210 réponses à ce sujet

[Tassigny]

Hello,

This was one of the hardest choice of the game. In the end, I decided to save the colony as a whole instead of saving a few hundred people.



Why ?



Because the colony can survive the loss of the initial colonists, but can't survive the destruction of it's industrial base. Loosing the colony equals loosing a whole planet only because of a bunch of terrorists, and to save a few hundred people.



If the colony falls, it will encourage the Batarians to continue their attacks. And if the Alliance backs down every single time a colony is subject to an attack, it will quickly find itself expelled from the Traverse.



Besides, the colonist went on to colonize a world on the very edge of the Batarian sphere of influence. They new perfectly well that they were risks, but chose to stay anyway.

[MutantSpleen]

Tassigny wrote...

Hello,
This was one of the hardest choice of the game. In the end, I decided to save the colony as a whole instead of saving a few hundred people.

Why ?

Because the colony can survive the loss of the initial colonists, but can't survive the destruction of it's industrial base. Loosing the colony equals loosing a whole planet only because of a bunch of terrorists, and to save a few hundred people.

If the colony falls, it will encourage the Batarians to continue their attacks. And if the Alliance backs down every single time a colony is subject to an attack, it will quickly find itself expelled from the Traverse.

Besides, the colonist went on to colonize a world on the very edge of the Batarian sphere of influence. They new perfectly well that they were risks, but chose to stay anyway.

Exactly

Some people can't seem to grasp that if the whole colonies infrastructure is lost, that's it. They pull the plug on the colony. They aren't going to rebuild it. It's a total loss of a colony. Batarian terrorists win.

[JPfanner]

I seriously don't understand why Batarians aren't just shot on sight. Hopefully in ME 3 there will be an option to exterminate them.



You have "normal" Batarians who are murderers, terrorists, pirates, and slavers who are motivated by profit.



Then you have Batarian "extremists" who are murderers, terrorists, pirates, and slavers but aren't motivated primarily by profit.



And that's it. I didn't think they had any redeeming value in ME 1 and nothing in ME 2 has changed that. As Mordin would say, the Batarians have no outliers. Just because I'm a Paragon doesn't mean I have to be obtuse and delusional about reality.



So I saved the industry/spaceport because not saving it would just mean that this colony and the others in the sector would simply be supplying the Batarians with more victims/slaves. The Colonist origin mission in ME 1 shows what the colonists you "saved" from being nuked have to look forward to without the admittedly inept protection that the Alliance offers colonies.

[Spazticus]

MutantSpleen wrote...

Tassigny wrote...

Hello,
This was one of the hardest choice of the game. In the end, I decided to save the colony as a whole instead of saving a few hundred people.

Why ?

Because the colony can survive the loss of the initial colonists, but can't survive the destruction of it's industrial base. Loosing the colony equals loosing a whole planet only because of a bunch of terrorists, and to save a few hundred people.

If the colony falls, it will encourage the Batarians to continue their attacks. And if the Alliance backs down every single time a colony is subject to an attack, it will quickly find itself expelled from the Traverse.

Besides, the colonist went on to colonize a world on the very edge of the Batarian sphere of influence. They new perfectly well that they were risks, but chose to stay anyway.

Exactly

Some people can't seem to grasp that if the whole colonies infrastructure is lost, that's it. They pull the plug on the colony. They aren't going to rebuild it. It's a total loss of a colony. Batarian terrorists win.

I think it's been grasped fairly well by many of the people who posted in the thread. If the Alliance hold on the few systems they have in the region is so tenuous, there is absolutely nothing stopping the Batarians from moving in on this planet a second time, what with all those pesky humans in the city already dead. They'll control the orbital base and the nukes, yet again, and the colony's resources are now up for grabs. In that case, they'd still win. It's a win/win for the Batarians, and a lose/catastrophe situation for the Alliance. The Alliance loses a colony either way, and there's no evidence in the mission that ensures that the Alliance will reclaim the colony before the Batarians settle. If you're saving the infrastructure, it's very likely a pyrrhic victory.

If the colonists have access to even one shuttle, they can get to the military base, and station enough people there so they don't get attacked again, before Alliance help can arrive and evacuate them. Just a thought. (Before anyone says, "But there's no spaceport!" just remember that the shuttle you use doesn't need one to land, much less take off.)

