Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 4644724" data-attributes="member: 54707">By the way, as a humorous side note I wouldn't be anywhere near close enough to hit a dragon with a sword. His neck and tail would double, triple, or quadruple my reach. Easily. If the dragon knew anything at all about real killing I'd be dead before I ever got that close. No, I'd kill him the right way. From a safe distance.Assuming you guys are talking to me that's why I said this,and this,I'm saying all things being equal, with combatants of basically equal potential, but variables being such as "this guy is stronger, or this guy is faster" then skill is what really counts in killing.You see, and I think the game (a lot of games) gives a sort of false impression of what killing is really like - killing is a whole different ball game than fighting. Fighting requires certain kinds of skills, a certain kind of outlook, it puts certain kinds of pressures and requirements on the combatants, killing is a whole nuther beastie. A blood red one.I've seen a lot of strong guys, pumped up double badd looking guys who aren't good killers. Couldn't kill their way out of a wet paper bag. I've seen fast guys who aren't good killers too. You become good at killing by knowing where to put your bullet, or your blade, at the right spot where it will do the most amount of damage in the worst (or best, depending on how you want to phrase it) possible way.[Sidenote: And that is one funny thing about the game. The real problem with analyzing in-game combat demands and tactics with real combat demands and tactics. In-game combat is mostly about killing (that's the stated and often real objective), but as PP pointed out in an excellent blog post about related matters, the game approaches combat like it is really about fighting (fighting technique). So in-game technique and in-game objective are at odds with what the real situation is in combat, and even with each other. Because real combat is not about fighting technique, it is about killing technique. And strength is not a killing technique, it is a possible killing tool, but only a possible one, and only one possible one of many.]Yes, strength affects killing, possibly, but it doesn't make you a good killer, it just potentially makes you a better one if you are well trained at killing.It is important, but by itself it doesn't make you a good killer and it doesn't make you good at hitting anything. Anything at all. Or good at hitting things effectively and efficiently, where you do the most effective and efficient amount of damage possible.Yes, if all things were equal I'd rather have the strong and fast and good fighter at my side, for close quarters combat anyways.But if it is a choice between the strong man or the guy who is good at killing, and it's a fight to the death, I'd much rather have the guy who knows how to kill. Because he knows exactly what he is doing, and how to get it done. It's not a fight to see who drops first for him, it's a fight in which he intends to do the dropping, and first, and fast, and thoroughly.Now like I said strength has its place (everything does to some degree or another), and it's not an either/or situation, but strength doesn't necessarily make you good at killing. Or even at fighting.Practice does.</blockquote>

Verification