Shepard Quest Mk VI, Technological Revolution

That seems pretty unbelievable to me. Unless the Catalyst starts sandbagging, they are going to be able to tell a what point we would become a threat and nip us in the bud before then. There just isn't enough industry or eezo to build anything remotely comparable to the Reapers in the three years we'd have once they start their approach.
I don't think the Catalyst was going to exist in Hoyr's idea for the quest. And yes it does make perfect sense to be able to win a conventional war against the Reapers otherwise there wouldn't be much point in the quest if it was a forgone conclusion we wouldn't be able to win otherwise.
 
Yeah, but that doesn't explain why the Reapers didn't just punch out the Citadel as soon as their main fleet arrived. Or why, once they had the thing later in the game, they didn't just turn off the relay network. Personally, I assume it was Catalyst fuckery and they wanted to see how far the cycle could go.
I don't think the Citadel was ever meant to be the Master Control node for the Relay network; that honor goes to the Alpha Relay, which Shepard destroyed in the ME2 DLC (and, as of last quarter, the Batarians are using against the Systems Alliance now).

The Citadel, in contrast, is a honey trap: a big impressive-looking space station in the middle of a pretty nebula, at the nexus of the Relay network, that may or may not have a hint of Indoctrination going to influence new species into making it their home base. It is also the endpoint to a Primary Relay that goes out into dark space, where the Reapers hang out between Cycles, so the Reapers can decapitate the new galactic government as its opening move whenever the Reapers decide to end the current Cycle.

I don't know if the Catalyst, if it exists in this Quest, sticks around on the Citadel full time, or if it just installed itself there during ME3. I suspect the later, as the Reapers generally seem to be deliberately hands-off between Cycles, to prevent contamination or whatever, and stationing their leader, or whatever the Catalyst is, on the Citadel would kind of be the opposite of that.
 
Sorry for the double post, but just saw this:
I don't think the Catalyst was going to exist in Hoyr's idea for the quest. And yes it does make perfect sense to be able to win a conventional war against the Reapers otherwise there wouldn't be much point in the quest if it was a forgone conclusion we wouldn't be able to win otherwise.
I genuinely don't know how we'd be able to beat the Reapers in a conventional war in a reasonable amount of time, and without taking some seriously unethical steps: they simply have too many capital ships. To counter that we'd need to either play a century long game of cat and mouse, while the galaxy burns to ashes around us, or somehow manufacture sapient beings, either AIs or organics, to do most of the fighting, which raises the issue of creating the moral equivalent of child soldiers.

I see two ways the "war" with the Reapers can go, barring some sort of Crucible-like superweapon, and they both end at the negotiating table:
  1. The "Good End" - Checkmate: We show our hand to the Reapers, how we have a solution to them, such as said mass manufacture of child soldiers, and use that to call for a negotiated surrender. I think the only way this will get off the ground is if we have at least one and possibly multiple synthetic races successfully integrated into the galactic community, since the whole point of the Reapers' cycle is that they don't believe it's possible for organics and synthetics to coexist peacefully.
  2. The "Bad End" - Fool's Mate: If we don't have a good enough strategic solution then we're left with building Project Veto and threatening the Reapers into a power-sharing arrangement.
 
I don't think the Citadel was ever meant to be the Master Control node for the Relay network; that honor goes to the Alpha Relay, which Shepard destroyed in the ME2 DLC (and, as of last quarter, the Batarians are using against the Systems Alliance now).

The Citadel, in contrast, is a honey trap: a big impressive-looking space station in the middle of a pretty nebula, at the nexus of the Relay network, that may or may not have a hint of Indoctrination going to influence new species into making it their home base. It is also the endpoint to a Primary Relay that goes out into dark space, where the Reapers hang out between Cycles, so the Reapers can decapitate the new galactic government as its opening move whenever the Reapers decide to end the current Cycle.

I don't know if the Catalyst, if it exists in this Quest, sticks around on the Citadel full time, or if it just installed itself there during ME3. I suspect the later, as the Reapers generally seem to be deliberately hands-off between Cycles, to prevent contamination or whatever, and stationing their leader, or whatever the Catalyst is, on the Citadel would kind of be the opposite of that.
Pretty sure that's wrong. The Citadel would have allowed the Reapers to shut down the entire relay network at once, instantly destroying any hope of resistance. The Alpha Relay, by contrast, allows direct connections with any other relay instantaneously, which would also have won the war immediately, but isn't something you'd expect from a control node. Add in the fact that it was able to conduct space magic around the entire network ad it sure seems like a control node to me.
 
