352 réponses à ce sujet

[silverexile17s]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

1. Tell that to the Derilict Reaper from ME2. The species were bringing down a good portion of Reapers. I again point you to the "Reaper Vulerabilaties" and "The Miracle on Palaven" Codex entires as proof that the races were holding their ground and making kills. Even if you failed, the post-refuse ending suggests that they took a chunk out of the Reapers.

A good portion? The Derilect Reaper was one Reaper, and the weapon that did it was described as a last-ditch effort that was broken immediately after. Nor do the codecies you mention establish a good portion: the tactics that defeated a handful of Reapers over Palaven were immediately countered by the commencement of orbitabl bombardment on Palaven, and the Miracle of Palaven was a momentary pause in a consistent Reaper advance on Palaven. These are countered by far more extensive and numerous defeats of organic fleets which are far less equiped to sustain such losses.
snipped

The problem is for me that in my game (and I don't think I'm alone) my war assets screen says my chances of winning are even.  A bit later, Anderson says something about wondering what the odds are for defeating the reapers (or some such thing), and I get this overwhelming urge to tell him that I was informed the odds were even, as in 50/50.  For some insanely impossible to beat monsters, and even for other fights (say some wars in human history), those are pretty good odds.  And, someone else says that the reapers are vulnerable (earlier on).  Cohesiveness is more than just a word.  The war asset screen should have said, "you have nearly 12,000 EMS.  So what, you could have a million.  It's still hopeless, moron."  And, my odds never seem to get any better-funny.  I still say those are way better odds then, "it's hopeless, impossible, suicide to try and fight."

Yes, I agree with you on that. The stitistic system wasn't done right. With everything the Allies have, it should be an even break between the Allies, and the Reaper fleet currently orbiting Earth.

[silverexile17s]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

The problem is for me that in my game (and I don't think I'm alone) my war assets screen says my chances of winning are even.  A bit later, Anderson says something about wondering what the odds are for defeating the reapers (or some such thing), and I get this overwhelming urge to tell him that I was informed the odds were even, as in 50/50.  For some insanely impossible to beat monsters, and even for other fights (say some wars in human history), those are pretty good odds.  And, someone else says that the reapers are vulnerable (earlier on).  Cohesiveness is more than just a word.  The war asset screen should have said, "you have nearly 12,000 EMS.  So what, you could have a million.  It's still hopeless, moron."  And, my odds never seem to get any better-funny.  I still say those are way better odds then, "it's hopeless, impossible, suicide to try and fight."

Your War Assets screen and Anderson are working on the assumption of the Crucible, though: when it says you have a 50-50 chance, it's saying you have a 50-50 chance of using the Crucible successfully, not that you have a 50-50 chance without the Crucible and that the Crucible just ups your percentage.

It's the same as the 'key locations' comment: while some people have insisted that it means all the homeworlds, 'key locations' are referring to the places that help Hackett continue his war effort to complete the Crucible.

Wrong. The Crucible is only ONE FACTOR in that.

[Dean_the_Young]

silverexile17s wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

The problem is for me that in my game (and I don't think I'm alone) my war assets screen says my chances of winning are even.  A bit later, Anderson says something about wondering what the odds are for defeating the reapers (or some such thing), and I get this overwhelming urge to tell him that I was informed the odds were even, as in 50/50.  For some insanely impossible to beat monsters, and even for other fights (say some wars in human history), those are pretty good odds.  And, someone else says that the reapers are vulnerable (earlier on).  Cohesiveness is more than just a word.  The war asset screen should have said, "you have nearly 12,000 EMS.  So what, you could have a million.  It's still hopeless, moron."  And, my odds never seem to get any better-funny.  I still say those are way better odds then, "it's hopeless, impossible, suicide to try and fight."

Your War Assets screen and Anderson are working on the assumption of the Crucible, though: when it says you have a 50-50 chance, it's saying you have a 50-50 chance of using the Crucible successfully, not that you have a 50-50 chance without the Crucible and that the Crucible just ups your percentage.

It's the same as the 'key locations' comment: while some people have insisted that it means all the homeworlds, 'key locations' are referring to the places that help Hackett continue his war effort to complete the Crucible.

Wrong. The Crucible is only ONE FACTOR in that.

The Crucible if the deciding factor of the war. If you win the battle for Earth, but lose the war, then you will ultimately lose Earth as well.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

1. That is an assumption. You don't have any proof of that. If anything, it represents that you don't need the Crucible to fight them[/quote]You do need the Crucible to beat them, however. Pointing at the few Reaper casualties of defeated species doesn't change that they were, well, defeated.

[quote]
2. The dmage and recoveru time. The Reapers can't restore the "preserved" races that are lost when a Reaper dies. So every single Reaper lost damages their cause of preserving all life. And it takes 50,000 years just to replace one Reaper.[/quote]The Reapers aren't interested in preserving all life in the first place: they only care about select species and forms of life, and they're actually more concerned with preventing a particular means of extinction (synthetic menace) than exction itself.

[quote]
3. Justified confidence? Tell that to Sovergien. Or Harbinger's Collector Base. Or the Reaper that came for the Leviathans. Or the dozens of Reapers that died so far. Face it: they're more vunerable then you admit.[/quote]Or I could compare them to the few dozen thousand cycles of successful galactic genocides.

When you're statistically amazing at your massive job, a black eye doesn't make you unjustified at being confident.

[quote]
4. The Reapers certinly didn't react that way with the Citadel. As soon as they learned there was a possibilaty of it docking, they took the Citadel instantly. They panicked. They were afriad. They saw it as a threat. They attack a threat instantly. So, AGAIN, you either have ONE SHOT, with the Realy Network, or NONE.[/quote]Yeah... you're still arguing against a strawman here.

[quote]
5. Didn't you say that the Citadel had no point, because the Reapers arrive anyway? That the Cidatel had no point in slowing them, because you insisted they'd win anyway? Isn't that what you said?
MY point is that it WASN'T a pointless win for Shepard or the organics. That it WAS a win to stall them like that.[/quote]Nope, no, and nada.

This is the third, and last, time I'll point out that I did not make that argument.

[quote]
6. And Refuse hardly counts, as it was a cop-out since BioWare didn't want to expend the money making and ending the fans actually WANTED. That was a classic "our way or nothing" tactic. [/quote]Refuse is canoncial conventional defeat. Simply because you didn't want that doesn't mean it isn't true, or that everyone shares your view: I was here throughout the ending debacle, and there were a number of people who openly stated they wanted an option to refuse even if it meant defeat.

[quote]
And if you REALLY want to get technical, the fact that the next cycle stopped them seems to indicate they softened them up quite a bit.[/quote]The next cycle never makes any claim that they engaged in a conventional war at all. If anything, the implication in the game is that the next cycle used the Crucible.

[quote]
It had NOTHING to do with conventional war.  BioWare simply didn't want to admit that another option was needed, nor give the satisfaction of fleshing out what everyone but them wanted. That sounds petty, but there seems to be no other reason why it wasn't done. The War Assets seem to indicate that the Allies have a 50/50 chance to beat the Reaper fleet over Earth.[/quote]The War Assets system is built around Hacket's strategy of using the Crucible: 50/50 is the chance of using the Crucible successfully.

Not, mind you, that defeating the Reaper fleet over Earth would change the conventional war: at that point, the Reapers are invading everywhere else.
[quote]
7. Again. the Reapers are obsessed with efficancy. [/quote]They aren't, actually. Or at least they aren't concerned with a wide variety of different types of efficiency including time efficiency, Reaper troop casualty efficiency, maximized Reaper efficiency, maximum population capitulation efficiency.
[quote]
They would NEVER willingly limit themselves like that.[/quote]They quite frequently do. The very fact that their cycle is 50,000 years and not 40,000, or 20,000, or a continuous process, demonstrates this. If the Reapers were interested in maximizing their numbers, the Cycle would be a terrible way to do it. Their reasons for abstaining and ideological, not practical.

[quote]They would only make one Reaper at a time, if they had no other CHOICE. They lost Reapers before, yet the Leviathans ALWAYS state the EVERY cycle ends with the birth of "a Reaper."  A Reaper. As in singular.
It's NOT CHOICE. It's an actual limit.[/quote]
We already know for a fact that multiple Reapers are born, thanks to multiple destroyers coming from a cycle: they may be destroyers, but they're still Reapers like the Dreadnaughts are. We also know the Leviathans are not absolutely correct in all things: otherwise Shepard would still be in the bottom of the trench, and the cycle really would have lost.

Given that the Leviathans are already demonstratably wrong in their future predictions based on their views of past history, resting a prediction of future actions based solely on past history is similarly flawed.
[quote]
8. Destroyers are just foot-soldiers compared to the Sovergien-class. Those "servents" were likely just Destroyers. [/quote]That... really doesn't change that the Destroyers add to the naval imbalance against the cycle. Even though Destroyers are closer to 'peer' forces than the Dreadnaughts, with destruction being regularly mentioned, they are still viable threats to contemporary fleets and forces and they still provide the numbers to make a conventional victory impossible.
[quote]
9. Preserving those races it their entire point of their existing. If they didn't care, they wouldn't DO this, nor take such pains to ensure evey species is harvested.[/quote]Caring, and prioritizing above all else, are two different things. If the Reapers cared about preserving themselves above all else, they wouldn't risk themselves at all: they would use proxy fleets and forces exclusively, and wouldn't even come over from Dark Space.

Since the Reapers do accept risk to individual units, even going as far to send units on moderate-risk-high-reward missions like Tuchanka or Rannoch, the Reapers clearly are willing to accept losses in pursuit of maintaining the Cycle.

The Reapers also don't ensure that every species is harvested. Species that are too few in number, genetically incompatible, or simply not deemed 'worthy' for whatever reason are not targets of Ascension.

[quote]
And the statistics by the Leviathans, and every other race piling on them seems to disprove that.[/quote]In the current cycle or in past cycles? Nothing about past cycle Reaper casualties has been proven in-game, though if you want out-of-game information the Word of God is that normally the Reapers don't suffer any casualties.
[quote]
Also, the protheans were noted as taking a long time to stop.[/quote]The Protheans were also widespread, fully militarized and mobilized at the time of Arrival, and still never gave any sign of having destroyed a Reaper dreadnaught.

[quote]
You are assuming that every single dreadnought survived through to now. [/quote]I'll be charitable this time and assume you didn't notice this.

[quote]Dean said...

Even if you went far beyond anything implied about the other cycles and
gave the Reapers a .95 attrition rate per cycle for their Dreadnaughts
in the 'normal' cycles,
[/quote]

[quote]
Also, the Reapers are split. Their backbone is over Earth, which is listed as being in equal strength. Break the fleet over Earth, and deal them a blow they can never recover. You are seeing it as a war of atrittion over one cycle at a time. It's a war of atrittion agains life itself. One cycle would be bound to break them. And this cycle could deal them a blow they would never be able to shake off.[/quote]The Reapers are never said to have their backbone over Earth: Earth is said to be reinforced, but never given any indication of relative amounts of Reaper ships. At the same time Earth is being fought over, the Reapers are also launching simulatanous invasion of the rest of the galaxy, including all previously unoccupied Council space. This expansion of the Reaper presence across the galaxy goes against the idea that the Reapers have most of their forces at Earth.


The attrition argument also ignores that the Reapers can use non-Reaper ships and forces to supplement their losses. Even if we conceded, simply for the purpose of this point alone, that the Reapers would experience heavy Reaper casualties, the Reapers can simply build non-Reaper vessels as they have already proven themselves able to do. They can build Collector Cruisers, Occuli, and any number of clone armies and ships in the interim of each cycle.

The interim of each cycle is also a variable the Reapers can dictate after this cycle, as there is no absolute reason the Repers must keep the 50,000 year cycle. They do not have to let civilizations advance as far as they have in the past. They can choose to harvest the species earlier and earlier, before they can build effective navies. The strength of a cycle is also a variable the Reapers will be able to influence once the current cycle is rectified.

