Star Trek vs Babylon 5
-
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Star Trek vs Babylon 5
Because it's all that the hard-core Fivers have that makes their side look powerful in the Versus Debates. :D
-
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Star Trek vs Babylon 5
lets keep some perspective, It''s no worse then some of the things from SW/ST EU I have heard or seen.Admiral Breetai wrote:B5 EU is complete garbage any way..I hardly see why any one would take it seriously
I'd like to know where you are getting that impression from. To my knowledge, I'm the only one on this site that might be considered a 'hardcore fiver' but about as far as I have gone into the EU is to get the name for the two-seater starfury. EU-level first ones having fleets so large that their wreckage became the planets is garbage. But so is stuff like the sun crusher and other various SW EU stuff that is totally incongruous with the actual movies. Only B5 garbage EU seems to get dismissed out of hand as 'silly' with any sort of regularity though.Nowhereman10 wrote:Because it's all that the hard-core Fivers have that makes their side look powerful in the Versus Debates. :D
B5 EU garbage gives B5 somewhat of a fighting chance versus other settings, even with EU included, strip the EU garbage away from both sides of a debate, and you again can get rather balanced matchups, if not against the likes of Star Trek, it makes SW vs B5 a lot fairer. But B5 always gets stripped of its EU in these debates anyways out of hand, while everyone else gets to play with their shiny EU toys.
So although I don't like the B5 EU, or consider using it in debates, I wouldn't call it 'clinging' any more then anyone using EU material from any other setting in a debate. Some of the EU has been given the green light by JMS himself, which should put it on par with G-Canon from Star Wars-in theory at least, but not in practice.
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
Re: Star Trek vs Babylon 5
He's thinking of the kind of people you found at SBC several years ago, before they retreated to one single B5 forum.Aurochs wrote:I'd like to know where you are getting that impression from. To my knowledge, I'm the only one on this site that might be considered a 'hardcore fiver' but about as far as I have gone into the EU is to get the name for the two-seater starfury.
They never really come out anymore. By the time I was at SBC, I remember that odd bot-like individual who used to poke his head at SBC in any thread involving B5 and which made it past two pages, just to drop walls of texts, whole citations from some random EU book, and never doing anything else. Not even debating or else.
Yeah, they had those self reproducing ships or else as well. It's not like the battle that determined the fate of the Shadows and Vorlons in the Milky Way and for the rest of their lives involved two fleets which wouldn't even mass the equivalent of a small moon.EU-level first ones having fleets so large that their wreckage became the planets is garbage.
I'm not even talking about that other battle (A Call to Arms?) which involved other older warships and they hardly were that numerous.
With the numbers claimed in the EU, those battles would have been absolutely ridiculous and useless on the scale of all things. There wouldn't be much logic to explain why there weren't more ships to protect Earth for example. Why pulling punches and intervene with something like 0.0000000000000000000000001% of what you can bring to the table?
That's just silly.
But clearly, the EU was mere fanboy compensation after being beaten left and right in VS debates.
Now that nBSG is there, they even have found some universe which can be their bitch.
Can't wait for the piece of EU which will give the Cylons a billion Basestars with teraton FTL nukes though.
More or less. SW really does the weekend one shot wonder a lot, which in a way doesn't go against the movies, and usually there's always a big thing to counter balance all that.But so is stuff like the sun crusher and other various SW EU stuff that is totally incongruous with the actual movies.
That's probably largely due to the interpretations made by fanboiz.Only B5 garbage EU seems to get dismissed out of hand as 'silly' with any sort of regularity though.
For example, the claim that Galen's shadow skin could take multi-megaton blasts and that an inactivated Battlecrab could survive while engulfed in the fireball of a >1GT explosion. All of which is pure BS if one actually reads what is written in the book -- but I admit that the books are so poorly written that it takes several sweeps to actually figure out the things the author had in mind.
That said, I'd actually like to read about those quotes that speak of ships blotting out starts and that other piece about wreckage making planets.
Then there often are claims about super duper psychic attacks and Vorlon immortality and like a free card to continuously haunt some foe.
There's also those planet wreckers/destroyers such as the Vorlon PK and the Shadow PK.