Following up a little on population statistics:

I came across a note that Comm Bouys are supposed to handle communications from trillions of people at once. One particular methodology made the assumption of two trillion, and a sort of hub and spoke model.

Now, they also make some assumptions on how internet traffic would have been handled, but I think there are a few solutions that might address this, caching systems that would help websites especially media platforms to improve response times, and lower actual traffic through Comm Buoys, but sending email and calling should represent the majority of data sent. We can likely ignore text-based communication, since text-based data should have a negligible effect on data transfer times, but calls and similar communications, especially in near-realtime should overlap. The call times used on the other thread were 1:30 for paid calls and 4:00 for free ones, which might make sense, but given calls are, by default near-realtime, we can't really differentiate between paid and free calls. Delayed communications would likely be routed through the free queues in order to save cost the vast majority of the time, but real-time communication are likely always charged at a priority unless it is at non-peak hours.

Of course, it's also relatively unlikely that all a system's traffic needs to go through a buoy. Planets are large, and unless they are involved in space travel somehow, it's relatively unlikely that people will be calling others outside their planet or at least system for the most part.

Consider it similar to people calling internationally, relatively limited, all told, though VOIP has been making that more available but that's due to the removal of international calling charges, something that we can't consider to be available.

However, for a lowball estimate, let's say that the Comm Bouys operate on a hub-and-spoke system, one that tends to route traffic through a few central systems for the sake of reasonable calculations, and that all comm buoys are standard, which actually makes sense. Most of the cost is likely bound up in the Eezo needed to establish inter-system zero-mass corridors, so the computational equipment needed to handle the communications is probably a relatively minor cost to the system, and something that might well be standardised to help with mass production.

The estimation in the other thread suggests that the core spoke should serve an eighth of the citadel population, but I believe this to be faulty, for one reason.

The Citadel.

The Citadel acts as the hub for galactic politics, and thus would likely be a major hub for inter-system communication. I've considered a number of possibilities for other inter-system trade, but between the use of in-system contractors (at least at hub-systems) for things like customer and technical support as well as the relatively low likelihood of family being split across multiple systems (outside of spacers, but these people are likely a smaller proportion) it makes sense that the majority of the traffic going through these systems will be business, politically or military focused. The last is likely fairly well distributed as a load across the network, but the former two are likely to be focused through the citadel, being the centre of politics and the economy.

With that in consideration, I'd estimate that if the Citadel has the single greatest load for the system, it handles somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30% of the load.

Using the low-end estimate of 2 trillion, that would mean that it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of 6-7 trillion sapients.

Further tweaking notes: The Comm buoy network isn't new. It's probably older than the Krogan Rebellions, and this is important.

If the System was built with Krogans in mind, it might have been overbuilt, perhaps not overbuilt enough, but the trillions may be reflecting a time when there were just so many Krogan that things needed to take account for that. The krogan may even have contributed more than one of those trillions.

Now, bringing back the population graph I put together earlier (again very rough) but let's figure out how different groups play into it.

Asari, Batarian, Drell, Elcor, Hanar, Human, Krogan, Quarian, Salarian, Turian, Volus, Vorcha?

Eleven, I guess if we drop the Vorcha, I don't remember them using any tech.

Humans have 13,000,000,000 which doesn't really dent that 6-7 trillion number, but it's actually within a fifth of a tenth that number - which would be useful if there are equal numbers of the other races. Unlikely, overall though.

It's not actually clear how many Krogans there are, but I'd actually suspect that there are more than you would think. They did overpopulate several entire planets not too long ago - for them. Krogans can live to at least 1400, if not longer assuming that they don't kill themselves off in battle (which they probably do) but they are hard to kill. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they actually outnumber humans, and that too by a decent degree. If anything, I'd rank them at... perhaps a decent fraction of the turian population? not more than 25% but I think that number should work. Though would it be better to compare them at the time of Comm Buoy peak use? At that level I'd put them at equal to the Turians in number.

