250 réponses à ce sujet

[Cutlass Jack]

Taritu wrote...

The idea that Zaeed could not manage covering fire, however, struck me as ridiculous.

Not to me. In his stories he was the only one who ever seemed to make it out alive. Also: His own people shot him in the head. Not the sort who inspires loyalty, or cares about his team's survival rate.

Killing the enemy? Absolutely. But that has nothing to do with keeping his team safe.

[Taritu]

ODST 3 wrote...

eternalnightmare13 wrote...

ODST 3 wrote...

Samara's not even that good at combat. She's a powerful biotic but is not exceptionally effective, regardless. After all her years, I guess her strength just stopped increasing at some point because she isn't overly powerful. She only took out two mercs in her opening cutscene and couldn't beat her daughter without your help.

The only help I gave her with her daughter is drawing her out of the club.  That's it.

What? What about when they're in a standoff and you have to choose which one to help?

That only happens if youi make your paragon/renegade, otherwise miranda just owns her daughter.  It's a plot point.

Samara is one of the most powerful biotics in existence, at least according to Bioware. Of course, according to Bioware, so is Jack, whose biotic abilities are substantially crap.  The difference between story and gameplay. This the problem when you only give squad members 4 abilities.

In gameplay terms, however, Samara is probably the most powerful biotic on the team other than an Adept Shepard, if you understand how powerful Reave is.

[DuffyMJ]

jklinders wrote...

Comparing Samara to a knight is pushing it. knights did not travel alone, they had a small group of pages and squires tending their gear and lead them as well through their traing to be knights themselves.

Fact is whether you like it or not there is nothing in Samara's background to indicate she was ever in a leadership position. Samurai, knight same thing, they are minor nobility, and trained from birth to be battlefield leaders. justicars and knights =apples and oranges.

You're joking right?  She directly compared herself to a knight!!!!!!

Everyone here seems to be oblivious to the fact that leadership is a subjective quality and you're all acting like it's some kind of measurable trait where 2.00001 years of leadership is a cost calculation superior to 999 years of solitary warrior experience.

This is such a joke, you're all brainwashed by utilitarian mechanical thought processes that are completely nonsensical.

I mean, let's say the U.S. was being invaded and two people raised a militia, one was a gang leader with a few years "experience" leading a street gang, the other is a veteran SWAT sniper with 25 years experience... would you SERIOUSLY follow the gang leader?

[Madecologist]

Garrus is not a lone sniper, he was sniping alone because he was betrayed. Betrayed. He was able to lead his squad quite well if you listen to his story. He was betrayed by his own man, Sidonis, who drew him away from the squad. Then the Mercs ambushed the team while he was not there.

[T0paze]

Man, you're really stretching things. There's indeed nothing in Samara's description that would indicate that she's a good leader. Hell, even Mordin has much better chances (at least he led an STG squad). Samara is more like... well, Thane. Or Jack. Or Grunt. That is, no experience in leading a team whatsoever. At least no indication of any such experience. She's neither better, nor worse than any of them. I'm surpised that someone picked her up, actually - there's absolutely no reason to do that.

Modifié par T0paze, 18 février 2010 - 07:55 .

[keegdarv1]

ohhhhhhh not i get it reading some of the commetns basically if Samara isnt a good choice then no one sound be, or basically "why trust anyone Im Shepard I'll lead both teams right"



And DuffyMJ its not abouthearing bad things about "precious" charcters its about the facts of first no's percet mistakes get made, but Miranda Garrus being betraied was out of thier hands so neither acutally got thier groups killed, Jacob doesnt hate Thane just wasnt sure in very first meeting if could trust him, Grunt trust Shepard fully<if do his quest> so he do what ever Shepard says, Tali respects and trust you so much they shes willing to work with a geth which lets not forget she wants to destory them all that i think shes willing to follow who ever you act to lead without much problem

[DuffyMJ]

imported_beer wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

OP, I stand with you in solidarity. There is no reason Samara should be a poor fireteam leader and I have written on this relentlessly on this forum. I don't care what anyone says, there is no way she would be a poor fireteam leader, she has more experience than ANYONE.

