47 réponses à ce sujet

[SNascimento]

That's not what Han was saying though. His point was that they could have been built during the Rachni War, not in anticipation of a future war. That war, from the lore description, was nearly as bad as the Reaper War. The Rachni were conquering the Milky Way system by system, pressing on Asari and Salarian space, and they couldn't be stopped. The Citadel species were losing the war, miserably. Every indication was that the Rachni would succeed in galactic conquest, and that meant extinction for the Asari and Salarians (and the Volus and other species that no one really cares about ).

So they got desperate. They uplifted the Krogan, but there was no guarantee that even that would work. So it makes perfect sense that they would have a plan B, and like the Reaper War, if you can't win then the only other choice is to run and hide.

Really, built an Ark to travel to another galaxy? Because of the Rachni Wars? I know the Asari and Salarians were losing, but do the Codex actually mentioned any race was actually entertaining the thought they might be wiped out?

Anyway, I think that is just as bad as building the Arks after ME1. Which means it is just as good too! 

[dreamgazer]

If they tie the ark ships to the threat of the krogan and rachni, I'll give them a hearty pat on the back.

[Han Shot First]

I'd say that's extremely far fetched. First because it seems like a drastic and ineffective overreaction and second because the technology needed to build the Arks is not something the galaxy seems to have during the Reapers War, let alone centuries before. The first issue is somewhat solved by the Reapers. The second however I look foward to see how they will answer.

1. The codex entry on the Rachni Wars make it clear that they were potentially apocalyptic. It was why the Council took the drastic steps of both uplifting the Krogan, and sanctioning the annihilation of the Rachni. I don't see how an ark Plan B would be far-fetched when we have examples of the Council opting for extreme measures twice during the conflict, and are told that the Rachni were both relentless and couldn't be negotiated with. When a defeat potentially means extinction, you're going to need an extreme worst case scenario plan to ensure the continuation of life

2. All the technology to get to Andromeda exists and is accessible to the Council species during the Shepard trilogy. Static discharge tech for deep space is used on space stations like the Citadel, cryopods are a thing, and conventional FTL is capable of getting a ship to Andromeda in 500+ years. The only obstacle to getting to Andromeda is the need to refuel along the way, but that isn't necessarily an insurmountable one. Dark space isn't really dark. As many as half of all stars and planets in existence lie between galaxies rather than in them. The writers could quite easily skirt the fuel problem by having the arks take a zig-zagging, rather than a direct, route to Andromeda, refueling along the way. Throw a couple exoplanets in between and call it a day.

[Kabooooom]

Really, built an Ark to travel to another galaxy? Because of the Rachni Wars? I know the Asari and Salarians were losing, but do the Codex actually mentioned any race was actually entertaining the thought they might be wiped out?

Anyway, I think that is just as bad as building the Arks after ME1. Which means it is just as good too!

Yeah, like Han said, if you read all of the Rachni War codex entries, and also minor things from game dialogue like how the Rachni were sequentially invading Citadel worlds in Asari space, it paints a pretty apocalyptic picture - they were losing the war and planet after planet fell to the Rachni. The war couldn't be won without doing something drastic, and there was every indication that every single Council world would fall to the Rachni with time.

Side note: this is why I think the Noveria choice is extremely douchey for Shep to decide alone. Kaiden had the best idea - we should have had the option to leave it up to the Council. Humans weren't around then, we had no authority to make a decision of that magnitude in a vacuum.

[Laughing_Man]

Honestly It's been a while since I read the Codex about space travel in Mass Effect so I don't remember it that much. But my view that the galaxy doesn't have the technology has to do with my view that developing a giant vessel capable of doing that travel is another scale of challenge than building the ships we see in the trilogy. So I can't argue this points much. But what about fuel?

Regardless, if we just consider the discharge issue. If we consider that they solved that problem, why wasn't it made common knowledge? That technology would greatly improve ships. Keeping it in secret seems... unproductive. 

Further, the technology is not only about the Ark. The Tempest seems more advanced than the Normandy, so are the "Kodiaks" we see.

Not to mention, do you really think that the best answer to a future war is to built Arks instead of improving your military? It doesn't make any sense. If you have a way to solve the discharge problem, why wouldn't you equip your at least your military crafts with it, for example.
 

 

Regarding discharge, the fact that this option exists on space stations means that there are ways to manage the problem,

they are simply not efficient if your craft is not huge. Again, transferring the charge through some complicated system back into

the power plant seems not too far fetched.

