172 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainhurst Crow]

And hackett would trust non-alliance personal with this mission...why?

[DetcelferVisionary]

Leave Hackett alone or I will go raging menstrual krogan on your ****!

[WhiteKnyght]

tevix wrote...

@The Gray Nayr
Let me debunk your theory with one question:
How did the normandy land in front of the beam no problem?
inb4 EDI's cyberwarfare suite BECAUSE...even SHE couldn't land the rockets on the destroyer near the beam. So....

If the normandy can get there, anything else can get there, and at that range you can fire your weapons at the destroyer and/or harbinger that's just...chilling there and score a hit.

"Interferance, lulz".

Okay.

First off. . .

Targeting systems = / = Joker's piloting.

The beam interfered with targeting systems, they said more than once during Priority Earth that they CAN hit the Destroyer, but they need a PRECISION STRIKE to destroy it. It's the same damn situation as on Rannoch.

The beam would only affect the Normandy if it was on autopilot, which we all know Joker never uses.

Second off. . .

The Destroyer was guarding the beam earlier. And while the Normandy landed for an evac, Harbinger was busy shooting other things to keep them from going into the beam. He had no reason to shoot down the Normandy because it was essentially his job for him - keeping organics away from the beam.


Dismissing facts and details to have an excuse to bash something is damned stupid. Right now, the only thing you have is "I don't like it" which doesn't invalidate it.

[Maxster_]

[quote]111987 wrote...

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]111987 wrote...

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
What a pathetic excuse for a bad writing.
[/quote]
You clearly know little about tone and emotion in a scene. Some random explanation about something most people don't care about at a tense moment like that would have been completely out of place.
[/quote]
You clearly have no idea about exposition, details and context.
Somehow, ME1 managed to have explanations for things like Conduit(you know, a mass relay built by the protheans). Maybe because it wasn't asspulled for a single reason because EAWare run out of ideas, and let marketing team decide the course of the story("Take Earth Back" slogan); which is a clear sign of EAWare inability to write coherent and consistent story, and that they are don't care for such things at all.
[/quote]

Have to agree to disagree then.
[/quote]
About your nonsensical headcanon?
[quote]
[quote]
Lol.
And in ME2 cutscene, there is only near 270 of the reapers shown. Therefore, final count of the reapers fleet is 270 dreadnoughts, and no destroyers.
Thus, reapers can be beaten conventionally, and there is no need for a crap like Crucible.
Also, if we're talking about cutscenes - Earth was bombed to a nuclear winter by allied fleet.

[quote]Also, the Geth have a ton of dreadnoughts that you have discounted. Almost as much as the Turians. And Capital ships can be taken out via sustained cruiser and frigate fire, especially thanks to the advent of Thanix Cannons. And there are hundreds of cruisers and frigates. [/quote]
86 - it is all. With Geth included.
And i like how you trying to prove, that conventional is possible, to defend garbage excuse of a plot of ME3. That's just hilarious.
[/quote]

The shot at the end of ME2 was inconclusive because we couldn't see how far back the fleet went, and since the Reapers filled up the screen, there easily could have been more off screen. So yes, there are thousands of Capital ships, but not all on Earth. There are a few hundred at most.
[/quote]
Lol.
You clearly have no idea about orbital distances and orbital mechanic.
That was one of the most pathetic defense i've seen on bsn. To use cutscenes, which clearly contradicts ME lore, to defend garbage writing of ME3, which also contradicts lore, and common sense - that is just hilarious.
Prothean VI: The Reaper forces will now consolidate power around the Catalyst and protect it at all costs. The odds of accessing it are remote.

Anyway, that is so funny. :D:D:D
So, arrogant reapers took the Citadel to protect it at all costs, moved it to Earth. So, there is two variants in your nonsensical headcanon 1) either reapers number a few hundreds at all, and thus they could be beaten conventionally, and Crucible is irrelevant to a plot; or 2) there are several thousands of the reapers, they took Citadel to protect it at all costs - and then removed most of their forces defending it, so allied fleets can easily crush their remained ships(at Earth).

