StarDestroyer.Net BBS

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 04:40am 

That's Destructionator XIII for you. I've lurked here for nearly five years now, and I've always gotten the impression that sometimes he gets too pissy and refuses to debate if it involves calcs related to Wong's.

But to be frank, I hate it when people bring up Wong calcs all the time myself. I find that it kills alternative thinking, and encourages too much adherence to old shit.

That's actually something I like about Destructionator: He refuses to adhere to old calcs.

See people, if you didn't focus so much on RAR 200 PIGGATONS and such, maybe the SW vs ST forum would have more interesting discussions and less aggro old shit being thrown about. This is why usually I don't post in this forum. There seems to be the same shit over and over again. It's boring, for lack of a better term.

(No offense intended Destructionator. I just don't understand why it seems the moment anyone mentions Wong your usual response is to get pissy. I wouldn't mind learning why.)

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 06:15am 

I don't want to speculate, but I think what grates the most is that people have had a tendency in the past to go 'ICS says this; case closed' or 'Wong said this; /end thread'. Neither of which actually lead to interesting or constructive debates.

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 06:33am 

That's what I'm saying: The constant Wong said this and 200 PIGGATONS shit grates on my nerves. It kills thinking, and reduces the debate to a pissing contest most of the time.

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 07:06am 

That is, to my knowledge, almost exactly how DXIII feels about the matter.

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 08:56am 

He mostly disagrees with the methods used to arrive at the numbers presented because they have a lot of assumptions.

Honestly given the rather dogmatic way in which the sacred "SoD" method has been perpetuated and applied by people on this site in particular, I can see why someone might disagree with the whole notion. Seeing people literally argue backwards and forwards over Turbo Lasers being light speed weapons with a slower than light tracer that can also track targets like a flashlight and also are flak generating weapons shows a lack of understanding of how special effects and cinematography works. It's like trying to perform an anal-sis of 2d animation where all the inbetweener frames tend to look off model and weird because they're meant to imply motion. Even with 3d, there would be no point to claiming parts of a 3d character are ethereal because of clipping errors.

Practical and computer generated special effects have their limitations and in the end are always subservient to the storytelling (well unless its the Prequels :v)

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 09:37am 

If you argue that, then there can be no debate at all beyond the most obvious things. I can get people desiring a more fair debate, but frankly if you really want that there are other universes like 40k that match up far closer and make for a much more interesting debate because the scale actually matches. Frankly even with pound for pound equal ships Star Wars wins a straight up war because of sheer scale and the speed advantage which is evident by a galaxy spanning government and battles fought from the edge to the core in less than a decade. However I agree that a nearly inevitable win, even if marred by a few lost battles, doesn't make for an interesting debate.

What I don't agree with is Trek being some perfect Utopia that would subvert the Wars galaxy by merely existing. If it truly was perfect they wouldn't need any shadowy organizations to keep people in line. You can argue that as a whole it's better than the Wars setting, but I can also show you that a city of 100,000 is overall nicer than a city of 10 million. I'd be willing to bet that if you hand picked things you can find more paradise worlds in Star Wars than you could in all of Trek simply due to scale. I'd also be willing to bet that simply due to the speed of warp travel that any Trek civilization that got that large would hae it's fair share of shitty spots flying under the radar.

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 09:47am 

I didn't really say anything about the debate, mang. Just the whole SoD analysis thing.

Which I'd assumed can exist without the debate. Otherwise we'd all be just a bunch of pedantic nerds on the internet.

The scope of the Star Wars galaxy is so wonky anyways. It was merely a backdrop for space adventures until RPG makers gave it the Battletech treatment.

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 10:17am 

Just one SoD pedantism on the whole 'flak explosions' thang...

It really was, quite obviously, meant to look like that. The effect was used a fair bit in ESB, and a whole shitload more in AOTC. Unlike the 'STL tracer with lightspeed' analysis (which is a result of imperfect special effects), the flak effect is obviously intentional, and should be analysed for what it is whether we use complete SoD or not- it was meant to look that way.

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 10:19am 

I quoted you and you brought on the line of thought, but that was more a general series of thoughts than anything pointed at you.

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 04:20pm 

Sorry, but the central government in the Evil Galactic Empire is founded on a philosophy that is fundamentally disproven by the existence of a society like the Federation. You get into a culture war with a civilization like the Federation, you end up like the Ferengi. You remember what happened to them, right?

If the Empire and the Federation don't get into military conflict and instead coexist alongside one another, the Federation's ideas will spread to the Empire because they're fundamentally better ideas.

The Emperor won't let the Federation's ideas spread, and will force military conflict because he's an evil wizard serving a religion that's all about being evil, but under any other leader, contact between the two powers would eventually result in a golden age for both galaxies.

