493 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

This is first year law school stuff. Presumption of innocence. Based on exactly the same reasoning and has exactly the same merit as the one used in court.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

:lol:

You kill me, you really do!

Are we to presume that you're in law school now too?

[David7204]

No. Merely that I understand some of the principles taught. As should you before silly comments concerning things you don't grasp.

Modifié par David7204, 09 janvier 2014 - 09:07 .

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

Do you have any more comments on my scenario, Dreamgazer? Pieces like these are what end up constituting the conventional victory you continually demand. Best to address your concerns now.

David, you're still depending on the Reapers standing still and letting forces bombard them.  You're missing a piece of the puzzle, the same piece of the puzzle that the galaxy hasn't possessed for countless cycles. 

You haven't provided enough of a solution.  You've just said: "The numbers and artillery are there, and we're super quick and super smart with our movement. F*CK YEAH, GALAXY. ROCKS FALL, REAPERS DIE".  

Why hasn't this happened in previous cycles?  Why aren't the Reapers responding?

Modifié par dreamgazer, 09 janvier 2014 - 09:08 .

[von uber]

The Reapers aren't infallible; they didn't find the Leviathans, or Ilos for that matter.

[dreamgazer]

von uber wrote...

The Reapers aren't infallible; they didn't find the Leviathans, or Ilos for that matter.

Neither are the galaxy's military forces. 

The Reapers also haven't lost in eons. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

von uber wrote...

The Reapers aren't infallible; they didn't find the Leviathans, or Ilos for that matter.

No, they didn't and it's explained why they weren't found as well. However, them not finding something does not lessen their physical lethality.

[David7204]

Aside from the whole 'Reapers control the Relays' thing?

Well, I have little doubt it has occurred in previous cycles. As I've said Dreamgazer, this is no magic wand. Not every Reaper could be defeated this way, or even most. It's merely a piece of a greater solution. Is this scenario's existence in an earlier cycle problematic for some reason?

As to why aren't the Reapers responding, the same reason targets in real life don't respond if their enemies line up shots and take them out without alerting them beforehand. They're dead. Despite your silly mocking, this is an effective tactic used countless times over. Perhaps even the defining tactic of modern warfare, you could say. A half dozen dreadnoughts, dozens of cruisers, hundreds of smaller ships per Reaper? What's the problem?

Modifié par David7204, 09 janvier 2014 - 09:15 .

[von uber]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

No, they didn't and it's explained why they weren't found as well. However, them not finding something does not lessen their physical lethality.

Oh of course. but it does show they do have flaws.. like not capturing the citadel straight away in ME3

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Obadiah wrote...

So, I see a lot of criticism of the Crucible as a DEM. Here's my take on why I find the Crucible a perfectly reasonable solution to the Reapers.

The invasion at the end of a Reaper cycle can take decades (centuries?). Any cycle strong enough to resist would have time to study and research their enemy, the Reapers, far more than we have. So it makes perfect sense that they would come up with, at the very least, plans for a theoretical tactic, maybe even a "super-weapon", to defeat the Reapers based on their knowledge.

There have been at least 700 cycles before the Protheans. If any of those cycle's data caches survived into the next cycle, as the Protheans' did into our cycle, subsequent cycles could have found their plans, and used and improved upon them based on their own research.

As this process repeated itself, 700+ cycles later, we in the current cycle could plausibly recover a set of those plans that can be used successfully against the Reapers.

In fact, there may be several plans for other weapons lost to other cycles still waiting to be discovered in hidden data caches. Maybe that could be part of the ME4 plot.

Really? A device capable of using magic light to completely alter the genetics of every living thing in the galaxy, something not even the Reapers themselves are capable of, can be considered sensible?

Bioware's forte` has always been plot exposition, often to a fault. But in this case, all they said was "here's the magic weapon, to hell with any other world-building", which in this case seems rather critical.

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

As to why aren't the Reapers responding, the same reason targets in real life don't respond if their enemies line and shots and take them out. They're dead. Despite your silly mocking, this is an effective tactic used countless times over. Perhaps even the defining tactic of modern warfare, you could say. A half dozen dreadnoughts, dozens of cruisers, hundreds of smaller ships per Reaper? What's the problem?

The problem with that statement? You're relying on a false equivalency between modern targets and the Reapers, for one.

If the answer was simply "superior and plentiful firepower", then the Reapers wouldn't exist by this point.  That is simple reasoning. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

AlanC9 wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

But the scene does happen. Maybe some strange physics are at work when a Relay explodes.

I'm not advocating crashing the Relay into Pluto by destabalizing it, I'm just saying that kind of stuff happens fairly often in the MEU, if you add some techno babble almost anything is possible.