[quote]
Conventional victory is impossible, but that fleet still could have done significant damage to the Reaper forces on Earth. Which is unacceptable for the Reapers, given their mission. [/quote]
:lol:
Sure, they especially took Citadel to protect it, and then just sent away overwhelming majority of their forces.
Because reasons
[quote]
The Geth have almost as many dreadnaoughts as the Turians do, according to their War Asset page. So either you forgot about them or your math is horrendous. 39+20+16+8+1=84. Then add say, 35 for the Geth, plus however many the Quarians have (via retrofits). Plus hundreds of cruisers and frigates...
[/quote]
Oh, i'm sure, several thousands against 120 is so much better than several thousands against 84.
And every single reaper is 2-4 times more powerful than any alliance dreadnought.
I won't even bother asking you for proof - it is clear you have no idea what are you talking about.
[quote]
[quote]

So, they are arrogant, and because of that, they carefully prepared anti-shuttle defense and concentrated ground forces.
Sounds legit
[/quote]

They're arrogant, not stupid. They aren't going to leave it undefended, but they aren't going to level the entire city...
[/quote]
They don't need to level entire city. And they can afford to level entire city.
They never needed any "air-defence", and there is no need for them to concentrate ground forces around London.
You can wiggle all you want, it doesn't change the fact, that Priority:Earth makes absolutely no sense, and consists entirely of plotholes.
[quote][quote]
They have processor ships for harvesting. Shows how you read the codex, yeah.
And of course, for them to focus everything at london - makes absolutely no sense.[/quote]

They don't just use processor ships...wow.

Oh yeah, makes no sense to gather up your harvest in one spot to make one convenient transfer. Try again.
[/quote]
Of course it makes no sense.
You need additional infrastructure in London, to accomodate hundreds of millions of alive humans. You need to feed them, so they wouldn't die too early.
And of course, using specifically designed, for harvest, ships - is far more effective than transfer everyone to London.

You are so pathetic.

[quote]
[quote]
Nonsense. There is no need to transfer dead bodies to London, when you can just transfer them to Citadel. It would be faster and more efficient.
And of course, they can not be alive at London, because there is no infrastructure and food there.
[/quote]
They transfer them to London to move them to the Citadel. They had only just moved the Citadel there. They prepared london in advance, and then when the Citadel was moved there, they can easily transfer it. Makes perfect sense.
[/quote]
*facepalm*
[quote]
[quote]
That's your nonsensical headcanon, again.
[/quote]

Your lack of understanding of basic elements of ME3 seems to be your real problem here.

EIT: At this point there's no point in continuing this since we are not going to agree, so, good day.

[/quote]

That's just pathetic.
You just repeating your nonsensical headcanon over and over, and you think that makes it plausible?
It does not, no matter how many times you repeat that.
1. There is no need for Harbringer to descend.
2. Any reaper could obliterate that entire retarded offensive at any moment.
3. Reapers could turn off the beam any moment, thus entire allied fleet is dead for nothing.
4. Reapers could turn off the relay network at any moment, thus entire operation would never happen.
5. There is no need for "air defence". That's just an asspull, for the sake of idiotic drama.
6. There is no need to concentrate ground forces at London.
7. Magic beam does not exist.

[mumba]

Dat voice.

[Dean_the_Young]

Mr.House wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

I still find it funny that sword fleet fights the Reapers....IN FRONT OF EARTH. You know how many shots missed a Reaper and impacted Earth? That's just horrible. You should have engaged at their sides so you are not hitting the planet you are supposed to be saving.

And so the Reapers easily reposition themselves...? Also they're firing on the allied fleets the whole time?

Because they are flying in a streaight line, head on to the Reapers, they could have easly taken a longer way and hit them on the sides so they don't hit the goddam planet.

If the Reapers were idiots and/or couldn't move, sure.

