876 réponses à ce sujet

[ImaginaryMatter]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

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.

Except this cycle is different. The tactics I list are ones the cycles never used because they are impractial or inefficient when the races use them against each other; so, when the Reapers show up they have nothing but a disorganized central leadership and weapons that are much weaker version of what the Reapers have. However, the Reaper technology has serious shortcomings like the fact that kinetic barriers no matter how strong have very glaring weaknesses that can be abused if the current cycle capitalizes on them, and the Reapers have never had to adjust for them because there has never been a reason to.

It's like chaos theory, the Reapers always win because the initial conditions have always been in their favor, but if those conditions are changed even slightly the entire outcome could change dramatically.

[Deathsaurer]

The Reapers have encountered ramming. There is a reason the drives have a preventive measure against it.

Some armchair admirals suggest that a single starship traveling faster than light could obliterate a Reaper capital ship, but all ships based on mass effect technology possess hardwired safety features to prevent FTL collisions. If a ship's FTL plotter finds a significant object in the path of a planned jump, the FTL drive refuses to fire in the first place. This is not a perfect safety feature--the sensors can only scan for objects within a reasonable distance at light speed, and a navigator must plot the rest of the course--but it is so inherent to the FTL warm-up process that removing it is nigh impossible. Cynical intelligence analysts note that the secret of mass effect technology, including that safety system, has always been attributed to the Protheans--just as the mass relays were.

If you want to trick the system then you have to be far enough away that the sensors can't detect the Reapers and at that point you're shooting blind.

Modifié par Deathsaurer, 18 décembre 2013 - 11:38 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Except this cycle is different. The tactics I list are ones the cycles never used because they are impractial or inefficient when the races use them against each other; so, when the Reapers show up they have nothing but a disorganized central leadership and weapons that are much weaker version of what the Reapers have. However, the Reaper technology has serious shortcomings like the fact that kinetic barriers no matter how strong have very glaring weaknesses that can be abused if the current cycle capitalizes on them, and the Reapers have never had to adjust for them because there has never been a reason to.

It's like chaos theory, the Reapers always win because the initial conditions have always been in their favor, but if those conditions are changed even slightly the entire outcome could change dramatically.

Which doesn't address my key point: why has no cycle thought of this before? The Reapers have been doing this for millions on millions of years. Successfully. Exterminating every species for their giant soup.

Why should we believe on a narrative level, that this tactic would work, given that the Reapers have come this far, witnessed virtually every military tactic known to man?

It's like saying that a neophyte chess player could defeat a brilliant chess player, who happens to have millions of years of experience on hand. It would be a terrible plot point.

[ImaginaryMatter]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Except this cycle is different. The tactics I list are ones the cycles never used because they are impractial or inefficient when the races use them against each other; so, when the Reapers show up they have nothing but a disorganized central leadership and weapons that are much weaker version of what the Reapers have. However, the Reaper technology has serious shortcomings like the fact that kinetic barriers no matter how strong have very glaring weaknesses that can be abused if the current cycle capitalizes on them, and the Reapers have never had to adjust for them because there has never been a reason to.

It's like chaos theory, the Reapers always win because the initial conditions have always been in their favor, but if those conditions are changed even slightly the entire outcome could change dramatically.

Which doesn't address my key point: why has no cycle thought of this before? The Reapers have been doing this for millions on millions of years. Successfully. Exterminating every species for their giant soup.

Why should we believe on a narrative level, that this tactic would work, given that the Reapers have come this far, witnessed virtually every military tactic known to man?

It's like saying that a neophyte chess player could defeat a brilliant chess player, who happens to have millions of years of experience on hand. It would be a terrible plot point.

Because every previous cycle has begun with the Citadel trap working, the races are blind sided. The vast majority of fleets are destroyed before anything is known about the Reapers. Communication and travel is cut limiting any information that is learned about the Reapers from being effectively distributed. By the time any new idea is thought up any infastructure that could be used has been destroyed.

