Please stop using the "science-based" tag when you are constantly posting questions that are speculation and "reality-check". Science-based means you are requiring the answerer to show some very hard science for their reply, including referencing real life scientific theories and performing calculations using those. But when you are posting speculative questions, of technology that does not exist, or regarding phenomena that are very poorly understood — in this case: Ball Lightning — you are guaranteeing a non-answer by using that tag.

Also: I really do not have any idea what you are asking here. The tone of the post is even to me — as an XCOM player since the original games in 1995 — more or less fast paced, incomprehensible technobabble. "Funny" pictures, jargon and joviality do not make for good questions. If anything these things muddle questions and make them harder to answer. I recommend that you get boring and structure your question thus: Premise, Problem, Query.

Premise in this case would be: "In a future where mankind is entangled in a war with aliens, humans are researching new weapons and testing out some concepts. One of the concepts being tested is a gun shooting ball lightning. Ball lightning can be read about here. [Link and small quote about ball lightning]". Your problem seems to me to be: "I am not sure if this is a viable weapon concept or not". Your query is then "Are weapons shooting ball lightnings a viable concept for a weapon in my story? Or will I be stretching the willing suspension of disbelief of my readers too much?".

@MichaelK Note, that the only reason of including the ball lighting was the fact that scientists have already observed one and so, we know a bit more about them. Besides, the other two proposals are real enough for the military to have, as a problem with lasers and the other is built by someone and partially based on the plasma cutters.

I also recommend that you are not defensive and instead listen to advice by seasoned SE WB users. We are here to answer questions as a friendly service for the sake of sharing knowledge and experience, not to stroke egos or cater to temper tantrums from people who want it their way at any price. We are doing this on our free time, out of enthusiasm and charity, not because we have to. I cannot force you to improve your ways. But I can say — with near certainty — that you will not get your questions answered if you continue to favour style over substance, and stubbornness over cooperation.

@MichaelK The Physics of Impossibru's only reason of existence, is to attempt turning common sci-fi technology tropes to real (or at least closer to reality), thus providing a stable base for people to use up ideas from here, instead of having to search for one, that fits their needs. And we are happy to see problems with our concepts and address them, we (a person who pretends to be Schizophrenic) want to help as much people as possible.

I do not see that you — in that comment — are addressing the concerns I have told you about. Nor am I seeing you editing your question. As I said: I cannot force you to do anything. However, neither can you force anyone to answer your questions. If you want to have us answering your questions, you need to make us want to answer them. And right now, I quite frankly do not want to. This is because of the way you are favouring style over substance; favouring trying to be funny over trying to be comprehensible and clear, and being stubborn and set in your ways instead of being accommodating.

Also, a side note: Multiple Personality Disorder — or Dissociative Identity Disorder as it is formally called — has nothing to do with Schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is "a failure to understand what is real [and what is not]".

@MichaelK Oh, anyways, back to editing!

Hi.

@MichaelK Hi.

@MichaelK Is anyone there?

@RedactedRedacted There will be, when you have actually said something. "Hi" is not that.

@MichaelK Oh, ok, I guess.

@MichaelK Anyways, what's the biggest problem with the ball lightning concept?

The only reason, why I included ball lightning

@MichaelK I forgot to summon you.

@RedactedRedacted there is nothing wrong with ball lightning. The problem is that your entire posting is a jovially rambling mess, with two thirds of it covering things that are not even relevant to the actual question!

@RedactedRedacted Read my comments and take the advice there-in. Here they are again, is condensed form: 1) Cut the fluff. If it is not relevant to the question, cut it. 2) Don't try to be funny or jovial. If we want laughs we will go see a comedian. If we want comics, we will go to comics.com 3) Follow the structure: Premise, Problem, Query. And 4) when people give you advice on how to get answers to your questions: start taking notes.

@MichaelK Ok, I reordered the question.

@JDługosz Are you here?

I am now; I saw the notification from being mentioned.

I think that only worked because I had read the comments in this room recently; it doesn’t page arbitrary people.

@JDługosz I've made modifications to the question section, is it okay now?

@JDługosz Spirits near, I call to you, is anyone with me today?

@Secespitus Hi.

@Secespitus I can wait (looks at the time) damn it.

@RedactedRedacted First of all: Your question improved over the course of the day. But I think it did not improve enough, especially not in those fields that MichaelK mentioned. You are still trying too hard to be funny. Being funny can be a good thing, there are many great questions around here that are funny. But it's also hard. The "funny" parts are distracting. Very distracting. For example the picture. It doesn't add anything to the question and takes a lot of space and attention.

Personally I don't like questions with big pictures most of the time. They are distracting. Sometimes they are helpful, for example little Maps or sketches. But most of the time they can be removed without losing anything. The picture was one of the reasons I didn't read your questions originally.

@Secespitus Is it better now?

Personally: yes. A bit. The plasma rifle was distracting but not that bad. It shows what type of weapon you have in mind. Therefore some people might have liked it (though it's really big). The comic with the splattering eyes is a bigger problem in my opinion. Just use a few words to describe the way people would die.

Like you already have in "How would this kill?"

@Secespitus Better?

Yes

@Secespitus Anything else?

Secondly: Your explanation of ball lightning lacks ... well... an explanation. "it has reputation of sometimes not giving a fuck about obstacles and passing through them harmlessly, though, if it would make contact with a human the results would likely be... explosive." The first part it just your opinion and the second one seems likely, but do you have any sources for this? Also I am not familiar with the concept of a ball lightning: How is it created? How much energy do I need to create it?

How much energy do I need to maintain it?

@Secespitus A lightning is "enough". (at least according to my source)

Okay, that's helpful. Please edit your question accordingly to provide this informaiton to everyone reading your question.

Thirdly: I don't really get your part about the credits. There are no links to sources and like this it doesn't seem to add anything to the question. Generally you should try to keep your question as concise as possible. Tell everything people need to but not much more. "A question is not perfect when you can add nothing more, but when you can remove nothing more!" ;)

4: "As this question being a reality-check, if there are flaws in the concepts, that I didn't notice, please point them out to me." This is no question. I think you meant something like "I would like to know if this concept would be a possible way to create a plasma rifle with current day technology." Is this right? If so please remove this at this point as your "More specifically" is a good question.