Legbiter wrote...
By their logic resurrecting Shepard was 4 billion credits down the drain....
You make points for saying ti could have been more complex, I agree it could have been. For what it is and tries to do, it is quite good already, with all the posts of why random people die as is, there is already quite bit of complexity.DuffyMJ wrote...
That's ridiculous, though, you can only say that in hindsight.
Going into the mission, you have no idea what you're facing. For all you know, half the colonists could be indoctrinated and thrown against you in waves. You really think Garrus has the mental state to deal with that kind of scenerio, or any kind of highly emotional scenerio?
I sure as **** don't... You know who would be able to deal with that, though? A stoic, disciplined, highly experienced Justicar.
When you're going into the unknown you want someone COOL HEADED. in that regard, i actually think miranda is decent, but she is handicapped by the lack of trust of squadmates.
The fact is, the mechanic should have been more complicated. Miranda should have been a good leader EXCEPT if she was placed in charge of a team with jack or tali or other anti-cerebus types in it. Jacob shou-ld have been a good one EXCEPT if thane was in his group... is that SO ungodly unreasonable for me to suggest? Am I really such a horrible, blatantly wrong person for seeing Samara's exceptionally valuable skillset and competence and the defects of precious garrus?
Madecologist wrote...
Legbiter wrote...
By their logic resurrecting Shepard was 4 billion credits down the drain....
Aye, I think I mentioned that earlier. Really, he dies to save a crippled pilot. What a dumb move. Clearly he is a bad leader. Clearly he couldn't survive something that like everyone almost did. Someone should have hired these two as advisor's for TIM. Save this whole Shepard business.
I am half tempted to argue why Tali is a good squad leader. Using their "logic" model, I think I can....
Yup, typical internet mentality to make a mockery of people who are just making a joke. Real nice and civil, man.DuffyMJ wrote...
Remaix wrote...
I think I love you.Madecologist wrote...
Sorry guys, I have to do this...
...at the logic of Samara being a good squad leader.
Yup, typical gang mentality to make a mockery out of those who disagree. Real nice and civil, guys.
I would not let Nihlus be a leader, Spectres are not chosen for their leadership skills just the ability to get the job done.DuffyMJ wrote...
Legbiter wrote...
By their logic resurrecting Shepard was 4 billion credits down the drain....
By your logic Nihlus -- a fellow spectre -- is a worse squad leader than an alliance grunt with a couple years experience being a second in command of a research lab space station who's claim to fame is defeating an overweight batarian ambassador from releasing a virus. Nice.
Modifié par Naltair, 18 février 2010 - 08:38 .
DuffyMJ wrote...
Remaix wrote...
You're obviously missing the point that Garrus managed to keep his whole squad alive until the betrayal. If he really was such a terrible leader, as you are saying, his squad wouldn't have lasted that long. They'd have died a whole lot sooner.DuffyMJ wrote...
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.
Now, I'd like to say one thing: I agree with one thing you're saying. Garrus was, indeed, too hot-headed. It was very, very, very stupid of him to ****** off three merc groups. But that's a different situation. The leadership role during the suicide mission is different than that. It tested his ability to keep people alive. It did not test his ability to not ****** off the wrong people.
That's ridiculous, though, you can only say that in hindsight.
Going into the mission, you have no idea what you're facing. For all you know, half the colonists could be indoctrinated and thrown against you in waves. You really think Garrus has the mental state to deal with that kind of scenerio, or any kind of highly emotional scenerio?
I sure as **** don't... You know who would be able to deal with that, though? A stoic, disciplined, highly experienced Justicar.
When you're going into the unknown you want someone COOL HEADED. in that regard, i actually think miranda is decent, but she is handicapped by the lack of trust of squadmates.
The fact is, the mechanic should have been more complicated. Miranda should have been a good leader EXCEPT if she was placed in charge of a team with jack or tali or other anti-cerebus types in it. Jacob shou-ld have been a good one EXCEPT if thane was in his group... is that SO ungodly unreasonable for me to suggest? Am I really such a horrible, blatantly wrong person for seeing Samara's exceptionally valuable skillset and competence and the defects of precious garrus?
DuffyMJ wrote...
By your logic Nihlus -- a fellow spectre -- is a worse squad leader than an alliance grunt with a couple years experience being a second in command of a research lab space station who's claim to fame is defeating an overweight batarian ambassador from releasing a virus. Nice.
It also got him killed.InvaderErl wrote...
Good point. Nihilus is a lone wolf as well.
Naltair wrote...
You make points for saying ti could have been more complex, I agree it could have been. For what it is and tries to do, it is quite good already, with all the posts of why random people die as is, there is already quite bit of complexity.DuffyMJ wrote...
That's ridiculous, though, you can only say that in hindsight.
Going into the mission, you have no idea what you're facing. For all you know, half the colonists could be indoctrinated and thrown against you in waves. You really think Garrus has the mental state to deal with that kind of scenerio, or any kind of highly emotional scenerio?
I sure as **** don't... You know who would be able to deal with that, though? A stoic, disciplined, highly experienced Justicar.
When you're going into the unknown you want someone COOL HEADED. in that regard, i actually think miranda is decent, but she is handicapped by the lack of trust of squadmates.