Instead of the Council and the Alliance being incompetent and overly apathetic they do things like gleam information from the Ilos facility, information that has been gathered by several cycles but never had the chance to use. Wreckage from Sovereign is reverse engineered and applied to as many ships as possible. Various contingency plans are made.

To use your chess analogy: the current cycle wouldn't be playing chess, it'll be a game the Reapers have never played. And after going through so many eons of the same cycle being played, over-and-over again they have become too rigid, too slow to adapt. And then the Reapers get a taste of the chaos of Organic evolution.

[AlanC9]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

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.

Anything's doable if the MEU fantasy physics are written that way, sure. I agree that if Bio wanted to make the Reapers vulnerable to kamikaze tactics they could have made them that way; it would have required the Reapers to be idiots, but it could have been done.

But Bio didn't.

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 décembre 2013 - 12:45 .

[KaiserShep]

If only Emily Wong flew into the reaper's laser like the drunk pilot from Independence Day did, so that she'd have a heroic death that made a difference.

[ImaginaryMatter]

AlanC9 wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

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.

Anything's doable if the MEU fantasy physics are written that way, sure. I agree that if Bio wanted to make the Reapers vulnerable to kamikaze tactics they could have. But they didn't.

For sure, this is just something that I have in my little mind for a ME2/ME3 overhaul. I'm using it as an example because it's technology from ME1 and something no one has considered before (maybe for good reasons, for this case I'm assuming that no one did because military ships were too valuable, civilian ships were used for evacuations, and no one had the time to refit junkers).

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 19 décembre 2013 - 12:59 .

[JamesFaith]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

It's like chaos theory, the Reapers always win because the initial conditions have always been in their favor, but if those conditions are changed even slightly the entire outcome could change dramatically.

Problem is that this isn't neccessary only fitting scenario for all cycles.

What about cycle similar to hanar belief who proclaimed Citadel holy place and turn it to centre of religion, not goverment?

What about paranoid cycle who don't trust Citadel and relays and tried to minimalize their dependance on them?

Or what about race outside relay network which was missed by Reapers in their primitive era and developed FTL engines similar quality like Reapers ones before they found their first relay?

Your scenario is most likely but Reapers have to be prepared for other possibilities too.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

"This one believes the reapers defiled the Enkindlers and will choke on solid excrement this cycle."

"Badassfully, the reapers are not prepared for the first Hanar Spectre, Blasto."

[ImaginaryMatter]

JamesFaith wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

It's like chaos theory, the Reapers always win because the initial conditions have always been in their favor, but if those conditions are changed even slightly the entire outcome could change dramatically.

Problem is that this isn't neccessary only fitting scenario for all cycles.

What about cycle similar to hanar belief who proclaimed Citadel holy place and turn it to centre of religion, not goverment?

What about paranoid cycle who don't trust Citadel and relays and tried to minimalize their dependance on them?

Or what about race outside relay network which was missed by Reapers in their primitive era and developed FTL engines similar quality like Reapers ones before they found their first relay?

Your scenario is most likely but Reapers have to be prepared for other possibilities too.

Those are all reasonable and they'll just be the questions that just go ignored or have flimsy hand waves.

One idea I am nesting on in my spare time when I think how I would have done ME2 that could account for this, is to indroduce the notion that the Prothean cycle and the current cycle are only the spear point of some elaborate plot that started cycles ago to ultimately lead to the downfall of the Reapers. Like maybe one of the cycles where one of the above events happened sewed the seeds for the eventual Reaper destruction. I haven't put too much thought into it yet though.

[KaiserShep]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

"This one believes the reapers defiled the Enkindlers and will choke on solid excrement this cycle."

"Badassfully, the reapers are not prepared for the first Hanar Spectre, Blasto."

"Sfffffffff Dammit Blasto. We wanted you to defeat the reapers, sffffffffffffffffff but you killed the geth to do it! Sfffffffffffff You're a loose cannon."

