Aller au contenu

Photo

Was Cerberus Vindicated?


  • Ce sujet est fermé Ce sujet est fermé
692 réponses à ce sujet

#401
MassivelyEffective0730

MassivelyEffective0730
  • Members
  • 9 230 messages

shingara wrote...

Jukaga wrote...

shingara wrote...


 And your big plan is to help them ???


I'm not sure what you mean.



 If your plan in a war is to sacrifice the surplus, the ones not needed, the ones that distract. Then in essence you are helping the reapers, Javik tells you a tale of a race who sacrificed there young to appease the reapers, and all it did was make the reapers job easier.


You missed the point of what Javik was saying. Javik was telling you how this race killed their young in the mistaken and terrible superstious belief that it would appease the Reapers.

Similar to how the Aztecs sacrificed people to make the sun rise every day.

You aren't helping the Reapers. The Reapers want to harvest and dominate. You're denying them a means that they can use against you while simultaneously eliminating a drain on your own resources.

You're not helping the Reapers at all.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 09 août 2013 - 10:36 .


#402
garrus and ashley squad

garrus and ashley squad
  • Members
  • 298 messages

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

Well then what exactly did you prevent? Why did you waste time killing all the civilians when there was no point. If it is irrelevant than why do it. Who knows, maybe keeping them alive could of been a lot more beneficial then executing all of them.


Doin something and failing is a hell of a lot better than not even bothering to fight because of morals.

In what way is corralling billionns of refugees in the middle of a war "beneficial" for anyone? Their quality of life is in the s**t, and all it serves to do is strain your resources.

 A. Leave them alone or B put them to better use. Killing them is going to take a lot of time and effort. Also let's not forget how the council and other races would react. You would have a lot to deal with.


A. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. If you leave them alone, the Reapers will eventually attack them. And harvest them, and indoctrinate them, and huskify them as well as just outright killing them. Aside from that being a crueler fate than just ending them ourselves, that also gives the Reapers an advantage; they can be used to create a new Reaper, indoctrinated agents can pose as refugees and wreak havoc on us as well as feed information to the Reapers, and husks will be used against us martially on the battlefield. There are too many negatives that come from simply leaving them be.

B. Again, it's not that easy. As I've stated before:

Economic equilibrium.

I can't utilize most of these people, because I'd already have taken my population that I intend to use for war-time production and as a reserve military force.

This is the excess population. I can't put them to work - it would not be a smart investment of my resources to do so. I can't train them. I can't spare the resources for them. There's nothing I can do for them. Really there isn't.

Which leads back to point A. My only other alternative would be to abandon them from their fate. And I can't do that, because, pragmatism about the Reapers using them aside, that's even more inhumane in my opinion than simply culling them off.

They are an external variable in the equation.

It's Garrus' brutal calculus. It's detente. 

I can't have them. The Reapers can't have them. The only solution is eliminating the variable. Culling them.

That's the position the Reapers have put me in. That's the position that the alliance and the Council have put me in.

There is no happy ending for these people. There's no nice way to put it. 

They're going to die.

So I might as well make them useful in death.

Whether I use them as blind fodder, or bait, or subjects in experiments designed to find an exploitable weakness against the Reapers.


A. The reapers would have to spend time and resources as well looking for them. Time and resources that we don't have. We would have to find so many people that are not trained that it would waste our time tbh. How are we going to get all those people in one place to simply kill them. Also, we have other military commanders who have loved ones who are not skilled. They would not go for this and that would cause a lot of backlash. People wouid rebel and then we would have to fight 2 wars. Also the council would also stand in the way of that.

B. Meh I don't think they need a high amount of training. Get one person to teach them how to use a gun. Forget the riggors of war just teach them how to use a gun. Put them close to the war to where you are or where the war is and fight for their survival. I'm sure we can spare that. The reapers won't get to them that way unless they go through you and them and if that is the case, game over anyways.


I saved them in my destroy ending. Thousands died but not everyone lost something. Sure people are going to die no doubt about that. The question is, is it worth the time to kill them and will your solution ultimately work. 

#403
Jukaga

Jukaga
  • Members
  • 2 028 messages

shingara wrote...


 If your plan in a war is to sacrifice the surplus, the ones not needed, the ones that distract. Then in essence you are helping the reapers, Javik tells you a tale of a race who sacrificed there young to appease the reapers, and all it did was make the reapers job easier.

 And for the thing with the serenity quote, mind telling us what happened next cos without context (of which i know the context) it has no meaning.


I'm not advocating hurting 'surplus' people or anything, all I am saying that practical solutions to problems like the Reapers shouldn't be taken off the table if they can produce results, and Cerberus did produce results at Sanctuary as abominable as their methods were there. It still beats extinction.

