361 réponses à ce sujet

[AntarcticWildlife]

What would you propose then? Assuming that there's a realistically excuse for everything.

 

Literally anything that has thought put into it. Id accept anything that isn't 'resources' or 'space magic' or 'mass effect fields did it'.

[Iakus]

Literally anything that has thought put into it. Id accept anything that isn't 'resources' or 'space magic' or 'mass effect fields did it'.

Hell "lyrium" is better thought out than some ME "science"

[Il Divo]

Which makes Hackett's claims of the Crucible being such a massive project, needing the help of "everyone who can hold a hammer" sound pretty silly if there's another, equally massive project happening on the side.

 

The two aren't mutually exclusive in any sense though. Just because you're prepping the equivalent of a time capsule doesn't mean you don't need the help of everyone who can hold a hammer for your other massive Reaper-destroying project. 

 

Like Alan points out, without hard numbers, speculation about its feasibility is fruitless. 

[Iakus]

The two aren't mutually exclusive in any sense though. Just because you're prepping the equivalent of a time capsule doesn't mean you don't need the help of everyone who can hold a hammer for your other massive Reaper-destroying project. 

 

Like Alan points out, without hard numbers, speculation about its feasibility is fruitless. 

It's silly when you consider half-arsing two massive projects when galactic life is on the line is not a good long-term investment.

 

Edit:  Actually, does this mean that I can blame this "Ark" project for the Crucible being damaged no matter how high my EMS score is?  

[Il Divo]

It's silly when you consider half-arsing two massive projects when galactic life is on the line is not a good long-term investment.

 

Except what you're describing isn't a good long term investment, the equivalent of placing all your eggs in one basket (the Crucible).

 

Without an accurate sense of our resource count, there's no grounds to talk about whether we're half-assing either one or both projects. 

[Iakus]

Except what you're describing isn't a good long term investment, the equivalent of placing all your eggs in one basket (the Crucible).

 

Without an accurate sense of our resource count, there's no grounds to talk about whether we're half-assing either one or both projects. 

Then where are the resources to build the Ark coming from?

 

Because it sounds like regardless of the state of the Crucible, this "Ark" canonically works.

[Il Divo]

 

 

Edit:  Actually, does this mean that I can blame this "Ark" project for the Crucible being damaged no matter how high my EMS score is?  

 

This is actually what I was getting at. Let's use arbitrary units:

 

You have 15 resources. 

 

It takes 10 to guarantee the Ark is built effectively and 5 to build the Crucible. Assuming we give the Ark greater overall priority, you'll still have enough to construct a Crucible, possibly give or take a few extra parts depending on how diligent Shepard is about his readiness rating.

[Il Divo]

Then where are the resources to build the Ark coming from?

 

Because it sounds like regardless of the state of the Crucible, this "Ark" canonically works.

 

I addressed this above, mathematically it can work assuming the Ark is given first priority, especially given that the Crucible is in a variable "ready" state. 

 

That's why I say without solid numbers disproving the resource count, the values are whatever Bioware needs them to be to firmly complete the Ark and have some shot at a crucible. 

 

From a narrative stand point, this works even better if ME:A gives us reason to believe that the Ark has a high chance of working relative to the crucible, since we'll be pumping more resources into the more likely success relative to the less likely success. 

[Iakus]

This is actually what I was getting at. Let's use arbitrary units:

 

You have 15 resources. 

 

It takes 10 to guarantee the Ark is built effectively and 5 to build the Crucible. Assuming we give the Ark greater overall priority, you'll still have enough to construct a Crucible, possibly give or take a few extra parts depending on how diligent Shepard is about his readiness rating.

 

Wouldn't the focus be in "save the galaxy" rather than "send a few thousand/tens of thousands to maybe slow death in the dark between galaxies"?

[Iakus]

I addressed this above, mathematically it can work assuming the Ark is given first priority, especially given that the Crucible is in a variable "ready" state. 

 

That's why I say without solid numbers disproving the resource count, the values are whatever Bioware needs them to be to firmly complete the Ark and have some shot at a crucible. 

 

From a narrative stand point, this works even better if ME:A gives us reason to believe that the Ark has a high chance of working relative to the crucible, since we'll be pumping more resources into the more likely success relative to the less likely success. 

I question the Ark getting priority.

 

The Ark idea is a lifeboat.  Lifeboats are for when the main plan fails and there is no hope of salvaging the situation.

 

Not to mention the enormously dangerous aspect of the Ark, which uses tech which has never, so far as we know existed in the Mass Effect setting.  It's sacrificing the galaxy and most of it's population on a huge "maybe"  The Crucible idea is insane enough.  Now we're doubling down on unknown alien tech?

