FANDOM


Wait, isn't this fanon? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Concept Design Edit

Awesome. Simply awesome! That MC30 frigate it based on a old ROTJ concept for Mon Cal cruisers. I love how the designers used a old concept for the frigate. I need to see if I can find a link to the concept art that it is based on. AdmiralNick22 00:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Do you have a picture for the concept art? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 00:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • OMGOMGOMGOMG They chose the BEST discarded ROTJ Mon Cal concept art, too! 8D VT-16 12:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Btw. where did you get that picture? VT-16 13:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The design doesn't look very Mon Callish to me, tough. Shouldn't this info be in a BtS section or something? --BaldFett 13:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The pic is off the Technical Commentaries website by Dr. Saxton. It looks like a cross between the a Mon Cal design and something from Gallofree. Either way I like it! :-) AdmiralNick22 13:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
        • No, I meant the profile picture from the game itself. I knew about the concept art, that's why I was so happy to see them using it as a basis. :D VT-16 13:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
          • The screenshot is from here. -- I need a name (Complain here) Revanchist Sith 13:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Thanks! And I agree on the Gallofree look, that's the first thing I thought of when I saw it. The artist probably wanted to show a connection between the ESB transports and the ROTJ cruisers, but they ultimately went in another direction. VT-16 13:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
            • I actually always wished that Gallofree built some warships before it tanked. Hell, the Munificent-class star frigate looks very Gallofree-esque as well. AdmiralNick22 13:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm now going to change the concept art picture because, although similar, there's a near-identical design elsewhere in the sketches. This one was close, but the other one was exactly the same, with armor plates surrounding the command tower and more exposed infrastructure. VT-16 15:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, then. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 15:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Whoops, a little grammatical error, there. "now" instead of "not". VT-16 15:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I didn't even see that. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 18:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Awesome, I didn't even know about this ship until I was looking at the IGN preview. Very nice touch. Too bad about the game tho.Vymer 10:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
            • What do you mean? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 11:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
            • They can't all be like the Homeworld 2 SW mod. ;) VT-16 21:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
              • But still, what did you mean, Vymer? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Sorry forgot about this page- I'm in between my old and new PC at the moment so I've been very distracted. I was unimpressed by the demo and the full game was bought by my brother and returned by him the very next day. I may end up getting it, but only when it's cheaper. It could've been a lot cooler. The ground combat really let it down.Vymer 06:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Room for a and b articles?Edit

