EVE Search - So titans are now Underpowerd?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

So titans are now Underpowerd?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
An Anarchyyt Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.07.26 02:55:00 - [1] Edited by: An Anarchyyt on 26/07/2007 03:00:10 Edited by: An Anarchyyt on 26/07/2007 02:58:01 Originally by: Illyria Ambri If you actually watch the scene the bridge deflector "globe thinggy" was destroyed by 2-3 x or y wings. Hence loosing the bridge deflector.. allowing the A wing to crash into it (gotta admit thats a hell of a lucky shot for an out of control fighter) hence loosing control and getting sucked to the Death Star due to gravity. You assume that the Mon Cal "dreads" actually did much. Most likely the ships shields were still fully functional (I never saw any secondary explosions or fires burning) until the bridge lost its shield and got smacked. Remember the quote "Intensify forward firepower, I don't want anything to get through".. sorta implies that nothings actually hurt the SSD yet.. least not enough to make them hurry around rather then simply standing on the deck watching. It dosen't matter how many turbolasers the Mon Cal's "might" have shot at it with when it was the snubfighters that brought down the bridge shields and 1 A-wing that destroyed the command deck causing the ship to crash. Remember that as a small rebel fleet vs a very large 30+ strong Destroyer force as well as a 19km Super Star Destroyer.. Home 1 (Admiral Ackbars ship) was slightly larger then an Imp Star duce while the 2-3 other mon cal ships were roughly equal or less then to an Imperial II class Star Destroyer. Point is.. the ship was brought down directly via snubfighters.. not capital ship assaults. Do you actually think those last three ships were the entire bombardment of the destroyer? That activates my hilarity unit. "We've got to give those fighters more time! Concentrate all fire on that Super Star Destroyer!" ―Admiral Ackbar, on board Home One during the Battle of Endor The Rebel fleet was not small by any means, it was composed of # Rebel Command Fleet * 20+ Mon Calamari Star Cruisers (various classes) o Home One type MC80 cruisers + Defiance + Home One + Independence o Liberty type MC80 cruisers + Liberty + Maria + Reef Home o MC80a Star Cruisers * Mon Calamari frigates * Corellian battleships * Destroyers * Carriers * Dreadnaught-class heavy cruisers * Manowars * 1+ Battle Horn-class bulk cruiser o Urjani * 1+ Quasar Fire-class bulk cruiser o DukeDoom o Flurry * 10+ EF76 Nebulon-B escort frigates o Akaga o Mercy o Redemption o Valiance o Yavaris o Antares Six * Kesselian blockade runners * CR90 corvettes o Eridain o Masanya o NovaFlare o Old Republic o Pushti o Saki o Ullet * Corellian gunships o Chandi o Ensaiav o Ghorman's Honor o Mastala o Telsor o Walerv * Steadfast * GR-75 medium transports o Limnate o Luminous o Tuima * 2 Braha'tok-class gunships o Braha'tok o Torktarak * Calamarian Tankers * Alderaanian gunships * Over 500 starfighters (various types) o B-wing starfighters o BTL Y-wing starfighters o RZ-1 A-wing interceptors o T-65 X-wing starfighters o Z-95 Headhunters o Bombers * Millennium Falcon * Bestinian skyhoppers * Sullustian cargo freighters * Tydirium Although yes, this is significantly smaller than the Empire's fleet (2900 fighters, and 50 Star Destroyers alone), but the Rebel Alliance could never muster that much.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.07.26 03:04:00 - [2] Originally by: Illyria Ambri Originally by: An Anarchyyt Do you actually think those last three ships were the entire bombardment of the destroyer? That activates my hilarity unit. "We've got to give those fighters more time! Concentrate all fire on that Super Star Destroyer!" ―Admiral Ackbar, on board Home One during the Battle of Endor Never said they were.. but with shields still up.. the Mon Cal's couldn't hurt it much. They were still in the process of taking the shields down to get at the chewy center when a stray ship popped the ships head causing it to crash. Sure the Rebel firepower helped.. but the ship was actually broguht down by a few lucky fighters and 1 poor sap in an A-wing before the capital ships could get past the primary shields. Few nicely placed x-wing proton torpedos to take off the bridge shield and nicly crashed A-wing to send it crashing out of control. I don't know if that's the case. Because in the movie it's not obvious, and as much as I'd like to pretend, I don't know the entire extended universe. By the way, I edited it to add the whole rebel space fleet.