"This one would ask you to osculate with its posterior, but that one's environmental suit prevents it from doing so."

Modifié par KaiserShep, 19 décembre 2013 - 01:33 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

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

*In his best Sherlock/Benedict Cumberbatch dismissive alert voice* Wrong! Sorry! Missed it that time!

Hero's really can't be defined in terms of what you claim. Hero is, in a narrative sense, a subjective term that is more or less a good alternate for protagonist.

There can be many hero types of hero's, many of whom display neither power nor goodness. Take a look at Byronic Heroes or Sociopathic Heroes. There are of course anti-heroes as well. Courage is not a necessity, nor is it even a virtue to all types of heroes. 

You have a definition of a hero David, one that is correct, but also very narrow, tunnel-like, and limited.

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.

You've obviously never watched the 6th Doctor in action.

AS for stories that you can't think of, it's not surprising. 

You don't have a lot of exposure to things beyond your own rather limited interests. And I imagine that that is because anything that goes beyond your own grain of heroism is very discomforting for you.

Hows DA:O coming along?

[David7204]

If the character does not do good actions, he isn't a hero of any kind. Period. If the character does not face significant adversary, he's not a hero. So he must have some power. As I said, it's possible for an Anti-Hero to be a coward.

It's going slowly. The atmosphere and main plot haven't really drew me in, and I've been tempted to start a playthrough of Fallout 3. I like the characters so far, though.

Modifié par David7204, 19 décembre 2013 - 01:55 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Because every previous cycle has begun with the Citadel trap working, the races are blind sided. The vast majority of fleets are destroyed before anything is known about the Reapers. Communication and travel is cut limiting any information that is learned about the Reapers from being effectively distributed. By the time any new idea is thought up any infastructure that could be used has been destroyed.

This doesn't help us much if we consider the comparison as AK47s vs. cudgels. Again, I like the idea of new technology if it were developed over a sufficiently long period of time that it didn't come off as a joke, but rather a dedicated concept. Any sort of spontaneous "well, I bet the Reapers never tried to do this before!" will inevitably come off as hammy, in the manner of finding the Crucible plans.

To use your chess analogy: the current cycle wouldn't be playing chess, it'll be a game the Reapers have never played. And after going through so many eons of the same cycle being played, over-and-over again they have become too rigid, too slow to adapt. And then the Reapers get a taste of the chaos of Organic evolution.

But you haven't changed the analogy, only employed different terminology. Whether you want to say that organic species employ different chess strategies or attempt to employ the rules of different games, the key point is this: no matter what tactic they have tried, they have failed. Every, single, time. The whole notion of the Reapers becoming ridged and incapable of adaptation would be a fine one if it weren't simultaneously being combined with the Reapers having shown themselves as eternally successful.
 
You yourself brought up the point about using thermal weapons to counter-act the Reapers as if victory were so straightforward. That someone could nonchalantly come up with so basic solution to a millennia old problem is exactly what turns the Reapers' magic success into a joke. It attempts to turn this cycle into something extra special compared to every other exterminated cycle out there.

[angol fear]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

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

*In his best Sherlock/Benedict Cumberbatch dismissive alert voice* Wrong! Sorry! Missed it that time!

Hero's really can't be defined in terms of what you claim. Hero is, in a narrative sense, a subjective term that is more or less a good alternate for protagonist.

There can be many hero types of hero's, many of whom display neither power nor goodness. Take a look at Byronic Heroes or Sociopathic Heroes. There are of course anti-heroes as well. Courage is not a necessity, nor is it even a virtue to all types of heroes. 

You have a definition of a hero David, one that is correct, but also very narrow, tunnel-like, and limited.

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.

You've obviously never watched the 6th Doctor in action.

AS for stories that you can't think of, it's not surprising. 

