SB.com ICS thread

Did a related website in the community go down? Come back up? Relocate to a new address? Install pop-up advertisements?

This forum is for discussion of these sorts of issues.
User avatar
l33telboi
Starship Captain
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:15 am
Location: Finland

Post by l33telboi » Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:12 am

Praeothmin wrote:If I remember correctly, he was also the one behind the "Reasonable Level of Skill", or something like it.
This basically meant that, since Stormtroopers, for example, are supposed to be the SW's universe's best soldiers, they should be assumed to be reasonably competent, even though we clearly see in movies how much they suck...
I for one like RPS. Because there's nothing more annoying then debates that eventually devolve in fanboys from each franchise scream at each others about how much the other side sucks.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:32 pm

Well, I like it, and I don't like it.
I like it for the reasons you mention, that debates cannot turn into "your guys suck", but at the same time, it takes away from what we observe.
If we do use the RPS, then we ignore all the visual evidence pointing to inept soldiers, inept characters.

for example, John Preston suddenly becomes a Godlike figure in firearm and hand-to-hand combat, because RPS transforms the inept guards he fought (remember, the ones who were standing in the corridor with their weapons against their legs while Preston was slaughtering their comrades at the other end of the same corridor, in plain view of everyone) into super competent soldiers, because that's what the Director intended...

User avatar
l33telboi
Starship Captain
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:15 am
Location: Finland

Post by l33telboi » Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:07 pm

Praeothmin wrote:Well, I like it, and I don't like it.
I like it for the reasons you mention, that debates cannot turn into "your guys suck", but at the same time, it takes away from what we observe.
If we do use the RPS, then we ignore all the visual evidence pointing to inept soldiers, inept characters.

for example, John Preston suddenly becomes a Godlike figure in firearm and hand-to-hand combat, because RPS transforms the inept guards he fought (remember, the ones who were standing in the corridor with their weapons against their legs while Preston was slaughtering their comrades at the other end of the same corridor, in plain view of everyone) into super competent soldiers, because that's what the Director intended...
Well, I'd rather debate what a director intended then the bastardized results from over-zelous visual nitpicking. I guess tastes vary.

User avatar
Mith
Starship Captain
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:17 am

Post by Mith » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:48 am

l33telboi wrote:
Praeothmin wrote:If I remember correctly, he was also the one behind the "Reasonable Level of Skill", or something like it.
This basically meant that, since Stormtroopers, for example, are supposed to be the SW's universe's best soldiers, they should be assumed to be reasonably competent, even though we clearly see in movies how much they suck...
I for one like RPS. Because there's nothing more annoying then debates that eventually devolve in fanboys from each franchise scream at each others about how much the other side sucks.
On a more relaxed site where both sides weren't so into it, I'd say such a rule would work, but it won't for Space Battles, which is basically everything must conform to what we see, not what is clearly intended as I can try and turn that into a subjective debate.

Ie, phasers would vaporize someone (clearly intended), soldiers from all universes would be competent, aiming capabilities would be decent if not good, and characters would act intelligently without using every tech-of-the-week.

And you know what? A great deal of sci-fi would actually be more or less even in a great deal of debates. Once you cut away the douchery and the constant hard rock debate rules and put in a more kid friendly rule per say, it all becomes less absurdly complex with over the top scientific analysis of special effects where the angle isn't right, the effects are wrong, or some bullshit like that.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:33 pm

Mith wrote:
l33telboi wrote:
Praeothmin wrote:If I remember correctly, he was also the one behind the "Reasonable Level of Skill", or something like it.
This basically meant that, since Stormtroopers, for example, are supposed to be the SW's universe's best soldiers, they should be assumed to be reasonably competent, even though we clearly see in movies how much they suck...
I for one like RPS. Because there's nothing more annoying then debates that eventually devolve in fanboys from each franchise scream at each others about how much the other side sucks.
On a more relaxed site where both sides weren't so into it, I'd say such a rule would work, but it won't for Space Battles, which is basically everything must conform to what we see, not what is clearly intended as I can try and turn that into a subjective debate.

Ie, phasers would vaporize someone (clearly intended), soldiers from all universes would be competent, aiming capabilities would be decent if not good, and characters would act intelligently without using every tech-of-the-week.

And you know what? A great deal of sci-fi would actually be more or less even in a great deal of debates. Once you cut away the douchery and the constant hard rock debate rules and put in a more kid friendly rule per say, it all becomes less absurdly complex with over the top scientific analysis of special effects where the angle isn't right, the effects are wrong, or some bullshit like that.
Nothing forces you stay at SBC Mith. If you're full of the "douchery" and "bullshit", there's one simple thing you can do. If you're venting because you can't win an argument over there while you know the rules and you know it's based on detailed examination, you're probably being a tad masochistic.

