Official Discussion Thread for "Ready for War: Orc and Redguard Armor"

fiftypercentgrey

I love the armor! And I love that they got rid of the boob window!
Orc armor should look heavy and functional and it should protect above all else!

Kromus

I don't understand logic where light armor shoulders look bigger and more robust then heavy version, same goes for medium. Massive orc in heavy armor wearing tiny triangle on shoulders don't look good. Veteran Imperial heavy shoulders should be reference for all in terms of size for heavy shoulders.

ElfFromSpace

I HATE THESE CHANGES!!! Please do not do this, it's awful.

ElfFromSpace

Rev Rielle wrote: »

Maverick827 wrote: »

Just make new motifs and have two versions. Redguard Motif I, Redguard Motif II. This will open things up in the future for you to make alternate Daedric armors or something.

Detector wrote: »

Need 2 rare motifs (new+old) for each race. Don't destroy old style.

Yes on the PTS that idea was given voice too. It really seems to be the option that makes the most sense: They take nothing away, and only add more variety. It's honestly a win-win.

Ideally what I would ask the art department to do now, is continue with all the racial mofit armours and 'polish' a second motif for each one.

Please! Having 2 versions of the outfits would add to the variety and flexibility! You already have options to craft a long robe or a short robe for light armor, so surely you can make something like this possible without too much extra coding.

Rial

ElfFromSpace wrote: »

I HATE THESE CHANGES!!! Please do not do this, it's awful.

The same goes for the male version, just in case whoever reads this is getting weird ideas.

newtinmpls

I notice that you picked the dunmer belt. Good choice, I do like that one. I also noted that the new gloves are less attractive.

bellanca6561n

What is the purpose of this thread? Do you seek praise? You'll get some. Will you do anything differently if you don't get praise. No. You won't.

There was no outcry to change these. Daedric, yes. Did you change Daedric? No, you chose Orc and Redguard, and told us it was better when you did.

A Live Team's first job is to attend to customer feedback. Problem is that you're still acting like a development team whose game has yet to go live.

So many things related to armor appearance were in line way ahead of this.

Sorry.

Greeniewolfub17_ESO

Izze wrote: »

A

Also, I know it's been said a thousand times, but thank you thank you thank you for removing the boob window. Anyone who's fighting for it: Why do you want it so bad??

Because we are not misogynistic jerks that want every woman to be hidden from view. Because at least ONE heavy armor should actually represent the styles of several real life armors that had a chest designed to actually accommodate female anatomy.
Because this armor change is simply an attempt to pander to the patriarchal cultures that think all women should be covered head to foot lest they lead some man into "temptation" or some other bit of rubbish.

newtinmpls

Izze wrote: »

A

Also, I know it's been said a thousand times, but thank you thank you thank you for removing the boob window. Anyone who's fighting for it: Why do you want it so bad??

The timing and setup makes it look like Zeni is taking things that consumers like from the game for no apparent reason, deleting them and then will offer similar things for "purchase" in the crown store. Thats a crappy way to treat customers.

ItsGlaive

These are all significant improvements, and have made one of the most unattractive armor styles in game imo (Orc armor) a good contender. All looks much more crisp, better textures and details, very good improvement!

My question is, are the other styles going to get the same love in the coming weeks and months?

Maverick827

Xabien wrote: »

My question is, are the other styles going to get the same love in the coming weeks and months?

That depends on which theory of why they made this change you believe in:

Puritanical: No, there are no more armor sets that show any sort of skin for them to cover up.

Financial: Yes, there's nothing stopping them from making existing armors bad just to re-sell them back to us in the store.

Incompetence: Yes, obviously.

MissChiefx

I recently changed one of my Footman pieces out for the Sabatons, which are Orc style, and now I feel like a Clydesdale.

subbssb14_ESO

Lord_Draevan wrote: »

Well clearly they can forge metal, just look at their other weapons :P
As the Spaniards vs the Aztecs showed us, stone vs metal armor/weapons =metals wins, always.
Plus... paddle. It's a paddle.

No it's not a paddle, a paddle you would hit on the flat side and swing like a baseball bat. For the argonian greatsword, think of it as a chainsaw without gas, or a bread knife, its used to cut by tearing a surface apart with it's teeth as you do a draw cut or push cut. Similar weapons were used in history, although much smaller, because most weapons in ES games are much larger proportions than their real counterparts.

FlyAnkle wrote: »

Please, change the vizor of the Breton hevy helm...the black texture on this vizor there can be see the part of characters face and eyes...its just terrible, its really not a good work...and its spoils such a nice armor.

