1814 réponses à ce sujet

[essarr71]

Yeah. Its not foolish at all that Reapers fly past the citadel just to bomb a planet from orbit, turn around, fly passed the citadel again, then return to take the citadel after.

I see nothing wrong with this scenario.

Modifié par essarr71, 20 décembre 2013 - 03:58 .

[Eryri]

David7204 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
See, for instance, Bekenstein, bombed to death rather than harvested. Possibly because harvesting from there was an administrative hassle for the Reapers? The world isn't very close to the rest of the human worlds.

I still wonder if the writers think we can take them seriously after they made us believe the Reapers literally flown past Citadel just to bomb a human colony for the sake plot convienance. 

That's a immensely foolish statement, considering Bekenstein has utterly no bearing on the plot at all.

I think Fixers0 means it's convenient for the plot that the Reapers didn't take the Citadel until the climax of the story. The fact that they apparently flew past the strategic lynchpin of the galaxy in order to bomb some backwater colony seems a little odd.

[Eryri]

Sorry, browser glitch

Modifié par Eryri, 20 décembre 2013 - 04:04 .

[dreamgazer]

essarr71 wrote...

Yeah. Its not foolish at all that Reapers fly past the citadel just to bomb a planet from orbit, turn around, fly passed the citadel again, then return to take the citadel after.

I see nothing wrong with this scenario.

Variables changed during the harvest, and the Citadel, the hub of the relay network and galactic commerce, serves other purposes to the Reapers that could be disrupted with significant damage. 

We don't know exactly when Bekenstein was torched, do we? 

[ImaginaryMatter]

David7204 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

I still wonder if the writers think we can take them seriously after they made us believe the Reapers literally flown past Citadel just to bomb a human colony for the sake plot convienance. 

That's a immensely foolish statement, considering Bekenstein has utterly no bearing on the plot at all.

I think that's the point he's getting at. Since apparently the Reapers can easily take over and move the Citadel anywhere they want, why didn't they do that when they were almost literally right next to it?

[essarr71]

But why bother at all? Its not as if you hit widow to jump to another system. You ftl from widow to Berk. Why not occupy Window then? Does a small factory world hold higher priority than the citadel?

Its one thing if you make the case the reapers were taking their time getting there. But nope. They go there, burn one planet, then leave. Then come back. Why bother?

[Uncle Jo]

nvm

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 20 décembre 2013 - 04:16 .

[dreamgazer]

essarr71 wrote...

But why bother at all? Its not as if you hit widow to jump to another system. You ftl from widow to Berk. Why not occupy Window then? Does a small factory world hold higher priority than the citadel?

No, but torching industrial-colony Bekenstein for strategic purposes and for shock and awe is a different situation than retaking the Citadel---which, again, serves several purposes and isn't easily replaceable---without the element of surprise.  Also, it's worth considering that "indoctrinated servents" did actually try to covertly take control of it. 

There's a logic issue there, sure, but I don't think it as significant as that. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

dreamgazer wrote...

essarr71 wrote...

But why bother at all? Its not as if you hit widow to jump to another system. You ftl from widow to Berk. Why not occupy Window then? Does a small factory world hold higher priority than the citadel?

No, but torching industrial-colony Bekenstein for strategic purposes and for shock and awe is a different situation than retaking the Citadel---which, again, serves several purposes and isn't easily replaceable---without the element of surprise.  Also, it's worth considering that "indoctrinated servents" did actually try to covertly take control of it. 

There's a logic issue there, sure, but I don't think it as significant as that. 

Except, the Reapers seemed to have no problem taking it over and moving it to Earth during the events of Priority: Cerberus Headquarters.

[Hirdas]

I don't know i just regret that the way they handled the streamlining in that you have to do things in a certain order, removed part of the fun of the game. As well as the replayability for me. I find it sad as i had a lot of of different Shepards. Who will never see the end of the game as i see no fun in it anymore.

[dreamgazer]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

essarr71 wrote...