[quote]
10. Again, YOU said there wasn't any point to stopping the Reaper takeover of the Citadel, because you KEEP insisting that they demolish everything anyway. I said that you were wrong, and that stopping the Citadel takeover hurt them.
[/quote]I am not making that argument. I have repeatedly rejected this claim, in this post and in previous ones. You have neither provided a quote to support you claim as to the position I have repeatedly denied, nor have you sought any clarification on any comment of mine that might have given you this impression. You have not even acknowledged that I have disavowed that position multiple times.

I do not appreciate being tied to a position I did not take. You are trying my patience: I'll retire for the evening and let it return, but if your next post simply repeats the same claim without support or acknowledging that I reject the position you are trying to impose on me, I'll consider it the end of the discussion and not bother to reply.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 27 janvier 2013 - 06:18 .

[silverexile17s]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

The problem is for me that in my game (and I don't think I'm alone) my war assets screen says my chances of winning are even.  A bit later, Anderson says something about wondering what the odds are for defeating the reapers (or some such thing), and I get this overwhelming urge to tell him that I was informed the odds were even, as in 50/50.  For some insanely impossible to beat monsters, and even for other fights (say some wars in human history), those are pretty good odds.  And, someone else says that the reapers are vulnerable (earlier on).  Cohesiveness is more than just a word.  The war asset screen should have said, "you have nearly 12,000 EMS.  So what, you could have a million.  It's still hopeless, moron."  And, my odds never seem to get any better-funny.  I still say those are way better odds then, "it's hopeless, impossible, suicide to try and fight."

Your War Assets screen and Anderson are working on the assumption of the Crucible, though: when it says you have a 50-50 chance, it's saying you have a 50-50 chance of using the Crucible successfully, not that you have a 50-50 chance without the Crucible and that the Crucible just ups your percentage.

It's the same as the 'key locations' comment: while some people have insisted that it means all the homeworlds, 'key locations' are referring to the places that help Hackett continue his war effort to complete the Crucible.

Wrong. The Crucible is only ONE FACTOR in that.

The Crucible if the deciding factor of the war. If you win the battle for Earth, but lose the war, then you will ultimately lose Earth as well.

It still breaks the Reaper's spine. They wouldn't recover from that anytime soon. The next cycle would have a much better chance.

[silverexile17s]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

1. That is an assumption. You don't have any proof of that. If anything, it represents that you don't need the Crucible to fight them[/quote]You do need the Crucible to beat them, however. Pointing at the few Reaper casualties of defeated species doesn't change that they were, well, defeated.

[quote]
2. The dmage and recoveru time. The Reapers can't restore the "preserved" races that are lost when a Reaper dies. So every single Reaper lost damages their cause of preserving all life. And it takes 50,000 years just to replace one Reaper.[/quote]The Reapers aren't interested in preserving all life in the first place: they only care about select species and forms of life, and they're actually more concerned with preventing a particular means of extinction (synthetic menace) than exction itself.

[quote]
3. Justified confidence? Tell that to Sovergien. Or Harbinger's Collector Base. Or the Reaper that came for the Leviathans. Or the dozens of Reapers that died so far. Face it: they're more vunerable then you admit.[/quote]Or I could compare them to the few dozen thousand cycles of successful galactic genocides.

When you're statistically amazing at your massive job, a black eye doesn't make you unjustified at being confident.

[quote]
4. The Reapers certinly didn't react that way with the Citadel. As soon as they learned there was a possibilaty of it docking, they took the Citadel instantly. They panicked. They were afriad. They saw it as a threat. They attack a threat instantly. So, AGAIN, you either have ONE SHOT, with the Realy Network, or NONE.[/quote]Yeah... you're still arguing against a strawman here.

[quote]
5. Didn't you say that the Citadel had no point, because the Reapers arrive anyway? That the Cidatel had no point in slowing them, because you insisted they'd win anyway? Isn't that what you said?
MY point is that it WASN'T a pointless win for Shepard or the organics. That it WAS a win to stall them like that.[/quote]Nope, no, and nada.

This is the third, and last, time I'll point out that I did not make that argument.

[quote]
6. And Refuse hardly counts, as it was a cop-out since BioWare didn't want to expend the money making and ending the fans actually WANTED. That was a classic "our way or nothing" tactic. [/quote]Refuse is canoncial conventional defeat. Simply because you didn't want that doesn't mean it isn't true, or that everyone shares your view: I was here throughout the ending debacle, and there were a number of people who openly stated they wanted an option to refuse even if it meant defeat.

[quote]
And if you REALLY want to get technical, the fact that the next cycle stopped them seems to indicate they softened them up quite a bit.[/quote]The next cycle never makes any claim that they engaged in a conventional war at all. If anything, the implication in the game is that the next cycle used the Crucible.

[quote]
It had NOTHING to do with conventional war.  BioWare simply didn't want to admit that another option was needed, nor give the satisfaction of fleshing out what everyone but them wanted. That sounds petty, but there seems to be no other reason why it wasn't done. The War Assets seem to indicate that the Allies have a 50/50 chance to beat the Reaper fleet over Earth.[/quote]The War Assets system is built around Hacket's strategy of using the Crucible: 50/50 is the chance of using the Crucible successfully.

Not, mind you, that defeating the Reaper fleet over Earth would change the conventional war: at that point, the Reapers are invading everywhere else.
[quote]
7. Again. the Reapers are obsessed with efficancy. [/quote]They aren't, actually. Or at least they aren't concerned with a wide variety of different types of efficiency including time efficiency, Reaper troop casualty efficiency, maximized Reaper efficiency, maximum population capitulation efficiency.
[quote]
They would NEVER willingly limit themselves like that.[/quote]They quite frequently do. The very fact that their cycle is 50,000 years and not 40,000, or 20,000, or a continuous process, demonstrates this. If the Reapers were interested in maximizing their numbers, the Cycle would be a terrible way to do it. Their reasons for abstaining and ideological, not practical.

[quote]They would only make one Reaper at a time, if they had no other CHOICE. They lost Reapers before, yet the Leviathans ALWAYS state the EVERY cycle ends with the birth of "a Reaper."  A Reaper. As in singular.
It's NOT CHOICE. It's an actual limit.[/quote]
We already know for a fact that multiple Reapers are born, thanks to multiple destroyers coming from a cycle: they may be destroyers, but they're still Reapers like the Dreadnaughts are. We also know the Leviathans are not absolutely correct in all things: otherwise Shepard would still be in the bottom of the trench, and the cycle really would have lost.

Given that the Leviathans are already demonstratably wrong in their future predictions based on their views of past history, resting a prediction of future actions based solely on past history is similarly flawed.
[quote]
8. Destroyers are just foot-soldiers compared to the Sovergien-class. Those "servents" were likely just Destroyers. [/quote]That... really doesn't change that the Destroyers add to the naval imbalance against the cycle. Even though Destroyers are closer to 'peer' forces than the Dreadnaughts, with destruction being regularly mentioned, they are still viable threats to contemporary fleets and forces and they still provide the numbers to make a conventional victory impossible.
[quote]
9. Preserving those races it their entire point of their existing. If they didn't care, they wouldn't DO this, nor take such pains to ensure evey species is harvested.[/quote]Caring, and prioritizing above all else, are two different things. If the Reapers cared about preserving themselves above all else, they wouldn't risk themselves at all: they would use proxy fleets and forces exclusively, and wouldn't even come over from Dark Space.

Since the Reapers do accept risk to individual units, even going as far to send units on moderate-risk-high-reward missions like Tuchanka or Rannoch, the Reapers clearly are willing to accept losses in pursuit of maintaining the Cycle.

The Reapers also don't ensure that every species is harvested. Species that are too few in number, genetically incompatible, or simply not deemed 'worthy' for whatever reason are not targets of Ascension.

[quote]
And the statistics by the Leviathans, and every other race piling on them seems to disprove that.[/quote]In the current cycle or in past cycles? Nothing about past cycle Reaper casualties has been proven in-game, though if you want out-of-game information the Word of God is that normally the Reapers don't suffer any casualties.
[quote]
Also, the protheans were noted as taking a long time to stop.[/quote]The Protheans were also widespread, fully militarized and mobilized at the time of Arrival, and still never gave any sign of having destroyed a Reaper dreadnaught.

[quote]
You are assuming that every single dreadnought survived through to now. [/quote]I'll be charitable this time and assume you didn't notice this.

[quote]Dean said...

Even if you went far beyond anything implied about the other cycles and
gave the Reapers a .95 attrition rate per cycle for their Dreadnaughts
in the 'normal' cycles,
[/quote]

[quote]
Also, the Reapers are split. Their backbone is over Earth, which is listed as being in equal strength. Break the fleet over Earth, and deal them a blow they can never recover. You are seeing it as a war of atrittion over one cycle at a time. It's a war of atrittion agains life itself. One cycle would be bound to break them. And this cycle could deal them a blow they would never be able to shake off.[/quote]The Reapers are never said to have their backbone over Earth: Earth is said to be reinforced, but never given any indication of relative amounts of Reaper ships. At the same time Earth is being fought over, the Reapers are also launching simulatanous invasion of the rest of the galaxy, including all previously unoccupied Council space. This expansion of the Reaper presence across the galaxy goes against the idea that the Reapers have most of their forces at Earth.


The attrition argument also ignores that the Reapers can use non-Reaper ships and forces to supplement their losses. Even if we conceded, simply for the purpose of this point alone, that the Reapers would experience heavy Reaper casualties, the Reapers can simply build non-Reaper vessels as they have already proven themselves able to do. They can build Collector Cruisers, Occuli, and any number of clone armies and ships in the interim of each cycle.

The interim of each cycle is also a variable the Reapers can dictate after this cycle, as there is no absolute reason the Repers must keep the 50,000 year cycle. They do not have to let civilizations advance as far as they have in the past. They can choose to harvest the species earlier and earlier, before they can build effective navies. The strength of a cycle is also a variable the Reapers will be able to influence once the current cycle is rectified.

[quote]
10. Again, YOU said there wasn't any point to stopping the Reaper takeover of the Citadel, because you KEEP insisting that they demolish everything anyway. I said that you were wrong, and that stopping the Citadel takeover hurt them.
[/quote]I am not making that argument. I have repeatedly rejected this claim, in this post and in previous ones. You have neither provided a quote to support you claim as to the position I have repeatedly denied, nor have you sought any clarification on any comment of mine that might have given you this impression. You have not even acknowledged that I have disavowed that position multiple times.

I do not appreciate being tied to a position I did not take. You are trying my patience: I'll retire for the evening and let it return, but if your next post simply repeats the same claim without support or acknowledging that I reject the position you are trying to impose on me, I'll consider it the end of the discussion and not bother to reply.
[/quote]

1. We are certinly led to believe otherwise by the "Reaper Vunerbilaties" codex entry, where it spicifically says:
"Although clearly technologically superior to the Citadel forces, the
Reapers have experienced casualties in the battles across the galaxy.
This indicates that, theoretically, with the right intelligence,
weapons, and strategy, the Reapers could be defeated."
See? It says in-game even, that fighting the Reapers conventonally is indeed possible.

2. If that was true, they wouldn't bother preserving every species. It's their goal. And it's hurt every time a Reaper dies. The Catalyst says that it's goal is "The preservation of all organic life."
Look at that and tell me what part of that means "it's not their priority"?

3. You aren't counting the many Reapers that must have fallen in those as well.
The Leviathans brought down a Reaper fairly easy. Thanix Cannons are markedly more effective on Reapers, and every ship in the Allied Fleets use them as standard, and they can be mounted on fighters. Onganics AND synthetics are working together now. Dozens of Reapers fell at Palaven. Many more casutlies are confirmed in the "Reaper Vunerbilaties" Codex.
ONE cycle gave them a black eye. And that SAME cycle has the potental to break their back, and ensure that at the very least, they fail the next cycle. Either way, THIS cycle will fell them.
I don't think "confidence" will matter a whole damn lot by then, nor will it be justified in any way.

4. Can you think of any other reason the reacted so damn quickly to the Illusive Man's message, and took the Citadel before any defence could be mounted? They were scared.

5. I posted what you said in point 18. Re-read that, THEN tell me "no." Because the qoute is right there.

6.By statsitacs, it's not SUPPOSED to be. They copped-out on that, so it hardly counts. That "cannon" mentality is why so many refused to acknolofdge the endings as valid.
They wanted it where you COULD win, OR lose. Not JUST lose. You obviously weren't listining to the debates.

