261 réponses à ce sujet

[javeart]

AlanC9 wrote...

javeart wrote...

That's it? Is stupid because you could need them in the future?

Yes. The cost of keeping the data is effectively zero. The cost of not having the data might be zero, or the cost might be high. Do the math.

Now you're just purposely ignoring my objections to your argument... and I'm certainly not going to repeat them so you can ignore them to state the same idea once again. Thanks for answering, anyway, I've sure learned a lot about what's stupid and what's not...

[Lord Watson]

Intent isn't taken into account(or rather decided for you), which I think is another problem. A paragon may destroy Maelon's data on principle. A renegade may destroy it because the genophage is a necessary evil. The same as a paragon may keep the data because their suffering should not have been in vain. A renegade keeps it because leverage is good to have.

[Fixers0]

Lord Watson wrote...

Intent isn't taken into account(or rather decided for you), which I think is another problem. A paragon may destroy Maelon's data on principle. A renegade may destroy it because the genophage is a necessary evil. The same as a paragon may keep the data because their suffering should not have been in vain. A renegade keeps it because leverage is good to have.

Interestingly, the choice at the end of Mordin's loyalty mission actually has a four way dialogue choice, two of them have Shepard calling for the destruction of the data, and two of them for the preservation of the data. What's different is the motivation behind Shepard wanting to have the data destroyed/preserved. While in the end destroying or preserving the data will always lead to the same amount of renegade or paragon points, respectively, it  was a nice touch of personalization.

[Lord Watson]

Excellent point, I totally forgot that there was intent reflected in that instance. The majority of the paragon/renegade choices I don't believe did that.

Modifié par Lord Watson, 08 février 2014 - 11:50 .

[AlanC9]

Lord Watson wrote...

Intent isn't taken into account(or rather decided for you), which I think is another problem. A paragon may destroy Maelon's data on principle. A renegade may destroy it because the genophage is a necessary evil. The same as a paragon may keep the data because their suffering should not have been in vain. A renegade keeps it because leverage is good to have.

My problem's only with the italed case. (I think the Paragon's principles themselves are bad, but as RP it's a fine choice.)

Even if you think something is a necessary evil, it does not therefore follow that you destroy the means to undo that evil. You might turn out to be wrong about the necessary part

[AlanC9]

javeart wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

javeart wrote...
That's it? Is stupid because you could need them in the future?

Yes. The cost of keeping the data is effectively zero. The cost of not having the data might be zero, or the cost might be high. Do the math.

Now you're just purposely ignoring my objections to your argument... and I'm certainly not going to repeat them so you can ignore them to state the same idea once again. Thanks for answering, anyway, I've sure learned a lot about what's stupid and what's not...

Sorry about that. I thought the application of the procedure to other cases was obvious. For instance, destroying the Collector Base is also stupid, if you do it for the reasons Shepard expresses. It's possible for Shepard to believe that there are costs to keeping the base, though. -- risk of indoctrination, etc. -- which would change the math. (Using "TIM can't be trusted" there might work, but it's hard to come up with a plausible scenario where TIM is more dangerous than the Reapers, and if Shepard believes that TIM's already working for the Reapers then the whole ME2 plot falls apart.)

Edit: wait a sec.... are you maybe arguing that Renegades are supposed to be short-sighted?

Modifié par AlanC9, 08 février 2014 - 04:46 .

[Jorji Costava]

AlanC9 wrote...

Lord Watson wrote...

Intent isn't taken into account(or rather decided for you), which I think is another problem. A paragon may destroy Maelon's data on principle. A renegade may destroy it because the genophage is a necessary evil. The same as a paragon may keep the data because their suffering should not have been in vain. A renegade keeps it because leverage is good to have.

My problem's only with the italed case. (I think the Paragon's principles themselves are bad, but as RP it's a fine choice.)

Even if you think something is a necessary evil, it does not therefore follow that you destroy the means to undo that evil. You might turn out to be wrong about the necessary part

I think it should be up to the player to decide whether or not the choice fits with his or her value system. After all, the freedom to roleplay the kind of character you want should include the freedom to be wrong about what decisions are likely to have the best consequences. There's no reason you should not be allowed to play a renegade who's just not very good at utilitarian calculation.

[Dean_the_Young]

AlanC9 wrote...

javeart wrote...

That's it? Is stupid because you could need them in the future?

Yes. The cost of keeping the data is effectively zero. The cost of not having the data might be zero, or the cost might be high. Do the math.

