3598 réponses à ce sujet

[Dantriges]

Nah, not really. Mikefest did some calculations, based on the number of cycles, using the current amount of species as average and a tweet where a writer wrote about their losses overthe years and came up with 13k+ sovereign class ships and 140k in destroyers. I did some calculations myself where I deliberately tried to keep the number on the low side. My assumptions were that the 50k years cycle is relatively recent and 200k year cycles were the standard, assumed a 60% loss rate (unbelievably high)  and deducted some for good measure for races unsuitable for harvesting/harvest didn´t work like in the prothean case.

 

I still came up with something like ten times the amount of dreadnaughts the galaxy has together and 17k destroyers or so IIRC. The real number would be somewhere in between probably. The sheer number of Reaper is somewhere between crushing despair and overwhelming, their technological advantage is hard to quantify.

 

They were nowhere close to walking the razor´s edge.

[kal_reegar]

Nah, not really. Mikefest did some calculations, based on the number of cycles, using the current amount of species as average and a tweet where a writer wrote about their losses overthe years and came up with 13k+ sovereign class ships and 140k in destroyers. I did some calculations myself where I deliberately tried to keep the number on the low side. My assumptions were that the 50k years cycle is relatively recent and 200k year cycles were the standard, assumed a 60% loss rate (unbelievably high)  and deducted some for good measure for races unsuitable for harvesting/harvest didn´t work like in the prothean case.

 

I still came up with something like ten times the amount of dreadnaughts the galaxy has together and 17k destroyers or so IIRC. The real number would be somewhere in between probably. The sheer number of Reaper is somewhere between crushing despair and overwhelming, their technological advantage is hard to quantify.

 

They were nowhere close to walking the razor´s edge.

 

but how many reapers can be "made" from a single race? One, right?

So this cycle they can create, let's say around 10 new reapers.

 

If during the prothean cycle and this one they have a 20-30% loss rate (and increasing each cycle, since they are weaker and fewer everytime), on the long term they are done.

 

If the harvest-losses ratio became negative, and very much so, they are in serious trouble. Because it's something exponential.

 

 

 

P.S. the stargazer could be someone from the next cycle. But he can also be someone from a thousand cycle from the current one...

[Natureguy85]

There is nothing to suggest they sustain such losses. Sovereign was defeated because his barriers went down and he went brain dead, presumably because of some feedback or something from the defeat of his Saren puppet. We found one Reaper corpse in ME2 and another is mentioned being discovered by the Batarians. The one we board was from multiple cycles ago. Killing a Reaper is a big deal and rare, especially considering nobody gets to fight them with their full force, as this cycle does, and nobody gets to kill them early, when they can take advantage of the technology, as this cycle did.though only to make the Thanix Cannon.

[Dantriges]

I meant that 60% of all Reapers ever made, were destroyed in action, not that they lose 60% of their forces every cycle. The writers confirmed that our cycle is the first one where they actually had significant losses and losses from previous cycles were described as a few every cycle for destroyers and one every few cycles for the capitals.

 

If your next question is "how does that make sense at all," well seems we come back to this question every twenty minutes or so.

 

1000 cycles from now? Each dent this cycle made would have been lost in the static 10 cycles later. I like the 1000 cycles idea. 50 million years later, we finally made it, yay us.

[kal_reegar]

 

 

I meant that 60% of all Reapers ever made, were destroyed in action, not that they lose 60% of their forces every cycle. The writers confirmed that our cycle is the first one where they actually had significant losses and losses from previous cycles were described as a few every cycle for destroyers and one every few cycles for the capitals.

 

Don't get me wrong: what i'm about to say may seem a way to be right at any cost (very convenient, you will probably think), but it's not.

I never care about what the writers say. Or what comics, books etc say. It's irrelevant.

I use only in-game info to interpret a game. It's simply a matter of "method".

 

 

Anyway, to "go negative", and going more and more negative every cycle, it's enogh if they lose more than 10-15 reapers every time. And if every cycle is readier, and they are weaker, the losses will be higher...

 

they miss Ilos, they miss Javik, they miss the prothean beacons, they miss Mars archive, they miss Liara message, they miss the crucible... in my headcanon mass effect, since the badasses protheans stand against them with proud (yes, I'm a prothean fanboy), they are slowly losing efficiency. It's self evident

 

 

and than, 50 million years later, we finally made it, yay us :D

in the mean time, in a galaxy not so far away...