7. Actually, the Crucible IS NEVER mentened by that female alien. And the Reapers failed to stop them this cycle, so they were weakened by the last.

8. Again, no. The Crucible is just one factor in that. The Rest is Fleet Strength. And breaking the Earth Fleet would break the spine of the Reapers. Earth was their prize. It's where their new Reaper was ment to be made. It will cripple them.

9. Husks as soldiers by re-cycleing bodies? Effeciant. Using the Citadel to decapatate the galactic government every time? Effeciant. Preserving every race? Efficant. Turning allies against each-other? Efficant.
They ARE ALL ABOUT efficancy.

10. That's based on variables the Catalyst made. 50,00 is the prime point where synthetic development concides perfectly with organic civilization peaking. So again, NO. It's NOT limiting themselves. Too soon, and they won't have fully develiped to their peak. Too late, and they run the risk of the synthetics rebeling and wiping out the races.
FULL PRACTACATY. Any who examin the Catalyst's reasons in-depth would know that.

11. Actually, it seems that the Destroyers aren't considered true Reapers. They souly exist for the sake of preserving the "lesser races." The term "lesser race" exists among them for a reason. If you had been right, there would not be a discrimination between races, and the Sovergien-classes would be made from anything. Which they are not.
Also, there has thus far been NOTHING that faults any of what the Leviathans say.

12. Destroyers are noted as considerably weaker then Sovergien-classes. Shepard kills four of them personally throughout the course of ME3. Three frigates are noted to be able to take down a Destroyer. So no, conventional victory is anything BUT impossible in regards to Destroyers. A single Cain heavy weapon can bring down a Hades Cannon, which is a Destroyer with a large gun on it's back. One Javilan Missle can kill a Destroyer, as seen on Earth at the Endgame.
So Destroyers aren't really worth their weight compaired to the Sovergien's.

13. There isn't a difference. You need TO care about something to Prioritize it.
And in case you somehow forgot, Sovergien DID use proxies. It used the Geth, remember? But that all failed, and gave the Reapers no choice but to do it the hard way. Sovergien didn't come out till it had no choice. The Reapers did the same. They DID try to use a proxy fleet in the geth so they could win instantly,  and not put unessesary risk to themselves. But they had no choice in the end.

And the codex entry about Destroyers disproves that, saying that the lesser species are made into them. Given thir smaller size, they likely don't NEED as many as the normal Reapers to create.

14. And who's "Word of God" is this? Yours? That's just your personal opinion. Liara says that the Protheans "neary defeated" the Reapers. Even without the Crucible, it sounds like they put a dent in them.
This could have happened before in the thousands of cycles there have been. So no, them not taking major casualties isn't a given.

15. Again, never shown. And they "nearly defeated" the Reapers, according to Liara. That means they MUST have been quite formidable, even without the Crucible. And based on the well over a dozen Reapers felled in this cycle alone over six months, it's safe to say the protheans killed several dozen, as they're war was centuries longer the ours.

16. I knew what I was talking about. Shepard's cycle killed over a dozen in a few months time. The Protheans likely killed several dozen over their multi-century long war. Other Cycles out of the thousands as well.
When I said to ajust your calculations on the number of Reapers, I ment it.

17. Udina says right off the bat in the Council Meeting that Earth faces the brunt of the Reaper attack. Also, Humans are the race chosen to be the next Sovergien-class Reaper. Of course they will hit that world the hardest, so as to quickly harvest their chosen species. Also, Harbinger itself is on Earth as well, leading the Harvest.
All this is indicative of the Core of the Reaper Fleet being at Earth.

And you do Realize that anything regarding the Collectors is limited, as there are only so few collectors left. (If you are going off of MP, DON'T. That's just for appearances, and a faction that looks cool, to bring people back to MP) They haven't re-appeared in-game, so they're existance isn't technically considered cannon thus far.
And also, Reapers are stated to not have power bases. Which you'd NEED to build the "clone ships" you talk about.

And again, since 50,000 is the fulcrum point where the peak of organic cicvilzation crosses perfectly with the peak of synthetic advancement, and the conflict terminus of when they will clash, 50,000 years is INDEED AN ABSOLUTE. Too early, they won't hit their technological peek. Too late, they run the risk of letting their creations wipe them out before they can be harvested.
Anyone that took an in-depth look at the Catalyst's motivations and justifacations would KNOW that.

18. "Even what you posted isn't a plot hole: it's just a different strategy that would have worked differently. It can also be counter-argued by arguing that if the Reapers are going to send a force large enough to take the Citadel by storm all the way from Dark Space, then they might as well just all fly over from Dark Space in the first place. Bringing them in via the Citadel in particular doesn't win them the war."

Look Familar? That was on Page 9 of this, about a third of the way through. THIS WAS YOUR COMENT. THAT is what I was argueing against, by saying they WOULD have won with the taking of the Citadel. So enough of this "comment I didn't make" garbage.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 27 janvier 2013 - 09:07 .

[Auztin]

 This is just a theory.
I think Leviathan created it when they made the catayst.It was a back-up plan incase things went wrong.Just a theory.

[knightnblu]

essarr71 wrote...

If i hook up my microwave to my computer it can turn my dog into a cyborg. Customer support told me I wouldnt understand the specifics of it but it was bound to happen eventually and the dog was ready for it.

^ This

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

1. We are certinly led to believe otherwise by the "Reaper Vunerbilaties" codex entry, where it spicifically says:
"Although clearly technologically superior to the Citadel forces, the
Reapers have experienced casualties in the battles across the galaxy.
This indicates that, theoretically, with the right intelligence,
weapons, and strategy, the Reapers could be defeated."
See? It says in-game even, that fighting the Reapers conventonally is indeed possible.[/quote]And here's the key word: theoretically. The galaxy does not have the right intelligence, weapons, or strategy: it doesn't have enough intelligence, it doesn't have enough weapons, and it doesn't the means to produce them in order to stop the Reapers from escalating their own strategy.

[quote]
2. If that was true, they wouldn't bother preserving every species. It's their goal. [/quote]They don't bother preserving every species: species that are too
few for non-Reaper reasons (such as the Drell), or genetically
incompatible (such as the Protheans) are not turned by the Reapers.

[quote]And it's hurt every time a Reaper dies.[/quote]Again, this isn't a meaningful damage. It's the ship of Thesseus paradox all over again.
[quote]The Catalyst says that it's goal is "The preservation of all organic life."
Look at that and tell me what part of that means "it's not their priority"?[/quote]All of it? A goal is not an absolute priority: it may be something you seek, but it isn't something immune from compromises. The fact of how the Reapers are willing to risk their vessels is proof that they don't consider the preservation of Reaped species an absolute priority.
[quote]
3. You aren't counting the many Reapers that must have fallen in those as well.
The Leviathans brought down a Reaper fairly easy. Thanix Cannons are markedly more effective on Reapers, and every ship in the Allied Fleets use them as standard, and they can be mounted on fighters. Onganics AND synthetics are working together now. Dozens of Reapers fell at Palaven. Many more casutlies are confirmed in the "Reaper Vunerbilaties" Codex.
ONE cycle gave them a black eye. And that SAME cycle has the potental to break their back, and ensure that at the very least, they fail the next cycle. Either way, THIS cycle will fell them.
I don't think "confidence" will matter a whole damn lot by then, nor will it be justified in any way.[/quote]There's no 'must' about the other cycles: you're listing a number of circumstances and advances that only apply to this cycle. You're also still ignorring that the Reapers can later supplement their conventional forces by non-Reaper means.

[quote]
4. Can you think of any other reason the reacted so damn quickly to the Illusive Man's message, and took the Citadel before any defence could be mounted? They were scared.[/quote]This is a strawman because I'm not arguing against that the Reapers were concerned about the Crucible project. I'd disagree that it's fear as oppossed to caution, but I've never
[quote]
5. I posted what you said in point 18. Re-read that, THEN tell me "no." Because the qoute is right there.[/quote]Spoiler alert: no. See later for more.

[quote]
6.By statsitacs, it's not SUPPOSED to be. They copped-out on that, so it hardly counts. That "cannon" mentality is why so many refused to acknolofdge the endings as valid.
They wanted it where you COULD win, OR lose. Not JUST lose. You obviously weren't listining to the debates.[/quote]By statistics and every narrative delivery, a conventional defeat is exactly what is in store for the galaxy. The entire history of the war is one string of Reaper advances over the next, with a bare few victories being great simply for slowing the Reapers down. The most important Reaper set backs, Rannoch and the Miracle of Palaven, don't break the Reaper's, were mere speedbumps that delayed the collapse: the Reapers eventually rally and force the Turians to cease offensive operations, and the Quarian and Geth fleets combined don't reverse the course of the conventional war.

Since I can name three people off the top of my head who expressed agreement with the idea of a conventional defeat with Refuse, and know that there were more who agreed, please don't equate your own desires with everyone who expressed interest in a refuse option.
[quote]
7. Actually, the Crucible IS NEVER mentened by that female alien. And the Reapers failed to stop them this cycle, so they were weakened by the last.[/quote]This... makes no sense in the context of a counter-point, because I wrote in this section of text referrened the Protheans or a female alien.

That the Reapers were put in a worse position by the last has also never been in dispute. The Prothean sabotage set the ground work that made all the difference.

[quote]
8. Again, no. The Crucible is just one factor in that. The Rest is Fleet Strength. And breaking the Earth Fleet would break the spine of the Reapers. Earth was their prize. It's where their new Reaper was ment to be made. It will cripple them.[/quote]You're repeating the claim without showing any reason why it would be true, when the Reapers are conducting simultaneous invasions and occupations across the rest of the galaxy. Just because the Reapers are fortifying Earth doesn't mean that critical proportions of their fleets are here.

It also doesn't force the Reapers to commit to similar conventional wars in the future with their post-Earth remaining forces. Even if Earth did magically represent the key muscle of the Reaper armada, they could simply offset their weakened position by harvesting future cycles earlier.
[quote]
9. Husks as soldiers by re-cycleing bodies? Effeciant. Using the Citadel to decapatate the galactic government every time? Effeciant. Preserving every race? Efficant. Turning allies against each-other? Efficant.
They ARE ALL ABOUT efficancy. [/quote]Being efficient in some ways doesn't mean you seek to be efficient in other ways. I've posted points that they don't bother with: listing some ways in which they aren't doesn't challenge that.
[quote]
10. That's based on variables the Catalyst made. 50,00 is the prime point where synthetic development concides perfectly with organic civilization peaking. So again, NO. It's NOT limiting themselves. Too soon, and they won't have fully develiped to their peak. Too late, and they run the risk of the synthetics rebeling and wiping out the races.[/quote]The 'peak' is an ideological marker, not a genetic one. Ultimately, the Reapers choose 50,000 because it works well enough for them, not because 50,000 is when everyone develops to the appropriate stage of awesome.

If 50,000 were really all they cared about, they still wouldn't have to leave.

[quote]FULL PRACTACATY. Any who examin the Catalyst's reasons in-depth would know that. [/quote]That's ideology, not practicality. If the Reapers were simply interested in practicality, they wouldn't leave: they'd farm, not hunt, species.

[quote]
11. Actually, it seems that the Destroyers aren't considered true Reapers. They souly exist for the sake of preserving the "lesser races." The term "lesser race" exists among them for a reason. If you had been right, there would not be a discrimination between races, and the Sovergien-classes would be made from anything. Which they are not.
Also, there has thus far been NOTHING that faults any of what the Leviathans say.[/quote]You're introducing a no-true scotsman fallacy to justify an assumption that you yourself presented: the Reapers can discriminate for their own reasons just like everyone else, but hey.

But let's no invent thing simply for the sake of twisting arguments. My point has nothing to do with whether Destroyers are 'legitimate' Reapers: it only has to do with that Destroyers are a significant military platform in their own right, and the Reapers have the basis for having enough of them to render the argument of conventionl victory in this cycle null.
[quote]
12. Destroyers are noted as considerably weaker then Sovergien-classes. Shepard kills four of them personally throughout the course of ME3. Three frigates are noted to be able to take down a Destroyer. So no, conventional victory is anything BUT impossible in regards to Destroyers.[/quote]Being weaker than Dreadnaughts isn't the point: their numbers are.

