2
Lupus Aurelius, on 03 July 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:
Flame on, I shall. First thing right off the bat, the Stalker is sleek?!?!?!? In what universe is this?!?!?! Stalker is one of those elephant sized dongs that if you get on the profile is impossible to miss. Second thing, you assumption as to the design philosophy of the Stalker is based on what?
*uses flame extinguisher* Flame off!
http://imageshack.us.../scalefront.jpg
Look at the picture. Nothing more to say I guess. Even the Catapult is bigger from the front. And the front is usually what you see from ppc-boats.
Lupus Aurelius, on 03 July 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:
As an engineer, based on the lore and the in-game specs, I would say that it was designed as a multifunctional assault vehicle, capable of using direct and indirect fire weapons, built for sustainability in the field (heavy energy weapon loadout). With the "ears" placed at the height they are at, it's meant to fire over obstructions, either with indirect missile fire or direct fire energy weapons. It's a mobile turret, move it into position and fire. The 3F has 6 energy weapon slots, 4 missile slots, which means it was designed to have the ability to fit 6 energy weapons.
I totally agree. Now I take it and slap 4 ppcs in anyway, ignoring all this. And this is what happened.
Lupus Aurelius, on 03 July 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:
Using the Longbow or Awesome as a premise to your argument makes no sense. First, the Awesome has a similar loadout, other than the 8Q, as the stalker, 5 tons lighter, and produced by a different corp than the Stalker as an Assault variant. The longbow had multiple missile slots, but it also has energy hardpoints for close range defense, and in theory could also mount large energy weapons as well, sacrificing missile capability to do so.
So Longbow and Stalker are even more similar. I bet the Longbow would make for a great new addition to the game. Not. ^^ Which is not good. Especially from the viewpoint of PGI.
Lupus Aurelius, on 03 July 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:
Your whole argument is based on spurious assumptions and personal bias, therefore invalid...
If I ever fall so low as to call someones opinion "invalid", please someone kick me in the but. This shows a pretty much egoistic and selfcentred character and makes for a terrible style of discussion.
