692 réponses à ce sujet

[rekn2]

it seems to me that they had 1 writer who knew his stuff about "secret organization" writing and he was sick or moved to something else and in came some one who watched austin powers a few hundred times.

i think thats why theres so many groups of people who felt "slapped in the face". jackolites, mirandamancers, pro-cerbs, pro-geth etc etc.

BW, when you pick a writer to handle a race or theme KEEP THEM THERE FOR THE DURATION OF THE SERIES!

[Jukaga]

shingara wrote...

 Shepard was knocked out for 2 days, if they had the 2 days they would have evacuated the system. They tried to evacuate the system but the signal was blocked.

No one is evacuating 300k colonists in 2 days, let alone two weeks. Just imagine the logistics required. At most, a few thousand could have crammed on to whatever ships were in system.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

[quote]DecCylonus wrote...

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

[quote]shingara wrote...

Hey massive, induldge me. What is the definition of a psychopath ?[/quote]

What's the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath?

Do you watch Sherlock?

I am a high functioning socipath.

I know this.

That does not mean my points have no merit. I have carefully and logically thought out my points. And kept emotion to a minimum.

To say that they have no merit is prejudice against me. Same with a psychopath.

If you exclude morality and emotion from your arguments and instead focus on reason and logic, my arguments will make a lot more sense.

I'm also an INTJ type personality. Look that up. It will make sense.

[/quote]

This post, and the bolded statement in particular, encapsulate the problem most people have with your arguments. You are trying to argue that morality is relative, and that the end justifies the means of offering up all the "useless" people as cannon fodder or bait. But when somebody challenges you, you cry prejudice. By doing so you are appealing to the concept of a universal morality, which you dismiss in the very next sentence to justify your position. If there is no universal basis for morality, then there is no prejudice. People just have a different opinion than you do. So either you don't really believe that there is no universal morality, or you are willing to try to manipulate us with our own concept of morality.[/quote]

Congrats. You caught me. I'm exposed.

Now if I may retort:

You're making an equivocation fallacy on me. By 'prejudice', I mean that my reasoning is being dismissed as bad simply because others who can't or won't argue against it won't like it. 

There was no challenge to me. I didn't even specifically say that there was. What I was implying was that my opinion, which is backed up by logic and reasoning, is being disgarded simply because 'it's evil'.

Anyway, that's some pretty odd logic; universal morality and prejudice (pre-judging) are two concepts that don't really correlate with each other. I don't believe that morality is universal. I believe it is relative. What does that have to do with my opinion being disgarded because people think I'm a "meany poopyhead pants-on-fire"? That's an unfair assertion against me don't you think?

[quote]
To many of us your solution is simply to sacrifice the weak in order to protect the strong. You want to kill the civillians who cannot fight (the weak) so that they can't be turned into husks that your miltary (the strong) have to fight. Then you go one step further and suggest that the civillians be used as bait to trap and kill Reapers. All of this is morally repugnant to the average person.[/quote]

It is. That is a very good analyzation of my solution. And I'm also saying that 'morally repugnant' isn't always the best way to dismiss a solution or argument.

[quote]
From the standpoint of reason and logic, here are some very big flaws in your plan:
1) It will cost you resources to kill all those civillians. Those resources could be spent fighting the Reapers instead.[/quote]

It will cost me resources. Not as much as keeping them alive. It's cheaper to leave them in a city with a couple fission/fusion devices set to detonate when the Reapers arrive than it is to protect.

It's a better investment of my resources to invest in ways to look for weaknesses and flaws against the Reapers using them as guinea pigs than it is to feed all of them while they sit in some empty lot on a planet.
[/quote]

[quote]
2) The Reapers aren't stupid. They might fall for your nuclear bomb trap once. After that they will probably search hard for weapons before committing significant resources to a harvest. In the worst case scenario they defuse your bombs and harvest the civillians.
[/quote]

The Reapers aren't stupid. I won't lie, this tactic will have limited functionality. However, it is as much a means of eliminating loose ends as it is destroying the Reapers. And sending them on a merry goose-chase looking for a missing bomb sounds funny as hell. But seriously, if it keeps the civilians away from the Reapers, then it'll do.