Destroyers also don't go down as easily as you imply. Shepard 'personally' kills the ones we see go down under extreme and very limited circumstances: a one-of-a-kind thresher maw, an uncontested orbital bombardment scenario by an entire fleet that still required a limited-availbility transmitter to the firing chamber, a very, very narrow margin hit on the direct Reaper weak spot. And these are 'just' Destroyers, and they still require considerable circustances to align just so in order to justify the victory.


[quote]
A single Cain heavy weapon can bring down a Hades Cannon, which is a Destroyer with a large gun on it's back. One Javilan Missle can kill a Destroyer, as seen on Earth at the Endgame.[/quote]A Hades Canon is a weapon placed on a Destroyer chasis, not a Destroyer. Chasis are not vehicles themselves.

One critical hit from a Javilan Missile can kill a Destroyer, but not every Javelan missile is going to hit the sweet spot. As we've seen from Rannoch, there's a considerable difference between hitting the Reaper's shells and hitting their weak points.

So Destroyers aren't really worth their weight compaired to the Sovergien's.[/quote]I have to ask: are you familiar with naval warfare?



[quote]
13. There isn't a difference. You need TO care about something to Prioritize it. [/quote]I agree with this. I disagree that it applies in reverse: all dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs. Something you prioritize is something you care about, but not everything you care about is priority: after all, you can have many preferences, but only one top priority.

[quote]
And in case you somehow forgot, Sovergien DID use proxies. It used the Geth, remember? But that all failed, and gave the Reapers no choice but to do it the hard way. Sovergien didn't come out till it had no choice. The Reapers did the same. They DID try to use a proxy fleet in the geth so they could win instantly,  and not put unessesary risk to themselves. But they had no choice in the end.[/quote]This doesn't recognize the thrust of the position: the Geth are Reaper proxies, but they are proxies picked up by circumstance and advantage. If the Reapers were interested in avoiding risk to themselves above all else, they would simply field their own, Reaper-produced proxies and only use them.

To give an example of what this would mean in practice, it would be like if ME3 ended by sending Shepard to the Dark Citadel counter-relay, only to find that the inner cores of all the Reapers (the species-shaped cores analogous to the Human Reaper body) were all still hiding in Dark Space, controlling the cuttlefish ships and Collectors from afar so that any destruction of the Dreadnaughts/whatever wouldn't actually kill the Reaper.

Or, less grandly, if the Reapers simply sent endless fleets of Collectors to do their fighting for them, and never did anything but chill like Harbinger in ME2.

[quote]
14. And who's "Word of God" is this? Yours? That's just your personal opinion. Liara says that the Protheans "neary defeated" the Reapers. Even without the Crucible, it sounds like they put a dent in them.
This could have happened before in the thousands of cycles there have been. So no, them not taking major casualties isn't a given.[/quote]Word of God refers to the comments from the writers and developers themselves. In this case, a tweet from one of the writers that the Reapers normally complete a cycle without any casualties... and that the next cycle probably wins by using the Crucible.


[quote]
15. Again, never shown. And they "nearly defeated" the Reapers, according to Liara. That means they MUST have been quite formidable, even without the Crucible. And based on the well over a dozen Reapers felled in this cycle alone over six months, it's safe to say the protheans killed several dozen, as they're war was centuries longer the ours.[/quote]Liara says they nearly defeated the Reapers because of the Crucible, which the Protheans had enough progress on to leave functionally complete plans around for us, not their conventional strength.

Dozens of Reapers fell in our six monthes in large part because the Citadel Relays remained open to us, and the Reapers were forced into an open, continuous war in which the galaxy could allocate resources across the map. That was not the case of the Protheans, who even Javik admits were pretty much losing constantly as they attempted to fall back and flee from the Reaper advances.

[quote]
16. I knew what I was talking about. Shepard's cycle killed over a dozen in a few months time. The Protheans likely killed several dozen over their multi-century long war. Other Cycles out of the thousands as well.
When I said to ajust your calculations on the number of Reapers, I ment it.[/quote]You were talking about a position in which you said I was assuming there were no Reaper casualties. My actual quote refuted that. We can discuss if your predictions of the Protheans or other Cycles effectiveness are plausible or not, but we can only do that if you don't claim I'm saying things I am not saying.

I do not think the depiction of the Protheans multi-century long was as a long-war as if it were comparable to the current cycle's war is accurate: the Protheans were from the start unable to enforce an operation tempo or reinforce eachother like our galaxy was able to do, and the Reapers held the strategic advantage to dictate the time and location of any engagement they wish. With the Relays locked down, the Reapers wouldn't be forced into a high-attrition setting like our own cycle presented, and the Reapers would be the ones able to play hit-and-run attrition of the Prothean fleets and colonies that might have otherwise provided a conventional resistance of note.

[quote]
17. Udina says right off the bat in the Council Meeting that Earth faces the brunt of the Reaper attack. Also, Humans are the race chosen to be the next Sovergien-class Reaper. Of course they will hit that world the hardest, so as to quickly harvest their chosen species. Also, Harbinger itself is on Earth as well, leading the Harvest.
All this is indicative of the Core of the Reaper Fleet being at Earth.[/quote]Earth faces of the Reaper attack when Udina says it. Six months before the end-game. Ignoring that Udina is anything but an impartial observor at the time, this is at the very beginning of the war, when Earth is still in the process of falling and in which most of the galaxy hasn't even entered the war yet.

[quote]
And you do Realize that anything regarding the Collectors is limited, as there are only so few collectors left. (If you are going off of MP, DON'T. That's just for appearances, and a faction that looks cool, to bring people back to MP) They haven't re-appeared in-game, so they're existance isn't technically considered cannon thus far.
And also, Reapers are stated to not have power bases. Which you'd NEED to build the "clone ships" you talk about. [/quote]Right. And the fact that the Reapers don't bother to rely on proxies, as demonstrated by the fact they haven't bothered to build up or maintain a proxy military to replace themselves on the battlefield, and their indicated preference for avoiding unnecessary supply lines by using themselves as primary combat craft, both indicate that the Reapers are willing to accept personal risk to their forms and previously ascended species. If they're willing to accept losses to ascended species, then they would not be holding a mutually incompatible goal of prioritizing the safety of the ascended Reapers above all else.

Which is the point.


[quote]
And again, since 50,000 is the fulcrum point where the peak of organic cicvilzation crosses perfectly with the peak of synthetic advancement, and the conflict terminus of when they will clash, 50,000 years is INDEED AN ABSOLUTE. Too early, they won't hit their technological peek. Too late, they run the risk of letting their creations wipe them out before they can be harvested.[/quote]This site lacks a good eyeroll. The Reapers don't need the harvested cycles to reach a technological peak before harvesting them, and if their unit of measure was technological advancement then the 50,000 mark would be obsolete by civilizations that either advance slower or faster. Current galactic civilization has only existed for approximately 2000 years since the Citadel was discovered, after all, and other cycles could easily find the Citadel sooner or later than we did.


50,000 was a number that was associated with the Protheans that the narrative picked up and plastered as a standard over all cycles without really supporting it. It was a conveniently Big Round Number that fit well, but it's never been treated as an Absolute: at best it provides a rough framework with a margin of error that only gets larger if you claim the cycle is timed to technological advancement rather than timing.


[quote]
Anyone that took an in-depth look at the Catalyst's motivations and justifacations would KNOW that.[/quote]Motivations and justifications reflect ideology, not innate requirements.


[quote]silverexile17s wrote...


18. "Even what you posted
isn't a plot hole: it's just a different strategy that would have worked
differently. It can also be counter-argued by arguing that if the Reapers
are going to send a force large enough to take the Citadel by storm all
the way from Dark Space, then they might as well just all fly over from
Dark Space in the first place. Bringing them in via the Citadel in
particular doesn't win them the war."

Look Familar? That was
on Page 9 of this, about a third of the way through.
THIS WAS YOUR COMENT. THAT is what I was argueing against, by saying
they WOULD have won with the taking of the Citadel. So enough of this
"comment I didn't make" garbage.

[/quote]That is not

[quote]10. Again, YOU said there wasn't any point to stopping the Reaper
takeover of the Citadel, because you KEEP insisting that they demolish
everything anyway. I said that you were wrong, and that stopping the
Citadel takeover hurt them.[/quote].

What you just underlined is not anywhere close to an argument that there wasn't any point in stopping the Reaper takeover of the Citadel in ME1. It was, as I elaborated at the time and since, an argument that the Reapers don't require the Citadel for a conventional victory: the
Citadel Trap isn't what wins them the conventional war, it's the
insurmountable Reaper advantage of ships, technologies, and tactics that
win the war, and the Citadel trap is just more effective.

That they can demolish everything in a conventional war anyway is not an argument that ME1 was pointless.

[Maxster_]

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...
They waited.
Catalyst, being as you say, embodiment of the reapers - knew everything, about prothean sabotage, and Sovereign doings.
Even without him,  - Sovereign already tried to start harvest thousands of years ago. Have you ever played ME1?

Yes, finished it for the third time a month ago. There was nothing about Sovereign trying to start the harvest thousands years ago, only "many years ago" which is inconsequential. Hell, even a hundred years wouldn't matter from the Reaper perspective. If you believe I am wrong, feel free to point me towards a specific quote/dialogue which talks about Sovereign trying to start it all up for thousands of years.

Lol what?
Sovereign influenced the Rachni, Sovereign contacted geth.
Sovereign was vanguard of the reapers. He sent signal to the keepers, but they ignored. That is why entire story of ME1 is even happening - Sovereign searches for means to get to the master control unit of the relay network.
That is why Sovereign searched for Conduit. That is why he attacked - as Vigil says, reapers are trapped in the dark space.

Reapers are always hide their traces, there is not a single reason why Sovereign should even use rachni otherwise, other than for starting the invasion. There is no reason to contact geth and persuade them to join(and then use them as support forces in the attack).
Especially when you said Hell, even a hundred years wouldn't matter from the Reaper perspective. This means that there is completely no reason for Sovereign to show himself, especially when reapers are half a year of travel away. And they can travel to a relay network without losing anything. There is no single reason for Sovereign to start search for the Conduit, other than plot requirement for him to lose and to demonstrate to entire galaxy his and reapers existence. There is no single reason for Sovereign to attack the Citadel.

And with Catalyst, who is in full control of the Citadel and the Reapers, there is not a single reason for even influencing rachni or contact geth. Catalyst could order reapers any time to travel to a galaxy and end this nonsense.

Maxster_ wrote...
Sovereign grew bold, desperate and attacked Citadel directly for no other reason than just because. There is no point for him risking his cover. Not a single one. He just attacked because plot demanded to.
-snip-
If you think this doesn't invalidate ME1's storyline - i can't help you.
You have no idea what good, coherent and consistent writing is.

You were talking about overarching series plot. ME1's plot is simply an episode of it. The plothole of Reapers "just arriving" instead of having to go through Citadel is the single worst plothole in the whole series and I truly despise it because of the reasons you outlined  - there was no point for Sovereign to do a suicide attack. As I said, I knew it before I even played ME3.

Well, ok.

It does not, however, subvert the plot of conflict with the Reapers which is the main point of the whole series.

Really? It completely destroys their motivations, retcons reapers "trapped in dark space", and makes entire story pure nonsense, with characters acting for no reasons. Thus story becomes a series of unconnected and unrelated events, which just happens because reasons.
It undermines protheans act, makes this completely unnecessary, because Catalyst just allowed this sabotage, just because. He could done that even without the sabotage. He just allowed all this to happen because reasons.

Maxster_ wrote...
Well, guessing that you swallowed crap like Crucible - it shows.

I do not like the idea of Crucible very much - I simply say it is relatively plausible, considering the given variables. You seem to happily ignore most of what was said, though, but feel free to re-read my posts on the topic if you wish.

Sure.
As i said, it shows. If pure nonsense like Crucible, which can not be designed and can not be built, is relatively plausible, then destruction of characters motivations, turning chain of consequential events into random unrelated events with absolutely no reason for them to happen - is a normal storytelling.

