Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lyn Farel]

Well, for SW, most attempts to numbers usually don't make much sense either way. It's fantasy WW2 in space, not hard science. I wouldn't qualify Eve as hard science, far from it, but well... Not comparable.

In any case, SW canon as we already mentionned in that other thread, tells clearly energy outputs from SW ships as thousand times more powerful than Eve (which was based on reactor/capacitor outputs). Which is different to what your source seems to tell here, I suppose...

[Vikarion]

Well, for SW, most attempts to numbers usually don't make much sense either way. It's fantasy WW2 in space, not hard science. I wouldn't qualify Eve as hard science, far from it, but well... Not comparable.

In any case, SW canon as we already mentionned in that other thread, tells clearly energy outputs from SW ships as thousand times more powerful than Eve (which was based on reactor/capacitor outputs). Which is different to what your source seems to tell here, I suppose...

Actually, the only thing I currently have for low EvE power outputs is the capacitor rating. On the other hand, if those capacitor outputs are correct, then half the stuff in EvE lore doesn't make sense - the Starkmanir genocide via planetary bombardment by battleships, Reschard V, the Leviathan threatening to doomsday Caldari Prime, the Xenocide Chronicle (I get that many think the capsuleer is bluffing, thanks to CONCORD lockouts, but the only way the bluff works is if 350mm railgun rounds are incredibly destructive even after transiting atmosphere).

I think the simpler explanation is to decide that "joule" in the EvE universe is a different unit of measurement than in ours, just like a "slaver hound" is not actually a dog, and the Caldari may not actually know what sort of bird a Moa was.

I get that you're a Star Wars fan, and, to be honest, I at least enjoy it. And these arguments are just for fun. But in any argument, I don't think it's fair to compare the best of your argument to the worst of your opponent's. I could write three pages of text about how Star Wars movie material and EU fiction portrays their weapons as weaker than modern tanks. But I didn't. I did avoid the EU material, because Disney has stated it to be non-canon, but I accepted the strongest evidence from the movies (vaporization of asteroids, etc).

I've done, I think, similarly with EvE: operated upon the preponderance of the evidence, which portrays EvE weapons as world-killing nightmares. I could toss out all that lore, all those Chronicles, on the basis of maintaining "joule" as being exactly the same in our universe, but that wouldn't be consistent, and it wouldn't explain anything. Actually, it would render some of the lore incoherent.

[Lyn Farel]

No no you are right... I didn't mean to actually enter the debate here, or any debate at all... I'm sorry if that was the impression.

I find your analysis interesting from a pure empirical point of view based on what we see, and not the hard numbers behind that don't make much sense, be it in Star Wars or Eve. I will be the first one to say that all those attempts to 'hard sciencify' Star Wars that have been done are a bit... weird. I mean, it's like trying to quantify magic in the lord of the rings... Even for Eve, has its limits : ships flying in a non newtonian fashion, etc. That can't be explained without explanations so stretched that they would be ludicrous.

That's actually why your view based on just facts and what we see is rather refreshing, and serves well to illustrate that numbers for Star Wars were not really thought further than "we need that star destroyers to be STRONG", and for Eve out of pure game design intentions.

And, Star Wars fan... Well I guess so... I have been shown the first movies when I was a child and eventually got a huge nerd/fan of it instantly, then... Well, since I turned adult I got a bit disillusioned though... Especially regarding the prelogy. I have fond memories of the universe and the stories (especially the non force sensitive ones), but that's it. I'm still a Star Wars walking bible I guess.. Obsolete bible since they trashed the EU.

But that's not the point.

[Louella Dougans]

one of the Star Wars books, (expanded universe), had a bunch of technical specifications and stuff in it.

the numbers for reactor output, energy in a single weapon round, and all that other stuff, were all very large.

Spaceship weapons for example, could apparently release so much energy, that it makes you wonder why the Death Star was even thought necessary, because a fleet of Star Destroyers could easily whack a planet, in less time, and for cheaper, than it would take to move the Death Star there.

Anyway, the point was, that the book was written by someone who was a massive fan.