I wasn't trying to prove anything by that quote, I just felt the theme fit this thread and wanted to share the viewpoint. As I recall, Mal spared the Operative and later had the favour returned at the end as there was no point in doing anything to the crew since the alliance was now thouroughly discredited. The details don't fit the MEU situation, but the theme fit.

#404
shingara

shingara
  • Members
  • 589 messages

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

Jukaga wrote...

shingara wrote...


 And your big plan is to help them ???


I'm not sure what you mean.



 If your plan in a war is to sacrifice the surplus, the ones not needed, the ones that distract. Then in essence you are helping the reapers, Javik tells you a tale of a race who sacrificed there young to appease the reapers, and all it did was make the reapers job easier.


You missed the point of what Javik was saying. Javik was telling you how this race killed their young in the mistaken and terrible superstious belief that it would appease the Reapers.

Similar to how the Aztecs sacrificed people to make the sun rise every day.

You aren't helping the Reapers. The Reapers want to harvest and dominate. You're denying them a means that they can use against you while simultaneously eliminating a drain on your own resources.

You're not helping the Reapers at all.


 And cerberus did it in the misbelief that it would allow them to control the reapers. I would explain it more to you but it would be like trying to explain a a taste to a person who cannot taste. For you it is honestly an enigma, wrapped within a puzzle, hidden within a maze.

Modifié par shingara, 09 août 2013 - 10:39 .


#405
shingara

shingara
  • Members
  • 589 messages

Jukaga wrote...

shingara wrote...


 If your plan in a war is to sacrifice the surplus, the ones not needed, the ones that distract. Then in essence you are helping the reapers, Javik tells you a tale of a race who sacrificed there young to appease the reapers, and all it did was make the reapers job easier.

 And for the thing with the serenity quote, mind telling us what happened next cos without context (of which i know the context) it has no meaning.


I'm not advocating hurting 'surplus' people or anything, all I am saying that practical solutions to problems like the Reapers shouldn't be taken off the table if they can produce results, and Cerberus did produce results at Sanctuary as abominable as their methods were there. It still beats extinction.

I wasn't trying to prove anything by that quote, I just felt the theme fit this thread and wanted to share the viewpoint. As I recall, Mal spared the Operative and later had the favour returned at the end as there was no point in doing anything to the crew since the alliance was now thouroughly discredited. The details don't fit the MEU situation, but the theme fit.



  Sanctury wasnt in any way a practical solution, they managed to create reaper forces, of which they could have captured whilst in combat, they executed who they saw as fodder by converting the to reapers along with other experiments. Ultimatly it was all a reaper plan, TIM was indoctrinated. All he did was increase the pool of reaper forces available.

 They drained resources of council races by being a second force alongside the reapers. And we have to draw a distinction between possible actions based upon higherachy of the individual. Troops expect to face life or death situations, they expect to lay down there lives for there team, there familys and there orders.

 Non combats are tobe defended, refuges to be given safe havens.

 As for the thing with serenity, mal whacks him up the side of the head and forces him to see the evil that he is commiting his actions for. And i now really wanna watch that film thanks ;)

Modifié par shingara, 09 août 2013 - 10:54 .


#406
Guest_StreetMagic_*

Guest_StreetMagic_*
  • Guests
Sanctuary is the kind of thing you'd only see from villains in a horror film. Not scheming machiavellians.

#407
Steelcan

Steelcan
  • Members
  • 23 292 messages

StreetMagic wrote...

Sanctuary is the kind of thing you'd only see from villains in a horror film. Not scheming machiavellians.

  I disagree.  Machievellianism is the pursuit of one's goals by any means necessary.  Evil is not encouraged, but accepted as necessary.

#408
garrus and ashley squad

garrus and ashley squad
  • Members
  • 298 messages

StreetMagic wrote...

Sanctuary is the kind of thing you'd only see from villains in a horror film. Not scheming machiavellians.


Sanctuary was so ****ed up.

#409
shingara

shingara
  • Members
  • 589 messages

Steelcan wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Sanctuary is the kind of thing you'd only see from villains in a horror film. Not scheming machiavellians.

  I disagree.  Machievellianism is the pursuit of one's goals by any means necessary.  Evil is not encouraged, but accepted as necessary.


 You mean sort of like abstergo in ac ?

#410
Guest_StreetMagic_*

Guest_StreetMagic_*
  • Guests

Steelcan wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Sanctuary is the kind of thing you'd only see from villains in a horror film. Not scheming machiavellians.

  I disagree.  Machievellianism is the pursuit of one's goals by any means necessary.  Evil is not encouraged, but accepted as necessary.


The goals changed though. Their goal was to protect colonists. Cerberus was to be a watchdog guarding the gates of hell (the relay around Hades Gamma? Something like that). I can get behind any machiavellian pursuit revolving around this.

