Round 1 of "What's the Story" Presented on the OS

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2005-08-13 02:27pm

The first of the Hyperspace users Databank entries has been published:

http://www.starwars.com/databank/update ... 50812.html

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2005-08-13 02:33pm

I must say that I prefer Noble Ire's MMFA before the "UT-AT" description.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2005-08-13 03:18pm

True that. Still, not bad for a fan-description. And I rather like the bridgelayer-variant, makes sense with the many walking/wheeled craft in SW.

The part about carrying artillery was also something I felt was missing from Noble Ire´s description. Still, I´m a bit on the fence which one was truly better. (Angry about no mention of use in the Imperial era, though

)

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2005-08-13 06:40pm

Wow, people remembered mine. Sweet.

As for the other entries, I thought that most worked out fairly well. No uber bounty hunters or secret Jedi masters.

Instant Sunrise · Post by **Instant Sunrise** » 2005-08-13 07:03pm

Nice to see that the Wars galaxy has some hopelessly incompetent idiots.

Just like the real world.

President Sharky · Post by **President Sharky** » 2005-08-13 08:35pm

I like the UT-AT description. The "Tank head" description's great too. Finally, a plain-old idiot bounty hunter.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2005-08-14 12:04am

President Sharky wrote:I like the UT-AT description. The "Tank head" description's great too. Finally, a plain-old idiot bounty hunter.

Wait...didn't we already have Greedo for that?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-08-14 12:06am

The more the better, to be honest.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-08-16 03:31pm

This entry was developed by Hyperspace members "The2ndquest" and "The Dark Moose". For more information on how you can develop entries, click here.

Yeah, there's no way this is chosen random. My ass.

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2005-08-16 03:43pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
This entry was developed by Hyperspace members "The2ndquest" and "The Dark Moose". For more information on how you can develop entries, click here.
Yeah, there's no way this is chosen random. My ass.

Actually, the finalists aren't chosen at random. Apparently, that was just a "typo."

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-08-16 03:45pm

Well I mean it was hardly a contest; Hidalgo is just tossing favors to his favorite fanboys and lickspittles.

President Sharky · Post by **President Sharky** » 2005-08-16 04:55pm

Or maybe what they wrote was more interesting than everything else

Its just one entry, chill out man. Don't start up all the conspiracy theories.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2005-08-16 05:33pm

It would be nice to know the versions, that didn't make it.

For comparison and for entertainment.

However in case of a name like UT-AT, i tend to agree with IP.

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2005-08-16 07:11pm

There's no way Moose was behind that, save for perhaps the crappy name. The mere fact that he's mentioned screams favoritism in ten foot letters.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2005-08-17 09:39am

I thought a lot of the ideas in the new "UT-AT" entry were decent, but they dropped the ball on the artillery part. I never liked the official name of "artillery transport" to begin with, thinking that it was a lame attempt to pussify an obvious MBT (from appearance) into a mere piece of mobile artillery with no close-range combat ability.

However, this fan-written entry poorly handles this forced-on name, just saying that the rear part of this vehicle is empty to provide cargo space for artillery.

What the hell is the point of designing a combat vehicle with enormous cargo space for artillery, rather than just making a smaller combat vehicle and using mobile artillery? If some crap is forced on you, you should at least try to deal with it in a somewhat cool way. Instead, the fanboy writers all but ignored the artillery role, making the crappy name of the vehicle completely pointless.

I also didn't like the 20 clonetroopers that were tacked on. God, for once can we just get a damn tank, instead of yet another heavily-armed APC?

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2005-08-17 10:54am

Yeah, I´m getting sick and tired of every other armored unit being an IFV on the side (AT-ATs, AT-TEs, the Juggernauts, this thing etc.) Thing is, I just don´t think this is an issue worth getting riled up about (the article in general, I mean).

Admiral Drason · Post by **Admiral Drason** » 2005-08-17 12:42pm

So did it explain what UT-AT stands for any way or am I just haveing one of those bad days and its going over my head?

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2005-08-17 12:44pm

Unstable Terrain Artillery Transport

Admiral Drason · Post by **Admiral Drason** » 2005-08-17 12:52pm

VT-16 wrote:Unstable Terrain Artillery Transport

That just sounds stupid. It seems like they could have done a lot better job with the nameing system.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-08-17 02:29pm

"Universal Terrain Auxillary Transport"

Wow, I came up with a better acronym in one minute.

EDIT:
Right, explanation.

"Universal Terrain" sounds a lot better than "Unstable Terrain". (And makes more sense.)

"Auxillary Transport" because they're typically reserved for transport of reinforcements to already-fortified positions.