You don't have a lot of exposure to things beyond your own rather limited interests. And I imagine that that is because anything that goes beyond your own grain of heroism is very discomforting for you.

Hows DA:O coming along?

Actually a hero was, first, the child of a god and a human. So he was over the human condition (Heracles and others). Then in the Middle Ages a hero is a human but who does impressive things. Hero is still a character in an epic story. Then the hero is more and more human so it just turn to be the main protagonist.
But you will notice that we use "hero" and "anti hero" words. It's just because the hero has a connotation coming from its origin. So the hero will insist on a "good" part (that will always turn to be "heroism" in the end) while the anti hero will insist on the "bad" part.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

If the character does not do good actions, he isn't a hero of any kind. Period. If the character does not face significant adversary, he's not a hero. So he must have some power. As I said, it's possible for an Anti-Hero to be a coward.

It's going slowly. The atmosphere and main plot haven't really drew me in, and I've been tempted to start a playthrough of Fallout 3. I like the characters so far, though.

Good is a subjective word. What's good to you might not be good to me, and vice versa. It's all in the perspective. No one can objectively state what is good and what isn't. And you don't have to face a significant adversary to be a hero either. Take a look at every day heroes. What do they face? Certainly not some big bad with a moustache.

[durasteel]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Good is a subjective word. What's good to you might not be good to me, and vice versa. It's all in the perspective. No one can objectively state what is good and what isn't. And you don't have to face a significant adversary to be a hero either. Take a look at every day heroes. What do they face? Certainly not some big bad with a moustache.

It's really not that subjective.

In the case of the original hero, the demigod of Agean folklore, there were absolutely objective guidelines for good and bad. Killing a guest in your home, for example, was one of the worst things you could do, even if that person was horrible and dangerous. There were rules. You didn't have to be nice, or like kittens, or smile when you met people... you could be a pretty nasty individual and still be a perfectly legitimate hero if you followed the rules. See, for example, Achilles.

Modern "every day" heroes are also not very subjective. Someone willing give or risk something so that another person--generally a stranger--gets a benefit is pretty much the standard. The adversary they face might not be a villain, and might be a pretty abstract idea, but there must be an adversary for there to be a hero. The adversary might be illiteracy, or hunger, or the alienation and isolation inherent in a technological society, or whatever... but a hero of any sort is for x and against y. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

But you haven't changed the analogy, only employed different terminology. Whether you want to say that organic species employ different chess strategies or attempt to employ the rules of different games, the key point is this: no matter what tactic they have tried, they have failed. Every, single, time. The whole notion of the Reapers becoming ridged and incapable of adaptation would be a fine one if it weren't simultaneously being combined with the Reapers having shown themselves as eternally successful.
 
You yourself brought up the point about using thermal weapons to counter-act the Reapers as if victory were so straightforward. That someone could nonchalantly come up with so basic solution to a millennia old problem is exactly what turns the Reapers' magic success into a joke. It attempts to turn this cycle into something extra special compared to every other exterminated cycle out there.

This cycle already is extra special though. Every cycle has played exactly as the way the Reapers have intended, or at least that's what the Vigil conversation has suggested. I mean the Reapers don't even have a 'get into the galaxy' plan B, delaying the start of the cycle by a couple thousand years and then, despite all that planning Sovereign did, he still failed. The ham is already here if such a small thing like changing the DNA on the Keepers is enough to throw a wrench into their entire plan.

The whole thing with the chess thing is that the Reapers are used to fighting disorgnized and isolated small pockets of resistance. And any fight they do get into is easily won as everyone is sticking with the Reaper tech.

Back to the thermal weapons. By the time any one probably figured out the Reapers had good 'ole Kinetic Barriers all those stock piles had probably been destroyed, explaining why they never bothered to get better shields. In ME3 the Reapers prioritized any kind of research facility that contained tech that deviated from the Reaper base and since the Reapers usually have all that information when they conquer the Citadel maybe those are their first targets; anything that represents a threat to them is immediately neutralized.