But the goal just becomes centered around controlling Reapers. Colonists become a secondary concern. They lost direction on what to even be "machiavellian" about. Reapers are now seen as a goal for their own sake. Colonists become a means to that end, instead of the other way around.

Modifié par StreetMagic, 09 août 2013 - 11:05 .


#411
MassivelyEffective0730

MassivelyEffective0730
  • Members
  • 9 230 messages

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

Well then what exactly did you prevent? Why did you waste time killing all the civilians when there was no point. If it is irrelevant than why do it. Who knows, maybe keeping them alive could of been a lot more beneficial then executing all of them.


Doin something and failing is a hell of a lot better than not even bothering to fight because of morals.

In what way is corralling billionns of refugees in the middle of a war "beneficial" for anyone? Their quality of life is in the s**t, and all it serves to do is strain your resources.

 A. Leave them alone or B put them to better use. Killing them is going to take a lot of time and effort. Also let's not forget how the council and other races would react. You would have a lot to deal with.


A. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. If you leave them alone, the Reapers will eventually attack them. And harvest them, and indoctrinate them, and huskify them as well as just outright killing them. Aside from that being a crueler fate than just ending them ourselves, that also gives the Reapers an advantage; they can be used to create a new Reaper, indoctrinated agents can pose as refugees and wreak havoc on us as well as feed information to the Reapers, and husks will be used against us martially on the battlefield. There are too many negatives that come from simply leaving them be.

B. Again, it's not that easy. As I've stated before:

Economic equilibrium.

I can't utilize most of these people, because I'd already have taken my population that I intend to use for war-time production and as a reserve military force.

This is the excess population. I can't put them to work - it would not be a smart investment of my resources to do so. I can't train them. I can't spare the resources for them. There's nothing I can do for them. Really there isn't.

Which leads back to point A. My only other alternative would be to abandon them from their fate. And I can't do that, because, pragmatism about the Reapers using them aside, that's even more inhumane in my opinion than simply culling them off.

They are an external variable in the equation.

It's Garrus' brutal calculus. It's detente. 

I can't have them. The Reapers can't have them. The only solution is eliminating the variable. Culling them.

That's the position the Reapers have put me in. That's the position that the alliance and the Council have put me in.

There is no happy ending for these people. There's no nice way to put it. 

They're going to die.

So I might as well make them useful in death.

Whether I use them as blind fodder, or bait, or subjects in experiments designed to find an exploitable weakness against the Reapers.


A. The reapers would have to spend time and resources as well looking for them. Time and resources that we don't have. We would have to find so many people that are not trained that it would waste our time tbh. How are we going to get all those people in one place to simply kill them. Also, we have other military commanders who have loved ones who are not skilled. They would not go for this and that would cause a lot of backlash. People wouid rebel and then we would have to fight 2 wars. Also the council would also stand in the way of that.


The Reapers can spare the time and the resources. They can afford to track down our refugee's. They have the numbers to not make it matter. They have infinite patience as machines.

And you're right. They have time and resources that we don't have.

It's simple to get all those people to one place: You lure them there. 

Those military personnel are in a tight spot. 

Let's put it this way, if they rebel, who's going to fight the Reapers? How are they going to fight the Reapers. Or are they going to let the Reapers win?

They can't have it both ways. They can thank the alliance and the Council just as much the Reapers.

It's sad to say, but for them, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If their family is on the excess population list, they have two options; either let us kill their family, or let the Reapers do it.

There is no other option. The alliance they so patriotically serve made sure of that when they decided to deny the Reaper threat. Same with the Council.

Because of their inaction, incompetence, and inability, I have to do the hard things that it takes to win the war. I'll do it. I'll let them hate me for it. I can take it. But I won't let them throw the galaxy away to be 'moral'. I'd rather be hated for saving the galaxy than forgotten for losing it.

B. Meh I don't think they need a high amount of training. Get one person to teach them how to use a gun. Forget the riggors of war just teach them how to use a gun. Put them close to the war to where you are or where the war is and fight for their survival. I'm sure we can spare that. The reapers won't get to them that way unless they go through you and them and if that is the case, game over anyways.


Providing you use them as fodder, they don't need training, and I'm not going to waste resources protecting them. I'm literally going to hand them a rifle, put them on a ship (with a nuke) and set them off on their merry way. And when things look grim, I hit the button. That's my problem with making them fodder. They are still susceptible to capture by the Reapers. They are still susceptible to being used against me. I can use them as fodder, but it's going to be a bit like the Legion of the Dead from DA: they're not coming back. Death is the only way out.

I saved them in my destroy ending. Thousands died but not everyone lost something. Sure people are going to die no doubt about that. The question is, is it worth the time to kill them and will your solution ultimately work. 