 Maybe the reason why she is not is because she has not ...I don't know...been around people for centuries? Samara is formidable, a powerhouse, but she has always worked alone as a justicar.

A lone ranger, even with formidable experience is not always the best leader.

"lone ranger" is hyperbole.  She makes it clear that she works with asari ship captains and negotiates passage around asari space as additional security against pirate and mercenary attacks.

Nihlus liked to work alone too... would you also have turned down a veteran spectre in favor of Garrus "Wyatt Earp" Vakarian and his vast knowledge of fighting interstellar horrors as a CSEC cop had you been given the choice as well?  I don't think so.

[Okkomon]

beermilk wrote...

Okkomon wrote...

What if i don't trust Miranda (or any cerberus agent) to run anything (the sole survivor, it has a beef with cerberus)?

 Maybe you could record a whiny Wilson monologue. That might help. Be sure to work the "uncaring ice queen" into every sentence of the monologue as much as possible.

Maybe you could post something else than your brain farts that have no relevance to this convo.

[Taritu]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Taritu wrote...

The idea that Zaeed could not manage covering fire, however, struck me as ridiculous.

Not to me. In his stories he was the only one who ever seemed to make it out alive. Also: His own people shot him in the head. Not the sort who inspires loyalty, or cares about his team's survival rate.

Killing the enemy? Absolutely. But that has nothing to do with keeping his team safe.

Point taken.  However, managing cover fire is something really basic that someone with his experience should be able to manage.

Like most people, however, I use Garrus.  I agree with the Miranda issues: half the team distrusts her.  They may be loyal to Shepard, they aren't loyal to Miranda.  Hell, I spent most of the game wishing I could arrange a friendly fire incident for her myself, on my first playthrough (I never forgot she wanted to stick a control chip in me.)

As for Jacob, much as I like him, he's a non-entity.  Again, because his actual in-game abilities aren't very good, so most players hardly ever use him.  Although I suppose the team would trust him by and large, he isn't a Cerberus lickspittle and the only person he really has issues with is Thane, who is professional enough to follow orders.

[KainrycKarr]

Okay, people are retarded. Why is Garrus a good group leader? because his fighting experience is, WITH GROUPS. His merc group died WHEN HE WAS NOT THERE. HE WAS BETRAYED.



You go ahead and let me know when you can keep people alive when that happens.



Why is Miranda a good tactician? Because that is how she is TRAINED. She is an OFFICER. Regardless of actual personality. And, by the way, I hate Miranda. But it is what it is.



Jacob? There is some argument there. Not that experience, and the only squad training he'd have, is in the alliance, on eden prime, which, as mentioned, didnt have much going on.



So, Garrus and Miranda are logical choices. Jacob?...Eh, Bioware thinks so.



Samara is very deadly, and has fought a lot. But not in a group setting. Not in a squad. By herself.



You don't take a sniper and put him in charge of combat engineering.



Both jobs have combat experience, BUT DO NOT HAVE THE SAME TRAINING IN COMBAT.



Why is it so hard to understand?

[DuffyMJ]

keegdarv1 wrote...

ohhhhhhh not i get it reading some of the commetns basically if Samara isnt a good choice then no one sound be, or basically "why trust anyone Im Shepard I'll lead both teams right"

And DuffyMJ its not abouthearing bad things about "precious" charcters its about the facts of first no's percet mistakes get made, but Miranda Garrus being betraied was out of thier hands so neither acutally got thier groups killed, Jacob doesnt hate Thane just wasnt sure in very first meeting if could trust him, Grunt trust Shepard fully so he do what ever Shepard says, Tali respects and trust you so much they shes willing to work with a geth which lets not forget she wants to destory them all that i think shes willing to follow who ever you act to lead without much problem

Excuses, excuses... I only work with reality, not excuses.

