I felt it was actually displayed in Generations. The ship in question warps to a close position near the Kobayoshi Maru. Beams as many personel as possible. I'm sure they would have had to update the test as time went on. Surely there's some way to distract the Klingons using deflector dish?
ways to beat the kobayashi maru without cheating
- Thread starter WildManWizard
- Start date
You mean like Footloose? Is it still the greatest movie that ever was?Challenge the Lead-Klingon to a dance-off.
The Kobayashi Maru in GEN was how to get Kirk to leave the nexus where he could just wish himself saving the Galaxy forever...
If that's what he wanted to do the most.
That's what I find really weak about that movie. I mean Guinan said that the Nexus would make you do anything you want anywhere you want but obviously neither Picard nor Kirk really wished to be where they were...
What if they confirmed that they were trying to initiate a mating ritual?
Ummm...
Prepare for ramming speed!
Open aft shuttle bay
Warp Core Breach imminent
Photo torpedoes full spread
Kids, Mr. Spock says "Always raise shields when faced with a no win scenario".
And doesn't look like an ordinary tobacco cigarette, either.Vulcanian cigarettes!!!
Kor
You know they can just LARP time travel?
Transport into some other bugger's test and claim to be a time traveler.
"Behold, as a wild ass in the desert go I forth to my work"
Where is this explicitly stated? On Spock's deathbed, he seems to suggest that there is possible solutions, & his particular take on it is that they must be "No-win" ones, in that you must lose something, in his case, his own self sacrificing his life.
As I understand it, it's a no-win scenario in which all cannot be won, & some form of loss must be accrued, not a bottomless pit of no ways to address the situation. The latter doesn't even make sense as a character studying exercise, as you're just studying how people fail, as opposed to studying how people deal with the crisis of having to lose something vital in the course of duty
Kirk's solution was & very much always tries to be a tactic of not accepting that he must lose something vital like that, hence the cheating his way out of it. I honestly don't even understand how you'd get a commendation for just dismantling the test. Original thinking? Not where the dilemma was concerned. That shit was just denial, which is what I thought was the whole point that even he came to understand by the end
Last edited:
The correct resolution is to stay on the Federation side of the Neutral Zone boarder.
400 dead now, is fine, compared to 40 million dead in a war with the Klingons every month, until someone surrenders.
Anyone that tries to rescue the Kobayashi Maru should be expelled from the academy.
400 dead now, is fine, compared to 40 million dead in a war with the Klingons every month, until someone surrenders.
Anyone that tries to rescue the Kobayashi Maru should be expelled from the academy.
I, too, think the test was programmed to be "unwinnable" (as in: finding a solution that will save everyone without any "price" to pay), the only way to achieve a win-win scenario by hacking the test itself ('cheating').
As for Kirks commendation: I think it's debatable. While I certainly appreciate the 'original thinking' part to be commended, real life will sometimes present you with scenarios you simply can't cheat your way out of the way Kirk did on that test. Kirk himself experienced that the painful way (for example in City on the edge of forever). I've never been able to reconcile that with his brash "I don't believe in no-win scenarios" statement in the (later) movie (though I could believe him simply refusing to accept the Kobayashi Maru test to be a no-win scenario).
As for Kirks commendation: I think it's debatable. While I certainly appreciate the 'original thinking' part to be commended, real life will sometimes present you with scenarios you simply can't cheat your way out of the way Kirk did on that test. Kirk himself experienced that the painful way (for example in City on the edge of forever). I've never been able to reconcile that with his brash "I don't believe in no-win scenarios" statement in the (later) movie (though I could believe him simply refusing to accept the Kobayashi Maru test to be a no-win scenario).
That's not the same as saying it is a fantastically dynamic program that corrects for every possible variable that someone might present. I take it as just another way of saying the psychoanalytical catch phrase "There are no right or wrong answers". I just see it as a no-win-all scenario. You'll be forced to sacrifice something in this situation. What you choose to sacrifice is how they judge your character. That's a psychoanalytical test that makes sense. How you play the game has to be part of the challenge, or why even recognize Kirk for out-thinking it altogether? because it still told them something about him
Spock's "Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is what he called his Kobayashi Maru solution. There's probably a number of ways you could apply that in the test itself, sacrificing in order to save the people & your crew but violate treaty or lose your ship, or some part of your ship or shuttle detail in the effort etc...
