{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by CliffyWeevil29:
7/14/2016 4:19:51 AM
5
[quote]1. If can only fire twice because the sun is used up after both shots.
[/quote]That's not true, it absorbs all of the output of the sun, not the star itself. After some time, the sun would be usable again.[quote]2. It can't move, it's a goddamn planet, not a spaceship.[/quote]It can move, not well, but it can move.[quote]3. Too. Damn. Vulnerable.[/quote]It would've been practically invincible if they didn't get into the exhaust manifold. Security was its downfall.[quote]4. I'm sure the cost of the thing was at least twice it costed to build the two Death Stars.[/quote]I'm sure it was a lot more than that, although if it was built out of a planet, the planet would likely contain many usable materials.[quote]5. Death Star was better in every way...except for that damn ventilation...[/quote] Couldn't Starkiller base destroy multiple planets at once, and weren't it's shields nearly impenetrable? I'd say it was better than the Death Star.
English
-
3. THE OSCILLATORS BRO!
-
DAMMIT MAN, I'M A DOCTOR NOT AN ENGINEER!
-
You forget that the only reason the Republic breached it at all was Han MF'n Solo.
-
Actually, the star dies, hence the name.
-
1. It's called Starkiller base to pay homage to the original name of the Skywalker family. In early versions of the scripts, Luke was named Luke Starkiller. 2. If it were to completely absorb the star, it would likely collapse into a black hole. It seems far more likely that it would absorb most of the stars output as that would give enough energy while not turning the planet into a black while. [spoiler]Both the Death Star and Starkiller Base are pretty bad for destroying planets. You could throw a large asteroid that would kill everything while leaving resources intact and taking far less energy.[/spoiler]
