Chazore said:
"For one thing the you can't build an artificial solid moon sized structure without super strong materials, the stresses a structure that big would undergo are well beyond real world technology." That still sounds like an architectural point rather than the materials withstanding actual explosions and the eventual demise from within, sure it makes complete sense in the universe that they needed materials that could stand being in space and being in a cricular shape but standing against outside interference wasn't so great. It's a matter of the stresses materials can stand, the point is just how much weight the whole structure adds up to. Think about how big a moon is, once you get to a certain size gravity starts to become an issue. The Death Star is enormous, made of nothing but dense solid materials like metals, which are themselves heavy, to prevent all of that mass being crushed down into a single dense point the materials have to be well beyond anything we can even manufacture with modern manufacturing methods. "The Executor Class ship is over 17KMs long, yet the Death Star still stands after that enormous ship lands into it, most definitely an example of super strong materials." back in the 80's the special fx really didn't do the Executor class destruction real justice, if it was done today the visual damage it had done would be shown in full, I feel a ship of that size did more damage than a V bomber crashing into the Star Destroyer's communications section. It is what it is, when you look at visual evidence you can't say, "well if this happened differently", it happened in the movie how it did. Actually how that's represented in the movie is right, the Death Star is already an enormous structure, many times bigger than the Executor, made of solid metal, it's like shooting a bullet at a tank, the tank just shrugs off that impact, best case a scratch would be left. The Executor hit a solid, dense portion of the hull, the V Bomber hit glass, then went inside, the two aren't even remotely comparable events. "The Death Star was destroyed by it's reactor exploding, that's a power source sufficient enough for a moon sized space station/ship, in order to blast something that big apart and keep it apart you have to break it's gravitational bonds, meaning that power source is probably millions of times more powerful than anything in the modern world, by which I mean all potential explosive armaments on the planet today." It still shows that the entrance to the reactor along with it's general design was still the weakness, in essence it was both ana rchetictual and material flaw that let to their demise not once but twice. It's not an example of material weakeness, it's an example of poor design from a defense point of view, but actually blowing the Death Star up required a huge amount of explosive energy, like I said in order to break something that big apart and essentially vaporize it is in itself a solid example of massively strong materials being in play, it's nothing else. "My point is that a regular dude running around with a blaster isn't blowing a hole in a wall, unless he has some advanced explosive, but said explosive will probably wipe out him, his buddies and leave a huge crator in the area of the map if he uses it, basically end game style stuff." Well that's what I'm on about, using mere grenades,C4, rockets and tanks/fighters could all do good amounts of battlefield damage in games like bad Company 2, that game had great levels of allowed destruction, BF3 had visually toned that down and then by 4 they rebranded it as "levolution" and it's limited to a point where most are scripted when you do something rather than it being complete up to what you do to the battlefield. What I'd at least expect out of this is being able to knock down trees, blow apart walls completely, cripple buildings to a point where you cannot stay within them (battlefield Bad Company 2 was known for allowing you to blow buildings to a point where they collapse), being able to blow up AT-AT's is a complete gurantee but I just want to see more battlefield destruction rather than tiny little pieces with scripted parts, it's already bad enough the AT-AT's are on rails yet the ones from BF2 you could pilot them to go anywhere and still fend off armies and if you were a good shot, snowspeeders as well. Trees I agree on, walls made of Rock definitely, but anything made of some super strong metals like the Death Star is made from or even a huge ship would require way more than your standard rocket or C4 level explosion. Star Wars, in universe advanced weaponery should do damage to those kinds of materials, if they were shown to do that kind of damage in the movies or within other cananon events that can be used as evidence from the show. A personal blaster or even a Rocket shouldn't be able to take out a wall made of the same material that the Death Star's hull's made of. If you can stand within viewing distance of an uber weapon, then it's not an uber powerful weapon. I just feel that with a tiny graphical advancement we've gone back a few steps on what previous games had and trying to ham up what's elft as being more sound and reasonable than what was available before, if there's not enough adiquate and bigger battlefields with good amounts of destruction then it'll just look like Battlefield but with a SW paintjob. We have new physics technologies courtesy of GPGPU that DICE should be using in Battlefront. Destruction should get even more realistic. DICE has said Battlefront won't be BF with an SW paintjob, to be fair we haven't yet seen anything of the actual game in play, so to judge it based on no evidence isn't really fair. |
See bolded text above.