Assuming the Reapers haven't lost the ability to move, they could just re-orient themselves and keep themselves between the planet and the fleet.

[Dean_the_Young]

Well, at least the OP's thesis has been disproven: there are worse admirals than Hackett, and many of them post on BSN.

[dreman9999]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

- When does it ever say he attacks the Reapers without a stratagy?

- What do you think the Crucible is? And the Reapers are on the offensive, not the defensive. He has no choice. What exactly do you suggest he do?

- That wasn't his plan. There's nothing suggesting he had anything to do with that.

- He sent Shepard, and it worked. Did you expect an admiral to personally do the fighting?

- He sent Shepard, and it worked. Did you expect an admiral to personally do the fighting?

The cutscene of Sword's battle against the Reapers pretty much shows his strategy. Don't try to surprise them, don't try to outwit them, just fly straight towards them and hope that their weapons suddenly become effective.

They had no idea that the Crucible would work. Hackett's plan if it didn't work? Give up, I guess.

I was mistaken. It was Anderson.

He knew the situations perfectly well and couldn't give his initial squads a sufficent amount of information to stop them from getting killed. Then again the Alliance soldiers probably aren't trained too well, considering how easy those missions were for a 3 man group.

1.They only way Cruisers would damage reapers is up close.It's an issue of tech limitations.
2.They were already losing way before the crucibles use. Draging things outwould not change that.
4. How in dear lord would he knowthis info?

[dreman9999]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

And hackett would trust non-alliance personal with this mission...why?

Because it was a mission if gone wrong that he did not want to lead back tothe alliance.

[Nightdragon8]

Indy_S wrote...

TurianFrigate wrote...

It's like in LOTR the Battle of the Black Gate. They have no choice, their resources are almost diminished, but they have one thing that could end the war so they take the chance. Also the direct attack actually worked here. The sword fleets purpose was to distract the Reapers when the ground forces are trying to reach the conduit. If he would split the fleets in two parts what would that gain. London is the key to victory so if some ships were in the anywhere else the Reapers would not care.
Also they know that the Reapers have destroyed countless far superior civilizations before so I don't see what other tactic they could use. The list goes on and on, but know this that was the best plan Hackett could use.

Of course, in LOTR the battle is a feint to buy time and distract their enemy. There is nothing so clever being done here. The fact that this worked frustrates me greatly.

how exactly is that any different than splitting your fleet into Sword and shield?? Sword created chaos, then when Shep was close enough to the beam send in Sheild to deliver the Crucible.

same thing...


EDit: Why are people taking the Cutscene as "thats all admiral hackett is good for" Considering he sacerficed one fleet to save another early on in the war.

I mean unless we get cannon I dont see how anyone can say anything about what Admerial Hackett did or did not do.

Edit2: We get what 5 seconds of battle and you say "thats all the stratagy he did"

Do that with any recored war. AKA World war 2 and guess what, its the same thing a bunch of army/marines/battleships shooting charging. And all you will get from that is "Thats all it amounted to"

Modifié par Nightdragon8, 01 mars 2013 - 12:43 .

[saracen16]

OP, do you have any alternatives?

[TheViper8234]

This : Worst Topic Ever

[2Shepards]

Did any actual military get a credit in the ME series, I mean to Biowere employ a advisor for military stragies and tactics?

[Indy_S]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

EDit: Why are people taking the Cutscene as "thats all admiral hackett is good for" Considering he sacerficed one fleet to save another early on in the war.

I mean unless we get cannon I dont see how anyone can say anything about what Admerial Hackett did or did not do.

Edit2: We get what 5 seconds of battle and you say "thats all the stratagy he did"

Do that with any recored war. AKA World war 2 and guess what, its the same thing a bunch of army/marines/battleships shooting charging. And all you will get from that is "Thats all it amounted to"

I'll field this one. We are only ever told that Hackett is an Admiral. We never get a quality judgement on his skills. We never see his skills. We have absolutely no idea if he is the right person for the job. But we put him there anyway. If he was good, I'd expect to see evidence of it in the narrative. There is none. What I then do is make an assumption: He is bad. It doesn't mean it's true and it's just as evident as 'he is good'.

