These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Star Wars vs Star Trek

Author
Bek Thyron
#41 - 2012-02-01 15:00:09 UTC
A bit serious question here ( i am a noob in st questions):

How comes that Picard and Kirk are the most accepted and likeable st captains?

PS: Somehow, Sisko reminds me of Sheridan. Dont know why.
PPS: Sorry for typos! I am a noob, have mercy! Its CAPTAIN SISKO, not Cisco
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#42 - 2012-02-01 15:29:30 UTC
I *prefer* Star Wars, at least the original trilogy, because it doesn't get mired up in technobabble and instead just assumes that the tech works because it works, and uses it to tell a story. In that sense, it's the better of the two scifi franchises. Compared to ST:TOS, it was a much more believable and consistent universe. Also, it's a lot more fun to watch.

Now when you roll in all the extended universes of both, I think I like the Star Trek universe better because Star Wars tried too hard to match Star Trek's technical side. There was no need to explain the mechanics of the Force or how lightsabers work or any of that...this is futuretech 10,000 years ahead of us. They would accept that something works the same way we accept the integrated circuit. Imagine H.G. Wells going on at length about how a modern cell phone works and you'll understand just how pointless it is.

Here's where Star Trek falls flat for me: they have all this amazing tech, yet they completely lack imagination on its application. There was a whole episode of TNG devoted to the Federation trying to turn Data into a prototype for an assembly line of androids, when they already know that they can use teleporters to duplicate most anything under the right circumstances. Instead of manufacturing new Datas, just duplicate him over and over again.

For that matter, why not replicate entire ships? A massive replicator system that would form ship hulls using all the matter they could feed the thing. I do recall them saying some materials can't be replicated, but those few things could then be installed in the replicated ship prior to launching it. And why bother with Star Fleet Academy? You've got some really brilliant crews out there. Copy their transporter patterns and beam a copy of them onto each newly replicated ship. Mix crew compositions from one ship to the next so they don't all perform identically...variation is a good thing. Enough matter and energy and you can form up a massive fleet in a matter of days.

In conclusion, Star Wars is fun if you don't overthink it, Star Trek overthinks itself, and Babylon 5 is better than both.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Bek Thyron
#43 - 2012-02-01 17:17:22 UTC
Way to destroy my half-assed trolling attempts with logic and well-thought out response X

Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#44 - 2012-02-01 18:27:07 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
I *prefer* Star Wars, at least the original trilogy, because it doesn't get mired up in technobabble and instead just assumes that the tech works because it works, and uses it to tell a story. In that sense, it's the better of the two scifi franchises. Compared to ST:TOS, it was a much more believable and consistent universe. Also, it's a lot more fun to watch.

Now when you roll in all the extended universes of both, I think I like the Star Trek universe better because Star Wars tried too hard to match Star Trek's technical side. There was no need to explain the mechanics of the Force or how lightsabers work or any of that...this is futuretech 10,000 years ahead of us. They would accept that something works the same way we accept the integrated circuit. Imagine H.G. Wells going on at length about how a modern cell phone works and you'll understand just how pointless it is.

Here's where Star Trek falls flat for me: they have all this amazing tech, yet they completely lack imagination on its application. There was a whole episode of TNG devoted to the Federation trying to turn Data into a prototype for an assembly line of androids, when they already know that they can use teleporters to duplicate most anything under the right circumstances. Instead of manufacturing new Datas, just duplicate him over and over again.

For that matter, why not replicate entire ships? A massive replicator system that would form ship hulls using all the matter they could feed the thing. I do recall them saying some materials can't be replicated, but those few things could then be installed in the replicated ship prior to launching it. And why bother with Star Fleet Academy? You've got some really brilliant crews out there. Copy their transporter patterns and beam a copy of them onto each newly replicated ship. Mix crew compositions from one ship to the next so they don't all perform identically...variation is a good thing. Enough matter and energy and you can form up a massive fleet in a matter of days.

In conclusion, Star Wars is fun if you don't overthink it, Star Trek overthinks itself, and Babylon 5 is better than both.


The reason why replication isn't utilized more in ST is purely for story reasons. You know this yourself from personal experience from playing video games. How much would your ship destruction in EVE matter, if you got an instant free replacement every time you lost one. Not that much propably. This is why it's not done. It would simply suck a lot of the drama away from the story, if all losses would be easily replaceable and people could be copied to fill the ranks. Also keep in mind that while ST tries to be a bit more scifi by often making how the tech functions a part of the story and annoy us with excessive amount of technobabble, the story and drama are still the primary consideration.