 

And for all we know this technology isn't a secret, it's merely irrelevant due to size and complexity of the systems needed to eliminate the discharge.

 

Regarding re-fueling on the way, there are factors that make this problem slightly less crucial:

 

First, if needed the Arks could possibly spend most of the trip on a ballistic trajectory once they reach a sufficiently high top speed.

That would cut substantially on the amount of power needed, since the engines won't have to be active.

 

And as for the drive cores, even if you still need to maintain a mass effect bubble around the vehicle due to various FTL risks,

the power draw should be manageable assuming you have access to fusion technology and perhaps some rogue planets or other bodies to

stop by on the way and refuel.

 

Finally, if this is an act of desperation, they can always use riskier sources of fuel, like dark matter for example.

(should be easier for their technology, what's with their mastery of dark energy)

 

Regarding the logic of investing in such a plan instead of in improvement of military power, there could be multiple reasons.

 

Perhaps they reached a plateau of technology, perhaps the needed funds to significantly improve the military power of the citadel were much bigger

than this investment, perhaps they actually did both.

 

Or maybe they only had plans on "paper" in case of a true emergency, perhaps the Reaper attack on the citadel at the end of ME1 has shaken the council

much more than they admitted, and have decided to reactivate those plans.

 

There are many possibilities and speculations for everyone...

[SNascimento]

I can see merit in the idea, but I wasting a huge amount of resources to built ark ships during either the Rachini Wars or the Krogan Rebellions seems way too drastic and ineffective. 

We are talking about a plan that would involve giving up all your civilization and 99,9% of people alive to a war that can absolute be fought. It's not about just having or not having an ark. Just imagine the amount of resources that would need to be diverted from the war effort to make such a project possible. Indeed, in the very least, multiple dreadnoughts would be able to be built with the same amount of resources. And that can change a course of a war.

So unless the utterly destruction of your civlization is imminent and only a miracle could save it. I can't quality the decission of building a few arks instead of multiple warships to be a reasonable one. Maybe those two past wars were just that, but I would ask strong evidence of that.

[Kabooooom]

I can see merit in the idea, but I wasting a huge amount of resources to built ark ships during either the Rachini Wars or the Krogan Rebellions seems way too drastic and ineffective.

We are talking about a plan that would involve giving up all your civilization and 99,9% of people alive to a war that can absolute be fought. It's not about just having or not having an ark. Just imagine the amount of resources that would need to be diverted from the war effort to make such a project possible. Indeed, in the very least, multiple dreadnoughts would be able to be built with the same amount of resources. And that can change a course of a war.

So unless the utterly destruction of your civlization is imminent and only a miracle could save it. I can't quality the decission of building a few arks instead of multiple warships to be a reasonable one. Maybe those two past wars were just that, but I would ask strong evidence of that.

I think that's the point though - the destruction of their civilization was imminent. The impression the lore gives is that the war was basically lost and fighting was an exercise in futility. Uplifting the Krogan was their last ditch effort to fight, and they were uncertain how successful that would be. So it makes perfect sense to spend resources on an escape plan in the face of those odds.

Fortunately, the Krogan kicked major ass.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

That's not very accurate.

 

All they needed was cryogenic stasis technology, and a solution to the discharge problem.

 

We know that they had the first, and the second might only be a problem if you care about the size and efficiency of your space vessel.

It is plausible to me that assuming space and size are not a problem, there might be solutions out there to deal with FTL discharge.

 

It could be recycling the charge somehow into the power system, or it could be something else, it's not too far fetched.

Not to mention that before ME3 they had a few sources of information to solve that problem. They had the remains of Sovereign, the remains of the Collector Cruiser that crashed on Fehl Prime, and they had the data James Vega retreived from said Collector Cruiser, including extensive information on their technology. The latest of those happens by the beginning of ME2, giving them a year or two to work it out. We were able to figure out Reaper guns in eleven months ie the reverse-engineered Thanix Cannon, so perhaps they did the same thing with the core. 

[Kabooooom]

And like someone else pointed out, really all you need is a way to keep the Mass Effect field up. During normal FTL, the ship will accelerate to halfway and decelerate the rest of the way. This is the most efficient, time saving way to make a comparatively quick FTL trip at 12 light years per day. But feasibly, you COULD just cruise at a constant velocity in FTL. Maybe you would travel 50 light years per day or something (totally pulled that number out of thin air), but that's still pretty damn fast.

So you just need a way to keep the mass effect envelope up. The derelict Reaper did this for millions of years with no source of fuel. Clearly, within the fictional physics of the Mass Effect, this is 100% possible to do.