But why bother at all? Its not as if you hit widow to jump to another system. You ftl from widow to Berk. Why not occupy Window then? Does a small factory world hold higher priority than the citadel?

No, but torching industrial-colony Bekenstein for strategic purposes and for shock and awe is a different situation than retaking the Citadel---which, again, serves several purposes and isn't easily replaceable---without the element of surprise.  Also, it's worth considering that "indoctrinated servents" did actually try to covertly take control of it. 

There's a logic issue there, sure, but I don't think it as significant as that. 

Except, the Reapers seemed to have no problem taking it over and moving it to Earth during the events of Priority: Cerberus Headquarters.

I probably wouldn't say with "no problem", and, yes, they did so with brute force once the variables changed much later in the harvest. 

[AlanC9]

We have no details about what happened at the Citadel. The Reapers wanted it captured rather than blown up, which was a more difficult thing for them to pull off.

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 décembre 2013 - 05:17 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

dreamgazer wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

essarr71 wrote...

But why bother at all? Its not as if you hit widow to jump to another system. You ftl from widow to Berk. Why not occupy Window then? Does a small factory world hold higher priority than the citadel?

No, but torching industrial-colony Bekenstein for strategic purposes and for shock and awe is a different situation than retaking the Citadel---which, again, serves several purposes and isn't easily replaceable---without the element of surprise.  Also, it's worth considering that "indoctrinated servents" did actually try to covertly take control of it. 

There's a logic issue there, sure, but I don't think it as significant as that. 

Except, the Reapers seemed to have no problem taking it over and moving it to Earth during the events of Priority: Cerberus Headquarters.

I probably wouldn't say with "no problem", and, yes, they did so with brute force once the variables changed much later in the harvest. 

Well here's my reasoning. So, if the Reapers appear through a Relay in the Widow system, that information would be sent to the Presidium Tower which would proceed to close the Wards. Now the Citadel is in it's fortified position, since the Wards (as the Codex suggests) are made up of the same materials the Mass Relays are made out of, the Reapers can't just cut through through them quickly or at all, plus the Citadel doesn't seem to be damaged above Earth (isn't that photo a concept piece and thus not canon?). Even if they actually did do so, it probably couldn't have been done in the course of a few hours.

Which seems to suggest that the Reapers either towed it (as silly and implossbile as that sounds) or the someone was on the inside to control the station to reopen the Wards and hand over control to the Reapers. The only people I can think of who could do so are indoctrinated personel, namely TIM, or the Catalyst. However, the Reapers could have easily used either one to gain control of the station much earlier and royally ruin the entire Organic war effort, which begs the question, "Why didn't they do that earlier?"

[essarr71]

Doesnt even need to go that far. Why not camp at the relay after arriving? Even without the ability to capture the citadel, why continue to allow it to remain outside their influence? The idea that the Reapers are casual about it this go round is tough for me to swallow (it is their reaper factory, after all), but I can get over it seeing how easily theyre winning without it. But once theyre in the system?

Maybe only a few went in, sure.. But why werent they engaged? Finding a handful of Reapers, isolated, is a nice target compared to whats going on at Palavan. Maybe the citadel doesnt have enough ships to take them out? Okay. But were back at square one: why not just control the system then?

I get its a minor/easily missed bit of information - placed there to show how awful things are going (and how Reapers find plant-bombing from orbit part of a "harvest"). Its a head-scratcher tho.

[marcelo caldas]

wright1978 wrote...

PR bluster will always try to spin a trainwreck into something less serious.

Where we will learn if any lessons were learned it is in DAI & ME4(or whatever it will be called)

DA:Inquisition gamplay looks like God of War, spinning baldes, throwing chains... Problematic!

[AlanC9]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...


Which seems to suggest that the Reapers either towed it (as silly and implossbile as that sounds)

What's implausible about towing it? 

[ImaginaryMatter]

Ugh, my spelling errors.

