Resource War

SWvST: the subject of the main site.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
Khaat
Jedi Knight
Posts: 883
Joined: 2008-11-04 11:42am

Re: Resource War

Post by Khaat » 2017-12-19 11:07am

We see flak bursts earlier in the scene, yes, but those missing the escape pod and scattering something that rhymes with "boon of Tugosa" aren't flak bursts.

Also: hey, thanks for yet another example of variable yield turbolasers! Just enough to get the job done on unshielded escape pods! Good eye!
Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.
Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule #4: Be outraged.
Rule #5: Don’t make compromises.

User avatar
Crazedwraith
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10410
Joined: 2003-04-10 03:45pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: Resource War

Post by Crazedwraith » 2017-12-19 11:21am

Khaat wrote:
2017-12-19 11:07am
We see flak bursts earlier in the scene, yes, but those missing the escape pod and scattering something that rhymes with "boon of Tugosa" aren't flak bursts.

Also: hey, thanks for yet another example of variable yield turbolasers! Just enough to get the job done on unshielded escape pods! Good eye!
Dude as much as I don't really agree with texanmarauder you can't claim there are variable yield based on whether they miss or hit.

That said 'just enough to destroy an escape pod' is meaningless for yield calculation unless we can determine the amount of shield/how durable star wars materials are.
To the brave passengers and crew of the Kobayashi Maru... sucks to be you - Peter David

User avatar
Khaat
Jedi Knight
Posts: 883
Joined: 2008-11-04 11:42am

Re: Resource War

Post by Khaat » 2017-12-19 11:27am

Crazedwraith wrote:
2017-12-19 11:21am
Khaat wrote:
2017-12-19 11:07am
We see flak bursts earlier in the scene, yes, but those missing the escape pod and scattering something that rhymes with "boon of Tugosa" aren't flak bursts.

Also: hey, thanks for yet another example of variable yield turbolasers! Just enough to get the job done on unshielded escape pods! Good eye!
Dude as much as I don't really agree with texanmarauder you can't claim there are variable yield based on whether they miss or hit.

That said 'just enough to destroy an escape pod' is meaningless for yield calculation unless we can determine the amount of shield/how durable star wars materials are.
Not on miss/hit at all, but on "just enough to blow apart an escape pod" when these same guns do so much more elsewhere in the series. (If I had watched it at all, I'd probably already have examples of much more energetic shots.)
Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.
Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule #4: Be outraged.
Rule #5: Don’t make compromises.

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Resource War

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-12-19 01:22pm

Khaat wrote:
2017-12-19 11:07am
We see flak bursts earlier in the scene, yes, but those missing the escape pod and scattering something that rhymes with "boon of Tugosa" aren't flak bursts.
really? so if it hits the moon it throws out a few sparks as opposed to the "plumes" that you mentioned? plus they look exactly the same as the flak bursts in space. given the fact that we see single bolts going past the pod that should have hit the moon and been visible, according to you anyway, and they didn't, that supports the flak burst theory and proves that they weren't strong enough to do visible damage.
Also: hey, thanks for yet another example of variable yield turbolasers! Just enough to get the job done on unshielded escape pods! Good eye!
if it actually was an example, it would be the first. too bad its not. we see those same turbolasers from other ships doing similar damage. they blow things apart more than vaporize or melt. take the venators in the episode "storm over ryloth". if enough bolts hit the ship, it causes tiny explosions about the same size as those ~10m escape pods. that cause secondary explosions from the inside. that's what destroyed one of anakins cruisers. probably hit a tibanna gas storage or something. it clearly blew up from the inside. and then you have the defender, which was crippled and on fire. its like bombarding an armored tank with hand grenades. eventually you will do enough damage.

User avatar
KraytKing
Padawan Learner
Posts: 249
Joined: 2016-04-11 06:39pm
Location: Wayland

Re: Resource War

Post by KraytKing » 2017-12-19 01:34pm

I would just like to add that it explicitly states in ICS that Venators have variable yield cannons.
If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

--Mace

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Resource War

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-12-19 01:36pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3jck2l3V0k this is another perfect example of what I mean. multiple ships firing and only small blasts on impact.

having said all that, I will admit that the weapon effects in TCW were about as consistent as prison gravy.

