330 réponses à ce sujet

[111987]

d-boy15 wrote...

It just added to sugarcoat the ending... and I understand it from developer point of view,
they can't change the scene, everyone need to be there for memorial scene and normandy
is needed to land at the jungle planet. so, I don't think they had much choice

if we use military point of view, shepard wouldn't even called for an evac in the middle of slaughter
ground like that. the only thing that make sense is leave them with some medic behind cover and
continued pushing ahead.

and don't let me start about IFF, that thing not even work with small laser balls (forget their name)

EDI hadn't yet modifed the IFF to actively adapt to Reaper interrogation codes. That's why it wasn't a factor against the Occuli.

[Ticonderoga117]

111987 wrote...

EDI hadn't yet modifed the IFF to actively adapt to Reaper interrogation codes. That's why it wasn't a factor against the Occuli.

Or it could be because, uhm, the Normandy doesn't look like a Reaper.

[Meltemph]

111987 wrote...

d-boy15 wrote...

It just added to sugarcoat the ending... and I understand it from developer point of view,
they can't change the scene, everyone need to be there for memorial scene and normandy
is needed to land at the jungle planet. so, I don't think they had much choice

if we use military point of view, shepard wouldn't even called for an evac in the middle of slaughter
ground like that. the only thing that make sense is leave them with some medic behind cover and
continued pushing ahead.

and don't let me start about IFF, that thing not even work with small laser balls (forget their name)

EDI hadn't yet modifed the IFF to actively adapt to Reaper interrogation codes. That's why it wasn't a factor against the Occuli.

That entire premise is based on the idea that reapers cant "see out of windows".  I've never seen referenses to that being the case.  While sure, that could be plausible it is only plausible due to our lack of understanding all the technology in the game.  I mean, people can believe anything they want, but to try and create their idea's into a determined corse of events, like it is cannon...well.

[Maxster_]

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

I agree with the OP.

From a military point of view Harbinger not firing on the Normandy makes perfect sense. The Normandy posed absolutely no threat whatsoever to Harbinger or the Reapers, and if the Normandy had attempted to engage Harbinger it is lucky if it would have even scratched its paint. The Normandy was totally outclassed.
[/quote]
From a military point of view Harbringer not turning off the beam, or not using his main gun makes absolutely no sense.

[/quote]

You are making the assumption that Harbinger 1) had control over the beam, and 2) that the main gun and the supporting weapons have the same capaibilities and limitations.

That is a rather large assumption, and also head canon.
[/quote]
It is irrelevant had Harbringer control over the beam, or Catalyst had. They decided not to shut it down for no reasons.
2) is making no sense. You are saying that Harbringer suddenly can't use his main gun?
As always, you just ignore ME lore, in a debate about ME lore.

[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


Based on what exactly? Your head canon about how Harbinger's main gun and targeting systems work?
[/quote]
Lol.
Therefore your headcanon now stronger than game's canon?
That gun used by reapers in space combat and orbital bombardment. As is for any dreadnought in any fleet.
This is main weapon of all dreadnoughts, reapers included.
I like how you are demonstrating that you don't give a damn about ME lore.[/quote]

You are making the assumption that just because the Reapers' main guns are able to track and adjust for targets travelling at FTL speeds in space, that they are well suited for tracking and adjusting for man-sized targets on the ground travelling at between 5 and 8 miles per hour, or that they are even capable of firing at dismounted infantry at close range. You are comparing apples to oranges and basing your conclusions entirely on your personal head canon on the capabilities and limitations of the Reaper's main gun, and how its targeting systems function.
[/quote]

Why exactly a 400kt explosion should be targeted on individual soldiers?
Comrade, you are making no sense.
Yeah, lol, try to evade that.
[quote]
Unfortunately for you, head canon does not make for a compelling argument.[/quote]
Now you are also ignoring sum of human knowledge and common sense.
To defend EAWare's garbage writing, no less.
Well anyway, you already have no credibility.

[quote]
Just because the Reapers main gun can track and adjust for targets travelling at FTL in space doesn't necessarily mean that the main gun would be well suited to perform a similar task for dismounted infantry.
[/quote]

He can miss a 1-2 kilometers, it does not change the fate of the infantry.
Anyway, dreadnoughts in space battles shoot from tens of thousands kilometers, they are designed to hit other moving dreadnoughts, which are 800-1000 meters in length, and far less from forward projection(except asari).

