359 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

The reason there's no colony on the moon is there's no point or profit for such a money sink now, or for any time in the foreseeable future. If it was profitable to do, it would be done, but it isn't. Wishing something doesn't make it logic. You could colonize the deserts of the world or the sea floor with domes and self-contained areas for a fraction of the cost and risk as putting up a moon base.


Moreover, it's rather unusual you're angsting about how people turn to guns instead of words to solve their problems, when you're dealing with a situation in which not one but two forces (Geth and Sovereign) have no intention of negotiating your genocide. Using words is great when it's an option. At the battle of the Citadel, it isn't an option.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 25 avril 2010 - 12:16 .

[Teivel]

adam_grif wrote...

There are 10,000 crewmen on the DA. Letting them die over some petty difference you, a soldier, had with the council that serve collectively as your CIC is indefensible.

Nonsense. The council is as much your CIC as the Secretary General of the United Nations is to a marine. The differences are not petty, they are actively subverting your attempts to save hundreds of billions of sentient lives.

You are a SPECTRE. You answer to the council first and foremost. Luckily for the Galaxy they give their agents a wide meassure of autonomy and never actually ordered me not to leave the station.  To be honest i understand their actions to an extent as well. What you're suggesting is so utterly fantastic...and the consequences of you being wrong are so horrific.. i accept the fact theat their instinct is going to be to search for additional proof while they evaluate whether or not i'm compromised.

And this is irrelevant anyway - the DA was not participating in the fight and contributed nothing to fighting off Sovereign. Would you be singing a different tune if Sovereign succeeded because you threw away some cruisers saving an ineffectual political symbol? Commander Shepard, the character, does not have the metagaming hindsight that you do, nor does he or she know that Sovereign is going to go down no-matter what happens. It's a decision made in a split second, and throwing away resources saving the council may have been our undoing.

The DA was soaking up a predigious ammount of firepower and her invisible GARDIAN systems were probably pulsing out as fast as they could cycle. No Commander Shepard does not have the metagaming advantage but i stand by it as the most sound tactical move in the sittuation. My fleet is ariving in a coherant formation above the foe on the Z axis. They have their dorsal profile presented to us, it's the optimum engagement angle.  I stand by the logical move being to exit the relays immediately to engage and eliminate the Geth while they are distracted by the DA before switching to sovereign as the arms open up. Bypassing the DA looses you a Dreadnought, the council, 10,000 lives and leaves an entire flotilla of geth ships intact and in your rear...


The decision to ignore the DA's pleas is not only defensible, it's the right choice.

Sovereign's plan had failed at this point. We'd blocked its ability to hack the Citadel  so much so that its only option was zombie Saren. The objective at that point was to win the fleet engagement with minimum allied losses and maximum enemy casualties. Bouncing the Geth, saving the DA and then punching apart Sovereign once its deprived of screening ships is the optimal strategy to that end.

Modifié par Teivel, 25 avril 2010 - 12:11 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Uh, no. At the point you make the choice, Virgil has already warned you that Sovereign can only be blocked for a few minutes. Zombie-Saren was used to try and hurry it up, but you were on a very narrow time frame. Crusing around for a fleet engagement would have missed the period you had to fight him.

[adam_grif]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

*Sigh...* reading threads like this it's no wonder that despite fact that human civilization egsisting about 5000 years we are still unable to establish proper colony on the moon... not to mention set up serious mission on any nearby Earth planet...

Because there is still too many people on this planet who favor solving problems by using guns that logic.

I don't know what game you were playing, but I didn't notice any options during Mass Effect one or two that allowed me to call a round-table with Geth leadership and discuss a peaceful sollution, nor did I see an option to invest my hard earned points into a skill called "Conflict mediation and resolution".

Unless of course you merely wished to imply that we shouldn't be using guns to solve our political disputes on account of them being too fast, and should instead be pummeling the turian counceller into submission with our bare fists, which is definately an initiative I can get behind.

