Follow TV Tropes

Following

Archived Discussion Main / CoolButInefficient

Go To

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.


Fallingwater: removed the following: "Also blasters have a relatively slow rate of fire — Jedi couldn't hope to deflect bullets of a mashine-gun or so.". Several games have shown Jedi to be perfectly able to deflect bolts from high-speed repeating blasters.


BT The P: Both the Trek and Wars landing bays have doors, the forcefield has the advantage of allowing ships to pass, but not air, so landing and launching can be conducted without decompressing the bay. (How this is done is a mystery). I've seen other 'versi use a layer of self-supporting nano-motile or organic fluid, like the alien mothership in Irresponsible Captain Tylor.

Space Ace: I've seen the spacedoors in Star Trek, but not in Star Wars. Perhaps they are there in Star Wars, but are just left open all the time, which doesn't exactly detract from the silliness of things.

Echo Hotel : The only reason Darth Vader didn't keep on chopping through everyone after taking out Obiwan in the "A new Hope" 'you know the first one ' was because of the closing airlock doors when the gang was making their getaway. That still doesn't excuse the lack of guard rails around pits...

jjmcgaffey: Rays do have one advantage over bullets in spaceships - a miss is relatively less likely to puncture anything important (the nav computer, the hull...). Fry, maybe, but not puncture.

Space Ace: Frankly, I've always found the hull-puncture thing to be a rather silly device. Most of the ships in fiction are capable of surviving space combat. Why should any ship that can take massive amounts of damage be susceptible to damage from ordinary firearms, even if they're fired inside? Nevermind that even real life spaceships are designed to survive micrometeorite impacts.


Seth: As for the Firefly example wouldn't that be part of Joss Whedon's never ending quest to cover every single trope on this website? :p Got to love the guy.
[Alexandra Erin, in re the hologram window:] The fact that someone can be thrown through the hologram without breaking it provides a possible explanation.

Paul A: Er, no. Still doesn't explain why the bar didn't just go with an empty window frame — you can still throw people through it without breaking anything, it's just as good at keeping the weather out as a permeable hologram, and it's presumably much less expensive...

Ununnilium: Does it make it look like there's a window there? Does it, perhaps, not let things with relatively low momentum, like raindrops, through, but lets big, heavy things, like flying bodies through? I say put it back in.

Space Ace: Well, that's probably what's going on. But even then it's still strange, to say the least. In a world that seems as desolate as Firefly, I would think bartenders have better priorities than using expensive, fancy force-windows. And given that Firefly is supposed to be at least somewhat realistic, I don't see where forcefields come in. Because those, well, aren't.

Tabby: That was the bit that set my teeth on edge, and why I specified that it was a "run-down" bar. Everything in your establishment is falling apart, and you spend your money on literal window dressing? My instant reaction to seeing that bit for the first time is what is known among my friends as The First Sign that they were never going to turn me into a Browncoat.

Space Ace: If it's any consolidation, that's about the only time it happens in the series. Unless you count visible laser-beams, the one time such weapons are used. Serenity sadly has more of these moments (I'm still wondering who built Mr. Universe's base, for instance).

Tabby: I know. Seen every episode and Serenity, many of them twice. This is why it's only known as The First Sign. ;)

Kizor: Who wants to tell her?

FrozenWolf150: From the Harry Potter entry:

* There's also some debate about how useful spells are against long-range missiles and other "non-personal" technology, but alas, since magic is never thrown against technology in-series, they will never come to any appreciable conclusion.
** Rowling has explicitly stated in an interview that the reason for the Masquerade is more or less that a muggle with a shotgun will beat a wizard with a wand almost every time.
Which interview would this be? I'd be interested in making it a citation in the page, or at least reading it for myself.


INH: I pulled the D20 Modern example. It was getting kind of Nattery, and some of the things stated were just plain wrong (for one, firing into a melee only has a penalty if an ally is involved).


Brickman: Pulled the following, which I'm instead going to add to Self-Imposed Challenge:

  • Mega Man 9 has an item called "The Book of Hairstyles" that can be bought for the ever-so-low price of 20 screws. This item removes Mega Man's helmet, revealing his hair. But wait. Without his helmet, Mega Man takes MORE damage, and if he loses even ONE life, his helmet comes back, thus requiring the item to be bought...AGAIN. If you're looking to obtain the achievement for beating all 8 bosses without your helmet, expect your screw expenses to overflow.


al103: Removed Honorverse example. It's based on escape from havenite prison camp as only one case where i can remember "drive off stealth". And it was pure luck (if not count Heaven cadre situation) that undertrained havenite crews use only gravitics - more competent navy would shot Honor ships on spot. We have Word of God on that. And i remember nongravitics sensors in books.


I rember one Trek novel which handwaved the lack of disintegration phasers by saying that there were less fatal shots when the body had to stay around...


Tunod: I hate to be a wet blanket and all, but if Awesome, but Impractical is "the video game version of this trope", why does this trope page have a video game section? More importantly, how are the two different overall other than ABI being 'the video game version'?

—- The part under real life about the ME-262 being delayed because of Hitler wanting a bomber version is a myth. The real reason for the delay was the abysmal quality control and lack of the appropriate materials for the engines. IIRC the engines had a designed flying life of only 10 hours! this is compared to the British jet engines of similar vintage which had a flying life of 100 hours. I am a bit of WW 2 buff but didn't want to add too much crud to the article so thought I would put it here.

Top