So, if Harbringer ever needed to hit exact soldier from a low orbit, he could just do that. Not that he needs that, anyway.
[quote]
A Patriot missle battery can track and adjust for incoming missles travelling at hundreds of miles per hour. That doesn't mean that it can used to engage dismounted infantry.
[/quote]
Lol. Another "real life example" from a military pretender.
Harbringer gun is far more powerful than a tactical nuke(like 20-40 times), not some air-defense missiles.

[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

We know next to nothing about how Harbinger's weaponry functions. The codex entries are rather vague and sparse on details.
[/quote]

We know enough. It is used in precise orbital bombardment of an military installations.
As is for every dreadnought in ME.
It also used in space combat, which requires a lot more precision due to a greater range.
You just demonstrating again that you ignoring ME lore.[/quote]

Again, you are making large assumptions and arguments based entirely on head canon.
[/quote]
You are just ignoring ME lore and common sense deliberately. As always.
[quote]
Please quite the section from the codex where we are given details on the targeting systems for both the Reapers' main guns, and their supporting weapons? Please quote the section where we are given the capabilities and limitations of both in regards to tracking and engaging dismounted infantry.
[/quote]
Your premise is flawed. Deliberately.
Why would reapers even need to target individual infantry when one shot will glass entire area of several kilometers in diameter?
And yes, of course they can target individual moving infantry. Any dreadnought can, and reapers have better targeting systems.

As for codex - link
Read entire page, and stop spewing nonsense already.

[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

How do we know that the weapons being fired by Harbinger during the beam rush scene were in fact the betters tools for that particular task, due to both the capabilities and limitations of both weapons systems?
[/quote]
We know that it is used in orbital bombardment. Therefore, this entire sequence with descending Harbringer makes absolutely no sense.[/quote]

We don't know, and you are making assumptions based on head canon.
[/quote]

The capital ships bombarded defense installations and industrial
centers, annihilating entire cities with populations in the low
millions, including Adelaide, Hamburg, Al Jubail, and Fort Worth.
Meanwhile, Reaper destroyers descended into the atmosphere to melt roads
and capture population centers with minimal loss of life. This is not
an example of the Reapers being merciful. More likely, they are herding
their prey to make the coming harvest that much easier.


As i said, you just deliberately ignoring ME lore.
[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

I'll give you a real world example.

A shell fired by 155mm howitzer is much more destructive than rounds fired by a medium machine gun firing 7.62mm rounds. That doesn't however, mean that a 155mm howitzer is a better direct fire weapon against dismounted infantry than a machine gun that fires 7.62 mm rounds. In fact, the opposite is true.
[/quote]
You just demonstrating your ignorance again.
Artillery is meant for indirect fire, especially howitzers.
And reapers using their kinetic weapons in orbital bombardment.

Your example is laughable. So, a howitzer squad, for some unknown reasons, decided to move from his position to attack some dismounted infantry using assault rifles.
So much for a "military point of view"


[/quote]

Incorrect.

I'm afraid I'm much more versed on how artillery weapons function than you. I'd suggest you refrain in the future from discussing topics you are completely ignorant of.
[/quote]
Lol.
Reaper capital ships is long range space combat and orbital bombardment ships.
So, using them at a few kilometer range without their main weapon, is the same as howitzer's squad moving from position to engage enemy, dismounts and engage infantry with handguns.
So, it is you who have no idea about military tactic and strategy.
Or you are so desperate to "win" this debate that you deliberately ignoring this.
My guess - is the former.
[quote]
While howitzers are indirect fire weapons, many weapons systems do in fact have direct fire capabilities. The M-198 howitzer that was used for many years by both the US Army and Marine Corps (as well as the Australian military), is capable of direct fire against both armored vehicles and dismounted infantry. In fact there are a couple of examples of it being used in exactly that capacity during both the Gulf War and the more recent invasion of Iraq.
[/quote]
And?
[quote]
Direct fire however is not the primary function it was designed for, and would generally be used only when artillery unit's position was being attacked or in danger of being overrun. In the direct fire role it is also, because of the limitations of the weapon, generally going to be a less effective weapon in engaging dismounted infantry than machine guns despite firing a far more destructive round. That is why artillery batteries also field machine guns to secure their positions. Those machine guns, rather than the howitzers, are the primary defense against an assault by dismounted infantry.
[/quote]
You are making less and less sense.
So, you basically said that main role of an artillery is not to engage infantry in direct fire role.
And that those situations only possible because of own command mistakes, or enemy cleverness.
That is obvious.
Only role of artillery is to indirectly fire from long range.
Of course, it can be used in other ways.
So, you can hammer a nail with a microscope. That doesn't mean that microscope created to hammer nails.