[Zulu_DFA]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

*Sigh...* reading threads like this it's no wonder that despite fact that human civilization egsisting about 5000 years we are still unable to establish proper colony on the moon... not to mention set up serious mission on any nearby Earth planet...

Because there is still too many people on this planet who favor solving problems by using guns that logic.

Guns are the motivator of all progress. The 1950-1960s space race between USA and USSR was just an extention of the arms race. Space Shuttle program was a military program with objectives: be able to destroy the opponent's sattelite grid, and drop nuclear bombs from orbit. And click here for the hot news on  this subject.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 25 avril 2010 - 12:21 .

[adam_grif]

You are a SPECTRE. You answer to the council first and foremost.

The mission of the Spectres is not "do whatever the council tells you and protect the council", it's preserving the stability of the galactic community. I'm not sure about you, but I wouldn't consider a galaxy populated only by the indoctrinated servants of the Reapers with hundreds of billions slaughtered like cattle to appease the malevolent machine gods to be a "stable galactic community".



As you say, the Spectres are autonomous. I was never once told that it was part of my mandate to protect the specific individuals on the council. But more importantly, technicalities and chain of command take a back seat to the preservation of the galactic community. Putting the galaxy at stake to protect your boss is morally reprehensible and heinously irrational.

The DA was soaking up a predigious ammount of firepower and her invisible GARDIAN systems were probably pulsing out as fast as they could cycle. No Commander Shepard does not have the metagaming advantage but i stand by it as the most sound tactical move in the sittuation. My fleet is ariving in a coherant formation above the foe on the Z axis. They have their dorsal profile presented to us, it's the optimum engagement angle. I stand by the logical move being to exit the relays immediately to engage and eliminate the Geth while they are distracted by the DA before switching to sovereign as the arms open up. Bypassing the DA looses you a Dreadnought, the council, 10,000 lives and leaves an entire flotilla of geth ships intact and in your rear...

The DA will continue to soak up Geth firepower and provide a fine distraction for their fleet while the rest of the Council forces pound the Geth fleet into oblivion. The DA was not the only citadel ship there. The DA being a dreadnought is irrelevant since the damn thing isn't even firing it's guns to defend itself, presumably because the gunners are too busy jerking off in the bathroom. Even if we had to throw away 100 dreadnoughts to prevent Sovereign from succeeding, that would be an acceptable loss, because the stakes are:



- Lose dreadnought.

or

- Lose everything.



The idea that saving the DA is the best move "tactically" is incorrect. The citadel fleet is still there, if the DA goes down in flames the Geth aren't just going to start engaging the Human fleet because there's still a wall of ships in the way.

Sovereign's plan had failed at this point. We'd blocked its ability to hack the Citadel so much so that its only option was zombie Saren. The objective at that point was to win the fleet engagement with minimum allied losses and maximum enemy casualties. Bouncing the Geth, saving the DA and then punching apart Sovereign once its deprived of screening ships is the optimal strategy to that end.

No, as other people have stated above. If Sovereign's plan had failed already, it would have taken off and retreated immediately, instead of dicking around with Robo-Saren for several minutes and having it's kinetic barriers magically removed by his death (that is a really poorly designed system).

[Bigdoser]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Asheer_Khan wrote...

*Sigh...* reading threads like this it's no wonder that despite fact that human civilization egsisting about 5000 years we are still unable to establish proper colony on the moon... not to mention set up serious mission on any nearby Earth planet...

Because there is still too many people on this planet who favor solving problems by using guns that logic.

Guns are the motivator of all progress. The 1950-1960s space race between USA and USSR was just an extention of the arms race. Space Shuttle program was a military program with objectives: be able to destroy the opponent's sattelite grid, and drop nuclear bombs from orbit. And click here for the hot news on  this subject.

Correct me if i am wrong but i swear both sides almost released weapons of mass destruction on each other?

[Zulu_DFA]

Bigdoser wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Asheer_Khan wrote...

*Sigh...* reading threads like this it's no wonder that despite fact that human civilization egsisting about 5000 years we are still unable to establish proper colony on the moon... not to mention set up serious mission on any nearby Earth planet...

