330 réponses à ce sujet

[Tomwew]

Han Shot First wrote...
*a bunch of headcanon and ignoring of established lore*

Maxster_ wrote...
*quotes and examples from in universe that demonstrate the stupidity of the reapers in the beam run scene*

o.k maxster you win, but go easy on the insults i don't wanna see you get banned.

[Maxster_]

[quote]JasonShepard wrote...

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]
Bedevere: "So, logically..."
Peasant: "If... she... weighs... the same as a duck... she's made of wood."
Bedevere: "And therefore...?"
Another Peasant: "... a witch!"
[/quote]
[/quote]
It doesn't look like a mass relay, I'll give you that. It does, however act like a mass relay. Stuff entering at point A to emerge at point B. In fact, I'd say that a relay is the only way to explain what it can do within known ME tech.
[/quote]
Except it does not look like mass relay at all.
And it does not act like a mass relay, except, of course, you are implying that they both used for travel.
Ah yes, you are.
Insane troll logic.
Basically, automobile and and space ship are the same. Because people loads in it in a point A, and then exit from it in a point B.
[quote]
[quote]

No, it doesn't. In ME2, reapers were created from alive humans.
In ME3, they just teleport dead bodies into the Citadel for no reason.
[/quote]

The beam is used for living and dead humans. Since they seem to need the genetics, it shouldn't matter which - although I'd guess the living ones are somehow used to construct the Reaper's consciousness.
[/quote]
Retcon?
Irrelevant, there is no reason for a beam to exist. There are special ships which are more numerous and effective at doing this, than a beam in one location.
[quote]
[quote]
So, we using some means to gather humans from around the world and then teleporting them from London to a Citadel, instead of using processors to deliver results to a Citadel?
[/quote]
There could be beams in other countries. London is just the only one we know about.
[/quote]
Yes, there are also numerous citadels orbiting Earth.
I like your insane troll logic
[quote]
[quote]
one
two
three
And especially, this followed by this.
[/quote]
I... oh no. Really?
Notice something about all those shots where you can't see the beam? Something... consistent about them? A location perhaps? They're all in space. (With the exception of your third one, where there's just a Destroyer in the way. You can even see it active behind.)

In case you didn't notice, you never see the beam travelling through space. Sure, you see it go up to the clouds, but never any further. The only time you see the beam going through space is on the EC slides, and they are stylised enough as it is. Heck, there's more than one scene where the Citadel is in the wrong orientation for there to be a straight line between it and London - especially since that would in no way be a stable orbit... This actually fits with the idea that the beam is actually a relay, making that lightshow to the clouds... just a lightshow.
[/quote]
Lol.
So you deliberately ignoring everything that doesn't fits your nonsensical headcanon. Riight.
And justifying nonsense with its existence.
I.e. if it exists in story, it automatically makes sense.
Or, any story makes sense simply because it exists.
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]The Reapers' energy sources are not infinite. For example, to
land on a planet, a Reaper must substantially reduce its mass. This
transfer of power to its mass effect generators leaves the Reaper's
kinetic barriers at only partial strength.
[/quote]
So, how reaper weapons became weapons? There is nothing in codex on that.
Anyway, your "explanation" which contradicts ME lore, just makes Harbringer even more retarded.

[/quote]
I'm assuming you made a typo there, and meant "reaper shields become weapons"...
[/quote]
Yes, it was typo.
[quote]
And yes, that's exactly what I meant. Any battleship, especially Reapers, should be able to prioritise their systems. Harbinger doesn't need full power weapons to obliterate people, so he'd prioritise shields instead. They probably still aren't at full strength compared to space, but I'd guess the shields would be strong enough to... oh, I don't know, survive the Normandy's Thanix cannon? Meaning the SR2 definitely isn't a threat. Probably strong enough to survive orbital bombardment from any opportunistic allied dreadnoughts up there too, since I doubt Harby lasted this long by taking risks (regarding himself here, not general strategy).
[/quote]
Have you ever read codex about mass accelerators?
Power required to alter the mass of an object is depended on mass of that object.
And mass accelerators use slugs or molten metal with mass of tens of kilograms.
And reaper mass is far larger than that, as is kinetic shields energy requirement.
Power required for weaponry is nothing compared to power required to lower mass of entire ship.
[quote]
Anyway, for the record - I like the evac scene. I find it quite touching as a final farewell, so I'm willing to do the mental footwork to fit it into known law and plotlines. You, on the other hand, seem to be looking for any reason to tear ME3 down. For which I pity you.
[/quote]
Sure. I pity people with low standarts and bad taste.
They'll eat any crap served, they are just pathetic.

