1132 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

The Federal Funds Rate is basically the market rate. The rate at which banks lend to one another. And it's not set by the Fed concretely. The Fed targets a certain rate, but they have no power to actually enforce it. Banks are free to lend money at whatever interest they want.

But that actually proves my entire point. The interest rate is 'set' by economic policy. Not by command.

Also, if you actually read, I never said that Fed Funds rate is generally higher than the market rate. I said the discount rate is generally higher than the market rate. Different things entirely.

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 12:41 .

[The Don's Hound]

Lathrim wrote...

The problem with the franchise is its second installation. ME2 failed in everything it had to succeed as a midpoint of a trilogy and Mass Effect 3 paid for it.

I wouldn't say the Reapers plot is to blame for that. That being said, the universe did deserve a better story. Whether that'd have fixed the issue I described above, I guess that's just one more 'what if' left to be discussed for eternity in this forum. e.e

Yeah, this, pretty much sums up what I was going to say.

[David7204]

Lathrim wrote...

The problem with the franchise is its second installation. ME2 failed in everything it had to succeed as a midpoint of a trilogy and Mass Effect 3 paid for it.

I wouldn't say the Reapers plot is to blame for that. That being said, the universe did deserve a better story. Whether that'd have fixed the issue I described above, I guess that's just one more 'what if' left to be discussed for eternity in this forum. e.e

And what exactly do you imagine ME 2 needed to do that it didn't?

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Lathrim wrote...

The problem with the franchise is its second installation. ME2 failed in everything it had to succeed as a midpoint of a trilogy and Mass Effect 3 paid for it.

I wouldn't say the Reapers plot is to blame for that. That being said, the universe did deserve a better story. Whether that'd have fixed the issue I described above, I guess that's just one more 'what if' left to be discussed for eternity in this forum. e.e

And what exactly do you imagine ME 2 needed to do that it didn't?

Advanced the reaper plot.

There shouldn't have been this going on at the end of the middle entry. 

[David7204]

Be more specific.

ME 2 could easily have 'advanced the Reaper plot' without making the galaxy more aware or the Reapers any weaker. In fact, ME 2 easily could have 'advanced the Reaper plot' while making the Reapers a great deal stronger.

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 12:48 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Be more specific.

ME 2 could easily have 'advanced the Reaper plot' without making the galaxy more aware or the Reapers any weaker. In fact, ME 2 easily could have 'advanced the Reaper plot' while making the Reapers a great deal stronger.

But it didn't.  At all.  Especially if you destroyed the CB. 

[David7204]

Lathrim wrote...

Exactly.

To be more specific, ME2 should have provided a solution for the problem at hand-- the Reapers. Its failure to do so forced its successor to come up with something when it should, instead, simply execute the "plan" that should have been given by the previous game. One took time from the other when the two should have had a whole game dedicated to each, making it so both ended up lacking.

Absolutely unacceptable.

There is zero drama and zero tension in watching a 'plan' being executed the way the audience was told it would be executed. It's boring, and it's mediocre writing at best.

All of the conflict surrounding the Reapers immediately goes down the drain. Every player immediately knows exactly how the Reapers are going to be defeated.

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 12:56 .

[Karlone123]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Be more specific.

ME 2 could easily have 'advanced the Reaper plot' without making the galaxy more aware or the Reapers any weaker. In fact, ME 2 easily could have 'advanced the Reaper plot' while making the Reapers a great deal stronger.

But it didn't.  At all.  Especially if you destroyed the CB. 

At that point it was purely in ME3 hands to continue and try and make something of ME2 plot, but it didn't and the plotline completely changed replacing the Reapers with Cerberus. So ME3 also failed in that regard.

[David7204]

Twist endings would likely just make things even worse.

The player needs to be wondering 'How the hell are we going to do this?' at the end of ME 2. That's the atmosphere and tension of a good story and a good enemy, and the only way a defeat of the Reapers would be truly satisfying in ME 3.

Not 'How is this device or technology going to save us (because we all know it will.)'

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 01:00 .

[David7204]

The Crucible is stupid. I'll never deny that. It's a complete mess. But the Crucible is irrelevant to whether or not a satisfying, meaningful, and plausible nonconventional solution to the Reapers could be introduced in ME 3 and not before. And I'm very confident it could be.

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 01:03 .

[billy the squid]

David7204 wrote...

The Federal Funds Rate is basically the market rate. The rate at which banks lend to one another. And it's not set by the Fed concretely. The Fed targets a certain rate, but they have no power to actually enforce it. Banks are free to lend money at whatever interest they want.