In my canon, I have the galaxy being vastly depopulated. It took months to build the Crucible. My solution had to take place because of the war. Trillions are dead. Trillions more are suffering. For nearly all of them, there is no hope. There is not future. 

But the relays are intact (mostly), the Reapers are destroyed, and Shepard survives to reunite with Miranda. They get a happy ending. They get hope. A future. 

#412
DecCylonus

DecCylonus
  • Members
  • 269 messages
MassivelyEffective0730,

We seem to have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of the Reaper threat. I find some of your points interesting, even though I disagree with you. However, since we disagree on what is the real threat, I'm going to stop responding point by point and deal with this issue.

In ME3, it is shown in nearly every battle that the Reaper ground troops are only a minor threat. Our weapons are effective at killing them. Our troops are effective at killing them. The only time that our losses stack up, either in cutscenes or in the codex, is when the Reaper ships get involved. It's pretty clear that their ground troops' main function is to facilitate the harvest. They are there to disable and round up the civillians for processing. We fight them on the ground to prevent that, mostly to save civillian lives.

In the grand strategy of this cycle's Reaper War, the harvest doesn't matter. If our understanding is correct, the Reapers will only produce one Sovereign Class and a handful of smaller types from this harvest. They already have more than enough warships to defeat us, so the few more that the harvest will add over time is insignificant. Therefore, your placement of a high priority on stopping the harvest seems out of place to me. You already conceded that the Reapers aren't likely to keep taking the civillian bait and losing ships in nuclear explosions, so your method isn't really a viable one for reducing the Reaper capital ships. If the Reapers lost every single husk / marauder / banshee / whatever, their warships can still win this war by grinding our military to dust.

To me it's pretty simple. We need a 4 to 1 ratio of dreadnoughts to overwhelm a Sovereign Class. Or we need a bunch of Thannix cannons and a reliable way to get them close enough to use. We don't have either. Therefore we have to acquire them, or do something unconventional like the Crucible. Every resource we spend actively killing our own civillians is a resource we don't have available to kill the Reaper capital ships, which are the real threat. So unless you can articulate a viable explanation for how denying the Reapers new husks helps us beat the real threat, it just sounds like you are killing civillians for the sake of killing them.

Modifié par DecCylonus, 09 août 2013 - 11:07 .


#413
MassivelyEffective0730

MassivelyEffective0730
  • Members
  • 9 230 messages

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

Jukaga wrote...

shingara wrote...


 And your big plan is to help them ???


I'm not sure what you mean.



 If your plan in a war is to sacrifice the surplus, the ones not needed, the ones that distract. Then in essence you are helping the reapers, Javik tells you a tale of a race who sacrificed there young to appease the reapers, and all it did was make the reapers job easier.


You missed the point of what Javik was saying. Javik was telling you how this race killed their young in the mistaken and terrible superstious belief that it would appease the Reapers.

Similar to how the Aztecs sacrificed people to make the sun rise every day.

You aren't helping the Reapers. The Reapers want to harvest and dominate. You're denying them a means that they can use against you while simultaneously eliminating a drain on your own resources.

You're not helping the Reapers at all.


 And cerberus did it in the misbelief that it would allow them to control the reapers. I would explain it more to you but it would be like trying to explain a a taste to a person who cannot taste. For you it is honestly an enigma, wrapped within a puzzle, hidden within a maze.


As I recall, Cerberus had a proof of concept success that conceptually showed that the Reapers could indeed be controlled. Whether on a large or small scale, and with the Crucible, it was still a small victory. They never sacrificed any civilians to the sun god Reapers in the belief that they'd be spared from destruction. I don't know where you're getting that idea.

I understand all your concepts completely. I know what taste you're talking about. It's just that I don't like the taste.

If you're saying that I'm having a problem understanding the concept, then you're terribly mistaken. If you're saying that that is what I am, then yes, you probably have a point.

#414
shingara

shingara
  • Members
  • 589 messages

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

As I recall, Cerberus had a proof of concept success that conceptually showed that the Reapers could indeed be controlled. Whether on a large or small scale, and with the Crucible, it was still a small victory. They never sacrificed any civilians to the sun god Reapers in the belief that they'd be spared from destruction. I don't know where you're getting that idea.

I understand all your concepts completely. I know what taste you're talking about. It's just that I don't like the taste.

If you're saying that I'm having a problem understanding the concept, then you're terribly mistaken. If you're saying that that is what I am, then yes, you probably have a point.


Do you know the difference between the Dachau concentration camp and sanctuary, one is fictional the other is fact. They both thought they were right.

#415
garrus and ashley squad

garrus and ashley squad
  • Members
  • 298 messages

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

Well then what exactly did you prevent? Why did you waste time killing all the civilians when there was no point. If it is irrelevant than why do it. Who knows, maybe keeping them alive could of been a lot more beneficial then executing all of them.