Since this frigate is specified MC30c, can we make stubs for MC30a and b frigates as well? Knowing the Mon Cals and their naming schemes in the early part of the GCW (MC80a and b). I'm asking this beforehand because last time I made article stubs (Eta-3 and Eta-4 interceptor), they got deleted. :( VT-16 20:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Since it's been half a month and no one's said anything, I'm making stubs for them. :) VT-16 08:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • How is that anything but speculation? --Imp 09:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think that's a good idea. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't understand. Since there is a 'c' model, there must also be an 'a' and a 'b' model,like the MC80 series. Whether built, mass-produced or just designed. And where were these comments when I asked for opinions last month? VT-16 14:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
        • My computer's hard drive crashed, so that's why I didn't respond sooner. Anyway, there doesn't necessarily have to be a MC30a or MC30b. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 01:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
        • In my opinion, the Wookieepedia already has too many articles based on speculation. I vote against the idea. AdmiralNick22 01:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
          • They should probably be VfD'd now. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
            • No they shouldn't. If the Mon Calamari builds a frigate and designates it 'c', there must be an 'a' and a 'b', even if neither of these were ever built. That's how productions work, especially with ships and planes. Many fighters in the US never reached more than a prototype stage, that's why there's a jump between F-18 and F-22. If 'c' exists, something must already occupy the 'a' and 'b' slot, otherwise it would be like the MC40a model or the MC80a and MC80B. VT-16 08:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Except we don't know if the Mon Calamari name ships the same way we do. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
                • My sentiments exactly. By that logic we should start creating articles for hypothetical Mon Cal ships like a MC70, MC60, MC50, etc. The Wookieepedia should only have articles that are confirmed, not speculation. AdmiralNick22 20:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • Here's a possibly compromise . . . move this to MC30, and then note that only one model, the MC30c, has been attested. jSarek 21:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
                    • I don't think that's a good idea. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • I'm with Jack on this one. Mentioning ships that have never been referenced in the EU or movies is a bad choice. As I said above, following that logic we might as well create multiple "MC" designations. AdmiralNick22 00:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
                        • Yeah. I say we have the MC30a and MC30b articles deleted. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 00:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
                          • Those really need to be deleted. As I have said in other discussions/debates, those types of articles degrade the overall quality of the Wookieepedia, not improve it. :-( AdmiralNick22 00:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • we might as well create multiple "MC" designations
No we should not. There is a precedence for alphabetical designations and I followed it, after waiting half a month to avoid this exact situation. Don't come whining afterwards. VT-16 12:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I wasn't here when you first suggested it, so this was the only time I could "come whining afterwards". In any case, the MC30a and MC30b do not exist—right now, they are fanon and must be deleted. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Why? What evidence do you have? If there is a MC30c there must be an a and a b, whether designed and abandoned or actually made. That's the way they name their ships in this era. And it's been standing here for weeks, you weren't gone for weeks at a time. VT-16 12:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • No, but posters like me who have little spare time cannot work on the Wookieepedia for more than a few precious moments here or there. Hence why I did not see this right away. The fact remains that nowhere in the EU or movies is a MC30a or b mentioned. Hence it has no place on the Wookieepedia. AdmiralNick22 14:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The MC30c frigate exists, so the MC30a and b models also exist (source EAW:FOC). This is how the Mon Calamari name their vessels. MC40a and MC80a and, sigh, B. With the MC80 series adding letters in their further developments. This is canon. It is also been established by a Petroglyph employee that he did not know about the Mon Cal frigates mentioned in earlier sources (in the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook and the Corellian trilogy), so he didn't intend the MC30c to be the same type as these, so there's even canon room for more models. And since there are sources for models of similar Mon Cal ships following alphabetical order and not skipping a in favor of b or a in favor of c, I'd like you to provide the source that says otherwise. VT-16 15:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
          • It's fanon, VT. "MC30a" and "MC30b" are unsourced, and EaW: FoC is not a source. For all we know, "c" could stand for something important. This is ridiculous. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
            • No, what's ridiculous is the position that it stands for anything other than a serial number, like on the other MC classes, that's the fanon here. VT-16 10:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Then it seems like this discussion is teeming with fanon creations. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
                • VT-16, by your own admission, your articles on the Eta-3 and Eta-4 interceptors were deleted because they are not referenced in canon. Why should these be any different. AdmiralNick22 14:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • Exactly. "Eta-5" and "MC30c" does not mean there are "Eta-3"s, "Eta-4"s, "MC30a"s, or "MC30b"s. They may have existed, but we have no proof as of now. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • Because, for the nth time, the Mon Calamari designate the subclasses of their vessels alphabetically:
MC90
MC80 - MC80a - MC80B
MC40a (which I assume is preceded by MC40)
MC30c (whose preceding designs would be MC30, MC30a and MC30b or MC30B for that matter)
MC18
We already know they label their vessels according to size (with increasing numbers for increasing sizes), and we know their MC80 series was developed with the MC80, followed by the MC80a and the MC80B. Since the MC30c exists, it must be preceeded by an earlier design, otherwise they could have cut out the 'c' altogether. Neither the MC80 nor the MC90 required any letter behind them. VT-16 21:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Your defense of fanon is alarming. No matter what you say, the articles will be deleted, and you'll have to stop this whole thing then. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 21:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You're starting to reach McEwok levels. I can see why others find it hard to work with you and why you haven't become an admin. VT-16 21:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I'm the one trying to get fanon removed. That has nothing to do with not being an admin. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 21:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
        • VT, whether or not it makes sense given the Mon Calamarian style of designating warships, the fact is that it is [b]never[/b] listed in a canon source. Not a book, comic, game, RP reference, etc. None. I will grant you that the assumption makes sense, but the Wookieepedia should only contain articles supported by canon. As you said before, you have tried to create articles like this in the past and they have been deleted. This should be no different. AdmiralNick22 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
          • And I also agree that there are likely MC30a's and MC30b's. But as of now, there aren't. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 00:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I'll concede ther might be less use for these two articles, though none of you have actually explained why the Mon Cals bother to use alphabetical order for other models in the same time frame, but not this one. And I protest the removal of the Eta-3 and -4 even more, there is even less justification for doing that. Just look at the X-wing series template to see how it makes no sense to skip past models in one line of starfighter but stick with it in another. If there's an Eta-2 interceptor and 60 years later there's an Eta-5 interceptor, there has to be at least two models inbetween, whether mass-produced or not. For instance, there is an F-20 and F-21 inbetween the F/A-18 Hornet and F-22 Raptor, with the omission of an F-19 being the exception to the rule. VT-16 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
            • And who's to say that the MC30a's, MC30b's, Eta-3's, and Eta-4's aren't like the F-19 exception? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
            • No source has ever said that, however sources have shown that the Mon Cals of the same time period as the MC30 series, produced the MC80 series with alphabetical subclasses. That takes precedence unless otherwise stated. The Petroglyph designers didn't even know that other sources already mentioned Mon Cal frigates, they stated so on the Lucasforums, thought they were the first. And if only one model was meant in the first place, why not write MC30 like we first thought they did? Why even bother to add a 'c'? There's MC80, there's MC90, they don't start at 'b' or 'c'. VT-16 12:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Then let me say this: Maybe the letter "c" means something in Mon Calamari military terms. "c" could determine a frigate, while "a" and "B" could determine different uses of Star Cruisers. Still, no matter what the case, the MC30a and MC30b simply do not exist, and one frigate with the designation MC30c is not enough to warrant the MC30a and MC30b articles. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
                • That sounds reasonable. VT-16 14:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • What? My theory on the use of letters for designating roles of capital ships? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 18:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
                    • Yes. It's an actual rational alternate explanation for the system being like it is. VT-16 20:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No Shields? Edit

Where are the references for this little fact? In-game references state that it has shields, but light armor, which is its major weakness. SWVRoma 09:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Length? Edit

Can someone who has the FOC expansion measure the MC30c against another capital ship of known size? That way we can use a scale factor to determine its true length in meters. You'd need to set up a skirmish with both ships on your team and use a mm ruler to take accurate readings. Any takers? =D LtKettch 22:50, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

  • Considering nothing in EaW is to scale, no. -- I need a name (Complain here) 22:58, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah thanks, I didn't know that. This page has a picture of the MC30c next to a GR-75 on Nar Shaddaa. Using their 90m length as a scale, I calculated the width of the MC30c. Then, using the multi-angle shot which is also on this page, I calculated its length to be dead-on 580m. =) LtKettch 16:23, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Recon version Edit

The SW:Armada expansion pack mentions a scout frigate in addition to the current torpedo frigate that lacks the torpedo launchers. Should we add this as a variant or make a full article once it is released

starwars.wikia.com/wiki/MC30c_Frigate_Expansion_Pack vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars-armada/images/5/5c/Pic2478690.png/revision/latest?cb=20150415193233 Sources acceptable? or should we wait until it is released?

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Build A Star Wars Movie Collection