[Natureguy85]

I meant that 60% of all Reapers ever made, were destroyed in action, not that they lose 60% of their forces every cycle. The writers confirmed that our cycle is the first one where they actually had significant losses and losses from previous cycles were described as a few every cycle for destroyers and one every few cycles for the capitals.

 

If your next question is "how does that make sense at all," well seems we come back to this question every twenty minutes or so.

 

1000 cycles from now? Each dent this cycle made would have been lost in the static 10 cycles later. I like the 1000 cycles idea. 50 million years later, we finally made it, yay us.

 

I don't believe that. I doubt most cycles even kill one Reaper. Destroying the derelict took a weapon so large it tore a massive chunk out of a planet.

 

 

Don't get me wrong: what i'm about to say may seem a way to be right at any cost (very convenient, you will probably think), but it's not.

I never care about what the writers say. Or what comics, books etc say. It's irrelevant.

I use only in-game info to interpret a game. It's simply a matter of "method".

 

That is the correct method. WoG is useful sometimes but if they said one thing in the product and meant something else, no amount of WoG on what they meant can change it. We should look at what they said. Or they may want the audience to interpret things one way, but another interpretation is more obvious or sensible. It happens.

 

And secondary media, in this case anything but the Trilogy, should never contain information critical to Primary media, the games, if it isn't also in the games. Secondary media is for unimportant flavor and side content, like the Cerberus attack on the Quarian Flotilla or Anderson's run-in with Kai Leng.

[BloodyMares]

And secondary media, in this case anything but the Trilogy, should never contain information critical to Primary media, the games, if it isn't also in the games. Secondary media is for unimportant flavor and side content, like the Cerberus attack on the Quarian Flotilla or Anderson's run-in with Kai Leng.

And even in the game itself, plot-relevant data should not be presented in side elements. Sure, they may serve as a foreshadowing or reinforce what happens in the main plot but the crucial story points should only present themselves in the overarching plot. How many times I argued with gothpunkboy that DLC (at least not free), side quests, some ambient dialogues etc are not a strong evidence if the main plot doesn't have anything solid simply because not everyone wastes their time to examine the game through and through.

[Natureguy85]

And even in the game itself, plot-relevant data should not be presented in side elements. Sure, they may serve as a foreshadowing or reinforce what happens in the main plot but the crucial story points should only present themselves in the overarching plot. How many times I argued with gothpunkboy that DLC (at least not free), side quests, some ambient dialogues etc are not a strong evidence if the main plot doesn't have anything solid simply because not everyone wastes their time to examine the game through and through.

 

I think you're right for the most part but I might make exception if, say, the plot is about gathering information. In this case you'd have a set up like ME2 where you can go fight the Big Bad now or keep doing missions to gain intel or resources or whatever. And if you go early you might be lacking in something you need. But maybe the differences it would allow would not be plot but would just alter the ending or something. What I initially had in mind is Alpha Protocol, which, while they are not true side missions, allows you to do the three zones in any order and go back and forth. You may gain information in one area that will alter how things go in a different area compared to if you don't have it. That's not really plot though now that I think about it.

 

You are right however that, particularly in a game like ME that is trying to set up a premise, the main plot has to tell that story and the side content is merely to reinforce it, not to build it up in the first place..

[Dantriges]

Don't get me wrong: what i'm about to say may seem a way to be right at any cost (very convenient, you will probably think), but it's not.

I never care about what the writers say. Or what comics, books etc say. It's irrelevant.

I use only in-game info to interpret a game. It's simply a matter of "method".

 

No problem with that. IIRC it was only a tweet anyways. I only cited it, because it´s the only information we have about potential reaper losses.

 

I don't believe that. I doubt most cycles even kill one Reaper. Destroying the derelict took a weapon so large it tore a massive chunk out of a planet.

 

And according to the codex, four dreadnaughts can crack a Reaper, three when equipped with Thanix. Reaper destroyer are often found on the ground where their shields are substantially weaker.

The gun was probably overengineered as hell, IIRC it took out the Reapers from light years away and then hitting a planet in another system.

 

Funny thing is, I actually found the numbers rather low. Like Kal Reegar I somehow doubt that the protheans were unable to take out several destroyers and a sovereign or two during their 300 year struggle. The whole setting had some vibe of ancient being better, with the Leviathans, cannons with interstellar range, some unknown species coming up with the Crucible who actually knew what they did and the protheans http://tvtropes.org/...n/OlderIsBetter

 

But maybe I am mistaken and the prothean empire and stuff like that was the outlier rather than the norm.