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.07.26 03:09:00 - [3] Edited by: An Anarchyyt on 26/07/2007 03:10:57 Edited by: An Anarchyyt on 26/07/2007 03:08:57 Originally by: Illyria Ambri Originally by: An Anarchyyt Although yes, this is significantly smaller than the Empire's fleet (2900 fighters, and 50 Star Destroyers alone), but the Rebel Alliance could never muster that much. And where are you getting these numbers and names from? Wiki again? Anyone that quotes a wiki as fact automaticly looses the argument. btw if you think Lucas and friends actually spent the time to come up with names for all the ships you just listed.. you're the crazy one. Those names are simply fans and writers trying to give it more depth.. other then home 1 and "the medical frigate" there is zero eviudence that any were actually named.. those were just all made up.. like all information in a wiki can be. Again.. quote wiki as a factual source and loose the argument automaticly Clearly you don't know the depths of the Star Wars extended universe. And one of the biggest things about Star Wars fandom was that George Lucas literally did have names and backstories for virtually all the characters that appeared in the movies. We could write a novel based on the biographies of those in the Mos Eisley Cantina alone. Even though I don't need to use Wikipedia (Or Wookiepedia), due to the fact that I own more Star Wars crap than my car is worth, you might want to try reading this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm Unless of course, you don't think the BBC and the British Journal "Nature" are reliable.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.07.26 03:22:00 - [4] Edited by: An Anarchyyt on 26/07/2007 03:23:26 Originally by: Illyria Ambri Originally by: An Anarchyyt Even though I don't need to use Wikipedia (Or Wookiepedia), due to the fact that I own more Star Wars crap than my car is worth, you might want to try reading this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm Unless of course, you don't think the BBC and the British Journal "Nature" are reliable. Oh I'm sure the BBC is reliable.. But its not the BBC we are talking about. Nor are we refering to the scientific articles that BBC checked on. We are talking about science fiction entries that are open to interpretation and editign by anyone. You did read the tidbit at the end? "Wikipedia came under fire earlier this month from prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler. The founding editorial director of USA Today attacked a Wikipedia entry that incorrectly named him as a suspect in the assassinations of president John F Kennedy and his brother, Robert. The false information was the work of Tennessean Brian Chase, who said he was trying to trick a co-worker. " This alone proves.. Wikipedia as a factual source is incorrect. Except it was fixed soon enough. By your logic, no encyclopedia is a factual source, since none of them are 100% correct. The main difference, is Encyclopedia Britannica or any other doesn't have nearly the size of oversight Wikipedia does. And errors are fixed much more quickly (you've got at least a year before a new printing. Amazingly enough, there's a great Wikipedia page of Errors in the Encyclopedia Britannica that have been Corrected in Wikipedia
An Anarchyyt Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.07.26 03:32:00 - [5] Originally by: MotherMoon nice. I think you just won. Sweet! All rewards, admiration, and donation are payable in ISK.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.07.26 03:58:00 - [6] Originally by: Illyria Ambri Edited by: Illyria Ambri on 26/07/2007 03:47:20 Originally by: An Anarchyyt Except it was fixed soon enough. By your logic, no encyclopedia is a factual source, since none of them are 100% correct. The main difference, is Encyclopedia Britannica or any other doesn't have nearly the size of oversight Wikipedia does. And errors are fixed much more quickly (you've got at least a year before a new printing. Actually my logic is you cannot necessarily argue as fact based on something thats editable by anyone that wants to click the edit button. Sure it may get changed eventually once someone catches it but the fact of the matter is it can be changed at any time by anyone regardless of if they catch it 10 seconds or 10 months later. Sure the Encyclopedia may have wrong answers in it.. everything is subject to inaccuracies.. but not everything is subject to any websurfers whim that decides their version is better. Nor are we discussing the encyclopedia and its possible inaccuracies. The whole problem with that though, is we have empirical evidence to suggest that this isn't the case. Open source for one. Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it actually gets done. You can't argue a point on what might happen, when what does happen is different. If you want further proof you can look at mathmatical articles, it is easy to tell if those are factually incorrect.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.07.26 04:05:00 - [7] Edited by: An Anarchyyt on 26/07/2007 04:05:33 Originally by: Tortun Nahme Edited by: Tortun Nahme on 26/07/2007 03:59:41 wikipedia is not an acreditted source of information, in fact if you cite it as a source in university most professors will instafail the project even if you ARE right but I still think Illyria is a troll So then you don't cite wikipedia, but you site the website that they cited. Gets around the name bias.