This style helmet DID have character's faces visible through the eye slit when the game first came out, but there were bugs with certain races with certain body shapes that would clip through the helmet, and instead of fixing the bug properly, they just blanked out the helmets so the head becomes the same model no matter who wears it. The same is true for the Bound Armor spell that applies a version of Deadric armor, it might be true for the real Deadric armor as well I haven't checked.

DobbaDeuce

Redguard Medium and Light design from Heroes Guide to Tamriel. I just love the light armor chest and robe style. A real shame the new one looks nothing like this.

Rosveen

Maverick827 wrote: »

Xabien wrote: »

My question is, are the other styles going to get the same love in the coming weeks and months?

That depends on which theory of why they made this change you believe in:

Puritanical: No, there are no more armor sets that show any sort of skin for them to cover up.

Of course there are. Low level Bosmer and Argonian desperately need some "love" from the dev team.

yodased

Greeniewolfub17_ESO wrote: »

Izze wrote: »

A

Also, I know it's been said a thousand times, but thank you thank you thank you for removing the boob window. Anyone who's fighting for it: Why do you want it so bad??

Because we are not misogynistic jerks that want every woman to be hidden from view. Because at least ONE heavy armor should actually represent the styles of several real life armors that had a chest designed to actually accommodate female anatomy.
Because this armor change is simply an attempt to pander to the patriarchal cultures that think all women should be covered head to foot lest they lead some man into "temptation" or some other bit of rubbish.

What? So having your stomach exposed to sharp pointy things is preferred cause its pretty? Armor is supposed to protect you not give people large targets of squishy skin.

You literally are giving archers a bullseye target in your frikin chest lol.

Your own personal issues aside t hhh is is for function not fashion. Jumping on the oppressive bandwagon real quick here.

Brother_Numsie

Can you please just change it back, offer these "improvements" as another crafting option.

And change back the Red Rook and Seadrake disguises, really hate the new look, or again offer these as another option to what you already have in game (hey look, a cash shop, put the new ones in there). Stop trying to improve things that didn't need or asked to be improved.

kelly.medleyb14_ESO

Love these changes, lookin good.

Greeniewolfub17_ESO

yodased wrote: »

Greeniewolfub17_ESO wrote: »

Izze wrote: »

A

Also, I know it's been said a thousand times, but thank you thank you thank you for removing the boob window. Anyone who's fighting for it: Why do you want it so bad??

Because we are not misogynistic jerks that want every woman to be hidden from view. Because at least ONE heavy armor should actually represent the styles of several real life armors that had a chest designed to actually accommodate female anatomy.
Because this armor change is simply an attempt to pander to the patriarchal cultures that think all women should be covered head to foot lest they lead some man into "temptation" or some other bit of rubbish.

What? So having your stomach exposed to sharp pointy things is preferred cause its pretty? Armor is supposed to protect you not give people large targets of squishy skin.

You literally are giving archers a bullseye target in your frikin chest lol.

Your own personal issues aside t hhh is is for function not fashion. Jumping on the oppressive bandwagon real quick here.

And yet, people that actually study armors disagree with you. Cloth armor is pretty much worthless. It doesn't really slow anything down, let alone block anything, except sometimes weakly fired arrows. Several real life armors made for women actually left parts of the chest open to account for the changes that occur in female anatomy over time. So your "function" arguments just plain do not hold sway.

yodased

Greeniewolfub17_ESO wrote: »

yodased wrote: »

Greeniewolfub17_ESO wrote: »

Izze wrote: »

A

Also, I know it's been said a thousand times, but thank you thank you thank you for removing the boob window. Anyone who's fighting for it: Why do you want it so bad??

Because we are not misogynistic jerks that want every woman to be hidden from view. Because at least ONE heavy armor should actually represent the styles of several real life armors that had a chest designed to actually accommodate female anatomy.
Because this armor change is simply an attempt to pander to the patriarchal cultures that think all women should be covered head to foot lest they lead some man into "temptation" or some other bit of rubbish.

What? So having your stomach exposed to sharp pointy things is preferred cause its pretty? Armor is supposed to protect you not give people large targets of squishy skin.

You literally are giving archers a bullseye target in your frikin chest lol.

Your own personal issues aside t hhh is is for function not fashion. Jumping on the oppressive bandwagon real quick here.

And yet, people that actually study armors disagree with you. Cloth armor is pretty much worthless. It doesn't really slow anything down, let alone block anything, except sometimes weakly fired arrows. Several real life armors made for women actually left parts of the chest open to account for the changes that occur in female anatomy over time. So your "function" arguments just plain do not hold sway.

lol what?