Because there is still too many people on this planet who favor solving problems by using guns that logic.

Guns are the motivator of all progress. The 1950-1960s space race between USA and USSR was just an extention of the arms race. Space Shuttle program was a military program with objectives: be able to destroy the opponent's sattelite grid, and drop nuclear bombs from orbit. And click here for the hot news on  this subject.

Correct me if i am wrong but i swear both sides almost released weapons of mass destruction on each other?

"Almost" voids the worth of your argument.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 25 avril 2010 - 12:43 .

[Asheer_Khan]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Asheer_Khan wrote...

*Sigh...* reading threads like this it's no wonder that despite fact that human civilization egsisting about 5000 years we are still unable to establish proper colony on the moon... not to mention set up serious mission on any nearby Earth planet...

Because there is still too many people on this planet who favor solving problems by using guns that logic.

Guns are the motivator of all progress. The 1950-1960s space race between USA and USSR was just an extention of the arms race. Space Shuttle program was a military program with objectives: be able to destroy the opponent's sattelite grid, and drop nuclear bombs from orbit. And click here for the hot news on  this subject.

Tell me Zulu, where this nuclear arms race lead us after all this time?

There is still in off nuclear warheads on this sick world to blown up Earth ten times.
I comes from part of Europe which not to long ago (20 years back) was part of the military block which only waited at single oportunity to turn Europe and rest of the world in another blood bath in name of the Socialistic revolution.

Hell in 1963 we were inches from global nuclear war because both sides (but SU especially) were too stubborn to back off until Kennedy decided to present solution which end entire crisis but at sea was in off that one submarine would fire torpedo at russian cargo ship and perhaps now instead of this debate we will struggle to find wood to keep fireplaces intact during nuclear winter... assumng that we would survive judgement day at all.

Pharaphrasing Thane's words.

"It's not important how strong weapon is, important is hand who wield such weapon and knowledge how to use her properly."

[adam_grif]

Bigdoser wrote...

Correct me if i am wrong but i swear both sides almost released weapons of mass destruction on each other

Um, there were some instances where they almost got launched, but only because of screwups (i.e. a satellite launch in Eastern Europe, they had informed the Russians that there was a launch on that date, but the call never made it through to the missile tracking stations for some reason), but in every case the people involved realized that it was a false alarm and stood down. In that specific example, the people at the missile tracking station dismissed it because a US attack would never consist of a single missile. In another instance it got up to the head of state, who came to the exact same conclusion and did not authorize a retaliatory strike.

The actual "danger" was minimal because both sides had taken extensive measures to prevent accidental conflict, and neither side wanted war. In fact, the cold-war Era was remarkably peaceful, with no nuclear powers ever being engaged in a shooting war with each other. The only notable conflicts were Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan (the soviet invasion), but compared to the 50 years prior to the cold war, this was absolutely nothing.

WW2 ended with a tenuous peace and it looked as though the allied nations and Russia would be going to war with each other in the near future. It's not unreasonable to claim that the threat of nuclear retaliation was by far the most important instrument of peace ever devised.

[adam_grif]

There is still in off nuclear warheads on this sick world to blown up Earth ten times.

Yawn.

There aren't even enough nuclear weapons to destroy the majority of civilization. A full scale nuclear exchange right now would leave the majority of the world's population unharmed, and the only thing to worry about would be possible climate change. This wouldn't wipe everyone out either.

(right click + view images to see full sized)



And for cities...

Modifié par adam_grif, 25 avril 2010 - 12:55 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Asheer_Khan wrote...

*Sigh...* reading threads like this it's no wonder that despite fact that human civilization egsisting about 5000 years we are still unable to establish proper colony on the moon... not to mention set up serious mission on any nearby Earth planet...

Because there is still too many people on this planet who favor solving problems by using guns that logic.

Guns are the motivator of all progress. The 1950-1960s space race between USA and USSR was just an extention of the arms race. Space Shuttle program was a military program with objectives: be able to destroy the opponent's sattelite grid, and drop nuclear bombs from orbit. And click here for the hot news on  this subject.