But that actually proves my entire point. The interest rate is 'set' by economic policy. Not by command.

Also, if you actually read, I never said that Fed Funds rate is generally higher than the market rate. I said the discount rate is generally higher than the market rate. Different things entirely.

That is your base rate, which you said doesn;t exist. Which is what I explained already. That is determined by the fed. The LIBOR, is not set by the Fed, so what are you talking about? Why the hell are you bringing in the Interbank lending rate into a discussion about macro economic monetary policy? it has nothing to do with it, even if the FED rate governs the equivalent of the LIBOR.

While the fed targets a certain interest rate based on data from the Fed board who sets the rate.

And the discount rate is something else entirely , which I explained to you after you babbled on about how you don't have a base rate of interest, and told you it was the Fed funds rate. The Fed Funds rate affects all borrowing and monetary policy and impacts economic policy. When the economies fell into recession and liquidity dried up, no one went, we need lower interest rates, so lets create an expansionist policy to effect that. 

They lowered interest rates to stimulate an expansionist policy and still failed, hence the ballooning public debt, when they used QE by applying Kenyianist theory. 

David, what the hell are you even talking about? You don't even know which rate affects what aspect of your financial system's lending policy. 

Apparantly base rates don't exist in America, and neither does education.

Modifié par billy the squid, 18 août 2013 - 01:19 .

[David7204]

And that's evidence after the fact. The fact that it didn't doesn't mean that it couldn't. And it sure as hell doesn't mean we should resign ourselves to worse storytelling in advance because it's supposedly impossible to pull such a thing off. It's not impossible.

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 01:06 .

[David7204]

billy the squid wrote...

When the economies fell into recession and liquidity dried up, no one went, we need lower interest rates, so lets create an expansionist policy. 

That's exactly what they do. Interest rates are inversely related to GDP. They cause fluxuactions of GDP. Which of course defines a recession in the first place.

You're an incredibly tedious person, and I'm done with this discussion. The fact that you're taking 20 minutes between posts leads me to suspect you're likely looking up most of what you're posting off Wikipedia. I'd prefer to spend my time conversing with people smart enough to realize that putting "You don't know what the hell you're talking about" at the end of every post is not a magical instant win card. 

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 01:11 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Davey you really need to learn to quote people properly.

[Karlone123]

David7204 wrote...

And that's evidence after the fact. The fact that it didn't doesn't mean that it couldn't. And it sure as hell doesn't mean we should resign ourselves to worse storytelling in advance because it's supposedly impossible to pull such a thing off. It's not impossible.

I think for us ME3 will always be a case of "what could have been".

[David7204]

I would suggest you get used to the reality that few things in this world are perfect. And you're going to see a lot more things that get 99% of the way there than 100%. And saying 'What could have been' wistfully to yourself doesn't change that.

[MegaSovereign]

Dropping the Reaper plot gains us nothing. We can dominate it, harnessing its essence to bring Mass Effect to the apex of storytelling.

[Karlone123]

David7204 wrote...

I would suggest you get used to the reality that few things in this world are perfect. And you're going to see a lot more things that get 99% of the way there than 100%. And saying 'What could have been' wistfully to yourself doesn't change that.

I was trying to agree with what everything you said there, but ok.

[David7204]

Mass Effect, including Mass Effect 3, did a hell of a lot of things right. Very right. It's still leaps and bounds above anything else I know of, Crucible or no Crucible. If it wasn't, I would spend my time on some other forum and not here.

I can't think of an ending to any epic story that is a slam dunk, honestly. Most are disappointing. Lord of the Rings did a pretty good job.

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 01:20 .

[Erez Kristal]

David7204 wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I don't think anyone wants to give up necessarily. To me, it's the writers who emphasize this point about the strength of the Reapers and how they can't be taken down conventionally (at least that's Hackett/Liara's words). I have to take their word for it.

I'm not talking about characters in the game. I'm talking about people on the BSN.

That fact that few or any people were insisting a meaningful and satisfying defeat of the Reapers was impossible in ME 1 or ME 2 should prove that this is just a reaction to what happened in ME 3, which is irrelevant.

People basically taking a look at the Crucible. Not liking it, but not able to think up anything better. Assuming that because they can't, nobody could possibly think up anything better. Insisting that a DEM was inevitable and they knew it all along despite having very conveniently never mentioned it until after ME 3 was released.

Afcourse people can think of better things.
you are welcome to check how our rewrite is progressing david.