Asside from the fact that Section 31 was the product of one man's delusions based on watching a crappy holoprogram, even that delusion wasn't posited as doing jack shit to the people in the Federation, just undermining the Federation's external enemies.

Okay, what's the wager? I'm interested to see how many paradise worlds you can come up with for Wars. I've not delved deeply into the EU, but I haven't run across any myself.

What has the speed of Warp travel to do with anything? The Wars Galaxy isn't shitty because it's being neglected. It's shitty because it's being actively oppressed by an evil wizard.

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 04:47pm 

Which is why North Korea has become a prosperous democracy, the US embraces socialized health care, and sexism is virtually non-existent... oh wait.

You're... kind of naive.

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 04:52pm 

They had a different way of life forced upon them by a senile leader yielding to the womanly wiles of a feisty, petulant crone? How likely is that to happen to Palpatine? Well, he's easily as ugly as Zek, but that's where the similarities end.

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 05:05pm 

What if Palpatine used some of them clone bodies and the shroud of the Dark Side to get some Twelik brain tail?

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 05:33pm 

No, I just take a longer view of things than you do. The word "eventually" was important there.

Like I said, any other leader than Palpetine. I have absolute faith in his ability to remain as stupidly evil for the sake of being evil as possible.

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 06:06pm 

Neither the Klingons, the Romulans nor the Cardassians changed majorly just by being exposed to the Federation so why would things be different for the Galactic Empire? Another thing, remember the Galactic Republic? The SW galaxy already had its UFP-esque utopia and yet they happily threw that away for the Empire, "with thundering applause". The Rebel Alliance is pretty much the only faction who yearns to get back to that time and they are heavily outnumbered.

Face it, the UFP won't threaten the Empire with subversion via cultural osmosis.

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 06:15pm 

The Klingons did go through a fairly major cultural change already, and based on info from the future, the Klingons are going to be absorbed by the Federation (though that might've been Riker's terrible holoprogram). The Romulans are too secretive to tell whether their society is changing or not. The Cardassians just got out of a war with the Federation, and weren't dealing with the exposure of trade and cultural exchange.

As for the Galctic Republic, it was a failed state even without Palpetine, and that's the best the Rebel Alliance can offer as an alternative. It's little wonder that so few people are willing to stick their necks out for the slim possibility of returning to that.

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 06:16pm 

So your entire position is based the need to leave it open-ended so it's ultimately unfalsifiable? "Yeah, it's been a century and the Empire's still a totalitarian dictatorship," "Oh but just wait until five centuries from now!"

Human civilization has chugged along for thousands of years, dictatorships have risen, fallen, and risen again. There is no evidence that a 'better society' alone will assuredly create sweeping cultural change in another. In some situations it's happened, in others it hasn't. Amazingly enough it's actually a highly complicated process that involves far more factors than, "The bad place will either smash the good place or helplessly become just like it!"

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 06:22pm 

Of course. There's also the possibility that massive immigration will see the bad place continue to be bad, but gradually degenerate into the equivalent of a third-world hellhole as their best and brightest decide they'd rather live in a utopia than a despotic dictatorship, and in the end the only people living in the bad place are the evil-for-the-sake-of-being-evil dictator and the handful of people he can actually stop from leaving.

After all, changing the Empire from the inside is a lot harder than just leaving it and going to live in paradise.

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 06:34pm 

I generally agree that simple exposure to a better place isn't necessarily going to make a bad place better ... but I think there's something to the idea that a functional near-utopia could be a serious ideological and social threat to a dictatorship. If you've got all sorts of unpleasant, oppressive, evil policies and conditions that you justify by appealing to the idea that they're necessary or just inevitable parts of life (fairly common ideological/rhetorical strategies for defending evil shit), and along comes a society that manages just fine without the evil policies and has eliminated the unpleasant conditions - well, exposure to something like that is the kind of thing that might get some of your own people asking awkward questions and thinking naughty thoughts.

Destroying said better society isn't necessarily going to be the only viable strategy for dealing with this threat ... but it is one possible strategy, and one I could see somebody like Palpatine embracing under the right circumstances.

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 06:44pm 

Yeah, that would be a sight, all the trillions of the best and brightest of the Galactic Empire rushing through the wormhole to live in the utopian Federation, which then degenerates to a third world shithole due to massive overpopulation.

Looks like Palpatine doesn't even need to send a single Star Destroyer to overcome the Federation.

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 06:52pm 

We covered this a few pages back, actually.