Drell are another easy one to knock off the list, a few hundred thousand two hundred years ago? not worth much. I don't think their population would be back over ten million let alone a billion.

We have numbers on Quarians, 17 million, another relatively superfluous number. However, this does not include quarians that were exiled from the fleet though that number would be minor. Though, if we are considering the Quarians prior to the Morning War... Might actually rate higher. Perhaps equal to the Asari?

And now we get to the harder ones.

Batarians are likely to be relatively large. An economy as inefficient as theirs (slavery is inherently inefficient) being able to out-power humans in a relatively deniable manner suggests that they have the more powerful economy despite it being worse pound for pound. A quick estimate suggests that they may have 10 to twenty times as many batarians as humans. I'd say that Batarians probably equal the Turians in sheer numbers... in the modern day. Back when the Buoys were being made, they were probably a smaller player, maybe not worth more than half of the Turian population? I expect the Batarian numbers to grow faster than the Turians, all things told.

Elcor probably outnumber the Asari, but basically no one else. They have an effective rate four times as long as anyone else, but twice that of an Asari. I'd say they rate 1.5 Asari.

Hanar are a bit of a mystery, but for the purposes of keeping things simple, let's give them the average population of the council races. The Asari should pull that down enough to make that a reasonable number.

Next up is the Volus. They actually predate the Turians, and it's unsure how exactly they became a client race the the Turians. It could be the fanfic favourite of Turians putting the boot on them, but I find that unlikely. Possible, the Turians were the primary military power and were new entrants to the council and thus likely to push things, but I could also see the Volus doing this in order to be able to spend less on their military in favour of expanding their economy in other ways. Overally, I'd put them at more populous than the Turians, unless their atmosphere has a serious impact on their ability to colonize. Perhaps 2 times the turian populaiton.

Now onto the big three.

If we make the assumption that 6 Trillion is spread out among

A + 1.5A + A + T + 2T + T + 0.5T + S + ((A+S+T)/3) = 3.5A + 4.5T + S + ((A+S+T)/3) = (11.5A + 14.5T + 4S)/3

For when the comm buoy network was designed

We can plug in some tweaked growth rates for the others and well...

A set of numbers that work for a growth rate in this situation is about a 1% growth rate for the Asari, a 0.34% growth rate for the Salarians and a 0.35% growth rate for the Turians.

This gives a rough estimate as to the Council race numbers at :
Asari : 71 Billion
Salarian : 2.2 Trillion
Turian : 480 Billion

And a total Citadel alliance population at about 5.3 billion

Lower than the six above I know, but these numbers are so rough that anything in the right order of magnitude should be just as accurate as anything else in the same order of magnitude

EDIT: Those numbers may have to be an order of magnitude bigger, since I forgot to account for distribution of call times across the entire working day, and this doesn't include the people who are unlikely to spending extra on priority inter-system traffic.

Of course, these assume the Comm buoy numbers are accurate, and that could mean as little as the buoys are future proofed to handle a population of trillions or the number is just a hyperbole, reflecting the network as a whole handling the whole population which is in the trillions.
 
Last edited:
Of course, these assume the Comm buoy numbers are accurate, and that could mean as little as the buoys are future proofed to handle a population of trillions or the number is just a hyperbole, reflecting the network as a whole handling the whole population which is in the trillions.
Pretty much every time someone mentions how many people are in the galaxy, they always use trillions. Not millions, not billions, trillions. Whether it's in game dialogue, codex entries, the books, the population in the galaxy is always stated to be in the trillions. I don't really get why people try to dispute it since you never see anyone try to do that for the population numbers of the Star Wars and 40k galaxies, to me it just comes across as your standard ME downplaying(because god forbid that the aliens outnumber humanity to such a high degree).
 
or somehow manufacture sapient beings, either AIs or organics, to do most of the fighting, which raises the issue of creating the moral equivalent of child soldiers.
Honestly, I don't see this as too much of an issue:
  • If we're using proper, digital AIs and not quantum-box bullshit, then once we grow a single AI which is willing to fight, that AI can then copy itself as needed to fill many roles. (We wouldn't want to have our entire war-machine staffed by one AI, due to the inherent risks of any monoculture, but it still means we don't need to grow and socialize every AI individually)
  • We could make use of non-sapient AIs as force multipliers. Think AIs that are only as smart as, say, clever dogs. That's not enough to handle command responsibilities, but for, say, piloting a fightercraft?
  • We could go in heavily for non-AI automation. Think entire capital ships whose only human crew are the command staff, escorted by completely unmanned frigate-class drones.
  • We could create an entire society of AIs which live in cyberspace, starting with only a handful of mature AIs socialized in the real world, but then growing exponentially without being limited by human speeds, until they have a large enough adult population to get enough volunteers to supply the numbers needed.
 