I disagree with this in the context of game theory: sometimes it is actually superior to discard an option and flexibility in exchange for recasting a delimma in your favor. Sun Tzu cautioned generals to allow their enemies a route to escape in order to weaken their will, while Cortez and his conquistadors burned their ships behind them so that they wouldn't be tempted to retreat.

In my perspective at the time, I viewed the idea of the genophage data as something that could be blackmailed against me. If I kept the data, I might be able to use it... but it could also be used against me. If a Krogan leader learned I had it, then I could be coerced to hand it over. In such a context, destroying it then wouldn't be a plausible option for a few different reasons.

By contrast, in destroying the genophage data and preventing the opportunity to copy it, I can't be blackmailed with it going forward. Or rather, I couldn't be sanely blackmailed for what I don't have, which was good enough for me. Someone who might abort a deal if I destroyed the cure in front of them after their deal would be forced to face the delimma of the hour (ie, Reapers) without the chance to blackmail me for the data. Or, if the data led to a cure, the cure itself.

If the cure depended on the Data, that might have worked out. It would have been intersting, at least, and I was comfortable enough in the pragmaticism of Wrex and Wreave in ME2 that, even if they couldn't get a cure, they'd still be open to bargains.

Of course, Bioware rendered that prediction moot by making the cure occur regardless of the data. Ah well.

On a side note, renegade=smart? I don't think so

The point is that renegades should be efficient. Paragons are allowed to be inefficient because paragon morality means that some concerns override efficiency.

But if you adopt inefficient means to your ends for no reason, you are stupid.

I would accept 'goal oriented' instead of 'efficient' or even 'pragmatic' if the system allowed for failure on even a semi-regular basis.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 08 février 2014 - 07:42 .

[AlanC9]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

In my perspective at the time, I viewed the idea of the genophage data as something that could be blackmailed against me. If I kept the data, I might be able to use it... but it could also be used against me. If a Krogan leader learned I had it, then I could be coerced to hand it over. In such a context, destroying it then wouldn't be a plausible option for a few different reasons.

You've got a good point there. Something almost like this actually does happen in ME3. If you have the cure data you can't keep Mordin from using it. This doesn't actually cause problems for Shepard in ME3 as written since having Eve alive is a benefit whether or not Shepard intends to sabotage the genophage cure, though if Eve lives Shepard might have to shoot Mordin. But one can easily imagine this plot going another way.

I would accept 'goal oriented' instead of 'efficient' or even 'pragmatic' if the system allowed for failure on even a semi-regular basis.

One of the things about Bio's house style I've never cared for.

Modifié par AlanC9, 08 février 2014 - 07:53 .

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

In my perspective at the time, I viewed the idea of the genophage data as something that could be blackmailed against me. If I kept the data, I might be able to use it... but it could also be used against me. If a Krogan leader learned I had it, then I could be coerced to hand it over. In such a context, destroying it then wouldn't be a plausible option for a few different reasons.[/quote]

You've got a good point there. Something almost like this actually does happen in ME3. If you have the cure data you can't keep Mordin from using it. This doesn't actually cause problems for Shepard in ME3 as written since having Eve alive is a benefit whether or not Shepard intends to sabotage the genophage cure, though if Eve lives Shepard might have to shoot Mordin. But one can easily imagine this plot going another way.
[/quote]Indeed. In my (admittedly over-optimistic) speculation, I thought that curing the genophage would be more of a related possibility than the focus of the arc. I figured that, based on ME2's Wrex system revolving around exclusive breeding, and how Wreave was more shortsightedly pragmatic who wanted power over the other tribes more than a genophageless society, that the prospect of a genophage cure might be a Reaper gambit that Shepard and his Krogan ally would be trying to stop. Say, in that the Reapers strike a deal with some minor clan who's too stupid/indoctrinated/doesn't care past the vengeance, and in doing so threatens Clan Urdnot's hold on power. Maybe the Reaper cure also indoctrinated Krogan via nanomachines or something.

By the end, of course, Shepard could cure the genophage- maybe the Cure Data would be one of the elements to help mitigate the risk of it. But the prospect of being blackmailed into curing it would depend on the Data being intact.




[quote]
I would accept 'goal oriented' instead of 'efficient' or even 'pragmatic' if the system allowed for failure on even a semi-regular basis.
[/quote]

One of the things about Bio's house style I've never cared for.
[/quote]

[George Costanza]

They should keep it the same as Mass Effect 3 - a reputation system that allows access to both Paragon and Renegade options, so you can play as you like without being penalized for not picking the same choice every time.