I mean, if I divert enemy attention with a series of somehow masked decoy shuttles, manned by people sacrificing themselves to save the others, & there goal is to get destroyed without giving away that they are Starfleet. I might stand a chance of pulling out survivors, and getting back out, but I have not won, I've traded lives for more lives, and still potentially risked treaty violation. I'm gambling. How you gamble is what they want to learn about you, because it's probably the most important crisis skill to them
This is all how I interpret it
You could say it's a "no free lunch" scenario. There will be a cost no matter what you choose to do. It may be their crew, it may be your crew. It may be your own life, it may be the beginning of a war.
In any case, the ultimate cost is the death of your false belief that there's always a way to come out of every scenario having averted all possible danger and saved everybody, stopped every bad outcome. Every choice comes with consequences, a trade-off.
In a society full of ever-advancing technology which keeps solving all the formerly thought unconquerable problems of yesterday, holographic fantasies, and the ability to outrun your past across star systems rather than simply state and country borders, people tend to think that they can do anything and escape the consequences. That they are in control of their destiny and that of those they care about. (and to be honest, many people already believe that, warp and transporters or no).
Starfleet Academy sees the possibility for greatness in its cadets, but first, it would like to disabuse their false notion that their lives are in their own hands, the myth of control.
Come to think of it, everybody could use a Kobayashi Maru moment to shake them awake. Better they come to the realization through such a simulation than in real life first.
In any case, the ultimate cost is the death of your false belief that there's always a way to come out of every scenario having averted all possible danger and saved everybody, stopped every bad outcome. Every choice comes with consequences, a trade-off.
In a society full of ever-advancing technology which keeps solving all the formerly thought unconquerable problems of yesterday, holographic fantasies, and the ability to outrun your past across star systems rather than simply state and country borders, people tend to think that they can do anything and escape the consequences. That they are in control of their destiny and that of those they care about. (and to be honest, many people already believe that, warp and transporters or no).
Starfleet Academy sees the possibility for greatness in its cadets, but first, it would like to disabuse their false notion that their lives are in their own hands, the myth of control.
Come to think of it, everybody could use a Kobayashi Maru moment to shake them awake. Better they come to the realization through such a simulation than in real life first.
You're right it's not the same. But what is the point of a simulator that can only simulate one eventuality? You use the phrase "fantastically dynamic" to somehow make it seem an unreasonable idea, but a computer program that changes depending on how you react to it is an incredibly simple idea.
Or you've just sent a bunch of crew to their deaths for no reason.
When Saavik takes the test, only a few seconds after they enter the Neutral Zone the Kobayashi Maru's signal disappears. The Klingons come in hot, jamming all frequencies and shooting to kill. Did the Maru even really exist in her test, or was it a Klingon ruse?
But it's not a simple way to understand character at all. If this is supposed to be some design that reroutes everything to a no way to prevail situation, all you're presenting is a fool's errand with 2 options, turn a blind eye, or die in the attempt. What could that teach anybody about anybody? That they're a coward or a lunatic?
Which is why you might not want to hastily enter the Neutral Zone the way Saavik did. If you ever intend to rescue people, you will ultimately have people ready to risk their own lives. So if you're sending in recon shuttle teams, & Klingons come in hot, killing on sight, you likely lose those people, but those people are lost because they all understand that that's the job sometimes, in order to potentially save others.
The point is, Spock himself indicates, on his death bed, that this kind of sacrifice is a potential solution. So that means there are other ways to play it out beyond just a turn a blind eye or die fool's errand
I agree. That's my point. There are multiple ways to approach the scenario.
But regardless, the test is designed so that you don't "win" no matter what you do.
Right. I think it's the "Don't Win" part we slightly disagree on. I think there's ways to address that mission/crisis, that have more favorable outcomes than Saavik's, & I don't think the program is designed to stop that from happening, resulting in the same fail severity that she experienced, & I base that largely on Spock's claim at the end of having had a solution, that minimizes the losses, in his case, down to one, which you can't do much better than imho
To me, it seems like he's saying such a philosophy is a valid way to approach the Kobayashi Maru. In some situations you must accept loss, but not necessarily all being lost