I didn't mention it in my earlier post in this thread, but it's not just about the lives saved or lost. Yes, the survivors have to move, but the Batarians are engaging in scorched earth warfare. Therefore, the Alliance needs to either increase its protection net, or make the colonists sign a waiver or some sort. "You go out and settle beyond our space, and we won't promise to protect you." Maybe that's what they already did for the colonists in the Terminus Systems, and maybe that's part of why those colonists seem to resent the Alliance - whether or not they ride to the rescue.

[Beholderess]

I've decided to save colonists, not the port. At first that desidion was purely sentimental - I've never been good at thinking about the 'big picture' instead of individual people.

But the more I think about it, the more logical this desidion looks. After all, Alliance could not protect the colony, and if the colony cannot be adequately protected - what's the point of having it in the first place?

As much as I dislike the Council (despite saving it every time, lol) they do have a point - humanity should think about just where it places it's freaking colonies! In that sector of space, a possibility of attack was a known danger - so why it's up to Shepard (who was, more or less, randomly passing nearby) to deflect the attack?

[Agamo45]

Either way, the terrorists win.

[Tamcia]

I've read some responses and I've got to say - saving industrial district seems logical, however I still save the people. The colony may be lost, but I'm nots savage to sacrifice people in order to gain tactical a advantage, nor do I follow "end justifies the means".



Who can say batarians won't bomb residential area/industrial district again? It's alliance fault for failing to defend a military facility against terrorists.

[Lintire]

I saved the colonists - not really because they were needed, but because it would actually eliminate another freaking useless colony as compared to leaving the industrial infrastructure intact - which would lead to the Alliance (hopeless bastards they are) to simply open up another doomed colony.

[kalpain]

As Brian Cox said in the movie The Corruptor, "**** the ends. The means are what you live with."

[Tony_Knightcrawler]

Seriously, who do you think works at the shipyards? People with families in the colony. How do you think they'll cope with all their loved ones dead. They'll all quit, move away, become alcoholics, drug users, etc to deal with the pain.

[finc.loki]

Schneidend wrote...

this isnt my name wrote...

Blowing up the industry would stop people repopulating the colony, this would encourage more bartarian attacks.

There was already a batarian attack. You had to fight them. Blowing up the industrial complex will not affect the likelihood of batarian attack if said likelihood is already at 1. If you save the residential area, those people can simply rebuild the industrial complex.

I think you miss the point of the choice.

In the game it say's if the industrial sector is lost IT CAN'T BE REBUILT, the colony is lost..

If it could be rebuilt , then it wouldn't be a choice anymore would it?

The whole thing is see the problem at the moment or the future.

If you save the people they might live, but the colony is lost which could potentially be the home for MILLIONS of people in the future.
Most planets aren't even viable for colonization, so losing it could have other types of ramifications.
Other colonies in a sector close by could then be at risk from the Batarians in another attack.

The people that chose to colonize that world must have known the risks of attack and know they are the pioneers for something potentially great.
A future illium colony as an example.
So it isn't just about money or people, it is about the future and what it could potentially hold.

Doing the short term decision that is nice at the moment saving those lives or potentially set up a viable colony for millions in the future.

That is how I saw it, and they did point out there re-colonization and rebuilding was not an option.
This is what we all look for first, cause if it could be rebuilt and taken back, but just cost some money why chose to save that instead of the lives.

Modifié par finc.loki, 15 février 2010 - 10:43 .

[Beholderess]

Lintire wrote...

I saved the colonists - not really because they were needed, but because it would actually eliminate another freaking useless colony as compared to leaving the industrial infrastructure intact - which would lead to the Alliance (hopeless bastards they are) to simply open up another doomed colony.

Exactly

[jklinders]

finc.loki wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

this isnt my name wrote...

Blowing up the industry would stop people repopulating the colony, this would encourage more bartarian attacks.

There was already a batarian attack. You had to fight them. Blowing up the industrial complex will not affect the likelihood of batarian attack if said likelihood is already at 1. If you save the residential area, those people can simply rebuild the industrial complex.

I think you miss the point of the choice.

In the game it say's if the industrial sector is lost IT CAN'T BE REBUILT, the colony is lost..

If it could be rebuilt , then it wouldn't be a choice anymore would it?