And of course, it is just another demonstration of how you ignoring common sense.
So, reapers are dreadnoughts, designed for long range space combat and orbital bombardment. They destroyed countless civilizations fighting space battles and bombarding planets.

And suddenly, in your nonsensical headcanon, effective use of a reaper dreadnought is to not use his main weapon, deliberately lower power of his secondary weapons, and all that to hunt individual soldiers for no reason.
Riiight
[quote]
I'll give you another example of why your argument that a Reapers main gun must by default, have the same capabilities of its supporting weapons, completely fails
[/quote]
Your "argument" is flawed. As always.
Anyway, just watch that, and then say to me, that reapers are far less powerful than SA dreadnoughts(or every council race for that matter).
Because only that way your contrived nonsense could ever work.
You know, "Every five seconds, the main gun of an Everest-class dreadnought accelerates one to 1.3% of light speed.."
[quote]
Why do tanks have machine guns in addition to their main guns? I'll tell you why...because generally speaking those machine guns are going to be a more effective weapon at engaging dismounted infantry at close ranges than the tank's main gun.
[/quote]
You are just spewing nonsense, again.
First, tanks were created in WW1 as means to break through machine-gun ridded trenches. Of course, tanks were always anti-infantry machines, with guns to level defenses, and machineguns to destroy infantry.

But, this of course, unrelated to ME. Because reapers are space ships, designed for long range combat. And secondary weapons are designed against smaller ships, like cruisers or frigates.
You are saying, that infantry suddenly came to orbit and surrounded Harbringer, so he have no other means than to use power-lowered secondary weapons?


[quote]
Different tools for different tasks. Why should it be different for the Reapers? That is after all, how the real world works.
[/quote]

[quote]
In fact with the absence of any codex entry detailing the capabilities and limitations of Reaper weapons in engaging dismounted infantry, the best we have to go by is the actual scenes in the game.
[/quote]
This false premise again.
Why in hell reapers need to target dismounted infantry, when one shot from their main gun OBLITERATE ENTIRE AREA, ANNIHILATING THIS INFANTRY?

I know, you are trolling on purpose.
[quote]
While not absolute canon, we can at least surmise that the Reapers' supporting weapons are in fact better than the main guns for engaging dismounted infantry, because that is what Harbinger uses in the beam rush scenes. At least that has some actual basis on in-game content, rather than declaration that the main gun would be better based entirely on one's own personal head canon.
[/quote]
Bwahahaha.
Ignoring ME lore, as always.
[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

Second, Harbinger's objective was to stop the ground team from getting any personnel to the beam. The tanks, dismounted infantry, and the gunships providing air support were the real threat. Any one from the ground team that made it to the beam could potentially doom the Reapers. At the time the ground time posed a very serious threat to the Reapers, unlike the Normandy, which posed none.
[/quote]
One shot from his main gun - and entire offesive is instantly annihilated.
And no one would got to the beam.
They were never a threat, one shot - and all dead instantly.[/quote]

An assumption based on head canon.
[/quote]

[quote]
Once again there is nothing in the lore that indicates that the main gun was suitable to firing at dismounted infantry at close range. There is absolutely nothing in the lore regarding capabilities and limitations of the Reaper's main gun and its targeting systems in regards to dismounted infantry at close range.
[/quote]

Do you have any idea, what kind of explosion is 400kt tnt equicalent?
"Military experience", my ass


[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

Also destroying the Normandy in no way guarantees that you wipe out the ground team. If the destruction of the Normandy SR1 was anything to go by, the destruction of the SR2 would not have been that dramatic. At best it would have killed and wounded some people in the immediate vicinity, but it certainly wouldn't have eliminated the entire ground team. And it would have been a distraction that potentially buys enough time for someone to make it to the beam.
[/quote]
Explosion of a Cruiser in earth:intro. SR-2 have roughly same size drive core.
Anyway, one shot of 400kt tnt equivalent kinetic impact explosion is enough to glass entire area with no survivors.

