This is the talk page for Collector.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
chatroom, or discussions module.
Thank you.

Are the Collectors the new species featured in the new trailer? With the armored Varren?

    • those were robots (i think)it could be the green thing (that could be a female turian though)ralok 05:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC) here at about 1:54 they show what I'm talking about, I'm not sure these are the same armored guys seen in the rest of the video, but they look like they are. 16:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The synthetic like creatures as you say are Loki Mechs, security droids it seems like, and so are the dog like robots. As for the green "thing" that's a Drell a new species we know next to nothing about except that Thane one of the new party members is a Drell, because of this i will remove the part about the "mysterious synthetic-like creatures in the Mass Effect 2 Pre-E3 video" being collectors as there is no reason for it to be in the article any more. --Leonick 10:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Collectors are revealed as the new enemies.[1]

Why remove insect-like, since the new trailer clearly shows them to be insect like?

I haven't seen the new trailer. I removed it because it was above the spoiler tag and didn't fit with the rest of the paragraph. Also, please sign your edits, with this: --~~~~. --Tullis 21:07, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

In the current iteration of the article's "Culture" heading, the wiki asserts that the Collector leader can possess other soldiers on the battlefield remotely. This is not true, at least not verifiably true. Harbinger, the Reaper, controls the General throughout ME2, and it is the activation of Reaper implants that occurs when a soldier is possessed. I move that the paragraph should be altered radically. ACisHere 15:20, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to veto that motion for a number of reasons. First is the obvious spoilers issue. The Culture section is well above the spoiler tag, in the section reserved for 'beginning of game' type info, i.e. info that is generally accepted as true before the major spoiler points, such as learning that the Reapers control the Collectors. Second, it is true that the Collector leader possesses other soldiers remotely. You are contesting the means through which this is done, but either way, it's the Collector leader doing it, either directly, or as a conduit for Harbinger. Thirdly, I don't recall it ever being stated as fact in-game that the 'possession' occurs as a result of activation of 'Reaper implants' as opposed to through biological means. SpartHawg948 19:17, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Preservers Edit

I think i figured them out, there association with the reapers, and a possible relation with the rachni. They are attempting to collect all life in the universe catalogue it and study it to and help it survive the purge the reapers will bring. Or perhaps they want to reclaim the keepers as a sort of lost hive. Could these things be what drove the rachni crazy and made them warlike, perhaps they wanted to stall the reapers make the galaxy less appealing. Perhaps reduce populations to levels that wouldnt be interesting to the reapers. ralok 21:59, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The link between the Collectors and the Reapers was in fact stated quite clearly, beyond any shadow of a doubt, some time ago. [2] However, I highly doubt that the rachni are in any way associated. The comments made by the racnhi about "a tone from space" which forced the rachni to "resonate with its own sour yellow note" strongly implies Reaper indoctrination, not Collecters and their little capture-bug guys. So I highly doubt the Reapers used the Collecters against the rachni. It seems so far like the Reaper-Collective link is much more recent, likely coming about as a result of the failure of Sovereign, Saren and the geth to accomplish the required objectives. On a lighter note though, good job figuring out a link that had already been made public some time ago! :P SpartHawg948 22:33, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

you are an idiot, thats not debatable you simply are nothing about what i said indicated any sort of speculation on the possibility of a link, everything i wrote was purely speculation on the nature of the link. i am speculating on what the relation beetween the two species is, I doubt very much they are allies the collectors seem to use bio-tech more than actual machines. and how is that a strong indication of indoctrination, since when was indoctrination described as yellow its a weak implication. All they say is that its a sour yellow note and that its a tone. When is indoctrination described as yellow and musical. At least the collectors use the color yellow maybe htats what they were reffering to a soured insect race. at least you did that little tongue face thing that was redeeming on your part, dont worry about my aggression I am just horribly sick today and i aint in the mood to deal with people, i dont want to discuss the nature of my illness, but something came out of my body looking like collector-tech. ralok 00:53, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Well, I beg to differ on the I am an idiot and that isn't debatable part (at least I managed to figure out punctuation and capitalization). If you would follow the link I provided you will see conclusive proof that the Collecters are working with the Reapers. It isn't stated that they are allies, nor did I state anything of the sort. It would seem that the Collecters are merely the latest pawns of the Reapers. This is proven, it is not a theory, speculation, or possibility, as it has been explicitly stated for some time now. Now, as far as the rachni, again, the queen states that her people were influenced by a sour tone from space. You have to remember that the rachni do not speak literally but use metaphors and allegory when they communicate. So, while it is not conclusively stated that the Reapers influenced the rachni, there is more evidence to support that theory than to support the idea of Collector influence of the rachni (there being of course no evidence for that, and no, the color yellow doesn't count). Also, saying that I shouldn't worry about your boorish behavior and saying it's ok because you are ill are no excuse for some of the behavior exhibited here. SpartHawg948 01:13, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

yes i am a poor typist, it is never said that the collectors are pawns of the reapers EVER they say that the problem with hte galaxy has something to do with both groups. They say they are possibly using reaper tech. Also the collector leader has psychic abilities. ralok 18:09, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