Doin something and failing is a hell of a lot better than not even bothering to fight because of morals.

In what way is corralling billionns of refugees in the middle of a war "beneficial" for anyone? Their quality of life is in the s**t, and all it serves to do is strain your resources.

 A. Leave them alone or B put them to better use. Killing them is going to take a lot of time and effort. Also let's not forget how the council and other races would react. You would have a lot to deal with.


A. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. If you leave them alone, the Reapers will eventually attack them. And harvest them, and indoctrinate them, and huskify them as well as just outright killing them. Aside from that being a crueler fate than just ending them ourselves, that also gives the Reapers an advantage; they can be used to create a new Reaper, indoctrinated agents can pose as refugees and wreak havoc on us as well as feed information to the Reapers, and husks will be used against us martially on the battlefield. There are too many negatives that come from simply leaving them be.

B. Again, it's not that easy. As I've stated before:

Economic equilibrium.

I can't utilize most of these people, because I'd already have taken my population that I intend to use for war-time production and as a reserve military force.

This is the excess population. I can't put them to work - it would not be a smart investment of my resources to do so. I can't train them. I can't spare the resources for them. There's nothing I can do for them. Really there isn't.

Which leads back to point A. My only other alternative would be to abandon them from their fate. And I can't do that, because, pragmatism about the Reapers using them aside, that's even more inhumane in my opinion than simply culling them off.

They are an external variable in the equation.

It's Garrus' brutal calculus. It's detente. 

I can't have them. The Reapers can't have them. The only solution is eliminating the variable. Culling them.

That's the position the Reapers have put me in. That's the position that the alliance and the Council have put me in.

There is no happy ending for these people. There's no nice way to put it. 

They're going to die.

So I might as well make them useful in death.

Whether I use them as blind fodder, or bait, or subjects in experiments designed to find an exploitable weakness against the Reapers.


A. The reapers would have to spend time and resources as well looking for them. Time and resources that we don't have. We would have to find so many people that are not trained that it would waste our time tbh. How are we going to get all those people in one place to simply kill them. Also, we have other military commanders who have loved ones who are not skilled. They would not go for this and that would cause a lot of backlash. People wouid rebel and then we would have to fight 2 wars. Also the council would also stand in the way of that.


The Reapers can spare the time and the resources. They can afford to track down our refugee's. They have the numbers to not make it matter. They have infinite patience as machines.

And you're right. They have time and resources that we don't have.

It's simple to get all those people to one place: You lure them there. 

Those military personnel are in a tight spot. 

Let's put it this way, if they rebel, who's going to fight the Reapers? How are they going to fight the Reapers. Or are they going to let the Reapers win?

They can't have it both ways. They can thank the alliance and the Council just as much the Reapers.

It's sad to say, but for them, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If their family is on the excess population list, they have two options; either let us kill their family, or let the Reapers do it.

There is no other option. The alliance they so patriotically serve made sure of that when they decided to deny the Reaper threat. Same with the Council.

Because of their inaction, incompetence, and inability, I have to do the hard things that it takes to win the war. I'll do it. I'll let them hate me for it. I can take it. But I won't let them throw the galaxy away to be 'moral'. I'd rather be hated for saving the galaxy than forgotten for losing it.

B. Meh I don't think they need a high amount of training. Get one person to teach them how to use a gun. Forget the riggors of war just teach them how to use a gun. Put them close to the war to where you are or where the war is and fight for their survival. I'm sure we can spare that. The reapers won't get to them that way unless they go through you and them and if that is the case, game over anyways.


Providing you use them as fodder, they don't need training, and I'm not going to waste resources protecting them. I'm literally going to hand them a rifle, put them on a ship (with a nuke) and set them off on their merry way. And when things look grim, I hit the button. That's my problem with making them fodder. They are still susceptible to capture by the Reapers. They are still susceptible to being used against me. I can use them as fodder, but it's going to be a bit like the Legion of the Dead from DA: they're not coming back. Death is the only way out.

I saved them in my destroy ending. Thousands died but not everyone lost something. Sure people are going to die no doubt about that. The question is, is it worth the time to kill them and will your solution ultimately work. 


In my canon, I have the galaxy being vastly depopulated. It took months to build the Crucible. My solution had to take place because of the war. Trillions are dead. Trillions more are suffering. For nearly all of them, there is no hope. There is not future. 

But the relays are intact (mostly), the Reapers are destroyed, and Shepard survives to reunite with Miranda. They get a happy ending. They get hope. A future. 


A. Yeah but you still have to prepare for a rebellion. A lot won't be thinking about, I die by your hand or the reapers. Their main concern will be to get out of there. Also the military personel won't be thinking that way. They will be thinking there is another way or a lot of them will. They have loved ones and they won't just let you kill them. That's why even if you give them that choice between you or the reapers, it won't matter. Which is why you're better off leaving them alone or somehow making them work to your advantage. Plus the council and other races getting involved would just make things more hectic. It's not just humans we would have to account for.