[Natureguy85]

 

And according to the codex, four dreadnaughts can crack a Reaper, three when equipped with Thanix. Reaper destroyer are often found on the ground where their shields are substantially weaker.

The gun was probably overengineered as hell, IIRC it took out the Reapers from light years away and then hitting a planet in another system.

 

Funny thing is, I actually found the numbers rather low. Like Kal Reegar I somehow doubt that the protheans were unable to take out several destroyers and a sovereign or two during their 300 year struggle. The whole setting had some vibe of ancient being better, with the Leviathans, cannons with interstellar range, some unknown species coming up with the Crucible who actually knew what they did and the protheans http://tvtropes.org/...n/OlderIsBetter

 

But maybe I am mistaken and the prothean empire and stuff like that was the outlier rather than the norm.

 

Yes, but the Thanix cannon is from this cycle and reverse engineered from Sovereign. While a cycle here or there may have been able to kill a Reaper, and we know of two dead ones, nobody did it outside of the invasion. This cycle was able to study Sovereign during a time of peace. Any other cycle would have to try and do it while at war, with resources going to the actual fighting, infrastructure destroyed, systems isolated, people dead, and Indoctrinated agents infiltrating everything. And I'm sad to say I only just thought about this; apparently nobody in the cycles in between found either of the dead Reapers this cycle does.

 

I didn't consider the Destroyer Reapers because they are an ME3 addition, but that's more reasonable because they are weaker.

 

I am not surprised that the Protheans couldn't kill Reapers. In addition to the things I already listed above, no other cycle could coordinate or move fleets. Javik may change (retcon?) this, but the impression I got from Vigil was that any fleet battles were over very quickly. It was the extermination that took so long, not the war. The Reapers would defeat fleets without trouble and then have to scour every planet, moon, and asteroid that the Protheans had ever colonized.

[ImaginaryMatter]

There is nothing to suggest they sustain such losses. Sovereign was defeated because his barriers went down and he went brain dead, presumably because of some feedback or something from the defeat of his Saren puppet. We found one Reaper corpse in ME2 and another is mentioned being discovered by the Batarians. The one we board was from multiple cycles ago. Killing a Reaper is a big deal and rare, especially considering nobody gets to fight them with their full force, as this cycle does, and nobody gets to kill them early, when they can take advantage of the technology, as this cycle did.though only to make the Thanix Cannon.

 

I can't imagine the Reapers not taking a few losses during each cycle. The tactics the current cycle used didn't seem particularly spectacular (like guerrilla tactics), yet the proved effective at taking down a number of Reapers including capital ships. It seems like all you need to combat Reapers is the ability to roll sideways.

[BloodyMares]

I think you're right for the most part but I might make exception if, say, the plot is about gathering information. In this case you'd have a set up like ME2 where you can go fight the Big Bad now or keep doing missions to gain intel or resources or whatever. And if you go early you might be lacking in something you need. But maybe the differences it would allow would not be plot but would just alter the ending or something. What I initially had in mind is Alpha Protocol, which, while they are not true side missions, allows you to do the three zones in any order and go back and forth. You may gain information in one area that will alter how things go in a different area compared to if you don't have it. That's not really plot though now that I think about it.

 

You are right however that, particularly in a game like ME that is trying to set up a premise, the main plot has to tell that story and the side content is merely to reinforce it, not to build it up in the first place..

Oh I wish that ME2 and 3 were focused on gathering knowledge. ME1 for example is a quest for knowledge. Although our goal was to bring down Saren, doing so required investigating 4 leads which are a part of the main story that you can't skip. It was a big puzzle that we needed to solve by finding necessary pieces. This is a good way to tell a story about seeking knowledge. in ME2 and 3 however we are the errand boy, doing errands for TIM or the Alliance but never actually seeking for knowledge ourselves. I don't remember a single initiative from Shepard in the later games. He is just along for the ride.

[Natureguy85]

I can't imagine the Reapers not taking a few losses during each cycle. The tactics the current cycle used didn't seem particularly spectacular (like guerrilla tactics), yet the proved effective at taking down a number of Reapers including capital ships. It seems like all you need to combat Reapers is the ability to roll sideways.