  • Ahem* I said, and this is a direct quote- "It would seem that the Collectors are merely the latest pawns of the Reapers." (emphasis added) I never said that they stated in the video that the Collectors were pawns of the Reapers, merely that, given the Reapers MO, this would seem the most likely arrangement. They point out that the only logical way the Collectors could have amassed the high-tech items they possess is through aid from the Reapers. This is quite different from saying they are "possibly using reaper tech". And finally, nowhere is it stated that the Collector leader has psychic powers. For all we know the leader's "possession" ability is some function of the Collector hive mind, possibly acting in concert with biotic abilities, which the "possessed" Collector was shown using. This is, of course, more plausible than psychic powers, which to this point have not made an appearance in the series. SpartHawg948 21:54, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Could I just pop in? Could you tell me where you got the "sour tone from space" thing? I don't doubt it is somewhere around here but I would like to know where it's from, I find it very interesting as I would certainly interpret that as indoctrination.-- 22:48, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

the rachni queen said it i think, i will try to find a video link. ralok 23:03, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

  • listening to it now it sounds like hse is reffering ot the extinction of her race, the silencing of voices and the others crying out sounds more like they are mourning hte lose of their fellows rather than talking about something takeing over there minds. ralok 23:18, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

That still does not explain the tone from space; anyways she says that the tone from space caused them to be hushed and to cry out, not the extiction. Listen to where and when she says the words, don't just focus on the fact that she said them.-- 23:55, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

she says when describing the war a tone from space (krogan?) hushed one voice after another (queen deaths?) and forced singers to resonate with a sour yellow note (this caused the others to cry?) she isnt saying what caused the war, she is sayign what she felt from the war. This is horribly complicated it could mean anything. ralok 00:59, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

regardless of anything I am about to say below I believe you are right in that it is horribly complicated and could mean anything but I would still like to make the following points.

The rachni use the terms singing, music, tones to represent communication. Indoctrination is a form of communication while the krogan are not. They "heard discordence" to quote the video. The tone was the cause of the war not the description of it, she says a tone from space caused their voices to be silenced. The rest of it is a description of the events the tone triggered, not necessarily the war. I also doubt that the rachni are even capable of crying or anything like it, of course they can feel sad, but when sad they do not cry out. screams and crying are all things humanoid species do when in pain and a bizarre species like the rachni would not associate sound with pain like we do.-- 02:48, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Well i think that the collectors are just as likely a candidate for the corruption of the rachni, they have quasi psychic abilities just like the rachni. ralok 05:47, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
Ok, here's my take on it- The sour note which caused the rachni to "resonate with its own sour yellow note" is Sovereign using it's indoctrination. A sour note from space... hmmm. Now we know Sovereign dwells in space, so that explains the "from space" part, and the tone is explained by the fact that the rachni phrase everything in terms of music. If this tone is Reaper indoctrination, the "resonate with its own sour yellow note" part becomes pretty obvious. Silencing voices- that bit would refer to the fact that the free will of the rachni queens is silenced as they succumb to the indoctrination. Indoctrination forces the target to comply w/ Sovereign and it's wishes, or as a musically oriented species might phrase it, force them to resonate on the same note. And as for the note being sour, we know, thanks to the captured salarians from Virmire, succumbing to indoctrination against one's free will is extremely unpleasant. Pretty straightforward. Much more likely (at least at the moment) than the supposed psychic manipulations of the Collectors, especially in light of the fact that, while we know for a fact the Reapers were around and capable of indoctrination at the time, there is no evidence the Collectors were active on a galaxy-wide scale, and there is in fact evidence to contradict it, as prior to ME2 the Collectors stuck to their own space, save for occasional small trips to Omega (refer to Mass Effect:Ascension). And again, as I stated last time, there is no proof that the Collectors have any "psychic" powers, or that their abilities can be applied to members of other races. For all we know the leader's "possession" ability is some function of the Collector hive mind, possibly acting in concert with biotic abilities, which the "possessed" Collector was shown using. This is, of course, more plausible than psychic powers, which to this point have not made an appearance in the series. SpartHawg948 06:42, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