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Resource War

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-12-19 01:37pm

KraytKing wrote:
2017-12-19 01:34pm
I would just like to add that it explicitly states in ICS that Venators have variable yield cannons.
as a canon source, the non canon ICS wouldn't apply to SWTCW.

User avatar
Khaat
Jedi Knight
Posts: 883
Joined: 2008-11-04 11:42am

Re: Resource War

Post by Khaat » 2017-12-19 03:32pm

texanmarauder wrote:
2017-12-19 01:22pm
so if it hits the moon it throws out a few sparks as opposed to the "plumes" that you mentioned? plus they look exactly the same as the flak bursts in space. given the fact that we see single bolts going past the pod that should have hit the moon and been visible, according to you anyway, and they didn't, that supports the flak burst theory and proves that they weren't strong enough to do visible damage.
Except the actual flak bursts at 0:05 look unlike the effects at 0:15 (I'll give you a hint: no fireball burst!) Such a radical change in only 10 seconds! Dare I say variable effect?
me wrote: Also: hey, thanks for yet another example of variable yield turbolasers! Just enough to get the job done on unshielded escape pods! Good eye!
back to you wrote:if it actually was an example, it would be the first. too bad its not.
*mashes button on wayback-to-page-three-of-this-thread machine*:
Khaat wrote:
2017-12-13 03:20pm
Well, Kanan is knocked off his space-bike by a (rough-estimates) grenade-sized (5m) explosion, in atmosphere, from orbit.

In the opening of A New Hope, the Tantive IV is rocked by a single shot from the pursuing Star Destroyer in a "close-up" shot, striking the 125-ish meter ship, specifically to knock out their shields (visual evidence, ~30m diameter flash, in space) and force them to shut down their reactor (audible audio and dialog on board) without destroying them. The Tantive IV wasn't peppered with grenade-sized explosions.
Yeah, you skipped right past this, back when "variable yield turbolasers" was the thing under discussion this first time. :(
we see those same turbolasers from other ships doing similar damage. they blow things apart more than vaporize or melt. take the venators in the episode "storm over ryloth". if enough bolts hit the ship, it causes tiny explosions about the same size as those ~10m escape pods. that cause secondary explosions from the inside.
Well, there's an awful lot of supposition in that, and you would never accept it from anyone else.

So the Venator is 1155m long, and you believe the "tiny explosions" are "~10m"? Your basis for this is "it looks small" on the 1155m Venator. Fun thing is, you can do the work and prove how big they are (hint: bigger than ~10m). But you don't do the work, you run with your guess, in part because you're lazy, but for the greater part because if you checked the actual scaling, you'd have to accept they're bigger and you argument would evaporate.
Your claim : your proof :: no proof : no claim. So, officially, I call "bullshit".

As long as we're here: the Legends source lists "flak guns (8)" on the Munificent, but the Canon side of the wiki lists only "ion cannons, laser cannons, and turbolasers(2)", so I guess the question to you is this: Isn't firing the listed Canon guns for flak effect enough "variable yield" to prove the issue for you? Or are you hiding behind the "specific, explicit Canon source or it didn't happen!" demand still?

For comparison, the Imperial II-class Star Destroyer listed Canon armament is: turbolaser batteries (60), heavy ion canon emplacements (60), and tractor beam projectors (10); no "flak guns". And as the Imperial II would be what was chasing the Millenium Falcon, that suggests the flak bursts in ESB are a variable output from turbolasers. (Oh, also, the size of the bolt FX doesn't matter, the effect it has when it hits is what matters.)

The Imperial I-class chased the Tantive IV in ANH, it's Canon armament is listed as:
Taim & Bak XX-9 heavy turbolaser batteries (60), Borstel NK-7 ion cannons (60), Dual heavy Turbolaser turrets (6), Dual heavy ion cannon turrets (2), Quad heavy turbolasers (2), Triple medium turbolasers (3), Medium turbolasers (2), Phylon 07 tractor beam projectors (10). Huh, no flak guns there, either. So how could any Star Destroyer shoot for flak-effect if the turbolaser yield is not variable?
probably hit a tibanna gas storage or something.
"Or something." Supposition. You don't know and you're guessing. You throw a two-ton shit-fit when you think numbers derived from observation are "guessing". Honestly, the "why" isn't important here and now, but I want to take this opportunity to point out your hypocrisy. :D
its like bombarding an armored tank with hand grenades. eventually you will do enough damage.
Try it.
having said all that, I will admit that the weapon effects in TCW were about as consistent as prison gravy.
Now this I can agree with. Excepting I've only watched snips of CW (and SWR), and most of those are crap FX.
Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.
Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule #4: Be outraged.
Rule #5: Don’t make compromises.