[Il Divo]

Wouldn't the focus be in "save the galaxy" rather than "send a few thousand/tens of thousands to maybe slow death in the dark between galaxies"?

 

Certainly, if we had a 100% coherent plan for how saving the galaxy works. As it stands, for quite a while, the extent of our Crucible knowledge is that it's a massive energy source. That's one of the criticisms directed at the ME3 plotline is that we're essentially throwing money on a billion to one chance at victory because we don't believe conventional victory to be possible. 

 

Those values change when you consider the scale of the Reaper threat and the (hypothetical) possibility of the Ark having a higher chance of success. 

 

Saving the galaxy represents our #1 best case scenario where everything goes perfectly. But we can't weigh the best course of action in the strict confines of the perfect solution given the stakes and the probability of that scenario. 

[Iakus]

 

Saving the galaxy represents our #1 best case scenario where everything goes perfectly. But we can't weigh the best course of action in the strict confines of the perfect solution given the stakes and the probability of that scenario. 

And sending your last remaining population to another galaxy using untested propulsion and fuel is a good backup plan?  Without even a guarantee of finding a world to colonize or alien civilizations that won't shoot on sight?

 

Why not send some ships out to the edge of dark space and hang out for a century or two until the Reapers retreat.

 

Heck you could have them hang out in interstellar space rather than intergalactic!  The Reapers would never find them unless they knew where to look!

 

Much safer and more cost efficient.  heck the Protheans tried that, but made the mistake of using a bunker on a colony world that the Reapers could find!

[Il Divo]

I question the Ark getting priority.

 

The Ark idea is a lifeboat.  Lifeboats are for when the main plan fails and there is no hope of salvaging the situation.

 

Not to mention the enormously dangerous aspect of the Ark, which uses tech which has never, so far as we know existed in the Mass Effect setting.  It's sacrificing the galaxy and most of it's population on a huge "maybe"  The Crucible idea is insane enough.  Now we're doubling down on unknown alien tech?

 

To continue the analogy, the Ark idea is a lifeboat. The main plan in this scenario is the equivalent of keeping the ship afloat using a bucket. When the plan being offered is build some machine whose base function we don't understand, you're not operating from the best stand point of saving the galaxy. 

 

Regarding unknown alien tech, that depends on a few questions: does this alien tech come with more reliable plans regarding how we can leave the MW? If so, it's far more reliable than any Crucible plan.

 

As I said, the problem is the over emphasis on the saving the galaxy outcome. 

 

 

[Il Divo]

And sending your last remaining population to another galaxy using untested propulsion and fuel is a good backup plan?  Without even a guarantee of finding a world to colonize or alien civilizations that won't shoot on sight?

 

Why not send some ships out to the edge of dark space and hang out for a century or two until the Reapers retreat.

 

Heck you could have them hang out in interstellar space rather than intergalactic!  The Reapers would never find them unless they knew where to look!

 

Much safer and more cost efficient.  heck the Protheans tried that, but made the mistake of using a bunker on a colony world that the Reapers could find!

 

Note that any claims made regarding untested technology applies equally to the Crucible. With the Ark however, it's possible for the writers to give us a better idea of its function and probability of success, assuming we're writing Andromeda in the most coherent way possible. 

 

That's the key issue here: we don't even have an idea of what the Crucible does, so we couldn't even have a sense of its chances for success....at whatever it's going to do, which could be nothing. That's not necessarily the case with the Ark. 

 

Let's keep the scenario going: Sovereign told us that the Reapers are keeping us on paths they design. Maybe some other species from another galaxy (whose evolution was independent) made it to the Milky Way. We uncover the remnants (or whatever we'd like to call them), which leads us to the Ark possibility, which the ME scientists confirm is plausible, but requires a crap ton of resources. 

[themikefest]

If the ship leaves before the events of ME3, resources won't be a problem in ME3

[Iakus]

Note that any claims made regarding untested technology applies equally to the Crucible. With the Ark however, it's possible for the writers to give us a better idea of its function and probability of success, assuming we're writing Andromeda in the most coherent way possible. 

 

After the Lazarus Project and the Crucible, that's not a leap of faith I'm willing to make.

 

 

 

That's the key issue here: we don't even have an idea of what the Crucible does, so we couldn't even have a sense of its chances for success....at whatever it's going to do, which could be nothing. That's not necessarily the case with the Ark.

 

Why?

 

 

Let's keep the scenario going: Sovereign told us that the Reapers are keeping us on paths they design. Maybe some other species from another galaxy (whose evolution was independent) made it to the Milky Way. We uncover the remnants (or whatever we'd like to call them), which leads us to the Ark possibility, which the ME scientists confirm is plausible, but requires a crap ton of resources.