what do you mean psychic powers havent appeared, the word psychic means to control with the mind, in that sense biotic abilities are a form of psychic. Anyways liara sucks sucks info out of your head and the rachni queen takes control a mostly dead asari, thats psychic though. Although I do not share your opinions i feel that this conversation is to entrentched in opinion for anything productive to happen, now back to the subject of hte collectors possibly wishing to preserve life in the galaxy. ralok 07:48, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Christ. Firstly ralok, read the CODEX, if you want to get really technical about the background and science behind biotic abilities you'll find that biotics are controlled by Element-zero nodes in the NERVOUS SYSTEM. The brain controls the nervous system, but that doesn't mean the brain itself controls the powers, it does so THROUGH the nervous system. 'Psychic' powers in the true sense of the word (NOT the fantasy or pop-culture) is an extension of the individual's conscious ability, they do not manifest in the physical world, everything psychic powers do only happen inside the indvidual's head. Biotic powers are not psychic, they are TELEKINETIC. There is a difference. The Rachni Queen's ability to control the Asari commando, and communicate with its hive are TELEPATHIC. The Asari can do their mind-melding because of their species' biology which can adapt and attune its own nervous sytem to that of any other species. Which is the basis of their reproduction - takin the wisdom, thinking, and emotions of another race in order to further the understanding of the Asari. Whilst certainly a possible theory, we don't know anything APART from the fact that the Reapers and Collectors are linked somehow. You however seem so damn certain of your speculation that you've brought the rachni into it on the basis that they are insectoid just like the Collector's. Phylarion 11:44, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, gotta say, nice job with the technical details, Phylaraion. I'd honestly forgotten most of that stuff myself. I am a big fan of specificity, and you certainly delivered it! :) SpartHawg948 11:54, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough ralok, although I do note that you entirely bypassed my take on the rachi, but you are correct that we appear to be at an impasse on the so-called psychic issue, which again, could very well simply be a function of the Collector hive mind. As for the theory that the Collectors wish to preserve life in the galaxy I'm rather skeptical at the moment. The evidence just doesn't seem to support it. The move against human colonies is the only concerted move against a species they have made, up to this point it was random demands that have nothing to do with maintaining a sustainable population of any species (referring to their desire to have 24 left-handed salarians, 16 pairs of batarian twins, 24 "pure" quarians, etc... with no specification as to gender or any other factor towards sustaining and growing a population). This and the fact that they appear to have some sort of mutual relationship with the Reapers (the exact nature of which is yet unknown) lead me to doubt this theory. Now, further information may come to light that vindicates your idea, and on that hypothetical day I will concede, but for now I must disagree. SpartHawg948 11:51, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

You didnt have to attempt to hurt my feelings phylarion. OK i beleive hte collectors are trying to preserve specific segments of each population so they couldeffectively restore the cultures of these people. And thats why i beleive that they are takeing entiree human populations, they arent killing people they are incapacitating them. So they are either saving them, experimenting on them, or going to boil them alive like lobsters and proceed to eat them. I am sure you can thing of other things they want to do with a whole bunch of humans i could to but those are the immediate things that come to mind ralok 23:21, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Really? Wow! I just have to say, it's mighty ironic that the person who earlier told someone else on this very page "you are an idiot, thats not debatable you simply are" is now complaining about hurt feelings. I mean, unlike the comment I just quoted, Phylarion wasn't directing anything insulting at you personally (Phylarion seems to be a big enough individual to not need personal attacks) but was rather expressing exasperation at some of your comments. You can't really play the victim card unless A) you've actually been attacked; and B) you haven't yourself just personally attacked someone else. SpartHawg948 01:25, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

You people could debate what the collectors are doing with their captives until you get carpal tunnel from typing too much, best just to wait until ME2 comes out and see firsthand.-- 23:30, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

wheres the fun in just sitting around waiting. ralok 23:59, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Just saying, you should probably just find something better to talk about because in the course of the debates too many people will get angry and to many people will come off as idiots to too many people. Not worth the effects of it when nobody can possibly have a good, well supported theory this soon; unless you like arguing then this is the perfect opportunity for it.-- 01:14, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

ralok, you've got interesting ideas and it would be wrong to say you're not excited about the game nor anticipating what is probably going to be one of the most interesting plot-points or even twists in this game, I feel the same way, but it's not a smart idea to confuse 'speculation' (the Preservation theory I shall call it) with what is fairly heavily implied (the Rachni and their sour yellow tone) and what is established fact (the Collector's-Reaper link, which as of yet we know very little about. It's not worth calling someone an idiot just because they disagree with your speculation and have a lot more factual and established ammunition to throw back at you. Phylarion 08:58, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Where is it cited that the Collectors possess a single leader across their entire species and that he is his own character? The trailer seemed to imply far more that it was only squads that were controlled by a single leader.--TheWilsonator 09:24, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
I strongly disagree, in the trailer Casey Hudson says "They're controlled by a single leader that it has the ability to possess them at any time". This combined with his very unique appearence and location, in an apparent control room of sorts, suggests there is a single Collector 'queen' or whatever that can inhabit the body of any individual collector at any time. Nothing about that quote implies there are multiple leaders that can possess, especially since Hudson said "single" leader. JakePT 13:50, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
That was my take on it as well, that there was a single leader of the entire species. The statement about a single leader does very strongly imply one overall leader. I mean, what's the point of having a squad leader able to possess others in their squad? Just kill the squad leader first. But if it's an actual Collector Leader, hanging out who knows where who can actually do the possessing, that makes for a much bigger challenge. SpartHawg948 19:19, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

God, people just shut up and wait until ME2 comes out, then this question along with others will be answered. 05:03, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Gotta love it... This conversation was over and done with for a week, then someone else comes along and tells us to get over it... I thought we did that already! A week ago! :P SpartHawg948 09:10, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Jezz People im Simple Terms THe collecters were protheans as stated in ME2, But they were indoctrinated by the reapers to suit there needs.( Hanar own ) 1:39 March 27th 2010

There's a strong resemblance... Edit the general shape of the the leader of the Collectors and the leader/queen/grand poobah of the invading aliens from the movie Independance Day. :D Awesome. Not trying to draw any fan-wank speculations of a connection, just making the observation. 03:03, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

There wasnt any leader alien in independence day.ralok 16:47, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

The power the collectors' leader uses resembles a lot to Saren's body being possesed by Sovereign at the end of Mass Effect. -- 04:36, January 10, 2010 (UTC)Ala

Biology section? Edit

What's the source for that section? It all looks like it was made up to me, like conclusions someone made from watching the Enemies teaser. If it was made up, should it be removed? 20:58, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

The source is largely the Enemies of Mass Effect teaser you mentioned. Pretty much all of it is based on easily demonstrable facts taken from the trailer. It's not a perfect source/system, but it is not "made up" (as it is sourced and verifiable) and it should suffice till better material becomes available. SpartHawg948 00:05, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
All right then. I mostly don't like that some things are drawn almost out of thin air. The teaser didn't show that the collectors have a caste system or that the small collector creatures are in the same species group as the regular collectors. The "stunners" might be animals native to the collector home world that they train and utilize, not a subspecies. I also don't get how it can be concluded that the collectors have genetically modified themselves just because they are bipedal. Who's to say that it's not their naturally evolved form? 01:09, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
Well, they have a designated leader with markedly different physical characteristics from the non-leaders, and this leader can assume control, at will, of non-leaders, thus lending credence to the caste system. The trailer says that the Collectors stun their victims, place them in stasis, and lead them away, not that they stun them through the use of trained animals and then haul them off. The fact that the "soldiers" appear more humanoid than the leaders could be taken as evidence of genetic manipulation. It would seem highly implausible for a species to develop along both insect and humanoid lines, as the leaders are shown to be pretty much pure bug and the soldiers are shown to have more human-looking limbs. This combined with their interest in acquiring specimens of humanoid species can be taken as possible evidence of genetic manipulation. All this is in 100% compliance with our guidelines for speculation, as laid out in the Community Guidelines. SpartHawg948 02:16, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
I would actually be more comfortable removing the Biology section until the game comes out and we have concrete data / Codex information. It may not be pure speculation but it walks and talks like it. Besides, not long to wait. : ) --Tullis 13:56, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible that the last sentence in the opening section; about "No one knows what happens to the individuals after the exchange." could be removed? I'm pretty certain those who've played the game; or plan to read the entire article, will know. And IF I recall properly; that's out of place anyways since it was used as a vague description way back before the game came out... 19:39, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about their vision. Is it confirmed that they see in our visible spectrum? They emit so much visible yellow light from their eyes that it seems they would be blinded unless that color wasn't visible to them. **SPOILER**The fact that the video of their message (the warning in the first game that you use to find Illos) is in all red/yellow would lead me to believe that they might see in an infrared spectrum, which might mean more could be discerned from the video if one was to watch with an infrared camera. Any volunteers? **SPOILER** Namfuak 11:23, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Question about the main menu screen (galactic core) Edit

This migth have nothing to do whit the collectors at all, but I have a question neatherless.

After completing ME2, in the intro scene, the galactic core now appears to expell some white/blue smoke, any theory of what it is? KaTiON PT 23:48, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Mysticalsmoke Black Holes, which is what that is not the galactic core, expel radiation out of the top and bottom of the accretion disk. So what you're seeing is matter and enegery being shot out of the center. Nothing but science. 01:42, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that the radiation (known as Hawking Radiation) is emitted by the black hole itself, not the accretion disk, which isn't really part of the black hole, but consists of particles/light/whatnot circling the actual black hole. The only radiation emitted by accretion disks is electromagnetic, which is then itself pulled into the black hole. Hawking Radiation, on the other hand, is thermal radiation (not "matter and energy", as no matter escapes a black hole), and Hawking radiation would theoretically be visible under the right conditions. I say theoretically because Hawking Radiation (which is the only thing theorized to be expelled from a black hole) has been predicted to exist, but never actually been demonstrated to exist. Hope this clears up any confusion on the matter. SpartHawg948 06:47, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

if thats a black hole then in reality it would would be unviewable (I say that because a black is not really invisable) as it emits no light only it accreation disk would be visable,that said the gases would be visible to the naked eye ,although in reality looking at the accreation would be blinding ;) 05:50, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Again though, as I stated above, black holes (talking about the actual black hole itself, not the accretion disc) are theorized to emit Hawking Radiation, which would be visible. SpartHawg948 05:54, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

"bipedal insect"Edit

isn't this a bit of an oxymoron Asdf1239talk 22:46, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Bipedal means having two feet. Insect means belonging to, or having the characteristics of, the class Insecta, or more broadly, having superficial characteristics similar to those typical of the class Insecta. Under the latter definition, spiders and other arachnids can also be called insects. And the class Insecta is typified by having six legs. Not six feet, six legs. It's possible to have six legs/limbs with only two feet, the other four legs ending in manipulators such as hands. In this case, a life form would certianly be a bipedal insect. Although in this case, the term insect likely uses the broader definition, meaning that the Collectors have some superficial characteristics similar to insects, but are themselves bipedal. SpartHawg948 22:58, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
the collector drones appear to have at least two small vestigial limbs on their torso, should this be added to the article Asdf1239talk 00:16, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
I can't say that I've ever seen them, nor do they seem readily visible in the illustration on the Collector Drone page. Is there any chance you have a picture demonstrating these vestigial limbs? SpartHawg948 00:22, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
not a picture sorry, but they're visible in this video, you can also sort of see them on this article's image, the little pincer things on the waist of the middle and left collectors Asdf1239talk 14:22, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
Your sure? Because it looks like there's something on their arms, rather than on their torsos. Spikes, probably used for melee attacks. Lancer1289 14:48, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, if you're talking about what I think you're talking about, those don't appear to be limbs. At least, not IMO. SpartHawg948 20:43, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Processing of Human ColonistsEdit

Per video here (YouTube - ME2 Suicide Mission), Dr. Chakwas uses the word "melted" to describe how the colonists are "processed" in the collector base. Skip ahead to about 3:15 in the video, and you'll see it. Additionally, Shepard's next question is, "What are they doing with our genetic material?" The proof is pretty strong in favor of that being what the orange-red liquid is. I see it more as deductive reasoning than speculation, but that's my 2¢. :) PhoenixBlue 02:12, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Organic material, yes. But 'raw organic material'? That's one mighty big stretch. After all, the material flowing through the tubes into the Reaper looks quite different from the material we see the people being reduced to, the material that Chakwas comments on. Inferring that the material going into the Reaper is at least partially organic material is deductive reasoning, this is true. But stating that it is 'raw organic material' is speculation. SpartHawg948 02:16, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
You're right, and they were processed, so the "raw" part doesn't fit. But they'd be organic material by definition, if not genetic material. PhoenixBlue 02:19, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
They would. But we can't say that it was 'raw organic material' that was injected into the Reaper. This was my objection, made pretty clear by the edit summary: "No, 'raw organic material' is pretty speculative. We know it's 'raw organic material' how?" After all, clearly at least something had changed somewhere along the way. As for organic material, it was indeed organic material that went into the Reaper, however, organic material is a mighty expansive label. After all, I put organic material into my truck every time I go to the gas station. SpartHawg948 02:27, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
Your truck is a Reaper! :) Seriously, I got nothing else ... maybe "soylent green," but too many folks probably wouldn't get it.
On another note, given the ME comic that was just posted on IGN yesterday, as many as 1 million colonists were captured (900,000 on Freedom's Progress plus a third of the 600,000 on Horizon). That's a pretty eye-opening number. PhoenixBlue 16:33, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
Just to throw my two cents here, I think that it is good as it is. Raw organic matter is speculation, and the way it is phrased now with just "them", removes speculation becuase while we do know they are using the colonists to build the Reaper, we don't know how. I think we should err on the side of caution here, becuase we can all say something different about what is being used, raw organic matter, genetic material, etc. Personally I do think it is genetic material, however that is my opinion and for our purposes, speculation. Anything that we say, without some form of confirmation, is speucaltion, and most of it boils down to personal opinions, like mine above. Again I think caution and using the generic term "them", to avoid speculation.
About that number, I competely agree that the number is very desturbing. Lancer1289 17:01, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

The evidence Edit

Why Didn't Shepard picked the body of a collector, and took it to the Citadel Council? They would must have accepted it as an irrefutable evidence.