[DRACO1130]

no.
had they known the ctrucible plans would have included the difinition of the catalyst. Bear in midn that the crucible design spanned SEVERAL cycles and each race added to its intrinisc design and effectiveness.
Shep alone, in game, adds 5 or 6 new 'twists' to the plans, not to mention the contribution of Conrad Verner.

[kal_reegar]

For the reapers, taking control of the citadel is of course very, very important. Otherwise, all the Sovereing did ME1 and before (maybe the rachni's war was the first attempt to weaken the galaxy ) makes little sense.
I'm not saying that the citadel trap is necessary, but if te citadal trap fails, maybe for the first time, they will have to use a less effective strategy. Synthetics don't like inefficiency.
That's why Sovereing and Reapers waited so long.

So, why don't they immediately attack the citadel in ME3 and shut down the relays network?
Imho because a direct attack is dangerous. After ME1 organics can't be taken by surprise so easily, and if they manage to close the arms, the citadel would become almost inexpugnable.
So they need to take the citadal from the inside. If you think about, they try to take the citadel for the first time almost immediately, through Udina and TIM which was (imo) already indocrinated.
The first attempt fails. The second succeded.

Also, we don't know if the relay network can be controlled immediately, maybe Vigil device has overwritten the previous one.
Maybe the reapers need a new IFF device, and it takes time to complete it.

[Laforgus]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

It... it is not a thing you can comprehend.

Damm you, i came to say that!

[Maxster_]

kal_reegar wrote...

For the reapers, taking control of the citadel is of course very, very important. Otherwise, all the Sovereing did ME1 and before (maybe the rachni's war was the first attempt to weaken the galaxy ) makes little sense.
I'm not saying that the citadel trap is necessary, but if te citadal trap fails, maybe for the first time, they will have to use a less effective strategy. Synthetics don't like inefficiency.
That's why Sovereing and Reapers waited so long.

This makes no sense.
Reapers deliberately hiding any evidence of their existence, there is no reason why this attack on the Citadel is even happened. If there was an other, simplier way, like flying into a galaxy in half a year, losing completely nothing.

Especially, when you said next, that direct attack on the Citadel is too dangerous in your opinion.

So, why don't they immediately attack the citadel in ME3 and shut down the relays network?
Imho because a direct attack is dangerous. After ME1 organics can't be taken by surprise so easily, and if they manage to close the arms, the citadel would become almost inexpugnable.

Reapers took Citadel in ME3 easily when they wanted, you forgot that?
So, ME3 itself contradicting your opinion.

So they need to take the citadal from the inside. If you think about, they try to take the citadel for the first time almost immediately, through Udina and TIM which was (imo) already indocrinated.
The first attempt fails. The second succeded.

This doesn't makes any sense.
They took Citadel by force, easily.

Also, we don't know if the relay network can be controlled immediately, maybe Vigil device has overwritten the previous one.
Maybe the reapers need a new IFF device, and it takes time to complete it.

Except Sovereign locked relays when he docked. And only because of Vigil's program, Shepard was able to unlock relays.

[Mouton_Alpha]

Maxster_ wrote...

Sovereign influenced the Rachni

There is no proof he personally did that. For all we know, they could have found a reaper artifact thing and go slightly insane. Even the idea that something influenced them isn't certain - although it is, in fact, probable.

Maxster_ wrote...
As i said, it shows. If pure nonsense like Crucible, which can not be designed and can not be built, is relatively plausible, then destruction of characters motivations, turning chain of consequential events into random unrelated events with absolutely no reason for them to happen - is a normal storytelling.

Stop throwing insults, especiallly when I agree with you on many things. For example:

Maxster_ wrote...
There is no single reason for Sovereign to attack the Citadel.

^ this is evident even in ME1 alone. Crucible remains more plausible exactly because its design proccess remains vague, while we can witness the actions of Sovereign and Saren first-hand.

[kal_reegar]

This makes no sense.
Reapers deliberately hiding any evidence of their existence, there is no reason why this attack on the Citadel is even happened. If there was an other, simplier way, like flying into a galaxy in half a year, losing completely nothing.

who said that the other way is simpler? We know that reapers were preparing the invasion for several decades, maybe more (rachni?), and this alone makes your statement questionable.

I've noticed that you're fond of fallacies... well, that's a fallacy, at least for the pragma-dialectical theory
you're assuming inconsistent implicit premises, when in fact you may assume a rational implicit premise, given the context: scilicet, that for the reapers the citadel trap is a priority (not a necessity..they don't need the citadel to win the war) because it gives them a relevant advantage (relay network + wipe out galactic leader + informations/datas + surprise/shock effect), and that's why they are willing to delay the invasion and risk Sovereign.

also, you don't know the dangers of a travel through the dark space, the cost in term of resources etc.
man, you gotta give the reapers some credit, or the benefit of the doubt at least...

Reapers took Citadel in ME3 easily when they wanted, you forgot that?
So, ME3 itself contradicting your opinion.

no: since I think that Tim is indoctrinated, the cerberus/Udina coup d'état is an indirect attempt to take control of the citadel.

so, "the reapers took the citadel" not when they wanted, but at the second attempt... and even if we admit that it was the first attempt, how can you say that it was easy? Or that they took it only thanks to a direct attack? TIM, the indoc TIM, was inside the presidium, near the control room... so who knows?

we know nothing about the citadel's fall, and nevertheless you are speculating about a nonsensical scenario... fallacy again!

This doesn't makes any sense.
They took Citadel by force, easily

easily... maybe the word you're looking for is quickly.
A rapid conquest is not neccesarly an easy and simple one.

also, I must clarify what I mean with "dangerous". Of course the reapers can take the citadel, but what about the trade-off? Simply, in a scenario where the surprise effect is forever lost, the cost of the conquest could be higher than the reward.

Except Sovereign locked relays when he docked. And only because of Vigil's program, Shepard was able to unlock relays.

yes, and as I've said, maybe after Vigil's program was used, another code/device is required to lock/unlock the relays again. Maybe it is not a thing they can do in the dark space in two minutes...

and maybe to lock/unlock the relays is not the most important advantage of taking the citadel, as everyboy seemed to think.
maybe the surprise/shock effect is the most important advantage.. and after ME1 and Arrival it won't work anymore, so the citadel becomes a secondary goal.

Or maybe the reapers are waiting to attack the citadel because they know that the more they rage on the homeworlds, the more ships and resources will be removed from the untouched citadel.
this way, the attack will be a lot easier.
we don't know the reapers priority... if a waiting three months means fewer dead/damaged class sovereing reapers, then they will wait and keep the relays unlocked
.

[silverexile17s]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

1. We are certinly led to believe otherwise by the "Reaper Vunerbilaties" codex entry, where it spicifically says:
"Although clearly technologically superior to the Citadel forces, the
Reapers have experienced casualties in the battles across the galaxy.
This indicates that, theoretically, with the right intelligence,
weapons, and strategy, the Reapers could be defeated."
See? It says in-game even, that fighting the Reapers conventonally is indeed possible.[/quote]And here's the key word: theoretically. The galaxy does not have the right intelligence, weapons, or strategy: it doesn't have enough intelligence, it doesn't have enough weapons, and it doesn't the means to produce them in order to stop the Reapers from escalating their own strategy.

[quote]
2. If that was true, they wouldn't bother preserving every species. It's their goal. [/quote]They don't bother preserving every species: species that are too
few for non-Reaper reasons (such as the Drell), or genetically
incompatible (such as the Protheans) are not turned by the Reapers.

[quote]And it's hurt every time a Reaper dies.[/quote]Again, this isn't a meaningful damage. It's the ship of Thesseus paradox all over again.
[quote]The Catalyst says that it's goal is "The preservation of all organic life."
Look at that and tell me what part of that means "it's not their priority"?[/quote]All of it? A goal is not an absolute priority: it may be something you seek, but it isn't something immune from compromises. The fact of how the Reapers are willing to risk their vessels is proof that they don't consider the preservation of Reaped species an absolute priority.
[quote]
3. You aren't counting the many Reapers that must have fallen in those as well.
The Leviathans brought down a Reaper fairly easy. Thanix Cannons are markedly more effective on Reapers, and every ship in the Allied Fleets use them as standard, and they can be mounted on fighters. Onganics AND synthetics are working together now. Dozens of Reapers fell at Palaven. Many more casutlies are confirmed in the "Reaper Vunerbilaties" Codex.
ONE cycle gave them a black eye. And that SAME cycle has the potental to break their back, and ensure that at the very least, they fail the next cycle. Either way, THIS cycle will fell them.
I don't think "confidence" will matter a whole damn lot by then, nor will it be justified in any way.[/quote]There's no 'must' about the other cycles: you're listing a number of circumstances and advances that only apply to this cycle. You're also still ignorring that the Reapers can later supplement their conventional forces by non-Reaper means.

[quote]
4. Can you think of any other reason the reacted so damn quickly to the Illusive Man's message, and took the Citadel before any defence could be mounted? They were scared.[/quote]This is a strawman because I'm not arguing against that the Reapers were concerned about the Crucible project. I'd disagree that it's fear as oppossed to caution, but I've never
[quote]
5. I posted what you said in point 18. Re-read that, THEN tell me "no." Because the qoute is right there.[/quote]Spoiler alert: no. See later for more.

[quote]
6.By statsitacs, it's not SUPPOSED to be. They copped-out on that, so it hardly counts. That "cannon" mentality is why so many refused to acknolofdge the endings as valid.
They wanted it where you COULD win, OR lose. Not JUST lose. You obviously weren't listining to the debates.[/quote]By statistics and every narrative delivery, a conventional defeat is exactly what is in store for the galaxy. The entire history of the war is one string of Reaper advances over the next, with a bare few victories being great simply for slowing the Reapers down. The most important Reaper set backs, Rannoch and the Miracle of Palaven, don't break the Reaper's, were mere speedbumps that delayed the collapse: the Reapers eventually rally and force the Turians to cease offensive operations, and the Quarian and Geth fleets combined don't reverse the course of the conventional war.

Since I can name three people off the top of my head who expressed agreement with the idea of a conventional defeat with Refuse, and know that there were more who agreed, please don't equate your own desires with everyone who expressed interest in a refuse option.
[quote]
7. Actually, the Crucible IS NEVER mentened by that female alien. And the Reapers failed to stop them this cycle, so they were weakened by the last.[/quote]This... makes no sense in the context of a counter-point, because I wrote in this section of text referrened the Protheans or a female alien.

That the Reapers were put in a worse position by the last has also never been in dispute. The Prothean sabotage set the ground work that made all the difference.

[quote]
8. Again, no. The Crucible is just one factor in that. The Rest is Fleet Strength. And breaking the Earth Fleet would break the spine of the Reapers. Earth was their prize. It's where their new Reaper was ment to be made. It will cripple them.[/quote]You're repeating the claim without showing any reason why it would be true, when the Reapers are conducting simultaneous invasions and occupations across the rest of the galaxy. Just because the Reapers are fortifying Earth doesn't mean that critical proportions of their fleets are here.

It also doesn't force the Reapers to commit to similar conventional wars in the future with their post-Earth remaining forces. Even if Earth did magically represent the key muscle of the Reaper armada, they could simply offset their weakened position by harvesting future cycles earlier.
[quote]
9. Husks as soldiers by re-cycleing bodies? Effeciant. Using the Citadel to decapatate the galactic government every time? Effeciant. Preserving every race? Efficant. Turning allies against each-other? Efficant.
They ARE ALL ABOUT efficancy. [/quote]Being efficient in some ways doesn't mean you seek to be efficient in other ways. I've posted points that they don't bother with: listing some ways in which they aren't doesn't challenge that.
[quote]
10. That's based on variables the Catalyst made. 50,00 is the prime point where synthetic development concides perfectly with organic civilization peaking. So again, NO. It's NOT limiting themselves. Too soon, and they won't have fully develiped to their peak. Too late, and they run the risk of the synthetics rebeling and wiping out the races.[/quote]The 'peak' is an ideological marker, not a genetic one. Ultimately, the Reapers choose 50,000 because it works well enough for them, not because 50,000 is when everyone develops to the appropriate stage of awesome.

If 50,000 were really all they cared about, they still wouldn't have to leave.