 

Sure.  Rama Theory.

 

But why are these mysterious alien blueprints any more reliable than the mysterious alien blueprints on Mars?

[Iakus]

If the ship leaves before the events of ME3, resources won't be a problem in ME3

 

If they really want to leave the endings behind, that's the way to go.

 

But why such an undertaking would be made by a complacent galaxy is a question.

 

not to mention where was this tech during the trilogy.

[themikefest]

If they really want to leave the endings behind, that's the way to go.

 

But why such an undertaking would be made by a complacent galaxy is a question.

 

not to mention where was this tech during the trilogy.

For exploration reasons.

 

As I said in another thread, its possible some very wealthy folks want to make a daring mission to Andromeda. They have the funds to hire x number of people to build the ship and research all that is needed to have the ship make it to Andromeda. All people that go on the ship are volunteers. All range in skills and backgrounds. Even a few security forces go along for the ride to keep everyone safe. 

 

Would others know about the project? Possibly. Some may even think that its impossible or that the people involved are nuts.

 

This would avoid any choices that are made during ME3. The reapers will never have to be mentioned except as a rumor.

 

By the time the reapers show up in the Milky Way, no one will give a second thought to the ship since they will be focused on stopping the reapers

[Drone223]

I question the Ark getting priority.

 

The Ark idea is a lifeboat.  Lifeboats are for when the main plan fails and there is no hope of salvaging the situation.

 

Not to mention the enormously dangerous aspect of the Ark, which uses tech which has never, so far as we know existed in the Mass Effect setting.  It's sacrificing the galaxy and most of it's population on a huge "maybe"  The Crucible idea is insane enough.  Now we're doubling down on unknown alien tech?

Pretty much, there can be no room for error in an ark project since there will be no one there to help them if the people on the ark find themselves in a bad situation. Also the whole ark project will be just as risky as the crucible, since like the crucible its going to have a lot of uncertainties about it succeeding.

[Il Divo]

 

 

After the Lazarus Project and the Crucible, that's not a leap of faith I'm willing to make.

 

 

 

 

And while that may be true, that doesn't negate the point.  Whether the writers take that is another question entirely, which I'm skeptical of happening. But that more than addresses the point of us having enough resources to build the Crucible and the Ark. Your assertion was that we don't have enough to do both, which is disprovable without concrete numbers. My assertion is that it is possible for the Ark to fit into a scenario to make both compatible. 

 

Why?

 

 

 

I'll explain below. 

 

Sure.  Rama Theory.

 

But why are these mysterious alien blueprints any more reliable than the mysterious alien blueprints on Mars?

 

 

The key thing is that, the mysterious alien blueprints on Mars were written by Bioware in such a way that we were able to construct the Crucible, but had absolutely no clue as to what it was doing. Whoever did the Crucible schematics apparently forgot to include that portion, beyond the architecture. 

 

That's not a requirement with the Ark. There's nothing stopping the writers from incorporating the schematics along with an explanation of the Ark's function and technology, in some capacity. That's the key difference here. One or both of those last two elements can make a pretty huge impact in terms of the feasibility of our "Preserve the galaxy" plan.

 

When we have no idea of what the Crucible is actually going to do in any reasonable capacity, evaluating its utility to save the galaxy is pointless, by comparison. 

[themikefest]

Pretty much, there can be no room for error in an ark project since there will be no one there to help them if the people on the ark find themselves in a bad situation. Also the whole ark project will be just as risky as the crucible, since like the crucible its going to have a lot of uncertainties about it succeeding.

My biggest concern for the ship is defenses against any enemy attacks that might happen

[ZipZap2000]

In a fictional universe where TIM can apparently just throw money on a corpse until it magically returns to live, my guess is that someone will just throw money at a ship until it can suddenly travel to another galaxy in a resonable amount of time.

You cant fight this logic.

[Nitrocuban]

I bet 9000 space moneys it will be some kind of alien artifact slingshooting the Not-Normandy and some other ships to Andromeda, exploding right after taht and our new hero has to get along with the other ships (with every known race BW wants to have in Andromeda) while searching for a way to get back and/or planets to build a new home for mankind.

[AntarcticWildlife]

If they really want to leave the endings behind, that's the way to go.

But why such an undertaking would be made by a complacent galaxy is a question. Its a journey being made out of nessecity rather than because exploring.

not to mention where was this tech during the trilogy.

Isnt the purpose to find a new home for humanity? Implying that the exisiting one is no longer a viable long term habitat.

[Ahriman]

not to mention where was this tech during the trilogy.

First thing which comes to mind - they found working Space Magic Drive, but couldn't replicate it. I'm (almost)sure profressional writers can come up with dozen of more interesting explanations.