These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Astrid Stjerna
Sebiestor Tribe
#81 - 2012-02-28 17:36:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Astrid Stjerna
icantseeshidtcaptain wrote:
Hey all,

Is there any info on how the Eve ships compare technologically versus the Star Trek stuff? I like that kind of comparison stuff as it's usually quite interesting!


It's more practical, IMO, to compare how each universe's philosophy affect their design strategies.

In New Eden, ship design has been shaped by endless waves of conflict; our fighters are small, fast and relatively durable, while our capital ships are designed to be mobile battle stations. We're more likely to come in 'guns blazing' and take the diplomatic option later

Star Trek, on the other hand, is based on a philosophy of exploration, instead of conflict. The Enterprise has weapons, yeah, but it's a diplomatic vessel first, and a battleship second. The Defiant, after all, was an experimental vessel, but it was 'overpowererd and overgunned for a ship its size' (as Sisko said when it was introduced).

Starfleet clearly didn't have a lot of experience making an actual warship,or at the very least, they hadn't anticipated that it would be needed in a fleet of exploratory and scientific vessels.

I can't get rid of my darn signature!  Oh, wait....

Telegram Sam
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#82 - 2012-02-29 18:41:44 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.......

Speaking of airliners... 747 to Rifter size comparison
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#83 - 2012-03-01 04:25:21 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
I've quoted you wrong on this already ... but gosh darnit you just won't listen. So look here:


FFS, you have got to be kidding me. Did you even WATCH this movie?

Since you don't get it, here's the battle in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg58hVEY5Og. Skip to the 2:00 mark and notice that all three ships are visible in the same shot and not moving.

So, please stop arguing stuff based on "Star Trek" movies that exist only in your imagination.

Astrid Stjerna wrote:
It's more practical, IMO, to compare how each universe's philosophy affect their design strategies.


Not really, because it ignores the question of technology level. For example, a Culture Very Fast Picket (a fast warship stripped of its main weapons and used as a civilian transport) considers it an insult when a character says it merely has the ability to destroy a planet, since that pathetic level of firepower is beneath even the most peaceful Culture ship. A single ship like this could conquer the entire EVE universe, if it could even be bothered with such an insultingly easy task. It has nothing to do with design philosophy, and everything to do with the fact that the Culture is so far beyond EVE technologically that design philosophy is irrelevant.

The only time design philosophy matters is if you first establish that both universes/factions/whatever have roughly the same level of technology/firepower/etc. And, unfortunately, Star Trek is so far behind EVE that the Federation's idiotic engineering decisions are merely insult to injury.

Jhagiti Tyran
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#84 - 2012-03-01 06:54:33 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Star Trek is so far behind EVE


Oversized machine guns and ships that travel a few KM/sec sub light are so much better than Star Trek tech.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#85 - 2012-03-01 09:45:02 UTC
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Star Trek is so far behind EVE


Oversized machine guns and ships that travel a few KM/sec sub light are so much better than Star Trek tech.


Feds fear small antimatter weapons. My ship fires 7 car sized slabs at close to the speed of light every 3 seconds.

Given that 99% of the time ST ships travel slower than my BS in combat I would say yea, they are behind the times.
Jhagiti Tyran
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#86 - 2012-03-01 09:48:35 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Star Trek is so far behind EVE


Oversized machine guns and ships that travel a few KM/sec sub light are so much better than Star Trek tech.


Feds fear small antimatter weapons. My ship fires 7 car sized slabs at close to the speed of light every 3 seconds.

Given that 99% of the time ST ships travel slower than my BS in combat I would say yea, they are behind the times.


Shame they cant hit because of tracking. also less than 0.5m=/= size of car.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#87 - 2012-03-01 10:09:38 UTC
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:


Shame they cant hit because of tracking. also less than 0.5m=/= size of car.



Can hit cruiser with liitle problems so yea, galaxy class is not much of an issue. Also, you overestimate the size of the car
Jhagiti Tyran
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#88 - 2012-03-01 10:45:52 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:


Shame they cant hit because of tracking. also less than 0.5m=/= size of car.



Can hit cruiser with liitle problems so yea, galaxy class is not much of an issue. Also, you overestimate the size of the car


I was gonna link that thing but I couldn't remember the name of it.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#89 - 2012-03-01 10:50:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
I've quoted you wrong on this already ... but gosh darnit you just won't listen. So look here:


FFS, you have got to be kidding me. Did you even WATCH this movie?

Since you don't get it, here's the battle in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg58hVEY5Og. Skip to the 2:00 mark and notice that all three ships are visible in the same shot and not moving.

So, please stop arguing stuff based on "Star Trek" movies that exist only in your imagination.


My imagination? No - the actual script. I linked it. I highlighted it. I showed you scenes with faster than light weapons and combat. You just keep ignoring it like a special ed kid.

Basically, we have this situation:

Your interpretation of what you see vs. the actual interpretation you are told to accept

One is cannon, the other is not.

You're literally arguing that your subjective opinion of what is happening is more important to the discussion than what is ACTUALLY VERBALLY SAID TO BE OCCURING.

