From the looks of things, the Lazarus cell seems to be the only successful one that we actually get to see.
The shipyard cell that built the SR-2 did a great job. Cerberus AI research is also highly advanced, proof in the pudding is that EDI betrayed them!
The shipyard cell that built the SR-2 did a great job. Cerberus AI research is also highly advanced, proof in the pudding is that EDI betrayed them!
I have to give credit to their ship building team, they did a stand up job. Much better than that Alliance Normandy retrofit team.
I have to give credit to their ship building team, they did a stand up job. Much better than that Alliance Normandy retrofit team.
Well, Cerberus had 2 years, the Alliance guys had less than 6 months.
I have to give credit to their ship building team, they did a stand up job. Much better than that Alliance Normandy retrofit team.
No prizes for the team that build the ships guarding Chronos station though. The Fifth fleet neutralized them without taking a single casulty.
No prizes for the team that build the ships guarding Chronos station though. The Fifth fleet neutralized them without taking a single casulty.
Hackett activated his 'Righteous Fury' buff for that fight. Petrovsky could have countered it, but was indisposed.
No prizes for the team that build the ships guarding Chronos station though. The Fifth fleet neutralized them without taking a single casulty.
That's pure speculation, as well as failure to acknowledge that an entire Naval fleet was attacking a non-military target that, while significant, did not have the same kind of numbers as said Naval fleet.
Well, Cerberus had 2 years, the Alliance guys had less than 6 months.
As well Normandy SR-2 was nearly fully upgraded already.
So not a whole lot Alliance could have added either, without stamping on Geth and Reaper tech. Which would be unwise.
As well Normandy SR-2 was nearly fully upgraded already.
So not a whole lot Alliance could have added either, without stamping on Geth and Reaper tech. Which would be unwise.
I can't think of anything the alliance added to the Normandy that was beneficial or necessary. In fact, they seemed to take out many of the more useful features on it.
I miss the Cerberus SR-2 standard.
Well, Cerberus had 2 years, the Alliance guys had less than 6 months.
Well they stripped out the consoles and left wires dangling everywhere but somehow had time to fix the bar, install a poker table and a library, and somehow felt it was necessary to really dim the lights on the whole place.
Edit: This isn't a serious complaint from me (I guess the ship looks so taken apart to set a tone or something) but I do find it funny that because of it the implication that the retrofit team are really bad at their jobs.
Well they stripped out the consoles and left wires dangling everywhere but somehow had time to fix the bar, install a poker table and a library, and somehow felt it was necessary to really dim the lights on the whole place.
Yeah, the alliance should not have gotten so greedy over the Normandy. Seems like all the alliance logo's are their way of jealously trying to cover up the fact that Cerberus had a nicer toy than them.
That's pure speculation, as well as failure to acknowledge that an entire Naval fleet was attacking a non-military target that, while significant, did not have the same kind of numbers as said Naval fleet.
A fleet that has allready suffered losses in an earlier engament, and which could be even further depleted depending on previous actions
The reason why I'm saying the Fifth fleet didn't suffer any casulties at chronos is because if this were the case than we would have seen a deduction in war assets after the mission, which is not the case. Therefore it is reasonable to assume the Fifth didn't suffer any casulties, or at least not ones that would affect it's performance.
A fleet that has allready suffered losses in an earlier engament, which that could be even further depleted depending on previous actions
The reason why I'm saying the Fifth fleet didn't suffer any casulties at chronos is because if this were the case than we would have seen a deduction in war assets after the mission, which is not the case. Therefore it is reasonable to assume the Fifth didn't suffer any casulties, or at least not ones that would affect it's performance.
The Fleet has been mostly repaired and rearmed as best as they can, via some of the same assets that you're choosing to espouse. The assets aren't affected since it's a story mission, and they aren't going to dock you assets that might affect the story on principle. You're forgetting to separate the game mechanic from the story.
A fleet that has allready suffered losses in an earlier engament, and which could be even further depleted depending on previous actions
The reason why I'm saying the Fifth fleet didn't suffer any casulties at chronos is because if this were the case than we would have seen a deduction in war assets after the mission, which is not the case. Therefore it is reasonable to assume the Fifth didn't suffer any casulties, or at least not ones that would affect it's performance.