[quote]
3) The military cannot sustain itself. It needs food, fuel, weapons, ships, and all other manner of supplies. Those things have to be produced by civillians.The more civillians you have, the more they can produce.[/quote]

Read my idea on economic equilibrium. Not everyone can be made to be useful.

Equilibrium does not work like that.

Economics dpes not work like that.

If it did, we wouldn't have such a terrible situation in the global economy now would we?

[quote]
4) The surest way to give your soldiers PTSD is to have them kill their own people. Your soldiers' morale will go in the toilet, and their effectiveness as a fighting force will go with it. You will face desertions and mutiny. They may try to kill you. Eventually most or all of them will refuse to follow you. Your forces will fracture and you will have a divided, weaker force to face the Reapers.[/quote]

Who says all my soldiers are going to do it? Nukes don't have opinions. That's what's so great about them.

That said, what alternative do they have? Death? That's all they're going to face.

Reason and logic only go so far though.

This is a legitmate problem, I won't lie. I don't have a solution for it (yet), but saving all the civilians isn't the answer.

Saving civilians isn't going to help because now, I have to feed them. And guard them. And give them medical assistance. And entertain them. And all sorts of other problems that I don't have the resources or time to deal with or care about. Not with the Reapers coming to kill us all.

I can't train all of them, and I can't put them all to work. I have to find a solution that benefits the most amount of people. 

Unfortunately for many of these civilians, there will be no benefit. It sucks, but there's nothing I can do about it without screwing them even further.

[quote]
5) Once word gets out of what you are doing, support for your forces will evaporate. Nobody will want to sell supplies to your forces. You'll be forced to deal with criminals who don't mind your tactics for most of it. In other words, your logistics get far more difficult. You also won't see many new recruits to replace your losses.[/quote]

It'll be hard to hide.

But I'll pose one question: what alternative do they have. The Reapers? As bad as I am, I'm at least doing it to ensure that there is a tomorrow after the Reapers. If they don't join me, what are they going to do? Sit and twiddle their thumbs as the Reapers kill them? Because that's what will happen.

I won't lie, I'm putting them in a position of being in a rock and a hard place.

I have no problem dealing with criminals. As Aria says, they're willing to fight dirty and mean. Reason enough to bring to the fight.

Ever see the the Star Trek episode 'The Conscious of the King'? It's going to be a bit like that. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
A policy of detente ensues: I can't afford to keep these civilians, but I can't afford to let the Reapers have them (huskified, indoctrinated, harvested). So I have to do something about these civilians that is resource-savvy and effectively curbs the problem as efficiently as possible.

Why wouldn't you just draft them? If it's because of resources, why not train more farmers or laborers (I don't know how supply production works in the ME universe, specifically involving food)?

I can draft them, but what equilibrium still applies. Training them all would take too much time and resources, and it would affect their training and skills in a negative manner. 

Resource-wise, how many farmers and laborers can you you utilize before efficiency is hampered? Eventually, you're going to have too many workers in production that efficiency is no longer optimal. It's all the same principle. 

It all floats back to equilibrium. There's always going to be an excess.

What are you suggesting we should do? Just curious as I am coming in late to this.

Use them as bait. Use them for science. If worst comes to worst, kill them outright. 

As bad as it is, I'm sparing them from a fate where they're indoctrinated, huskified, or harvested.

This war isn't allowing us to see things differently.

[CronoDragoon]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
But I'll pose one question: what alternative do they have. The Reapers? As bad as I am, I'm at least doing it to ensure that there is a tomorrow after the Reapers. If they don't join me, what are they going to do?

Probably kill you and replace you with someone else.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 09 août 2013 - 06:39 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

DecCylonus wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
There was zero chance that I'd be able to protect them from the Reapers. Zero. 

I can't protect and save civilians while fighting the Reapers. I will utterly destroy my chances of successfully waging war against them. It becomes economics. 

TIM was right: It's always about resources. And I can't waste any on civilians. 

Their fate was sealed when the alliance and Council who were supposed to protect them decided that Shepard was crazy and that the Reapers were just a myth.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding an argument since I am coming in late, but I am not following the jump of logic that "can't spare the resources to protect civilians" means "transferring them to be experimented on and killed is viable." It would be different if you did this to fatally wounded soldiers or brain-dead civilians (whether it's moral or not, it's at the very least a different situation) but this case entails taking potentially healthy refugees and sacrificing them, which really has no basis in " I wouldn't be able to protect them and therefore-".