You can keep saying the same thing over and over but all you're saying is "I don't know what is actually happening and chose to think something else"

Which is nice, and all, but it is not cannon.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#90 - 2012-03-01 10:54:36 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:


Shame they cant hit because of tracking. also less than 0.5m=/= size of car.



Can hit cruiser with liitle problems so yea, galaxy class is not much of an issue. Also, you overestimate the size of the car


I will accept that at low ranges many types of Eve weapons will cause massive damage if you can explain a mechanism by which said ship intends to get in range of a ship which has a sublight drive capable of 75mil m/s

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Jhagiti Tyran
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#91 - 2012-03-01 11:14:08 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:


Shame they cant hit because of tracking. also less than 0.5m=/= size of car.



Can hit cruiser with liitle problems so yea, galaxy class is not much of an issue. Also, you overestimate the size of the car


I will accept that at low ranges many types of Eve weapons will cause massive damage if you can explain a mechanism by which said ship intends to get in range of a ship which has a sublight drive capable of 75mil m/s


Even using thrusters they are far faster, 14km/sec at least. Those sort of speeds would mean nothing short of low tier cruiser and frigate guns could track.

As for the argument that ST ships always seemed to be sitting still that was a SFX issue, from midway through DS9 the studio models where being phased out and replaced with CGI. So after that we started to see the more intense fights where ships moved around.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#92 - 2012-03-01 11:32:40 UTC
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
Even using thrusters they are far faster, 14km/sec at least. Those sort of speeds would mean nothing short of low tier cruiser and frigate guns could track.

As for the argument that ST ships always seemed to be sitting still that was a SFX issue, from midway through DS9 the studio models where being phased out and replaced with CGI. So after that we started to see the more intense fights where ships moved around


The fun thing is you can literally link to a modern ST video where FTL combat occurs, and they ignore it. They then link you a scene from a film released 21 years ago and go "well, my subjective opinion of this ancient SFX is that they aren't very fast" which is as hilarious as it is maddeningly naive and stupid.

I may as well say "I chose to ignore the m/s reading on the HUD and ergo my Rifter can only go 12m/s because my opinion is it doesn't look faster than a quick bicycle"

It's absurd.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Alpheias
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#93 - 2012-03-01 12:09:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Alpheias
Pfft.

All it takes is a meeting that reaches the agreement to cancel the current iteration of Star Trek and you are safe. Roll

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#94 - 2012-03-01 12:58:26 UTC
Alpheias wrote:
Pfft.

All it takes is a meeting that reaches the agreement to cancel the current iteration of Star Trek and you are safe. Roll


I dunno man, the mere suggestion that someone might want to wear jeans worth $1000 nearly ended the whole eve universe Lol

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#95 - 2012-03-01 13:43:42 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
You're literally arguing that your subjective opinion of what is happening is more important to the discussion than what is ACTUALLY VERBALLY SAID TO BE OCCURING.


No, I'm arguing that what we see on screen is what is occurring.

You can say all the words you want, but none of it will change the fact that the actual movie very clearly shows the Enterprise, Excelsior, and the Bird of Prey in the same shot at extremely close range and not moving.


But fine, you don't like that movie? How about the opening battle in First Contact?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJZbCNexctc

Oh hey, modern effects budget, CGI that gives the ability to show exactly what the director demands, and guess what we get: ships fighting at slow speed, and ranges less than the length of a Borg cube.

Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
Even using thrusters they are far faster, 14km/sec at least. Those sort of speeds would mean nothing short of low tier cruiser and frigate guns could track.


If they can fight at 14km/s, why do they fight at much slower speeds so frequently?

Quote:
As for the argument that ST ships always seemed to be sitting still that was a SFX issue, from midway through DS9 the studio models where being phased out and replaced with CGI. So after that we started to see the more intense fights where ships moved around.


Bull****.

There is no additional cost or difficulty involved in making FTL/high-speed battles. Whether or not it fits your fanboy ideas of how it "should" work, the producers of Star Trek made a deliberate choice to show battles happening at slow speeds and short ranges.


Khanh'rhh wrote:
I may as well say "I chose to ignore the m/s reading on the HUD and ergo my Rifter can only go 12m/s because my opinion is it doesn't look faster than a quick bicycle".


The difference is that, unlike Star Trek, EVE actually does show those ranges and speeds on screen. You might think that the Rifter is slow, but that's your error in judging speeds.

In Star Trek, you might have dialogue that says one thing, but the images on screen show something entirely different. So, we have two choices:

1) Throw out one or the other as non-canon. Sure, this lets you throw out the troublesome images, but there's one huge problem: I can just as easily argue that the dialogue should be dumped. After all, if the images can be exaggerated for dramatic effect, it's just as valid to suggest that the dialogue is exaggerated for dramatic effect.

2) Accept both as canon. This means you have to somehow make the apparently-contradictory evidence fit together, and the only way to do so is to consider the dialogue an in-character error. Either the character in question accidentally said the wrong word (50km/s vs. 50km/h, for example), or the character is an incompetent moron. And given how many times Federation ships have been lost because of criminal incompetence....