[SNascimento]

I think that's the point though - the destruction of their civilization was imminent. The impression the lore gives is that the war was basically lost and fighting was an exercise in futility. Uplifting the Krogan was their last ditch effort to fight, and they were uncertain how successful that would be. So it makes perfect sense to spend resources on an escape plan in the face of those odds.

Fortunately, the Krogan kicked major ass.

Isn't that a bit contradictory though? Their exctintion was imminent and just by uplifting a single species they managed to turn the war around? I know the Krogans were great fighters and could reproduce fast. But we are talking about supplying them with ships, weapons, armors, etc... Just how close to completele defeat can a force that can do that be?

Also, the decision to uplift the Krogans wasn't viewed as the only solution. For example, the Dalatrass in ME3 said they should never had done it. So she was defending that they should have all died and/or fled to Andromeda?

[Kabooooom]

Isn't that a bit contradictory though? Their exctintion was imminent and just by uplifting a single species they managed to turn the war around? I know the Krogans were great fighters and could reproduce fast. But we are talking about supplying them with ships, weapons, armors, etc... Just how close to completele defeat can a force that can do that be?

Also, the decision to uplift the Krogans wasn't viewed as the only solution. For example, the Dalatrass in ME3 said they should never had done it. So she was defending that they should have all died and/or fled to Andromeda?

To answer your first point, which is a good point, I think the Krogan far exceeded their expectations. I'm sure the Salarians ran countless simulations to prove that the idea would be massively beneficial to the war effort, but I doubt anyone thought it would be so beneficial that they would drive the Rachni to extinction. Once they knew it was working, which most certainly was not overnight turning the tides of war, I'm sure they would have poured all resources into the Krogan, including supplying them with ships. Remember, the Rachni War lasted for centuries - so I don't think your objection of not enough resources applies, as that's more than enough time to support the Krogan.

As for your second point, the Dalatrass wasn't the brightest character, and she was emotional and pissed during that scene...that said, even Mordin said if he was alive during that time, he would have spoken against uplifting the Krogan, which indeed implies an alternative. But that alternative is not known, and the lore most certainly paints a clear picture of extinction.

So, it's pointless to argue that as we just don't know what other plans they were proposing. But fleeing is most certainly a valid plan, for sure. Equally as valid as fighting. Even more so, maybe, since flight is almost always still on the table in a given conflict unless you are totally and completely screwed in a way that renders a timely exit impossible.

[SNascimento]

 But fleeing is most certainly a valid plan, for sure. Equally as valid as fighting. Even more so

Oh, I see now. You're french! 

[Notshauna]

I think until we know more about the Ark program we can't declare them a retcon yet, sure they certainly weren't thought up prior to ME:A but, unless they otherwise overwrite existing lore it's not really a retcon.

[Malanek]

I can see merit in the idea, but I wasting a huge amount of resources to built ark ships during either the Rachini Wars or the Krogan Rebellions seems way too drastic and ineffective. 

We are talking about a plan that would involve giving up all your civilization and 99,9% of people alive to a war that can absolute be fought. It's not about just having or not having an ark. Just imagine the amount of resources that would need to be diverted from the war effort to make such a project possible. Indeed, in the very least, multiple dreadnoughts would be able to be built with the same amount of resources. And that can change a course of a war.

So unless the utterly destruction of your civlization is imminent and only a miracle could save it. I can't quality the decission of building a few arks instead of multiple warships to be a reasonable one. Maybe those two past wars were just that, but I would ask strong evidence of that.

That's why its better if there is no government involvement in the building of the Arks. A group of private individuals who want to live.

 

We were also told that people went to Andromeda for different reasons. Some were fleeing something (likely reapers), but many wanted an adventure or a new start etc. This doesn't sound like a government program to continue the existence of the species. It sounds more like the Ark leaders wanted people but couldn't reveal the nature of the problem so instead they recruited people who wanted to go despite having no knowledge of the Reapers.

[CHRrOME]

That's why its better if there is no government involvement in the building of the Arks. A group of private individuals who want to live.

 

We were also told that people went to Andromeda for different reasons. Some were fleeing something (likely reapers), but many wanted an adventure or a new start etc. This doesn't sound like a government program to continue the existence of the species. It sounds more like the Ark leaders wanted people but couldn't reveal the nature of the problem so instead they recruited people who wanted to go despite having no knowledge of the Reapers.

 

Really? I don't remember that... I don't really remember Andromeda being mentioned not even once anywhere.

