9]

movieguyabw wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I agree that Shepard doesn't have any reason to think he'll live whatever he chooses, regardless of what happens later.. But I don't see the problem with that. Can you elaborate?

The problem I see with it is it forces us to metagame if we want Shepard to survive, which shouldn't be necessary.

I see. But wanting Shepard to survive is metagaming anyway, isn't it? Unless you're playing a Shepard who values his own life over the much larger concerns in the ending choices.

Modifié par AlanC9, 09 janvier 2013 - 08:36 .

[wright1978]

AlanC9 wrote...

movieguyabw wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I agree that Shepard doesn't have any reason to think he'll live whatever he chooses, regardless of what happens later.. But I don't see the problem with that. Can you elaborate?

The problem I see with it is it forces us to metagame if we want Shepard to survive, which shouldn't be necessary.

I see. But wanting Shepard to survive is metagaming anyway, isn't it? Unless you're playing a Shepard who values his own life over the much larger concerns in the ending choices.

Why shouldn't Shep value his/her own life and want to keep it intact, especially after he/her has already lost it once?

[Nerevar-as]

AlanC9 wrote...

movieguyabw wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I agree that Shepard doesn't have any reason to think he'll live whatever he chooses, regardless of what happens later.. But I don't see the problem with that. Can you elaborate?

The problem I see with it is it forces us to metagame if we want Shepard to survive, which shouldn't be necessary.

I see. But wanting Shepard to survive is metagaming anyway, isn't it? Unless you're playing a Shepard who values his own life over the much larger concerns in the ending choices.

Why wouldn´t s/he? Being ready to die is not the same as being a death seeker or not wanting to live. Not that it matters for Shepard in the endgame, Starbrat tells Shep all options end with his/her death. Survival in Destroy wasn´t expected by either of them.

[DeinonSlayer]

AlanC9 wrote...

movieguyabw wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I agree that Shepard doesn't have any reason to think he'll live whatever he chooses, regardless of what happens later.. But I don't see the problem with that. Can you elaborate?

The problem I see with it is it forces us to metagame if we want Shepard to survive, which shouldn't be necessary.

I see. But wanting Shepard to survive is metagaming anyway, isn't it? Unless you're playing a Shepard who values his own life over the much larger concerns in the ending choices.

Exactly. If people choose Destroy ONLY so Shepard has a shot at surviving, they're doing it for the wrong reasons.

[wright1978]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

movieguyabw wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I agree that Shepard doesn't have any reason to think he'll live whatever he chooses, regardless of what happens later.. But I don't see the problem with that. Can you elaborate?

The problem I see with it is it forces us to metagame if we want Shepard to survive, which shouldn't be necessary.

I see. But wanting Shepard to survive is metagaming anyway, isn't it? Unless you're playing a Shepard who values his own life over the much larger concerns in the ending choices.

Exactly. If people choose Destroy ONLY so Shepard has a shot at surviving, they're doing it for the wrong reasons.

But Shep shouldn't act like he/she has a death wish in destroy ending.

[DeinonSlayer]

wright1978 wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

movieguyabw wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I agree that Shepard doesn't have any reason to think he'll live whatever he chooses, regardless of what happens later.. But I don't see the problem with that. Can you elaborate?

The problem I see with it is it forces us to metagame if we want Shepard to survive, which shouldn't be necessary.

I see. But wanting Shepard to survive is metagaming anyway, isn't it? Unless you're playing a Shepard who values his own life over the much larger concerns in the ending choices.

Exactly. If people choose Destroy ONLY so Shepard has a shot at surviving, they're doing it for the wrong reasons.

But Shep shouldn't act like he/she has a death wish in destroy ending.

He was cauterizing his wounds. 

[Capt. Pancake]

I love my Shepard so Nnnoooo................but it will be what it will be

[nomoredruggs]

Both options can be compelling for different reasons, and fit different Shepards.

Personally I believe it should be up to the player whether Shepard dies or lives, something like the DA:O ending choices.

Modifié par nomoredruggs, 09 janvier 2013 - 11:07 .

[tanisha__unknown]

I guess both are perfectly valid options.

I would have liked a LI reunion much better, but that's just personal perference.

[Epique Phael767]

Topic needs editing. You ask us if he should die, indicating this to be story-related and if it would better improve the story if he did or didn't; and then you ask us if we want him to live or die, asking for what headcanon we prefer.