[/quote]

It was a dreadnought. Ashley and Kaidan refer to it as such in dialogue.
[/quote]
Lol.
[quote]Dreadnoughts are kilometer-long capital ships mounting heavy,
long-range firepower. They are only deployed for the most vital
missions. A dreadnought's power lies in the length of its main gun.
Dreadnoughts range from 800 meters to one kilometer long, with a main
gun of commensurate length. An 800-meter mass accelerator is capable of
accelerating one twenty-kilogram slug to a velocity of 4025 km/s (1.3%
the speed of light) every two seconds. Each slug has the kinetic energy
of about 38 kilotons of TNT, about two and a half times the energy released by the fission weapon that destroyed Hiroshima.
The Treaty of Farixen stipulates the amount of dreadnoughts a navy may own, with the turian peacekeeping fleet being allowed the most. As of 2183, the turians had 37 dreadnoughts, the asari had 21, the salarians
had 16, and the Alliance had 6 with another under construction. As of
2185, the dreadnought count was 39 turian, 20 asari, 16 salarian, and 8
human. By 2186, humans construct a ninth dreadnought, and the volus have
built a single dreadnought of their own.
Dreadnoughts are so large that it is impossible to safely land them on a planet, and must discharge
their drive cores into the magnetic field of a planet while in orbit.
The decks of large vessels are arranged perpendicular to the ship's axis
of thrust, so that the "top" decks are towards the front of the ship
and the "bottom" decks are towards the rear of the ship.
[/quote]
And of course, this.
Bioware admitted their mistake.
[quote]
Even if it were a cruiser however, the comparison would still fail. The SR2 was a frigate and the closest comparable ship would be the Normandy SR1, not a heavy cruiser.
[/quote]
What is "heavy cruiser"? Another asspull, i guess.
Anyway, Normandy SR-2 is almost twice the size of SR-1, so it is very large frigate, comparable with cruiser.

[quote]

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...


In real world situations, howitzers squads don't deliberately dismount to engage enemy soldiers with handguns.
I like how you making up nonsensical explanations, and mark them as "real world examples".

[/quote]

Now you're just making up stuff.

I never said that artillery crews would abandon their howitzers and engage the enemy with pistols.

What I did say, and is that artillery weapons are much less well-suiited to engaging dismounted infantry at close ranges than medium machine guns, despite the howitzer firing a much more destructive round.

That is an undisputed, stone cold FACT. That is why artillery batteries in the US Marine Corps secure their own positions with crew-served machine guns like the M2 .50 caliber machine gun, the MK-19, and the M240G.
[/quote]

Do you have any idea about topic we debating?
You provided this example as an excuse for Harbringer descend and use of secondary weapons.
It is the same as if howitzer squad moving from their position, dismounting and engaging infantry with assault rifles and machineguns - instead of using their artillery to bombard enemy infantry's position.
[quote]
Unlike you, I also have real world experience in this field. But if you would like to continue by all means, go ahead. I'd love to continue owning you.
[/quote]
Lol.
As if you have any credibility for such statements.

[quote]
[quote]
Given your "examples", you never had any experience in the military.

[/quote]

Unfortunately for you I served four years on active duty in the United States Marine Corps.
[/quote]
Yeah, yeah :lol::lol:
[quote]
I'm afraid its you here who doesn't have a single clue what they are talking about. But by all means continue, I rather enjoy dishing out ownage .[/quote]
Self-ownage? I guess you are expert in that.

[111987]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

111987 wrote...

EDI hadn't yet modifed the IFF to actively adapt to Reaper interrogation codes. That's why it wasn't a factor against the Occuli.

Or it could be because, uhm, the Normandy doesn't look like a Reaper.

Game canon>your canon.

It is canon that the Normandy can disguise itself as a Reaper. You may hate the idea, but it is what is said in-game.

[Mcfly616]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

legion999 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

It's pretty funny that people can't understand priorities. As in stopping anybody and anything from making it to the Citadel via the Beam. (This priority takes precedence over blowing up the Normandy)

Some people fail to realize that there's Mako's and marines still charging the beam while you're getting your injured squadmates onto the Normandy (or those people just completely ignore the fact)

They're in denial. They don't want it to make sense, so they grasp for any straws they can, or just say "art" or "nonsensical" in order to justify their claims. It's rather funny and yet, quite pathetic at the same time.

