Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

Subject: Re: Phasers vs. Blasters Author: Wild Karrde [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 02:14:51 08/28/02 Wed Author Host/IP: ool-43537f64.dyn.optonline.net/67.83.127.100 In reply to: TrekGOD 's message, "Re: Phasers vs. Blasters" on 01:20:48 08/28/02 Wed >>>My opinion is they have about the same capabilities. >>>Being realistic (meaning we use TV shows and movies) >>>we've never seen a phaser displace 600,000 cubic >>>meters of rock, nor have we seen a blaster vaporize >>>anyone whereas a phaser has. >> >> >>Phasers are vastly inferior to blasters for many >>reasons. >> >>1.They have no sighting devices on them whatsoever and >>it's middle is very thick so even if you tried to hold >>it up and sight along it's axis the end of it would be >>obscured by the bulky middle. >> >>2. It lacks a trigger guard and a decent hand grip >>forcing it's user to either hold their wrist in an >>akward and uncomfortable position or to hold it so low >>they can't sight down it's barrel (Which can't be done >>in the first place because of it's crappy shape.) >> >>3.Due to problems 1 and 2 it's range is drastically >>reduced because it lacks any kind of sighting device >>and it's crappy handgrip make it very difficult to aim >>at far away targets. >> >>4. The only reason phasers make people disappear is >>due to their NDF effect allowing them to be very >>effective against organic materials not because they >>have enough power to actually vaporise someone. It >>should also be noted that against dense materials such >>as armour their effectiveness drops drastically. >> >>Now let's take a look at blasters. >> >>1.Blasters actually resemble guns and have sighting >>devices and they also don't have a bulky midpoint to >>obscure the users view of the end of the barrel. > >look @ a phaser rifle, and it also depends on which >phaser you are using The only gun the federation has that is at least halfway decent is the riffle in ST:FC and even that one doesn't have physical sights just a scope that, if damaged would make the gun lose it's sighting ability. > > >>2.Since blasters resemble real guns they have trigger >>guards and functional handgrips making them much >>easier to aim. > >again look at a phaser rifle Again the only gun the federation has that is at least halfway decent is the one from ST:FC the rest have absolutely horrible ergonomics. > >>3.A blaster has a longer range because it has sights >>and acutal hand grips that don't force it's user to >>hold it in an awkward position. Hell the heavy >>blasters rifiles the clonetroopers used had an >>effective range of 6 miles if mounted on a tripod. > >see my answers to 1 and 2 No phaser riffle has ever shown the ranges that blasters have not even the assault riffle from ST:FC. > >>4.All one has to do to see the blasters are more >>powerful than phasers is to is look at the scene in >>ANH where Han uses his blaster agaisnt the >>stormtroopers in the Mos Eisley spaceport where it >>blast torso-sized chunks out of the docking bay walls >>showing it's knock down power is more like a grenade >>laucher than a handgun. >and yet it barly kills a storm trooper. > >your falling back on nadions arn't you? I stick with >the real chemicals of life in my defence. Some of >the rifles have auto-target tracking like the machine >guns in Aliens that they put in the hall way outside >of their blockaid. If phasers worked normally when they vaporised someone that person should be turned into an expanding cloud of steam and the effects shouldn't be localized to the person it hit. That's a lie phasers haver shown the ability to be self targeting. I also see that you complety ingnored my points that blasters are more powerful. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Re: Phasers vs. Blasters trekie 02:25:33 08/28/02 Wed Re: Phasers vs. Blasters -- TrekGOD, 02:31:08 08/28/02 Wed Re: Phasers vs. Blasters -- trekie, 02:35:24 08/28/02 Wed Re: Phasers vs. Blasters -- WarsGOD, 03:10:06 08/28/02 Wed Re: Phasers vs. Blasters -- trekie, 04:14:17 08/28/02 Wed Re: Phasers vs. Blasters -- WarsGOD, 13:35:10 08/28/02 Wed Re: Phasers vs. Blasters -- Wild Karrde, 13:27:20 08/28/02 Wed Re: Phasers vs. Blasters -- capn hayes, 13:36:49 08/28/02 Wed Re: Phasers vs. Blasters -- TrekGOD, 16:52:31 08/29/02 Thu Re: Phasers vs. Blasters -- Wild Karrde, 19:39:01 08/29/02 Thu