[Karlone123]

WNxPowder wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

You forgot his part in Arrival. He says it's incredibly important that Shepard saves Kenson alone rather than bring his team. If Shepard doesn't do it, however, he sends a platoon.

and they die

But they gave the Galaxy a little more time to prepare. God Bless every one of them. And I'm serious.

[dreman9999]

Karlone123 wrote...

WNxPowder wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

You forgot his part in Arrival. He says it's incredibly important that Shepard saves Kenson alone rather than bring his team. If Shepard doesn't do it, however, he sends a platoon.

and they die

But they gave the Galaxy a little more time to prepare. God Bless every one of them. And I'm serious.

That still does not make him a bad Admiral.

[dreman9999]

2Shepards wrote...

Did any actual military get a credit in the ME series, I mean to Biowere employ a advisor for military stragies and tactics?

What exactly would you do with an enemy that needed no resorces, has a massive ammount ship in an ammount you fleet can compare with a 3rd of it'snumbers, which ships can one shot any ofour  ships, with drone support in near endless number, with near endless shock troopers,who are highly adaptible to new tactics, who don't eat or sleep,who arenot even using afraction of there power?

[Maxster_]

[quote]simfamSP wrote...

[quote]C-Sec. For lulz.[/quote]

C'mon Maxter, that's beneath you! You're always a bundle of wires and logic xD
[/quote]
Obviously, reapers who took over the Citadel. You know, same enemy we fought at London. I hope you know who the reapers are, and that they took the Citadel in ME3, right?
[quote]


[quote]Oh, i'm sure, space ships with ship-grade weapons, ship-grade shields and ship-grade armor, is obviously less a threat, than [comparatively] unarmored, unarmed, unshielded and much slower transports.[/quote]

You could bring in a freaking dreadnought for all you care, Reaper weapons slice that **** in seconds. As for Frigates... they're needed elsewhere. Though this is a case of LOTR eagle syndrome too. "Why not just fly to Mordor?" Though there are perfectly sane reasons as to *not* fly there, it's still a pretty safe option.
[/quote]
Have you ever read codex entries about space combat, and planetary assaults?
[quote] Space Combat: General Tactics 
Shells lofted by surface navies crash back to earth when their
acceleration is overwhelmed by gravity and air resistance. In space, a
projectile has unlimited range, it will keep moving until it hits
something.
Practical gunnery range is determined by the velocity of the
attacker's ordinance and the maneuverability of the target. Beyond a
certain range, a small ship's ability to dodge trumps a larger
attacker's projectile speed. The largest-ranged combat occurs between
dreadnoughts, whose projectiles have the highest velocity but are the
least maneuverable. The shortest-range combat is between frigates, which
have the slowest projectile velocities and highest maneuverability.
Opposing dreadnoughts open with main gun artillery duel at
EXTREME ranges of tens of thousands of kilometers. The fleet close,
maintaining evasive lateral motion while keeping their bow guns facing
the enemy. Fighters are launched and attempt to close to disruptor
torpedo range. Cautious admirals weaken the enemy with ranged fire and
fighter strikes before committing to close action. Aggressive commanders
advance so cruisers and frigates can engage.
At LONG range, the main guns of cruisers become useful. Friendly
interceptors engage enemy fighters until the attackers enter the range
of ship-based GARDIAN
fire. Dreadnoughts fire from the rear, screened by smaller ships.
Commanders must decide whether to commit to a general melee or retreat
into FTL.
At MEDIUM range, ships can use broadside guns. Fleets
intermingle, and it becomes difficult to retreat in order. Ships with
damaged kinetic barriers are vulnerable to wolfpack1 frigate flotillas that speed through the battle space.
Only fighters and frigates enter CLOSE "knife fight" ranges of 10
or fewer kilometers. Fighters loose their disruptor torpedoes, bringing
down a ship's kinetic barriers and allowing it to be swarmed by
frigates. GARDIAN lasers become viable weapons, swatting down fighters
and boiling away warship armor.
Neither dreadnoughts nor cruisers can use their main guns at
close range; laying the bow on a moving target becomes impossible.
Superheated thruster exhaust becomes a hazard.
[/quote]
[quote] Starships: Frigates 