Things don't play exactly how they imagined/wanted them to, so they search for any way to say it doesn't make sense. Pretty laughable, really.

Then why not blow up the beam? Why not put troops on the Citadel so they don't have to worry? Why not shoot the Normandy which would cause a massive explosion killing all soldiers nearby? Why does the presence of marines stop Harbinger from taking a second to shoot the Normandy? Why doesn't Harbinger just use it's main gun?

It seems to me that you're the one in denial. The one who wants it to make sense.

Agreed.

first off, they're making a Reaper on the Citadel. They're using the beam to transport bodies up to the Citadel. They're not gonna blow if up. Secondly, where do you get the idea that the Normandy would cause a "massive explosion killing everyone.."? If you're referencing the beginning, well that ship was many times the size of the Normandy. And would not cause the explosion or shockwave nearly a quarter of the size as that vessel did.

Oh, and there's that part about being a videogame. Blowing up the beam would sort of make an impossible situation literally more impossible. Not making for much of a videogame. Like, really? Say Harbinger blows up the beam....where do we go from there, from a gameplay standpoint?

[Meltemph]

It is canon that the Normandy can disguise itself as a Reaper. You may hate the idea, but it is what is said in-game.

But you cant take that out of context or give it no context. While sure, there are people just trying to find reasons to not like the point(whether justified or not) taking information from one data soruce, and applying to anything you want, doesn't exactly make it so.

Talking about the IFF would make sense if we are just dealing with sensors, but a stealth system like that is not the same as that of, say, the Romulans, which sounds like what you are insinuating what the IFF and stealth systems to do the reapers.

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 janvier 2013 - 01:54 .

[AshenShug4r]

crimzontearz wrote...

Master Che wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Right, merciless reaper does not kill its nemesis and allows them to retreat for a good couple of minutes politely waiting? Right....no

Nemesis...that's a human concept based on feelings of vengance and spite...Right....no.

Try again.

he is responsible for the fall of two capital ships, a destroyer and a hades cannon on top of the foiling of harbinger's plans in ME2

Throw in a few more destroyers.
 
logic says you DO NOT let someone that dangerous live

[TheProtheans]

Master Che wrote...

I still see much butthurt from the EC.  Mainly, the Normandy Evac sequence.  The common lament circulates around how Harbinger NOT shooting down the Normandy didn't make sense.  I argue the contrary.

First, we have to remember why Harbinger made a beeline to the beam: To stop anyone from getting to it.  Remember this.  To STOP anyone from getting TO IT.

Now, let's fast forward...Hammer advances on the beam...pew pew pew!  To quote The Crow, "...bang! F**K, I'm Dead"!.  The Normandy comes to evac people AWAY from the area.  That's right, AWAY. 

Think about this for a second: Reapers.  What are they? Essentially, they are machines.  Sure, they have organic stuff in 'em, but they are really just fancy machines.  And like machines, they do not make decisions based on emotions.  By focusing resources on something that isn't a threat at the expense of focusing resources at a still INCOMING threat is illogical. 

"But Master Che", you say, "How does Harbinger know what the Normandy is going to do"?

I propose the following:
1) Shepard's yelling "I need an evac right now".  I'm pretty sure Harby could pick that up with "reaper ears". 
2) The Normandy comes in perpendicular to the beam.  Not flying TO IT.  And then lands, scoops up the injured, lifts up and goes AWAY from the scene.  Not to the beam like everything else its shooting at.


At this point, taking out the Normandy would be nothing more than a gratuitous "F**K YOU B***H".  Something that serves no other purpose but to be spiteful or vengeful.  Something...human. 

See where I'm coming from?

That is the the thoughts of young child who does not know any better.

If the Reapers wanted to make sure no one got to the beam(which they failed at), they would have blown up the Normandy which would have exploded killing almost everyone running down and also blocking the path, making it harder for others to get down.
Depending on where it targeted, the explosion could possible kill all organic life within a  quite a large radius in terms of where the troops are coming from and going to.
Other benefits include killing the main person who was stoppping you invasion and possible being able to reduce your numbers further.
Shooting a powerful strategic ship down making the sword fleet having less fighting capability, every ship counts.
There is other reasons too.


This tactic described is really common sense if you think about it.

[111987]

Meltemph wrote...