I don't think think the Reapers can generate enough of a mass effect field to lessen the mass of the Citadel and the thing is massive. Plus, there is a mass limit to what Relays can transfer. There's also the question of what the Reapers towed it with, giant space cables? Or did they clamp down on the exterior somehow? Did they strap on a bunch of fusion torches like in Bring Down the Sky or Arrival?

There's nothing that definitively says the Citadel can't be moved in such a manner, it just seems unlikely. given the implication that very large objects cannot be moved in such a manner.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 20 décembre 2013 - 06:44 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

edit: woops

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 20 décembre 2013 - 06:43 .

[AlanC9]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...
I don't think think the Reapers can generate enough of a mass effect field to lessen the mass of the Citadel and the thing is massive. Plus, there is a mass limit to what Relays can transfer.

There's a limit to how accurate the transit is with large masses, but there's no stated limit to the total transfer. The Migrant Fleet takes time to pass through a relay, but that could just as easily be a traffic issue; the Codex isn't specific on the point.

As for mass, drag is negligible, so any amount of thrust can get the Citadel to the relay if you take the time. The hard part would be getting from the Charon relay to Earth orbit. I agree that they seem to have done this very quickly.

Anyway, saying that you don't think the Reapers have a capability isn't a productive argument. Bio just says "yes, they do," and the argument vaporizes. 

[CrutchCricket]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Why are you presupposing an egocentric motivation and perspective on them, rather than a non-egocentric position based on logic?

What is the logic?

If we can beat them conventionally, they can not harvest us or anyone else. If they escalate and kill us, they can not harvest us but they can harvest others. Regardless of what they do they would not be able to harvest us, making the difference in annihalation either us or them.

Wrong, by retreating and resorting to subterfuge, or other conventional tactics they might still win. They are still tireless machines with no real supply chain or infrastructure to destroy. And they would still have superior processing power and "experience". The scenario is merely that we can now locally strip them of their overpowered advantages, making their current course of action unfeasible. It does not make it sudden death between us or them. Final conventional victory is now enabled, it is not guaranteed.

Their objective would be achieved in preventing the rise of a synthetic singularity for another cycle.

If this cycle is still going, the next one isn't going to start, hence that very simplistic definition of prevention still applies. However if there's a chance they can still harvest this one, why would they blow it, so to speak? Organics can't fight forever.

Harvesting isn't their real priority- preventing civilizations from developing sufficiently advanced AI is. Harvesting for Reaperhood is just how they try to preserve some fragment of the civilizations they destroy.

Please, their goals are self-defeating enough as it is. Without the preservation clause, it collapses into total nonsense. The singularity is never claimed to be intrinsically bad, it is "prevented" because of its negative effects on organics. Thus the preservation of organics is the primary goal of the Reapers (in their own twisted sense). Without even that tissue-thin excuse it really does become the "yo dawg" poster.

Sunk cost fallacy.

Not at all. The loss of so many Reapers means they wouldn't be anxious to lose more, either through open conflict or by throwing away the chance to somewhat replenish their numbers with this cycle. There are some on here that believe the level of subterfuge presently employed (Citadel trap, reliance on indoctrinated agent infiltrations) means that even the loss of one Reaper is unacceptable.

The Reapers, and the Catalyst, are radical utilitarians.

In the pursuit of their primary objective. Destroying what can yet be harvested is counter to that objective.

Indeed. It is, however, similar to destroying species that can not be harvested into a Reaper.

And how many times has that happened? And before you say Protheans, the apparent lack of a Prothean Reaper is an open ingame speculation and not indisputable fact.

Wiping out current galactic civilization doesn't destroy the Cycle. As only one percent of the galaxy has been explored in this cycle (again: explored, not settled), and the Reapers wouldn't even need to destroy all of that to destroy the conventional resistance, there's plenty more of the galaxy left to support life and to prevent the rise of a synthetic singularity over.

Life that has not arisen to "mass effect" level is not a part of the cycle and ignored. It doesn't matter either way.

