Starkiller vs. Darth Nihilus (TK battle)

Originally posted by Haschwalth
Yeah, and it's a lot less, than what is shown here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

Only 50 megatons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba#/media/File:Tsar_Bomba_Paris.png

3.5km, would be completely incinerated.

You will now justify that the blast radius of the Tsar bomb by that criteria is energetic enough to blow apart the frigate in question. Because from 3.5 km away from the epicenter, there's no guarantee even modern reinforced bunkers would have been penetrated, let alone a SW frigate.

Originally posted by Haschwalth
Weird it's the Kotor 2 hand guide.

206 Prima official game guide.
at 210/304

Fair enough. I'll let somebody more well versed in KOTOR argue whether it's reasonable to assume the Malachor gravity well maintained the same potency as when it was first activated.

Originally posted by Naugrim
What's only 50MT? The frigate feat? If you're using a nuclear blast calculator to calc that then you're proving my point. Such a tool can't take into account building materials from a scifi universe or its shielding. If not then I'm curious what that "50 megatons" you're talking about is in reference to.

hmm, 3.5km of vaporization for only 50 megatons, the feats we discuss are in the gigatons. Unless you think durasteel is hundreds of times, more durable than steel/titanium. you would also have to think blaster bolts from guns, which penetrate this material, are insanly high, yet they don't incinerate people.

Originally posted by Naugrim
Fair enough. I'll let somebody more well versed in KOTOR argue whether it's reasonable to assume the Malachor gravity well maintained the same potency as when it was first activated.

The planets gravity would not change, it's state after malachor, unless you are willing to suggest, the mass of the planet decreased, over time. which is straight up silly.

Originally posted by Haschwalth
hmm, 3.5km of vaporization for only 50 megatons, the feats we discuss are in the gigatons. Unless you think durasteel is hundreds of times, more durable than steel/titanium. you would also have to think blaster bolts from guns, which penetrate this material, are insanly high, yet they don't incinerate people.

As mentioned earlier, parts of the ship, likely at the center, were stated to have been "atomized." The power of blaster bolts varies to an extreme degree even within the same source at times, as you're likely aware. Considering Grievous's armor was stated to be made out of the same material as SW fighters and he's able to survive city busting explosions, it's likely that the material a frigate is made out of is many times stronger then steel or titanium.

Originally posted by Haschwalth
The planets gravity would not change, it's state after malachor, unless you are willing to suggest, the mass of the planet decreased, over time. which is straight up silly.

As I said, I'll defer to others on this matter.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
You will now justify that the blast radius of the Tsar bomb by that criteria is energetic enough to blow apart the frigate in question. Because from 3.5 km away from the epicenter, there's no guarantee even modern reinforced bunkers would have been penetrated, let alone a SW frigate.

eh, no I don't I only need to energy from the epicenter As it covers like 30 SW frigates.

But if Marek did rip the shields apart(penetrate) before TKing the frigate, depending on the shielding, it would be superior to Nihilus's feat.

Originally posted by Naugrim
As mentioned earlier, parts of the ship, likely at the center, were stated to have been "atomized." The power of blaster bolts varies to an extreme degree even within the same source at times, as you're likely aware. Considering Grievous's armor was stated to be made out of the same material as SW fighters and he's able to survive city busting explosions, it's likely that the material a frigate's made out of is many times stronger then steel or titanium.

I agree stuff like Mandalorian steel, can repel Lightsabers.
But a frigate, would be designed for cheapness/efficiency, as the demand would be high for production, so I doubt the hard material you guys are talking about would be used much.

A frigate isn't going to be made cheaply or have their durability skimped on tbh. You want to be cost efficient but you're not going to sacrifice effectiveness to do so.

Alright man, it's 1 in the morning for me and I have an early class tomorrow. Ciao.

The material, will be cost efficient, which most likely will be relative to our steel. in comparison to titanium or diamond. So I admit It will be many times harder than our hardest materials, it won't be the quality of mando steel or Grevious's armour.

Ciaossu.

A) It was an experimental prototype cannon that Starkiller powered up. We have no clue how it works or the mechanics of how the lightning comes into play.

B) The Salvation was already in the process of being destroyed when Starkiller smashed it. It had already snapped it half and pieces were ripping off.

Originally posted by Haschwalth
The material, will be cost efficient, which most likely will be relative to our steel. in comparison to titanium or diamond. So I admit It will be many times harder than our hardest materials, it won't be the quality of mando steel or Grevious's armour.

Ciaossu.

The armor plating of a frigate is going to be far thicker then the armor plating of a fighter and honestly, I can't imagine that the material it's made out of would be less durable given a frigate is going to be dealing with a far greater quantity and quality of attacks.

Originally posted by Nephthys
A) It was an experimental prototype cannon that Starkiller powered up. We have no clue how it works or the mechanics of how the lightning comes into play.

B) The Salvation was already in the process of being destroyed when Starkiller smashed it. It had already snapped it half and pieces were ripping off.

Watch the background before the cut scene plays. The cannon is shown to be firing upon the Star Destroyer and doing no damage prior to Starkiller charging up the blast ( I'll link you the clip tomorrow if you are unable to find it ).

That's true, but we know that the text states that the shield's were holding prior to that and that shields don't prevent damage from physical sources such as objects ramming into it or internal stresses physically tearing the ship apart. They would however protect the ship against raw energy.

Originally posted by Naugrim
The armor plating of a frigate is going to be far thicker then the armor plating of a fighter and honestly, I can't imagine that the material it's made out of would be less durable given a frigate is going to be dealing with a far greater quantity and quality of attacks.

You have to take into account, pricing of these ships, they can't just spit out the best material, by the hundreds of thousands. They do have a budget, you also have to take into account, the ships mainly rely on shielding. the ship is generally screwed once they lose shielding. So matter what material they use, the turbo blasters would essentially shatter the metal.

Who said that the material fighters are made out of is the "best?"

We know for a fact it's not give the existence of stuff like cortosis and mandalorian iron.

Originally posted by Naugrim
Who said that the material fighters are made out of is the "best?"

We know for a fact it's not give the existence of stuff like cortosis and mandalorian iron.

Originally posted by Naugrim
Watch the background before the cut scene plays. The cannon is shown to be firing upon the Star Destroyer and doing no damage prior to Starkiller charging up the blast ( I'll link you the clip tomorrow if you are unable to find it ).

That's true, but we know that the text states that the shield's were holding prior to that and that shields don't prevent damage from physical sources such as objects ramming into it or internal stresses physically tearing the ship apart. They would however protect the ship against raw energy.

I actually did find what you're talking about and not only does that not change my point, but by the looks of it Starkillers shot is significantly different in that he forces the cannon to shoot everything in one shot whereas before it was shooting without overtly draining the energy tanks.

The physical forces and stresses was what I was referring to. It would be much easier to destroy a ship that's already shredding under the pressure.

Also I find it pretty egregious that you're mixing and matching scenes between two contradicting sources. Starkiller doesn't charge the cannon in the book. And he doesn't destroy the ship in the game. He can't have done both.

^ I fvcking knew that wasn't real. I read through the book and couldn't find a damn thing suggesting he charged it. I was gonna give the benefit of the doubt that it might happen in the game.

😐 Nothing that you guys are saying contradicts the fact that Starkiller charged the cannon to penetrate the shields, lmao.