If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at stararmy@gmail.com or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
Any weapon that only affects one atom (as in it only operates on one atom, them moves to another) at a time won't have any affect noticeable by the human senses.
There really is no basis for something like that other than 'I saw it on star trek'
Because lasers don't affect atoms at their level? Disruptors break their bonds connecting them to other atoms, thus turning them into particles of the object's substance, rather than just burning the affected area into ash.
Photons transfer energy into the atoms, causing them to break their bonds connecting them to other atoms thus turning them into particles of the objects substance in a very explosive manner.
That is not exactly the same, then. Disruptors are designed to affect atoms in a non-explosive manner, just exciting the atoms to break their connecting bonds.
Does it have to be renamed? I mean sure it's name isn't exactly perfectly describing how it functions, but then again many objects both real and fictitious have had names that don't perfectly describe function.
A laser means that it is implied what the weapon fires, how it operates, and how the tech behind it works. This in turn means other players can use/interact with the submission well.
If you want to be specific then if it is a 'disruptor' then the article lacks an explanation of how the device works, what medium of energy it fires, ect. A much more detailed article would need to be written.
That's not a requirement of a tech submission. He explained how it works in a basic user-friendly way. Unless a tech reviewer says otherwise he doesn't have to specify the wavelength that the weapon operates on or all of that technobabble you seem to think others are required to include in their submissions.
Also...it is quite descriptive. It disrupts the bonds between molecules, hence disruptor. That's pretty descriptive of its effect.
Fay: I've looked it over (nope, not a tech reviewer) and I think it's fine. Neat submission. There is one thing however. New weapon submissions are required to have artwork. You'll probably only need art for the personal version.
But what does a disruptor do? There is one line describing that in the submission and it dosen't explain what the devices fires (a particle stream, radiation, a bullet of some sort) much less how it interacts with a target. Loss of structural stability can mean anything from a slight weakening of something to completely falling apart, to disintegrating, to exploding. The result is that with this level of description people who use the submission won't use it in a way that is uniform.
Also, proper explanation of a submission is actually a requirement of a tech submission.
Thanks, Yoroko. I will look into getting some artwork for this submission. (Nope, not an artist myself. )
Uso, the wikipage does say what the device fires: an energy wave. It disintegrates, or structurally destabilizes the target if the weapons power is diminished somehow (put that in there because of the weird DR system where point defense systems have the same punch as a rocket), as it also says in the wiki. Regardless, very few people will ever use this tech, I'm sure. This is just a means to an end for now.
Uso. Shut up, and get out of this thread. You are not being useful or helpful in any way, and causing drama over the name of something. This article is perfectly fine as it is, describes exactly what it does, and is named as its creator sees fit.
I personally recommend this article for approval, and also motion to have Uso locked out of the thread.