Again, this cycle has advantages no others did. No other cycle killed the Vanguard, allowing them to develop technology from it. No other cycle is allowed to move ships once the invasion started. I don't think it's fair to make that judgement about other Cycles based on what this cycle does with those advantages.

[Ieldra]

yes, I'm a prothean fanboy

LOL, same here. Not a fan of their design - I liked the figures in ME1 better - but I like their culture. "Their sacrifice will be honored in the coming empire" seems callous at first glance, but it's really not, as you'll notice when Javik speaks of his team, and I've always been particular to the idea of empire.

[Dantriges]

Yes, but the Thanix cannon is from this cycle and reverse engineered from Sovereign.

 

It´s four dreadnaughts without the Thanix, just the usual standard kinetic main cannons.

 

 

I am not surprised that the Protheans couldn't kill Reapers. In addition to the things I already listed above, no other cycle could coordinate or move fleets. Javik may change (retcon?) this, but the impression I got from Vigil was that any fleet battles were over very quickly. It was the extermination that took so long, not the war. The Reapers would defeat fleets without trouble and then have to scour every planet, moon, and asteroid that the Protheans had ever colonized.

 

The fleets were still existing and still had to be somewhere.  If 4 turian dreadaughts can take out a Reaper capital ship, 4 prothean capital ships should be sufficient. These were guys who were able to nova stars. Fleet actions would have been over quickly but it´s a good question if the Reapers could have pulled off a perfect zero losses score.

And Reapers are weakened on the ground. They still want to harvest/collectivise protheans.

 

Well anyways the whole thing is about Reaper losses in general. It really doesn´t matter if 20.000 sovereigns and 240.000 destroyers roflstomp you or 15.000 Sovereigns and 180.000 destroyers.

[dorktainian]

come on, it's not like that.

the reapers goal is to eradicate advanced organics civilizations before they are able to create the kind of synth that will destroy all organic life (a sort of grey goo scenario, I suppose).

the axiom  (synth and organics will always try to destroy each other, and synth will prevail) can be wrong, but the reasoning of the catalyst/reapers is not flawed

 

 

at its core,  it really is like that.  The logic fail is quite astounding.  Create Synthetics to harvest/destroy organics to prevent them from creating synthetics to destroy organics.  Starjars reasoning is fundamentally flawed.  To save us he has to kill us to stop us creating AI that will kill us.  It's that bonkers.

[dorktainian]

I still came up with something like ten times the amount of dreadnaughts the galaxy has together and 17k destroyers or so IIRC. The real number would be somewhere in between probably. The sheer number of Reaper is somewhere between crushing despair and overwhelming, their technological advantage is hard to quantify.

 

 

The number literally could be unimaginable. 

[fraggle]

To save us he has to kill us to stop us creating AI that will kill us.  It's that bonkers.

 

It really is not. The Catalyst uses the Reapers to kill organics, but to the Catalyst this is to preserve their essence and knowledge in that way, before it's lost forever. Which would be the case if it would just sit by and watch synthetics wipe out organics.

Now, as kal said, the axiom might be wrong because synthetics might not always wipe out organics, but it is what the Catalyst works with and sees as absolute truth. And thus it is not wrong to the Catalyst. From its perspective, it is very logical. Some people just refuse to see it from the Catalyst's point of view.

[themikefest]

I will quote myself from another thread

 

Spoiler

Sovereign in ME1
capital ship in Leviathan dlc
capital ship before landing in London
destroyer on Tuchanka
destroyer on Rannoch
destroyer in London
intel from a destroyed destroyer in Exodus Cluster

 

They destroyed several capital ships during the Battle of Palaven

Spoiler

Knowing that the Reapers' weapons had a longer effective range than any of his own, Coronati made a short, daring FTL jump--landing his dreadnoughts in the middle of the Reaper fleet. The dreadnoughts then turned to line up their main guns on the Reapers, which also needed to turn to fire on the turians. This ploy used the Reapers' size against them--because they could turn faster, the turian dreadnoughts locked targets first, and their concentrated firepower downed several Reaper capital ships.

Later during the Miracle of Palaven, a number of processing ships, troop transport ships, destroyers and capital ships were destroyed all over the planet. No idea how many of each

Spoiler

In simultaneous strikes across the globe, Reaper ships began to explode. Turian resistance members had managed to smuggle the bombs inside when the Reaper processing ships, troop transports, and even destroyers and capital ships had opened their structures to indoctrinated turian leaders.

With the asari there is no known number of how many reapers they destroyed

Spoiler

The assault on Thessia did not go as smoothly as the Reapers' strikes against other races. While other species met the Reapers head-on, the asari resorted to dangerous hit-and-run tactics to harass their attackers. By engaging in guerilla strategies--blasting a Reaper ship, then jumping to FTL where they could not be tracked--the asari forced the Reapers to remain on the defensive.

On Illium instead of targeting the capital ships, they targeted the troop transport ships

Spoiler

Reaper forces met a surprising amount of resistance at Illium. Its leaders were paranoid about keeping their fortunes, and were influential in both Terminus and Citadel space. They acquired a large defense fleet and a high number of fission weapons, and in the brief space battle, used them on the Reaper fleet's troop transports rather than their near-impervious capital ships. As a result, the inevitable ground invasion has been slowed to a crawl as the Reapers manufacture more troops.

 

On Earth 3 Hades Cannons were destroyed

 

So yes in this cycle the reapers have taken a number of losses, just don't know the exact number.  More  losses have occurred in this cycle verus any other cycle

 

The above is only because we had advanced warning of the reapers, the relays were used and the reapers weren't able to use the Citadel relay  for the surprise attack. I'm sure if previous cycles had the same as us, the reapers might be destroyed long before our cycle started

 

Spoiler

Yes they have a lot. I would also include processing ships and troop transport ships. The scene showing the reapers approaching the Milky Way, after the suicide mission, shows what looks to be processing ships and troop transport ships along with other reaper ships

 

A post on the first page mentions that Casey Hudson says that only a few destroyers are lost each cycle while one  capital ship is lost every few cycles.

 

I will use the number 3 to represent few.

 

That means that 6 667 capitals ships have been destroyed if I use the 50 000 year cycle over 1 billion years and 60 000 destroyers are destroyed in the last 1 billion years. 

 

So when the reapers arrive at the beginning of our cycle they have about 13 333 capital ships plus destroyers, processing ships and troop transport ships

 

Of course I have no idea how long the 50 000 year cycle has been happening. Leviathan mentions that the intelligence directed the reapers to build the relays so the number from above most likely would be lower. If the reapers have been around longer than 1 billion years, then the number above most likely would be higher. At the moment its just guessing until Bioware says how long the 50 000 year cycle has been happening

 

With that many destroyed over that period of time I would say more of them would've been discovered in space. As far as I know the only two that are discovered  is the one the Batarians found and the one Shepard boards to get the IFF.

 

Here's some possibilities. The reapers destroy whatever is left of the dead reaper so no one will find it and  study it. The reapers reuse them to replenish whatever losses they encountered during the harvest. Or they could just rebuild the dead reaper

 

Lets say Shepard picks refuse letting the reapers harvest us. It would take them a fair amount of time to replenish their losses. 

 

If using the 13 333 number from above, there is no way we have a chance to defeat them without the crucible. Had the reapers not been stupid in ME3, the crucible wouldn't of been built. With that number the reapers have, the only way to defeat them is to find the plans for the crucible, build it and then use it before the reapers enter the galaxy

 

Even if the reapers had 10% of the number in the above post, they still would be able to beat us very easily.

 

If interested, here's the thread  from where I quoted myself

[Iakus]

I can't imagine the Reapers not taking a few losses during each cycle. The tactics the current cycle used didn't seem particularly spectacular (like guerrilla tactics), yet the proved effective at taking down a number of Reapers including capital ships. It seems like all you need to combat Reapers is the ability to roll sideways.

This is largely because this cycle the Reapers were idiots and didn't capture the Citadel right away.  With control of the relays, they could have poured thousands of Reapers into a system and crush any resistance while the rest of the galaxy can do nothing to help.  It's slow, but certain.

[Natureguy85]

It´s four dreadnaughts without the Thanix, just the usual standard kinetic main cannons.

 

Where is that stated? I remember reading the line about 4 dreadnaughts but everything in at least the council fleets has Thanix cannons now, right down to Fighters. The wiki page on Reapers (not codex) says:

 

"They are extremely durable, capable of taking the continuous and simultaneous fire of four dreadnoughts before they start to lose their kinetic barriers."

 

Note "start to lose" and that's just barriers. That's also not counting that the Reaper gun will kill a dreadnought in one hit and Sovereign had multiple of them. It looks like he has one in each leg. I know they showed it coming from the "mouth" in ME3 though.