Probably because it really conveys that feeling that it tries too hard to compensate, so much that the canvas greatly differs either working from the all encompassing material or the shows and movies only.B5 EU garbage gives B5 somewhat of a fighting chance versus other settings, even with EU included, strip the EU garbage away from both sides of a debate, and you again can get rather balanced matchups, if not against the likes of Star Trek, it makes SW vs B5 a lot fairer. But B5 always gets stripped of its EU in these debates anyways out of hand, while everyone else gets to play with their shiny EU toys.
So although I don't like the B5 EU, or consider using it in debates, I wouldn't call it 'clinging' any more then anyone using EU material from any other setting in a debate. Some of the EU has been given the green light by JMS himself, which should put it on par with G-Canon from Star Wars-in theory at least, but not in practice.
I remember reading some SBC threads and some well informed debaters made that point clear.
You don't seem to see much reaction when someone says that the Vorlons literally needed help from the YR against the Shadows.
Babtech went down. :/
Besides, there are some Babylon 5 Tech files on Internet. What are they?
-
- Jedi Master
- Posts: 2239
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Star Trek vs Babylon 5
Are you looking for this page: http://babylon5techmanual.yuku.com/topi ... povsBxamEsMr. Oragahn wrote:
Probably because it really conveys that feeling that it tries too hard to compensate, so much that the canvas greatly differs either working from the all encompassing material or the shows and movies only.
I remember reading some SBC threads and some well informed debaters made that point clear.
You don't seem to see much reaction when someone says that the Vorlons literally needed help from the YR against the Shadows.
Babtech went down. :/
Besides, there are some Babylon 5 Tech files on Internet. What are they?
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Star Trek vs Babylon 5
you don't have to calc if you dont want but what type of numbers would be required to do that type of numeric insanity?Mr. Oragahn wrote:Yeah, they had those self reproducing ships or else as well. It's not like the battle that determined the fate of the Shadows and Vorlons in the Milky Way and for the rest of their lives involved two fleets which wouldn't even mass the equivalent of a small moon.
I'm not even talking about that other battle (A Call to Arms?) which involved other older warships and they hardly were that numerous.
With the numbers claimed in the EU, those battles would have been absolutely ridiculous and useless on the scale of all things. There wouldn't be much logic to explain why there weren't more ships to protect Earth for example. Why pulling punches and intervene with something like 0.0000000000000000000000001% of what you can bring to the table?
That's just silly.
that wouldn't surprise me JMS when he writes comics frequents CBR and other sites..and does actually post in the vs section when he does..he's probably seen how badly his verse gets raped first hand and acted accordingly...I mean swiftly approved the agents of gaming stuff to 'further the quality" of his universeMr. Oragahn wrote:]
But clearly, the EU was mere fanboy compensation after being beaten left and right in VS debates.
There's one dude on SB that really likes to honk it hard on NBSG claiming gigaton nukes and being able to slug it out with the covenantMr. Oragahn wrote: Now that nBSG is there, they even have found some universe which can be their bitch.
Can't wait for the piece of EU which will give the Cylons a billion Basestars with teraton FTL nukes though.
the fire power and numbers does defy the movies hardMr. Oragahn wrote:More or less. SW really does the weekend one shot wonder a lot, which in a way doesn't go against the movies, and usually there's always a big thing to counter balance all that.
-
- Security Officer
- Posts: 5837
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Re: Star Trek vs Babylon 5
You can add Firefly to the list of franchise universes which B5 tech can potentially beat down fairly well. I'm suprised we don't see more EA versus Alliance threads since they're almost perfect match ups.Mr. Oragahn wrote:But clearly, the EU was mere fanboy compensation after being beaten left and right in VS debates.
Now that nBSG is there, they even have found some universe which can be their bitch.
Can't wait for the piece of EU which will give the Cylons a billion Basestars with teraton FTL nukes though.
-Mike
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Star Trek vs Babylon 5
Depends on person. Some here dismiss SW EU too (I'm one of them), while ST EU is generally not included in debate even when SW EU is - which is logical given some crazy stuff in ST EU, which would, as I have heard. allow it to compete with SW EU. But most pro-Wars debaters realize that without EU, Star Wars is on lower end of middle range in regards to firepower, so they push it without regards for sillyness or canonicity (latter is more relevant, since Star Trek has some silly things too - but I generally agree with JMS that clear violations of physics - like one gram of AM stripping atmosphere off the world from ST TOS - should not be accepted).Only B5 garbage EU seems to get dismissed out of hand as 'silly' with any sort of regularity though.