Either way, there is absolutely no justification for saying the dialogue is the unquestionably "right" answer, other than your fanboy desire to give Star Trek bigger numbers.
Jhagiti Tyran
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#96 - 2012-03-01 14:01:24 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
But fine, you don't like that movie? How about the opening battle in First Contact?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJZbCNexctc

Oh hey, modern effects budget, CGI that gives the ability to show exactly what the director demands, and guess what we get: ships fighting at slow speed, and ranges less than the length of a Borg cube.


Because you have cyborg supervision and can judge relative speeds of objects, in space and with no sense of scale to judge anything by.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#97 - 2012-03-01 14:21:54 UTC
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
Because you have cyborg supervision and can judge relative speeds of objects, in space and with no sense of scale to judge anything by.


As I've said before, I'm talking about relative speed. As in ship A and ship B can both be moving at 9999999999999999m/s, but their speed relative to each other (what matters for accuracy) is still extremely low.

And I notice you completely ignored the range issue. I'm not surprised, of course, given that it must really suck to be a fanboy and have to watch a video that shows weapon ranges of less than the length of the ship firing them.
Jhagiti Tyran
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#98 - 2012-03-01 15:29:03 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
Because you have cyborg supervision and can judge relative speeds of objects, in space and with no sense of scale to judge anything by.


As I've said before, I'm talking about relative speed. As in ship A and ship B can both be moving at 9999999999999999m/s, but their speed relative to each other (what matters for accuracy) is still extremely low.

And I notice you completely ignored the range issue. I'm not surprised, of course, given that it must really suck to be a fanboy and have to watch a video that shows weapon ranges of less than the length of the ship firing them.


I am not even that into Star Trek any more so I am certainly not a fan boy, I just have to keep laughing at your attempts at making any old **** up.

If someone posted a "biplanes Vs Star Trek" thread you would come up with some way the machine gun bullets would get sucked into the engines or something similar.

Besides if both ships relative speeds are what matters how the feck does that = slower than EVE. You can either keep making **** up about how things appear (when theres no way to judge actual velocity) or you can take the more modest estimates of speed. I don't agree with the 1/4 light speed all the time idea myself but you refuse to even try and compromise,

If I am a fanboy I guess that makes you a rabid hater.

Therefore I just that Star Trek will always win because its better because of space magic and I win, /thread.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#99 - 2012-03-01 16:53:08 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:


I will accept that at low ranges many types of Eve weapons will cause massive damage if you can explain a mechanism by which said ship intends to get in range of a ship which has a sublight drive capable of 75mil m/s


When 99% of ST fights dont happen at speeds slower then my BS can move I will accept that ST ships do the things you say they doStraight
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#100 - 2012-03-01 18:11:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Merin Ryskin
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
I am not even that into Star Trek any more so I am certainly not a fan boy, I just have to keep laughing at your attempts at making any old **** up.


If by "making any old **** up" you mean "posting clips from the actual movie, not fanboy wishful thinking about what it 'should' have been"...

Quote:
If someone posted a "biplanes Vs Star Trek" thread you would come up with some way the machine gun bullets would get sucked into the engines or something similar.


Actually the holodeck would become sentient, causing a quantum subspace radiation wave that inversely polarizes the frequency of the deflector dish, resulting in a temporal subspace anomaly that makes the warp core self destruct. With a 15 minute timer counting down until the inevitable loss of the ship. Meanwhile Picard, instead of dealing with the crisis, stares out the window at the biplane (which is happily unaware that one of its stray bullets caused the whole mess) and mourns the tragedy of the war which put machine guns on it in the first place.


(If only post-TOS writing was that good.)

Quote:
Besides if both ships relative speeds are what matters how the feck does that = slower than EVE. You can either keep making **** up about how things appear (when theres no way to judge actual velocity) or you can take the more modest estimates of speed. I don't agree with the 1/4 light speed all the time idea myself but you refuse to even try and compromise,


The point is that even though Star Trek ships (like EVE ships) are capable of extremely high speeds, they don't seem to be very good at fighting at relative speeds that high. Just like EVE ships and their warp drives, Star Trek ships consistently have to slow down to laughably slow relative speeds before firing.


Quote:
I will accept that at low ranges many types of Eve weapons will cause massive damage if you can explain a mechanism by which said ship intends to get in range of a ship which has a sublight drive capable of 75mil m/s


I already told you: by entering orbit around earth (and the homeworld of every other faction) and beginning orbital bombardment of civilian targets. The Star Trek ship can run away all it wants, but every second it isn't sitting at point blank range and low speed next to the EVE ship results in another few million civilian deaths. Eventually, the Star Trek ship's captain will have to either engage within the EVE's ship's ability to return fire, or concede the complete extermination of every single populated world in the Star Trek universe.

Not that it would come to that, of course. The Federation has no tolerance for the realities of war, and the order to surrender unconditionally would follow within minutes of the first orbital strikes. With a clear policy of massive retaliation in place, any captain who stubbornly refused to obey the surrender order would find himself under the guns of his fellow officers long before any EVE ships would be involved.