And their alleged intent was, to publish such vast numbers, so as to unquestionably win arguments between Star Trek and Star Wars fans. Star Trek has a few numbers about how much energy a phaser releases per burst, that sort of thing. The author supposedly took those numbers, added a couple or more zeros to the end of them, and then said that the larger number was what the Star Wars weapon does.

Nerds, lol.

[Esna Pitoojee]

And their intent was, to publish such vast numbers, so as to unquestionably win arguments between Star Trek and Star Wars fans. Star Trek has a few numbers about how much energy a phaser releases per burst, that sort of thing. The author took those numbers, added a couple or more zeros to the end of them, and then said that the larger number was what the Star Wars weapon does.

...woah, woah, woah. Saxton did not publish an 'I win button', and it's extremly unfair to him to say he did. He looked at other people who'd actually gone through and did the math to figure out the kinds of yields and energies were going to be involved, did his own calculations based on those, and came up with the numbers in the ICS:AotC book.

If you can point me to anywhere where he unquestioningly says he published that to 'win arguments', then go ahead - because I can point you to where he says he did not.

[Louella Dougans]

well, that's what I saw once. Some argument between people, citing some book, with numbers, that said that a thingie star destroyer from the attack of the clones has more firepower than all of the star trek ships, and it was all a bit :S

i think it was that stardestroyer.net website

[Vikarion]

No no you are right... I didn't mean to actually enter the debate here, or any debate at all... I'm sorry if that was the impression.

I find your analysis interesting from a pure empirical point of view based on what we see, and not the hard numbers behind that don't make much sense, be it in Star Wars or Eve. I will be the first one to say that all those attempts to 'hard sciencify' Star Wars that have been done are a bit... weird. I mean, it's like trying to quantify magic in the lord of the rings... Even for Eve, has its limits : ships flying in a non newtonian fashion, etc. That can't be explained without explanations so stretched that they would be ludicrous.

That's actually why your view based on just facts and what we see is rather refreshing, and serves well to illustrate that numbers for Star Wars were not really thought further than "we need that star destroyers to be STRONG", and for Eve out of pure game design intentions.

And, Star Wars fan... Well I guess so... I have been shown the first movies when I was a child and eventually got a huge nerd/fan of it instantly, then... Well, since I turned adult I got a bit disillusioned though... Especially regarding the prelogy. I have fond memories of the universe and the stories (especially the non force sensitive ones), but that's it. I'm still a Star Wars walking bible I guess.. Obsolete bible since they trashed the EU.

But that's not the point.

Lyn, please, I didn't mean to say that you were trying to debate. Although...I admit...I love debate. Heck, I did debate during high school.    But seriously, I'm not getting worked up over this. I just did it for fun while feeling sick.

I agree with you about Star Wars. That universe is governed by nothing but "what services the plot". That said, I'm not unhappy with that, really. I like Star Wars, a lot, but I like it for the story, for the force. When it comes to hard Sci-fi, I turn to other sources.

Nonetheless, it is still fun to play "what-if". And, in that case, the EvE universe absolutely destroys the SW one. I'm not unhappy about that, I admit, and for a good reason: I participate in the EvE universe. I can't affect what happens in Return of the Jedi, but it's nice to know that the weapons my character is using are truly nasty.

That's just personal bias, but hey, it is fun. Which is exactly the reason I enjoy any of these fictional universes, in the end.

[Elmund Egivand]

By the way, Eve Online shield systems utilise a futuristic version of the Plasma Window that is being worked on in reality. It uses high viscosity plasma, contained within a magnetic field, to deflect shots fired at it. EM weapons are wonderful against it since they disrupt the magnetic field and cause the plasma to bleed away, if not outright just negating the charges contained inside the field and render the plasma inert. It's also why kinetics and high explosives do little against the shields but will eventually penetrate due to the plasma being slowly shed away by the impact.