I do agree on the B5 being better than either part.

PS. There is a live action SW TV series in the making(with possible time travel plot), so it will be interesting to see how SW does in a series format. Currently it's a lot easier to rip apart ST consistency, since there is so much material from which to find inconsistencies and personal dislikes. In the live action category SW pretty much only has the movies and the holiday special to rely on and most of them were of questionable quality with this gold nugget as the cherry on top.
W1rlW1nd
WirlWind
#45 - 2012-02-02 07:40:23 UTC
Bek Thyron wrote:
...

We need a reboot. Timetravel **** goes wrong, Picard and Kirk ended both in a time periode. And they kicking asses through the galaxy! Picard is cool and always tries to reason with Kirk, but Kirk is always like "Naw, fk it, im gonna just punch those aliens."...



But. . . this already happened. In #7 Kirk and Picard get put into the same time period via the Nexus and they take on the bad guy together. . . except that it was super lame, and Kirk hit his head on a rock and dies. WTF!?!

Kirk has survived been blown up, atomized, sent ot other dimensions and back, sent back and forth through time, hand combat with alien monsters, singlehandedly defeated galactic invasions, reversed impossible odds to save the Earth over and over, had fist-fights with himself on numerous occasions due to no other creature in the universe being a match for him, but then he hits his head on a rock and dies. . . Paramount needs to be photon torpedoed from orbit for that.



Umega
Solis Mensa
#46 - 2012-02-02 08:47:57 UTC
W1rlW1nd wrote:
But. . . this already happened. In #7 Kirk and Picard get put into the same time period via the Nexus and they take on the bad guy together. . . except that it was super lame, and Kirk hit his head on a rock and dies. WTF!?!

Kirk has survived been blown up, atomized, sent ot other dimensions and back, sent back and forth through time, hand combat with alien monsters, singlehandedly defeated galactic invasions, reversed impossible odds to save the Earth over and over, had fist-fights with himself on numerous occasions due to no other creature in the universe being a match for him, but then he hits his head on a rock and dies. . . Paramount needs to be photon torpedoed from orbit for that.





He wasn't wearing a helmet tho.. try taking only a couple Force bolts to the dome and dying from it when Luke, Mace, Yoda, and even Sidious himself absorbed far more full on shots of it.

Atleast he didn't die right after telling someone he trained.. that acted like some spoiled dim-witted child.. that he made out with his twin sister.

The only real death is being slowly disolved in a stomach for a thousand years.. so because of Boba Fett, Star Wars wins the whole arguement.
Solinuas
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#47 - 2012-02-02 11:27:31 UTC
Also if i may point out, if the two fought SW would roflstomp ST, they have FAR superior tech

(also even eve would roflstomp ST)
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#48 - 2012-02-02 18:47:43 UTC
Solinuas wrote:
(also even the real world would roflstomp ST)

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#49 - 2012-02-02 19:15:42 UTC
Solinuas wrote:
Also if i may point out, if the two fought SW would roflstomp ST, they have FAR superior tech

(also even eve would roflstomp ST)


ST dont have standing armies so no ****Lol
Nerath Naaris
Pink Winged Unicorns for Peace Love and Anarchy
#50 - 2012-02-02 19:35:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Nerath Naaris
nvm

Je suis Paris // Köln // Brüssel // Orlando // Nice // Würzburg, München, Ansbach // Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray

Je suis Berlin // Fort Lauderdale // London // St. Petersburg // Stockholm

Je suis [?]

Alara IonStorm
#51 - 2012-02-02 21:16:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Solinuas wrote:
Also if i may point out, if the two fought SW would roflstomp ST, they have FAR superior tech

(also even eve would roflstomp ST)

↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A Start

New Player Unlocked: Q

... What you never said no cheat codes.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#52 - 2012-02-02 22:07:33 UTC
Huh.

Who am I? I am Susan Ivanova, Commander. Daughter of Andre and Sophie Ivanov. I am the right hand of vengeance and the boot that is going to kick your sorry ass all the way back to Earth, sweetheart! I am death incarnate, and the last living thing that you will ever see. God sent me.

Now just beat it if you can. Cool
Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
#53 - 2012-02-02 22:22:50 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Solinuas wrote:
Also if i may point out, if the two fought SW would roflstomp ST, they have FAR superior tech

(also even eve would roflstomp ST)


ST dont have standing armies so no ****Lol



Who needs an army when one photon torpedo has the capacity to level a whole city?

Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel **IG OOPE **

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#54 - 2012-02-02 22:30:09 UTC
Micheal Dietrich wrote:
Who needs an army when one photon torpedo has the capacity to make a nice cloud of dust and knock down a couple people standing nearby, with less force than a modern grenade?


Fixed that for you.

And of course even that might be a bit optimistic. More likely the Star Trek ship would suffer an unfortunate holodeck malfunction that causes a polarized quantum radiation wave that detonates the warp core (after an appropriately dramatic several-minute countdown timer).
Alara IonStorm
#55 - 2012-02-02 22:49:03 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Who needs an army when one photon torpedo has the capacity to make a nice cloud of dust and knock down a couple people standing nearby, with less force than a modern grenade?

A Standard Torpedo has an 18.5 Isoton Warhead. A 54 isoton yield charge could blow up a small planet. A Torpedo has an effective range of 4 Million Kilometers. I think EVE Heavy Missiles you can get over 120 with a bonus...

So is this like a troll that Star Trek Technology is bad or something because it seems pretty damn deadly.
Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
#56 - 2012-02-02 22:53:39 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Who needs an army when one photon torpedo has the capacity to make a nice cloud of dust and knock down a couple people standing nearby, with less force than a modern grenade?

A Standard Torpedo has an 18.5 Isoton Warhead. A 54 isoton yield charge could blow up a small planet. A Torpedo has an effective range of 4 Million Kilometers. I think EVE Heavy Missiles you can get over 120 with a bonus...

So is this like a troll that Star Trek Technology is bad or something because it seems pretty damn deadly.



Merin's doing the realistic route where neither series is real (obviously) and we're talking about fictional stats on cardboard props. Can't stop us from having our fun, Geeks gonna geek.

Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel **IG OOPE **

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#57 - 2012-02-02 23:10:09 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
A Standard Torpedo has an 18.5 Isoton Warhead. A 54 isoton yield charge could blow up a small planet.


First, thanks for demonstrating how hilariously stupid it is when people say Star Trek has good scientific accuracy. Do you know what the prefix "iso" means? Equal. So "18.5 isotons" is just a redundant way of saying "18.5 tons", or about the same as the smallest nuclear weapon ever built.

And it's stupid in-universe even. In Star Trek V a photon torpedo did less damage to the nearby people than a modern grenade, and in Star Trek VI we even see photon torpedoes exploding inside the Enterprise and barely doing more than smash the furniture.

PS: EVE has nuclear weapons at least that powerful (the Davy Crockett warhead is pretty much the minimum physically possible yield for a nuclear weapon), and last time I checked autocannons fire a lot faster than anything in Star Trek.

Quote:
A Torpedo has an effective range of 4 Million Kilometers. I think EVE Heavy Missiles you can get over 120 with a bonus...


So let me get this straight, a torpedo has an effective range* of 4 million kilometers, but (AFAIK) every single case of starship vs. starship combat in all of Star Trek happens at ranges of a few km at most? Why exactly should we pay any attention to this 4 million km claim?



*Let's ignore the stupidity of having a maximum range limit in space.
Alara IonStorm
#58 - 2012-02-02 23:41:48 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:


First, thanks for demonstrating how hilariously stupid it is when people say Star Trek has good scientific accuracy. Do you know what the prefix "iso" means? Equal. So "18.5 isotons" is just a redundant way of saying "18.5 tons", or about the same as the smallest nuclear weapon ever built.

That is assuming that the prefix Iso means the same thing in their universe as it does in our own. An Isoton could and likely is meant as an entirely different measurement then anything really used in our language and most likely has absolutely 0 relation to the prefix Iso.

Merin Ryskin wrote:

And it's stupid in-universe even. In Star Trek V a photon torpedo did less damage to the nearby people than a modern grenade, and in Star Trek VI we even see photon torpedoes exploding inside the Enterprise and barely doing more than smash the furniture.

PS: EVE has nuclear weapons at least that powerful (the Davy Crockett warhead is pretty much the minimum physically possible yield for a nuclear weapon), and last time I checked autocannons fire a lot faster than anything in Star Trek.

So one bad example spoils the whole universe huh. Roll


Quote:

So let me get this straight, a torpedo has an effective range* of 4 million kilometers, but (AFAIK) every single case of starship vs. starship combat in all of Star Trek happens at ranges of a few km at most? Why exactly should we pay any attention to this 4 million km claim?

Bolded the wrong while most appear close for visual reason many, many fights do not and use ranges like this. Many of them happen at Warp Speed so it is safe to assume Torpedoes have Warp Engines.

Quote:

*Let's ignore the stupidity of having a maximum range limit in space.