Garrus himself says he got his team killed.  It weighs on his conscious no matter what, your interpretation of events doesn't change that reality.

[Madecologist]

DuffyMJ wrote...

You're joking right?  She directly compared herself to a knight!!!!!!

This is such a joke, you're all brainwashed by utilitarian mechanical thought processes that are completely nonsensical.

I mean, let's say the U.S. was being invaded and two people raised a militia, one was a gang leader with a few years "experience" leading a street gang, the other is a veteran SWAT sniper with 25 years experience... would you SERIOUSLY follow the gang leader?

Oh lord.. I just popped a blood vessel....

She compared herself to a knight -errant- not a knight (what you are looking for are knight commanders, which she never claimed to be)... check your books. knights errant were vagabounds. No king would trust one to lead an army.

Ummm... nonsensical, I hate to pull the rule of majority but if a staff of writers, and most players seem to agree to something, you can bet your sweet bum there might be truth to it. The romanticisation of two Samara fans does not constitute logical premise.

You just happened to agree with us Garrus is the best choice. Veteran SWAT sniper with 25 years experience.. that is Garrus alright. Sadly that is not Samara. A SWAT sniper, even a sniper, has -tactical- -group- training. Samara does not.

[CakesOnAPlane]

Yes she has tactical knowledge. But she can't communicate it effectively in the heat of battle so it doesn't matter how many books shes read.

[Aradace]

DuffyMJ wrote...

jklinders wrote...

Comparing Samara to a knight is pushing it. knights did not travel alone, they had a small group of pages and squires tending their gear and lead them as well through their traing to be knights themselves.

Fact is whether you like it or not there is nothing in Samara's background to indicate she was ever in a leadership position. Samurai, knight same thing, they are minor nobility, and trained from birth to be battlefield leaders. justicars and knights =apples and oranges.

You're joking right?  She directly compared herself to a knight!!!!!!

Everyone here seems to be oblivious to the fact that leadership is a subjective quality and you're all acting like it's some kind of measurable trait where 2.00001 years of leadership is a cost calculation superior to 999 years of solitary warrior experience.

This is such a joke, you're all brainwashed by utilitarian mechanical thought processes that are completely nonsensical.

I mean, let's say the U.S. was being invaded and two people raised a militia, one was a gang leader with a few years "experience" leading a street gang, the other is a veteran SWAT sniper with 25 years experience... would you SERIOUSLY follow the gang leader?

What you fail to see is that she has NO EXPERIENCE LEADING PEOPLE....Leadership comes from LEADING PEOPLE...not watching your own ass for centuries at a time.  And to answer your question, it would depend on which "person" had better "people" skills.  Sure the swat guy may have "combat" experience, but may lack people skills because he's spent no time LEADING PEOPLE.  So, if this were the case, YES, I'd pick the gang leader because in that scenario he at least has experience leading people and knows what it takes to command respect.  

Im ex Infantry and Ill tell you right now that Combat experience does NOT equal Leadership skills.

Modifié par Aradace, 18 février 2010 - 08:02 .

[Cutlass Jack]

DuffyMJ wrote...

Excuses, excuses... I only work with reality, not excuses.

Garrus himself says he got his team killed.  It weighs on his conscious no matter what, your interpretation of events doesn't change that reality.

That's really what you're going with? Really?

The events of Virmire weigh heavilly on Shepard's conscience too, but that doesn't make him a poor leader. Garrus was just blaming himself for something outside his control. Even the letter the wife of one of his men sends you says it wasn't his fault. He's just being hard on himself.

[jklinders]

DuffyMJ wrote...

jklinders wrote...

Comparing Samara to a knight is pushing it. knights did not travel alone, they had a small group of pages and squires tending their gear and lead them as well through their traing to be knights themselves.