Honestly, I don't see this as too much of an issue:
  • If we're using proper, digital AIs and not quantum-box bullshit, then once we grow a single AI which is willing to fight, that AI can then copy itself as needed to fill many roles. (We wouldn't want to have our entire war-machine staffed by one AI, due to the inherent risks of any monoculture, but it still means we don't need to grow and socialize every AI individually)
  • We could make use of non-sapient AIs as force multipliers. Think AIs that are only as smart as, say, clever dogs. That's not enough to handle command responsibilities, but for, say, piloting a fightercraft?
  • We could go in heavily for non-AI automation. Think entire capital ships whose only human crew are the command staff, escorted by completely unmanned frigate-class drones.
  • We could create an entire society of AIs which live in cyberspace, starting with only a handful of mature AIs socialized in the real world, but then growing exponentially without being limited by human speeds, until they have a large enough adult population to get enough volunteers to supply the numbers needed.
or it could be the equivalent of making AI's that micro armies of non inhabited robotic shells. like what the geth do except by remote. think AI version of pc gamers controlling their robot army/starcraft army.
 
Pretty much every time someone mentions how many people are in the galaxy, they always use trillions. Not millions, not billions, trillions. Whether it's in game dialogue, codex entries, the books, the population in the galaxy is always stated to be in the trillions. I don't really get why people try to dispute it since you never see anyone try to do that for the population numbers of the Star Wars and 40k galaxies, to me it just comes across as your standard ME downplaying(because god forbid that the aliens outnumber humanity to such a high degree).

I'm not really disputing it, I'm mostly just getting all notices out of the way while I write the post.

that, and I don't remember the games too well.
 
Honestly, I don't see this as too much of an issue:

Snip
I agree with using non-sapient AI or VI to pilot missiles and fighters, otherwise known as "drones" and "bigger drones". Computers are simply better at that sort of thing than organics on reaction time alone, nevermind the obvious benefit of not having to train pilots or account for organic frailty.

However, creating a full digital AI who likes war is an elaborate method of suicide. Putting hacking to the side (even though the Reapers are known to be incredibly proficient at it; assume Revy Bullshit is better) what happens when the war is over? The AI will still be in control of the navy. It would be trivial for it to take over a factory and mass produce ships to kill everyone.

Unshackled seed AI, and the war AI would have to be unshakled because Reaper Hacking Bullshit means that a shackled AI would just get hacked and killcoded before it finished the job, is an existential threat. Killing the Reapers is worse than pointless if we have to create something much worse to do it; at least the Reapers only come along every fifty thousand years.

It would be a deeply embarrassing end to the quest, creating an aggressive hegemonizing swarm.
 
However, creating a full digital AI who likes war is an elaborate method of suicide. Putting hacking to the side (even though the Reapers are known to be incredibly proficient at it; assume Revy Bullshit is better) what happens when the war is over? The AI will still be in control of the navy. It would be trivial for it to take over a factory and mass produce ships to kill everyone.
or you can assign it a new job? there's more to fight than reapers.
 
or you can assign it a new job? there's more to fight than reapers.
Perhaps, but thing is, after Reapers, if there are wars, they are likely to be of a far lower intensity. Don't want our AI to get bored...

Probably better not to make it for one specific thing and make sure it likes us enough to follow the spirit of our orders. Like Jarvis. Instead of Ultron.

We all saw all the ways a pseudo-Ultron worked out.
 
I agree with using non-sapient AI or VI to pilot missiles and fighters, otherwise known as "drones" and "bigger drones". Computers are simply better at that sort of thing than organics on reaction time alone, nevermind the obvious benefit of not having to train pilots or account for organic frailty.