To be fair a lot of things that probably should deduct War Assets (not that they are particularly accurate) don't affect anything. Things like Rana taking out high ranking Asari military officials, Balek's vendetta stuff, etc.
To be fair a lot of things that probably should deduct War Assets (not that they are particularly accurate) don't affect anything. Things like Rana taking out high ranking Asari military officials, Balek's vendetta stuff, etc.
The war asset system is rather arbitrary anyways. It doesn't really follow to use it as a means to gauge the war effort.
The Fleet has been mostly repaired and rearmed as best as they can, via some of the same assets that you're choosing to espouse. The assets aren't affected since it's a story mission, and they aren't going to dock you assets that might affect the story on principle. You're forgetting to separate the game mechanic from the story.
The first part is unlikely speculation, given the fact that the Alliance wasn't able to recover from their losses during the battle of the citadel three years prior, it would be unreasonable to assume that they would be able to recover from their loses at Arcturus in mere months. Especially when considering that Arcutus was the only known Alliance shipyard.
And all this doesn't alter my point, even if you disregard war assets as not represenative for the story (which actually is reasonable, considering the many contradictions and inconsitancies) there is still no indiction that the Alliance sufferend any noteworthy casulties.
The first part is unlikely speculation, given the fact that the Alliance wasn't able to recover from their losses during the battle of the citadel three years prior, it would be unreasonable to assume that they would be able to recover from their loses at Arcturus in mere months. Especially when considering that Arcutus was the only known Alliance shipyard.
And all this doesn't alter my point, even if you disregard war assets as not represenative for the story (which actually is reasonable, considering the many contradictions and inconsitancies) there is still no indiction that the Alliance sufferend any noteworthy casulties.
Well, they have something called incentive and resources. Take a look at what that did for the U.S. Military in the Second World War. In September of 1939, the U.S. Navy was building less than 20 new ships a year. By the same point in 1944, they were putting out more than 30 Destroyers a month. So yes, when put under pressure, the military would be able to churn out more vessels than the average. Would it be the same as WWII? Definitely not. But it would be able to do so.
A tendency that you tend to rely on is the speculative fallacy. You make speculations, defend it as speculation when it's called on, and attack others for speculating and coming to a different conclusion. I very, very, very highly doubt that Arcturus was the only shipyard in the entire alliance.
And going on with your tendency to speculate, there's no evidence supporting that they didn't take casualties. You're using a point that has been acknowledged as invalid to support your claim, and when challenged you stick to your claim without further evidence and hold it to be more correct. Again, I disagree, and state that you have no ground to base your claim at all (and I am not making a claim) and are invalid to say that Cerberus shipright's are poor builders.
Project Lazarus was highly successful and saved the galaxy.
Yeah, I was just saying it was stupid. The guy was saying "Cerberus gave us Miranda and TIM so stfu" like it made everything else about Cerberus cool, I was just trying to be snarky. It wasn't very clever but it was late and I was procrastinating, don't judge me.
Still, probably worth pointing out that from TIM's perspective Lazarus kind of backfired as well in that Shepard didn't join him, killed his best enforcer and stole the SR-2. In fact, the suicide mission he sent Shep on got him the Reaper remains which indoctrinated him and ruined his whole organisation.
What are you getting at here, if I can ask? Just because they had a decent result does not mean that the actions should have taken place?
What I'm doing is making the familiar point that you don't deserve credit for an action that has good results if those good results were more a product of dumb luck than anything else. Sure it turned out that Lazarus worked out for the best, but was it reasonable to believe this when the project was undertaken? One of the things Shepard says to TIM early on in ME2 is, "You could have trained an army for what it cost to bring me back?" Honestly, I don't think we ever got a convincing answer to this point.
Yeah, I was just saying it was stupid. The guy was saying "Cerberus gave us Miranda and TIM so stfu" like it made everything else about Cerberus cool, I was just trying to be snarky. It wasn't very clever but it was late and I was procrastinating, don't judge me.
Still, probably worth pointing out that from TIM's perspective Lazarus kind of backfired as well in that Shepard didn't join him, killed his best enforcer and stole the SR-2. In fact, the suicide mission he sent Shep on got him the Reaper remains which indoctrinated him and ruined his whole organisation.
