876 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...
Ward arms are closed, relays shut down, Sovereign appears to be mating with the Presidium Tower.  Maybe it's a virus, but at this point we're minutes at best form losing anyway.

You're giving an excellent rationale for using the Crucible at the end of ME3, by the way.

Only in the broadest outlines. Like I said, it costs Shepard nothing to pick up and take the program, and use it if in his judgement it's needed.  The Crucible forces Shepard to putt everyone's eggs in one basket that might or might not exist to begin with.

Whether or not Shepard actually uses up the galaxy's resources is not as relevant a question as whether or not he'd be willing to (hypothetically and magically, hence genie) to stop Sovereign.

Genies typically declare themselves in stories though.  "I have the power to destroy the Reapers, if you wish"

Though the Catalyst makes that declaration, I'd call him more of a Monkey's Paw than a genie though.

Uh, yeah it kinda does. You know it won't be centuries because then Shepard won't be around for you to play.

Centuries is unliekly, true.  But there are ways around it without going too space magick-y. 

Decades could easily be done.

Demonstrably incorrect, as both ME1 and Arrival buy Liara time to find the Crucible. It's irrelevant whether or not you like this plot point when considering whether or not ME1 and Arrival mattered.

the galaxy squandered the time.  that Shepard and his/her minions found a concenient PLOT device to save everyone only shows that Shepard's minions didn't squander their time.

What was the Council doing in the meantime?
What was Aria doing?
The quarians?
The Systems Alliance?

Borderline semantics, but the manner in which it disperses its energy is the question. The manner in which it builds and channels the energy to do this is another question.

And again, it could be a device for terraforming, or stellar lifting.

And again, we don't know how Liara knows it's a device to be used against the Reapers.  Is there an upload date in the archives?

This is hard to believe...why?

That was actually supposed to be somewhat humorous.  But when you think about it, hwo would Liara know when exactly the Reaper invasion of the Protheans began?

[Iakus]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

You've made this argument several times now and this has never once made sense.

Are you afraid of cows uniting to overthrow humans? That the Reapers choose the most efficient means of slaughter/capture is not even remotely an indicator that they fear us.

Until ME3, the only Reaper we see in action (discounting the dead Reaper) is Sovereign, who demonstrates pretty definitively that he does not fear us at all, barring the extremely specialized scenario of killing Saren bringing down his shields.

Cows are not sentient.  But if wildlife ever gained malevolent sentience, that would be cause for worry.

Ever see The Birds?

As for the Reapers.  Sure, Sovereign is totally unafraid of us.  That's why it brought a fleet of geth to engage the Citadel Fleet and shut off the relays, right?

Yes, the Reapers are powerful.  Yeah they have powerful barriers.  But you knwo what, that just emphasizes how much control they have over galactic development.  the galaxy uses mass accelerated weapons because tehy left the tech around for the galaxy to develop it.  So of course they have powerful barriers.  They are at their strongest when we use their own weapons against them.  Find a way to get around that, by dropping their barriers or using weapons barriers are inneffective against, and they die just like anything else.

Edit:  And shutting down the relays and hitting every system while it's isolated isn't the most efficient way.  It's the safest way, that ensues little or no casualties on their side.  If there were tens of thousands of invincible dreadnoughts, the most efficient method of reaping would be to spread out and hit everything at once.

Modifié par iakus, 18 décembre 2013 - 07:08 .

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...
That would imply that Sovereign was the first vanguard to call the Reapers (since it would be unneeded before Prothean sabotage, which would be post-initial Reaper invasion); but if that were the case, how would the prothean scientist that programmed Vigil know at all about Sovereign's role as a "vanguard" to tell the Reapers when a cycle was ready, since it didn't happen in the Prothean cycle (that was the Vigil convo that explained Sovereign's role, wasn't it?)

I didn't think that ever made much sense in the first place. How would the Ilos outpost have known about a vanguard Reaper? From their perspective the Reapers would have just shown up at the Citadel with no explanation. I guess you can come up with the dark space business as a reasonable deduction after that  (although why the Reapers couldn't have been hanging out in parts of the galaxy the Protheans hadn't reached yet is unclear). But I don't see how they would be able to reach any conclusions about the trigger mechanism. 

Though a triggering Reaper woud be a reasonable hypothesis, which Saren's presence could be seen as confirming. So Vigil's guessing. He's right about dark space, partially wrong about Sovereign.

[durasteel]

dreamgazer wrote...

(sigh)

Not a MacGuffin, folks, nor is it the closest thing to a MacGuffin in the series.

True. The actual trope it embodies is the "Sword of Plot Advancement."

[durasteel]

AlanC9 wrote...
This is a little baroque. Why not just say that the prothean scientists broke his control over the Citadel's systems? Vigil had no actual knowledge of what the scientists found on the Citadel, or what they did, so there's nothing to retcon.

Vigil might not have known, but the Catalyst certainly should have. Whatever the protheans managed to break, the Catalyst had 50k years to fix. But didn't. Because reasons.