If you want to say that Bio could have violated their own lore, then sure. Bio can rewrite their own lore at will, even to the point of incoherence.

And if you're going to play the technobabble card, there's no point in arguing against it. Once we're doing that the net is down, and you can destroy Reapers with any flavor of technobabble you like.

The whole point of this was that at some point David said something along the lines of you can't destroy the Charon Relay for obvious reasons. I was simply pointing out that nothing is really obvious when it comes to the science in this game because it changes when convenient for the plot and it is either not explained or it's just kind of handwaved over.

I was just pointing at that in the one other instance where the explosion of a Mass Relay was observed in game, the explosion appears to be travelling faster than the speed of light. Maybe the destruction of the Relay some how accelerates light, that somehow maybe it is a unique situation where the forces at work some how cause unexpected results. Or since the laws of Relativity don't exist in the MEU there is no reason for light to travel at the same speed, when the radiation source is significantly different. Or maybe it was a simulation or the writers didn't care. The point is it's not obvious. If the Charon Relay exploded in the game and it wiped out the entire system, the complaints would most likely be directed at how random and anti-cliamtic it was, not that the explosion traveled faster than light speeds.

Same thing for the destabilizing part, similarly whacky things have happened in ME before and players as a whole weren't very upset with them, they either didn't notice or there was techno babble in the Codex. Again I'm not saying, this should have happened. I'm just saying that it's not this long leap into ridiculous physics land and people shouldn't be criticized for discussing the effect on the story, or themes, or whatever.

[David7204]

dreamgazer wrote...

If the answer was simply "superior and plentiful firepower", then the Reapers wouldn't exist by this point.  That is simple reasoning. 

Whoops. Hold on. I misread.

That, Dreamgazer, is silly nonsense. The Reaper's greatest strength lies in their firepowers and numbers. So 'yes,' superior firepower absolutely is an answer to them. The problem is that no cycle has been able to achieve that because the Reapers have never let them.

What, Dreamgazer, is the problem?

Modifié par David7204, 09 janvier 2014 - 09:25 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Fixers0 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Not really, because whether or not an action makes sense depends on the available alternative actions. Any chance beats zero chance.

Flase. Conventional means have proven to be effective against Reaper force, devoting massive amounts of resources to something of a unkown purpose is deemed nonsensical. 

Pretty sure that the ME3 codex itself establishes that it takes 4 dreadnoughts to take down a single Capital Reaper ship. As of ME1, the Alliance had 6-7 dreadnoughts, if I remember right. So even if you want to count the warships of every other species in this picture, it doesn't look good for conventional victory.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Aside from the whole 'Reapers control the Relays' thing?

Well, I have little doubt it has occurred in previous cycles. As I've said Dreamgazer, this is no magic wand. Not every Reaper could be defeated this way, or even most. It's merely a piece of a greater solution. Is this scenario's existence in an earlier cycle a problematic for some reason?

Yes it is. Because I don't believe in something without any evidence. And your theory has no evidence.

As to why aren't the Reapers responding, the same reason targets in real life don't respond if their enemies line up shots and take them out without alerting them beforehand. They're dead.

And you're assuming that this will kill them. There's evidence to the contrary... with an entire Quarian fleet shooting everything they have at one single Reaper (that's not even full-size). And still having to fire repeated salvos to bring it down.

Despite your silly mocking, this is an effective tactic used countless times over.

So effective that there's no evidence that it's ever worked before on the Reapers in the past?

Perhaps even the defining tactic of modern warfare, you could say. A half dozen dreadnoughts, dozens of cruisers, hundreds of smaller ships per Reaper? What's the problem?

The problem is you're assuming. I gave a list of your assumptions on the last page. And the evidence against it.

The entire Quarian fleet had to combine their fire in repeated volleys to kill one Reaper. And an entire alliance fleet had to combine their fire with the remains of the Citadel fleet to destroy one Reaper. And a relatively small number of Reapers in orbit in Palaven shrugged off a massive Turian force. 

Simply put, you're changing the Reapers capabilities to suit your headcanon.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

von uber wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

No, they didn't and it's explained why they weren't found as well. However, them not finding something does not lessen their physical lethality.

Oh of course. but it does show they do have flaws.. like not capturing the citadel straight away in ME3

Well, there was a reason for that now wasn't there? As it is, you really can't say why the Reapers didn't take the Citadel. I defer to Occam's Razor in this aspect: Plot contrivance.

[von uber]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...


The entire Quarian fleet had to combine their fire in repeated volleys to kill one Reaper.

No they didn't - see the clip I posted above; about 4 ships fire.


