stormbridger GROUP: Members POSTS: 88 |
Report this
Feb. 11 2005, 7:30 pm
Star Wars's scientifically unsubstantiated weaponry, blasters and sabers, always seems to be a couple seconds faster than Star Trek's scientifically unsubstantiated weaponry like phasers that seem to take a moment to charge and then fire. One or two seconds is a long time in a firefight so my bets on the Star Wars armed group. 
|
Invader_Wishfire GROUP: Members POSTS: 27510 |
Report this
Feb. 11 2005, 9:23 pm
| Quote (stormbridger @ Feb. 11 2005, 4:30 pm) | Star Wars's scientifically unsubstantiated weaponry, blasters and sabers, always seems to be a couple seconds faster than Star Trek's scientifically unsubstantiated weaponry like phasers that seem to take a moment to charge and then fire. One or two seconds is a long time in a firefight so my bets on the Star Wars armed group.  |
Then again, if SW armed forces kept their finger on the trigger, the blaser would emit bolt after bolt of firepower. But if ST did the same, the phaser would emit a single uninterrupted stream of phaser energy.
|
lanceromega GROUP: Members POSTS: 3859 |
Report this
Feb. 11 2005, 11:28 pm
| Quote (wishfire @ Feb. 11 2005, 6:23 pm) | | Quote (stormbridger @ Feb. 11 2005, 4:30 pm) | Star Wars's scientifically unsubstantiated weaponry, blasters and sabers, always seems to be a couple seconds faster than Star Trek's scientifically unsubstantiated weaponry like phasers that seem to take a moment to charge and then fire. One or two seconds is a long time in a firefight so my bets on the Star Wars armed group.  |
Then again, if SW armed forces kept their finger on the trigger, the blaser would emit bolt after bolt of firepower.
But if ST did the same, the phaser would emit a single uninterrupted stream of phaser energy. |
Proof? as it stand Phaser have to stop after firing any burst of around a 5 or 6 seconds. We have never seen any sustain rate of fire for phasers. If Phasers could emit a continue beam then the Jer Hardar at AR-588 would have been cut in half and never got a chance to over run the position and engage in hand to hand combat. Same when the Klingon attack deep space nine. Either way I like the Phaser wide beam stun...Why it wasn't use in either situation beats me.
|
Lupino GROUP: Members POSTS: 2754 |
Report this
Feb. 12 2005, 12:57 am
| Quote (lanceromega @ Feb. 11 2005, 8:28 pm) | | Quote (wishfire @ Feb. 11 2005, 6:23 pm) | | Quote (stormbridger @ Feb. 11 2005, 4:30 pm) | Star Wars's scientifically unsubstantiated weaponry, blasters and sabers, always seems to be a couple seconds faster than Star Trek's scientifically unsubstantiated weaponry like phasers that seem to take a moment to charge and then fire. One or two seconds is a long time in a firefight so my bets on the Star Wars armed group.  |
Then again, if SW armed forces kept their finger on the trigger, the blaser would emit bolt after bolt of firepower.
But if ST did the same, the phaser would emit a single uninterrupted stream of phaser energy. |
Proof? as it stand Phaser have to stop after firing any burst of around a 5 or 6 seconds. We have never seen any sustain rate of fire for phasers. If Phasers could emit a continue beam then the Jer Hardar at AR-588 would have been cut in half and never got a chance to over run the position and engage in hand to hand combat. Same when the Klingon attack deep space nine.
Either way I like the Phaser wide beam stun...Why it wasn't use in either situation beats me. |
Probably the fact that it would drain the phaser's power too quickly, or that it wouldn't be powerful enough to kill except at too-close-for-comfort range
|