[AlanC9]

If you can break the control mechanism, you can break the repair mechanism too. The explanation given in ME1 is that the prothean scientists probably sabotaged the keepers somehow. The keepers are the Citadel's repair mechanism.

And if this bothers you now, it should have bothered you in ME1. Sovereign had 48,000 years to see if the Citadel was in good working order. He either didn't check or couldn't tell.

Edit: of course, it's OK to be bothered by how both games handled this.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 décembre 2013 - 08:09 .

[AlanC9]

durasteel wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

(sigh)

Not a MacGuffin, folks, nor is it the closest thing to a MacGuffin in the series.

True. The actual trope it embodies is the "Sword of Plot Advancement."

When people misuse a term this way, it's usually because there isn't another term that fits. I don't have a really pithy word or phrase for what people mean when they misuse MacGuffin, so I'm going to stop fighting this point out.

[Iakus]

durasteel wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

(sigh)

Not a MacGuffin, folks, nor is it the closest thing to a MacGuffin in the series.

True. The actual trope it embodies is the "Sword of Plot Advancement."

Plot Coupon is probably more accurate, as it's not an actual weapon SHepard can equip.

[AlanC9]

As the page notes, most Bio plots are about plot coupons. Interesting trope; whether the object actually does anything or not is irrelevant to whether it's included.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 décembre 2013 - 08:15 .

[Armass81]

iakus wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

You've made this argument several times now and this has never once made sense.

Are you afraid of cows uniting to overthrow humans? That the Reapers choose the most efficient means of slaughter/capture is not even remotely an indicator that they fear us.

Until ME3, the only Reaper we see in action (discounting the dead Reaper) is Sovereign, who demonstrates pretty definitively that he does not fear us at all, barring the extremely specialized scenario of killing Saren bringing down his shields.

Cows are not sentient.  But if wildlife ever gained malevolent sentience, that would be cause for worry.

Actually they are. Most animals, especially mammals, are sentient to one degree or another.

I think what you mean is sapient, as in able to reason and all that. That they are not. Sentience and sapience are mixed often, tough they are not the same. In scifi the former term is sometimes used tough to refer to sapient beings. It is incorrect and thus I prefer the term sapient when talking about a being that reasons, like humans.

Modifié par Armass81, 18 décembre 2013 - 08:34 .

[JamesFaith]

durasteel wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
This is a little baroque. Why not just say that the prothean scientists broke his control over the Citadel's systems? Vigil had no actual knowledge of what the scientists found on the Citadel, or what they did, so there's nothing to retcon.

Vigil might not have known, but the Catalyst certainly should have. Whatever the protheans managed to break, the Catalyst had 50k years to fix. But didn't. Because reasons.

Protheans cut off Keepers from outer signal.

Catalyst physically control Citadel through Reapers.

No workers for repairs here.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

iakus wrote...

Cows are not sentient.  But if wildlife ever gained malevolent sentience, that would be cause for worry.

Ever see The Birds?

Sentience isn't the relevant factor. If your equipment/weaponry is sufficiently advanced to make the opposition look like cavemen, you're not going to be worried about winning or losing a war against said opposition.

As for the Reapers.  Sure, Sovereign is totally unafraid of us.  That's why it brought a fleet of geth to engage the Citadel Fleet and shut off the relays, right?  

Do you plan on killing each Reaper one at a time? Sovereign has demonstrated that he has no problem plowing through Alliance ships without stopping to reach his goal.

Yes, the Reapers are powerful.  Yeah they have powerful barriers.  But you knwo what, that just emphasizes how much control they have over galactic development.  the galaxy uses mass accelerated weapons because tehy left the tech around for the galaxy to develop it.  So of course they have powerful barriers.  They are at their strongest when we use their own weapons against them.  Find a way to get around that, by dropping their barriers or using weapons barriers are inneffective against, and they die just like anything else.

And if ME2 or 3 were to take place ten thousand years after Mass Effect with sufficient time/resources to develop effective weaponry, I could buy this. As written, I can't say your story is any better than ME3's ending. Instead of ass-pulling the Crucible from Mars, we'd be ass-pulling sophisticated weaponry from, well, our asses. It sounds like you're relying on power of the plot to save us, which is exactly what makes ME3's ending so bad.

Edit:  And shutting down the relays and hitting every system while it's isolated isn't the most efficient way.  It's the safest way, that ensues little or no casualties on their side.  If there were tens of thousands of invincible dreadnoughts, the most efficient method of reaping would be to spread out and hit everything at once.

False. Systematic eradication is the height of efficiency. If you have ten thousand Reapers, hitting one relay at a time results in far greater casualties than sending 2 Reapers to every relay at the same time, in addition to limiting contact and unified resistance.

I'm not sure where you got your definition of efficiency from.

[ImaginaryMatter]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

iakus wrote...

Yes, the Reapers are powerful.  Yeah they have powerful barriers.  But you knwo what, that just emphasizes how much control they have over galactic development.  the galaxy uses mass accelerated weapons because tehy left the tech around for the galaxy to develop it.  So of course they have powerful barriers.  They are at their strongest when we use their own weapons against them.  Find a way to get around that, by dropping their barriers or using weapons barriers are inneffective against, and they die just like anything else.