And yes, blatant plot contrivance

Modifié par von uber, 09 janvier 2014 - 09:24 .

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

What, Dreamgazer, is the problem?

dreamgazer wrote...

David, you're still depending on the Reapers standing still and letting forces bombard them.  You're missing a piece of the puzzle, the same piece of the puzzle that the galaxy hasn't possessed for countless cycles. 

You haven't provided enough of a solution.  You've just said: "The numbers and artillery are there, and we're super quick and super smart with our movement. F*CK YEAH, GALAXY. ROCKS FALL, REAPERS DIE".  

Why hasn't this happened in previous cycles?  Why aren't the Reapers responding?

Try this again, and do a better job of answering the second part of the bolded. 

[dreamgazer]

von uber wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...


The entire Quarian fleet had to combine their fire in repeated volleys to kill one Reaper.

No they didn't - see the clip I posted above; about 4 ships fire.


And yes, blatant plot contrivance

Do you trust spoken word or graphical presentation? 

[David7204]

The question has been asked and answered, Dreamgazer. The Reapers are bombarded. A half dozen dreadnoughts, dozens of cruisers, hundreds of smaller ships per Reaper. They're caught off guard, disrupted, and destroyed before they can respond. Like I said.

What problem or problems are there with the explanation I've given you?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

von uber wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...


The entire Quarian fleet had to combine their fire in repeated volleys to kill one Reaper.

No they didn't - see the clip I posted above; about 4 ships fire.


And yes, blatant plot contrivance

Try again: "I want the targeting information synced up to the whole damn fleet!"

That's more of a technical limitation or oversight with the cutscene animation. It's made pretty clear that the entire Quarian fleet is firing at that one Reaper otherwise. 

Not to mention that the Reaper is also shooting up at the Quarian fleet above, and causing considerable damage. Enough so that you can get a game-over screen for waiting.

[von uber]

dreamgazer wrote...


Do you trust spoken word or graphical presentation? 

Well in this case, given the codex mentions four dreadnoughts to take out a Reaper, and we see 4 Quarian ships fire.. I'll take both.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

The question has been asked and answered, Dreamgazer. The Reapers are bombarded. A half dozen dreadnoughts, dozens of cruisers, hundreds of smaller ships per Reaper. They're caught off guard, disrupted, and destroyed before they can respond. Like I said.

What problem or problems are there with the explanation I've given you?

The fact that you're asspulling it to be so. You're literally keeping the Reapers from responding by writing that they don't when they do in the game.

So much so that the Reaper on Rannoch returns fire on the Quarian fleet, and you WILL get a gameover screen if you wait too long.

And how are you going to accurately fire on one position rapidly? How are the Reapers so blind (or stupid) not to notice the massive fleet above them? 

I gave you my list of assumptions that you made, and you have yet to acknowledge or respond to them. 

So yes, this is fanfiction. Nothing more.

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

The question has been asked and answered, Dreamgazer. The Reapers are bombarded. A half dozen dreadnoughts, dozens of cruisers, hundreds of smaller ships per Reaper. They're caught off guard, disrupted, and destroyed before they can respond. Like I said. 

No, you saying "superior firepower" is not an answer.  And you're still relying on a solution where the Reapers sit there with their thumbs up their asses instead of responding to the presence of inbound ships. 

The fact that you're allowing all these Reapers to be snuck up on, "caught off-guard", and bombarded is frelling hilarious. 

[David7204]

Whatever happened or didn't happen on Rannoch is really irrelevant.

What is relevant is that my proposal address every issue. The quarians fire on Rannoch with only a very fraction of their fleet, holding back their firepower as to not harm Shepard. The one Reaper is dead, the Reapers as a whole are still titanically powerful, and further successes against Reapers remain plausible.

Everybody wins.

[David7204]

dreamgazer wrote...

No, you saying "superior firepower" is not an answer.  And you're still relying on a solution where the Reapers sit there with their thumbs up their asses instead of responding to the presence of inbound ships. 

The fact that you're allowing all these Reapers to be snuck up on, "caught off-guard", and bombarded is frelling hilarious. 

No. Wrong. The Reapers are limited to slower-than-light sensors like the rest of the galaxy. If the quarians and geth advance at FTL, they'll reach the Reapers before being detected by passive sensors and will be too far out of range for active sensors.

Like I said Dreamgazer, the attacker always has the advantage. So no, this complaint has no merit whatsoever.

Also, how exactly is 'superior firepower' not an answer when destroying a durable enemy? is that not precisely the purpose of superior firepower in the first place? Destroying enemies?

Modifié par David7204, 09 janvier 2014 - 09:39 .