Tell me Zulu, where this nuclear arms race lead us after all this time?

There is still in off nuclear warheads on this sick world to blown up Earth ten times.
I comes from part of Europe which not to long ago (20 years back) was part of the military block which only waited at single oportunity to turn Europe and rest of the world in another blood bath in name of the Socialistic revolution.

Hell in 1963 we were inches from global nuclear war because both sides (but SU especially) were too stubborn to back off until Kennedy decided to present solution which end entire crisis but at sea was in off that one submarine would fire torpedo at russian cargo ship and perhaps now instead of this debate we will struggle to find wood to keep fireplaces intact during nuclear winter... assumng that we would survive judgement day at all.

Pharaphrasing Thane's words.

"It's not important how strong weapon is, important is hand who wield such weapon and knowledge how to use her properly."

I'm sure I can't convince you that nuclear arms race isn't bad.

But let me correct a couple of your innaccuracies.

As early as 1956 the Soviet leadership gave up the idea of the World Communist Revolution. Various oppressive actions in its domain were just a matter of imperial policy,  not communism.

In 1962 it was Khruschev to give in and back down first.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 25 avril 2010 - 01:00 .

[Tlazolteotl]

Why exactly is avoiding nuclear war a good thing?

Humans are idiots. We're still slaughtering each other by the millions, and there are plenty of people around who would make use of the most devastating weapons they can find in a heartbeat.

Sooner or later, there will be technology capable of actually destroying the planet (and nukes aren't it) ... humans must learn how not to be idiots before then.

Unless that happens, blowing the species back into the stone age is a good thing.

[Asheer_Khan]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Asheer_Khan wrote...

*Sigh...* reading threads like this it's no wonder that despite fact that human civilization egsisting about 5000 years we are still unable to establish proper colony on the moon... not to mention set up serious mission on any nearby Earth planet...

Because there is still too many people on this planet who favor solving problems by using guns that logic.

Guns are the motivator of all progress. The 1950-1960s space race between USA and USSR was just an extention of the arms race. Space Shuttle program was a military program with objectives: be able to destroy the opponent's sattelite grid, and drop nuclear bombs from orbit. And click here for the hot news on  this subject.

Tell me Zulu, where this nuclear arms race lead us after all this time?

There is still in off nuclear warheads on this sick world to blown up Earth ten times.
I comes from part of Europe which not to long ago (20 years back) was part of the military block which only waited at single oportunity to turn Europe and rest of the world in another blood bath in name of the Socialistic revolution.

Hell in 1963 we were inches from global nuclear war because both sides (but SU especially) were too stubborn to back off until Kennedy decided to present solution which end entire crisis but at sea was in off that one submarine would fire torpedo at russian cargo ship and perhaps now instead of this debate we will struggle to find wood to keep fireplaces intact during nuclear winter... assumng that we would survive judgement day at all.

Pharaphrasing Thane's words.

"It's not important how strong weapon is, important is hand who wield such weapon and knowledge how to use her properly."

I'm sure I can't convince you that nuclear arms race isn't bad.

But let me correct a couple of your innaccuracies.

As early as 1956 the Soviet leadership gave up the idea of the World Communist Revolution. Various oppressive actions in its domain were just a matter of imperial policy,  not communism.

In 1962 it was Khruschev to give in and back down first.

For the GOD sake... i live in coutry which was PART of that communist circus of death so dont give me this crap that they abandon idea of the world revolution in 56.
Communism in Eastern Europe end's in 1989 but in russia... many hints still indicated that they haven't much changed since 1989.

[Zulu_DFA]

Tlazolteotl wrote...

Why exactly is avoiding nuclear war a good thing?
Humans are idiots. We're still slaughtering each other by the millions, and there are plenty of people around who would make use of the most devastating weapons they can find in a heartbeat.
Sooner or later, there will be technology capable of actually destroying the planet (and nukes aren't it) ... humans must learn how not to be idiots before then.
Unless that happens, blowing the species back into the stone age is a good thing.