I see what you're saying and why you think I'm advocating that. 

A few pages back, I detailed my method of the economic utility of a certain amount of the population that would be used to manufacture, build, create, and maintain war materiel, as well as a pool of people who's particular skills would be useful to the war effort in some way. Engineers, physicians, surgeons, people with professional skills that can actually assist in the war effort. All kinds of resources and things will be necessary. There's a lot to account for. We'll need soldiers, farmers, laborers, etc.

However, once I reach an economic equilibrium balance of what I can produce with the highest amount of efficiency, that's going to leave a surplus population that really does nothing except drain my resources and be a big target for the Reapers. So I think the best way to utilize them personally is as bait, with another population taken to be used in ways to find research against the Reapers - with them as the test subjects.

A policy of detente ensues: I can't afford to keep these civilians, but I can't afford to let the Reapers have them (huskified, indoctrinated, harvested). So I have to do something about these civilians that is resource-savvy and effectively curbs the problem as efficiently as possible.

You are leaving yourself no margin for error though. The Reapers have a way of blowing through our military and hitting any target they want. So what happens if you successfully eliminate the "useless" people and the Reapers attack your carefully horded cache of support staff? Now you have no supplies and no new recruits. The Reapers win.

You aren't taking into consideration that the harvest works both ways. It's the Reapers primary goal, and they devote a ton of forces and resources to it. If you take away all the easy targets, the only targets left are your support staff and military. That leaves them nothing to do but concentrate their forces and wipe you out, which they are very capable of.

We already seem to be taking that risk with the Crucible don't you think?

There's really no where where it can go right to be honest. Conversely as a counterpoint to you, what happens while the Reapers harvest, indoctrinate, and huskify populations? Now they have an exceedingly large number of husks and their forces are exponentially increaded.

This is a bit more of the logical thinking I was hoping for. 

I'll have to say that I'm going to have to deal with the risks regardless. You're right, but I'm also right. I'm going to stick to my plan.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

CronoDragoon wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
But I'll pose one question: what alternative do they have. The Reapers? As bad as I am, I'm at least doing it to ensure that there is a tomorrow after the Reapers. If they don't join me, what are they going to do?

Probably kill you and replace you with someone else.

OK.

Then what?

What's that someone else going to do?

How's that someone else going to fight the Reapers? 

How's that someone else going to find the magic happy ending solution where all the paragon's win?

[garrus and ashley squad]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
A policy of detente ensues: I can't afford to keep these civilians, but I can't afford to let the Reapers have them (huskified, indoctrinated, harvested). So I have to do something about these civilians that is resource-savvy and effectively curbs the problem as efficiently as possible.

Why wouldn't you just draft them? If it's because of resources, why not train more farmers or laborers (I don't know how supply production works in the ME universe, specifically involving food)?

I can draft them, but what equilibrium still applies. Training them all would take too much time and resources, and it would affect their training and skills in a negative manner. 

Resource-wise, how many farmers and laborers can you you utilize before efficiency is hampered? Eventually, you're going to have too many workers in production that efficiency is no longer optimal. It's all the same principle. 

It all floats back to equilibrium. There's always going to be an excess.

What are you suggesting we should do? Just curious as I am coming in late to this.

Use them as bait. Use them for science. If worst comes to worst, kill them outright. 

As bad as it is, I'm sparing them from a fate where they're indoctrinated, huskified, or harvested.

This war isn't allowing us to see things differently.

I don't think killing someone because they aren't useful or using them like that is the way to go.  We're pretty much acting like the reapers. If they are not useful then we kill them. I know we can say we're doing this to take care of a bigger threat but that could of been the same thing  the reapers were thinking. As stated in me3 you are chaos we are order. The differnce being is that we disagreed to that.

Bait- I'm guessing you mean to use them for a trap. What if this does not work though? What if your plan fails and then all we did was gift wrap the reapers people and make them stronger. Not only that but do you really want to go that route. Even if we do win the war there will be much more to come since we sacrificed people's families just to win a war. Also there are a lot of military members who have families that are not trained. There is no way they go for this. Sure you can find some members willing to do this but I'm guessing you're not playing favorites and even if you are the backlash would be huge. There may have more than just the reapers you have to fight against. 