- Khas
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1287
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
- Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation
Re: Star Trek vs Babylon 5
They didn't use a gram, they used an "ounce", which, if we take to mean "fluid ounce", would mean ultra-dense antimatter, and still be consistent with what we saw.
Not to mention that SW's EU has some really low-end stuff as well.
Seventh Battle of Ruusan, anyone?
http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images ... ruusan.jpg
Not to mention that SW's EU has some really low-end stuff as well.
Seventh Battle of Ruusan, anyone?
http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images ... ruusan.jpg
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
Re: Star Trek vs Babylon 5
This isn't it. The babtech page was some other website still up at the beginning of the year. It had several calcs and they were more or less conservative.Lucky wrote:Are you looking for this page: http://babylon5techmanual.yuku.com/topi ... povsBxamEsMr. Oragahn wrote:
Probably because it really conveys that feeling that it tries too hard to compensate, so much that the canvas greatly differs either working from the all encompassing material or the shows and movies only.
I remember reading some SBC threads and some well informed debaters made that point clear.
You don't seem to see much reaction when someone says that the Vorlons literally needed help from the YR against the Shadows.
Babtech went down. :/
Besides, there are some Babylon 5 Tech files on Internet. What are they?
The layout was typical of a 90s website.
Earth masses 5.9736 e21 tonnes.Admiral Breetai wrote: you don't have to calc if you dont want but what type of numbers would be required to do that type of numeric insanity?
If your average ship is 1 km wide and masses, say, 1 million tonnes (e6), then you have e15 ships of that caliber. Nearly 6 quadrillions.
Woah, I didn't know he was that active on Internet. But I can understand the involvement to defend his universe.that wouldn't surprise me JMS when he writes comics frequents CBR and other sites..and does actually post in the vs section when he does..he's probably seen how badly his verse gets raped first hand and acted accordingly...I mean swiftly approved the agents of gaming stuff to 'further the quality" of his universeMr. Oragahn wrote: But clearly, the EU was mere fanboy compensation after being beaten left and right in VS debates.
Huh... WHAT?There's one dude on SB that really likes to honk it hard on NBSG claiming gigaton nukes and being able to slug it out with the covenantMr. Oragahn wrote: Now that nBSG is there, they even have found some universe which can be their bitch.
Can't wait for the piece of EU which will give the Cylons a billion Basestars with teraton FTL nukes though.
I quickly grew a reputation of being a nBSG wanker for merely pointing out some basic facts about the universe at SBC - that was shortly before my last ban - but this one takes it to a new level.
Got a link?
Depends on which source you go with though. Any material corrupted by Saxton's touch is best left ignored. But the vast rest isn't sticking out, really.the fire power and numbers does defy the movies hardMr. Oragahn wrote:More or less. SW really does the weekend one shot wonder a lot, which in a way doesn't go against the movies, and usually there's always a big thing to counter balance all that.
The Sun Crushed is some truly silly thing, yes, but there was only one of those things. It was a totally stupid design, not even cool looking at all, but its importance on the universe's coherency was extremely limited.
The other super weapons were more or less subpar superlaser derived thingies.
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
Re: Star Trek vs Babylon 5
There's scant info on the space side in Firefly. It's actually even worse than with Farscape.Mike DiCenso wrote:You can add Firefly to the list of franchise universes which B5 tech can potentially beat down fairly well. I'm suprised we don't see more EA versus Alliance threads since they're almost perfect match ups.Mr. Oragahn wrote:But clearly, the EU was mere fanboy compensation after being beaten left and right in VS debates.
Now that nBSG is there, they even have found some universe which can be their bitch.
Can't wait for the piece of EU which will give the Cylons a billion Basestars with teraton FTL nukes though.