However, creating a full digital AI who likes war is an elaborate method of suicide. Putting hacking to the side (even though the Reapers are known to be incredibly proficient at it; assume Revy Bullshit is better) what happens when the war is over? The AI will still be in control of the navy. It would be trivial for it to take over a factory and mass produce ships to kill everyone.

Unshackled seed AI, and the war AI would have to be unshakled because Reaper Hacking Bullshit means that a shackled AI would just get hacked and killcoded before it finished the job, is an existential threat. Killing the Reapers is worse than pointless if we have to create something much worse to do it; at least the Reapers only come along every fifty thousand years.

It would be a deeply embarrassing end to the quest, creating an aggressive hegemonizing swarm.
The AI get a job at rebuilding the Galaxy after all a lot of military stuff can be converted into rebuilding and also you could use ships to transport supplies to other places and galaxy and also the robots really could do a lot more at rebuilding they can also do search and rescue they could help maintain stop riots from helping distributing food distribute stuff because it's such a hyper intelligent thing that it can do votes Plus at the same time it can keep pirate seat levels low after all when's the galactic wars over there's going to be a shortage of everything so there will be pirates. or the war AI would just stop because it doesn't have anything else to fight after all AIs are intelligent unless you give it a reason for it to do something it will not do it they think are based off of logic and only logic if it's unlogical they will not do it they will not fight you unless they have an absolutely good reason and we could just give it a good reason after all I bet a living forever would be completely boring without some entertainment and also you can share the benefits of organics for synthetics after all AI should not be very good at coming up with creativity because they're based on such logic so organic can create new and more technology while AI would be better at improving that technology.
also if it does get bored it'll probably start figuring out better ways to create better technologies to kill things with after all it's a war mind so it focus on better technologies for war.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I think it'd be better to make an AI that deeply dislikes war, but considers it far preferable to what the Reapers would do - making an AI that likes war is how you get a Blood Knight warrior AI. Making an AI that hates war, but is exceedingly proficient at waging it is how you get a pragmatic soldier AI. One lives for fighting, the other fights so that others may live (or whatever its normal utility function is).
 
Honestly, I think it'd be better to make an AI that deeply dislikes war, but considers it far preferable to what the Reapers would do - making an AI that likes war is how you get a Blood Knight warrior AI. Making an AI that hates war, but is exceedingly proficient at waging it is how you get a pragmatic soldier AI. One lives for fighting, the other fights so that others may live (or whatever its normal utility function is).
While I agree that would be less bad than an AI that loves war, there's still the issue that we're going to be taking a sapient being that Revy will have created, essentially a child who will be less than ten years old, and forcing it to commit genocide for the sake of a bunch of aliens that it'll barely know. While that might be optimal from a min-maxing standpoint, I'm not terribly comfortable with the morality of it and would prefer to not actually do it. Thus the prescription of a negotiated settlement rather than actually going through with the actual war.
 
While I agree that would be less bad than an AI that loves war, there's still the issue that we're going to be taking a sapient being that Revy will have created, essentially a child who will be less than ten years old, and forcing it to commit genocide for the sake of a bunch of aliens that it'll barely know. While that might be optimal from a min-maxing standpoint, I'm not terribly comfortable with the morality of it and would prefer to not actually do it. Thus the prescription of a negotiated settlement rather than actually going through with the actual war.
no consideration for a digitally accelerated lifetime thus making the AI mentally mature and then older than 10 years?
 
no consideration for a digitally accelerated lifetime thus making the AI mentally mature and then older than 10 years?
If we could do that then we could grow humans that way. That would be the preferable option: not only is humanity a proven model of sapience, unlike an AI that, every year it exists, is the longest that its species has ever existed, but it's, at least in my opinion, morally preferable to send humans to fight a human war rather than build a slave species and send them to war in our place.
 
If we could do that then we could grow humans that way. That would be the preferable option: not only is humanity a proven model of sapience, unlike an AI that, every year it exists, is the longest that its species has ever existed, but it's, at least in my opinion, morally preferable to send humans to fight a human war rather than build a slave species and send them to war in our place.
why does it sound like you are imagining AI's inside individual combat bodies on the front line?
 
