Quote:
Originally Posted by selkirk
*Raises hand*. And I doubt I'm the only one.
Anyway, I don't think anyone has said that Nanoha's design is the optimum design for her weapon. What people have been saying is that physical sights and/or a stock for stablization is not necessary for optimum performance of the weapon. Maybe some people just prefer the things, like how some people like to drive automatic cars, while some like manuals. Do both get the job done? Sure. Does one or the other have advantages in certain situations? Yeah. Can you say conclusively that one or the other is better? I doubt it.
|
To me, you don't get it both ways. If you can agree that Nanoha's weapon is not optimally designed, why do you insist that a stock is useless? Isn't it more reasonable to figure a stock is helpful, and Nanoha's doesn't have it because it is not optimally designed, and not fantasizing about arm-jerk stabilizers that have not been shown?
Quote:
|
And what's to say that usage is the only viable explanation and reasoning for weapon design? I gave a number of possible social reasons for the (in your opinion) sub-par weapon designs. Conjecture, but is that very different from the scientific conjecture many are making at this point?
|
I don't mind social reasons for subpar weapons design. In fact, it is probably the best available idea ... but when someone tries to insist that good weapons design does not matter due to unproven technobabble, I get irked.
Quote:
|
The part in question are called reactor parts, and you quoted the text for it a couple of posts ago. And yes, they are some form of reactive armor that blows away all the "maryoku" used in the creation of the barrier jacket outwards to deflect a blow. Do they mean that the barrier jacket itself is made of "maryoku", or do they mean specifically the "maryoku" used in the creation of the barrier jacket? Ambiguous, and can be interpreted either way.
|
I suppose by the latter interpretation you mean assuming that maryoku is not the only material in it? But wouldn't that be introducing a complicating factor?