213374U

Quick fix: play a Vanguard. Seriously though, sometimes I have that "issue" myself, with the Claymore. But in my case it's simply over-aggressive behaviour mixed with carelessness, as I simply forget to reload. Are you certain you have a round chambered when that happens? Bulkheads for atmosphere containment purposes are at least partially obsolete. And since the main factor affecting a ship's power is size as it directly determines main gun punch, it's not so unconceivable to have some unused space in a Cerberus vessel. For one, the ship isn't meant to accomodate a marine complement. Even Zaeed comments how roomy the ship is, compared to military craft. You may not like it, but I think it's intentional. This. They created an entire deck (which they force the player to visit) around the "feature" that you can only swap armor pieces or even take your helmet off using a terminal. Take that, unobtrusive design!

Uh... nice. But they didn't fix the issue where squaddies ammo powers override Shep's squad ammo, regardless of the "Squad power use" setting OR the multicore load times issue. And what's this about vehicle control... there are no vehicles to control, properly or otherwise.

I was disappointed that this was the final Paragon/Renegade decision. Renegade makes ALL sense, and Paragon is just... letting Carth make the call. Only I have doubts that Carth would shoot himself in the foot so casually.

Hahaha. Owned by Volourn. How often does that happen?!

Good to see that there's at least some countries left in Europe that aren't as quick to jump on the internationalist-multicultural PC bandwagon. Oh, wait. Did you say France? Crap.

Not anymore!

Dear Volourn, Stop being always wrong. Kind regards, The Internet

Interesting. Tell me more about these mythical beings.

ME2 just copied GoW combat. Which isn't a bad thing as GoW is fun and Bio doesn't really have any experience with shooter gameplay. But GoW has co-op. When are we going to get co-op, Bioware? ME2 is for me the better game, as well. Personally, I'd take neither. I recently replayed ME to get a Paragon save, and ignored all Mako exploring. And in ME2, I just cheated in all necessary resources to get that out of the way. I'd rather... play the game. This is space, FFS. The exploration element, if you absolutely need to have one, shouldn't revolve around scanning planets, in person, or from orbit.

Charge damage is negligible. You only use it to get in their faces and land headshots with the bullet time bonus of Heavy Charge. And, um, to replenish your shields after you get hit by return fire from the (now dead) victim's friends. Use it to replenish shields? That could be useful since Fortification/Barrier/Geth Shield Boost have about a 10 billion second cooldown time. Do any of the shield powers stack with charge? Also, what's the general strategy with biotics for the vanguards? They do. I got around 600+ barrier by stacking the time-extend variant of Fortification with the bonus from Charge... but it's not worth it as once your shields go down, the bonus from those skills goes away, and you simply cannot wait around for 12 seconds for the cooldown. And trust me, your shields WILL go down. Biotics strategy... depends on what difficulty you're playing on. Hardcore and above, biotics are useless as everyone is immune, and you should be charging anyway. So spend those points in squad ammo powers (cryo is useful) and Tungsten. Veteran and below, pull field is pretty fun, for those mobs you can't/don't want to charge. For Veteran, you may also want to try Area Charge instead of Heavy, just so you can play some Blue Suns Bowling. Rule of thumb, if it has a longer cooldown than Charge, don't bother with it. Really, Vanguard is a one-trick-pony kind of class. But boy is it fun to play.

Charge damage is negligible. You only use it to get in their faces and land headshots with the bullet time bonus of Heavy Charge. And, um, to replenish your shields after you get hit by return fire from the (now dead) victim's friends.

YMIR, have Miranda/Garrus soften it up a bit with Overload, then hit it with a couple missiles, then CHARGE! once its defenses are weakened enough. I just did Jack's recruitment mission... my quickest run yet. You need to be careful though as charging a YMIR will leave you vulnerable to remaining mobs, though. Packs of Krogan, depends on what defenses they have. If there's a boss, have Miranda Warp his barrier, load up your Inferno ammo (or even better, Tungsten), and Charge the hell out of him. With the Claymore, you can one-shot (+melee) pretty much anyone in this game... unless they have multiple protections. Charging the first idiot to come around the corner WILL get you killed, though - I learned this the hard way. You need to plan ahead, and choose carefully who to charge, focusing on the weakest mobs first.

After reading a bit about the Vanguard's mass murder capability, I decided to start a NG+ and check it out (edited my boring Sentinel and changed his class). Most fun class to play, ever. To those of you who say Charge is useless: you're doing it wrong. (that's not me, just showcasing what a somewhat intelligent use of Charge can do).

Yay. Can't wait for some good ol' Spearmen vs Panzer action.

Yeah, no worries.

Err, yes. That admiral. Did he convert to Islam lately, or are you a bit too obsessed with these things and your brain is playing tricks on you?