B. Now I agree with you to an extent. If you mean the reapers are going to inhabit a world or ship, and there  is no way to save them. Then yes you push the button. I think that should be used as a last resort though. If you mean I'll destroy a planet before they can take it then I agree there. There is nothing you can do anyways, but that should be if there is no choice left. That option should come if they cannot be resued and if there is nothing we can do for them. Then yes, push that button to kill them because it is better that way, but I don't think we should do that on a...........Hey they might take that planet so we kill them before hand.

C. The ending in my head is we kicked their ass, with garrus and ashley by my side of course, because they ****ing rule. A lot died but some did get to see their loved ones, whether or not they picked up a rifle.

Modifié par garrus and ashley squad, 09 août 2013 - 11:24 .


#416
MassivelyEffective0730

MassivelyEffective0730
  • Members
  • 9 230 messages

DecCylonus wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730,

We seem to have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of the Reaper threat. I find some of your points interesting, even though I disagree with you. However, since we disagree on what is the real threat, I'm going to stop responding point by point and deal with this issue.

In ME3, it is shown in nearly every battle that the Reaper ground troops are only a minor threat. Our weapons are effective at killing them. Our troops are effective at killing them. The only time that our losses stack up, either in cutscenes or in the codex, is when the Reaper ships get involved. It's pretty clear that their ground troops' main function is to facilitate the harvest. They are there to disable and round up the civillians for processing. We fight them on the ground to prevent that, mostly to save civillian lives.


Consider gameplay mechanics. Consider that Shepard is a hyper-elite soldier among hyper-elite soldiers. That's what I'm seeing you talk about. As for troop effectiveness, I clearly also saw Turians - Turians - getting overwhelmed by husks. That's not a knock against Turians. That's a testament to how powerful the Reaper troops are. Take a look at Thessia. Yes, Reapers were involved there, but I clearly saw many Asari fighting with their back to the wall with Reaper troops pressing on them. I also point to Earth, in area's where the Reaper troops completely overwhelmed entire battalions (500-1300) soldiers. Yes, Reapers themselves were involved, though I only remember two; the Destroyer guarding the beam and Harbinger itself. Listen to the Radio. We're getting beat. Badly. The Reaper troops sheer numbers are absolutely overwhelming us. They are much, much more than a 'minor' threat.

And they round up civilians for harvesting? The solution is simple enough to me. Kill the civilians. Prevent their suffering from the Reapers. The horror of being processed and harvested. Deny them their own troops. Use the survivors as bait. Or fodder. Or for science. There's no hope for them. Make them useful before they die. Simple as that.

In the grand strategy of this cycle's Reaper War, the harvest doesn't matter. If our understanding is correct, the Reapers will only produce one Sovereign Class and a handful of smaller types from this harvest.



Consider how many humans it will take to make said Reaper. Consider how many went into the Reaper larva on the Collector Base. Consider what EDI said about the Collector Ship: They're planning on attacking Earth. Harvesting humans from Earth. It's going to take millions, if not billions of humans to process into a Reaper.

Then consider the husks, or the indoctrinated agents. There will be a massive army of husks. As you said, we disagree. I believe that the Reaper ground troops are every bit as deadly as the Reapers themselves.

They already have more than enough warships to defeat us, so the few more that the harvest will add over time is insignificant. Therefore, your placement of a high priority on stopping the harvest seems out of place to me. You already conceded that the Reapers aren't likely to keep taking the civillian bait and losing ships in nuclear explosions, so your method isn't really a viable one for reducing the Reaper capital ships. If the Reapers lost every single husk / marauder / banshee / whatever, their warships can still win this war by grinding our military to dust.


The harvest is a huge threat. Because I believe that a great deal of time and effort will be used on creating the Reaper. We have no real estimate on the numbers that are necessary to build a Reaper. Remember the Reaper Larva on the CB? If you spare the CB, the Reaper is still intact, and it is inside Cronos Station. Basing it's size on Shepard, I'd say it's about 30-40 meters in size. 

And that the result of hundreds of thousands of processed humans.

A full size Reaper is 2,000 meters in size. That's going to take hundreds of millions, if not billions of humans. That's a lot of humans. A very sizable chunk of the entire human population.

Meanwhile, the Reapers main purpose is to harvest us. That's what they're going to try to do with us mainly. We kind of want to prevent that. Especially since that seems to be their preoccupation.