Science- This didn't really work for cerberus and which method are we using them for exactly. To study indoctrination? That would be very risky as to  who knows what all those civilians would do  with them under reaper control. It could lead to something going horribly wrong. There are plenty of ways that this could be a lot safer. You could offer a huge sum of money to those that would offer themselves up for science. There are a a lot of people that are poor and would do this for their families and various other reasons.


Kill them- This to me is the worst one. The only way I can justify even killing them is if you see the reapers about to land on a planet and the only way to save them is then to kill them, but that should be a last resort. We shouldn't kill them just because hey you might get indoctrinated so were going to have to blow your brains out, or because your not experienced in the military and have no training so gonna have to kill ya.

My solution would much rather be having civiliians moved closer to military bases. You move them to a place they can be well protected and if the reapers do come then and take over, it's just us losing the war. It's not anyones fault just would be the price of war.

[CronoDragoon]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

OK.

Then what?

What's that someone else going to do?

How's that someone else going to fight the Reapers? 

How's that someone else going to find the magic happy ending solution where all the paragon's win?

They won't, at least as far as sacrifice-nothing happy endings go. As a Paragon, though, I still say that Destroy is an unequivocal victory even though the geth/EDI dying sucks. And considering the galaxy ended up at the same place by not experimenting on unwilling subjects as they would have experimented on them, I don't really see any reason to believe an alternate route than the one the galaxy took in-game would have been better.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 09 août 2013 - 07:04 .

[garrus and ashley squad]

StreetMagic wrote...

I wonder how many people here save Maelon's data? It's no different than Cerberus. Or the Collectors and the Reaper baby. How far are you going to say certain research methods are "tainted" from the victims it took to get results? My first and, if you will, "canon" choice is to destroy it. It's probably the illogical and more "moral" based choice, but that's where I lean. I've mentioned this elsewhere and I was surprised how many people thought that choice was stupid. That the "Paragon" thing to do is save it.

Maelon's data had krogans who were willing to go through this. I'm sure after awhile they knew exactly what he was doing and went through it. Offering yourself is a lot different than someone forcing you to go through an experiment. I took maelon's data simply because what's done is done. We can't change it. Even if it is wrong or right, we have the data now and it can help us. Whether I agree or not doesn't matter we have what we need and it was time to move on.


I as well choose destroy.

Modifié par garrus and ashley squad, 09 août 2013 - 07:05 .

[garrus and ashley squad]

StreetMagic wrote...

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I wonder how many people here save Maelon's data? It's no different than Cerberus. Or the Collectors and the Reaper baby. How far are you going to say certain research methods are "tainted" from the victims it took to get results? My first and, if you will, "canon" choice is to destroy it. It's probably the illogical and more "moral" based choice, but that's where I lean. I've mentioned this elsewhere and I was surprised how many people thought that choice was stupid. That the "Paragon" thing to do is save it.

Maelon's data had krogans who were willing to go through this. I'm sure after awhile they knew exactly what he was doing and went through it. Offering yourself is a lot different than someone forcing you to go through an experiment. I took maelon's data simply because what's done is done. We can't change it. Even if it is wrong or right, we have the data now and it can help us. Whether I agree or not doesn't matter we have what we need and it was time to move on.

Maelon's data had unwilling human victims as well. I don't care about Krogan volunteers.

Anyways, if this was about morals, people would be consistent. If they're not going to be consistent, then all they're doing is showing bias against Cerberus, applying one morality for them, and another for others.

I did not agree with the human victims and if I could I would of put a stop to it. That being said, if his data is valuable I still use it. Right or wrong at that point doesn't matter, or what came before doesn't. We have it now and if we can put it to use then we take it. That's my main point. I may not agree with it but if it is useful and we have it then we keep it and use it. 

Modifié par garrus and ashley squad, 09 août 2013 - 07:14 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

OldSwede wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I think we all thought it would end for different reasons.

My Shepard knew full well that he was being used. He used them as well.

And he was planning on joining Cerberus for his own reasons after the mission.

Cerberus' goals and my Shepard's goals were conceptually not very different.

Then they became a bit more 'humanity at any cost'. That's a lot different.