It is canon that the Normandy can disguise itself as a Reaper. You may hate the idea, but it is what is said in-game.

But you cant take that out of context or give it no context. While sure, there are people just trying to find reasons to not like the point(whether justified or not) taking information from one data soruce, and applying to anything you want, doesn't exactly make it so.

Talking about the IFF would make sense if we are just dealing with sensors, but a stealth system like that is not the same as that of, say, the Romulans, which sounds like what you are insinuating what the IFF and stealth systems to do the reapers.

I'm not sure I understand you. In what way am I taking it out on context? I am saying that EDI's work with the IFF allows it to disguise itself as a living Reaper. Thus that is a possible explanation as to why Harbinger does not destroy it.

[Meltemph]

I'm not sure I understand you. In what way am I taking it out on context? I am saying that EDI's work with the IFF allows it to disguise itself as a living Reaper. Thus that is a possible explanation as to why Harbinger does not destroy it.

Yes, their friend or foe sensors would not work(or atleast be fooled for a certain amount of time), but are you saying that reapers can only "see" with their sensors? Are you essentially saying they cant look out/into windows?  

Edit: Essetnially, you are giving no context with how the IFF works, other then, it works.

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 janvier 2013 - 02:13 .

[Applepie_Svk]

bad writing theory my bet...

[Jadebaby]

the fact you have to sit here trying to justify it proves it sucks.

[Ticonderoga117]

111987 wrote...

I'm not sure I understand you. In what way am I taking it out on context? I am saying that EDI's work with the IFF allows it to disguise itself as a living Reaper. Thus that is a possible explanation as to why Harbinger does not destroy it.

The IFF cannot make the Normandy take the form of a Reaper. Thus, getting a "look" at the Normandy means the ruse is foiled and the Reapers can then open fire.

[111987]

Meltemph wrote...

I'm not sure I understand you. In what way am I taking it out on context? I am saying that EDI's work with the IFF allows it to disguise itself as a living Reaper. Thus that is a possible explanation as to why Harbinger does not destroy it.

Yes, their friend or foe sensors would not work(or atleast be fooled for a certain amount of time), but are you saying that reapers can only "see" with their sensors? Are you essentially saying they cant look out/into windows?  

Edit: Essetnially, you are giving no context with how the IFF works, other then, it works.

The thing is, we are not given that context in the game. This is the only time the IFF is even mentioned, if I can recall. So everything else would just be speculation on my part.

I would suggest that the presence of the Reaper IFF gave Harbinger pause, but that it would eventually have realized the truth of the matter (as shown by Harbinger seemingly 'staring' at the Normandy) and captured/destroyed the Normandy.

[Meltemph]

111987 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

I'm not sure I understand you. In what way am I taking it out on context? I am saying that EDI's work with the IFF allows it to disguise itself as a living Reaper. Thus that is a possible explanation as to why Harbinger does not destroy it.

Yes, their friend or foe sensors would not work(or atleast be fooled for a certain amount of time), but are you saying that reapers can only "see" with their sensors? Are you essentially saying they cant look out/into windows?  

Edit: Essetnially, you are giving no context with how the IFF works, other then, it works.

The thing is, we are not given that context in the game. This is the only time the IFF is even mentioned, if I can recall. So everything else would just be speculation on my part.

I would suggest that the presence of the Reaper IFF gave Harbinger pause, but that it would eventually have realized the truth of the matter (as shown by Harbinger seemingly 'staring' at the Normandy) and captured/destroyed the Normandy.

Ya, that was my only point, it is speculation, but trying to argue the point based on your speculation is hardly enough to say that idea makes enough sense, to justify that others should see it the same way.  Besides, I'm not sure what is so wrong with "he let him live/go".  We have known since 2 he doesnt want Shep dead, he wants his mind, and what better way to try and take his mind, then to make sure he is the only one who gets to the beam, and discuss his...options, with his leader?

Clearly we see that the catalyst believes his solution will no longer work, perhaps he believes that, not simply becuase Shep made it him, but he realized the issues with his plan, and perhaps Bw purposely left out context, only to give it in DLC.  

I just find it incredibly hard to ignore the cinematography of that scene, to simply chalk it up to sloppy/accidental work.  I'm, quite sure that little "face off" was quite intentional.

[111987]

Meltemph wrote...

