Downgrading the Enterprise-D?

[Antvasima]

We still need calculations for the highest destructive feats. You can ask some calc group members to comment here via their message walls.

 

[Yukaphile]

Seems Idazmi is okay with leaving the tractor beam as 5-A for AP, and rating their weapons lower, given he hasn't said anything.

Though... who'd you recommend I contact?

 

[Antvasima]

You can check the calc group list here: VS Battles Staff

 

[Yukaphile]

Just sent one of them a message. Seems we're finally reaching some kind of consensus here.

 

[Antvasima]

You preferably need to inform several of them about this, but also supply scans for the feats, so they have something to calculate.

 

[Yukaphile]

I informed Darkanine. Who else would you recommend?

I can supply multiple screenshots. That's not an issue.

Do I ask them how this scales to the Enterprise? I mean, weapon-wise, that's one ship, and this is a fleet of 20 vessels, hence why I went with the figures I did for the proposed tiers, but I, of course, am by no means a calcing expert.

 

[Antvasima]

You can ask several of them, but Gallavant and Aiden tend to be unreliable, and Liger686 and RavenSupreme are missing at the moment.

 

[Idazmi]

Seems Idazmi is okay with leaving the tractor beam as 5-A for AP, and rating their weapons lower, given he hasn't said anything.

You can see in my last comment to Antvasima that I was willing to lower the average phaser AP to around the same level as the torpedoes, and that I'm not against rewording the page to match that fact. I was only waiting for other commentators to add to the discussion: there were more people here than you and me.

(...) I feel the tractor beam feat is an outlier, or achieved through an alien technology they could never replicate on their own - because with your logic, the Enterprise could use the technology Barclay used to throw them 30,000 light-years, even though that's no more valid to use than when Q did that to them. It's an outside influence. But I digress. (...) So, how do you feel about this, Idazmi? A compromise? Because I really think this is going to cause horrible problems down the line if the Enterprise-D is ever used in debates with other sci-fi verses, with people like you agreeing to that high-end, and people like me calling it an outlier. What do you think? Is this acceptable?

http://www.chakoteya.net/NextGen/213.htm < - Transcript of The Masterpiece Society

LAFORGE: "Transferring warp power to tractor beam generator." HANNAH: "Graviton generators operating normally. Surge pulse now synchronised. Emitters radiating at three hundred twenty percent over standard." LAFORGE: "Bridge, we need more power." (...) HANNAH: "Four hundred percent over standard." LAFORGE: "Okay. Now we're getting there." HANNAH: "The fragment's moved point four degrees off its previous heading. Point six five. It's working."

They did do the Tractor Beam feat on their own: feel free to read the script to find alien influences. That, and they've demonstrated the ability to do a very similar feat with the main deflector, more than once. Given their demonstrated ability to destroy moons, and several planetary feats as well, their weapons are not going below a 5-C maximum, and channeling their ship's entire power output - instead of just a fraction - for a 5-A feat from that is simply not an outlier.

 

[Yukaphile]

I'm not interested in debating this because it's just beating a dead horse. I just want to know if you're okay with accepting feats when being used offensively against an actual target in a military manner with phasers and torpedoes for DC, and tacking on the tractor beam for AP at 5-A? As I said, it's a compromise between the two camps. I wasn't the only one who thinks the star fragment feat is an outlier (ByAsura thinks so too, and so does Supreme-Emperor-Over), and you're probably not the only one who feels it's legitimate to use. I'm trying to help the mods stop problems down the line. That's why I'm trying to include actual offensive photon torpedo and phaser feats to scale their power, and just leave the tractor beam feat in, so debaters can feel free to discard it if they want to. Do you think this is a good compromise?

 

[Idazmi]

We still need calculations for the highest destructive feats. You can ask some calc group members to comment here via their message walls.

The calc already exists, though I have no problem with it being recalculated if that proves to be necessary.

http://web.archive.org/web/20160505...rs-since-1992-starship-power-star-trek.25129/

Copying the calculation from there:

http://web.archive.org/web/20160505021923im_/http://i.imgur.com/8yg6bkx.jpg

Yellow line, Saucer Diameter = 71.1 px Saucer Diameter of the Enterprise-D = 463.73 m http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Galaxy_class#Technical_Manual

Green line, diameter of the fragment = 889 px Neutron Star Fragment Radius = 0.5*463.73*889/71.1 = 2899 m

Alright, now we can use this to get the fragment's volume.

http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/geometry-solids/sphere.php Fragment Volume = 102055000000 m^3

Okay, that's nice but how should we get the mass? Fortunately for Data did explicitly state the fragment's density:

 

[Yukaphile]

In pushing the neutron star with a tractor beam, that's AP. Attack Potency. Not Destructive Capacity. You have to gauge DC while attacking a target. Because the potential is never the same when they're actually going all out and trying to kill an enemy. And the fleet was doing just that. They were trying to commit genocide. Obviously they weren't going to spare their enemy excess suffering like the Federation would.