Things became incompatible for them when they started wanting to wantonly use Reaper tech without regard to the risks and consequences. That did bite them in the ass.

First off, thank you for being really clear in this post (not saying you haven't earlier, but it's been a lot of talk in the thread and lots of replies that you've answered).

You're welcome! 

Then I'd like to ask you (actually it was three questions, but I am too tired atm and I forgot one - so I will have to ask another time instead ;-)

I am wondering about what you said earlier, re: keeping your promise to 100%
From what I've read, is that you approve of the actions at Sanctuary -- that is one thing, but I'd like to ask if You (yourself, or your Shepard, or both) were in charge of Sanctuary, would you do the same thing?

This is rather complex to answer. Yes and No. I would probably do preliminary research into the validity of finding a way to tactically manipulate indoctrination and use it against Reaper forces, possibly even against Reapers themselves. You know the Saren/Sovereign indoctrination connection that was used to defeat Sovereign? I want to find a way to possibly exploit that. Find a means to weaken Reapers through the destruction of a heavily indoctrinated/huskified vessel or avatar. When it comes time for a practical applied experiment with the concept, I might require the lives of civilians. I don't know how many or for how long. It's a bit theoretical.

I am asking since it is supposedly for refugees - but they are being lured into a trap. You would keep your promise, right (keeping it for refugees)?

I wouldn't make use of the word promise. I do intend to protect these people from the Reapers, and I will endeavor to keep as many alive as possible.... but by protecting them from the Reapers, I also mean in a bit of darker, more dubious manner, that I'll kill them before they can be killed/indoctrinated/huskified/harvested by the Reapers.

It brings me no joy, and I won't pretend I'm not doing something that is pretty bad, but any fate or method, even killing my own people, is preferable to making them suffer or die by the Reapers.

The policy of detente also comes in. I want to prevent the Reapers from utilizing as many husks or possible harvested individuals as possible.

Now, I'd like to ask how you felt being forced to work for the Alliance?
(if you felt that way, that is)

I know I felt horrible in the beginning of ME2, being forced to work with Cerberus --- but I guess if it had been the other way around (ME1 starting with Shepard being in Cerberus), I might have felt just the same about suddenly working for the Alliance.

It's not so much about forced to work with (I say with because I am not part of the alliance again), but that I can't express any negativity about it. I can't be critical to the alliance. I can't tell them that I think it's their and the Council's fault, that I think they're being idiots, that I can't tell Hackett to shut up and get behind me. I have to like them in ME3. I have no choice. My Shepard, who was very critical and condemning towards the alliance in ME1 and ME2 (yes, you can be critical towards the alliance in ME1 if you try hard enough) and even expressing a desire to join Cerberus as well as crafting a more practical opinion about them. I can't express anything but condemnation towards Cerberus in ME3 - it's very morally hamfisted: Black and White. BW goes out of their way to make the game seem like you're either a white-shining-knight paragon, or a lunatic, crazed demented renegade. I blame SuperMac. I can't be the ruthless and calculating, though restrained and reserved practical idealist that I could be in ME1 and ME2. It's rather tiresome and frustrating.

NB: I think you and I are not very alike. I cannot even kill a fly IRL (meaning, I am very emotional and will spare lifes when I can, e.g. letting a fly/whasp/mosquito out of the window instead of killing them) and I have a very hard time playing games being a "badass" (not saying you are a badass, I just do not agree with what Cerberus has done). I actually think it would do me good to play more renegade (in games in general), but I've tried, and always failed. I guess I just need to practice more ;-)

Hey man, we're more alike than you think. Don't worry about who or what you are. That's who you are.

Me, I'm typically a bit more... practical and dark. I don't necessarily play as a renegade Shepard. Mine is pretty much a true neutral guy. "Do what works, do what's necessary." He does paragon options a lot, not because he's a paragon, but because he weighs the consequences and considers outcomes. He has his own sense of idealism too. It's not necessarily naive or straigtforward, but he thinks a lot more would be better off if they tried to see his perspective and looked at his idea's.

Don't worry about playing paragon or renegade or whatever if it bothers you.

The key essence of my solutions is that, in the end, if I have to do ruthless, brutal, and cruel means to achieve a desirable outcome, I might do it. I weigh the risks, benefits, consequences, and try to account for as many externalities as possible prior to a decision. 