[Maxster_]

Tomwew wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...
*a bunch of headcanon and ignoring of established lore*

Maxster_ wrote...
*quotes and examples from in universe that demonstrate the stupidity of the reapers in the beam run scene*

o.k maxster you win, but go easy on the insults i don't wanna see you get banned.

Have you ever debated with dreman on physics?
That is real test of endurance and rage control

[Tomwew]

Maxster_ wrote...

Tomwew wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...
*a bunch of headcanon and ignoring of established lore*

Maxster_ wrote...
*quotes and examples from in universe that demonstrate the stupidity of the reapers in the beam run scene*

o.k maxster you win, but go easy on the insults i don't wanna see you get banned.

Have you ever debated with dreman on physics?
That is real test of endurance and rage control

thankfully not but i've seen others try, when faced with stubborn ignorance in lieu of facts and in universe evidence i just take my business elsewhere, preferably a seival thread, which have been sorely lacking of late.

[Uncle Jo]

My headcanon is more logical than yours...

[NM_Che56]

I released control of this topic

[Han Shot First]

@Maxter,




Holy quote pyramid Batman, I do believe that ape is trying to hammer out War and Peace!

Didn't read.

However that page full of primitive grunting does at least prove that the Russians actually did succeed in creating a humanzee. Hooray for science I suppose.

If you can summarize your simian babbling and keep it concise I might respond, though I suspect this will just keep going around in circles with the same points being made over and over. Still, it might be amusing to watch you flounder further as you opine on subjects you are completely clueless of.

Oh, and the offer still stands. If you aren't as gutless as you are simple-minded, you'll take me up on that bet.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 17 janvier 2013 - 09:41 .

[Tomwew]

Han Shot First wrote...

@Maxter,




Holy quote pyramid Batman, I do believe that ape is trying to hammer out War and Peace!

Didn't read.

However that page full of primitive grunting does at least prove that the Russians actually did succeed in creating a humanzee. Hooray for science I suppose.

If you can summarize your simian babbling and keep it concise I might respond, though I suspect this will just keep going around in circles with the same points being made over and over. Still, it might be amusing to watch you flounder further as you opine on subjects you are completely clueless of.

Oh, and the offer still stands. If you aren't as gutless as you are simple-minded, you'll take me up on that bet.

you should have read his post it perfectly refuted yours with facts and evidence from in the mass effect universe. you two need to stop insulting each other, doesn't make either of you look good, but at least maxster is willing to continue the debate rather than resort to 'come at me bro' style invitations to 'bets'.

[matt-bassist]

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?

EDI mentions some time during the game that the REAPER IFF enables her to mask the Normandy and give it a Reaper Signal. In other words, Harbinger was *blind* to the fact that it was the Normandy, and probably thought it was another Reaper or Reaper forces or something.

Unfortunately this is mentioned during a cockpit visit, so unless you catch it, it does seem like a glaring WTF moment. But Bioware had it covered.

[Tomwew]

matt-bassist wrote...

EDI mentions some time during the game that the REAPER IFF enables her to mask the Normandy and give it a Reaper Signal. In other words, Harbinger was *blind* to the fact that it was the Normandy, and probably thought it was another Reaper or Reaper forces or something.

Unfortunately this is mentioned during a cockpit visit, so unless you catch it, it does seem like a glaring WTF moment. But Bioware had it covered.

then what's the purpose of the beam run if the normandy can park right up to the beam? and why do reapers chase you on the galaxy map? and why doesn't the normandy engage the tuchanka reaper? and why is this scene only in the ec if 'bioware had it covered'?