Here's a video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du4k-Gl9aBY

I have, in fact, asked several mods to calc the fleet bombarding that planet. I feel it's the most concrete to use when gauging their DC as opposed to AP. We have the number of vessels in the armada confirmed (twenty), we have the analysis for how long it'd take to strip the world to its core (five hours), we see the feats on screen, and we see them react in real time as they carry it out, and that their first volley with weapons on full power only took out 30% of the crust, which is consistent with the figures they gave on how long it would take.

What else do you have besides this? The soliton wave? It said it'd take "most of the planet" with it. How much is "most?" How big is the planet? What class is it? Class L? Class M? Class Y? That's a vague statement for something we don't know and have never seen. But it would be consistent with the continental to small moon ranges, which is what we see with that fleet. The Husnock ship? Ignoring that it was an illusion, it destroyed the surface of the planet, and "pulverize a planet" in this context means to wipe out the inhabited surface. Kirk's Enterprise? I never saw that episode. Float me the name, and I'll read the transcript. Past that, all you have are two small moons the size of Phobos. Scaling to the fleet is the most reliable means to gauge their power, I feel, given that one Romulan Warbird has always been a match for the Enterprise. And those were not actually Galor-class ships, which are inferior to Galaxy-class vessels, but Keldon class, which might be implied to be much stronger and push it to closer to within the range to match a Galaxy-class ship.

With your logic, the Enterprise-D could destroy this whole fleet with that single feat alone. Again, will you please accept this compromise? Especially given that with this proposal you are getting your tractor beam AP like you wanted at the end of the tier.

 

[Idazmi]

(...) What else do you have besides this? The soliton wave? It said it'd take "most of the planet" with it. How much is "most?" (...)

"Most" is 51% or more.

How big is the planet? What class is it? Class L? Class M? Class Y? That's a vague statement for something we don't know and have never seen.

A Class-M planet is an Earth-like planet, which means it has an Oxygen/Nitrogen atmosphere, Earth-like gravitational field of about 1G, and is roughly 8000 miles in diameter.

But it would be consistent with the continental to small moon ranges, which is what we see with that fleet. The Husnock ship? Ignoring that it was an illusion, it destroyed the surface of the planet, and "pulverize a planet" in this context means to wipe out the inhabited surface.

Both of those, unlike Enterprise, were deep in enemy territory and had reasons to keep energy in reserve. I alluded to that, in fact. There's also the fact that Kirk's Enterprise casually reaches continental feats, repeatedly, so assuming that military ships made with more advanced tech a century later in the same continuity somehow have the same destructive potential is just absurd. Especially with regards to Star Trek, where tech evolution is a major element.

Kirk's Enterprise? I never saw that episode. Float me the name, and I'll read the transcript.

(...) I feel the tractor beam feat is an outlier, or achieved through an alien technology they could never replicate on their own (...)

That second quote there proves that you haven't even read the transcript that's been posted for days. If you had, you would know that they did it on their own. There's no alien tech boosting the feat, and the feat - unlike phasers - used their ship's entire energy supply. That's it.

Past that, all you have are two small moons the size of Phobos.

ByAshura already pointed out that you're wrong on that point: the moon is bigger than that, and there are a multitude of DC feats in Star Trek that go well beyond phobos level, some of which ByAshura and I both posted. No, I'm not going to be posting an calcing every feat in the franchise to get you off my back: even if I did, you'd still argue just as hard, regardless. It's a feat, and they did it on their own, and they can do it again.

With your logic, the Enterprise-D could destroy this whole fleet with that single feat alone. Again, will you please accept this compromise? Especially given that with this proposal you are getting your tractor beam AP like you wanted at the end of the tier.

1. Only if the entire fleet wasn't putting any power into their deflector shields, which I highly doubt.

2. Only if the Enterprise was willing to use it's entire energy reserve to fire one beam attack that has no way to hit the entire fleet at once, thus leaving themselves vulnerable to counterattack.

 

[Yukaphile]

Don't lecture me on Trek. Point is we never see this planet. We never see it get destroyed. Because it never happens.