[AlanC9]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Wrong, by retreating and resorting to subterfuge, or other conventional tactics they might still win. They are still tireless machines with no real supply chain or infrastructure to destroy. And they would still have superior processing power and "experience". The scenario is merely that we can now locally strip them of their overpowered advantages, making their current course of action unfeasible. It does not make it sudden death between us or them. Final conventional victory is now enabled, it is not guaranteed.

Right. But if it ever looked like the organics might win, the Reapers could just escalate.

Not at all. The loss of so many Reapers means they wouldn't be anxious to lose more, either through open conflict or by throwing away the chance to somewhat replenish their numbers with this cycle. There are some on here that believe the level of subterfuge presently employed (Citadel trap, reliance on indoctrinated agent infiltrations) means that even the loss of one Reaper is unacceptable.

There are some people on here who are idiots, yep. That view was believable before the final ME2 cinematic. Not after.

As for the rest, if the Reapers don't want to lose any more Reapers, that's an argument for escalating right away, not an argument for continuing with the harvest.

Wiping out current galactic civilization doesn't destroy the Cycle. As only one percent of the galaxy has been explored in this cycle (again: explored, not settled), and the Reapers wouldn't even need to destroy all of that to destroy the conventional resistance, there's plenty more of the galaxy left to support life and to prevent the rise of a synthetic singularity over.

Life that has not arisen to "mass effect" level is not a part of the cycle and ignored. It doesn't matter either way.

The point there was that the current spacefaring species are expendable. They're nice to have, but if all of them were destroyed it'd be no big loss

Again, your whole plan is that the Reapers will lose because they are stupid. The decisive point will come not when the Crucible is deployed, but at some point during the subsequent conventional war when the Reapers lose the capacity to burn the current cycle and start over. Unless the Crucible takes the Reapers down to the point where burning the current cycle immediately is the best option the Reapers have left, but they don't quite have enough strength left to do it. That could almost work. No more Mr. Nice Guy from the Reapers -- instead, their fleet just starts destroying every industrialized world they can get their hands on

Finally: If I offered you $1 to play a game of russian roulette, would you do it? If you wouldn't, why do you assume the Reapers would?

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 décembre 2013 - 10:18 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

CrutchCricket wrote...

Wrong, by retreating and resorting to subterfuge, or other conventional tactics they might still win. They are still tireless machines with no real supply chain or infrastructure to destroy. And they would still have superior processing power and "experience". The scenario is merely that we can now locally strip them of their overpowered advantages, making their current course of action unfeasible. It does not make it sudden death between us or them. Final conventional victory is now enabled, it is not guaranteed.

Right. But if it ever looked like the organics might win, the Reapers could just escalate.

Not at all. The loss of so many Reapers means they wouldn't be anxious to lose more, either through open conflict or by throwing away the chance to somewhat replenish their numbers with this cycle. There are some on here that believe the level of subterfuge presently employed (Citadel trap, reliance on indoctrinated agent infiltrations) means that even the loss of one Reaper is unacceptable.

There are some people on here who are idiots, yep. That view was believable before the final ME2 cinematic. Not after.

As for the rest, if the Reapers don't want to lose any more Reapers, that's an argument for escalating right away, not an argument for continuing with the harvest.

Wiping out current galactic civilization doesn't destroy the Cycle. As only one percent of the galaxy has been explored in this cycle (again: explored, not settled), and the Reapers wouldn't even need to destroy all of that to destroy the conventional resistance, there's plenty more of the galaxy left to support life and to prevent the rise of a synthetic singularity over.

Life that has not arisen to "mass effect" level is not a part of the cycle and ignored. It doesn't matter either way.