Frigates are light escort and scouting vessels. They often have extensive GARDIAN
systems to provide anti-fighter screening for capital ships, and carry a
squad of marines for security and groundside duty. Unlike larger
vessels, frigates are able to land on planets.
Frigate drive systems allow them to achieve high FTL
cruise speeds. They also have proportionally larger thrusters and
lighter design mass, allowing them to maneuver more handily. In combat,
speed and maneuverability make a frigate immune to the long-range fire
of larger vessels; in the time it take projectiles to reach them,
frigates are no longer where they were predicted to be.In fleet combat, frigates are organized into "wolf pack" flotillas of four to six. Wolf packs speed through enemy formations, hunting enemy vessels whose kinetic barriers have been taken down by fighter-launched disruptor torpedoes. The wolfspack circle-strafes vulnerable targets, using their superior speed and maneuverability to evade return fire.
[/quote]
[quote] Space Combat: Planetary Assaults %3D%3DEdit
Planetary assaults are complicated if the target is a habitable
garden world; the attackers cannot approach the defenders straight on.
The Citadel Conventions
prohibit the use of large kinetic impactors against habitable worlds.
In a straight-on attack, any misses plough into the planet behind the
defending fleet. If the defenders position themselves between the
attackers and the planet, they can fire at will while the attacker risks
hitting the planet.
Successful assaults on garden worlds hinge upon up-to-date
intelligence. Attackers need to determine where the enemy's defenses
are, so they may approach from an angle that allows them to fire with no
collateral damage. Note this is not necessary for hostile worlds.
Once control of orbit has been lost, defensive garrisons disperse
into the wilderness. An enemy with orbital superiority can bombard
surface forces with impunity. The best option for defenders is to hide
and collect reconnaissance in anticipation of relief forces.
Given the size of a planet, it is impractical to garrison entire
conquered worlds. Fortunately, colonization efforts tend to focus on
building up a dozen or fewer areas. Ground forces occupy the spaceports,
industrial facilities, and major population centers. The wilderness is
patrolled by unmanned aerial vehicles1
and satellite reconnaissance. If a defender unit is spotted, airmobile
rapid deployment units and satellite artillery are used to pin down and
destroy them.
[/quote]
You know, to slice something, you need to hit that something first. Obvious, i know.
And of course, there is no ground solution for a space problem in MEU. Any green officer, right from the academy, knows that.
Therefore, the only sane strategy(in an nonsensical tactical scenario of Priority:Earth), is to send several frigate packs to deliver troops right near the beam.
Because, you know, task of those troops is to secure the Citadel. Not to fight for unneeded ground. Not to shoot husks in London.
Especially with total space superiority of the reapers.

Thus, Hackett is a moron. Anderson is a moron. Shepard is a moron.

[quote]
[quote]Beam have no place in the lore at all.
It is just an asspull, with one single purpose.
Therefore, it is not "plausible|unplausible", it simply does not exists.[/quote]

Suspend your disbelief a little! It's Reaper tech we're on about, they can pull literally anything out of their asses. Including Dragons.
[/quote]
Who needs plot coherence, anyway? That is old, bad concept. Asspulls and nonsense, and drama for the sake of drama, ftw.
[quote]
As for the lore part of my question, I was referring to the Normandy. You said it was nonsensical, and I'm not sure what you mean by that. Is the Normandy changing its mass nonsensical? Or is altering the mass a stupid excuse for that lack of interference.
[/quote]
"They could have increased its mass to allow it go get close enough to the beam without suffering form it."

