Factors that influence the outcome of a fight, in rank order.

[Snusmumriken]

I'm saying I was using extremes to formulate my list. Therefore, that's the reason the list is structured the way it is.

I was also trying to illustrate the point that speed was not the god-tier ability in a person's build that everyone portrays it as. The flash is the most OP super hero in the DC universe, and any super hero universe for that matter. That does not mean everyone who is a little bit fast is like the flash in their world, and there are implications within the laws of physics that renders the building up of speed as ridiculous.

Choose one or the other. you are either looking at what gives the biggest reward from the smallest improvement or you are looking at the extreme differences.

If it is first - My argument still stands and a slight improvement (or decrease) in reach would scale much better than the equivalent in armour quality.

If it is the latter then nuke wins - armour just melts. with good enough offence you don't care what they wear. this argument is absolutely useless as well because you can always come up with something that if you look at it sideways on Wednesday during rain it would trump the previous statement.

Heck, even your arrow vs plate - you assume I need to penetrate the armour to kill. A lot of deaths while in armour were caused by blunt force trauma. Quite often into shins in order to - drop down the knight and then kill him via blows to the head or precise strikes in the gaps in the armour. A lot of knights were killed by underdressed rabble with Lucerne hammers. Wedge a spike into him before he is close enough to swing at you and pull him down.

Also, I ranked them according to the judging by extremes criteria.

You see none of this had been disclosed in the 1st post and in the title. you have not outlined your ranking criteria at all. You just stated that these are the ranks without any details that you later started to disclose to me over the conversation. And I have no intention of playing catch up again and again with rules expanding after each argument.

 

[Discount_Blade]

Choose one or the other. you are either looking at what gives the biggest reward from the smallest improvement or you are looking at the extreme differences.

If it is first - My argument still stands and a slight improvement (or decrease) in reach would scale much better than the equivalent in armour quality.

If it is the latter then nuke wins - armour just melts. with good enough offence you don't care what they wear. this argument is absolutely useless as well because you can always come up with something that if you look at it sideways on Wednesday during rain it would trump the previous statement.

Heck, even your arrow vs plate - you assume I need to penetrate the armour to kill. A lot of deaths while in armour were caused by blunt force trauma. Quite often into shins in order to - drop down the knight and then kill him via blows to the head or precise strikes in the gaps in the armour. A lot of knights were killed by underdressed rabble with Lucerne hammers. Wedge a spike into him before he is close enough to swing at you and pull him down.

You see none of this had been disclosed in the 1st post and in the title. you have not outlined your ranking criteria at all. You just stated that these are the ranks without any details that you later started to disclose to me over the conversation. And I have no intention of playing catch up again and again with rules expanding after each argument.

I was under the impression that he ranked the criteria based upon his own experienced opinion since he claimed to do this sort of fighting as a hobby...job...or something. I know I've seen these kinds of fights and I've even been to watch some of the tournaments in North Carolina and in New York so I know there are groups or (guilds?) who do this regularly.

Anyway, as I was saying, I assumed the whole ranking of importance in the very first post was based on his personal opinions from however many years of experience. To me, it would be like asking a doctor for an educated guess on the diagnosis of a patient that is sick. No one else in the room, even the doctor, knows what exactly is causing the patient's illness, but out of everyone present, the doctor is going to be the only person who is likely to get it right, or at least the most likely, even though the percentage isn't 100. In this scenario, Jemini is filling in the position of the doctor.

Or maybe I'm thinking (and reading) this whole bloated-ass debate incorrectly.

 

[Snusmumriken]

I was under the impression that he ranked the criteria based upon his own experienced opinion since he claimed to do this sort of fighting as a hobby...job...or something. I know I've seen these kinds of fights and I've even been to watch some of the tournaments in North Carolina and in New York so I know there are groups or (guilds?) who do this regularly.

Anyway, as I was saying, I assumed the whole ranking of importance in the very first post was based on his personal opinions from however many years of experience. To me, it would be like asking a doctor for an educated guess on the diagnosis of a patient that is sick. No one else in the room, even the doctor, knows what exactly is causing the patient's illness, but out of everyone present, the doctor is going to be the only person who is likely to get it right, or at least the most likely, even though the percentage isn't 100. In this scenario, Jemini is filling in the position of the doctor.

Or maybe I'm thinking (and reading) this whole bloated-ass debate incorrectly.

I initially assumed as much since why I suggested the ranking was favouring specifically duel\tournament battles.

 

[Jemini]

Ultimately, I think this whole back-and-forth is just based on a miscommunication, and we are both just still sore over what happened during that exchange.

If you look back at the starting circumstances, it is totally ridiculous that it came to this and also totally ridiculous that we are still going even after the whole "take a breather" moment we had.

We keep analyzing the fight and asking each other to justify things that were said when, most likely, the real answer is just that neither one of us were at our best. All that really does is just continue the fight under a thin veneer of more civil discussion.

 

[Snusmumriken]

Yes, there is no point in arguing in circles. You made your points and opinions, I made mine. Interested readers can read both and choose whichever is the most applicable for their specific story.