The whole thing is see the problem at the moment or the future.

If you save the people they might live, but the colony is lost which could potentially be the home for MILLIONS of people in the future.
Most planets aren't even viable for colonization, so losing it could have other types of ramifications.
Other colonies in a sector close by could then be at risk from the Batarians in another attack.

The people that chose to colonize that world must have known the risks of attack and know they are the pioneers for something potentially great.
A future illium colony as an example.
So it isn't just about money or people, it is about the future and what it could potentially hold.

Doing the short term decision that is nice at the moment saving those lives or potentially set up a viable colony for millions in the future.

That is how I saw it, and they did point out there re-colonization and rebuilding was not an option.
This is what we all look for first, cause if it could be rebuilt and taken back, but just cost some money why chose to save that instead of the lives.

This is the problem though. the whole for some unspecified mysterious reason the industrial center cannot be rebuilt. Ahem...why exactly? It was built once, why the hell not again.  Maybe:wizard: put it on the colony the first time and that is why it cannot be rebuilt? No nation survives without it's people believing they are safe under their government in the long term. the Alliance and the colonization program will collapse if you start putting things ahead of people.

As for the supposed impossibility of rebuilding the industry, I call bull**** on that pure and simple.

[AltitudeNYC]

Whatever you choose, this is not a clear cut choice and it was crafted that way specifically. Those claiming that it is a black and white decision have childlike minds and fail to respect the complexity of such a choice.

Modifié par AltitudeNYC, 15 février 2010 - 08:04 .

[Sanlan]

AddoExAtrum wrote...
And to everyone who said "You can always find more people to move cheaply" your not looking at the broader corporate picture. Even in the military death benefits have to be paid, training done, and the entire infrastructure of the colony has to be rebuilt. Food, Water, Waste, all of those questions have to be answered. Its not as cheap as you think

Not only that, but I imagine  "Hey, want to go to the new colony in Crater 5" is a great recruitment pitch.

[al3xonfyr3]

This will be the fourth time I am playing through this mission, I keep accidentally saving the infrastructure, and the one time I made the choice I wanted the game glitched and I got stuck not able to leave the station.

Also, I am saving the people because if the situation were switched I wouldn't want to give up my life for one small colony, so why should I expect a hundred others and their families and friends to do that.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Honestly seems a bit more black and white to me. They can get a job somewhere else, the people dead aren't going to benefit from saving that infrastructure

[Onyx Jaguar]

Also I never assume what might happen I only take into account what WILL happen

[Louis deGuerre]

Ironically, I read last night in the bug thread that the save game records the exact opposite of what you decide.

So if you select to save the civvies it will show the alliance base getting blown up, but in your savegame it is marked that you saved the alliance base.

Not kidding.

So all your agonizing to decide on the right choice turns out to be futile

I saved the civvies (It hought) so in me3 I'll probably get tearstreaked hate mail from the relatives of the civvies that (according to my imported save game) got nuked to save the alliance base.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

I blew up the residential district because as someone saving human colonies I decided that the viability of the colony is more important to future generations than a thousand lives. (Also I had a ruthless backstory)

It's all about roleplay, on a different shepard I'd probably end up making completely different decisions, not based on if i'm "paragon or renegade" but based on the personality that "this shepard" has.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 08 mars 2010 - 05:12 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Jack Anvil wrote...

I paused for a moment, but on the "Mission Complete" screen, it says you saved 4000 lives.

Being on the fridge of the Terminus, the colony would be prone to attack, so the same situation would likely occur at a later time. The colonial "defenses" did little to stop the Batarian attack in the first place, so evacuation is the logical solution. Throwing away innocent colonist lives for a poorly defended colony is foolish.

I'll save the people any day.

I agree, to me it is purely black and white.  Knowing what is happening versus assuming what might.

[Cross1280]

This mission is basically a moral deliemma, it comes down to would you Sacrifice 1 Innocent life to save 100 or would you do nothing and doom them all?

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

I don't think it's realistic to assume that the colony wouldn't get any additional military defenses after a terrorist attack. Plus those Batarians are just ****S

[noobzor99]

I wanted to save the starport, and therefore the colony, but accidentally detonated the one aimed at the residential center.  Whoops!  Obviously my subconscious couldn't handle that many deaths:pinched: