These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Eve versus Star Trek
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#141 - 2012-06-11 16:39:55 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Star Trek would lose for its sheer lack of creativity.

Given the technologies present in the Star Trek universe, it should be possible for them to build a massive replicator that spits out whole ships. By recreating the well-documented transporter glitches that duplicate people, you could then copy an entire crew, beaming them directly to the bridge. You could assemble a fleet as quickly as you could acquire the raw mass and energy necessary. But every known power in the galaxy still relies on mining, processing, and assembling the materials manually.


But then you might get a quantum singularity in the trans warp conduit and the universe would be destroyed

"Little ginger moron" ~David Hasselhoff 

Want to see what Surf is training or how little isk Surf has?  http://eveboard.com/pilot/Surfin%27s_PlunderBunny
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#142 - 2012-06-11 18:57:08 UTC
Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Star Trek would lose for its sheer lack of creativity.

Given the technologies present in the Star Trek universe, it should be possible for them to build a massive replicator that spits out whole ships. By recreating the well-documented transporter glitches that duplicate people, you could then copy an entire crew, beaming them directly to the bridge. You could assemble a fleet as quickly as you could acquire the raw mass and energy necessary. But every known power in the galaxy still relies on mining, processing, and assembling the materials manually.


But then you might get a quantum singularity in the trans warp conduit and the universe would be destroyed


The REAL danger is a feedback loop in the antimatter flow creating a neutron cascade in the TPS relay, thus causing a fracture in space-time that will result in a causality paradox that prevents the evolution of the entire Earth genus Sus. It's a fate worse than universal destruction: a universe without bacon.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Reiisha
#143 - 2012-06-12 21:03:23 UTC
ST ships are faster overall and have more accurate weapons, but they only really have shields for defense.

EVE weapons are far more destructive in every way, making up for their lack of accuracy. You won't find capital weapons on EVE ships, their weapons equate to cruiser-sized stuff at best, possibly the weaker BS weapons.

EVE defenses are far superior. The shields don't deflect like in ST, but they absorb, making them far more effective and less vulnerable to weapons matching their frequences. Unlike ST ships, EVE ships also have massively reinforced armor plating, even on Caldari and Minmatar ships. ST relies almost exclusively on shields, if you penetrate them you're in deep trouble.

ST doesn't make much use of nanotech, which is where EVE shines and where the strength of armor tanking comes from.

On the other hand, EVE doesn't have beaming tech, which might penetrate the armor and shield pretty easily depending on how it interacts. Beaming bombs on board etc, or people out.

In the end it's a pinch, but i think EVE edges out. Also because i'm fairly sure that Omega won't impact EVE tech like it does ST tech.

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...
Possum's Awesome
Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo
#144 - 2012-06-12 21:15:21 UTC
icantseeshidtcaptain wrote:
that is a shame - I always found it strange that the eve ships don't move much faster than airliners, despite being in space.......


what?

Also, you need to be going at least ... 7.5km/s? just to stay in earth orbit. So I always like to think Eve ship speeds are additions based on that as a relative stop.
Possum's Awesome
Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo
#145 - 2012-06-12 21:22:46 UTC
Nova Fox wrote:

Honorverse.
They developed thier means of FTL via gravity wedging though space which is like trying to shove a golf ball though a frictionless hose that is much smaller than than the ball itself.

99% of all battles mentioned in honor harrigton ARE in FTL speeds.


Wrong there Nova. The wedges are sublight speed. Theoretical top speed is .99c, but best practical speed is .3 due to inertial compensator limitations.

The FTL fights take place in grav waves, where wedges don't work. Fights there are FTL in real time, but relatively the same speeds as normal space, and with no grav wedges they're much bloodier.




As for X vs Y in terms of scifi spaceships, I just LOVE Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning.
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#146 - 2012-06-12 21:38:07 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Star Trek would lose for its sheer lack of creativity.

Given the technologies present in the Star Trek universe, it should be possible for them to build a massive replicator that spits out whole ships. By recreating the well-documented transporter glitches that duplicate people, you could then copy an entire crew, beaming them directly to the bridge. You could assemble a fleet as quickly as you could acquire the raw mass and energy necessary. But every known power in the galaxy still relies on mining, processing, and assembling the materials manually.


But then you might get a quantum singularity in the trans warp conduit and the universe would be destroyed


The REAL danger is a feedback loop in the antimatter flow creating a neutron cascade in the TPS relay, thus causing a fracture in space-time that will result in a causality paradox that prevents the evolution of the entire Earth genus Sus. It's a fate worse than universal destruction: a universe without bacon.


Why would anyone risk that?

"Little ginger moron" ~David Hasselhoff 

Want to see what Surf is training or how little isk Surf has?  http://eveboard.com/pilot/Surfin%27s_PlunderBunny
Possum's Awesome
Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo
#147 - 2012-06-13 00:16:27 UTC
As long as no one crosses the streams.
Something Random
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#148 - 2012-06-13 20:02:32 UTC
Possum's Awesome wrote:
As long as no one crosses the streams.


I think this may explain the lack of toilets.

"caught on fire a little bit, just a little."

"Delinquents, check, weirdos, check, hippies, check, pillheads, check, freaks, check, potheads, check .....gangs all here!"

I love Science, it gives me a Hadron.
Wraiths Crono
Iridium Incorporated
#149 - 2012-06-14 18:13:40 UTC
Soooo this has been quiet entertaining to me, helping me pass the work day and all, but lets try this: Why not just use the federation from StarTrek Online, NEVER had I fired from warp in that game, and the ships tend to be slow and bulky and ranges: HAH! pretty much eve comparable.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#150 - 2012-06-14 18:59:10 UTC
Quote:
As far as moving vast distances.. ST wins.. until they get cyno 'hot dropped' by an s-cap fleet.


Especially since you can hot drop while cloaked in the ST universe.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Sir John Halsey
#151 - 2012-06-15 20:01:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Sir John Halsey
Reiisha wrote:

... snip ...

EVE defenses are far superior. The shields don't deflect like in ST, but they absorb, making them far more effective and less vulnerable to weapons matching their frequences. Unlike ST ships, EVE ships also have massively reinforced armor plating, even on Caldari and Minmatar ships. ST relies almost exclusively on shields, if you penetrate them you're in deep trouble.

... snip ...


Somebody didn't watch ST i see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD-YtkHFPkE

Fast forward to 6:00

Edit: and the same thing when Voyager goes after the Borg but i'm too lazy to dig it up on youtube.
Viktor Fyretracker
Emminent Terraforming
#152 - 2012-06-16 05:15:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Viktor Fyretracker
EVE generally beats most Scifi because the ships are truly 100% warships in most other settings. outside of BSG and a handful of others.

Even Star Wars is not tried and true Warships, as the Empire lived a whole lot on show and fear rather than smartly designed warships.

to be fair and this is strange.... post Asgard upgrade battlecruisers fromt he SGC are likely the best challenge. Especially if they have a ZPM plugged in.

EVE is like swimming on a beach in shark infested waters,  There is however a catch...  The EVE Beach you also have to wonder which fellow swimmer will try and eat you before the sharks.
leviticus ander
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#153 - 2012-06-16 07:38:01 UTC
Sir John Halsey wrote:
Reiisha wrote:

... snip ...

EVE defenses are far superior. The shields don't deflect like in ST, but they absorb, making them far more effective and less vulnerable to weapons matching their frequences. Unlike ST ships, EVE ships also have massively reinforced armor plating, even on Caldari and Minmatar ships. ST relies almost exclusively on shields, if you penetrate them you're in deep trouble.

... snip ...


Somebody didn't watch ST i see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD-YtkHFPkE

Fast forward to 6:00

Edit: and the same thing when Voyager goes after the Borg but i'm too lazy to dig it up on youtube.

while that is technically armor, it's not nearly as effective as EvE armor. in that, it's basically ultradense bits of metal that they can strap on to delay the ultimate destruction of the ship. it's not designed to ever be repaired and is generally only useful for one or 2 uses.
Kirjava
Lothian Enterprises
#154 - 2012-06-18 02:07:09 UTC
Damn I waded a lot to get here, but here's my two pence.

Star Trek is probably the technologically more capable faction but although I haven't seen it and remembered it to the degree as many here, I feel they would not grasp the humanity of Eve.

Outnumbered out gunned and outmanoeuvred the factions of New Eden would be, they would be more capable of waging total war upon the Federation. Already on the total war setting with the capacity to ressurect its greatest commanders as soon as they die on the battlefield and an economy capable of pumping out Supercapital fleets faster than the Federation could.

Even if NE factions lost 9 in 10 battles we would have an economy more capable of replenishing and capitalising upon the single victory and be considerably more ruthless in our pressing of that victory.

Full spectrum warfare, biological weapons deployed by deep space stealth bombers, building stargates in conquered systems to replenish logistics and drawing on local resources to supplement the effort. Combine this with immortal soldiers from Dust....

Joseph Stalin wrote:
Quantity has a quality all of its own


On the other hand....

Star Trek wrote:
Hey, we can [Technobabble] the [Tech item] to [science things here] the [item of interest] to [plot resolution item here].


Start Trek tech would be desirable to the NE factions, why have our warp drives and stargates when we can have their warp drives and stargates to get a combined synergy?

[center]Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. /人◕‿‿◕人\ Unban Saede![/center]
Sobach
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#155 - 2012-06-18 05:59:52 UTC
Welp, this thread was entertaining to say the least XD

You have trekkie advocates that goes only by what the lore and spec books says while ignoring what actually happens on screen due to technical/budget/visual impact limitations, while at the same time ignores EVE's lore and only concentrate on what's in the game, which is limited due to gameplay balance issues.

Not that many of the eve advocates are much better, ignoring the ST lore solely in favor of what they see on screen, which again is obviously the result of the above-mentioned limitations.

My own two cents? trying to compare the two is an exercise in futility, as there is no real measuring stick by which to compare the technobabbles in both universe, especially with one as wild and inconsistent as the ST universe.


what I found to be most LUL worthy though, is when people claimed that EVE weaponry is comparable, or even obsolete by today's standard. It's one thing to be stupid, it's another to be THAT stupid :P or please point out to me which country on earth has developed antimatter weaponry :P

and no, you don't get to discard the instant-200km+ hit by saying it's a gameplay limitation, while championing the 250km range and tracking as a sign of inferiority when it's caused by the same gameplay limitation. After all, in EVE lore there are no such limitations, Titan (or just a fleet of battleships) can destroy a planet with ease, let's see you try to do that with your RL cruise missiles.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#156 - 2012-06-18 06:47:13 UTC
Sobach wrote:
Not that many of the eve advocates are much better, ignoring the ST lore solely in favor of what they see on screen, which again is obviously the result of the above-mentioned limitations.


No, the reason we ignore the lore is because the official policy of the people who actually make Star Trek is that only what you see on screen is canon. The "lore" you refer to is no more canon than random fanfiction, and is only "official" in the sense that it can legally be sold under the "Star Trek" name.
Sobach
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#157 - 2012-06-18 07:13:42 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Sobach wrote:
Not that many of the eve advocates are much better, ignoring the ST lore solely in favor of what they see on screen, which again is obviously the result of the above-mentioned limitations.


No, the reason we ignore the lore is because the official policy of the people who actually make Star Trek is that only what you see on screen is canon. The "lore" you refer to is no more canon than random fanfiction, and is only "official" in the sense that it can legally be sold under the "Star Trek" name.


then shouldn't you accept everything that's in the show at face value? that voyager clip earlier where they said they begin firing while still thousands of kilometers away, even though it looks much closer than that during the firing scene, which can be chalked up to the impracticality and pointlessness of trying to show BVR space combat?
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#158 - 2012-06-18 07:29:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Merin Ryskin
Sobach wrote:
then shouldn't you accept everything that's in the show at face value? that voyager clip earlier where they said they begin firing while still thousands of kilometers away, even though it looks much closer than that during the firing scene, which can be chalked up to the impracticality and pointlessness of trying to show BVR space combat?


BVR combat is perfectly easy to show, you simply have the ship fire, then in a separate scene you see the weapons hit. It might not be as aesthetically pleasing for some people, but there's no reason that the producers of Star Trek couldn't show BVR combat if they wanted to. Given that they ignored this option, the obvious conclusion is that they did not want to show BVR combat.

As for the crew, just ask yourself this: if you had a video of someone telling you that they're standing 100 miles away from their friend, who is visible and standing right next to them, would you believe the visuals or the dialogue? It's the same for Star Trek. The canon TV show very clearly portrays slow, visual range combat happening between ships crewed by ****ing idiots who are too stupid to know what range they're at.

Does this say some pretty bad things about Star Trek? Sure, but then again this is the show where the second-in-command of the Federation flagship gets his ship destroyed because he's too stupid to simply return fire and blow away a 100+ year old Bird of Prey that Kirk, ~100 years earlier, outgunned 10:1. Incompetence is pretty much the defining theme of the military in Star Trek.
Sobach
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#159 - 2012-06-18 08:32:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Sobach
Merin Ryskin wrote:

BVR combat is perfectly easy to show, you simply have the ship fire, then in a separate scene you see the weapons hit. It might not be as aesthetically pleasing for some people, but there's no reason that the producers of Star Trek couldn't show BVR combat if they wanted to. Given that they ignored this option, the obvious conclusion is that they did not want to show BVR combat.


yes, because it'd be boring as hell, and defeats the purpose of showing any combat scenes in the first place, which is not how you make TV shows or movies. Imagine how Top Gun would've turned out as a movie if they did the combat scenes like how it is in real life - ie. the main character lolpwnz0rs all the hostile fighters from 100+ miles away, game over.

Merin Ryskin wrote:
As for the crew, just ask yourself this: if you had a video of someone telling you that they're standing 100 miles away from their friend, who is visible and standing right next to them, would you believe the visuals or the dialogue? It's the same for Star Trek. The canon TV show very clearly portrays slow, visual range combat happening between ships crewed by ****ing idiots who are too stupid to know what range they're at.

Does this say some pretty bad things about Star Trek? Sure, but then again this is the show where the second-in-command of the Federation flagship gets his ship destroyed because he's too stupid to simply return fire and blow away a 100+ year old Bird of Prey that Kirk, ~100 years earlier, outgunned 10:1. Incompetence is pretty much the defining theme of the military in Star Trek.


all I'm saying is that you guys are all cherry picking examples and which standards to apply and when to apply them. Ignoring the cinematic limitations placed upon ST is no better than ignoring gameplay limitations placed up on Eve, which devolves this whole thing into nothing more than fanboy bickering, which is when you start to get people who would claim that Eve weaponry is actually inferior to current real world tech.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#160 - 2012-06-18 08:54:02 UTC
Sobach wrote:
yes, because it'd be boring as hell, and defeats the purpose of showing any combat scenes in the first place, which is not how you make TV shows or movies.


So what you're saying is that the producers of Star Trek decided that their audience would rather see a low-power universe that looks good on screen than a high-power universe that is less visually interesting. That's a perfectly valid choice to make, but you can't just throw out the results because you want to pretend that Star Trek has better weapons.

Quote:
Imagine how Top Gun would've turned out as a movie if they did the combat scenes like how it is in real life - ie. the main character lolpwnz0rs all the hostile fighters from 100+ miles away, game over.


Yeah, they would have had to make a plot (shocking) that wasn't just a flimsy excuse to show a bunch of combat scenes. And we all know that could never happen...

Quote:
all I'm saying is that you guys are all cherry picking examples and which standards to apply and when to apply them.


No, I am consistently applying the canon policy as determined by the people who actually create Star Trek. The only possible reason to dispute what I'm saying is if you're a fanboy who can't stand the thought that Star Trek is on the far low end of science fiction military capability.