User avatar
KraytKing
Padawan Learner
Posts: 249
Joined: 2016-04-11 06:39pm
Location: Wayland

Re: Resource War

Post by KraytKing » 2017-12-19 05:15pm

Is EA Battlefront considered canon? In one of the cutscenes, a Star Destroyer blows up a blockade runner completely with a single shot. Seems variable to me, as we all know Tantive IV was not vaporized.

Earlier there was some disagreement on the firepower of an AT-AT, with someone claiming they could vary their firepower and texanmarauder claiming the explosion was due to the shield generator. Well, in another shot, we see AT-AT guns destroy Gallofree medium transports in a single blast. Again, variable yield.
If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

--Mace

User avatar
Khaat
Jedi Knight
Posts: 883
Joined: 2008-11-04 11:42am

Re: Resource War

Post by Khaat » 2017-12-19 05:55pm

Star Wars Battlefront (11/17/2015) is post-March 2014 or whenever the cut-off was, so yes? (except where contradicting story canon.)
IGN wrote:In the end, Star Wars: Battlefront probably shouldn't be considered canon -- except, it turns out, when it should.
They do specifically call out that it's the story that diverges (or can), not the tech or look.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/04/29/ ... omplicated

http://battlefront.wikia.com/wiki/Canon for Battlefront's position on it:
High Canon
These type of Canon goes to the main series.
Star Wars: Battlefront
Star Wars: Battlefront II
Star Wars: Battlefront: Prima Official Game Guide
Star Wars: Battlefront II: Prima Official Game Guide
Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.
Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule #4: Be outraged.
Rule #5: Don’t make compromises.

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Resource War

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-12-20 05:38pm

Khaat wrote:Except the actual flak bursts at 0:05 look unlike the effects at 0:15 (I'll give you a hint: no fireball burst!) Such a radical change in only 10 seconds! Dare I say variable effect?

image one. flak burst in space. Image

image 2. flak burst in space with planet in background. NOT a planetside explosion or impact. Image

I'm sorry, you were saying? those two are completely identical. and as I pointed out before, we see bolts going right past the escape pod and never see an impact.
Well, Kanan is knocked off his space-bike by a (rough-estimates) grenade-sized (5m) explosion, in atmosphere, from orbit.

In the opening of A New Hope, the Tantive IV is rocked by a single shot from the pursuing Star Destroyer in a "close-up" shot, striking the 125-ish meter ship, specifically to knock out their shields (visual evidence, ~30m diameter flash, in space) and force them to shut down their reactor (audible audio and dialog on board) without destroying them. The Tantive IV wasn't peppered with grenade-sized explosions.
if I remember correctly, that was the main sensor dish that allowed them to re-enter the atmosphere. without it or hyperdrive, it was a sitting duck.

I don't pretend to have done the math and calcs. I will tell you why. they are so inconsistent in TCW that they might as well not exist. which I already pointed out. for example...

Image those are fighter weapons causing explosions as big or bigger on a munificent class frigate than some of the ones we have seen on the larger Venator class. not only that, but since when can 1 venator tank the full firepower of 6 munificent class frigates? earlier in that episode they were outnumbered 2-1 and lost one cruiser and another was wrecked.

as for canon vs legends on the flak issue, that doesn't mean variable yield. it means that they either had flak guns or it was a shield interaction. the examples in the ESB were shield interactions. read the "behind the scenes" section here. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Flak_gun

User avatar
KraytKing
Padawan Learner
Posts: 249
Joined: 2016-04-11 06:39pm
Location: Wayland

Re: Resource War

Post by KraytKing » 2017-12-20 05:59pm

re you going to respond to my own comments? Because they pretty clearly show that both AT-ATs and Star Destroyers have variable yield cannons and that the upper limit is quite high.
If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

--Mace

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Resource War

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-12-20 06:12pm

KraytKing wrote:
2017-12-19 05:15pm
Is EA Battlefront considered canon? In one of the cutscenes, a Star Destroyer blows up a blockade runner completely with a single shot. Seems variable to me, as we all know Tantive IV was not vaporized.