[quote]FULL PRACTACATY. Any who examin the Catalyst's reasons in-depth would know that. [/quote]That's ideology, not practicality. If the Reapers were simply interested in practicality, they wouldn't leave: they'd farm, not hunt, species.

[quote]
11. Actually, it seems that the Destroyers aren't considered true Reapers. They souly exist for the sake of preserving the "lesser races." The term "lesser race" exists among them for a reason. If you had been right, there would not be a discrimination between races, and the Sovergien-classes would be made from anything. Which they are not.
Also, there has thus far been NOTHING that faults any of what the Leviathans say.[/quote]You're introducing a no-true scotsman fallacy to justify an assumption that you yourself presented: the Reapers can discriminate for their own reasons just like everyone else, but hey.

But let's no invent thing simply for the sake of twisting arguments. My point has nothing to do with whether Destroyers are 'legitimate' Reapers: it only has to do with that Destroyers are a significant military platform in their own right, and the Reapers have the basis for having enough of them to render the argument of conventionl victory in this cycle null.
[quote]
12. Destroyers are noted as considerably weaker then Sovergien-classes. Shepard kills four of them personally throughout the course of ME3. Three frigates are noted to be able to take down a Destroyer. So no, conventional victory is anything BUT impossible in regards to Destroyers.[/quote]Being weaker than Dreadnaughts isn't the point: their numbers are.

Destroyers also don't go down as easily as you imply. Shepard 'personally' kills the ones we see go down under extreme and very limited circumstances: a one-of-a-kind thresher maw, an uncontested orbital bombardment scenario by an entire fleet that still required a limited-availbility transmitter to the firing chamber, a very, very narrow margin hit on the direct Reaper weak spot. And these are 'just' Destroyers, and they still require considerable circustances to align just so in order to justify the victory.


[quote]
A single Cain heavy weapon can bring down a Hades Cannon, which is a Destroyer with a large gun on it's back. One Javilan Missle can kill a Destroyer, as seen on Earth at the Endgame.[/quote]A Hades Canon is a weapon placed on a Destroyer chasis, not a Destroyer. Chasis are not vehicles themselves.

One critical hit from a Javilan Missile can kill a Destroyer, but not every Javelan missile is going to hit the sweet spot. As we've seen from Rannoch, there's a considerable difference between hitting the Reaper's shells and hitting their weak points.

So Destroyers aren't really worth their weight compaired to the Sovergien's.[/quote]I have to ask: are you familiar with naval warfare?



[quote]
13. There isn't a difference. You need TO care about something to Prioritize it. [/quote]I agree with this. I disagree that it applies in reverse: all dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs. Something you prioritize is something you care about, but not everything you care about is priority: after all, you can have many preferences, but only one top priority.

[quote]
And in case you somehow forgot, Sovergien DID use proxies. It used the Geth, remember? But that all failed, and gave the Reapers no choice but to do it the hard way. Sovergien didn't come out till it had no choice. The Reapers did the same. They DID try to use a proxy fleet in the geth so they could win instantly,  and not put unessesary risk to themselves. But they had no choice in the end.[/quote]This doesn't recognize the thrust of the position: the Geth are Reaper proxies, but they are proxies picked up by circumstance and advantage. If the Reapers were interested in avoiding risk to themselves above all else, they would simply field their own, Reaper-produced proxies and only use them.

To give an example of what this would mean in practice, it would be like if ME3 ended by sending Shepard to the Dark Citadel counter-relay, only to find that the inner cores of all the Reapers (the species-shaped cores analogous to the Human Reaper body) were all still hiding in Dark Space, controlling the cuttlefish ships and Collectors from afar so that any destruction of the Dreadnaughts/whatever wouldn't actually kill the Reaper.

Or, less grandly, if the Reapers simply sent endless fleets of Collectors to do their fighting for them, and never did anything but chill like Harbinger in ME2.

[quote]
14. And who's "Word of God" is this? Yours? That's just your personal opinion. Liara says that the Protheans "neary defeated" the Reapers. Even without the Crucible, it sounds like they put a dent in them.
This could have happened before in the thousands of cycles there have been. So no, them not taking major casualties isn't a given.[/quote]Word of God refers to the comments from the writers and developers themselves. In this case, a tweet from one of the writers that the Reapers normally complete a cycle without any casualties... and that the next cycle probably wins by using the Crucible.


[quote]
15. Again, never shown. And they "nearly defeated" the Reapers, according to Liara. That means they MUST have been quite formidable, even without the Crucible. And based on the well over a dozen Reapers felled in this cycle alone over six months, it's safe to say the protheans killed several dozen, as they're war was centuries longer the ours.[/quote]Liara says they nearly defeated the Reapers because of the Crucible, which the Protheans had enough progress on to leave functionally complete plans around for us, not their conventional strength.

Dozens of Reapers fell in our six monthes in large part because the Citadel Relays remained open to us, and the Reapers were forced into an open, continuous war in which the galaxy could allocate resources across the map. That was not the case of the Protheans, who even Javik admits were pretty much losing constantly as they attempted to fall back and flee from the Reaper advances.

[quote]
16. I knew what I was talking about. Shepard's cycle killed over a dozen in a few months time. The Protheans likely killed several dozen over their multi-century long war. Other Cycles out of the thousands as well.
When I said to ajust your calculations on the number of Reapers, I ment it.[/quote]You were talking about a position in which you said I was assuming there were no Reaper casualties. My actual quote refuted that. We can discuss if your predictions of the Protheans or other Cycles effectiveness are plausible or not, but we can only do that if you don't claim I'm saying things I am not saying.

I do not think the depiction of the Protheans multi-century long was as a long-war as if it were comparable to the current cycle's war is accurate: the Protheans were from the start unable to enforce an operation tempo or reinforce eachother like our galaxy was able to do, and the Reapers held the strategic advantage to dictate the time and location of any engagement they wish. With the Relays locked down, the Reapers wouldn't be forced into a high-attrition setting like our own cycle presented, and the Reapers would be the ones able to play hit-and-run attrition of the Prothean fleets and colonies that might have otherwise provided a conventional resistance of note.

[quote]
17. Udina says right off the bat in the Council Meeting that Earth faces the brunt of the Reaper attack. Also, Humans are the race chosen to be the next Sovergien-class Reaper. Of course they will hit that world the hardest, so as to quickly harvest their chosen species. Also, Harbinger itself is on Earth as well, leading the Harvest.
All this is indicative of the Core of the Reaper Fleet being at Earth.[/quote]Earth faces of the Reaper attack when Udina says it. Six months before the end-game. Ignoring that Udina is anything but an impartial observor at the time, this is at the very beginning of the war, when Earth is still in the process of falling and in which most of the galaxy hasn't even entered the war yet.

[quote]
And you do Realize that anything regarding the Collectors is limited, as there are only so few collectors left. (If you are going off of MP, DON'T. That's just for appearances, and a faction that looks cool, to bring people back to MP) They haven't re-appeared in-game, so they're existance isn't technically considered cannon thus far.
And also, Reapers are stated to not have power bases. Which you'd NEED to build the "clone ships" you talk about. [/quote]Right. And the fact that the Reapers don't bother to rely on proxies, as demonstrated by the fact they haven't bothered to build up or maintain a proxy military to replace themselves on the battlefield, and their indicated preference for avoiding unnecessary supply lines by using themselves as primary combat craft, both indicate that the Reapers are willing to accept personal risk to their forms and previously ascended species. If they're willing to accept losses to ascended species, then they would not be holding a mutually incompatible goal of prioritizing the safety of the ascended Reapers above all else.

Which is the point.


[quote]
And again, since 50,000 is the fulcrum point where the peak of organic cicvilzation crosses perfectly with the peak of synthetic advancement, and the conflict terminus of when they will clash, 50,000 years is INDEED AN ABSOLUTE. Too early, they won't hit their technological peek. Too late, they run the risk of letting their creations wipe them out before they can be harvested.[/quote]This site lacks a good eyeroll. The Reapers don't need the harvested cycles to reach a technological peak before harvesting them, and if their unit of measure was technological advancement then the 50,000 mark would be obsolete by civilizations that either advance slower or faster. Current galactic civilization has only existed for approximately 2000 years since the Citadel was discovered, after all, and other cycles could easily find the Citadel sooner or later than we did.


50,000 was a number that was associated with the Protheans that the narrative picked up and plastered as a standard over all cycles without really supporting it. It was a conveniently Big Round Number that fit well, but it's never been treated as an Absolute: at best it provides a rough framework with a margin of error that only gets larger if you claim the cycle is timed to technological advancement rather than timing.


[quote]
Anyone that took an in-depth look at the Catalyst's motivations and justifacations would KNOW that.[/quote]Motivations and justifications reflect ideology, not innate requirements.


[quote]silverexile17s wrote...


18. "Even what you posted
isn't a plot hole: it's just a different strategy that would have worked
differently. It can also be counter-argued by arguing that if the Reapers
are going to send a force large enough to take the Citadel by storm all
the way from Dark Space, then they might as well just all fly over from
Dark Space in the first place. Bringing them in via the Citadel in
particular doesn't win them the war."

Look Familar? That was
on Page 9 of this, about a third of the way through.
THIS WAS YOUR COMENT. THAT is what I was argueing against, by saying
they WOULD have won with the taking of the Citadel. So enough of this
"comment I didn't make" garbage.

[/quote]That is not

[quote]10. Again, YOU said there wasn't any point to stopping the Reaper
takeover of the Citadel, because you KEEP insisting that they demolish
everything anyway. I said that you were wrong, and that stopping the
Citadel takeover hurt them.[/quote].

What you just underlined is not anywhere close to an argument that there wasn't any point in stopping the Reaper takeover of the Citadel in ME1. It was, as I elaborated at the time and since, an argument that the Reapers don't require the Citadel for a conventional victory: the
Citadel Trap isn't what wins them the conventional war, it's the
insurmountable Reaper advantage of ships, technologies, and tactics that
win the war, and the Citadel trap is just more effective.

That they can demolish everything in a conventional war anyway is not an argument that ME1 was pointless.

[/quote]
1. If it wasn't possible, it would not be LISTED. You don't list things that wren't possible to do.

2. Then why didn't they wipe those races out? Look at the quarians. We know from the quarians extinction option of the Rannoch War that the upgraded geth could have rolled over the quarians easy. Why DIDN'T they? The Reapers could have just foced the geth to roll over the quarians -they don't cane about geth losses - but didn't.
And look at the volus and the vorcha. They could have just bombed their worlds, but instead, they suppressed them, immoblized them. If you were right, WHY DID THEY SPARE THE OTHER RACES WORLDS, INSTEAD OF JUST BOMBING THEM?
They want all the races preserved. Otherwise, they would have just scorched the lesser races instantly, and we know they have the power to do so.
If you were right, the Reapers would have just wiped them out. They didn't, so your wrong.

3. Again, the Reapers no longer have that option. They LOST it when the Collector Base went up. All their husk production comes from Reaper Harvesters (Refernce: Codex, Secondary: The Reapers: Reaper Variants).
So again, NO. They DON'T have the capabilaty to suppliment with Non-Reaper ANYMORE. That was the point of denying them the Collector Base.

4. At this point, I doubt there's a difference between the two. You need to have fear of something to be cautious of it.

5. Again, incoorect. Go to the end to see.

6. You don't KNOW that. Not even the DEVS bothered to find out. They just slapped an "instant loss" tag on because they didn't want to cave to fan demand. There are hundereds of people that computed and added it up, like DenionSlayer, f1ndmenow, Troxa, and more, and from all the War Asstes avalible, beating the Reapers over Earth WITHOUT the Crucible SHOULD be possible.

7. Shepard's Cycle STILL provides the punch that ensures it.

8. Udina says that the Alliance reports CONFIM Earth faces the brunt of the Reaper's efforts. Harbinger, the oldest and first Reaper, is there on Earth. No harvesting operations match the size of the one on Earth (near 7 million daily). They happen to be the same race chosen to make the next Reaper from. Vendetta says the Citadel was take to "the seat of Reaper-controled space." Earth. It CAN'T exactally be the core of Reaper-controlled space without having the CORE OF THEIR FLEET there, can it?
You REALLY look at all that and say "Earth isn't improtant to them?" This all points to the backbone of the Reapers being on EARTH.