The fact is, the mechanic should have been more complicated. Miranda should have been a good leader EXCEPT if she was placed in charge of a team with jack or tali or other anti-cerebus types in it. Jacob shou-ld have been a good one EXCEPT if thane was in his group... is that SO ungodly unreasonable for me to suggest? Am I really such a horrible, blatantly wrong person for seeing Samara's exceptionally valuable skillset and competence and the defects of precious garrus?
I still don't agree that Samara is a good choice as a leader, she is an awesome specialist though and combatant and probably a strong choice for Holding the Line; but nothing in her dialogs or backgrounds scream out I am leader material. I have to agree with others based on experience, knowledge, and actual information that Miranda, Garrus, or Jacob make better choices. Each has lead and worked with people in varying capacities and knows to put the team and mission before themselves.
There is no set de facto leadership style, and each will do the job "differently" from an RP standpoint but each will get the job done. I just don;t see that with Samara no matter how old she is, I would not put her in command, that just isn't a good fit for her. She is a honed weapon of justice, focused and dedicated but I think perhaps too inflexible to have the ability to think on her feet and keep others alive.
She may be caring but that does not equate to a strong leader.
Modifié par InvaderErl, 18 février 2010 - 08:40 .
DuffyMJ wrote...
Yup, typical gang mentality to make a mockery out of those who disagree. Real nice and civil, guys.
KainrycKarr wrote...
DuffyMJ wrote...
Remaix wrote...
You're obviously missing the point that Garrus managed to keep his whole squad alive until the betrayal. If he really was such a terrible leader, as you are saying, his squad wouldn't have lasted that long. They'd have died a whole lot sooner.DuffyMJ wrote...
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.
Now, I'd like to say one thing: I agree with one thing you're saying. Garrus was, indeed, too hot-headed. It was very, very, very stupid of him to ****** off three merc groups. But that's a different situation. The leadership role during the suicide mission is different than that. It tested his ability to keep people alive. It did not test his ability to not ****** off the wrong people.
That's ridiculous, though, you can only say that in hindsight.
Going into the mission, you have no idea what you're facing. For all you know, half the colonists could be indoctrinated and thrown against you in waves. You really think Garrus has the mental state to deal with that kind of scenerio, or any kind of highly emotional scenerio?
I sure as **** don't... You know who would be able to deal with that, though? A stoic, disciplined, highly experienced Justicar.
When you're going into the unknown you want someone COOL HEADED. in that regard, i actually think miranda is decent, but she is handicapped by the lack of trust of squadmates.
The fact is, the mechanic should have been more complicated. Miranda should have been a good leader EXCEPT if she was placed in charge of a team with jack or tali or other anti-cerebus types in it. Jacob shou-ld have been a good one EXCEPT if thane was in his group... is that SO ungodly unreasonable for me to suggest? Am I really such a horrible, blatantly wrong person for seeing Samara's exceptionally valuable skillset and competence and the defects of precious garrus?
I was under the impression Justicars couldn't kill innocents. Of course, that would conflict with Shepard's orders, and Samara being bound to Shepard's will....
I'd say that's conflict.
The fact of the matter is that NOONE is a perfect match for leading the team...except Shepard.
Garrus, Miranda, and Jacob have the raw training and experience with group fighting is directly relevant to leading and coordinating a team and it's attack.
Samara's raw power and "stoic coolness" do not directly relate, nor translate, to being a leader that can keep people alive.
It does, however, translate to her being good in the situation of say, the Ruthless Shepard background where Shepard get's everyone killed, but gets the job done nonetheless.
Can Samara get the job done? Absolutely. without a doubt.
Can she do it and keep everyone alive while doing so? Most likely not.
Modifié par Computron2000, 18 février 2010 - 08:41 .
DuffyMJ wrote...
I have never seen a larger bunch of hypocrites. You do nothing but whine about Garrus being betrayed and it's not his fault, and you argue Nihlus died because he was a loner and COMPLETELY WHITE-WASH the fact that he was betrayed by a friend and fellow spectre?
What a joke.
Madecologist wrote...
DuffyMJ wrote...
Yup, typical gang mentality to make a mockery out of those who disagree. Real nice and civil, guys.
If you can't handle a bit of internet humour and forum memes, then don't be on the internet. Any thread that becomes 5+ pages in under an hour or so is fair game for comical pictures.
There are two type of disagreements, the first kind is what to have for supper and what colour to paint the baby's room. Then there is deciding to let Drunk Tony to drive the car across the incomplete bridge (I don't kid.. I had that arguement IRL once...).
I will let you guess which one this one is like.
I never argued that point. Don't make generalizations.DuffyMJ wrote...
I have never seen a larger bunch of hypocrites. You do nothing but whine about Garrus being betrayed and it's not his fault, and you argue Nihlus died because he was a loner and COMPLETELY WHITE-WASH the fact that he was betrayed by a friend and fellow spectre?
What a joke.
...what.DuffyMJ wrote...
I have never seen a larger bunch of hypocrites. You do nothing but whine about Garrus being betrayed and it's not his fault, and you argue Nihlus died because he was a loner and COMPLETELY WHITE-WASH the fact that he was betrayed by a friend and fellow spectre?
What a joke.
DuffyMJ wrote...
I have never seen a larger bunch of hypocrites. You do nothing but whine about Garrus being betrayed and it's not his fault, and you argue Nihlus died because he was a loner and COMPLETELY WHITE-WASH the fact that he was betrayed by a friend and fellow spectre?
What a joke.
Modifié par Zulmoka531, 18 février 2010 - 08:45 .
Retour en haut