Earlier there was some disagreement on the firepower of an AT-AT, with someone claiming they could vary their firepower and texanmarauder claiming the explosion was due to the shield generator. Well, in another shot, we see AT-AT guns destroy Gallofree medium transports in a single blast. Again, variable yield.
battlefront is canon where it is canon, and not canon where its not canon. for example, the characters might be canon, the events might be canon, but there are variations. like the AT-AT having shields requiring a bombardment to lower them and make it vulnerable. AT-ATs don't have shields, just heavy armor.

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Resource War

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-12-20 06:14pm

KraytKing wrote:
2017-12-20 05:59pm
re you going to respond to my own comments? Because they pretty clearly show that both AT-ATs and Star Destroyers have variable yield cannons and that the upper limit is quite high.
see my post above. gameplay itself isn't canon. game mechanics aren't canon. but there are canon elements to battlefront.

User avatar
KraytKing
Padawan Learner
Posts: 249
Joined: 2016-04-11 06:39pm
Location: Wayland

Re: Resource War

Post by KraytKing » 2017-12-20 07:31pm

What makes you think you know precisely which elements of Battlefront are and aren't canon? Give me a credible source that states that what I have mentioned is not canon.


Also, I'll add that neither of the pieces of evidence were actual gameplay. Both were in cutscenes, as I stated in my original post.


https://youtu.be/BSyrQawndVk?t=4m15s for the Star Destroyer.


https://youtu.be/14KnZfg9XYc?t=16m36s for the AT-AT
If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

--Mace

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Resource War

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-12-20 09:45pm

KraytKing wrote:
2017-12-19 05:15pm
Is EA Battlefront considered canon? In one of the cutscenes, a Star Destroyer blows up a blockade runner completely with a single shot. Seems variable to me, as we all know Tantive IV was not vaporized.

Earlier there was some disagreement on the firepower of an AT-AT, with someone claiming they could vary their firepower and texanmarauder claiming the explosion was due to the shield generator. Well, in another shot, we see AT-AT guns destroy Gallofree medium transports in a single blast. Again, variable yield.
as the makers said, "In the end, Star Wars: Battlefront probably shouldn't be considered canon -- except, it turns out, when it should." its more complicated than that, but there are canon elements to it. the cutscenes made for a game shouldn't be and aren't considered canon. but the elements that are canon, IE locations, characters, so on, are indeed canon elements. that's not to say that they don't make mistakes with the tech.

and that ISD more than a single shot. no exaggerations please.

all that said, relying on a game that happens to have some canon elements to it to try to prove a theory is definitely reaching.

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Resource War

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-12-20 09:56pm

KraytKing wrote:
2017-12-20 07:31pm
What makes you think you know precisely which elements of Battlefront are and aren't canon? Give me a credible source that states that what I have mentioned is not canon.
you made the claim. prove to me that they are.

Also, I'll add that neither of the pieces of evidence were actual gameplay. Both were in cutscenes, as I stated in my original post.
cutscene or not, we haven't seen an AT-AT blow up a transport or anything else before, with the obvious exception of a power genny. this falls into the non canon element of the game.

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Resource War

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-12-20 09:58pm

texanmarauder wrote: and that ISD more than a single shot. no exaggerations please.
that was supposed to say "that ISD fired more than a single shot.

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Resource War

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-12-20 10:01pm

and again, AT-AT walkers don't have shields, just heavy armor. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/All_Terr ... Civil_War) so that part of the gameplay would be non canon.

User avatar
KraytKing
Padawan Learner
Posts: 249
Joined: 2016-04-11 06:39pm
Location: Wayland

Re: Resource War

Post by KraytKing » 2017-12-21 12:09am

I apologize for exaggerating the damage of the Star Destroyer. The Corvette goes from little or no visible damage to completely disintegrated in a single salvo from very few of the Star Destroyers guns, possibly only two. Clear?