Why would he have needed evidence? I mean, it's not like he was ever trying to prove anything to them. Besides, pretty much every time he was in an area with Collector bodies, he was a little pressed for time. Not really much chance to go lugging corpses around. SpartHawg948 16:40, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
Irrefutable evidence of what? It still would have not proven the existence of the Reapers. The Collectors appearing is a normal occurrence in the Terminus systems, as they often trade technology and abduct people of other races. The council would just chalk it up to them being opportunistic of the sudden appearance of humans spreading across that space. After all, a new species potentially means new technology. Now if EDI had recorded the intrusion of the Normandy's systems, that would be potential evidence of the threat of the Reapers. Plus there is also the IFF from the derelict Reaper. ArmeniusLOD 17:00, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
Shepard's got more things to worry about then proving the Reaper threat is real. The Commander is more interested in trying to find out more about them and stop them. And even if Shepard did find any evidence, the connection to Cerberus and the Councils personal preference to ignore the Commander will mean that such evidence will not be considered credible.Ironreaper 14:16, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Chigs? Edit

So, just noticed that my edit summary didn't mesh with the bit I removed, but I still maintain that the removal was valid. The item in question stated that 'Most bi-pedal forms of Collectors bear a very strong resemblence to the Chig soldiers (in armor) from the obscure sci-fi tv series "Space Above and Beyond!"' Now, first of all, obscure is a relative term. IIRC, it wasn't at all obscure when it aired. But as for the specifics, let's take a look. Right at the top of this page, you can see a Chig soldier in armor. Now, unlike a bipedal Collector, a Chig soldier in armor basically looks like a regular human in armor with a funky helmet. Contrast this with the thin, stick-like figures of Collectors. Really, the only thing that looks at all similar is the heads. The head of a Collector drone and the helmet of a Chig soldier are roughly the same shape. Roughly. But that's it. And this is why, even though it's always nice to see a reference to 'Space: Above and Beyond' (another issue with the trivia, btw- there's no exclamation mark, but there is a colon), as I am a fan of the series myself, it's not really accurate. SpartHawg948 08:26, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Return in ME3? Edit

So I couldn't help but notice in the picture (at this time the only picture) of The Prothean has him shooting what appears to be Collectors. Worth mentioning? --This text has been approved by Murfitizer 01:58, March 1, 2012 (UTC) (feb 29 not march 1)

I'd wait until we know more. We don't have any explanation for why there are Collectors in the screenshot yet. -- Commdor (Talk) 02:04, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Survival into ME3Edit

I played through a good portion of Mass Effect 3 without seeing any Collectors, and reasonably assumed that my actions in ME2 had effectively wiped them out. However, reading the Miracle at Palaven entry in the Codex, it seems I was mistaken.

It says, in said entry, that the Reapers deployed Collector swarms and other assets against joint Turian/Krogan ground forces on Palaven: this seems to show pretty clearly that the Collectors, while likely reduced in number, are very much active in the Reaper War.

The article as is seems to give the impression that they all died off after ME2. I think this should be corrected.

--Lee 95 00:37, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Oculus a "Collector ship"? Edit

I recently removed edits from Collector and Collector Cruiser by RandomGuy96 that listed the Oculus as a "Collector ship", as ME3 suggests it's actually Reaper technology. He's since re-added it, stating that since it was used by the Collectors it still counts as one. I think "Collector ship" implies a ship designed by the Collectors (and the Oculus may technically be an unmanned drone anyway), but so as not to risk the possibility of an edit war, I'd like to solicit other opinions here.--Zxjkl 07:42, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

  • Where does Mass Effect 3 suggest it is Reaper technology? The Oculus isn't mentioned on the Reaper's codex page under "variants" (even though it mentions unmanned ships like transports) or anywhere else on that page. The only evidence we have that the Oculus is exclusively Reaper-derived is the fact that you can see it in the background of the Earth, Thessia, and Palaven missions, and that's not strong enough evidence considering that: one, we first see the Oculus used by the Collectors, two, Oculus fighters are manned by Collector Drones (at least according to the Oculus page), and three, the codex entry for the Miracle of Palaven states that the Reapers are recycling Collector forces in their armies. --RandomGuy96 08:05, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
Is there actually any source for that information about it being piloted by a "stripped-down" Collector drone? I don't remember hearing it anywhere. If that's more than just fanon, then you're right; it probably should be listed. But I don't know if it is.--Zxjkl 08:17, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
I mostly assumed it was in a codex page or developer statement I never read, since the mods here are sticklers and usually instantly remove something if it doesn't have a source or is in any way speculative. Still, whether it is piloted by a Collector or not, there's too much speculation involved to say that it came exclusively from the Reapers, given the other two points. Plus, everything the Collectors used is technically "Reaper technology". --RandomGuy96 08:24, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
We have no real way of knowing what Collector technology comes from the Reapers versus what is "repurposed" Prothean technology. As such, the only things I'd list as "Collector technology" is what we see being used exclusively by the Collectors. We see Oculi being used repeatedly by the Reapers in ME3, while the Collectors do not appear outside of one ambiguous Codex entry (and a log from the last cycle which doesn't really count). So unless there's something like that bit about the drone pilot, I'd be reluctant to consider the Oculus a "Collector" ship.
But anyway, like I said I'm hoping to get some third-party opinions here.--Zxjkl 08:35, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
I'm just gonna butt in here. More than likely it is Reaper technology based on the sheer number of them seen during the battle above earth and the unlikelihood of that many still functioning after 50,000 years. BUT we cannot assume that the Oculus is or is not Reaper tech. Until we have confirmation it will remain as it is unless the community votes otherwise. And they are unmanned as the laser assembly takes up the entire body of the unit. Most likely VI controlled.--BrewCrew4Life21 04:48, May 10, 2012 (UTC)
In that case, I'll go ahead and leave the entry here alone, but remove the stuff about it being 'piloted' by a Collector drone until someone can source it.--Zxjkl 06:41, May 10, 2012 (UTC)
Update: after looking through the edit history, I've found that it was added by OperativeKlause, who cites the ME3 Datapad App. Put it back for now.--Zxjkl 10:02, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