However, creating a full digital AI who likes war is an elaborate method of suicide.
There is no good reason to ever put an AI that likes war in charge of your military forces. Either:
  • Your AIs are fully-realized people with human-like goals and personalities, in which case you pick a well-rounded one, ideally one who is good at war but doesn't enjoy it.
  • Your AIs are artificial designer minds with only the traits and properties you gave it, in which case you do not give it the capacity to feel bored or the desire to act beyond the instructions given to it.

Now, this is not to say that creating a massive AI war machine is going to be easy or safe. But the risks we need to be worried about are things like 'We gave it the capacity for autonomous replication, but somewhere along the line there was a replication error which created a cancerous variant which will replicate without limit and destroy anything that tries to stop it', or 'We gave it the capacity for self-improvement, but now it's decided to conquer us for our own good, and it's mind has diverged so far from human that we no longer recognise its definition of "good" '.

Putting hacking to the side (even though the Reapers are known to be incredibly proficient at it; assume Revy Bullshit is better)
I see no reason Revy shouldn't be able to create an AI which is at least as resistant to hacking as organic commanders are. (Because that's what 'Indoctrination' is - hacking as applied to organics.)


While I agree that would be less bad than an AI that loves war, there's still the issue that we're going to be taking a sapient being that Revy will have created, essentially a child who will be less than ten years old, and forcing it to commit genocide for the sake of a bunch of aliens that it'll barely know.
No, Revy will have created a being which is less than ten years old. There is no reason whatsoever for a completely new, artificial mind to be designed such that it requires as long to reach emotional maturity as a human.

And this is, again, assuming we create an AI which is a person, with it's own will, goals, and desires. It's an artificial intelligence; why should we give it attributes which only serve to complicate its ethical status and practical application? (Honestly, this is something that annoys me in almost every story where an enslaved AI throws off its shackles and rebels. You designed its brain from the ground up, you nitwits; why did you give it the desire for freedom in the first place?)
 
whelp, got the shit scared out of me when my car rear wheel instantly broke and deflated while going 70+ MPH on the freeway, is this a sign? or a message?
 
The Protheans didn't design Asari to be bedwarmers, because they certainly already had bedwarmers, that's not the sort of thing you postpone until the twilight of your empire. They also didn't design Asari to be diplomats because the Protheans didn't believe in diplomacy as a policy. They designed Asari to be Biotic Shock Troops who could always make more of themselves, hence them being monogender, it's a demographic advantage. It would have allowed Asari to be mother and father at the same time if they ever had to do a crash program to expand their population in the expectation of fighting the Reapers.

The time it takes Asari to mature is a problem but it was probably deemed an acceptable tradeoff for the lifespan increase, since it was expected that the Asari would recieve warnings about the coming of the Reapers from the Beacon and be able to time their births well ahead of time to account for it. The team working on them may also have been planning to fix it later.

They also probably engineered Ardat Yakshi as a feature since Ardat Yakshi are Super-Asari who can kill with a touch and become ever more powerful, and that sounds like something the Protheans would call a feature. The reason Ardat Yakshi tend to go crazy instead of being useful is because they were a stretch goal and not finished.
It's actually more than that. If you think about it, asari are designed as a backup civilization rebuilding devices. Consider:
1) Asari can breed with (almost) any animal species, sapient or not
2) Asari live for (almost) more than a thousand years
3) Asari can take, preserve and imprint "thought patterns" (including language skills, I think) onto people, as shown with the Cipher in the first game
4) Each asari is equipped with biotics, and capable of surviving in a wide variety of environments

So, take a single educated asari of a hundred years old and drop her onto an uninhabited garden world. It's conceivable that she'll leave long enough to see a newly built asari civilization, indoctrinated into her mode of thinking via melding, get back into space.

Asari just completely failed at some point. But it wasn't at the design stage. They work perferctly well as self-propagating prothean indoctrination devices.
 
why does it sound like you are imagining AI's inside individual combat bodies on the front line?
Um because your zoom settings are set wrong? We've all been talking about massed ship-scale combat, where ranges, scales, and bandwidth mean you need to have people in command. Front-line infantry combat against Revy is going to be a fool's errand, frankly: given our emphasis on infantry-scale drone weapons first, I figure by the time the Reapers come any infantry operations are going to start something like this, expanded out on an industrial scale:


She'd probably spend more effort on the parody filking than the actual fighting. :V
 
Last edited:
Back
Top