Look, if you feel insecure around nukes, guns and other people, it doesn't mean other people have to go back to the stone age with you. It's your personal problem. There is still plenty of jungle on this planet. Why don't you switch off you PC now and go there to live for the rest of your life?

[Zulu_DFA]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Asheer_Khan wrote...

*Sigh...* reading threads like this it's no wonder that despite fact that human civilization egsisting about 5000 years we are still unable to establish proper colony on the moon... not to mention set up serious mission on any nearby Earth planet...

Because there is still too many people on this planet who favor solving problems by using guns that logic.

Guns are the motivator of all progress. The 1950-1960s space race between USA and USSR was just an extention of the arms race. Space Shuttle program was a military program with objectives: be able to destroy the opponent's sattelite grid, and drop nuclear bombs from orbit. And click here for the hot news on  this subject.

Tell me Zulu, where this nuclear arms race lead us after all this time?

There is still in off nuclear warheads on this sick world to blown up Earth ten times.
I comes from part of Europe which not to long ago (20 years back) was part of the military block which only waited at single oportunity to turn Europe and rest of the world in another blood bath in name of the Socialistic revolution.

Hell in 1963 we were inches from global nuclear war because both sides (but SU especially) were too stubborn to back off until Kennedy decided to present solution which end entire crisis but at sea was in off that one submarine would fire torpedo at russian cargo ship and perhaps now instead of this debate we will struggle to find wood to keep fireplaces intact during nuclear winter... assumng that we would survive judgement day at all.

Pharaphrasing Thane's words.

"It's not important how strong weapon is, important is hand who wield such weapon and knowledge how to use her properly."

I'm sure I can't convince you that nuclear arms race isn't bad.

But let me correct a couple of your innaccuracies.

As early as 1956 the Soviet leadership gave up the idea of the World Communist Revolution. Various oppressive actions in its domain were just a matter of imperial policy,  not communism.

In 1962 it was Khruschev to give in and back down first.

For the GOD sake... i live in coutry which was PART of that communist circus of death so dont give me this crap that they abandon idea of the world revolution in 56.
Communism in Eastern Europe end's in 1989 but in russia... many hints still indicated that they haven't much changed since 1989.

Many hints still indicate that Russia hasn't changed much since 1589... But the revolutionary communism was over in 1956.

[Tlazolteotl]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Tlazolteotl wrote...

Why exactly is avoiding nuclear war a good thing?
Humans are idiots. We're still slaughtering each other by the millions, and there are plenty of people around who would make use of the most devastating weapons they can find in a heartbeat.
Sooner or later, there will be technology capable of actually destroying the planet (and nukes aren't it) ... humans must learn how not to be idiots before then.
Unless that happens, blowing the species back into the stone age is a good thing.

Look, if you feel insecure around nukes, guns and other people, it doesn't mean other people have to go back to the stone age with you. It's your personal problem. There is still plenty of jungle on this planet. Why don't you switch off you PC now and go there to live for the rest of your life?

Huh?
I'm hardly insecure around nukes.
Didn't I just say nuclear war is a good thing?

[adam_grif]

Tlazolteotl wrote...

Sooner or later, there will be technology capable of actually destroying the planet

grumble grumble.

[Tlazolteotl]

adam_grif wrote...

Tlazolteotl wrote...

Sooner or later, there will be technology capable of actually destroying the planet

grumble grumble.

Yes yes, and I'm actually investing in cutting edge technology. What are you doing to fix the problem?
Immature species does not deserve bigger toys until it grows up.

[Zulu_DFA]

Tlazolteotl wrote...

adam_grif wrote...

Tlazolteotl wrote...

Sooner or later, there will be technology capable of actually destroying the planet

grumble grumble.

Yes yes, and I'm actually investing in cutting edge technology. What are you doing to fix the problem?
Immature species does not deserve bigger toys until it grows up.

They can't grow up at all without bigger toys.