Oh, btw, Star Wars warships are freaking insane far as firepower goes, as I mentioned before in another thread. Eve ships are comparatively undergunned for their sizes and won't be able to match a Star Destroyer in a stand up fight. However, the turbolaser range is pathetic in comparison to what Eve Ships can put out so their best bet is to stick a bunch of Tornados at range and just stay the hell away with MWDs and alpha the Star Destroyers until they die.

Also, to answer the query about Death Star, it's a terror weapon, a statement against any dissenting elements. The logic that is being applied to the Death Star is the same one behind the planned construction of those absurdly huge superheavy tanks by the Nazi. The idea is to make something so huge and so ridiculously powerful you make your enemies piss themselves and think twice about trying to make trouble with you.

[Vikarion]

Oh, btw, Star Wars warships are freaking insane far as firepower goes, as I mentioned before in another thread. Eve ships are comparatively undergunned for their sizes and won't be able to match a Star Destroyer in a stand up fight.

Not according to the math, or the lore depictions. Read my original post. Pound for pound, EvE ships are far more devastating. Rather what you'd expect when Phoenix dreadnoughts are firing, essentially, extra-powerful black holes.

Incidentally, since (according to some SW lore) SW shields don't block non-energy projectiles (like proton torpedoes), it's even worse for Star Wars. Most of what the Caldari and Minmatar might throw at them will go right through their only form of protection.

[Lyn Farel]

In most SW sources, missiles are actually blocked by shields... Supposedly, you have two kinds of shields : particle shields (against physical objects) and energy shields (against energy based stuff). Most ships have both... or none.

[Esna Pitoojee]

Not according to the math, or the lore depictions. Read my original post. Pound for pound, EvE ships are far more devastating.

I actually take some issue with your damage estimation above, because you make one massive assumption which is not justified by the actual news articles. You assume that the doomsday event instantly killed 87% of all life; however, nowhere in the article does it say this. Rather, it just says that 87% of surface life will die, while listing other reasons for the extinction to occur: Notably, total planetary storms and vast sea level rises.

Additionally, if we were to assume the values you come up with are accurate, then there would be secondary effects - notably, significant excavation of the crust directly beneath the detonation - which are nowhere described.

Even if this were not the case, this yield is not actually that spectacularly high. The Acclamator-class, for instance, had a main battery capable of firing a net yield of around 9.6 teratons with each barrage fired. It was also expected to survive similarly destructive inbound barrages; nonetheless, it was considered outdated and outmoded by the end of the Clone Wars. Its replacement, the Venator, has by some calculations an estimated peak weapons output of over 286 Teratons/sec, although this is admittedly a rough estimation.

Incidentally, since (according to some SW lore) SW shields don't block non-energy projectiles (like proton torpedoes), it's even worse for Star Wars. Most of what the Caldari and Minmatar might throw at them will go right through their only form of protection.

This is a non-canon depiction typically used in video game mechanics. By canon, starship-grade shields deflect projectiles. See the article on shields for more information.

[Vikarion]

I actually take some issue with your damage estimation above, because you make one massive assumption which is not justified by the actual news articles. You assume that the doomsday event instantly killed 87% of all life; however, nowhere in the article does it say this. Rather, it just says that 87% of surface life will die, while listing other reasons for the extinction to occur: Notably, total planetary storms and vast sea level rises.

First, the SoE ships doing the first analysis arrive within a "few hours" of the incident. In the Cretaceous asteroid strike, the extinction took some time...weeks and months. In terms of extinction, within hours is close enough to "instantly".

Also, regarding the extinction, your statement is only true if you read only the first article. I made no such assumption, because the second article states that the entire surface of the planet is incapable of supporting life. Not human life, life at all. That's a total extinction event. The article also states that the polar caps have been melted. To do that, you'd need to essentially boil the sea. Since it's EM damage, the article states that the surface of the planet has been "scorched".

Additionally, if we were to assume the values you come up with are accurate, then there would be secondary effects - notably, significant excavation of the crust directly beneath the detonation - which are nowhere described.

Again, it's EM damage. No crater necessary. The surface of the planet is scorched, not impacted. And, actually, this would resolve to more energy release than an asteroid impact, so my estimates of energy released are probably very low.