111987 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

I'm not sure I understand you. In what way am I taking it out on context? I am saying that EDI's work with the IFF allows it to disguise itself as a living Reaper. Thus that is a possible explanation as to why Harbinger does not destroy it.

Yes, their friend or foe sensors would not work(or atleast be fooled for a certain amount of time), but are you saying that reapers can only "see" with their sensors? Are you essentially saying they cant look out/into windows?  

Edit: Essetnially, you are giving no context with how the IFF works, other then, it works.

The thing is, we are not given that context in the game. This is the only time the IFF is even mentioned, if I can recall. So everything else would just be speculation on my part.

I would suggest that the presence of the Reaper IFF gave Harbinger pause, but that it would eventually have realized the truth of the matter (as shown by Harbinger seemingly 'staring' at the Normandy) and captured/destroyed the Normandy.

Ya, that was my only point, it is speculation, but trying to argue the point based on your speculation is hardly enough to say that idea makes enough sense, to justify that others should see it the same way.  Besides, I'm not sure what is so wrong with "he let him live/go".  We have known since 2 he doesnt want Shep dead, he wants his mind, and what better way to try and take his mind, then to make sure he is the only one who gets to the beam, and discuss his...options, with his leader?

Clearly we see that the catalyst believes his solution will no longer work, perhaps he believes that, not simply becuase Shep made it him, but he realized the issues with his plan, and perhaps Bw purposely left out context, only to give it in DLC.  

I just find it incredibly hard to ignore the cinematography of that scene, to simply chalk it up to sloppy/accidental work.  I'm, quite sure that little "face off" was quite intentional.

The problem I have with that is that the Crucible had not yet docked with the Citadel, thus not 'changing the variables' and altering the Catalyst. It shouldn't have wanted to have Shepard succeed until the Crucible docked.

[Meltemph]

The problem I have with that is that the Crucible had not yet docked with the Citadel, thus not 'changing the variables' and altering the Catalyst. It shouldn't have wanted to have Shepard succeed until the Crucible docked.

But those variables are not necessarily what made the kid realize his plan no longer worked, and it was clear he could see what was happening. Also, I'm not sure we know the exact timing of the dock, do we?

[Tomwew]

111987 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

I'm not sure I understand you. In what way am I taking it out on context? I am saying that EDI's work with the IFF allows it to disguise itself as a living Reaper. Thus that is a possible explanation as to why Harbinger does not destroy it.

Yes, their friend or foe sensors would not work(or atleast be fooled for a certain amount of time), but are you saying that reapers can only "see" with their sensors? Are you essentially saying they cant look out/into windows?  

Edit: Essetnially, you are giving no context with how the IFF works, other then, it works.

The thing is, we are not given that context in the game. This is the only time the IFF is even mentioned, if I can recall. So everything else would just be speculation on my part.

I would suggest that the presence of the Reaper IFF gave Harbinger pause, but that it would eventually have realized the truth of the matter (as shown by Harbinger seemingly 'staring' at the Normandy) and captured/destroyed the Normandy.

in that case what's the point of priority: Earth if the normandy can fly right up to the beam and unload troops unhindered? either it makes absolutely no sense and EC is a poor attempt at covering up a plot hole with another and is bad writing. or the reaper IFF makes priority: Earth irrelevant and is bad writing.

seems a no win situation.

[Tomwew]

111987 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

I'm not sure I understand you. In what way am I taking it out on context? I am saying that EDI's work with the IFF allows it to disguise itself as a living Reaper. Thus that is a possible explanation as to why Harbinger does not destroy it.

Yes, their friend or foe sensors would not work(or atleast be fooled for a certain amount of time), but are you saying that reapers can only "see" with their sensors? Are you essentially saying they cant look out/into windows?  

Edit: Essetnially, you are giving no context with how the IFF works, other then, it works.

The thing is, we are not given that context in the game. This is the only time the IFF is even mentioned, if I can recall. So everything else would just be speculation on my part.

I would suggest that the presence of the Reaper IFF gave Harbinger pause, but that it would eventually have realized the truth of the matter (as shown by Harbinger seemingly 'staring' at the Normandy) and captured/destroyed the Normandy.

in that case what's the point of priority: Earth if the normandy can fly right up to the beam and unload troops unhindered?
it's either harbinger didn't shoot because reasons, or they didn't take advantage of the reaper IFF because reasons. it's a no win situation.