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm#women_b

2. Women of earlier times never fought in battle or wore armor.—Wrong.
There are several references to women participating in armed conflict from most periods of history. While some evidence is available for noble ladies-turned-military commanders, such as Countess Jeanne de Penthièvre (1319–1384), there are only scattered references to women from lower levels of society taking up arms. Nevertheless, some are recorded as having fought in armor, although no contemporary illustrations showing any of them actually wearing armor appear to have survived. Joan of Arc (ca. 1412–1431), probably the most famous example of a female warrior, is reputed to have had a suit of armor commissioned for her by the French king Charles VII. Yet, only one small illustration of her, undoubtedly drawn during her lifetime, has come down to us, showing her with a sword and banner but not dressed in armor. The fact that contemporaries apparently perceived women leading an army, or even wearing armor, as something worth recording at least in writing indicates that such a sight must have been an exception rather than the rule.

http://io9.com/what-kind-of-armor-did-medieval-women-really-wear-1502779338

There are certain tropes that come up time and time again when medieval authors describe women in armor. Medieval historians note that women in armor were the exception rather than the rule, and the awe-struck language of the people who wrote about them seems to back that up: Armored women are described almost universally as Amazons, often as Penthesilea incarnate. But another concept that comes up again and again is that these women are masculine in their armor. It's not surprising, given that weaponry and armor and later, knighthood were considered the almost exclusive sphere of men.

Now if you are saying you want to be able to wear skimpy clothing just to wear it then thats fine, but don't call it armor. These are ARMORS they have created, not costumes.

I'm sure a costume will be added to the crown shop that you will be happy with.

oh and http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/05/boob-plate-armor-would-kill-you
http://kotaku.com/5868925/the-problem-with-womens-armor-according-to-a-man-who-makes-armor

Djeriko

On the subject of the Redguard style, has anyone else noticed that they did a concept art of redguard shields at max level I assume but we are not able to craft it? You can see the concept picture of it in their media page with all the weapons as well as notice the shield on Merric from the fighters guild story line. It seems odd that he would get such a great looking shield and we get a tiny shield in comparison. But anyways, three changes I want with my heavy Redguard armor:

1) Get rid of that piece of metal in between the eye slit on the helm. It looks tacky in between the eyes of the character in my opinion.

2) Bring back the heavy armor boots look on the toes. Also just looks better with the heavy boots. (you left orc boots alone..)

And finally 3) Fix the color of the dyes on the cloth portions of the heavy armor.

Love to see the armor is still evolving. The finer details are much appreciated.

WraithAzraiel

charley222 wrote: »

all my character are orc and every mmo i play i`m using orc
and dont feel anything orc on this armor , pepole who are not agree np just google, image, you will see very quick is very not the same style , i will dont use 1 item of orc armor or weapon , maybe a mix of barbaric and bosmer and primal

The orcs from the Elder Scrolls Universe are technically Elves. They are not the same as orcs from ANY other fantasy mythos. They're not all animal skin wearing savages or overtly shamanistic. They love metalworking and practically worship war.

Greeniewolfub17_ESO

yodased wrote: »

Greeniewolfub17_ESO wrote: »

yodased wrote: »

Greeniewolfub17_ESO wrote: »

Izze wrote: »

A

Also, I know it's been said a thousand times, but thank you thank you thank you for removing the boob window. Anyone who's fighting for it: Why do you want it so bad??

Because we are not misogynistic jerks that want every woman to be hidden from view. Because at least ONE heavy armor should actually represent the styles of several real life armors that had a chest designed to actually accommodate female anatomy.
Because this armor change is simply an attempt to pander to the patriarchal cultures that think all women should be covered head to foot lest they lead some man into "temptation" or some other bit of rubbish.

What? So having your stomach exposed to sharp pointy things is preferred cause its pretty? Armor is supposed to protect you not give people large targets of squishy skin.

You literally are giving archers a bullseye target in your frikin chest lol.

Your own personal issues aside t hhh is is for function not fashion. Jumping on the oppressive bandwagon real quick here.

And yet, people that actually study armors disagree with you. Cloth armor is pretty much worthless. It doesn't really slow anything down, let alone block anything, except sometimes weakly fired arrows. Several real life armors made for women actually left parts of the chest open to account for the changes that occur in female anatomy over time. So your "function" arguments just plain do not hold sway.

lol what?