I think it is reasonable to assume these scenes are canon because they are in no way able to be influenced by or have an influence on gameplay. Because the article focuses almost entirely on elements that do have an effect or can be affected, I think this is reasonable. The point you continue to rehash, shields on an AT-AT, is totally gameplay related, and should therefore not be considered canon. Do you see the difference?


And regardless, you were and continue to be extremely presumptive about which elements are and are not canon, and with a degree of certainty I find disturbing given your total lack of evidence or even logical thought. Next time, put more than thirty seconds into your response before trying to redirect effort onto someone else. And for the love of God, please condense into just one or two posts!
If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

--Mace

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Resource War

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-12-21 12:49am

its not hard to figure out. if there is something in any part of the game that doesn't jive with on screen canon then that part is not canon. we don't know the context of that blockade runner. how long had it been fighting? there were TIEs in the air too. did it go up against any of them before passing the ISD? without seeing the whole thing from start to finish that 2 seconds of the clip is useless anyway.

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Resource War

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-12-21 12:56am

KraytKing wrote:
2017-12-21 12:09am
I apologize for exaggerating the damage of the Star Destroyer. The Corvette goes from little or no visible damage to completely disintegrated in a single salvo from very few of the Star Destroyers guns, possibly only two. Clear?
that we see anyway.

I think it is reasonable to assume these scenes are canon because they are in no way able to be influenced by or have an influence on gameplay. Because the article focuses almost entirely on elements that do have an effect or can be affected, I think this is reasonable. The point you continue to rehash, shields on an AT-AT, is totally gameplay related, and should therefore not be considered canon. Do you see the difference?
you only think its reasonable because you want them to be canon. its a GAME ffs. since I haven't played it, what happens if you aren't victorious? is it a different cutscene? game over? provide some context for those of us who haven't played it. what scene? what mission?

And regardless, you were and continue to be extremely presumptive about which elements are and are not canon, and with a degree of certainty I find disturbing given your total lack of evidence or even logical thought. Next time, put more than thirty seconds into your response before trying to redirect effort onto someone else. And for the love of God, please condense into just one or two posts!
you are the one that claimed it was canon. therefore its up to you to prove that it is. you haven't done that. "I think its reasonable so that it helps my argument" proves absolutely nothing. even the creaters of the game said that its canon where its canon and non canon where its non canon. I have already given at least one example of it being non canon. does that mean the whole thing is canon? no. but you have yet to prove the cutscenes are canon. you cant.

User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3675
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: Resource War

Post by Formless » 2017-12-21 02:45am

Why are you people still having this argument? On the last page, texan conceded the "maximum firepower" quote as evidence that AT-ATs have variable yield firepower because that's obviously what the operator was asking for; all his argument equated to was a red herring, because regardless of how powerful an AT-AT's maximum firepower is the quote obviously has no other interpretation than the cannons having variable yields. If he is being stubborn on this point, he is flagrantly ignoring evidence and being dishonest. That's why I stopped responding to him.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Resource War

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-12-21 04:12am

Formless wrote:
2017-12-21 02:45am
Why are you people still having this argument? On the last page, texan conceded the "maximum firepower" quote as evidence that AT-ATs have variable yield firepower because that's obviously what the operator was asking for;
I'm sorry, where did I concede anything? didn't have enough fun putting words in my mouth on this thread or the other thread? prove it. you wanna claim that I break the rules? karma bitch. prove that claim or retract it.
all his argument equated to was a red herring, because regardless of how powerful an AT-AT's maximum firepower is the quote obviously has no other interpretation than the cannons having variable yields. If he is being stubborn on this point, he is flagrantly ignoring evidence and being dishonest. That's why I stopped responding to him.
you stopped responding after you made a claim and I used your "proof" to debunk it. you ignored the rest of my points entirely. like how you claim that the one shot created that huge fireball? after shooting a POWER GENERATOR? a rebuttal which you ignored. at this point you just sound pathetic. I'm sorry that I destroyed your opinion of your heroes, not to mention your variable yield argument, but this aint the time or place to take it out on me. you keep accusing me of dishonest actions when you cant even answer a simple fucking yes or no question and lie about what I say. be gone.

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Resource War

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-12-21 05:26am

just for fun, the shots that supposedly hit the planet and were seen from orbit and that I proved didn't? brian young used that in his website video blog. apparently he just refuses to admit that the turbolasers can cause the flak burst effect.

Locked