[shingara]

Jukaga wrote...

shingara wrote...

 Shepard was knocked out for 2 days, if they had the 2 days they would have evacuated the system. They tried to evacuate the system but the signal was blocked.

No one is evacuating 300k colonists in 2 days, let alone two weeks. Just imagine the logistics required. At most, a few thousand could have crammed on to whatever ships were in system.

 The Alliance cruiser Shanghai was able to evacuate hundreds from Uqbar without even landing within an hour, 2 days warnings is more then enough time for not only alliance/council vessels if required to evacuate the colonists but also the Hegemony would have ample time to move in and evacuate everyone, thats discounting the ships and vessels already upon the colonies.

Modifié par shingara, 09 août 2013 - 07:15 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

shingara wrote...

Jukaga wrote...

shingara wrote...

 Shepard was knocked out for 2 days, if they had the 2 days they would have evacuated the system. They tried to evacuate the system but the signal was blocked.

No one is evacuating 300k colonists in 2 days, let alone two weeks. Just imagine the logistics required. At most, a few thousand could have crammed on to whatever ships were in system.

 The Alliance cruiser Shanghai was able to evacuate hundreds from Uqbar without even landing within an hour, 2 days warnings is more then enough time for not only alliance/council vessels if required to evacuate the colonists but also the Hegemony would have ample time to move in and evacuate everyone, thats discounting the ships and vessels already upon the colonies.

The level of fail in this is discouraging.

Hundreds. In an hour.

Versus hundreds of thousands. In two days. With no warning. No preparation.

It's not happening.

[Jukaga]

shingara wrote...


 The Alliance cruiser Shanghai was able to evacuate hundreds from Uqbar without even landing within an hour, 2 days warnings is more then enough time for not only alliance vessels if required to evacuate the colonists but also the Hegemony would have ample time to move in and evacuate everyone, thats discounting the ships and vessels already upon the colonies.

Nonsense, there are not enough ships in either fleet or the combined fleets to pull that off. And that assumes that the Batarians take our word that we are wiping out one of their systems to stop a 'theoretical' enemy that neither government officially admits to existing. 2 days is not enough time for the diplomacy, logistics and travel time even if their were enough ships, which there are not.

Modifié par Jukaga, 09 août 2013 - 07:18 .

[garrus and ashley squad]

StreetMagic wrote...

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

I did not agree with the human victims and if I could I would of put a stop to it. That being said, if his data is valuable I still use it. Right or wrong at that point doesn't matter, or what came before doesn't. We have it now and if we can put it to use then we take it. That's my main point. I may not agree with it but if it is useful and we have it then we keep it and use it. 

Fair enough.
 
Now apply the same "what's done is done" reasoning to Cerberus.

If you don't, it's just mere bias. Not morality.

I do and always will. Me saying I don't agree with what they did is not the same as saying I wouldn't take it.  What's done is done, and I do hate cerberus but if it can help with the war I take it each and everytime.

[shingara]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The level of fail in this is discouraging.

Hundreds. In an hour.

Versus hundreds of thousands. In two days. With no warning. No preparation.

It's not happening.

  I stopped listening to you a long time ago. You consider life worthless to begin with.

Jukaga wrote...

Nonsense, there are not enough ships in either fleet or the combined fleets to pull that off. And that assumes that the Batarians take our word that we are wiping out one of their systems to stop a 'theoretical' enemy that neither government officially admits to existing. 2 days is not enough time for the diplomacy, logistics and travel time even if their were enough ships, which there are not.

 The batterian fleet is still full strength when this is occuring, belief or not an asteroid on an unstopable path is more then accurate information of what is happening, it is not upto you to convince them but to warn them. And you both seem to be under some illussion that this requires them to move everything, houses, cattle citys when infact all it requires is to move the populace.

 You also act like this is rare to evacuate such numbers of people, they did it on earth, they did it for the elcor etc etc etc. You also try and make it sound like its gonna take ages for the ships to get there. Hellooo mass relays.

 Ps the Shanghai is one ship unable to land, relying on shuttles, not a main frigates able to land and take on passangers asap. And thats discounting ships already on the colonies who are able to take hundreds/thousands with them from the get go.