[Aiyie]

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

look at it from the Reaper's point of view.

they're machines... they likely operate on some sort of an efficiency algorithm.

people personalize the Harbinger vs Shepard thing too much.  machines don't hold grudges, in spite of appearances.  the interest in Shepard is due to Shepard's capabilities, and the threat she poses, not the fact that she has snubbed Harbinger at every turn.

Harbinger believed he had stopped the threat to the beam, that he had killed everyone trying to access it.

at that point, his programming probably told him that the threat to completing the cycle was gone.

the Normandy posed no immediate threat, it could be ignored.  it would be destroyed in good time as the cycle continued. 

so, from Harbinger's point of view, destroying the Normandy then and there would likely have been a waste of resources that could have been better spent elsewhere... like say killing a dreadnought up in orbit or something.

or, to put it more simply, there was no reason for Harbinger to spend the time and effort to kill the Normandy then, when he was sure it would be destroyed later (likely with less effort and risk as well).

[Han Shot First]

Tomwew wrote...

you should have read his post it perfectly refuted yours with facts and evidence from in the mass effect universe. you two need to stop insulting each other, doesn't make either of you look good, but at least maxster is willing to continue the debate rather than resort to 'come at me bro' style invitations to 'bets'.

I don't even need to, as I can probably summarize every one of his points by now. He's basically just making the same arguments over and over that have already been debunked.

Let me guess:

1. Harbinger should have used his main gun during the beam rush scene.

2. Harbinger shouldn't have even touched down in London, and should have instead bombarded from orbit.

3. Bad comparisons to real world militaries based on a complete lack of real world experience, and a demonstration that he is completely clueless on military matters.

Did I miss anything?


His first point has no basis in the lore. There is absolutely nothing in the codex regarding the capabilities or limitations of Harbinger's weapons and targeting systems. There is also nothing in the codex stating that Harbinger could engage ground targets from no more than a few hundred meters away at most with its main gun, and not suffer collateral damage from the from the 132 to 454 kiloton yield. Harbinger's main gun packs anywhere from six to twenty times the destructive power of the atomic bomb that was dropped on Nagaski.

We know absolutely nothing about the safe minimum distance from a target that Harbinger could use its main gun without also suffering collateral damage. As such, the argument that Harbinger should have used its main gun during the beam rush scene is entirely based on player head canon regarding that safe minimum distance.

Head canon fails as a basis for criticism of story elements within the game.

It also fails when you consider that both howitzers and the main guns of tanks pack more destructive power than machine guns, yet both also have machine guns because they can often be more effective at engaging dismounted infantry at close range.

In the real world many military units or vehicles field multiple weapons, because different tasks require different tools. Why should it be any different for the Reapers? Who is to say that Harbinger wasn't too close to use its main gun without also suffering collateral damage, and hence its supporting weapons were a better tool for the task it was engaged in?

His second point is bit out in left field as I don't think anyone is disputing that Harbinger could have sat back and bombarded London from orbit with its main gun. We know that was well within its capabilities.

Then relevent question is really why didn't Harbinger demolish London (and Hammer with it) from orbit?  But that is a discussion about Reaper motives, and not Reaper capabilities. It is completely unrelated to his first point.

It also fails as criticism of the beam rush scene because a plausible answer for why Harbinger doesn't destroy London, is that the Reapers want to harvest the city and create another Reaper. We are told in fact in the lore that the Reapers are taking their time to harvest major cities, while demolishing lesser ones. In retrospect would that be a blunder on Harbinger's part? Of course, but mistakes born of arrogance and hubris are nothing new in war. In fact the outcome of many historical conflits have been decided by similar blunders.

As to his nonsensical rambling regarding the comparisons to tanks or artillery, he doesn't have a single clue of what he is talking about and he is only making a fool of himself. He's a cellar-dweller with no experience of either, and it shows. Badly. There is really nothing more to add there, except to sit back and laugh while he flails helplessly.