Which gets me back to why this cycle is special, everything has been changed, every one is in brand new territory. And if ME1 showed anything, it's that the Reapers are not great at thinking on their feet, err... space tentacles.

I could be wrong about this but wasn't the Dark Energy ending going to occur after some sort of convtional giant battle? I thought that was what the ME1 Vigil conversation was leading up to.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 19 décembre 2013 - 07:13 .

[CronoDragoon]

durasteel wrote...
It's really not that subjective.

In the case of the original hero, the demigod of Agean folklore, there were absolutely objective guidelines for good and bad. Killing a guest in your home, for example, was one of the worst things you could do, even if that person was horrible and dangerous. There were rules. You didn't have to be nice, or like kittens, or smile when you met people... you could be a pretty nasty individual and still be a perfectly legitimate hero if you followed the rules. See, for example, Achilles.

Modern "every day" heroes are also not very subjective. Someone willing give or risk something so that another person--generally a stranger--gets a benefit is pretty much the standard. The adversary they face might not be a villain, and might be a pretty abstract idea, but there must be an adversary for there to be a hero. The adversary might be illiteracy, or hunger, or the alienation and isolation inherent in a technological society, or whatever... but a hero of any sort is for x and against y. 

By acknowledging the cultural differences that define heroes, you've already submitted it's subjective, dependent on a culture and the dominant morality of a culture. Massively is making a broad claim about the definition of "hero" as a subjective concept spanning literary history, and in this you seem to agree.

[LinksOcarina]

durasteel wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Good is a subjective word. What's good to you might not be good to me, and vice versa. It's all in the perspective. No one can objectively state what is good and what isn't. And you don't have to face a significant adversary to be a hero either. Take a look at every day heroes. What do they face? Certainly not some big bad with a moustache.

It's really not that subjective.

In the case of the original hero, the demigod of Agean folklore, there were absolutely objective guidelines for good and bad. Killing a guest in your home, for example, was one of the worst things you could do, even if that person was horrible and dangerous. There were rules. You didn't have to be nice, or like kittens, or smile when you met people... you could be a pretty nasty individual and still be a perfectly legitimate hero if you followed the rules. See, for example, Achilles.

Modern "every day" heroes are also not very subjective. Someone willing give or risk something so that another person--generally a stranger--gets a benefit is pretty much the standard. The adversary they face might not be a villain, and might be a pretty abstract idea, but there must be an adversary for there to be a hero. The adversary might be illiteracy, or hunger, or the alienation and isolation inherent in a technological society, or whatever... but a hero of any sort is for x and against y. 

By this definition then, Shepard is a hero through sacrifice too.

Rules are set up for mythology, folklore and modern day stories, but they can be bent and broken when necessary. Frodo Baggins is an example because in the end, he really wasn't the hero, technically Bilbo Baggins was for sparing Gollum's life.

But Frodo gets the credit because he risked it all, ultimately failing, by going on that journey. He is still a hero, but through the objective standard he shouldn't be. 

[Nerevar-as]

The Ring didn´t walk itself to Mordor, you know. Hero doesn´t mean "do absolutely everything perfectly by yourself".

[LinksOcarina]

Nerevar-as wrote...

The Ring didn´t walk itself to Mordor, you know. Hero doesn´t mean "do absolutely everything perfectly by yourself".

That's why we consider him a hero, even if he turns out to be a villian in the last moments, really. 

Nothing is perfect, I agree, but were talking about the semantics of what defines a hero through a mythological and story-telling lens, which do encompass different cliches to tell their story. 

[CronoDragoon]

Nerevar-as wrote...

The Ring didn´t walk itself to Mordor, you know. Hero doesn´t mean "do absolutely everything perfectly by yourself".

If Gollum isn't there, and Frodo ends up surrendering the Ring to the Wraiths, is he a hero? I doubt it.