Even if this were not the case, this yield is not actually that spectacularly high. The Acclamator-class, for instance, had a main battery capable of firing a net yield of around 9.6 teratons with each barrage fired. It was also expected to survive similarly destructive inbound barrages; nonetheless, it was considered outdated and outmoded by the end of the Clone Wars. Its replacement, the Venator, has by some calculations an estimated peak weapons output of over 286 Teratons/sec, although this is admittedly a rough estimation.

First of all, that comes from the books, which Disney has declared non-canon. I used calculations based on the best case scenario (for the SW high-damage side) from the movies, where Star Destroyers were vaporizing asteroids. Why they seem so under-powered in other scenes, I don't know, but I was trying to give SW a giant benefit of the doubt.

Still, let's say we do take the SW extended universe as canon, and ignore all the books that portray SW weaponry as pea shooters. Even so...

A teraton is 1,000,000,000 tons of TNT. Let's assume that the Venator does 286 teratons every second. The Avatar doomsday, at the most conservative estimate, had to release the energy of at least 200,000,000,000,000 tons of TNT. That is to say, 200,000 teratons. I stress that my estimate of the energy needed to scorch the surface of a planet, render it unfit for life, and melt polar caps, is woefully, incredibly on the conservative side. I could be low by orders of magnitude.

A Hawk frigate - fit with light missiles, not rockets, so less dps - will put out 880 teratons a second. A Raven battleship can put out 4,400 teratons a second. Even given your estimate, a couple of frigates from EvE are more powerful than a Venator class, while being much smaller.

[Esna Pitoojee]

The article also states that the polar caps have been melted. To do that, you'd need to essentially boil the sea.

Correction: The article does not state that the polar ice caps were immediately melted, but rather that they will nearly melt eventually. This is significantly different.

Again, it's EM damage. No crater necessary.

Strictly speaking, a crater should still be created through immediate heating of the ground directly beneath the explosion. It may not be as large as you would expect from a direct kinetic impact, but it would still be there.

First of all, that comes from the books, which Disney has declared non-canon.

They are non-canon to Disney's continuity; they are still canon to the EU/Legends continuity.

A teraton is 1,000,000,000 tons of TNT. Let's assume that the Venator does 286 teratons every second. The Avatar doomsday, at the most conservative estimate, had to release the energy of at least 200,000,000,000,000 tons of TNT. That is to say, 200,000 teratons.

Check your math: 200x10¹² tons is 200 teratons, not 200,000. The Venator's main battery is outputting more firepower than a doomsday every second.

[/quote]
A Hawk frigate - fit with light missiles, not rockets, so less dps - will put out 880 teratons a second. A Raven battleship can put out 4,400 teratons a second.
[/quote]

Even by reducing these values by a commensurate amount to correct for the earlier math failure - to 0.88 teratons/sec and 4.4 teratons/sec respectively - we run into another problem: There is no evidence of damage output this high - or that our craft are capable of supporting weapons output in this range. If this were accurate, our orbital bombardments should be catastrophic, battle-ending affairs which would incinerate battlefields.

[Katrina Oniseki]

Do we have any other sources for calculating EVE damage? Perhaps by taking a known laser method and measuring how much wattage it uses, or projectile ammunition ballistics based on their size? How much power could a 125mm Carbonized Lead shell conceivably do? How much damage could a small beam laser do operating in the visible light spectrum? Translate those to damage points. What about measuring armor plating? How much energy would it take to penetrate a 1.6m steel plate? Now translate that to hitpoints.

Most importantly, before we draw our conclusions, do all these conversion rates match each other? Do they still make sense? Can we still use DPS as an even remotely accurate measurement?

[Esna Pitoojee]

I tried calculating the output of a laser in another thread using the energy consumed in firing it, and came up with some considerably lower outputs; I hoped that would be most accurate, since laser turrets are going to get us closest to any sort of direct mass->damage conversion devoid of any unknowns like stored chemical propellant or unknown mass of a fired projectile.