-Mike
-
- Security Officer
- Posts: 5837
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Re: Star Trek vs Babylon 5
We've seen the Alliance ships in action on a few occasions in both the series and the "Serenity" movie, and I've seen nothing that terribly impresses me. No shields, and weapons of a modest power range. Also, every ship in Firefly lacks FTL travel, so even nBSG and B5 EA ships would have a field day with these guys, and it takes hours or days just to travel across their one little star system on their STL drives.
I'm... not impressed.
-Mike
I'm... not impressed.
-Mike
-
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Star Trek vs Babylon 5
What everyone else said. It's been my experience on YouTube as well as other places, like SBC, that the hard-core Fivers come up with some of the most silly nonsense imaginable to justify a win against Star Trek ships, or those any other franchise. That's why they've pretty much retreated to that one website of theirs.Aurochs wrote:I'd like to know where you are getting that impression from. To my knowledge, I'm the only one on this site that might be considered a 'hardcore fiver' but about as far as I have gone into the EU is to get the name for the two-seater starfury. EU-level first ones having fleets so large that their wreckage became the planets is garbage. But so is stuff like the sun crusher and other various SW EU stuff that is totally incongruous with the actual movies. Only B5 garbage EU seems to get dismissed out of hand as 'silly' with any sort of regularity though.
Also, it's not that the B5 EU is any better or worse when it comes to wanking, which is exactly why you can't take it very seriously. It doesn't look anything at all like what was shown in the TV series where we had 200 MW cannons able to threaten the best ships of the Young Races, two megaton bombs killed Minbari Sharlins from several hundred meters away, and fleets rarely exceeded a few hundred vessels combined.
To address another point, when certain fans screamed to JMS about the low yield nukes killing the Black Star, he made no changes for future showings. The same with any other power output numbers for B5. Thus we must assume that this is what the creator of the series wants as the canon power outputs for his universe's ships.
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Star Trek vs Babylon 5
those numbers are like..totally supported by the Tv series I totally saw the EA Centauri and Minbari loose a million ships (because believe it or not this was the technology level they were at during this battle) per battle and consider it a minor loss....I mean the source material so supports thisMr. Oragahn wrote:
Earth masses 5.9736 e21 tonnes.
If your average ship is 1 km wide and masses, say, 1 million tonnes (e6), then you have e15 ships of that caliber. Nearly 6 quadrillions.
when he started writing Thor he got into it with a Thor Expert (a poster who owns one of the largest collections of that book anywhere I think) pretty rabidlyMr. Oragahn wrote:
Woah, I didn't know he was that active on Internet. But I can understand the involvement to defend his universe
he does actually allot of Comic writers do..which is both good and bad..because you run the risk of an ascended fanboy getting bent out of shape his character looses ands goes and drowns him in wank juice and it's actually canon not nebulous like Saxtons stuff
JMS seems to suffer from this at times but nearly as prominently or as debilitating as other writers..He's usually much more laid back so it's hard to imagine he allowed that crap in the EU
I think his name is GUTB I remember one thread where the guy went off the edge in terms of claims. i'll look for the guys profileMr. Oragahn wrote:
Huh... WHAT?
I quickly grew a reputation of being a nBSG wanker for merely pointing out some basic facts about the universe at SBC - that was shortly before my last ban - but this one takes it to a new level.
Got a link?
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Depends on which source you go with though. Any material corrupted by Saxton's touch is best left ignored. But the vast rest isn't sticking out, really.
The Sun Crushed is some truly silly thing, yes, but there was only one of those things. It was a totally stupid design, not even cool looking at all, but its importance on the universe's coherency was extremely limited.
The other super weapons were more or less subpar superlaser derived thingies.
The Sun crusher seemed a bit believable in that all it did really was start a chain reaction that star busted..It's trek tech more than wars but if they had say backward engineered Rakatan or Celestial tech I could buy it
the Armor..and all that was incredibly stupid though
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Star Trek vs Babylon 5
Thanks for correction. Ounce is, as far as I know, usually unit of mass, so I automatically converted it to gram in my mind. Remembrance error.Khas wrote:They didn't use a gram, they used an "ounce", which, if we take to mean "fluid ounce", would mean ultra-dense antimatter, and still be consistent with what we saw.
Not to mention that SW's EU has some really low-end stuff as well.
Seventh Battle of Ruusan, anyone?
http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images ... ruusan.jpg