The point there was that the current spacefaring species are expendable. They're nice to have, but if all of them were destroyed it'd be no big loss

Again, your whole plan is that the Reapers will lose because they are stupid. The decisive point will come not when the Crucible is deployed, but at some point during the subsequent conventional war when the Reapers lose the capacity to burn the current cycle and start over. Unless the Crucible takes the Reapers down to the point where burning the current cycle immediately is the best option the Reapers have left, but they don't quite have enough strength left to do it. That could almost work. No more Mr. Nice Guy from the Reapers -- instead, their fleet just starts destroying every industrialized world they can get their hands on

Finally: If I offered you $1 to play a game of russian roulette, would you do it? If you wouldn't, why do you assume the Reapers would?

Except excalating to the point of wiping out organic life goes against the Reaper mandate to preserve life.  Or at least "suitable" life. 

This is one potential weakness to the Reapers.  Much like Samara's justicar Code.  It can potentially be turned  against them

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]CrutchCricket wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Why are you presupposing an egocentric motivation and perspective on them, rather than a non-egocentric position based on logic?[/quote]
What is the logic?[/quote]That fighting a losing conventional war to defeat does not serve the Reaper's interests, while escalating and writing off a cycle does.
[quote]
[quote]
If we can beat them conventionally, they can not harvest us or anyone else. If they escalate and kill us, they can not harvest us but they can harvest others. Regardless of what they do they would not be able to harvest us, making the difference in annihalation either us or them.[/quote]
Wrong, by retreating and resorting to subterfuge, or other conventional tactics they might still win. They are still tireless machines with no real supply chain or infrastructure to destroy. And they would still have superior processing power and "experience". The scenario is merely that we can now locally strip them of their overpowered advantages, making their current course of action unfeasible. It does not make it sudden death between us or them. Final conventional victory is now enabled, it is not guaranteed.
[/quote]
Please clarify- are you suggesting that the ME3 trilogy would end Shepard's story without resolving the Reaper threat? That the grand finale would be 'victory is possible, not guaranteed, so long as the Reapers are okay with losing'?

Not, mind you, that you've provided a compelling reason why the Reapers can't escalate and destroy us past the point at which conventional victory is not longer enabled, and then go back to harvesting us. If they wanted, they could even allow/arrange enough 'surviving' colonies to restore sufficient population while preventing them from becoming a new conventional threat.




[quote]
[quote]Their objective would be achieved in preventing the rise of a synthetic singularity for another cycle.[/quote]
If this cycle is still going, the next one isn't going to start, hence that very simplistic definition of prevention still applies. [/quote]If conventional victory-but-not-really scenario occurs, the chances of the cycle failing or being irrevocably broken increase as the organics gather more advanced AI technology and become more established at hiding from the Reapers.

[quote]However if there's a chance they can still harvest this one, why would they blow it, so to speak? [/quote]Why would blowing up requirements for conventional resistance render us unable to be harvested?

Moreover, why risk the Cycle on a conventional fight of uncertain victory, when escalation reduces the risk of the super-goal? That would be prioritiziation.
[quote]
Organics can't fight forever.[/quote]If you (the Reapers) concede to a conventional struggle of indefinite length and uncertain outcome, they can fight long enough.

[quote]
[quote]
Harvesting isn't their real priority- preventing civilizations from developing sufficiently advanced AI is. Harvesting for Reaperhood is just how they try to preserve some fragment of the civilizations they destroy. [/quote]
Please, their goals are self-defeating enough as it is. Without the preservation clause, it collapses into total nonsense. The singularity is never claimed to be intrinsically bad, it is "prevented" because of its negative effects on organics. Thus the preservation of organics is the primary goal of the Reapers (in their own twisted sense). Without even that tissue-thin excuse it really does become the "yo dawg" poster.
[/quote]It's only self-defeating if you adopt human perspectives to it- on its own, it's simply mis-aimed priortization of explicit taskings without implicit restrictions. Common programming error.