Adding characteristics to an undefined object, with a sole reason to make nonsense into something sensical - is a headcanon, and justification of bad writing.
[quote]
[quote]By this example, i meant only that writing of ME3 and Priority:Earth specificaly - is very bad. It requires everyone to be dumbed down to negative iq, just for that excuse of a plot to "work".[/quote]

Pulling the bad writing card every-time this happens isn't really appropriate. Think of other factors, it's a video games and more words = more time and money spent. Unfortunately ME3 had a lot of the latter and little of the former.

You know there *was* supposed to be places were we could use our war-assets and probably have radio contact with squad members, both ME2 and 3.
[/quote]
Okay.
So, because video games have constraints, horrible writing is not a horrible writing.
What insane breed of logic is that?

I'm not even asking to prove your assertion, that horrible writing born from financial constraints, not from lack of talent and care - it is obvious, that you can not prove that statement.

And this kind of justification will never work.
[quote]
[quote]There is no explanation. And also, Letho is a trained witcher.[/quote]

I meant whilst running away. I love TW2 and it is by far one of the most solid and coherent plots I've have the honour to go through in a *long* time. But there are always places in every narrative where the logical course of action was not taken. The only difference is that ME3's logic leaves a wider hole, so it's easier to point out and harder to explain.[/quote]
Comparing TW2 to a ME3 is a disservice to TW2.

[quote]
[quote]You clearly have no idea about exposition, details and context.
Somehow, ME1 managed to have explanations for things like Conduit(you know, a mass relay built by the protheans). Maybe because it wasn't asspulled for a single reason because EAWare run out of ideas, and let marketing team decide the course of the story("Take Earth Back" slogan); which is a clear sign of EAWare inability to write coherent and consistent story, and that they are don't care for such things at all.[/quote]

Man, that EAWare stuff is annoying and beneath you. It makes you sound like a troll, when you're only making valid points.
[/quote]
I'm helping pro-enders. If they can not debunk my points, they can always say, that i'm just trolling. And they will be right - from a certain point of view.
Therefore - everyone is happy
[quote]
[quote]
Lol.
And in ME2 cutscene, there is only near 270 of the reapers shown. Therefore, final count of the reapers fleet is 270 dreadnoughts, and no destroyers.
Thus, reapers can be beaten conventionally, and there is no need for a crap like Crucible.
Also, if we're talking about cutscenes - Earth was bombed to a nuclear winter by allied fleet.[/quote]

There weren't that many in Earth, he's right about that. They were quite spread out.
[/quote]
Please.
Do you need to be lectured about orbital mechanics and orbital distances?
[quote]
And 270? You sure about that?
[/quote]
I don't use cutscenes, which all ignores game's lore, as a proof of something.
[quote][quote]
So, they are arrogant, and because of that, they carefully prepared anti-shuttle defense and concentrated ground forces.
Sounds legit [/quote]

They may be stupid at times, but man it would have been even more stupid if the Reapers *didn't* do something to at least defend London.
[/quote]
Only reason those defenses are existing - because there will be a final mission. And EAWare needed drama, for the sake of drama.
Reapers never needed to have surface defences, just because they always had superiority, and no one could ever attack them, because they always turned relay network off.
C. O.
[quote]
[quote]And of course, for them to focus everything at london - makes absolutely no sense.[/quote]

London is large, very diverse in ethnic groups and is a far better location than good ol' New York. In theory, any city would do. There doesn't have to be an explanation for that, now you're just being nitpicky.
[/quote]
Sure.
They had specific ships, designed for harvesting.
But they concentrated on London, because derp.
[quote]
[quote]That's your nonsensical headcanon, again.[/quote]

