285 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

That's how it works in real life, too. More distance allows for more work.

[RadicalDisconnect]

Ledgend1221 wrote...

1. A 3km gun is better then a 2km gun, that's how it works in ME.
Also, ships are capable of going FTL, combat only happens below FTL. All ships have equal speed advantages.
Repears are also really big and frigates are really small. That range advantage is moot against anything other then dreadnoughts.
2. How many do they have vs how many do we have.
3. Stagnation of tactics from years of repetition. If you keep owning scrubs all your life, then you won't have any tactics to face pros. Because you've never faced them before.
4. They also cannot replace their losses quickly. Any kills hurt them. The galatic forces however can replace their losses. A war of attrition will not bode well for the reapers.

1. And guess what, the Reapers have the biggest guns. We don't have any 3km gun. Sheer energy yield of the weapon is only one factor. Targetting systems and fire control systems also matter, and the Reapers have the advantage here. Like I said, in Desert Storm, if the Iraqis had the 120 mm cannon and the M829A1 APFSDS on their tanks, they would still get whipped by Coalition Abrams due to the latter having superior fire control and targetting.
2. Well do you know? Why doesn't Shepard refute the Catalyst's claim of the organics being "hopelessly outnumbered?"
3. Wait, what!? Unlike organics, Reapers don't become "rusty" when they don't employ a certain tactic for a long time.
4. You're kidding, right? We cannot replace our losses quickly either. We'll probably suffer greater losses due to the capability gap. Not to mention that Reapers destroy infrastructure and our logistics.

David7204 wrote...

So quick to give up. How disappointing.

What are you talking about?

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 15 juillet 2013 - 06:03 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

CrutchCricket wrote...

We never match the enemy pound for pound in arena/MP matches either. The analogy holds.

Squad-AI is all but invisible to Enemy-AI in Mirror Match.

As such, squadmates give you an extra set of bullet shots and powers at your disposal, through the length of the match.

No such thing exists in the war.

It can start at its top DPS or give you the Collector heavy-weapon and it still won't make a difference, because you have to sustain the attack long enough to actually kill anything, in which time you get clobbered. Shields recharge.

You have other, shield stripping attacks, from yourself or allies as well as other boosts (lol TacCloak?).

*No allies.

The time you spend running to safety, trying to dodge the 'nades, waiting for them to pop out of cover nullifies that progress.

lol no. I thought you were just joking but directed electrical discharge is quite different from an EMP wave, a control signal, or whatever the hell synthesis is.

The Crucible alone is not effective on a galaxy-wide scale, that's why it requires hooking up to the Citadel.

Alone, however, it's most likely a contained/localized explosion of Destroy.

Hence, alone, it would be the lolReegar. In tandem with the Citadel, it's more like (~)the Arc Projector.

The Crucible isn't really a weapon. If it was, maybe there'd be fewer objections.

It's pretty much a glorified bomb.

Actually... it is. Replace "pressing a button" with shooting a pipe, grabbing some electrodes, or, hilariously, going from point B to point C by way of gravity.

Or are you referring to the glorified escort mission that precedes it?

You think that they're going to resolve the Reaper plot with a space battle? We're not playing a flight simulator. The PC is a human soldier, not a pilot. Whatever resolution will come of the story is going to take place through his/her hands. I don't care if the key to victory is the Crucible or "Thanix"-nonsense, they're not going to put the space battle ahead of the ground war (because that's where the PC is). Therein, any space battle is simply going to be "glorified" mission because it's not going to matter either way, only the players action in whatever the final mission is will matter.

Let's not kid ourselves here.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 15 juillet 2013 - 06:15 .

[Ledgend1221]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Ledgend1221 wrote...

1. A 3km gun is better then a 2km gun, that's how it works in ME.
Also, ships are capable of going FTL, combat only happens below FTL. All ships have equal speed advantages.
Repears are also really big and frigates are really small. That range advantage is moot against anything other then dreadnoughts.
2. How many do they have vs how many do we have.
3. Stagnation of tactics from years of repetition. If you keep owning scrubs all your life, then you won't have any tactics to face pros. Because you've never faced them before.
4. They also cannot replace their losses quickly. Any kills hurt them. The galatic forces however can replace their losses. A war of attrition will not bode well for the reapers.