[dorktainian]

It really is not. The Catalyst uses the Reapers to kill organics, but to the Catalyst this is to preserve their essence and knowledge in that way, before it's lost forever. Which would be the case if it would just sit by and watch synthetics wipe out organics.

Now, as kal said, the axiom might be wrong because synthetics might not always wipe out organics, but it is what the Catalyst works with and sees as absolute truth. And thus it is not wrong to the Catalyst. From its perspective, it is very logical. Some people just refuse to see it from the Catalyst's point of view.

 

but since the story is told from a very organic point of view, then the catalysts reasoning is utterly bonkers and circular.  Let organics grow for 50,000 years then snuff them out just in case they build AI that will snuff them out.  The catalyst is not at war because he fails to see the definition of war, and fails to acknowledge he is wrong, only dealing in absolutes.  Only Shepard can make the choice, meaning the catalyst doesn't get his hands dirty.

 

Then there's the Reapers.  'His' solution.  A solution to a problem that does not exist anymore.  Utterly redundant yet he's justifying using them anyway.  He's just a genocidal AI watching his flock burn.

 

He is flat out absolutely wrong.   

[themikefest]

This is largely because this cycle the Reapers were idiots and didn't capture the Citadel right away.  With control of the relays, they could have poured thousands of Reapers into a system and crush any resistance while the rest of the galaxy can do nothing to help.  It's slow, but certain.

They didn't have to go to the Citadel first. Just send the whole reaper fleet to a system, leave x number of reapers to guard the relay while the rest harvest that system. Once done, move to the next system and repeat.

 

Yes the reapers were made idiots in ME3. How else can you explain....

 

Why didn't they shutoff the beam to the Citadel in London?

Why didn't the destroyer fire at the Normandy instead of firing at the two shuttles?

Why didn't the destroyer on Tuchanka and Rannoch fire horizontally at Shepard instead of vertically?

[Natureguy85]

It really is not. The Catalyst uses the Reapers to kill organics, but to the Catalyst this is to preserve their essence and knowledge in that way, before it's lost forever. Which would be the case if it would just sit by and watch synthetics wipe out organics.

Now, as kal said, the axiom might be wrong because synthetics might not always wipe out organics, but it is what the Catalyst works with and sees as absolute truth. And thus it is not wrong to the Catalyst. From its perspective, it is very logical. Some people just refuse to see it from the Catalyst's point of view.

 

And why should I consider the point of view of my enemy, a murderous abomination?

 

 

 

 

They didn't have to go to the Citadel first. Just send the whole reaper fleet to a system, leave x number of reapers to guard the relay while the rest harvest that system. Once done, move to the next system and repeat.

 

Yes the reapers were made idiots in ME3. How else can you explain....

 

Why didn't they shutoff the beam to the Citadel in London?

Why didn't the destroyer fire at the Normandy instead of firing at the two shuttles?

Why didn't the destroyer on Tuchanka and Rannoch fire horizontally at Shepard instead of vertically?

 

Well, I always thought Sovereign was bluffing or at least exaggerating their numbers. If they are as numerous as they appear in ME3, there is no need for the "divide and conquer" strategy. It would be more efficient for them to herd everyone together and destroy them all at once, like what actually happens in ME3.

 

Forget firing horizontally, the Reaper should just do a direct hit. But while it looks silly, that never bothered me too much to set up gameplay, rather than set up story.

[Eryri]

but since the story is told from a very organic point of view, then the catalysts reasoning is utterly bonkers and circular. Let organics grow for 50,000 years then snuff them out just in case they build AI that will snuff them out. The catalyst is not at war because he fails to see the definition of war, and fails to acknowledge he is wrong, only dealing in absolutes. Only Shepard can make the choice, meaning the catalyst doesn't get his hands dirty.

Then there's the Reapers. 'His' solution. A solution to a problem that does not exist anymore. Utterly redundant yet he's justifying using them anyway. He's just a genocidal AI watching his flock burn.

He is flat out absolutely wrong.

He's not even wrong. He is, as you say, trying to solve a problem that the game shows you doesn't exist (except for the Reapers themselves), and isn't even particularly interesting. Using any of his solutions to try to "fix" the Galaxy is like giving a massive, and brutally destructive, dose of radiotherapy to someone who doesn't actually have cancer.