9. And what ARE those spicific points? I'll bet they can be disproved easliy enough. All through their harvest, they do things efficantly and throughly. Vigil says that's how they worked on the protheans.

10. Shepard's cycle, The Leviathans, and what we saw of the prothean's Cycle, seem to disprove that. According to Vendetta, the "Same peaks of evolution. The same vallyes of dissolution," happen every cycle.
So yes, them reaching "the same level of awasome" every time is EXACTALLY what happens.
And they leave so that the Races aren't aware of their presance early, and start developing to spicifically stop them. They make sure to wipe away the traces of their passing as much as they can. Staying kinda defeats that peupose of making sure no one knows about them till the Harvest.
And the ENTIRE POINT OF THE CYCLES IS TO FARM ORGANIC LIFE TO HARVEST. It's like an ant farm. You give them the space, and the abailaty, but you don't LIVE IN THERE WITH THEM. And when everything hits it peak, you cycle it out and start again.
PRACTACAL CYCLING OF LIFE.

11. Yeah, two words: Threasher. Maw.
A giant WORM killed one. (I'm betting you disagreed with that idea?)
Yeah, they really are superiour battle platforms. (Note the scarcasim)
...They DIE from a single well-placed Cain shot. (ME3, Earth Mission, you take down a Hades Cannon in ONE SHOT) Yeah. REAL formidible.
Their Cannon Fodder. If QUARIAN TUGS could bring one down in less then five vollies, I doubt warships would have that much trouble. They AREN'T anything to majorly fear.

12. Again. Earth. Cain. ONE-SHOT.
Earth. Missle. ONE-SHOT. 
There were only TEWLVE quarian ships firing on that Reaper. FIVE vollies brought it down. Military ships, like turian frigates, can surpass that. DON'T tell me they are formidable. they AREN'T.

13.  YES, I am. YOU aren't, in regards to Mass Eeffect. EDI says that if not for the disruption from the Conduit, EVERY MISSILE WOULD HAVE BEEN A DIRECT HIT. So YES, every missle WOULD likely be DIRECT HITS. There IS a little something called "V.I./A.I. targeting" in ME, hightened by the geth, so misses ARENT LIKELY ANYMORE.

I have to ask, do you even refrence ME lore at all?

14. That assumes a HUMAN RESPONCE. The Reapers AREN'T human. They don't THINK like humans. They don't LIMIT themselves like humans.
Look at Earth. They obviously prioritized it's harvest over everything else. They prioritized defending the Citadel over Earth when they realized what the Allies were planning.

15. .... Um... That's EXACTALLY what they do. They field their own Reaper-produced proxy armies.
They're called HUSKS.
They fight us with OUR OWN PEOPLE. THAT'S the DEFINITION of a proxy army. What did you THINK the reason they used Husks was?
It's a qucik, efficant, PROXY ARMY.

16. Again, probably. Word of God didn't help with Casey Hudson, who denied a geth squadmate, and then we got Legion.

17. They survived on conventonal strength for several centruies. We killed over a dozen Reapers, capitol and destroyer alike, in less then six months. Take that infrormation, couple it with that protheans were markedly more advanced, and it means that the protheans would have done admirably well in conventonal war, likely killing dozens of Reapers before the end. Javik says the reason they didn't win was because they couldn't adapt to the Reaper stratigies once their tactics were figured out. He says NOTHING about the Crucible in any of that. So conventoal war went better for the protheans then us.
And Javik was born in the last decades of the war. He wasn't there in the beginning. They likely did much better in that, compaired to when he was born.

18. Yet, if that was true, it shouldn't have taken the centuries that Vigil said it did for them to win. That at least means 300 to 350+ years likely. The protheans also had more advanced beam weapons, which K-Barriers aren't much good against. So they likely did some damage before being defeated.

19. The Reapers chose to build that conduit on London, Earth, well before they ever took the Citadel. They obviously were planning to move the thing to Earth regardless. If Earth wasn't so important to them, Harbinger wouldn't personally be leading the invasion. Nor would they instantly bring the Citadel and Catalyst to Earth out of all the worlds they took, or build a conduit for it months in advance. And the image of the Reapers over Earth in the Fleet battle shows A LOT of Reapers there.
Face it. Earth is their Ground Zero. Their core territory.

20. The Reapers DO rely on proxies to fight for them. They are called HUSKS. They fight their war entirely with husks.
If what you said was true, Sovergien would NEVER have recruted the geth, Harbinger would NEVER have used the Collectors, The Reapers would NEVER have tried to take control of the geth again in ME3, and the Reapers would NEVER have bothered to invent husks AT ALL.
Reliance on Proxy Armies: CHECK.

21. THAT'S WHAT THE MASS REALAYS WERE CREATED FOR. The Leviathans TELL you that the Relays and Citadel were Created SPICIFICALLY for the purpose of streamlining galactic evolution, so that the cycles ALL CONSISTANTLY HIT THE SAME POINT OF EVOLUTION AT ROUGHLY THE SAME TIME. Which is every 50,000 years. Sovergien tells you this in ME1, telling you that the Realays insure you always develop on the paths they want.
This is pathetcic!  Anyone that actually KNEW THE LORE IN-DEPH would KNOW THIS.

22. As said in 21^, the Relays are Citadel were created to streamline the process, and ENSURE that evey cycle hit the same point at roughly the same time. You hear this from Sovergien, and the Leviathans, and at the end, the Catalyst too.
AGAIN, anyone that took an in-deph look at the Catalyst's motivations would KNOW THIS.

23. IT'S FROM YOUR POST. LOOK AT IT. IT'S WHAT YOU REPLIED WITH.

24. They DID need it to win. Look what happens in ME3 if they don't. They risked themselves alot more then they used to believe was nessessary. They took a black eye in the War because they didn't have the Citadel Trap anymore, and one way or another, this cycle becomes the end of them, either breaking their spine, or stopping them outright.
If they still had the trap, they would have won  instantly, and the next cycle wouldn't have anything to go off of anymore, and they would fall too. The Reapers defeat, one way or another, all begins with the failure of the Citadel Trap.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 28 janvier 2013 - 07:15 .

[silverexile17s]

Maxster_ wrote...

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...
They waited.
Catalyst, being as you say, embodiment of the reapers - knew everything, about prothean sabotage, and Sovereign doings.
Even without him,  - Sovereign already tried to start harvest thousands of years ago. Have you ever played ME1?

Yes, finished it for the third time a month ago. There was nothing about Sovereign trying to start the harvest thousands years ago, only "many years ago" which is inconsequential. Hell, even a hundred years wouldn't matter from the Reaper perspective. If you believe I am wrong, feel free to point me towards a specific quote/dialogue which talks about Sovereign trying to start it all up for thousands of years.

Lol what?
Sovereign influenced the Rachni, Sovereign contacted geth.
Sovereign was vanguard of the reapers. He sent signal to the keepers, but they ignored. That is why entire story of ME1 is even happening - Sovereign searches for means to get to the master control unit of the relay network.
That is why Sovereign searched for Conduit. That is why he attacked - as Vigil says, reapers are trapped in the dark space.

Reapers are always hide their traces, there is not a single reason why Sovereign should even use rachni otherwise, other than for starting the invasion. There is no reason to contact geth and persuade them to join(and then use them as support forces in the attack).
Especially when you said Hell, even a hundred years wouldn't matter from the Reaper perspective. This means that there is completely no reason for Sovereign to show himself, especially when reapers are half a year of travel away. And they can travel to a relay network without losing anything. There is no single reason for Sovereign to start search for the Conduit, other than plot requirement for him to lose and to demonstrate to entire galaxy his and reapers existence. There is no single reason for Sovereign to attack the Citadel.

And with Catalyst, who is in full control of the Citadel and the Reapers, there is not a single reason for even influencing rachni or contact geth. Catalyst could order reapers any time to travel to a galaxy and end this nonsense.

Maxster_ wrote...
Sovereign grew bold, desperate and attacked Citadel directly for no other reason than just because. There is no point for him risking his cover. Not a single one. He just attacked because plot demanded to.
-snip-
If you think this doesn't invalidate ME1's storyline - i can't help you.
You have no idea what good, coherent and consistent writing is.

You were talking about overarching series plot. ME1's plot is simply an episode of it. The plothole of Reapers "just arriving" instead of having to go through Citadel is the single worst plothole in the whole series and I truly despise it because of the reasons you outlined  - there was no point for Sovereign to do a suicide attack. As I said, I knew it before I even played ME3.

Well, ok.

It does not, however, subvert the plot of conflict with the Reapers which is the main point of the whole series.

Really? It completely destroys their motivations, retcons reapers "trapped in dark space", and makes entire story pure nonsense, with characters acting for no reasons. Thus story becomes a series of unconnected and unrelated events, which just happens because reasons.
It undermines protheans act, makes this completely unnecessary, because Catalyst just allowed this sabotage, just because. He could done that even without the sabotage. He just allowed all this to happen because reasons.

Maxster_ wrote...
Well, guessing that you swallowed crap like Crucible - it shows.

I do not like the idea of Crucible very much - I simply say it is relatively plausible, considering the given variables. You seem to happily ignore most of what was said, though, but feel free to re-read my posts on the topic if you wish.

Sure.
As i said, it shows. If pure nonsense like Crucible, which can not be designed and can not be built, is relatively plausible, then destruction of characters motivations, turning chain of consequential events into random unrelated events with absolutely no reason for them to happen - is a normal storytelling.

1. Ugh, WRONG. Dr. Bryson says that there was NO TRACE of Reaper infulence in the Rachni. The timing was off, and there was no Reaper technology to indoctrinate them with. He says that Leviathan was the one that minipulated the Rachni.
And DON'T bellyache on "proof." It's called "Word of God." The devs wouldn't have even put the idea into the DLC if they didn't want it to be true.
And the Leviathans have the SAME indoctrination power as the Reapers. I doubt the Rachni would ever be able to tell the difference between the two.
And I remind you that Sovergien was STILL INACTIVE in ME:Revelation. So NO, Sovergien didn't have anything to do with the Rachni.

2. The reason Sovergien showed himself if because it needs to activate the Citadel Relay. It's Reaper tech. Reaper Controlled. Only a Reaper can unlock the relay.
And AGAIN, the prothean sabotage was likely the reason the Catalyst didn't do anything. The prothean sabotage may have SPICIFICALLY BEEN to put the Catalyst into stasis. We never LEARN what it was they did to shut down the signal, or what it was they "discovered" in their studies of the Keeper signal on Ilos. So it's entirely likely.
It IS NOT LORE-BREAKING. Just anoyingly unexplained. But still completely possible.
It's "Suicide Attack" wasn't MENT to be suicide. If not for Shepard, Sovergien would have been safely sealed away in the Citadel, unlocking the Relay and reviving the Catalyst with complete impunity. Then the rest of the Reapers pour through.
So NO. There WAS a point to that attack, and it WASN'T suicidal in Sovergien's opinion, because Shepard wasn't considered a threat. So the attack on the Citadel is NITHER lore-breaking, or stupid.

3. It took THREE YEARS to get to the galaxy on foot. They would have INSTANTLY WON had Sovergien suceeded.
COMPARE those.
Three years going through Dark Space, six months slogging through the galaxy, taking unpredicted losses, and unable to pick the races off one by one because they don't have acess to the Relay Network.
VS
Decapatating the primary government, destroying their core power base for their fleets, and lokcing down the relays, leaving the races stranded as they are picked off one at a time.

Look at that, And THEN try to say "there wasn't a point." Or, you can study the lore.

4. You think that just because WE don't know what it is, that the Race that built it originally was the same?
Do you EVER use logic?
Of COURSE the original race that invented it would know what it was. They would need a clear idea of what they were making, and what for, or else they woul NEVER HAVE BUILT IT AT ALL.
And you see something with that much power, and is assocated with "last hope against the Reapers" in any data refrecnes to it. Of COURSE you're going to assume it's a weapon.
And with giant living starships killing everything, your going to just leave such a potentally devastating weapon possibilaty UNTOUCHED?

Yeah - you know NOTHING about war, do you?

[silverexile17s]

kal_reegar wrote...