Lets not, perhaps at the maximum range Torpedoes detonate when they run out of power or guidance whilst Phasers loose power. The point is that EVE Ships can not accurately hit that far out while Star Trek Ships can.

You can dislike that they use made up words and site bad examples created for story reasons all you want but going off of Cannon measurements of weapon yield and range Star Trek has a lot of very dangerous weapons.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#59 - 2012-02-02 23:56:09 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
That is assuming that the prefix Iso means the same thing in their universe as it does in our own. An Isoton could and likely is meant as an entirely different measurement then anything really used in our language and most likely has absolutely 0 relation to the prefix Iso.


Star Trek is meant to be our universe in the future, complete with time-travel back to "modern" times where everything is exactly the same.

Also, if it's a made up word, why do we assume that it means "really huge weapon yield" instead of "really tiny weapon yield"?

Quote:
So one bad example spoils the whole universe huh. Roll


It's not just one bad example. We have never seen anything even close to planet-destroying firepower from Star Trek weapons.

Quote:
Bolded the wrong while most appear close for visual reason many, many fights do not and use ranges like this. Many of them happen at Warp Speed so it is safe to assume Torpedoes have Warp Engines.


The out-of-universe reason for having close-range fights doesn't matter, all that matters is that time after time we see fights at much less than 4 million km. Worse, we see horrible accuracy even at such absurdly close ranges. If you can't hit a massive battleship from a few hundred meters, why is it plausible that you can hit it from a few million?

Awesome Star Trek accuracy. (starting at 1:00)


Quote:
Lets not, perhaps at the maximum range Torpedoes detonate when they run out of power or guidance whilst Phasers loose power. The point is that EVE Ships can not accurately hit that far out while Star Trek Ships can.


Hit: turn off the engine and you have infinite range in space. Or, if you're going to quote range based on fuel limits, then you don't have a single range limit, you have a long list of range limits depending on the speed and direction of the target. Either way, stating a range limit of 4 million km is just stupid.

Quote:
You can dislike that they use made up words and site bad examples created for story reasons all you want but going off of Cannon measurements of weapon yield and range Star Trek has a lot of very dangerous weapons.


What canon measurements? Which movie or TV episode are they from?

PS: "isoton" makes perfect sense, even if it's a bit redundant. The only problem with it canon-wise is that it doesn't help fanboys "prove" that Star Trek beats everything.
Alara IonStorm
#60 - 2012-02-03 00:15:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Merin Ryskin wrote:

Star Trek is meant to be our universe in the future, complete with time-travel back to "modern" times where everything is exactly the same.

Also, if it's a made up word, why do we assume that it means "really huge weapon yield" instead of "really tiny weapon yield"?

Their have been numerous examples of large weapon yields that have caused massive destruction..
Merin Ryskin wrote:

It's not just one bad example. We have never seen anything even close to planet-destroying firepower from Star Trek weapons.

200m long Deathstar.

Planet Killer

Total Planet Bombardment Averted.

Bombardment then a Battle.

Quote:

The out-of-universe reason for having close-range fights doesn't matter, all that matters is that time after time we see fights at much less than 4 million km. Worse, we see horrible accuracy even at such absurdly close ranges. If you can't hit a massive battleship from a few hundred meters, why is it plausible that you can hit it from a few million?

Awesome Star Trek accuracy. (starting at 1:00)

Story Reasons of course but Memory Alpha states that Photon Torps are terrible at under 15km.

Also I hate that movie. I don't think I have ever enjoyed any Star Trek Movie. All the Battles are much more Hollywood and everyone is so out of Character.
Quote:

Hit: turn off the engine and you have infinite range in space. Or, if you're going to quote range based on fuel limits, then you don't have a single range limit, you have a long list of range limits depending on the speed and direction of the target. Either way, stating a range limit of 4 million km is just stupid.

But not an effective range. It is more of an estimate but it is a very, very long range weapon.

Quote:

What canon measurements? Which movie or TV episode are they from?

PS: "isoton" makes perfect sense, even if it's a bit redundant. The only problem with it canon-wise is that it doesn't help fanboys "prove" that Star Trek beats everything.

I use Memory Alpha but a few things conflict. I am not trying to prove Star Trek is the best for instance without Transwarp Drive their ships are intolerably slow compared to Star Treks Hyper Space. Still slightly faster then EVE's Warp Drive but they do not have jump drives. I know that their are inaccuracies for Story purposes but that doesn't bug me all that much I mean it is entertainment and it is enjoyable.

I am not pointing to a universe being the best directly but Tech Wise Star Trek does have some pretty good stuff.