1. And guess what, the Reapers have the biggest guns. We don't have any 3km gun. Sheer energy yield of the weapon is only one factor. Targetting systems and fire control systems also matter, and the Reapers have the advantage here. Like I said, in Desert Storm, if the Iraqis had the 120 mm cannon and the M829A1 APFSDS on their tanks, they would still get whipped by Coalition Abrams due to the latter having superior fire control and targetting.
2. Well do you know? Why doesn't Shepard refute the Catalyst's claim of the organics being "hopelessly outnumbered?"
3. Wait, what!? Unlike organics, Reapers don't become "rusty" when they don't employ a certain tactic for a long time.
4. You're kidding, right?

1. And we can't build one why? A 2km one? 
Also, these targeting systems don't seem to be working on the reapers. Look how close those space battles get.
And how do you know what targeting the allies have? It's no good saying your gun can hit a target 6km away when it can only range 3.
If a dreadnoughts main gun can hit a reaper at max range, then the reapers superior targeting isn't that much of an advantage.
2. When did shepard count? If you don't know for sure, then why did you try and use it as a point?
3. Not even rusty. They've never faced the kind of battle they're facing now.
They're unprepared.
4. You're joking right?
It took the reapers centuries to beat the protheans who fell victim to the citadel trap.
They now have to face a foe that's organised and has access to their own weapons.
What's the resource cost of a human dreadnought? 2000 lives and whatever tonnes of materials.
What's the resource cost of a human reaper? Possibly millions of humans. 
From harbingers dialouge in ME2, humans are probably the only species that will get turned into dreadnoughts.
The rest become destroyers. Those are about equal to a cruiser or a frigate with Thanix.

[RadicalDisconnect]

Ledgend1221 wrote...
1. And we can't build one why? A 2km one? 
Also, these targeting systems don't seem to be working on the reapers. Look how close those space battles get.
And how do you know what targeting the allies have? It's no good saying your gun can hit a target 6km away when it can only range 3.
If a dreadnoughts main gun can hit a reaper at max range, then the reapers superior targeting isn't that much of an advantage.
2. When did shepard count? If you don't know for sure, then why did you try and use it as a point?
3. Not even rusty. They've never faced the kind of battle they're facing now.
They're unprepared.
4. You're joking right?
It took the reapers centuries to beat the protheans who fell victim to the citadel trap.
They now have to face a foe that's organised and has access to their own weapons.
What's the resource cost of a human dreadnought? 2000 lives and whatever tonnes of materials.
What's the resource cost of a human reaper? Possibly millions of humans. 
From harbingers dialouge in ME2, humans are probably the only species that will get turned into dreadnoughts.
The rest become destroyers. Those are about equal to a cruiser or a frigate with Thanix.

1. Codex outright states that Reapers have better targetting systems. Not to mention that, as we see over Palaven, most of the Turian's shots miss the Reapers. So do organics have better targetting systems? Cutscenes are poor sources for reference, since they value cinematic quality over logic.
2. Nothing in the codex or in game suggests othewise. The Reapers were able to take on the Asari, Turians, Humans, and Krogans simultaneously and was mentioned to be winning.
3. They're not stupid either. Who says they're unable to adapt and develop countermeasures? Or are you depending on Reapers being stupid?
4. Reapers taking centuries to eradicate the Protheans is more on the account of the galaxy being a big place and the Protheans being much more widespread than we are. In sustained warfare, industrial and logistical advantage is key. Reapers need little to no industry and logistics to fight, and they are gradually taking out our ability to sustain warfare. And no, engagements won't hurt both sides equally; Reapers will inflict heavier casualties on us, and they'll erode our ability to replace our losses. Not to mention that training military service members is not at all a quick process.

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 17 juillet 2013 - 10:13 .

[Bfler]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

3. They're not stupid either. Who says they're unable to adapt and develop countermeasures? 

Obviously they are stupid enough, with high EMS, to let a few ships with a large unknown device, which could be a serious threat, pass their lines unharmed and dock at the Citadel.

[AlexMBrennan]

Obviously they are stupid enough, with high EMS, to let a few ships with a large unknown device, which could be a serious threat, pass their lines unharmed and dock at the Citadel.

There are two possibilities:
1) The Reapers are really dumb OR
2) The writers can't visualise anything more complicated than age of sail ship-of-the-line battles, and couldn't come up with a believable explanation

Given that the Reapers are elder space gods which have repeatedly wiped out all civilisation every 50k years since the beginning of time, I'm inclined to favour the 2nd explanation.

[CrutchCricket]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Squad-AI is all but invisible to Enemy-AI in Mirror Match.

As such, squadmates give you an extra set of bullet shots and powers at your disposal, through the length of the match.

No such thing exists in the war.

Targeting priorities. You're a dreadnaught, they're cruisers/frigates. You go down it's all over anyway. We're not going to agree on this.