Fact is whether you like it or not there is nothing in Samara's background to indicate she was ever in a leadership position. Samurai, knight same thing, they are minor nobility, and trained from birth to be battlefield leaders. justicars and knights =apples and oranges.

You're joking right?  She directly compared herself to a knight!!!!!!

Everyone here seems to be oblivious to the fact that leadership is a subjective quality and you're all acting like it's some kind of measurable trait where 2.00001 years of leadership is a cost calculation superior to 999 years of solitary warrior experience.

This is such a joke, you're all brainwashed by utilitarian mechanical thought processes that are completely nonsensical.

I mean, let's say the U.S. was being invaded and two people raised a militia, one was a gang leader with a few years "experience" leading a street gang, the other is a veteran SWAT sniper with 25 years experience... would you SERIOUSLY follow the gang leader?

Personal attacks aside, just exactly how does spending 400 years alone hone your ability to lead people. you do not have to be a shrink to understand that spending a third of your life as a hermit will shrivel your social skills. I suggest you check your own thought processes before you criticise mine.

Your anagy has no bearing on the topic, miranda and jacob do not have the background of a gang leader, but Samara admitted to serving with seedy merc groups in her maiden years. Keep working at failing.

[Taritu]

DuffyMJ wrote...

keegdarv1 wrote...

ohhhhhhh not i get it reading some of the commetns basically if Samara isnt a good choice then no one sound be, or basically "why trust anyone Im Shepard I'll lead both teams right"

And DuffyMJ its not abouthearing bad things about "precious" charcters its about the facts of first no's percet mistakes get made, but Miranda Garrus being betraied was out of thier hands so neither acutally got thier groups killed, Jacob doesnt hate Thane just wasnt sure in very first meeting if could trust him, Grunt trust Shepard fully so he do what ever Shepard says, Tali respects and trust you so much they shes willing to work with a geth which lets not forget she wants to destory them all that i think shes willing to follow who ever you act to lead without much problem

Excuses, excuses... I only work with reality, not excuses.

Garrus himself says he got his team killed.  It weighs on his conscious no matter what, your interpretation of events doesn't change that reality.

Oh come on.  He wasn't there for the fight. If he was, it wouldn't have happened. You're looking for a combat leader, not someone who is able to figure out whether he's being betrayed out of combat.

Work with reality.

[DuffyMJ]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Okay, people are retarded. Why is Garrus a good group leader? because his fighting experience is, WITH GROUPS. His merc group died WHEN HE WAS NOT THERE. HE WAS BETRAYED.

You go ahead and let me know when you can keep people alive when that happens.

Why is Miranda a good tactician? Because that is how she is TRAINED. She is an OFFICER. Regardless of actual personality. And, by the way, I hate Miranda. But it is what it is.

Jacob? There is some argument there. Not that experience, and the only squad training he'd have, is in the alliance, on eden prime, which, as mentioned, didnt have much going on.

So, Garrus and Miranda are logical choices. Jacob?...Eh, Bioware thinks so.

Samara is very deadly, and has fought a lot. But not in a group setting. Not in a squad. By herself.

You don't take a sniper and put him in charge of combat engineering.

Both jobs have combat experience, BUT DO NOT HAVE THE SAME TRAINING IN COMBAT.

Why is it so hard to understand?

The Garrus issue is as simple as this:  he was betrayed and not present during the ambush, yes.

 But let me point something out to you.  The reason he was vulerable to such betrayal is because hot-headedness and blood lust managed the remarkably incompetent feat of driving THREE RIVAL MERC GROUPS to become ALLIES in their quest to erradicate him, unified their resources, their efforts, and their subterfuge.  Garrus is a great leader in the same way Kim Jong Il is a great leader: he built a following, but managed to ****** off literally everyone to the point where his and his men's lives were under constant siege and attrition.