User avatar
Mith
Starship Captain
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:17 am

Post by Mith » Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:36 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Mith wrote:
l33telboi wrote: I for one like RPS. Because there's nothing more annoying then debates that eventually devolve in fanboys from each franchise scream at each others about how much the other side sucks.
On a more relaxed site where both sides weren't so into it, I'd say such a rule would work, but it won't for Space Battles, which is basically everything must conform to what we see, not what is clearly intended as I can try and turn that into a subjective debate.

Ie, phasers would vaporize someone (clearly intended), soldiers from all universes would be competent, aiming capabilities would be decent if not good, and characters would act intelligently without using every tech-of-the-week.

And you know what? A great deal of sci-fi would actually be more or less even in a great deal of debates. Once you cut away the douchery and the constant hard rock debate rules and put in a more kid friendly rule per say, it all becomes less absurdly complex with over the top scientific analysis of special effects where the angle isn't right, the effects are wrong, or some bullshit like that.
Nothing forces you stay at SBC Mith. If you're full of the "douchery" and "bullshit", there's one simple thing you can do. If you're venting because you can't win an argument over there while you know the rules and you know it's based on detailed examination, you're probably being a tad masochistic.
Not really complaining. I'm just saying there'd be a lot less problems with debates and less would fall down to semantics.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:56 pm

l33telboi wrote:I'd rather debate what a director intended then the bastardized results from over-zelous visual nitpicking.
The visuals are the vision the Director has of the story and the world where that story is.
Although I will agree that sometimes, the Director doesn't have the means to properly convey his message, I think a lot of "idiocy" seen on film could easily be remedied.
For example, in the "Equilibrium" final fight scene, having the guards ready and not firing because Preston is moving through them would have been better then having them standing still while he slaughters them...

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:26 pm

Mith wrote:Not really complaining. I'm just saying there'd be a lot less problems with debates and less would fall down to semantics.
I don't see them boiling down to semantics when done honestly, and you'll get the same "douchery" with lowbrow debates where side A wins because blue beams are stronger against yellow shields, and where everybody would have a different idea of what an efficient version of the stormtroopers would be, etc.
No point, no debate per se, just empty talk.

User avatar
Mith
Starship Captain
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:17 am

Post by Mith » Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:07 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Mith wrote:Not really complaining. I'm just saying there'd be a lot less problems with debates and less would fall down to semantics.
I don't see them boiling down to semantics when done honestly, and you'll get the same "douchery" with lowbrow debates where side A wins because blue beams are stronger against yellow shields, and where everybody would have a different idea of what an efficient version of the stormtroopers would be, etc.
No point, no debate per se, just empty talk.
I sort of do; I'm of the opinion that the story should be taken over the actual visuals we see, since in my opinion, not doing so is just as guilty of violating suspension of disbelief. Sure, you can make a point for phasers, but when a nuke doesn't go off properly because the props guy can't simulate it, it's a rather almost poor excuse to say "well, that's not how it should look', despite the fact that everyone in the story and the story itself assumes that it should work like that. For example, the Halo glassing of High Charity would be a good example.

But perhaps I'm just getting bitter and crazy in my old age.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:34 pm

It's always why applying to a show or film the methodology usually applied to books is useful.
You ignore visuals as much as possible, to focus on the characters and intent.

But again, there's a debate on this as well.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:35 pm

Well yeah. If you ignore the visuals, then you wind up with, for example,, uber-Trek firepower since you can argue TDiC with the dialog now. Within 6 hours a fleet of 20 starships can strip a planet down to the core. No if and or but about it. Another Trek example that benefits from dialog over visuals; "The Pegasus". The asteroid was large enough to generate a magnetic field capable of overcoming a shuttlecraft's engines, and so it must be either incomparably dense or very large: hundreds to more than a thousand kilometers in diameter, and so Trek firepower goes up to insane levels once again.

Again, these are only examples, but it shows how you can turn things to one's advantage this way.
-Mike

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:23 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:Well yeah. If you ignore the visuals, then you wind up with, for example,, uber-Trek firepower since you can argue TDiC with the dialog now. Within 6 hours a fleet of 20 starships can strip a planet down to the core. No if and or but about it. Another Trek example that benefits from dialog over visuals; "The Pegasus". The asteroid was large enough to generate a magnetic field capable of overcoming a shuttlecraft's engines, and so it must be either incomparably dense or very large: hundreds to more than a thousand kilometers in diameter, and so Trek firepower goes up to insane levels once again.

Again, these are only examples, but it shows how you can turn things to one's advantage this way.
-Mike
That would obviously be a stupid plot density, especially when there are small crafts in Trek which can achieve something like 0.7c (that episode with visor guy talking about some trip to Jupiter with an Admiral who used to do the same run).

As for TDIC... I... no. Just... no.

Or the server for this website will flash vapourize. And the building that hosts it. And the city along it. Plus the crust.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:58 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:Well yeah. If you ignore the visuals, then you wind up with, for example,, uber-Trek firepower since you can argue TDiC with the dialog now. Within 6 hours a fleet of 20 starships can strip a planet down to the core. No if and or but about it. Another Trek example that benefits from dialog over visuals; "The Pegasus". The asteroid was large enough to generate a magnetic field capable of overcoming a shuttlecraft's engines, and so it must be either incomparably dense or very large: hundreds to more than a thousand kilometers in diameter, and so Trek firepower goes up to insane levels once again.