[Ladi]

Shandepared wrote...

 As long as TIM uses it to advance humanity and to fight the Reapers I'll be happy.

This strikes me as odd.You are okay with TIM advancing humanity (and only humanity) despite being part of a galactic community? Would you be okay with white people advancing themselves and only themselves in our global community? (Full disclosure: I'm black, and if your answer is actually yes then pretend I never asked.)

[Onyx Jaguar]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Tlazolteotl wrote...

adam_grif wrote...

Tlazolteotl wrote...

Sooner or later, there will be technology capable of actually destroying the planet

grumble grumble.

Yes yes, and I'm actually investing in cutting edge technology. What are you doing to fix the problem?
Immature species does not deserve bigger toys until it grows up.

They can't grow up at all without bigger toys.

I agree with this sentiment.

[Tlazolteotl]

*shrug* it's not the toys that are the problem.

It's the rules that enable deliberate ignorance.



If the little kids get their hands on nukes, well, too bad. You get a good thing.

Let that be a lesson to the whole species about teaching people how to be responsible.

[Dean_the_Young]

Ladi wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

 As long as TIM uses it to advance humanity and to fight the Reapers I'll be happy.

This strikes me as odd.You are okay with TIM advancing humanity (and only humanity) despite being part of a galactic community? Would you be okay with white people advancing themselves and only themselves in our global community? (Full disclosure: I'm black, and if your answer is actually yes then pretend I never asked.)

When TIM's plans improve the chances of there actually being a Galactic community, yes. You should be okay with it, unless you value mythical equality over survival.

TIM isn't some racist who wants to enslave all other races and derive them of all say in galactic affairs. He, and Cerberus, behave like xenonationalists. Just like everyone else in the galaxy: it's the entire setup of the Council, that each race has one speaker and one representative only. It's why we speak of the races as if they're one unit: the Turians, the Batarians, the Humans. Everyone is forced into a single pseudo-national position.

The Council isn't a community of equals, and this goes deeper than the fact that all the species have different levels of strengths: in much the same way that the US is the single most powerful state in the world and so gets a bigger say than, say, Germany, so it is in Council Space. Even within the Council itself, there is widely disparate strengths: the Asari are the biggest economy, the Turians are the military, the Salarians are the spy service swing vote. Outside of the Council, there is no pretense at equality. The Volus, the Hanar, the Elcor, and many more races have been denied any and all representation in the Council for thousands of years. In ME1, there are even plenty of insinuations that the reason that the Humans are being given such special treatment is that the Asari and Salarians are positioning humanity as a tool against the Turians. The Council plays all other species to its own advancement as a exclusion racket, and even inside the Council the players pursue their own interests. You and you alone pursue a policy of that every species is equal: all the rest seek their own advancement as best they can. The Volus are vassals of the Turians, quite possibly the most unequal relationship beetween any species.


Your question is highly misleading on two main accounts. First, it assumes that one group and one grouping only would benefit. Second, it assumes a grouping of racism. For the first, this is false: the Galaxy as a whole benefits from Humanity being better positioned to fight the Reapers (a rising tide lifts all boats), and  that humans would be disproportionately dominant isn't a change of the type of galactic affairs, merely the names of who's at the top. The second is highly misleading, as the basis of pursuing national self interest is different from racial identity. When, say, China pushes for a bigger say for itself, no one looks at it as 'those yellow-skinned ethnic Chinese are looking to advance the interests of their color', they (rightfully) look at it as a pursuit of national interest. Multi-ethnic, really multi-ethnic (as opposed to tokenism for distinct minorities) nations are rare: most nations on the planet are predominately of the same racial composition.

[Dean_the_Young]

Tlazolteotl wrote...

*shrug* it's not the toys that are the problem.
It's the rules that enable deliberate ignorance.

If the little kids get their hands on nukes, well, too bad. You get a good thing.
Let that be a lesson to the whole species about teaching people how to be responsible.

Mass collective punishment of an entire race for the actions of individuals? How... unenlightened.