The truth is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the medevac scene, and Harbinger concentrating on the ground team actually makes sense.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 17 janvier 2013 - 11:10 .

[jstme]

Han Shot First wrote...
The truth is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the medevac scene, and Harbinger concentrating on the ground team actually makes sense.

You intentionally do not mention important points.

Calling a medevac by Normandy is wrong. It is an infiltration and combat-oriented spaceship and its place is in strategically important space battle above Earth. There are other tools for med evac.

Normandy carries armed military personal trained for ground combat - and yet it picks few lgithly wounded soliders and leaves commanding officer of Normandy all alone in a strategically important zerg rush - it is wrong.

Harbinger does not shoot at infiltration and combat-oriented spaceship approaching beam at enormous speed despite Normandy carrying lots of potential zerg rush candidates. It does not shoot at Normandy while it lands right near the beam. It odes not shoot Normandy while it hovers right next to it. But Harbinger shoots down choppers left and right. Chopper bigger threat then frigate-class starship? How so? It is wrong.

And if it is due to IFF - then entire Priority Earth is wrong. Just land Normandy near the beam. Destroyer will not shoot at it anyway.

On all levels - med evac is wrong. Reason for it, execution of it and consequences of it do not fit into the story. 

[Outsider edge]

Actually a ton is wrong with the evac scene as many have pointed out already. The fact is the writers had too scramble something together too patch up a gaping hole in the story too justify the teleporting squadmates. So they came up with this evac scene which is almost as preposterous as the thing it needed too patch up. But you can't blame the writers for it cause they were put into a corner. There was no way too explain the plothole without some seriously contrived writing.

People that proclaim Harbinger was "blind" because the reaper IFF get their stance refuted by the suicide mission in ME2.

Collateral damage has nothing too do with it since we see reaper ships ram frigates for crying out loud. It's reaching for explanations filled with headcannon with barely any facts or evidence.

As debates go the evac scene/beam run discussions seem too be firmly in the anti camp. I haven't read one logical reason for the things displayed there. It's just poor writing too patch up a plothole. End of story.

Modifié par Outsider edge, 17 janvier 2013 - 11:52 .

[Outsider edge]

jstme wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...
The truth is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the medevac scene, and Harbinger concentrating on the ground team actually makes sense.

You intentionally do not mention important points.

Calling a medevac by Normandy is wrong. It is an infiltration and combat-oriented spaceship and its place is in strategically important space battle above Earth. There are other tools for med evac.

Normandy carries armed military personal trained for ground combat - and yet it picks few lgithly wounded soliders and leaves commanding officer of Normandy all alone in a strategically important zerg rush - it is wrong.

Harbinger does not shoot at infiltration and combat-oriented spaceship approaching beam at enormous speed despite Normandy carrying lots of potential zerg rush candidates. It does not shoot at Normandy while it lands right near the beam. It odes not shoot Normandy while it hovers right next to it. But Harbinger shoots down choppers left and right. Chopper bigger threat then frigate-class starship? How so? It is wrong.

And if it is due to IFF - then entire Priority Earth is wrong. Just land Normandy near the beam. Destroyer will not shoot at it anyway.

On all levels - med evac is wrong. Reason for it, execution of it and consequences of it do not fit into the story. 

Exactly!

[jstme]

Outsider edge wrote...

Actually a ton is wrong with the evac scene as many have pointed out already. The fact is the writers had too scramble something together too patch up a gaping hole in the story too justify the teleporting squadmates. So they came up with this evac scene which is almost as preposterous as the thing it needed too patch up. But you can't blame the writers for it cause they were put into a corner. There was no way too explain the plothole without some seriously contrived writing.

People that proclaim Harbinger was "blind" because the reaper IFF get their stance refuted by the suicide mission in ME2.

Collateral damage has nothing too do with it since we see reaper ships ram frigates for crying out loud. It's reaching for explanations filled with headcannon with barely any facts or evidence.

