I do like that in the later seasons they started using more even standards, instead of testing one sword on a plank of wood and then another on a pig carcass.
the computer guy from season 3 was boring, and he was a ****ing fraud too. (seriously, guy claimed he was a green beret, and got caught for it after the show was over)
Best bit for me was when they obliterated a head with a Morning Star in the Pirate vs Knight episode, just complete carnage. I also find it funny when the 'experts' are outed but it's just fun to watch with all the weapon testing because it's interesting to see how effective they were.
The simulations are BS because the skill of the fighter should determine the battles, not the weapons. The weapons help but if the guy or gal can't shoot for s**t or wield a melee weapon right then the outcomes could be anything really.
Yeah, it was 3 Vampires against, 105-150 zombies or so. Vamps won with one guy left. It was glorious.
And I agree Shadow, but they can't really go into detail about how good each individual fighter is in group sims, although they could potentially say, Blackbeard v (other famous warrior) and base it off weapons and fighting ability.
Don't take too much salt on the idea that skill does 'most of the work'. Hardly.
The equipment kills and saves your life. You just have to competent enough to wield it.
They assume a base skill for all the warriors, e.g. they are able to use their equipment the way they are supposed to.
And from there, the equipment is what will be the deciding factor by far.
Take a knight and samurai--pre-gunpowder, of equal experience, and there's little chance of the latter winning due to the former's equipment advantage, for example.
But it's something they completely ignore entirely. If skill is impossible to quantify then they shouldn't be doing fight comparisons. Without the fighters the weapons are inert objects.
Take the gun testing sequences for example, fired by 'supposed' experts. One guy might shoot the target, make mistakes and based on those mistakes the weapon is judged badly. Yet take another expert shooter who is a better shot than the previous then the weapon would be judged better. They're not accounting for skill, they are just taking the result they get on the day, on a safe gun range no less.
Same for melee, well even more so for melee because with that you have to take into account the fighting style that they use with the melee weapon in the first place and match that up to the one it's fighting against. They don't do that at all, they analyse weapon material, cutting/bludgeoning damage etc. This is as if the opponent is just going to be standing there and that may be the case with the stationary ballistic gel dummies and pigs they use, but not with an enemy combatant.
As for your Knight vs Samurai opinion not necessarily... the knight was useless after falling on his back with the armour on against the pirate and if the samurai managed to get in close and trip the knight, visor up, sword in face. Now, that's what I mean, they don't quantify fighting styles or the possibilty of a moving, dodging target or cheap tricks or... I could go on.
Last edited by Lord Shadow Z on May 5th, 2012 at 09:00 PM
KMC Community Forums
Sep 30th, 2010 08:41 PM