[Malanek]

Really? I don't remember that... I don't really remember Andromeda being mentioned not even once anywhere.

http://forum.bioware...ll-the-e3-info/

 

"From this GameCrate interview

Apparently the colonists had a choice to go to Andromeda, since they all have different motivations (adventure, curiosity, running from something or they just want a fresh start)"

[CHRrOME]

http://forum.bioware...ll-the-e3-info/

 

"From this GameCrate interview

Apparently the colonists had a choice to go to Andromeda, since they all have different motivations (adventure, curiosity, running from something or they just want a fresh start)"

 

Oh, so it was mentioned in one of the interviews. I indeed missed that one.

[Sartoz]

I'm still leaning towards the ark being built after ME1 and before ME3....only because the Council is stubborn as all hell (they wouldn't even openly acknowledge that Sovereign was a Reaper). Imo they may have heard the legends, hell, the asari might've had a good idea due to the prothean vi, but they needed to see it to believe it. And while they wouldn't admit it openly, Sovereign scared the living hell out of them. They kept those fears hidden, just as they hide the efforts they put in motion as a result of said fears. The ark.

                                                                                   <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

 

My opinion is that the ARK project started in ME2 and left before the ending choice of ME3.

 

Look, it fits.

One

ME1 is too soon for the ARKCON Project to even be conceived.  The Reaper fact took hold when the Citadel was invaded at the end of the game.

 

Two

I believe the Project was conceived by the Human Alliance in ME2.  Shep at this point was dead and the Alliance military heard rumours about being alive. 

 

Three

In ME3, the ARKS were built. Work in the project took off  in earnest for two reasons. First, the Reapers were invading EARTH. Saving humanity now became an Imperative. Second, the MARS Archive contained enough advanced tech to give the project a 80%+ chance for success. Third, Shep is back in the Alliance Military and is given information on the ARKs.. ergo the goodbye message. It is also in ME3 that the prospective colonists were give "a choice". It is also here, that the Council species had a "in you face moment" and why we see Asari, Krogans and Salarian species in Andromeda. They too were faced with an Imperative.

[Han Shot First]

Isn't that a bit contradictory though? Their exctintion was imminent and just by uplifting a single species they managed to turn the war around? I know the Krogans were great fighters and could reproduce fast. But we are talking about supplying them with ships, weapons, armors, etc... Just how close to completele defeat can a force that can do that be?
Also, the decision to uplift the Krogans wasn't viewed as the only solution. For example, the Dalatrass in ME3 said they should never had done it. So she was defending that they should have all died and/or fled to Andromeda?

We only get the cliff notes version of whatever happened during the Rachni Wars, but the role of the Krogan in turning around from what I understand was getting inside the Rachni dens and detonating weapons of mass destruction, killing the queens.

Maybe the Rachni lived so far underground that the queens couldn't be killed by orbital bombardment, and the Council species just couldn't afford the losses to Zerg to their way down to them. The Rachni advantage was manpower, with queens laying thousands of eggs, but the rapidly reproducing Krogan could have offset that.

[Pasquale1234]

Isn't that a bit contradictory though? Their exctintion was imminent and just by uplifting a single species they managed to turn the war around? I know the Krogans were great fighters and could reproduce fast. But we are talking about supplying them with ships, weapons, armors, etc... Just how close to completele defeat can a force that can do that be?

The primary reason that krogan involvement was the key to defeating the rachni has to do with their ability to withstand the hostile conditions prevalent on rachni worlds.

Apparently, no other species was able to successfully invade rachni homeworlds - where the queens are dug in deep - and get very far. Once they had ground troops that were capable of routing the queen's nests, the battle turned around, probably in pretty short order.

ETA: Looks like I was ninja'ed. Sort of. Heh.

[AlanC9]

It's never been clear why they couldn't just ruin the biospheres from orbit, though.

[Kabooooom]

Oh, I see now. You're french!

My high school French teacher got really offended back in the day when I joked that the most important sentence to learn in French was "I surrender".

Seriously though, a good strategist knows when to fight and when to run to fight another day or, you know, not fight in the first place and negotiate instead. Heroic battles down to the last man that end in defeat are great historical stories and make for some good movies, but I'm sure the people in the civilizations that were subsequently conquered didn't feel all that stoked about it.

[Iakus]

I think until we know more about the Ark program we can't declare them a retcon yet, sure they certainly weren't thought up prior to ME:A but, unless they otherwise overwrite existing lore it's not really a retcon.

Given how quiet they're being about it, I'm not holding out a lot of hope.