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 07:11pm 

And what was you answer? "There won't be problems because the Fed has magical matter replicators and thousands of unused M-class planets to spare" or something? Again I must ask just what do you think the UFP has to offer for Joe Q. Imperial. Greater political freedom is what the Rebel Alliance already offers and they have the advantage of not forcing you to settle in some completely alien galaxy full of monsters like the Borg or the Dominion (which are arguably worse oppressors than the Empire) to achieve it.

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 07:22pm 

Actually, the answer was that's a very creative and ammusing way for the Empire to use its massive population advantage.

It seems less creative now, obviously.

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 10:22pm 

That's why the US always takes the better ideas from Europe and the rest of the world right? They full embraced the wonders of more vacation time and stronger broader social safety nets from countries that have long been voted to have higher standards of living. Wait that didn't happen let's try this again...

When the US didn't adapt and become more like the nations voted as better places to live people started scrambling for the exits and mass uprisings started... No, damn I really thought you were onto something there!

The reality is the people in charge already live in a fair deal of luxury and social inertia will keep things from changing. The smaller population base of the Federation may or may not make some waves and small scale changes might take place. However as a whole there will be too many people asking how much it will cost them in tax increases to get the ball rolling, too many people won't want to risk their status quo to help people worse off than themselves, the people badly off are already marginalized and beaten down to the point of just accepting it. If you look at the US as the Empire and Scandinavia as the UFP you'll see the issues.



A Utopia with large scale external threats that commonly walk through the periphery and end up parked on the doorstep of important worlds is hardly a real Utopia.



There are hundreds of planets mentioned throughout the EU and I'm not sure I care to sift through that to see what percentage look to be equal to most of what you find in Star Trek. However if we go with a million systems then only a fraction of 1% would need to be as good as what Trek has to offer for me to be right.

I will also see if I can find any wealthy worlds that are said to be great places to live in just the A section of Wookiepedia's planet listings:

-Aargau: Wealthy well defended banking world. "Better poor on Aargau than wealthy anywhere else."
-Adarlon: A vacation world known for holographic entertainment and exquisite music.
-Ahakista: "It's a sleepy little backwater. Edge of the galaxy. Not important. Idyllic. Quiet little place."
-Alassa Major: A resort world located along the Enarc Run, known as a major tourist destination for people dwelling in the wealthy core regions.
-Aleen: Peaceful world, noted for being a stop on the podracing circuit.
-Amfar: Vacation world. Suffered a depression during the days of the Empire but was still staying afloat through it all.

That's six and I'm only halfway through the A's (130+ planets). There were more places that the war didn't touch that seemed pretty averagely nice, but not perfect and thus weren't included on this list. If we assume that even half this ratio is true that means 3-in-130 worlds are as nice to live on as the UFP. If we take the million worlds line to be accurate that means the Empire controlled roughly 23,000 worlds of this quality of life and many times that more that were still pretty nice.

Now please do show us what living conditions are like for worlds in the UFP that aren't Earth of Vulcan or colonies.



What percentage of the people living in the Empire were actually effected by the war in a serious way? Likely not as many as you'd like to think given how under militarized the galaxy as a whole is. The average person heard about new policies they may or may not have liked and saw holonet clips of things going on far away from them. Earth has been threatened with certain terrifying doom how many times under the watch of the UFP?

 Post subject: Re: ST v SW

Posted: 2011-12-28 10:43pm 

I'm looking, but I'm not seeing what you're seeing. I'm seeing a lot of people (including yourself) who've noticed the better quality of life, and doing some agitating for changes along those lines. You don't need mass uprisings to make progress.

You're not getting that this is about domestic policy, not military.

But you will note that I did mention both galaxies as entering a golden age as a result of peaceful contact, not just your poor Empire.

Quite frankly, I was more interested to see if there was anything along the same pattern, given the major thematic differences between the two universes. Wars isn't exactly written for utopianism.

Wealthy doesn't mean much on its own, and being well defended is somewhat beside the point.

Holographic entertainment, you say?

I'd like to hear more. Being at the edge of the galaxy leaves some question as to whether it is even a part of the evil galactic empire at all, but maybe it's got something close to the quality of life we're discussing here. We'll need more information to be sure, since the description is a tad bit vague.

How do the townies view it?

You mean that bloodsport from the Phantom Menice?

Say what you will about abandoning currency-based economics, but no reported depressions on earth after they made that change.

Wait, those were the best you could find out of 130 entries?

Edit:
Sorry, 65 entries?

I'm no sure any of them made it up to that standard just from your description. What're the schools like? How's the weather? What do people with no money experience on these planets?

Pretty nice isn't what we were discussing in our little wager.

You want to know about Andoria?

Given how random moisture farmers in the ass end of nowhere were pissed enough at the Empire's policies to take up arms even before their families were murdered, I should think that percentage might be a bit higher than you might imagine.

Zero. Can't have been certain doom if it was averted.