Garrus has immense hubris issues, it's undeniable.  And I cannot think of a worse person to lead a squad against an unknown enemy in uncharted ground against an unknown target against an enemy of unknown strength than Garrus.

Someone please counterargue these points and stop this whole "yeah but but... he was betrayed!" excuse making B.S.

[keegdarv1]

Someone saying they blame them self its differnt then it being his fault, its not a excues but whatever, i know he blames himself wasnt taken that away from anything, but to say he shouldnt lead cause of something that was really out of his hands like getting stabed in the back i find a excues it self

[DuffyMJ]

Aradace wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

jklinders wrote...

Comparing Samara to a knight is pushing it. knights did not travel alone, they had a small group of pages and squires tending their gear and lead them as well through their traing to be knights themselves.

Fact is whether you like it or not there is nothing in Samara's background to indicate she was ever in a leadership position. Samurai, knight same thing, they are minor nobility, and trained from birth to be battlefield leaders. justicars and knights =apples and oranges.

You're joking right?  She directly compared herself to a knight!!!!!!

Everyone here seems to be oblivious to the fact that leadership is a subjective quality and you're all acting like it's some kind of measurable trait where 2.00001 years of leadership is a cost calculation superior to 999 years of solitary warrior experience.

This is such a joke, you're all brainwashed by utilitarian mechanical thought processes that are completely nonsensical.

I mean, let's say the U.S. was being invaded and two people raised a militia, one was a gang leader with a few years "experience" leading a street gang, the other is a veteran SWAT sniper with 25 years experience... would you SERIOUSLY follow the gang leader?

What you fail to see is that she has NO EXPERIENCE LEADING PEOPLE....Leadership comes from LEADING PEOPLE...not watching your own ass for centuries at a time.  And to answer your question, it would depend on which "person" had better "people" skills.  Sure the swat guy may have "combat" experience, but may lack people skills because he's spent no time LEADING PEOPLE.  So, if this were the case, YES, I'd pick the gang leader because in that scenario he at least has experience leading people and knows what it takes to command respect.  

Im ex Infantry and Ill tell you right now that Combat experience does NOT equal Leadership skills.

Well I'm in law enforcement and I'll tell you right now the best Lieutenants and Captains are ones who were patrolling the same streets and working the same beats as the folks they're promoted to lead.   The worst are those who transfer in at the same rank from other agencies.  I guess we can only agree to disagree.  To me, nothing is worse than "leadership experience" as a skill... it's the most vague, nonsensical, subjective qualification ever.  Leadership is an abstract concept that you're all attempting to reify into something tangible and measurable.  It isn't.  If it was, every company and government on Earth would be run fantastically.  

[jklinders]

keegdarv1 wrote...

Someone saying they blame them self its differnt then it being his fault, its not a excues but whatever, i know he blames himself wasnt taken that away from anything, but to say he shouldnt lead cause of something that was really out of his hands like getting stabed in the back i find a excues it self

Agreed, I'll add that Garrus may not understand strategy, that is what Shep is for. Tactics he excels at, for his role as fire team leader that is what is important.

[Aradace]

Ultimately duff, it's not what you think is right...it's what BW thinks is right sooooo you lose, thank you for playing though.

[AsheraII]

KumoriOokami wrote...

I always end up picking Garrus for that for some reason.

Agreed, I always found Garrus to have the most solid background to lead his own squad.
Miranda ran a spacestation, yes, but that was closer to a management function.
Jacob has an Alliance background, and may have run his own platoon, but that part of him just isn't "Fleshed out" too well in his background story.
Garrus lead his own band of vigilantes, not because he was promoted to the function, but because people flocked to him and placed themselves under his leadership. And that included someone from the Salarian STG, which I think adds some weight to his abilities and the faith such professionals placed in him.

[Legbiter]

DuffyMJ wrote...


Excuses, excuses... I only work with reality, not excuses.

Huh, I thought that was your thing.

"But, but ,Samara is just so uh, humble!