Modifié par shingara, 09 août 2013 - 07:29 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

CronoDragoon wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

OK.

Then what?

What's that someone else going to do?

How's that someone else going to fight the Reapers? 

How's that someone else going to find the magic happy ending solution where all the paragon's win?

They won't, at least as far as sacrifice-nothing happy endings go. As a Paragon, though, I still say that Destroy is an unequivocal victory even though the geth/EDI dying sucks. And considering the galaxy ended up at the same place by not experimenting on unwilling subjects as they would have experimented on them, I don't really see any reason to believe an alternate route than the one the galaxy took in-game would have been better.

There are ways I think destroy could be improved. I'm not morally against the destruction of the Geth or EDI, though I think it was incredibly arbitrary writing that puts us back to square one and negates the narrative and thematic growth of that entire arc.

'Artistic Vision!' 


I'm not really for the happy-go-lucky ending either. I have several members of the squad dying in the final mission and a great deal of forces lost: Here's my own idea for the ending (ignore the Miranda stuff if you're not a Miranda fan):

http://social.biowar...0327/7#16533863

http://social.biowar...975891#16976566

In the end though, I think what I'm doing is talking hypotheticals here. It's a bit of a thought experiment:

Say the Crucible required a lot more time and effort in game to make. So much so that I might have to start to triage my resources for the war against the Reapers.

How far would you be willing to go?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The level of fail in this is discouraging.

Hundreds. In an hour.

Versus hundreds of thousands. In two days. With no warning. No preparation.

It's not happening.

I stopped listening to you a long time ago. You consider life worthless to begin with.

Not listening to me doesn't make what I have to say any less true.

I take it as evidence that you don't have anything to say to counter my argument, for reasons that I won't state here because it will be construed as an insult (and not unjustly) and for which I'd probably be banned for.

[shingara]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The level of fail in this is discouraging.

Hundreds. In an hour.

Versus hundreds of thousands. In two days. With no warning. No preparation.

It's not happening.

I stopped listening to you a long time ago. You consider life worthless to begin with.

Not listening to me doesn't make what I have to say any less true.

I take it as evidence that you don't have anything to say to counter my argument, for reasons that I won't state here because it will be construed as an insult (and not unjustly) and for which I'd probably be banned for.

 It makes everything you say on the subject of saving life worthless, your idea of saving is base mathematics and who you can be bothered to take along the way on the usefulness of what they can do for you without diminishing your resources. Your main thinking breaks all REAL rules/laws against warcrimes.

Modifié par shingara, 09 août 2013 - 07:32 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

shingara wrote...

Jukaga wrote...

Nonsense, there are not enough ships in either fleet or the combined fleets to pull that off. And that assumes that the Batarians take our word that we are wiping out one of their systems to stop a 'theoretical' enemy that neither government officially admits to existing. 2 days is not enough time for the diplomacy, logistics and travel time even if their were enough ships, which there are not.

 The batterian fleet is still full strength when this is occuring, belief or not an asteroid on an unstopable path is more then accurate information of what is happening, it is not upto you to convince them but to warn them. And you both seem to be under some illussion that this requires them to move everything, houses, cattle citys when infact all it requires is to move the populace.

Do you understand economics? Do you understand logistics? The amount of time and effort to just suddenly up and relocate 300,000 people in 48 hours with the amount of time and preparation is utterly unfeasible. It's absolutely impossible. There is nothing these people can do. They're doomed. Absolutely doomed.

 You also act like this is rare to evacuate such numbers of people, they did it on earth, they did it for the elcor etc etc etc. You also try and make it sound like its gonna take ages for the ships to get there. Hellooo mass relays.

It is rare to evacuate such a number. They did not do it on Earth. I very highly doubt they did it on Dekuuna. 

It will take ages for ships to get there. It will take ages to assemble said ships. It's impossible logistically to pull off this kind of operation at all with the allotted time. You're assuming that every ship in the galaxy has plenty of extra space and is on 24/7 standby alert waiting for these sorts of problems to arise.

 Ps the Shanghai is one ship unable to land, relying on shuttles, not a main frigates able to land and take on passangers asap. And thats discounting ships already on the colonies who are able to take hundreds/thousands with them from the get go.

What does this point even mean? Is there a point to this point at all? I don't think there is.