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm#women_b

2. Women of earlier times never fought in battle or wore armor.—Wrong.
There are several references to women participating in armed conflict from most periods of history. While some evidence is available for noble ladies-turned-military commanders, such as Countess Jeanne de Penthièvre (1319–1384), there are only scattered references to women from lower levels of society taking up arms. Nevertheless, some are recorded as having fought in armor, although no contemporary illustrations showing any of them actually wearing armor appear to have survived. Joan of Arc (ca. 1412–1431), probably the most famous example of a female warrior, is reputed to have had a suit of armor commissioned for her by the French king Charles VII. Yet, only one small illustration of her, undoubtedly drawn during her lifetime, has come down to us, showing her with a sword and banner but not dressed in armor. The fact that contemporaries apparently perceived women leading an army, or even wearing armor, as something worth recording at least in writing indicates that such a sight must have been an exception rather than the rule.

http://io9.com/what-kind-of-armor-did-medieval-women-really-wear-1502779338

There are certain tropes that come up time and time again when medieval authors describe women in armor. Medieval historians note that women in armor were the exception rather than the rule, and the awe-struck language of the people who wrote about them seems to back that up: Armored women are described almost universally as Amazons, often as Penthesilea incarnate. But another concept that comes up again and again is that these women are masculine in their armor. It's not surprising, given that weaponry and armor and later, knighthood were considered the almost exclusive sphere of men.

Now if you are saying you want to be able to wear skimpy clothing just to wear it then thats fine, but don't call it armor. These are ARMORS they have created, not costumes.

I'm sure a costume will be added to the crown shop that you will be happy with.

oh and http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/05/boob-plate-armor-would-kill-you
http://kotaku.com/5868925/the-problem-with-womens-armor-according-to-a-man-who-makes-armor

Are you just trying to troll or are you just that incredibly unintelligent to have ZERO comprehension of anything at all in this threat?

Instead of quoting *** poor sites that have almost nothing to back them up, actually look at actual existing armors that are in museums or at least look at actual scholarly articles written about them instead trying to pass off soddy work by some no-nothing simpletons. Otherwise go home.

SewerFairy

I really don't believe, that this discussion makes any sense. Especially zos will not be intrested in what we would like or not like.

The best way would have been, to give the old styles better textures and make them better dyeble. And adding the new armors as a completly new style. Than everybody could have been happy with it.
But they just want to replace the old styles.
Meanwhile I believe, they just want to anger us with this.

yodased

LOL You mean like the first link i posted from the friking metropolitan museum of art?

You are wrong. deal with it.

The point is here, THERE ARE NO 'FEMALE' ARMORS IN MUSEUMS. wow.

Dekkameron

Armour looks nice, but....

I think someone chickened out at the last moment on the Orsimer female light armour...

Audigy

I must admit that I don't like the changes done to the female armor, its a bit like at the game we don't speak of where they changed how our characters looked like, saying it was done to help us, while it killed the immersion and lore for many.

While I understood that 10 years old char models could see some update, they also offered us the old look by ticking a box. While I don't play like that, I felt it was fair - maybe something for ZO to offer as well.

In the end I believe that change was made due the console version, as a lot of younger people play on consoles and they might be offended by nudity. That said, consoles have games with completely nude characters so this move wasn't necessary. That said, the game might had lost its low Pegi rating then and an 18+ game might bring less money than a 16+.

Personally I want to see a huge amount of armor skins and if I play a Ranger type of character then she must be able to move and respond quickly and this will not be possible anymore (without immersion breaking).

While some might not, most probably picked the armor appropriate to the role of the char and you don't just paint an ice bear blue without killing him and the same might happen to some of the chars lore and role now.


Please give us more options how we can dress, especially in regards of shoulders (only 1 viable in the game right now for women), but also tops.

Rosveen

Audigy wrote: »

In the end I believe that change was made due the console version, as a lot of younger people play on consoles and they might be offended by nudity. That said, consoles have games with completely nude characters so this move wasn't necessary. That said, the game might had lost its low Pegi rating then and an 18+ game might bring less money than a 16+.

It already lost the rating. PEGI is changing from 16 to 18 with Tamriel Unlimited, ESRB has always been M.

cote-bmsb16_ESO

My redguard medium armor still looks like *** on my female templar. I'm playing as a Redguard tryna represent, but damn.. It looks terrible. Is ZOS guna acknowledge the fact that a lot of people hate the changes? Can I go back to the old redguard style?

nyxnox

All of the armor in this game is ugly. The farther up the ranks you go, the worse it gets too. IMO low level Redguard and Orc armor were some of the better looking...and I really liked the mouth coverings for the Redguard (not so much the pointy head thing). The new Redguard light armor with the jerkin and pants look like 'feetie' pajamas.



One of the few disguises I happened to like was the Sea Drake disguise, and that is gone now. I'm pretty bummed about that. I like a lot of the lower lvl looks and wish I could carry them over onto vet characters. Maybe a system that allows you to 'level-up' existing looks by using more mats or specific improvement stones? Idk...I know that my post won't make a difference...but had to say what I felt too.

p.s. Please, for the love of Dibella, get rid of the awful hip flaps and butt flaps and let my Redguard show off a little skin.