Destroy their entire ground force, and we'd be able to roll through London. A lot of Reapers would have to leave the fight in space to fight us on the ground. Not that it would even the odds in space, but it would split the Reapers up. And with no Reaper troops on the ground to kill us, we can move unopposed through the city (and underground. Numerically, there are a too many of us. Too many would make it to the beam. We'd activate the Crucible a lot faster.

Of course, this is speculation.

To me it's pretty simple. We need a 4 to 1 ratio of dreadnoughts to overwhelm a Sovereign Class. Or we need a bunch of Thannix cannons and a reliable way to get them close enough to use. We don't have either. Therefore we have to acquire them, or do something unconventional like the Crucible. Every resource we spend actively killing our own civillians is a resource we don't have available to kill the Reaper capital ships, which are the real threat. So unless you can articulate a viable explanation for how denying the Reapers new husks helps us beat the real threat, it just sounds like you are killing civillians for the sake of killing them.


We're not going to go out of our way to kill our civilians. We aren't going to hunt them down. We don't need too. They'll come to us. And we'll sort them out with how we plan to use them then. I don't need a dreadnought to kill them. A single fission device will do fine. They aren't all that hard to make into weapons. Uranium is shown to be a somewhat common commodity. Weaponize it. Use it. Takes out our civilians 

It seems like you're trying to misrepresent my argument a bit here. I think you're underestimating the threat the Reapers pose here, and I think you're especially underestimating the strength of their ground forces. We don't need to fight the Reapers head on. We shouldn't. It's a pretty asinine tactic. It'd be best for hit and run strikes, and wild-goose chases. Don't commit to any fights or engagements unless absolutely necessary. We do find ourselves having to engage them on the ground. A lot. Seems like we're fighting husks a lot.

As I said, imagine what London could be like if there were no husks. It wouldn't be a cakewalk, but it'd be a lot easier to reach the beam. There'd be a lot more survivors. And a lot less floating and burning hulks.

#417
MassivelyEffective0730

MassivelyEffective0730
  • Members
  • 9 230 messages

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

As I recall, Cerberus had a proof of concept success that conceptually showed that the Reapers could indeed be controlled. Whether on a large or small scale, and with the Crucible, it was still a small victory. They never sacrificed any civilians to the sun god Reapers in the belief that they'd be spared from destruction. I don't know where you're getting that idea.

I understand all your concepts completely. I know what taste you're talking about. It's just that I don't like the taste.

If you're saying that I'm having a problem understanding the concept, then you're terribly mistaken. If you're saying that that is what I am, then yes, you probably have a point.


Do you know the difference between the Dachau concentration camp and sanctuary, one is fictional the other is fact. They both thought they were right.


Reductio ad Hitlerum. You've been doing this a lot. 

Comparing a German prison camp to Sanctuary isn't compatible. You've already forfeited the argument by doing this. 

#418
shingara

shingara
  • Members
  • 589 messages

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

As I recall, Cerberus had a proof of concept success that conceptually showed that the Reapers could indeed be controlled. Whether on a large or small scale, and with the Crucible, it was still a small victory. They never sacrificed any civilians to the sun god Reapers in the belief that they'd be spared from destruction. I don't know where you're getting that idea.

I understand all your concepts completely. I know what taste you're talking about. It's just that I don't like the taste.

If you're saying that I'm having a problem understanding the concept, then you're terribly mistaken. If you're saying that that is what I am, then yes, you probably have a point.


Do you know the difference between the Dachau concentration camp and sanctuary, one is fictional the other is fact. They both thought they were right.


Reductio ad Hitlerum. You've been doing this a lot. 

Comparing a German prison camp to Sanctuary isn't compatible. You've already forfeited the argument by doing this. 


 Wrong on so many levels, when you have to compared one thing to the other you have to compare equal to equal. Even though one is fictional and one is fact, its is more then likly sanctuary is actualy based upon dachau. There they ran experiments on maleria, deep cold, blood diseases, high altitude experiments and several others some of which including twins.

 Now under scientific understanding, doing experiments like those for ethical reasons are justified yet when enforced on unwilling subjects, people used as lab rats, people treated as things to use to attain the knowledge people who thought knew better came to the conclusion it was worth it. What are those human lives worth compared to everyone elses.

 You are doing no less. This is why i couldnt discribe the meaning to you, because for you its like expressing a colour to a blind person. You are beyond illumination. It is beyond your understanding.

Modifié par shingara, 10 août 2013 - 12:18 .


#419
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 720 messages

shingara wrote...


Do you know the difference between the Dachau concentration camp and sanctuary, one is fictional the other is fact. They both thought they were right.


The other difference is that Sanctuary was about accomplishing something useful. But the guys behind Dachau also thought they were doing something useful, of course. So you're right that morally they're exactly the same

Modifié par AlanC9, 10 août 2013 - 12:34 .