[111987]

Meltemph wrote...

The problem I have with that is that the Crucible had not yet docked with the Citadel, thus not 'changing the variables' and altering the Catalyst. It shouldn't have wanted to have Shepard succeed until the Crucible docked.

But those variables are not necessarily what made the kid realize his plan no longer worked, and it was clear he could see what was happening. Also, I'm not sure we know the exact timing of the dock, do we?

True. But we do know when it docks; after the TIM conversation.

[111987]

Tomwew wrote...

111987 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

I'm not sure I understand you. In what way am I taking it out on context? I am saying that EDI's work with the IFF allows it to disguise itself as a living Reaper. Thus that is a possible explanation as to why Harbinger does not destroy it.

Yes, their friend or foe sensors would not work(or atleast be fooled for a certain amount of time), but are you saying that reapers can only "see" with their sensors? Are you essentially saying they cant look out/into windows?  

Edit: Essetnially, you are giving no context with how the IFF works, other then, it works.

The thing is, we are not given that context in the game. This is the only time the IFF is even mentioned, if I can recall. So everything else would just be speculation on my part.

I would suggest that the presence of the Reaper IFF gave Harbinger pause, but that it would eventually have realized the truth of the matter (as shown by Harbinger seemingly 'staring' at the Normandy) and captured/destroyed the Normandy.

in that case what's the point of priority: Earth if the normandy can fly right up to the beam and unload troops unhindered?
it's either harbinger didn't shoot because reasons, or they didn't take advantage of the reaper IFF because reasons. it's a no win situation.

I don't think it would be a perfect deception; hence the Reapers trying to kill us after scanning star systems. Plus with all those AA towers around it would be far too much of a risk. Not to mention Harvesters and other potential defenses we don't know about it. Wasn't it also said there were gravitational disturbances near the beam, preventing shuttles and what not from getting close?

[liggy002]

Master Che wrote...

I still see much butthurt from the EC.  Mainly, the Normandy Evac sequence.  The common lament circulates around how Harbinger NOT shooting down the Normandy didn't make sense.  I argue the contrary.

First, we have to remember why Harbinger made a beeline to the beam: To stop anyone from getting to it.  Remember this.  To STOP anyone from getting TO IT.

Now, let's fast forward...Hammer advances on the beam...pew pew pew!  To quote The Crow, "...bang! F**K, I'm Dead"!.  The Normandy comes to evac people AWAY from the area.  That's right, AWAY. 

Think about this for a second: Reapers.  What are they? Essentially, they are machines.  Sure, they have organic stuff in 'em, but they are really just fancy machines.  And like machines, they do not make decisions based on emotions.  By focusing resources on something that isn't a threat at the expense of focusing resources at a still INCOMING threat is illogical. 

"But Master Che", you say, "How does Harbinger know what the Normandy is going to do"?

I propose the following:
1) Shepard's yelling "I need an evac right now".  I'm pretty sure Harby could pick that up with "reaper ears". 
2) The Normandy comes in perpendicular to the beam.  Not flying TO IT.  And then lands, scoops up the injured, lifts up and goes AWAY from the scene.  Not to the beam like everything else its shooting at.


At this point, taking out the Normandy would be nothing more than a gratuitous "F**K YOU B***H".  Something that serves no other purpose but to be spiteful or vengeful.  Something...human. 

See where I'm coming from?

No, the Reapers know that they need to exterminate all threats and right when they have the chance to destroy what is potentially the greatest threat out there (the Normandy), they don't do it?  It makes no sense.  And it would take about  a second for Harbinger to blast the Normandy to hell.  What about the time Harbinger is wasting when it is staring at the Normandy?  Don't try to justify this garbage, you can't.

Modifié par liggy002, 17 janvier 2013 - 02:54 .

[chris2365]

It's simple, really. The Reapers have been arrogant and underestimating the galaxy since the beginning. The Reapers could have destroyed us so easily. A Sovereign class reaper or two on the FOB on Earth would have crushed any offensive before it began. When they towed the Citadel to Earth, they knew the fleets would have no choice but to go through the Charon relay. Why not park a few Reapers there for an ambush? And why not just rush the Citadel with all their forces, knowing that they would easily win.

Reaper arrogance was our saving grace. Don't know if it was intentional by Bioware, but that's the way I see it. Harbinger felt the Normandy presented no threat, so he left it be.