The Crucible alone is not effective on a galaxy-wide scale, that's why it requires hooking up to the Citadel.

The Crucible alone does nothing. If it did there'd be no point to the space battle at all. They'd show up, wipe out the Reapers around Earth and then hook up to the Citadel. Though at that point the choices become useless. Why bother inflicing so much collateral damage galaxy-wide when you can just deploy system by system and blow your load? No relay damage, no ally deaths, no other risks like new overlords or genetic rape.

Might've actually made for a better ending, come to think of it. Direct use of EMS? Check. No cheapening of enemy motives through terrible exposition? Check. No capitulating to the enemy? Check. No bull**** arbitrary consequences? Check.

I'd be ok with this.

You think that they're going to resolve the Reaper plot with a space battle? We're not playing a flight simulator. The PC is a human soldier, not a pilot. Whatever resolution will come of the story is going to take place through his/her hands. I don't care if the key to victory is the Crucible or "Thanix"-nonsense, they're not going to put the space battle ahead of the ground war (because that's where the PC is). Therein, any space battle is simply going to be "glorified" mission because it's not going to matter either way, only the players action in whatever the final mission is will matter.

Let's not kid ourselves here.

And a boss battle was stated to be "too video gamey". What's your point?

When has anyone in the history of gaming complained about a new game mode when it didn't have technical problems? I've always thought ME3 should've had RTS elements since, you know you're at the head of a galactic war and all and what you and two of your buddies do on random dustball suddenly pales in comparison to thousands of your forces fighting and dying against the enemy. Hell if we're being strict, Shepard's always been the CO of a warship with an unbelieveable contempt for delegation.

Shepard may be the spearhead of the resistance but this goes beyond him, beyond any individual. Gameplay, especially the final mission should've reflected that.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

CrutchCricket wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Squad-AI is all but invisible to Enemy-AI in Mirror Match.

As such, squadmates give you an extra set of bullet shots and powers at your disposal, through the length of the match.

No such thing exists in the war.

Targeting priorities. You're a dreadnaught, they're cruisers/frigates. You go down it's all over anyway. We're not going to agree on this.

The Reapers don't need to prioritize anything. They have more Oculi than we have fighters/frigates, more Destroyers than we have cruisers, more Sovereigns than we have dreadnoughts. No priorities needed, just overwhelm everyone.

The Crucible alone is not effective on a galaxy-wide scale, that's why it requires hooking up to the Citadel.

The Crucible alone does nothing.

I don't think so. I'm sure it can achieve any of RGB in one system, but it's likely only a one-time use kind of deal.

Might've actually made for a better ending, come to think of it. Direct use of EMS? Check. No cheapening of enemy motives through terrible exposition? Check. No capitulating to the enemy? Check. No bull**** arbitrary consequences? Check.

I'd be ok with this.

The current ending directly uses EMS and does not make you "capitulate" to the enemy.

As for the other two, the players can believe whatever they want...

... never mind how readily they'll accept cheapening the enemy if the ending haz moar awesome.

You think that they're going to resolve the Reaper plot with a space battle? We're not playing a flight simulator. The PC is a human soldier, not a pilot. Whatever resolution will come of the story is going to take place through his/her hands. I don't care if the key to victory is the Crucible or "Thanix"-nonsense, they're not going to put the space battle ahead of the ground war (because that's where the PC is). Therein, any space battle is simply going to be "glorified" mission because it's not going to matter either way, only the players action in whatever the final mission is will matter.

Let's not kid ourselves here.

And a boss battle was stated to be "too video gamey". What's your point?

When has anyone in the history of gaming complained about a new game mode when it didn't have technical problems? I've always thought ME3 should've had RTS elements since, you know you're at the head of a galactic war and all and what you and two of your buddies do on random dustball suddenly pales in comparison to thousands of your forces fighting and dying against the enemy. Hell if we're being strict, Shepard's always been the CO of a warship with an unbelieveable contempt for delegation.

Shepard may be the spearhead of the resistance but this goes beyond him, beyond any individual. Gameplay, especially the final mission should've reflected that.

My point: that (bolded) can never happen.

When has anyone complained about new game modes, with no technical problems? About every time it happens: the purists whine the game is "becoming too much like a(n) [insert video-game genre here.]" Especially ME fans!

Fans have already complained that ME was "about the characters" and how ME3 "tossed it aside for their art QQ." If there's anything they have more attachment to than the squad, it's Shepard (see: obligatory weekly thread about how ME4 must be about Shepard). Now I'm reading that the end-of-ME3 gameplay should have phased out Shepard and emphasized the rest of the war? I don't buy for a second this strategy would have been received well, by anyone.