Ah, so now you're arguing with pure headcanon. Nothing says they were going to hold power in reserve. They never hint at this in the two-parter. They never act as if they're going to do anything less than burn down the planet as quickly and efficiently as they can so they can recloak and get the hell out of there. In fact, the Caesar theming of the episode implies the exact opposite. The Die is Cast. We've crossed the Rubicon. It's all or nothing. We either march to glorious victory... or go down in defeat. And in case of feats, we go with what's shown on screen. Nothing implies that they can go higher except your personal interpretation of Trek. I also repeat that Geordi says very little has changed in those 70 years. Obviously phasers and torpedoes haven't changed. They even call them by same name! Unless you mean quantum torpedoes and transphasic torpedoes and those are a whole other story. Tech evolution is only in improving the current designs to be a lot more streamlined and efficient. It speaks nothing to making them stronger unless there's more specialization involved, which given the nature of the Federation, that they are an organization dedicated to peace, is unlikely.

And I repeat, with your views, they could repeat the feat Barclay used to send them 30,000 light-years since it was with their own technology. They just haven't rediscovered how yet, despite attempts to get Voyager home faster that would meant their R&D was devoted heavily to trying to replicate said feat. Given that, you know, Reg Barclay himself was on the project.

IIRC ByAsura was saying that the size was inconsistent between shots. I disagreed, because the Enterprise is 700 meters, and that moon looked to be 27 kilometers in size. That's around the size of Phobos. In all shots that it's framed up against the ship, it's never completely out of view. If you wanted to use an extreme highball, maybe push it up to 100 kilometers. That's still nowhere near the size of our moon. I'm not even ON your back here, I think you're being stubborn and wanking Trek, and I wanted us to find a compromise, and you couldn't even do that because your personal headcanon says they can destroy moons and planets in one shot. Puh-lease. And I repeat, does this mean they can travel 30,000 light-years using the modifications to the engines Barclay created when his mind was tinkered with by the Cytherians if they try hard enough?

Now you're REALLY being stubborn if you think one ship, ONE ship can take out a fleet of twenty warships that were constructed for the singular mission of wiping out the Founders with one attack. You claim Voyager is inconsistent. TNG is just as much inconsistent. I'd argue DS9 takes greater precedence in this debate because it is more highly serialized, and has a tighter continuity, than TNG does. Yet TNG is still part of that continuity, so they're both part of the same canon. And nothing within the show says they can blow up planets or moons with one shot of their damned weapons past using the tractor beam on a star fragment once, just ONCE out of 700 hours of airtime.

 

[Yukaphile]

Someone please lock this thread. It's going nowhere.

 

[Supreme-Emperor-Over]

Yes wanking is bad

 

[Idazmi]

Don't lecture me on Trek.

I apparently need to.

Nothing says they were going to hold power in reserve. They never hint at this in the two-parter. They never act as if they're going to do anything less than burn down the planet as quickly and efficiently as they can so they can recloak and get the hell out of there.

Yeah, no. Throwing out all your fleet's energy in one attack - as you just suggested - is not a good idea when deep in enemy territory. You can't run a cloak without power... lots of it, in fact. You also can't run the Warp engines, or the Deflector Shields in case you get discovered and need to protect your ship from enemy fire. They were holding energy in reserve.

And I repeat, with your views, they could repeat the feat Barclay used to send them 30,000 light-years since it was with their own technology. They just haven't rediscovered how yet, despite attempts to get Voyager home faster that would meant their R&D was devoted heavily to trying to replicate said feat. Given that, you know, Reg Barclay himself was on the project.

Again, this point was already addressed in the comments above...

IIRC ByAsura was saying that the size was inconsistent between shots. I disagreed, because the Enterprise is 700 meters, and that moon looked to be 27 kilometers in size. That's around the size of Phobos. In all shots that it's framed up against the ship, it's never completely out of view. If you wanted to use an extreme highball, maybe push it up to 100 kilometers. That's still nowhere near the size of our moon.

Again: Kirk's Enterprise from 100 years ago came close to cutting an asteroid that Spock outright said was "the size and mass of Earth's moon" totally half with phasers, with the intent of redirecting the fragments with the tractor beam afterwards. They did it by funneling the whole power output through the phasers. Suggesting that the Enterprise-D can't at the very least do the same is absurd.

I'm not even ON your back here, I think you're being stubborn and wanking Trek, and I wanted us to find a compromise, and you couldn't even do that because your personal headcanon says they can destroy moons and planets in one shot. Puh-lease.

Well, they unambiguously have destroyed moons multiple times in every part of the franchise except the prequel, as well as a few planets and stars and a few entire solar systems, sometimes with one munition.

Now you're REALLY being stubborn if you think one ship, ONE ship can take out a fleet of twenty warships that were constructed for the singular mission of wiping out the Founders with one attack.

Ignoring that my last post says the exact opposite.

