Talk:ARC-920 railgun: Difference between revisions
From Halopedia, the Halo wiki
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Is it really recoilless? Based on the preview video, it doesn't look like it. Maybe make note of this? As a trivia perhaps? — [[File:Destiny_sign.png|30px|link=User:Hacame]][[User talk:Hacame|<span class="plainlinks" style="color:#483C32; font-family:monoscript, lucida console; font-size:16px; font-weight:bold;">DESTINY</span>]] 23:00, 8 August 2012 (EDT) | Is it really recoilless? Based on the preview video, it doesn't look like it. Maybe make note of this? As a trivia perhaps? — [[File:Destiny_sign.png|30px|link=User:Hacame]][[User talk:Hacame|<span class="plainlinks" style="color:#483C32; font-family:monoscript, lucida console; font-size:16px; font-weight:bold;">DESTINY</span>]] 23:00, 8 August 2012 (EDT) | ||
:"''Nothing is recoilless.''" - Everyone (Everywhere, anytime). :P {{User:Grizzlei/Sig}} | :"''Nothing is recoilless.''" - Everyone (Everywhere, anytime). :P {{User:Grizzlei/Sig}} | ||
::[[Wikipedia:Recoilless_rifle#Design|Uh, nope]]. There's a lot of recoil after the Spartan fired a round. Recoilless rifles normally eliminate or reduce recoil; this weapon, however, does not show that.— [[File:Destiny_sign.png|30px|link=User:Hacame]][[User talk:Hacame|<span class="plainlinks" style="color:#483C32; font-family:monoscript, lucida console; font-size:16px; font-weight:bold;">DESTINY</span>]] 23:27, 8 August 2012 (EDT) | |||
:::I presume you've fired a lightweight infantry railgun before, so I'll defer to your judgment. On a serious note, the discrepancy with its name and the gameplay function of the ARC-920 is probably due to the latter, knocking the player off-balance visually after using such a devastating weapon. The Onager mass driver cannon in ''Reach'' is very similar in-action with the ARC-920, including the visual hindrance. {{User:Grizzlei/Sig}} | |||
:That's part of the gun's name so...why not?? Watched the video, its recoilless; the gun automatically opens a port so the user can reload it, its not discharging encasement shells.--'''''[[User:Killamint|<span style="color:Black; font-family: Arial;">Kells</span>]]''''' <small>['''''[[User talk:Killamint|<font color="Red">Comm</font>]]'''''|'''''[[Special:Contributions/Killamint|<font color="Black">Files</font>]]''''']</small> 23:20, 8 August 2012 (EDT) | :That's part of the gun's name so...why not?? Watched the video, its recoilless; the gun automatically opens a port so the user can reload it, its not discharging encasement shells.--'''''[[User:Killamint|<span style="color:Black; font-family: Arial;">Kells</span>]]''''' <small>['''''[[User talk:Killamint|<font color="Red">Comm</font>]]'''''|'''''[[Special:Contributions/Killamint|<font color="Black">Files</font>]]''''']</small> 23:20, 8 August 2012 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 22:53, August 8, 2012
Recoilless?
Is it really recoilless? Based on the preview video, it doesn't look like it. Maybe make note of this? As a trivia perhaps? — 
DESTINY 23:00, 8 August 2012 (EDT)
- "Nothing is recoilless." - Everyone (Everywhere, anytime). :P Grizzlei ♥ ツ
- Uh, nope. There's a lot of recoil after the Spartan fired a round. Recoilless rifles normally eliminate or reduce recoil; this weapon, however, does not show that.— DESTINY 23:27, 8 August 2012 (EDT)
- I presume you've fired a lightweight infantry railgun before, so I'll defer to your judgment. On a serious note, the discrepancy with its name and the gameplay function of the ARC-920 is probably due to the latter, knocking the player off-balance visually after using such a devastating weapon. The Onager mass driver cannon in Reach is very similar in-action with the ARC-920, including the visual hindrance. Grizzlei ♥ ツ
- Uh, nope. There's a lot of recoil after the Spartan fired a round. Recoilless rifles normally eliminate or reduce recoil; this weapon, however, does not show that.—
- That's part of the gun's name so...why not?? Watched the video, its recoilless; the gun automatically opens a port so the user can reload it, its not discharging encasement shells.--Kells [Comm|Files] 23:20, 8 August 2012 (EDT)