{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Bizomin:
8/5/2015 12:32:31 AM
1
It would make us seen weaker ,for people that aren't able of rationalizing that to beat someone you need to be stronger.
Actually means we aren't well equipped enough ,and the opposite of weaker ,bc if you can kill someone that's means you're stronger then him ,so your logic is really messed
English
-
You don't actually have to be stronger to beat someone. But if we aware judging by strength, Master Chief would win.
-
Although you're right on not needing to be stronger to win, master chief still wouldnt stand a chance against guardians. Here's why. -Chief has inhuman reflexes? So do guardians, but they don't have organic muscles to slow them down, so they could even be faster. -Chief would get unfairly overpowered, in a close range match against all but hunters (who would need to rely on their speed more). -Chiefs normal weapons (BR, magnum, etc), and grenades would be no match for a guardians high tech weaponry, and light grenades (which also regenerate). Guardians > Spartans