Which brings us back to the conundrum of the story's resolution: they can't rationally phase out Shepard at this point. I mean, they can, it's their game and they can do with it what they want, but it's not really the game Mass Effect as we know it anymore. And as I said, that's a problem for most (people already feel this way about the ending, without even casting Shepard aside).

Whatever the writers came up with for the galaxy to ride to victory, it had to be Shepard-centered, not space-battle-centered.

[CrutchCricket]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

The Reapers don't need to prioritize anything. They have more Oculi than we have fighters/frigates, more Destroyers than we have cruisers, more Sovereigns than we have dreadnoughts. No priorities needed, just overwhelm everyone.

So you're telling me a Sovereign is just going to potshot cruises with a dreadnaught nearby? I don't think so.

I don't think so. I'm sure it can achieve any of RGB in one system, but it's likely only a one-time use kind of deal.

You've always been told you need the Catalyst. The Citadel is the Catalyst (at least until the holokid shows up).  Without that, you've got nothing.

The current ending directly uses EMS and does not make you "capitulate" to the enemy.

As for the other two, the players can believe whatever they want...

... never mind how readily they'll accept cheapening the enemy if the ending haz moar awesome.

Simply having a threshold between "screwed" and "slightly" less screwed is not a worthy use of EMS. Why have numbers at all then? Why not just have a toggle that goes between the above options when you've hit that mark?

As for capitulating to the enemy, we've been over this before. You "win" only because the holokid lets you, and only on his bull**** terms. If it was capable of emotion I wouldn't even call it a victory. I'd call it pity.

And while it's true many dissenters would fold if the ending were happier (hell look at EC) I am not one of them.

My point: that (bolded) can never happen.

When has anyone complained about new game modes, with no technical problems? About every time it happens: the purists whine the game is "becoming too much like a(n) [insert video-game genre here.]" Especially ME fans!

I'm assuming you're referring to the "ME:COD" comparison? You're vastly misinterpreting that complaint. It's not the better pew pews people are lementing, it's the detraction of the RPG elements that were sacrificed to achieve that. They may be wrong in the extent they perceive that detraction, but that's the argument.

Fans have already complained that ME was "about the characters" and how ME3 "tossed it aside for their art QQ." If there's anything they have more attachment to than the squad, it's Shepard (see: obligatory weekly thread about how ME4 must be about Shepard). Now I'm reading that the end-of-ME3 gameplay should have phased out Shepard and emphasized the rest of the war? I don't buy for a second this strategy would have been received well, by anyone.

Who said "phase out Shepard"? If Shepard is the one making the decisions on how and where to deploy forces for the final battle, that still involves him and it increases the scope of the conflict and it introduces a new gameplay mode. Something for everyone.

Which brings us back to the conundrum of the story's resolution: they can't rationally phase out Shepard at this point. I mean, they can, it's their game and they can do with it what they want, but it's not really the game Mass Effect as we know it anymore. And as I said, that's a problem for most (people already feel this way about the ending, without even casting Shepard aside).

Whatever the writers came up with for the galaxy to ride to victory, it had to be Shepard-centered, not space-battle-centered.

Mass Effect, as we knew it was barely about the Reapers to begin with. It was very much about one dude stopping some other dude and solving a mystery while exploring the galaxy (this also kind of works for ME2 which I think factors in to why people liked it despite the fact that it didn't advance the plot much). When the Reapers came out as the galactic threat, the split already happened. You can't really beat a galactic extinction event satisfactorily if the camera is glued to the gun of one man for the duration. It  just ain't gonna work, all other space magic aside. But that doesn't mean all hope is lost. You just have to pan out a bit.

Shepard on the CIC directing the battle (or a part of the battle) would've worked. Here's a rough outline:

All fleets attack the Reapers. We need to get the Crucible through. Shepard needs to deploy the right elements correctly to make that happen. There's room for error, and there are substitutes to account for non-completionists but you still need to get it right to advance. It's like making decisions for the suicide mission but on a grander scale. If done correctly, the Crucible's got a window, you just need to open the arms. The Normandy can break off and make for the beam (why not, they already do it in the EC) and drop your squad right there. You beam up, healthy and with backup, but the Reapers are onto you and send some forces after you. Or maybe there's automated defenses (if you simply must have more combat). During this fight, you can be more realistically separated from your squad and damaged, again if you simply must be in that state for the end game. The holokid is still bull**** but that's another matter.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 16 juillet 2013 - 04:19 .

[Sumthing]

The final battle should have had more of a Grand Scale suicide mission style than what it was.