You claim Voyager is inconsistent. TNG is just as much inconsistent. I'd argue DS9 takes greater precedence in this debate because it is more highly serialized, and has a tighter continuity, than TNG does. Yet TNG is still part of that continuity, so they're both part of the same canon. And nothing within the show says they can blow up planets or moons with one shot of their damned weapons past using the tractor beam on a star fragment once, just ONCE out of 700 hours of airtime.

Except for the Soliton Wave feat (which you conveniently ignored just now despite it being in my last comment), the Neutron Star Fragment feat, the shown fact that a more primitive civilization than the Federation destroyed two planets to nothing but rubble, the statement that the Enterprise can move a small moon with a tractor beam without upgrading it, the casual statement that they can blast a moon to pieces, the TOS feat of nearly cutting a Luna-sized asteroid in two, the suns that they consistently weaponize in war... all that was already mentioned in this discussion. I guess you just 'missed' them all.

 

[Yukaphile]

What don't you get? I'm not continuing this argument. I could retort, but I won't. You talk about me getting on your back, but I'm the one ending this.

Can someone please lock this thread?

 

[Supreme-Emperor-Over]

yes please lock this

 

[Antvasima]

@Idazmi

Should we get some other feats calculated, or are the profiles fine as they are?

 

[Yukaphile]

I can guarantee his answer. He'll say no, leave the profiles as they are.

Do you know how many episodes of Star Trek there are within a season? Twenty-six when it came to TNG. Out of seven seasons. The same for Voyager and DS9. So they pushed a star fragment with their tractor beam once. Out of literally 500 or so episodes. That's another reason I'm inclined to call it an outlier, because TNG was A) Very episodic, similar to TOS and B) Stretched out so long, as I just pointed out. If they'd done something like this twice, maybe it would be worth consideration, but they never did.

Idazmi has an agenda to push Trek as high as he can get on the profiles, and nothing will deter him. He didn't want to accept my compromise even though it was meant to try and cut down on problems debaters will be facing further down the line. So, it's really pointless to ask him. He'll say leave them as they are. You should just lock this.

 

[Crzer07]

I'm not sure if comparisons to external franchises or the trans-scaling to out-verse characters are factors we consider for determining stats, though usually its treated as a stand alone, closed system practice with no relevance to anything beyond its copyright.

If anything the page could be explained more with listing all the feats, more clarification in the justification, footnotes to address peculiarities and an explanation section to explain the nature of its abilities. I'm sure that could be done.

 

[Yukaphile]

DS9 is not an external franchise. Most of the TNG writers went over to DS9, and thus it was more consistent to not only TNG, but itself, and more highly serialized. It is part of the larger canon and continuity of Trek.

 

[Idazmi]

I'm not sure if comparisons to external franchises or the trans-scaling to out-verse characters are factors we consider for determining stats, though usually its treated as a stand alone, closed system practice with no relevance to anything beyond its copyright.

That's the problem with this entire thread: Yukaphile outright admitted that his concern is Star Wars's relation to Star Trek's AP, all the way back in post #7 and post #25:

(...) I just don't think the writers ever intended for the Enterprise to be able to destroy the Death Star in one hit. No. That's pure fanboy wank given what we've seen over the years.

I feel as if this is misinformation being presented. As it is presented on the profiles, one would get the impression the Enterprise has the same power as the Death Star and could destroy the entire Imperial fleet and only be taken out by their superweapons, which is just flat-out wrong. (...) And need I remind you there are tech guides for Star Wars ships too, but they aren't scaled to anywhere near where the Enterprise is.

That's been his motivation from the beginning and it's still his motivation now. It's not about Star Trek: he doesn't care about Star Trek outside of lowering Star Trek's AP, for Star Wars' sake. That's biased judgement, and he's been showing that bias since his first post here on December 2nd.

I've watched all of Star Trek, and I really don't believe that ship is capable of blowing up a planet. Hell, even in Enterprise, they couldn't blow up planets, though they could with the right tech.

He's "watched all of Star Trek" but he admitted to not knowing the entire plots of several episodes on this very thread. He also admitted right there to knowing that Star Trek has shown the ability to destroy planets "with the right tech", even though he "doesn't believe that ship (Enterprise-D) is capable of blowing up a planet" despite knowing that it is two centuries newer than the planet killing weapon he is referring to.

He started out this thread with a collection of blatant lies, has been consistently ignoring multiple feats that oppose his assertions - especially when the feat isn't ambiguous in any way - has ignored many consistent feats from the previous installments of the franchise that make most of his suggested AP's outright impossible to accept. He has been observed spamming comments at several points... it's not going to end.

 

[Antvasima]

We do not scale between franchises via crossovers, no: Crossovers

 

[Antvasima]

I will close this thread then. The profiles will have to remain as they are in lack of better options.