So cliché, but...
UMADBRO?? You know ALL CAPS RAGE doesn't make me more inclined to agree with you, right?
You know, I realized I included both realism and in- game values standpoints in my arguments and I seem to have messed them up. Let me clarify.
Realism standpoint: (if the Count and Thyra fought with real life logic)
I'm not talking about the present. Of course present day soldiers will destroy medieval knights. You've missed my point entirely. What I meant to say was that the future hasn't been invented yet and unless you're from the year 3000, can confirm laser blasters are being manufactured and the AK-3000 is the terrorist weapon of choice, we have absolutely no idea what the heck is going to happen in the next millennia or so.
Of course lasers exist. But they don't exist in gun form, as you said, like they do in SL. Hence, we don't know how effective lasers would be in gun form, or if it would even be possible. So it is a possibility that a laser gun
would be as effective as a butter knife. That's what I meant. That's if you're looking at a realism standpoint.
In- game standpoint: (if Thyra and the Count fought in- game)
If you're looking at values in-game, they led me to believe that the Count could indeed trump Thyra eg: higher damage from weapons in PL, less effective armour in SL, led me to believe that the Count has a fighting chance against Thyra. I'm looking at the in- game values to help determine my conclusion in this instance, to help logically find out what would happen if Thyra and the Count fought. Seeing as armour in SL is weaker and weapons in PL deal more damage, I found the Count would win in a straight up fight. Substance > flashy skills.
I think I was going with in- game value logic until I rebutted Cahaun's argument about armour. Then that's where I brought a realism standpoint into this.
I've got a pretty eccentric way of thinking of things sometimes, you'll just have to excuse that
Bookmarks