Completeness Edit

Minor additions (data-pads) + explicit locations for all of the credits. This happens to be one of the multi-player maps, I can't recall which one. Ea-41905502 08:17, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Reaper Variant Edit

On one of the consoles you take an artifact from, there's a holographic display of a reaper that we haven't seen before. It's similar to a Sovereign-class Reaper, but with a much bulkier body and very small legs, with one long one that resembles an elephant trunk. Liara comments on it if you bring her, one of the reasons I bring her to science-y places :) Alex T Snow 13:54, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Things like this belong in the forums or a blog post as this isn't what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 14:50, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm being helpful by pointing out a new kind of Reaper that is seen in this mission. This should be looked into. That does not belong on the forums. I may be new here, but I've been on wikis a long time. Alex T Snow 08:34, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

No you aren't. You are doing something on a talk page that has no place on a talk page. See my previous comment about where things like this belong. And don't start using the "I've been on wikis a long time" excuse. Every wiki is different. Lancer1289 14:14, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Okay then, I'll make this really simple. There is some kind of reaper capital ship seen here that isn't seen anywhere else. Some characters (Liara at least) comment on this. This should be added to the page. Alex T Snow 23:14, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

Just played through the mission again. Liara states the hologram displays some kind of Reaper tech, and the signature is new to her. She does not state that it is a variant of a Reaper ship, so adding that to the page would be speculation. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:34, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

My apologies then, I remembered it wrong. Alex T Snow 23:42, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

Nope, played it again, I was right. Look at the holo display, it's a new kind of Reaper. That's fact. I'm speculating that it's one of those harvesting ships. If you have a problem with that, look up what speculation really means. Alex T Snow 02:17, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Unless the hologram is explicitly labeled as "Reaper variant" or Shepard or another character states that it is a "Reaper variant" (or some other specific, in-game proof), it still is speculation and can't be mentioned in the article. We can say that Shepard discovers a hologram and Liara identifies it as previously unknown Reaper tech, but that's it. -- Commdor (Talk) 02:37, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

It's not wild guessing, have you looked at it? What other than a reaper ship could it be? Couldn't it be added with a caption like "This appears to be an unknown class of Reaper Capital Ship, though that is unconfirmed."? I don't want guessing all over everything, but this wiki is missing out on a lot of stuff that is pretty obvious if it's thought about for a second. In the same way most Mass Effect weapons are designed with visual similarities to modern, cartridge using firearms, with things like magazines and ejection ports. Not allowing visual appearance to be a factor is like saying James's From Ashes outfit can't be stated to be Cerberus Trooper's armour, because it's subjective. Or that Liara's FA outfit is the same suit that Phantoms wear. Or that the Blackstar looks almost exactly like a reaper? Is it mentioned that Tali's head is human shaped, while the rest of the quarians are narrower, to make her more relatable? Probably not. It's not consistent though, because saying Jack is more aggressive than Tali is subjective, there for no mention of something like that should be made. It's all subjective, why is some allowed and not others? I fully support that wiki's need to be free of individualistic optinions, like "x is a better LI than x", and need to be scentific in how they deal information, but not having any speculation at all is bad. Speculation isn't wild guess work, it's reasonable, rational thoughts, where fact is not availible. Alex T Snow 10:35, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

Stop presenting speculation as proof of your "theories". You have no proof beyond a subjective visual comparison and that is not proof in any sense of the word. It is not accepted here and never will be. You continue to push visual comparisons and you keep getting told they are not permitted. Either present hard evidence or nothing will be allowed. Lancer1289 18:02, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

It is most likely a cut Reaper appearance as the same reaper can be seen to the left of Harbinger at the end of Mass Effect 2. As can be seen from the fore mentioned scene, each Reaper was supposed to look different. However, since bioware decided almost every Reaper would look the same, that reaper is no longer canon. So no, not worth mentioning.Vorchaoffspring (talk) 03:00, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

No Javik? Edit

It says in the article that Javik cannot be brought to this mission. But I just did that, he even comments on the artifacts. A mistake, no? Just tried that again, have a savegame where Javik is acquired, after landing on Sanctum Javik is selectable, mission plays out normally.--44 Magnum 21:48, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

You can- you just have to do Priority Palaven first. User:RevanSentinel|RevanSentinel]] 21:31, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Talavi Edit

I can't remember exactly but I think the Talavi on the Citadel is a sergeant? DrakevsShepard 11:24, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

No. The other woman she is talking to is. Lancer1289 14:49, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

Infinite enemies Edit

It is possible to go round and round the place after the shuttle comes to pick you up. The enemies will continue to spawn from the first room (according to the walk-through) and the passageway to the right of the shuttlebay. Provided neither you nor your squad-mates are standing in the room. I was so carried away with it; I just completed remainder of my Bruiser Achievements exclusively off Cerberus Centurions. :-D

Should the fact that we can use infinite enemies put in to the page? --NisansaDdS 12:24, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

At any rate, the large number of waves of enemies in other missions is mentioned among the Trivia (N7: Wrecked Merchant Freighter comes to mind). (The spawning in this as well as other missions seems to be based on where you stand (I.e. anywhere that you are not).) ---- AnotherRho (talk) 08:36, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Mission advancement triggers Edit

The advancement of this mission (from picking up the second artifact until the return of Cortez in the shuttle) appears to me to be "casualty based" rather than "time based". In other words you can kill enemies quickly and the mission will advance, but if you're just hiding there will be no advancement -- so "trying to wait it out" should in that case be specifically dis-recommended as a strategy. Can anyone else confirm as well? Cattlesquat (talk) 22:18, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

Further analysis... the LAST step of the mission (from when Cortez says he will be coming in hot, until the shuttle arrives) appears to be time-based. Also... in addition to the first big spawn (far from Shepard) when the second artifact is picked up, there is a second big spawn (close & all around Shepard) when contact with Cortez is first re-established and he's got bogies on his tail. Then, after Shepard suggests "lets just keep the landing pad clear" there is actually a geography-based trigger (getting near enough to the landing pad) that triggers a third big spawn (from landing pad itself and also all from all directions). One can forestall this third spawn by staying away from the landing pad if desired - in order to kill of the last few from the previous wave, which also results in a free revival of any downed squad members. Meanwhile I believe Shepard's announcement that "it's not over yet", the "bogies on tail" exchange with Cortez, and then the "let's just keep the landing pad clear" triggers are casualty-based. This may be more detail than is really needed for a mere N7 mission :) though on the other hand it's one of the relatively more difficult N7 missions to survive perfectly just because of the two "spawn all around you" triggers followed by needing to hold out. Anyway that's where I stand on this for now. Cattlesquat (talk) 21:58, May 5, 2013 (UTC)