New ME3 units Edit

Is there a reason we are not adding the new units under the military lore?--Boss Hoss (talk) 20:44, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

MP not being canon is the rationale. I think we should actually have the new units listed, but the initial problem was that somebody put a section about the Collectors coming back to life in the "History" section. That's a no-no. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 20:46, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Not true. Bioware even posted a blog explaining WHY the collectors have returned. 20:52, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

See, that's a multiplayer related post. BioWare's said multiple times that MP is not considered canon. Sorry. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 20:55, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
Your link didnt work for me, for some odd reason, though I agree with you, random wiki contributer-TW6464 (talk) 21:15, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Give me proof they said that and Ill be on my merry way-- 20:56, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Either way, it seems odd not to have a mention of the new units here, why not add a section? --Boss Hoss (talk) 20:57, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

It also seems odd that they would go out of their way to explain the collectors return when its not canon anyway-- 20:59, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

wait, when did Bioware say multiplayer is NOT canon? User:Reptileman778

It's been said on the BSN and twitter a few times. Still, I do believe that the ME3 units should be documented on the page. It's dishonest to pretend they don't exist. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 16:23, October 14, 2012 (UTC)

i know i've read about such statements on official channels last week (probably dev on BSN) but after spending the better part of ~30 minutes looking for it again and getting nowhere i'd appreciate someone linking the actual twitter/BSN forum posts explicitly saying "multiplayer isn't canon". people are bound to whine about their reverted edits on this sooner or later; best we preempt such behavior. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 16:55, October 14, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm having trouble finding it, but I totally remember reading it there. If we can't find any proof though, we should probably stop taking this stance on it, however. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 17:13, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
No we will not. Until BioWare issues a statement saying that MP is canon, we will continue to say that it is not. Lancer1289 (talk) 17:20, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
Why assume MP isn't canon rather than assuming that it is, since several pieces of dialogue in the single player campaign mention events in MP?--RandomGuy96 (talk) 20:22, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not going to assume it's not canon, especially since that's something the wiki doesn't agree on. I'm running around twitter trying to figure this one out, so hopefully we'll have an answer. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 20:29, October 14, 2012 (UTC)

How can a tweet of Emily Wong dying be valid, but a message from Admiral Hacket is not? I do not understand that.--AdmiralPedro1stFleet (talk) 22:56, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