Where did I say that I was against the "people's movement"? Just curious. What's all this about a "people's movement"? Mousavi isn't an enemy of the regime as he's being romantically portrayed in the media. He's just the current visible head of the other "wing" of the Islamic Revolution. Just another run of the mill power struggle in a totalitarian state. Nothing to see here, move along.

That hinges on the circumstance that torture is illegal and therefore must be carried out without supervision and in secret. Nobody wants to be fined, imprisoned, conscripted, have their property confiscated, lose custody over their children, etc. And yet, those are apparently acceptable, by most standards. Isn't that for all intents and purposes institutionalized "tyranny"? Is it better or worse than torture? Do you support the concept of a tyranny of a majority controlled by mass media? History suggests that the only thing preserving our treasured inalienable human rights is economic prosperity. If that fails, it's the national razor all over again. That's a Western invention, btw - and one without which we couldn't afford our current mindset... but I digress. Tyranny is one of those words with a very strong emotional charge. Even if it wasn't your intention, using it to strengthen your point is an appeal to emotion that distorts and misleads. In the end, what you have is the state ****ing with the individual, one way or another, by virtue of powers which have a basis in force. The line in the sand can be drawn anywhere. I made a hypothetical scenario with the intention of examining the moral aspect of torture without prejudices. It's funny to see you freaking out over this, considering your posting history. Let's not forget that, rhetoric aside, bourgeois pigs are people too. But yeah, let's bring up the fascist bogeyman, that never fails! Uh, no, they didn't. There were some "revenge war crimes," but the Soviet Union never engaged in organized campaigns of genocide in occupied territories. Sorry.K

Utilitarianism. So the question here would be, "is there any other way to deal with these rabid kittens"/"is flinging kittens the most conducive solution towards achieving a greater good"? But then you have to consider moral minimums too, assume that there's such a thing as a greater good outside of general consensus, etc. In retrospect, I suppose I should haven't steered the discussion this way. So, to preserve the rule of law, laws must be broken at times? Doesn't that suggest that there's something wrong with the idea to begin with? Long time no see, btw. Yes. YES. That is the crux, actually, of the whole issue. Because, as with what lof suggested, whenever we go against someone else's will (be it by imprisoning, drafting into a military, or simply imposing laws), it's justified because it is assumed that something is achieved by that. Obviously, if that's false, it's in this particular case unnecessary cruelty and generally an arbitrary abuse - immoral. But if it, on the other hand, does serve a purpose (other than causing suffering, but that's a different story), things aren't so clear anymore. From what I've been reading, at this point the discussion can't proceed further, as crucial facts can't be determined. More specifically, it's uncertain whether it can be established that torture is completely obsolete.

Yes, that's nice. How about a relevant argument please? Anything that imposes one's will over another's can be construed as relegating "certain people" (who?) to a "subhuman" state. And, uh, it happens everyday. Where's the outrage? Where's the difference? edit: consistency

Yes, Allah is great, Anarcho-syndicalism is the only way to Salvation, and unfortunately Santa won't be bringing you any presents because you have been a very, very naughty boy! See, I don't need to explain why - here with lof, we take what people say at face value! You've sufficiently proven that you don't understand the point of a thought experiment, or even the simple process of argument-rebuttal that makes a debate possible. Come back when you do. PS. Maxwell's Demon isn't really under your bed, sleep tight.

No, it doesn't sound plausible. Implausibility does not equal impossibility, and it does certainly not imply absurdity. Nope, not even with your fallacious ridicule. And, again, that's why it's a hypothetical scenario. Stop running circles, you'll end up throwing up. Either think of an argument or go back to The Manifesto.

lof, meet thought experiment. Thought experiment, meet lof. And you still haven't explained why it's absurd. You are just now realizing that a hypothetical scenario is... *SHOCK!!!* not real. Welcome to page 3.

Because an analogy by itself is not a rebuttal, I do not need to waste my time refuting a non-argument. Try harder.

Don't be a conceited jerkwad. Also, work harder on your argumentations, as all you did is substitute one word for another that means exactly the same in this context (ethics-morality). If something is necessary, in this case, for the greater good, it cannot be "ethically" or otherwise wrong, as either an acceptable alternative exists or the goal is impossible to achieve. Asshat. No, I mean, how do you figure it's not possible to have a desperate, utterly humiliated person believe he's better off taking what the "good cop" is offering? Sigh. And here I thought we were making progress. So... can you actually substantiate that? "Help help, I can't find a good argument so I'm going to resort to irrelevant analogies in a desperate effort to divert the attention and evade the point!" Try harder. You'd like that, but no such luck, sorry. I'm just playing the part everyone seems to ascribe to me.