#420
KaiserShep

KaiserShep
  • Members
  • 23 847 messages

Steelcan wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Sanctuary is the kind of thing you'd only see from villains in a horror film. Not scheming machiavellians.

  I disagree.  Machievellianism is the pursuit of one's goals by any means necessary.  Evil is not encouraged, but accepted as necessary.


I'm of the opinion that Machiavelli did not actually mean every word he meant in The Prince. I've always see it as more satirical than anything. 

#421
KaiserShep

KaiserShep
  • Members
  • 23 847 messages

Steelcan wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Sanctuary is the kind of thing you'd only see from villains in a horror film. Not scheming machiavellians.

  I disagree.  Machievellianism is the pursuit of one's goals by any means necessary.  Evil is not encouraged, but accepted as necessary.


I'm of the opinion that Machiavelli did not actually mean every word he meant in The Prince. I've always see it as more satirical than anything. Aside from that, I doubt that Nicolo Machiavelli would really go along with kind of insanity. 

#422
Guest_StreetMagic_*

Guest_StreetMagic_*
  • Guests

KaiserShep wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Sanctuary is the kind of thing you'd only see from villains in a horror film. Not scheming machiavellians.

  I disagree.  Machievellianism is the pursuit of one's goals by any means necessary.  Evil is not encouraged, but accepted as necessary.


I'm of the opinion that Machiavelli did not actually mean every word he meant in The Prince. I've always see it as more satirical than anything. 


I don't know. That was a time when even the Pope was a mafia boss, slept with hookers, and a pedophile all rolled into one. I could believe anything from that era.

Modifié par StreetMagic, 10 août 2013 - 12:50 .


#423
PMC65

PMC65
  • Members
  • 3 279 messages
"Was Cerberus Vindicated" ...

During times of war, sacrifices are made. Leaders let towns get bombed to avoid letting the enemy know they cracked their codes and mothers smother their children.

Would I do these things? I don't know. None of us really know what we would do until we were put in those situations. Everyone believes that they are heroes but the truth is that heroes are not common. Personally, when playing the "what if" game, I err on the side of human over heroics. This way the forces that be don't decide to try me and my inflated ego. I've already let myself down during a few trials in life.

As to military vs civilians ... both serve a purpose. The lines can also get blurred in a war and I would think in a galactic war, civilians would be fighting just as soldiers would. But not just fighting. Civilians are also the reasons that the soldiers are fighting. They do not just fight for God and country ... they fight for home. They fight to keep their families safe. If you take away their civilian families you have just taken away the greatest weapon you have.

That does not mean that you put civilians first. It just means that you try and limit the casualties.

That or you better hire a bunch of secretaries to write fake letters to your soldiers ... pretending that they are mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, girlfriends, boyfriends, wives, etc. Pretending to be the heart and soul of your soldiers. The reason why they dig in their heels even when they have seen their fellow soldiers die.

Image IPB

That's just my two cents.

#424
o Ventus

o Ventus
  • Members
  • 17 275 messages

KaiserShep wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Sanctuary is the kind of thing you'd only see from villains in a horror film. Not scheming machiavellians.

  I disagree.  Machievellianism is the pursuit of one's goals by any means necessary.  Evil is not encouraged, but accepted as necessary.


I'm of the opinion that Machiavelli did not actually mean every word he meant in The Prince. I've always see it as more satirical than anything. Aside from that, I doubt that Nicolo Machiavelli would really go along with kind of insanity. 


It IS satirical. That's what people don't get. Read literally anything else from him and compare.

#425
garrus and ashley squad

garrus and ashley squad
  • Members
  • 298 messages

PMC65 wrote...

"Was Cerberus Vindicated" ...

During times of war, sacrifices are made. Leaders let towns get bombed to avoid letting the enemy know they cracked their codes and mothers smother their children.

Would I do these things? I don't know. None of us really know what we would do until we were put in those situations. Everyone believes that they are heroes but the truth is that heroes are not common. Personally, when playing the "what if" game, I err on the side of human over heroics. This way the forces that be don't decide to try me and my inflated ego. I've already let myself down during a few trials in life.

As to military vs civilians ... both serve a purpose. The lines can also get blurred in a war and I would think in a galactic war, civilians would be fighting just as soldiers would. But not just fighting. Civilians are also the reasons that the soldiers are fighting. They do not just fight for God and country ... they fight for home. They fight to keep their families safe. If you take away their civilian families you have just taken away the greatest weapon you have.

That does not mean that you put civilians first. It just means that you try and limit the casualties.

That or you better hire a bunch of secretaries to write fake letters to your soldiers ... pretending that they are mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, girlfriends, boyfriends, wives, etc. Pretending to be the heart and soul of your soldiers. The reason why they dig in their heels even when they have seen their fellow soldiers die.

Image IPB

That's just my two cents.




This has pretty much been my whole point.