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.07.26 04:13:00 - [8] Edited by: An Anarchyyt on 26/07/2007 04:14:25 Originally by: Tortun Nahme Originally by: An Anarchyyt Edited by: An Anarchyyt on 26/07/2007 04:05:33 Originally by: Tortun Nahme Edited by: Tortun Nahme on 26/07/2007 03:59:41 wikipedia is not an acreditted source of information, in fact if you cite it as a source in university most professors will instafail the project even if you ARE right but I still think Illyria is a troll So then you don't cite wikipedia, but you site the website that they cited. Gets around the name bias. its not just a name bias, its way too easy to get BAD information from wikipedia Except the BBC article I posted still says differently. And if you don't want to see the article, the study came directly from a study by the British Journal "Nature." And it states the Wikipedia is just about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica. So if you are going to base it on accuracy, if you won't take one, you shouldn't take the other. Yes it agrees that there are many small and not fully developed entries in Wikipedia, but if you can't tell those from the well-written ones you probably shouldn't be doing research in the first place.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.07.26 04:34:00 - [9] Originally by: Tortun Nahme yes because the media is always so trustworthy Cause if the BBC says it it must be true! seriously, you have to have a better argument than that First off, why would the BBC lie about this? Especially considering they were just reporting on the journal's findings, and lies would've been immediatly uncovered. Secondly, why would Nature lie about this? Nature is a very prominent scientific journal, existing for well over 100 years. Nature. Why would anyone lie about this, what possible gain would they get? We have An Empirical Examination of Wikipedia's Credibility Which is from Firstmonday. Another peer-reviewed journal. There are multiple bits of the Nature report to look at. Original Article Supplementary Information (DOC file) List of Articles Reviewed and their Errors. Nature Blog Editorial Another Nature Editorial The University of Illinois Grad School of Library and Information also did a study about Information Quality Which is right here (PDF File) There is an article in August's PC Pro called Wikipedia Uncovered: Wikipedia vs. The Old Guard. I don't have a link for it, and have not read it though. That is about it for the Formal studies. There are a number of informal studies, mainly Newspaper type stuff. If you want, you can find all the rest at this wikipedia site right here. While this is mainly links, in the Nature Blog, one of the paragraphs pretty much sums up my feelings on it: "If you believe that an encyclopedia should be judged by it's weakest entries (in general I don't), or if you're the subject of an error or slur (thankfully I'm nowhere near famous enough), then the anecdotal outliers might be more important to you than averaged results. But most readers simply want to know whether a source can generally be relied upon. What these results say to me is that Wikipedia isn't bad in this regard ù and that if it's really important to get your facts right then even Britannica isn't completely dependable. (In fact, I'm not sure that anything is.) Put this together with the fact that Wikipedia is generating content at many orders of magnitude lower cost than traditional encyclopedias and you've got yourself a classic Christensenesque disruption in reference publishing."
An Anarchyyt Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.07.26 04:50:00 - [10] Edited by: An Anarchyyt on 26/07/2007 04:50:31 Originally by: Tortun Nahme and I can come up with just as many links supporting the opposite point, I never said they were lying, but they all have their own angles I only looked at Formal peer-reviewed, scientific research. If you can find me some formal peer-reviewed articles covering the opposite, I would like to see them, because I don't know them. While these angles exist, that is the reason for peer-review. It is much easier to look at research findings from a single angle. However, when you have peer-review, you have many more heads looking at it, from many more points of view. Thus, your review needs to be able to hold up a certain amount of objectivity and transparency to be able to stand up throuhgh it. I have seen lots of stuff stating the opposite. However, I have never seen anything but informal reports, that would hardly be considered scientific. Wikipedia is important to EVE. What if the wrong info about forum whines was on Wikipedia? PS. This is just a welcome distraction from the actual research paper I should be doing. But I'm all Picasso'd out.

An Anarchyyt Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.07.26 19:21:00 - [11] Originally by: Tarron Sarek Talk about derailing a thread.. I like to think of it as taking a train wreck, and putting it back on the track.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.