As debates go the evac scene/beam run discussions seem too be firmly in the anti camp. I haven't read one logical reason for the things displayed there. It's just poor writing too patch up a plothole. end of story.

I completely agree with what you say. Not blaiming the writers of EC, they were forced to repair mess created by others whithout any proper tools (like being allowed to change themes or having appropriate time and budget) or desire to do so.

However trying to claim that derp evac scene makes sense....

[matt-bassist]

Tomwew wrote...

matt-bassist wrote...

EDI mentions some time during the game that the REAPER IFF enables her to mask the Normandy and give it a Reaper Signal. In other words, Harbinger was *blind* to the fact that it was the Normandy, and probably thought it was another Reaper or Reaper forces or something.

Unfortunately this is mentioned during a cockpit visit, so unless you catch it, it does seem like a glaring WTF moment. But Bioware had it covered.

then what's the purpose of the beam run if the normandy can park right up to the beam? and why do reapers chase you on the galaxy map? and why doesn't the normandy engage the tuchanka reaper? and why is this scene only in the ec if 'bioware had it covered'?

No idea, just sayin' that EDI does talk about using the REAPER IFF to mask the Normandy. 

[deatharmonic]

deatharmonic wrote...

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.

What are you basing that on? The SR1 made a pretty damn big bang. I don't know how you can deduce the force of the blast from the SR2's destruction by looking at the SR1, and furthermore say it wouldn't be as much.

... Still waiting for an answer.

I'm guessing your ignoring this now because you've been called on your bull****.

[TheRealJayDee]

Han Shot First wrote...

The truth is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the medevac scene, and Harbinger concentrating on the ground team actually makes sense.

Yeah... so you said something about not needing to read any further posts from certain users about certain topics?! I concur, at some point you have to realize that nothing new or constructive will be presented. I just haven't decided yet how I feel about giving insulting and dismissive answers to posts I didn't even bother to read  - that just seems kind of pathetic and makes one look bad.

[ZeCollectorDestroya]

Because somehow the Normandy can survive an Earth-like atmosphere. Although the Harbinger having a higher priority to stop people getting to the Citadel is logical.

[111987]

Outsider edge wrote...

Actually a ton is wrong with the evac scene as many have pointed out already. The fact is the writers had too scramble something together too patch up a gaping hole in the story too justify the teleporting squadmates. So they came up with this evac scene which is almost as preposterous as the thing it needed too patch up. But you can't blame the writers for it cause they were put into a corner. There was no way too explain the plothole without some seriously contrived writing.

People that proclaim Harbinger was "blind" because the reaper IFF get their stance refuted by the suicide mission in ME2.

Collateral damage has nothing too do with it since we see reaper ships ram frigates for crying out loud. It's reaching for explanations filled with headcannon with barely any facts or evidence.

As debates go the evac scene/beam run discussions seem too be firmly in the anti camp. I haven't read one logical reason for the things displayed there. It's just poor writing too patch up a plothole. End of story.

EDIT: Never mind, I'm done with this topic.

Modifié par 111987, 18 janvier 2013 - 01:57 .

[ntrisley]

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if Harbinger is even a Reaper at all.

"Leviathan" made me start wondering...what happened to the Leviathans when their creations turned on them?

[gw2005]

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?

Yes, and you're wrong. Reapers are machine, but they're not you're alienware computer, an advanced frigate is far bigger a threat to it and its goals (of keeping people away from the beam) than squishy humans making a suicide run.
So no, argument invalidated.

Also ... logic in EC? 

[Han Shot First]

The only somewhat legit criticism of the medevac scene is that it is the Normany that comes in to pick up wounded, rather than a shuttle. A shuttle would have made a lot more sense for the medevac than diverting a frigate from the space battle.

That being said, I also don't think it is that big of a deal. Mass Effect is not trying to be some hyper-realistic war simulator, and you have to realize that there is going to be some balance between realism and Rule of Cool. Letting the fact that the Normandy is used in the medevac instead of a shuttle ruin the scene for you, is an example of nitpicking a minor detail to the point where you've blown it way out of proportion.