It’s ‘SABR’. What you saw as a ‘4’ (and what I saw as an ‘L/’, so it wasn’t just you) is actually a stylized ‘S’ that’s just over twice the size of the other letters.
Hmm…since she opted to deflect that attack, I’ll assume for now it did have some chance of damaging the SABR suit. This likely means that 100 of those guys would indeed beat one SABR
In an open field, 100 on 1? I bloody well hope so, or the military are being depicted as COMPLETE idiots (not to mention the ridiculous tech jump that would be).
The reason the military would (IRL) be happy to spend 100 times as much for something 10 times as good is that 2 10-times-as-good guys will reliably annihilate a group of 5-10 “normals” (the other suit, in this example) with no losses (near-zero statistical losses), and in modern warfare, that sort of situation is a lot more often the case. (Or a “both sides scaled up” version of that – 20 on 50-100 for instance.)
So, over the course of multiple engagements, the 10-times-as-good-for-100-times-price model SHOULD develop (and usually does) an incredibly lop-sided kill count, often in excess of the price differential (and certainly a HUGE body count differential, which also has value beyond money).
The military would be happy to spend 100 times as much for something just TWICE as good – but only on a couple pieces. They need to maintain presence over a large area, so some cheaper-to-purchase-and-maintain option is still crucial.
BTW: “normals”, heh 🙂 – it’s like WH40k where the baseline infantry unit is an upscaled Captain America in Iron Man’s Hulkbuster suit 🙂
Okay, I know what her name is supposed to be but from now on, to me, she is ‘4abr’.
I went with LABR. Rise up, proletariat!
Good one! And so likely to have happened, in an alternate reality – just cover/scratch part of the label, and there’s the origin
It’s ‘SABR’. What you saw as a ‘4’ (and what I saw as an ‘L/’, so it wasn’t just you) is actually a stylized ‘S’ that’s just over twice the size of the other letters.
It’s a good thing she wasn’t called SSABR because that would be unfortunate.
I get it!
http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/mp/x-KhtGNAfKQx.jpg
Hmm…since she opted to deflect that attack, I’ll assume for now it did have some chance of damaging the SABR suit. This likely means that 100 of those guys would indeed beat one SABR
In an open field, 100 on 1? I bloody well hope so, or the military are being depicted as COMPLETE idiots (not to mention the ridiculous tech jump that would be).
The reason the military would (IRL) be happy to spend 100 times as much for something 10 times as good is that 2 10-times-as-good guys will reliably annihilate a group of 5-10 “normals” (the other suit, in this example) with no losses (near-zero statistical losses), and in modern warfare, that sort of situation is a lot more often the case. (Or a “both sides scaled up” version of that – 20 on 50-100 for instance.)
So, over the course of multiple engagements, the 10-times-as-good-for-100-times-price model SHOULD develop (and usually does) an incredibly lop-sided kill count, often in excess of the price differential (and certainly a HUGE body count differential, which also has value beyond money).
The military would be happy to spend 100 times as much for something just TWICE as good – but only on a couple pieces. They need to maintain presence over a large area, so some cheaper-to-purchase-and-maintain option is still crucial.
BTW: “normals”, heh 🙂 – it’s like WH40k where the baseline infantry unit is an upscaled Captain America in Iron Man’s Hulkbuster suit 🙂
This is starting to feel like a tech demo. Maybe the suit is trying to sell itself?
This is also a wonderfully crafted splash page.
Someone just opened up a can o whup ass.
okay that’s your cue to stop hero-ing Miss Melee
this problem is kiiiiiind of unpunchable