This makes no sense.
Reapers deliberately hiding any evidence of their existence, there is no reason why this attack on the Citadel is even happened. If there was an other, simplier way, like flying into a galaxy in half a year, losing completely nothing.

who said that the other way is simpler? We know that reapers were preparing the invasion for several decades, maybe more (rachni?), and this alone makes your statement questionable.

I've noticed that you're fond of fallacies... well, that's a fallacy, at least for the pragma-dialectical theory
you're assuming inconsistent implicit premises, when in fact you may assume a rational implicit premise, given the context: scilicet, that for the reapers the citadel trap is a priority (not a necessity..they don't need the citadel to win the war) because it gives them a relevant advantage (relay network + wipe out galactic leader + informations/datas + surprise/shock effect), and that's why they are willing to delay the invasion and risk Sovereign.

also, you don't know the dangers of a travel through the dark space, the cost in term of resources etc.
man, you gotta give the reapers some credit, or the benefit of the doubt at least...

Reapers took Citadel in ME3 easily when they wanted, you forgot that?
So, ME3 itself contradicting your opinion.

no: since I think that Tim is indoctrinated, the cerberus/Udina coup d'état is an indirect attempt to take control of the citadel.

so, "the reapers took the citadel" not when they wanted, but at the second attempt... and even if we admit that it was the first attempt, how can you say that it was easy? Or that they took it only thanks to a direct attack? TIM, the indoc TIM, was inside the presidium, near the control room... so who knows?

we know nothing about the citadel's fall, and nevertheless you are speculating about a nonsensical scenario... fallacy again!

This doesn't makes any sense.
They took Citadel by force, easily

easily... maybe the word you're looking for is quickly.
A rapid conquest is not neccesarly an easy and simple one.

also, I must clarify what I mean with "dangerous". Of course the reapers can take the citadel, but what about the trade-off? Simply, in a scenario where the surprise effect is forever lost, the cost of the conquest could be higher than the reward.

Except Sovereign locked relays when he docked. And only because of Vigil's program, Shepard was able to unlock relays.

yes, and as I've said, maybe after Vigil's program was used, another code/device is required to lock/unlock the relays again. Maybe it is not a thing they can do in the dark space in two minutes...

and maybe to lock/unlock the relays is not the most important advantage of taking the citadel, as everyboy seemed to think.
maybe the surprise/shock effect is the most important advantage.. and after ME1 and Arrival it won't work anymore, so the citadel becomes a secondary goal.

Or maybe the reapers are waiting to attack the citadel because they know that the more they rage on the homeworlds, the more ships and resources will be removed from the untouched citadel.
this way, the attack will be a lot easier.
we don't know the reapers priority... if a waiting three months means fewer dead/damaged class sovereing reapers, then they will wait and keep the relays unlocked
.

Congradulations. You discovered he doesn't analyze the lore properly. Or at all.

[silverexile17s]

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Sovereign influenced the Rachni

There is no proof he personally did that. For all we know, they could have found a reaper artifact thing and go slightly insane. Even the idea that something influenced them isn't certain - although it is, in fact, probable.

Maxster_ wrote...
As i said, it shows. If pure nonsense like Crucible, which can not be designed and can not be built, is relatively plausible, then destruction of characters motivations, turning chain of consequential events into random unrelated events with absolutely no reason for them to happen - is a normal storytelling.

Stop throwing insults, especiallly when I agree with you on many things. For example:

Maxster_ wrote...
There is no single reason for Sovereign to attack the Citadel.

^ this is evident even in ME1 alone. Crucible remains more plausible exactly because its design proccess remains vague, while we can witness the actions of Sovereign and Saren first-hand.

Actually, in the DLC "Leviathan", Dr.Bryson says that there was no Reaper technology ever recovered from the Rachni, and that the timing was off, because Sovergien wasn't active till 20+ years ago (i.e: Saren finds the STILL DORMANT Sovergien at the end of Mass Effect: Revelation). Also, we clearly see the Rachni Queen in ME3 fight off indoctrination, despite having been imprisioned for quite some time. If she could resist, why couldn't the old queens?
He gives that theroy that the Leviathans were the ones behind the Rachni Wars, prepping the rachni to fight the Reapers. This is more plausible, because, since the Leviathans share the Reapers abailaty to affect the minds of organic beings, and since the rachni share the same "telepathy" concept, they would likely be much more suceptible to Leviathan minipulation then Reaper minipulation.
Why the Leviathans would DO this however, is unknown. Perhaps they were ment to swarm and harass the Reapers, and weaken them so that later cycles could win. Perhaps the Leviathans were finally going to come out and fight again. Whatever the reason, it seems to indicate thet the Reapers were likely not the ones responcible for the Rachni.

And again, if not SOULY for Shepard, Sovergien would have stayed safe behind the Cidatel's locked arms, while the Relay was unlocked and the Reapers poured in. So NO, not pointless.
Sovergien attacks the Citadel to:
Revive the Catalyst.
Bring in the Reapers.
Wipe out the head of the Galactic Government.
Lock down the Mass Relay Network.

And If not for Shepard using the Conduit too, it would NEVER have failed. So it WASN'T a suicide move, and it DOESN'T void any lore.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 28 janvier 2013 - 02:25 .

[fr33stylez]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...
 How can you 'add' to something when you have no idea what it is?

How does technology grow across generations?

Well, the history of technological advancement is that people start with one idea, take it a bit in one direction, and then some one else with a different idea and a different perspecitve takes it somewhere else. Ultimtely the first person's intent or vision is irrelevant.

Not by adding to devices where the function is unknown. Technological advancement is actually the refinement of what is known.

We didn't determine diesel and hybrid engines would be more efficient by having petro gas engines fall out of the sky without us knowing what an engine was.

Modifié par fr33stylez, 28 janvier 2013 - 06:04 .

[Xamufam]

In a story you should never ever add major story content as seperate content.
If it Was relevant it should have been in the story day 1

Modifié par Troxa, 28 janvier 2013 - 07:49 .

[Maxster_]

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Sovereign influenced the Rachni

There is no proof he personally did that. For all we know, they could have found a reaper artifact thing and go slightly insane. Even the idea that something influenced them isn't certain - although it is, in fact, probable.

Except there is.
Implies in ME1 and direct words of the rachni in ME2.

We hide. We burrow. We build. But we know you seek those who soured the souls of our mothers. When the time comes, our voice will join with yours, and our crescendo will burn the darkness clean

Maxster_ wrote...
As i said, it shows. If pure nonsense like Crucible, which can not be designed and can not be built, is relatively plausible, then destruction of characters motivations, turning chain of consequential events into random unrelated events with absolutely no reason for them to happen - is a normal storytelling.

Stop throwing insults, especiallly when I agree with you on many things. For example:

Maxster_ wrote...
There is no single reason for Sovereign to attack the Citadel.

^ this is evident even in ME1 alone. Crucible remains more plausible exactly because its design proccess remains vague, while we can witness the actions of Sovereign and Saren first-hand.

Well, that depends on how you take Vigil's words. Especially about reapers being trapped in dark space.
If you ignore his words - then there is no reason, and ME1 story makes no sense.
If reapers are indeed trapped in dark space(or can't fly into a galaxy without losses in full numbers), - then there is.
If there is Catalyst who controls reapers, who are just his pawns - then there is no reason.
If reapers can just fly into a galaxy in half a year losing completely nothing then there is no reason.

[BronzTrooper]

I don't know if this was already mentioned but, the Citadel, and the Mass Relays, were built by the Reapers. You are told this in the Leviathan DLC.

[Maxster_]

[quote]kal_reegar wrote...

[quote]
This makes no sense.
Reapers deliberately hiding any evidence of their existence, there is no reason why this attack on the Citadel is even happened. If there was an other, simplier way, like flying into a galaxy in half a year, losing completely nothing.
[/quote]

who said that the other way is simpler? We know that reapers were preparing the invasion for several decades, maybe more (rachni?), and this alone makes your statement questionable.
[/quote]
Really? All we know, that reapers, after ME2, activated and started their flight towards the galaxy.
[quote]
I've noticed that you're fond of fallacies... well, that's a fallacy, at least for the pragma-dialectical theory
you're assuming inconsistent implicit premises, when in fact you may assume a rational implicit premise, given the context: scilicet, that for the reapers the citadel trap is a priority (not a necessity..they don't need the citadel to win the war) because it gives them a relevant advantage (relay network + wipe out galactic leader + informations/datas + surprise/shock effect), and that's why they are willing to delay the invasion and risk Sovereign.
[/quote]
They are risking entire invasion, by blowing Sovereign's cover. This makes no sense, especially if there is completely no need to hurry.
You know, reapers can just fly into a galaxy in half a year. Of course, you can just ignore ME1 and ME2 story, and just say that reapers flew for thousands of years.
Anyway, ME2 story makes no sense either way. But that's beside the point.
Even if reapers flew for thousands of years(which contradicts story), there is completely no need for Sovereign to attack Citadel when there is only year to wait.
[quote]
also, you don't know the dangers of a travel through the dark space, the cost in term of resources etc.
man, you gotta give the reapers some credit, or the benefit of the doubt at least...
[/quote]
Reapers arrived at full strength, and easily crushed any opposition. Given such superiority, there is no reason for them to have Citadel trap.
[quote]
[quote]Reapers took Citadel in ME3 easily when they wanted, you forgot that?
So, ME3 itself contradicting your opinion.[/quote]

no: since I think that Tim is indoctrinated, the cerberus/Udina coup d'état is an indirect attempt to take control of the citadel.

so, "the reapers took the citadel" not when they wanted, but at the second attempt... and even if we admit that it was the first attempt, how can you say that it was easy? Or that they took it only thanks to a direct attack? TIM, the indoc TIM, was inside the presidium, near the control room... so who knows?

we know nothing about the citadel's fall, and nevertheless you are speculating about a nonsensical scenario... fallacy again!
[/quote]
We know that Citadel was taken, and taken quickly, exactly when they needed.
They could just did the same thing at the start of ME3.
[quote]
[quote]This doesn't makes any sense.
They took Citadel by force, easily[/quote]

easily... maybe the word you're looking for is quickly.
A rapid conquest is not neccesarly an easy and simple one.

also, I must clarify what I mean with "dangerous". Of course the reapers can take the citadel, but what about the trade-off? Simply, in a scenario where the surprise effect is forever lost, the cost of the conquest could be higher than the reward.
[/quote]
Please.
Reapers crushed everyone with ease, even turian fleet, which is strongest in the galaxy.
What cost would that be, when reapers easily beaten all opposition with divided(for no reason) forces? Only time, which gives their opposition completely nothing, and that operation(Citadel takeover) took only several days at best.

Sure, cost of beating isolated packets of resistance is much higher than beating entire combined fleet of the galaxy.
Riight
[quote]
[quote]Except Sovereign locked relays when he docked. And only because of Vigil's program, Shepard was able to unlock relays.[/quote]

yes, and as I've said, maybe after Vigil's program was used, another code/device is required to lock/unlock the relays again. Maybe it is not a thing they can do in the dark space in two minutes...
[/quote]
It doesn't matter even if takes weeks(which i doubt).
Nothing can stop reapers, as they was portrayed in ME3, in direct combat. They took the Citadel, and no one would ever stand a chance of taking it back.
[quote]
and maybe to lock/unlock the relays is not the most important advantage of taking the citadel, as everyboy seemed to think.
maybe the surprise/shock effect is the most important advantage.. and after ME1 and Arrival it won't work anymore, so the citadel becomes a secondary goal.
[/quote]
Please.
ME civilizations are built around mass relays. Take this away - and they are already destroyed - colonies and outposts die out, economics collapse.
Add to that inability to join fleets - and they can't even fight back.
[quote]
Or maybe the reapers are waiting to attack the citadel because they know that the more they rage on the homeworlds, the more ships and resources will be removed from the untouched citadel.
this way, the attack will be a lot easier.
we don't know the reapers priority... if a waiting three months means fewer dead/damaged class sovereing reapers, then they will wait and keep the relays unlocked
.
[/quote]
This does not make any sense.
Instead of separating fleets and attack one target with full might of the reapers fleets, - thus lowering losses, - they scattered their fleets to fight everyone at once, spreading thin and giving chances of local victories, and thus increasing their losses.