Nonsensical... you love that word xD now it's going to stick ><

Not head-canon though, just over exaggeration. There aren't 'millions' in London, but there are still a few thousand I bet. Anderson did one hell of a job until Shepard came down and somehow rotted his brain.
[/quote]
Admirals commanding ground forces is a nonsense.
There was no reason for Anderson to stay on Earth.
And there is no ground solution to a space problem.
[quote]
[quote]Earth population is 11 billions. Several millions are irrelevant.
And as i said, there is no need for them to destroy entire london. And of course they can afford that, because they are harvesting from many points, not just London. And they can use secondary guns, or destroyers.
And of course, they could turn the beam off at any moment.[/quote]

We know little in how many people it takes to make a Reaper. So that's your head-canon. Millions for just the embryo, what else is involved?
[/quote]
No, we know because we played ME2.
So that is not head-canon.
[quote]
[quote]1. There is no need for Harbringer to descend.
2. Any reaper could obliterate that entire retarded offensive at any moment.
3. Reapers could turn off the beam any moment, thus entire allied fleet is dead for nothing.
4. Reapers could turn off the relay network at any moment, thus entire operation would never happen.
5. There is no need for "air defence". That's just an asspull, for the sake of idiotic drama.
6. There is no need to concentrate ground forces at London.
7. Magic beam does not exist.[/quote]

1. Nope there isn't. Doesn't mean it's dumb that he did. He's certainly safer down there than he is up there. But I doubt that's the reason. Probably 'cause he wanted to say bye to Shepard, bless him.
[/quote]
Sure.
With lowered shields, and inability to maneuver - he is certainly more safer at surface.
And this, of course, irrelevant, due to overwhelming space superiority of the Reapers at Earth.
C. O.
[quote]
2. ReaperS... plural. I doubt one Reaper could target everyone at once. That offence should have spread out a little more. But looking at the outpost communications, it seems that Hammer (or whatever they're called) was by and large, unknown to the Reaper forces. The other ground teams were getting their ass kicked out of.
[/quote]
One shot of main gun - entire area is obliterated.
One salvo from secondary guns - same result.
They don't need to target everyone at once.
[quote]
3. That's your head-canon also. In fact, anything to do with the beam will be head-canon, there is no point in talking about it.
[/quote]
We know that they can turn it on. Therefore, they can turn it off.
Therefore, it is not a headcanon.
C. O.
[quote]
4. True. Hopefully the Citadel DLC will fix that problem. Maybe this conspiracy is to actually shut down the network? Why would the Reapers herp their way to a place where they could close their arms and last for months. Sure, patience is the key, but it seems the citadel is important to their harvest somehow. Maybe ship harvest processors have a limit?
[/quote]
I doubt that it will be fixed.
[quote]
5. Why are you so keen to displace everything Mass Effect 3 does? 'Air-defence' (or what-ever-the-hell-you-wanna-call-it) is necessary. I bet you would be arguing against your point if there *wasn't* a Reaper shooting at shuttles.
[/quote]
You can imagine everything you want.
But reapers never needed any "air-defence". Ever.
[quote]
6. There seems to be Reaper forces everywhere. They're like cockroaches, man. Probably the left overs fighting whatever resistance there is left. So yes, there is a reason they are there.
[/quote]
There is reason why they are here, but there is no reason to concentrate forces in London. At all.
[quote]
7. Head-canon, brah. Is the beam stupid? Yes, but it is there and we deal with it. If you want to make sense of it, call it a mini-mass relay... but for humans.
[/quote]

Sure, plothole is not a plothole, because it can be covered with headcanon
Therefore, every story is good written, just because it is written.

[tevix]

@The Gray Nayr

I'm a little perturbed that reduce my argument to "I don't like it, therefore it's bad" even though I brought up specific questions.

They need a precision strike on the destroyer because they are using basically small arms fire to kill a tank. The missiles are not strong enough to kill the destroyer with just any impact. Frigate & cruiser fire is.

inb4 Rannoch...the quarians were being dumb and using their broadside cannons to kill a hardened target. If not for shepard they could have blasted it with their main guns and killed it just fine.

Sustained cruiser/frigate fire would be even more effective.

The reason harbinger didn't shoot shepard is still debated on the forums, so I won't go there.