Completely forgot about this issue. Anyways, I've been unable to find any official statement that ME3's multiplayer is or isn't canon, so I'm not really sure how to proceed. I think that we should be listing the Retaliation ME3 units in their relevant pages. I'm not sure that hinges of whether or not something is canon, because it's an undeniable element of gameplay. However, I'm not comfortable writing something in this article regarding the Collectors coming back without getting a solid answer on canon. The important thing here is getting dev confirmation. Nobody can agree on whether or not Multiplayer is canon, and reaching a consensus on that is important. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 23:04, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
At this point, adding in the new Collector enemies here would either require confirmation that the blog post is canon despite being multiplayer-related, or the Collectors appearing in single-player. Since this is a lore article, there has to be some kind of lore context for the sudden appearance of these new enemies. According to Mac Walters, we can't expect the Collectors to have any role beyond multiplayer for the time being, so unless the blog post is affirmed as canon, this info will have to remain out. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:18, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
I guess this goes back to Pedro's question, then: If the ME3 twitter feed was deemed canon, why isn't BioWare blog? I'm willing to consider the blog canon, as it's produced directly by BioWare, but that may not be considered enough for some users. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 23:27, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
BioWare Blog posts related to single-player (what few there are) are still considered canon. The ones related to multiplayer might still be as well, but you opened the door on their canonicity by claiming that BioWare had declared multiplayer info to be non-canon. Since there is now doubt, until we get confirmation one way or the other, this info is unusable in lore articles. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:33, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
In retropect, I think I opened that door a bit too prematurely. Don't suppose there's any way to close it. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 23:39, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't think so. Before this whole thing was raised, maybe we could have let it slide (it was actually me who added the blog info to this article to begin with. I assumed you knew what you were talking about when you subsequently removed the info, so I went along with it), but now our hands are tied. On the upside, BioWare definitely has stated that Omega isn't the last of ME3 DLC, so maybe a future pack will eventually resolve this if we can't get the devs' attention. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:57, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
I'm still looking into this whole thing. I definitely remember seeing a dev say that MP wasn't canon earlier in the year. But I've been coming up empty here, so I'm completely willing to concede the point. If we can't get a definitive answer, I'm prepared to take this to a community vote to see if we collectively think it should be considered worth including in articles. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 00:06, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Surely, seeing as Bioware made a big song and dance about the multiplayer tying into the single player back when they launched it, and ever since then they have given lore explanations for everything in multiplayer, from guns through volus to collectors, then it's cannon? How is it different from singleplayer, game play aspects not (e.g. fighting geth in London), lore aspects cannon (e.g. descriptions and Biowares blogs). This seems to be how Bioware sees it, and I can't think of any reason that should't be the case here. 20:02, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. If it were up to me, I'd put the info back in. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 20:08, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
A BSN user posted (in a thread which appears to have been started by a user involved in this discussion) that Chris Priestly told her multiplayer wasn't canon. I've asked her to provide a link. If the comment can be confirmed, then this issue will at least be settled, if not in the manner I would have preferred. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:23, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
Even if it's not canon, their MP presence still needs to be noted in the real world notes bit. --Alientraveller (talk) 20:25, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
We also need to know what about multiplayer isn't cannon. He could have meant in the sense that the multiplayer exists in a play-through with the maximum possible number of races (e.g. geth and quarians fighting side by side), which conflicts with some peoples cannon play-through. He could also have been referring to the aforementioned gameplay elements such as fighting geth on Thesia. 21:36, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
Even if MP isn't considered canon, that doesn't excuse leaving out the Retaliation enemies from this article. They're a tangible, undeniable element of gameplay. Pretending that they don't exist is dishonest. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 22:07, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, they're an element of gameplay, but not the lore. This is a lore article; at most, we could note these enemies in the Trivia section if mp isn't canon, but unless they are given relevance in the lore they don't belong elsewhere in this particular page. We have the ME3 enemy navbox and category to note all ME3 enemies, and a list of multiplayer enemies on the main multiplayer article. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:21, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
OMG, This is annoying receiving emails about this. Look, I'll just ask priestly myself. I've talked to him before. So that way this argument can end and I can FanFiction and listen to Disturbed in peace--TW6464 (talk) 22:26, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see the issue has been resolved.--TW6464 (talk) 22:44, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Paragon Lost info Edit

Hi shouldn't we be adding info from the paragon lost film? I myself have not seen anything beyond the clips but observations like the number of cruisers the collectors have should at least be of note. can some one actually check how many "ports" the collector base had? maybe we can extrapolate the number of ships present.--FossilLord 07:27, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

And that is speculation, which isn't permitted. Many ports have more docks than ships. Lancer1289 (talk) 19:15, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
Could you please send me a link for this example? Do not forget that the ergonomics of space docks differ from terrestrial wharfs. furthermore it could have fewer docks then ships as i have seen only one dock at the collector base yet we know of two types of ships.--FossilLord 21:16, January 2, 2013 (UTC)
What example? If you are talking about our speculation policy, take a few minutes to actually read site policies. Lancer1289 (talk) 21:19, January 2, 2013 (UTC)
I was talking about your claim about your claim about docks and ships and i would draw your attention to my later statement.--FossilLord 22:26, January 2, 2013 (UTC)
And that doesn't even make any sense. Lancer1289 (talk) 22:29, January 2, 2013 (UTC)
"extrapolating" the number of ships that the station can dock based from split-second screenshots falls under speculation. in case it isn't obvious, it's because we're not seeing the entirety of the station. just a ~2-second panning shot of one unknown corner in paragon lost or a nonindicative exterior shot of the base if anything. do we even have the tell-all schematics for it? even those holos shep showed during the suicide mission are barely even helpful.
i counted at least 6 spherical "docks" with 6-11 collector ships each. but no, we can't "extrapolate" the total number for anything since that would be guessing. see the speculation policy and the reasoning above again before you make any assumptions about "educated" guesses. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 03:15, January 3, 2013 (UTC)
See that is the answer i wanted, thank you--FossilLord 17:46, January 4, 2013 (UTC)

possessed articles Edit

Shouldn't these be combined into the regular articles? For the possessed version we can simply have them as a tab like we have with the weapons, namely single and multiplayer versions. We can still have separate links to them as we already use them for the weapons.--FossilLord 21:33, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like, you can begin a proposal in the Projects forum, since such a change would require community approval. That's what I did to propose the weapons tabbing solution. Trandra (talk) 21:39, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
Actually that is not permitted. Currently, every enemy, whatever the form, gets its own article. They may be a different version, but they are still a separate enemy type. Lancer1289 (talk) 23:16, March 11, 2013 (UTC)