This game is about cycles. Eventually Shepard closed the Cerberus one by breaking free and killing all their guys.
What I'm doing is making the familiar point that you don't deserve credit for an action that has good results if those good results were more a product of dumb luck than anything else. Sure it turned out that Lazarus worked out for the best, but was it reasonable to believe this when the project was undertaken? One of the things Shepard says to TIM early on in ME2 is, "You could have trained an army for what it cost to bring me back?" Honestly, I don't think we ever got a convincing answer to this point.
I disagree completely. Yes, that was indeed anticipated by TIM and Miranda that Lazarus would indeed have this kind of result. In fact, that's why the entire project was undertaken. I really wouldn't call it dumb luck at all. I think Cerberus fully warrants all the credit that goes with this.
This game is about cycles. Eventually Shepard closed the Cerberus one by breaking free and killing all their guys.
And I'll say that in headcanon, he continues the cycle by rebuilding them and creating more projects in the same vein as TIM's Cerberus. That's where the cycle gets broken.
I disagree completely. Yes, that was indeed anticipated by TIM and Miranda that Lazarus would indeed have this kind of result. In fact, that's why the entire project was undertaken. I really wouldn't call it dumb luck at all. I think Cerberus fully warrants all the credit that goes with this.
Actually, considering what I heard in the Lazarus Project logs, it did kind of seem like a matter of luck. When the scientist objects to the chances of success, TIM's only response basically amounts to the idea that nothing is impossible with enough resources. There's no counter with some sort of theory of his own, which makes me wonder exactly how this concept occurred to him in the first place (assuming he was indeed the one that conjured up the Lazarus Project). It's basically "I can pay for it, so it can happen." The story pretty much makes it a success to bring the PC back, but in-universe, there would be a very good chance that no matter how much money and time he poured into this project, it could have been a failure just the same.
Cerberus anticipated success for Project Overlord as well.
Yeah, I was just saying it was stupid. The guy was saying "Cerberus gave us Miranda and TIM so stfu" like it made everything else about Cerberus cool, I was just trying to be snarky. It wasn't very clever but it was late and I was procrastinating, don't judge me.
Still, probably worth pointing out that from TIM's perspective Lazarus kind of backfired as well in that Shepard didn't join him, killed his best enforcer and stole the SR-2. In fact, the suicide mission he sent Shep on got him the Reaper remains which indoctrinated him and ruined his whole organisation.
Well, if that was what the other guy was saying, then I agree with him and denounce your words: A lot of other things about Cerberus were cool.
I don't think the Lazarus Project ever truly backfired in TIM's eyes. Hell, I think Cerberus as a whole accomplished what he wanted it to accomplish, regardless of how it ended up. TIM's a lot more of an idealist than a lot of people give him credit for, and his goal was achieved despite the material cost that he may or may not have even anticipated (and possibly even manipulated to happen). His stated goal was always the advancement and preservation of humanity. I think he accomplished that in a roundabout way, and I honestly, I believe that was his intent. That's why I view the man as unbridled genius. I think the one thing TIM didn't intend to happen was for indoctrination over himself, and that's the one point where his arrogance led to true folly.
Actually, considering what I heard in the Lazarus Project logs, it did kind of seem like a matter of luck. When the scientist objects to the chances of success, TIM's only response basically amounts to the idea that nothing is impossible with enough resources. There's no counter with some sort of theory of his own. It's basically "I can pay for it, so it can happen." The story pretty much makes it a success to bring the PC back, but in-universe, there would be a very good chance that no matter how much money and time he poured into this project, it could have been a failure just the same.
I'm a full believer in 'It's a matter of resources', and I actually rather resent the notion that science and technology, when given enough effort, understanding, and funding, can't overcome something like death. I do fully believe it will be possible to resurrect the dead at some point in the future.
IMO, put the right people in charge, give them the resources, and give them a very clear, distinct goal, and they will accomplish anything.
I have to give credit to their ship building team, they did a stand up job. Much better than that Alliance Normandy retrofit team.
We can't really determine whether or not the retrofit team did any better or worse in terms of quality, because the ship was clearly still in the process of being rebuilt when EDI hacked her way out of the drydock to escape, and really, the things they do add, like the entire war room setup, seems to work just fine.
Retour en haut