The Yo Dawg poster was always wrong because it misrepresented the task and purpose of the Reapers... much like you.
[quote]
[quote]
Sunk cost fallacy. [/quote]
Not at all. The loss of so many Reapers means they wouldn't be anxious to lose more, either through open conflict or by throwing away the chance to somewhat replenish their numbers with this cycle. There are some on here that believe the level of subterfuge presently employed (Citadel trap, reliance on indoctrinated agent infiltrations) means that even the loss of one Reaper is unacceptable.[/quote]You're changing your argument away from the prior fallacy, and now counter to your conventional war thesis. If the Reapers are at a point at which Reaper losses are a concern, the superior solution would be to end this cycle as soon as possible. That would be achieved by escalation and wiping out the industrial bases of the organics, not insurgency, which would allow the organics time and space to reorganice and rebuild forces.

Of course, nothing in ME3 even suggests the Reapers are anywhere near a point at which they are facing catastrophic losses to fleets... while the galaxy is the exact opposite. Every 'reliance' you've mentioned has been demonstrated as a matter of convenience or preference rather than necessity, while nothing in the lore suggests the faction with thousands of dreadnaughts views the loss of even one as unacceptable... especially as the codex already establishes the Reapers being willing to accept Reaper casualties in this war.



[quote]
[quote]
The Reapers, and the Catalyst, are radical utilitarians. [/quote]
In the pursuit of their primary objective. Destroying what can yet be harvested is counter to that objective.[/quote]The objective isn't harvesting, so it isn't.
Nor is destroying Earth, Thessia, Palaven, Surkesh, Tuchanka, Khar'shan and other bastions of resistance tantemount to abandoning the Harvest. You're making a false dilemma fallacy on top of asserting priorities that the Reapers and lore do not claim.
[quote]
[quote]
Indeed. It is, however, similar to destroying species that can not be harvested into a Reaper.[/quote]
And how many times has that happened? And before you say Protheans, the apparent lack of a Prothean Reaper is an open ingame speculation and not indisputable fact.[/quote]We also have no reason to doubt it. Of course, we can also point out the other disqualifications Harbinger references- like numbers, the prospects of species self-destruction, and so on.

Of course, it's really irrelevant since this is reversing the order of argument. The burden of proof is on you to support that the Reapers would never destroy a species without harvesting it, and to disprove the narrative authority of EDI on this point if you intend to rest on that counter-counterargument.



[quote]
Wiping out current galactic civilization doesn't destroy the Cycle. As only one percent of the galaxy has been explored in this cycle (again: explored, not settled), and the Reapers wouldn't even need to destroy all of that to destroy the conventional resistance, there's plenty more of the galaxy left to support life and to prevent the rise of a synthetic singularity over.
[/quote]
Life that has not arisen to "mass effect" level is not a part of the cycle and ignored. It doesn't matter either way.
[/quote]Pre-space species are the future cycles that might invent AIs. As the entire premise of the Catalyst is a prospective future problem, and the entire Cycle is based off of heading off the future threat rather than dealing with an immediate one, future considerations are an intrensic part of the Cycle strategy.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 20 décembre 2013 - 10:42 .

[Mcfly616]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...


Well here's my reasoning. So, if the Reapers appear through a Relay in the Widow system, that information would be sent to the Presidium Tower which would proceed to close the Wards. Now the Citadel is in it's fortified position, since the Wards (as the Codex suggests) are made up of the same materials the Mass Relays are made out of, the Reapers can't just cut through through them quickly or at all, plus the Citadel doesn't seem to be damaged above Earth (isn't that photo a concept piece and thus not canon?). Even if they actually did do so, it probably couldn't have been done in the course of a few hours.

Which seems to suggest that the Reapers either towed it (as silly and implossbile as that sounds) or the someone was on the inside to control the station to reopen the Wards and hand over control to the Reapers. The only people I can think of who could do so are indoctrinated personel, namely TIM, or the Catalyst. However, the Reapers could have easily used either one to gain control of the station much earlier and royally ruin the entire Organic war effort, which begs the question, "Why didn't they do that earlier?"

Couldn't have been the Catalyst. Probably TIM. Considering he went to the Citadel and informed the Reapers of Shepard's plans. I imagine he succeeded precisely where Saren failed. Symmetry. I like it.