And if ME2 or 3 were to take place ten thousand years after Mass Effect with sufficient time/resources to develop effective weaponry, I could buy this. As written, I can't say your story is any better than ME3's ending. Instead of ass-pulling the Crucible from Mars, we'd be ass-pulling sophisticated weaponry from, well, our asses. It sounds like you're relying on power of the plot to save us, which is exactly what makes ME3's ending so bad.

The weapons don't have to be anything spectacular. For example, kinetic barriers do not block against heat which would make nuclear weapons an option assuming one could deliver them close enough to the Reaper. Also considering how much damage a 20km slug traveling at 1.3% the speed of light does to a Reaper, imagine the damage a ship can do ramming into a Reaper at FTL speeds, or maybe build a mass accelerator like the one that hit Klendagon.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 18 décembre 2013 - 10:28 .

[AlanC9]

Actually, a ship travelling at FTL speeds wouldn't do anything in a collision. No mass = no damage.

Note that any hypothetical technology that would make dreadnoughts unworkable in the MEU can't actually work in the MEU. If dreadnoughts weren't viable in space combat the Reapers would have organized themselves differently.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 décembre 2013 - 10:45 .

[David7204]

David7204 wrote...

I think people here might need to be reminded that it makes utterly no difference what could be accomplished from an -in-story viewpoint if the ideas are ridiculous from a narrative viewpoint.

Which these are. 'We defeated all the Reapers by smuggling bombs into them shooting them with magic Klendagon guns' would be a incredibly poor narrative.

Modifié par David7204, 18 décembre 2013 - 10:44 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

AlanC9 wrote...

Actually, a ship travelling at FTL speeds wouldn't do anything in a collision. No mass = no damage.

Note that any hypothetical technology that would make dreadnoughts unworkable in the MEU can't actually work in the MEU. If dreadnoughts weren't viable in space combat the Reapers would have organized themselves differently.

I don't think the mass effect field actually reduces the ship to 0 mass though, it just reduces it to light enough that the ship's propulsion systems can allow the ship to travel at FTL speeds. I'm not sure of the exact physics though because the ME universe operates under a different set of physical laws.

[AlanC9]

So negligible mass, then. Same result.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

The weapons don't have to be anything spectacular. For example, kinetic barriers do not block against heat which would make nuclear weapons an option assuming one could deliver them close enough to the Reaper. Also considering how much damage a 20km slug traveling at 1.3% the speed of light does to a Reaper, imagine the damage a ship can do ramming into a Reaper at FTL speeds, or maybe build a mass accelerator like the one that hit Klendagon.

To make it believable that we managed to overcome hyper advanced machines who have been doing this for millions of years? They certainly would be.

This is what makes conventional victory such an utterly baffling concept. Just given the sheer time and energy the Reapers have put forth to refining the extinction process makes foolish the idea that there are any tactics they haven't seen.

Sure, Sovereign mentions in ME1 that they wanted us to evolve along certain paths. I could see a great plot point where we deviate from that set path to stop them. But that wouldn't work with any weaponry we have now which is fairly archaic compared to Reaper tech.

[David7204]

Courage goes a long way.

[ImaginaryMatter]

AlanC9 wrote...

So negligible mass, then. Same result.

Eh, maybe, the Codex doesn't mention by how much the mass effect reduces a ship's mass, it could reduce it to 1kg it could reduce it to 1,000 kg which would still be a very tiny fraction of the ship's actual mass. Again, I'm not sure of the exact numbers but it seems doable.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Courage goes a long way.

Bullets get there faster. And they go farther. Especially educated bullets.

Courage is about as useful as a watergun in a forest fire, and I'm speaking from personal experience.

I'd rather have an army of well-trained cowards than the righteous, determined, brave, heroic, and courageous everyman Army any day.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 18 décembre 2013 - 11:16 .

[David7204]

Is that the reason why heroism in stories angers you, Massively?

I'm curious. Why don't you instead spend time with stories where the protagonist cowers in a sobbing huddle?

Modifié par David7204, 18 décembre 2013 - 11:15 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Is that the reason why heroism in stories angers you, Massively?

No. It doesn't anger me. Heroism is something that can't be defined as easily as one hopes. There's all sorts of heroism out there. And everyone has a different idea of what it is.

I just think your idea of heroism is pathetically naive.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 18 décembre 2013 - 11:17 .

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

Is that the reason why heroism in stories angers you, Massively?

I'm curious. Why don't you instead spend time with stories where the protagonist cowers in a sobbing huddle?

You're creating a false dichotomy again, David.

Heroism exists in a far wider spectrum of appearances than you assert. 

[David7204]

A hero, by definition, is a powerful and good character who faces adversary. Courage is part and parcel to that.

Now, you could always have an anti-hero who is a coward. But I can't really think of any stories that feature such a character.