Again, these are only examples, but it shows how you can turn things to one's advantage this way.
-Mike
Mr. Oragahn wrote:That would obviously be a stupid plot density, especially when there are small crafts in Trek which can achieve something like 0.7c (that episode with visor guy talking about some trip to Jupiter with an Admiral who used to do the same run).

As for TDIC... I... no. Just... no.

Or the server for this website will flash vapourize. And the building that hosts it. And the city along it. Plus the crust.
Unfortunately, that's the end result of relying solely on dialog, or taking dialog over visuals. The smartest approach I feel, is to create a synthesis of dialog and visuals as much as possible.
-Mike

User avatar
Mith
Starship Captain
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:17 am

Post by Mith » Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:41 pm

Mike DiCenso wrote:Unfortunately, that's the end result of relying solely on dialog, or taking dialog over visuals. The smartest approach I feel, is to create a synthesis of dialog and visuals as much as possible.
-Mike
Um...no?

Sorry, but taking one over the other doesn't mean you totally ignore the visuals, nor does it mean you can toss logic to the wind. TDiC is a rather high end example, probably using high end orbital bombardment weapons taht aren't suited for ship to ship combat.

You could look at it sort of like a level of destruction sort of thing;

Utterly Fuck Over Planet
Level of firepower that either destroys the planet or utterly devistates the planet with only one weapon.

1) Troubles and Tribbulations (Worf's statement that a 23rd century Klingong fleet obliterated); Possible, but not totally confirmed planetary destruction (Unknown size of Klingon fleet, presumably at least 40 or so).

2) The Die is Cast; clearly indicates that 20 starships can destroy the crust and the mantle of a planet within six hours (20 Warbirds/20 Keldons.

3) Obsession; half the planet's atmosphere is torn off (Bomb the size of a bowling ball, only 1x Constitution class).

4) The Omega Directive; a little blurry, but a technobabble weapon was supposably capable of destroying a small planet, probably something about the size of pluto or some such (Gravametric torpeo).

5) By Inferno's Light; The Dominion attempts to use a sun buster to destroy Bajor and DS9 (torpedo/missile/bomb).

6) ST: Generations; A UFP scientist uses a sun buster to alter gravity to suit his purposes (torpedo/missile).


Inbetween
The ones that are inbetween is Broken Link and Trials and Tribbulations. The reason being that both of them are a bit vague and can technically be placed in the other based upon how one takes the dialogue.


Orbital Bombardment (General Order 24)

1)Whom God's Destroy; Mention of General Order 24 by the insane captain to destroy all life on a planet (Presumably a Constitution or similar type class, it is unknown).

2) A Taste of Armageddon; Kirk gives the order to perform General Order 24 if he was not released . The order is stated to destroy the inhabital surface of the planet (1x Constitution Mark II class).

3) Broken Link; Garak attemps to use the Defiant to eliminate all life on the Founder Homeworld (1x Defiant Class).

4) Operation: Annhilate!; the episode isn't specific enough for us, but Kirk does mention that if he can't stop the parasites somehow, he'd be forced to kill over a million people, probably via orbital bombardment. This is probably likely given how dangerous the parasites are (1x Constitution Class).

5) Star Trek II & III; the device is capable of remodling an entire planet, but will kill anything on that planet if it does so (a torpedo thingy...).

Conclusion:

Thus, we have at least 5 instances of orbital bombardment and six of planetary destruction through some method or the other. Now, let's look at 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the planetary destruction incidents; we can clearly see that some sort of unique or superweapon is involved (ignoring the Borg multi-kinetic bomb, which actually supports this a bit more, but I digress). Therefore, it seems likely that the Tal Shiar and the Obsidian Order used something similar in either uber powerful bombs...or technobabble bombs that are incredibly powerful. We can theorize on what exactly is going on, but it doesn't matter, since we can clearly see that it requires special hardware. Now, the same may or may not apply to the Klingon incident, but it definately supports TDiC, without making firepower levels absurd.

Now let's take a look at GO24. Basically, we have five examples of such, only one being through a method that would spell instant death to a planet (and really, that should probably be in the other one...given how deadly it is, but whatever)...which of course is technobabble or a superweapon of sorts. But look at the other four examples; they all indicate that one ship is enough to destroy all life on a planet and in fairly short amount of time.

This means that while the UFP can quickly destroy or devistate a planet with a superweapon, they typically only have the firepower to utterly destroy the inhabital surface, probably within a short amount of time as well (the NX had 50 megaton level weapons, giving the 1701 at least 4,800 megatons worth of firepower to work with, although an assumption of firepower increase for say, 75 megatons would 72,000 megatons, which is much more reasonable for orbital bombardment).

Post Reply