Skimpy armors

Asasinka

Yes

This seems to be hottest discussion of the week
It's like stick into a hornet's nest.

Maverick827

No

Asasinka wrote: »

This seems to be hottest discussion of the week
It's like stick into a hornet's nest.

Well, what's "nice to have" for you is "game ruining" for a lot of us, so yes, it is a contentious topic.

Elvent

No

Why.....

Aeradon

Yes

Maverick827 wrote: »

Aeradon wrote: »

@Mortuum‌

The second one isn't terrible, though there's no reason why she'd have bare shoulders and arms. The top "boob window" armors are just ridiculous, however.

Top pictures: It's a key hole. An opening that near your neck, necks are what people aim for, you would protect it anyhow, and it's hardest to hit. If you do kendo you would know.

If you really want to be so logical, crafting armours for females wouldn't have the boob shape; it should simply look like any male armours. The scarcity of ores would also make armour available to those important, that said, female warriors would wear what is prepared for men. Should there be any female warriors, that is. The types of armour would also reduce to round, and layers, in order to divert the course of incoming weapons when it hits.

Bottom: I had never seen the need for covering arms with a thin piece of tin foil. It restricts movement and any optimum weight would require it to be near useless. If cuts and scrapes is what one is worried about, get off the battlefield.

Shoulders is reasonable. However, given her physique, a tough blow that a shoulder piece is meant to protect against would've shattered her collar bone, even if the shoulder piece is in place.

For females, it has always been movement>armour. They may survive the cut, but they won't survive the blow.

The picture depicts a mix of leather and layers of thin sheet, this is meant to be under a set of heavy armour, should she wish to suit up.

xevien

No

I am 100% sure there was a dev interview clearly stating there will be no skimpy clothing in eso. Unless that has changed, which I doubt very much.

Asasinka

Yes

Consider it fifty fifty
those 16 missing in Yes didn't understand a word "Skimpy"

demendred

No

Call me old fashion, no.

TicToc

Yes

I'm not interested in something that looks like a bikini, but they do need armor that shows more skin. Some of the wood elf stuff is decent, but they need more.

Seriously. What is the point of having all the body modifications during character creation if you never get see them? It seems that some people jump from prudish to soft core *** as if there is nothing in between. Grey areas, people. You can have armor that is tasteful but still shows more skin.

It doesn't matter that skimpier armor would not be as effective in a fight. It is about style, not functionality...though skimpier armor would offer more flexibility. Plus trudging around a swamp in full body armor will likely cause heat stroke.

I think we can all agree that realism is thrown out the window for fun and playability in MMO's. In reality, I am pretty sure that you wouldn't be able to carry around 100 pieces of plate armor in a back pack, especially since we don't even have backpacks. The "it's not realistic" argument just doesn't fly.

Lunerdog

Magical spells cracking off all over the place, monsters waltzing about, undead being undead and just plain nasty in general, familiars, clanfears, twilights, deadric princes, vampires, werewolves, portals to mystical planes, Molag the Mc'nasty being a pest and a toothless prophet to boot.

And some people think skimpy armour is unrealistic ???

Play the game the way you want to guys, and let others do the same, stop being so selfish as to think your way is the only way things sould be.

Kreager

Yes

This sums it up for me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSiiJ8uvc60

Maverick827

No

Lunerdog wrote: »

Magical spells cracking off all over the place, monsters waltzing about, undead being undead and just plain nasty in general, familiars, clanfears, twilights, deadric princes, vampires, werewolves, portals to mystical planes, Molag the Mc'nasty being a pest and a toothless prophet to boot.

And some people think skimpy armour is unrealistic ???

Play the game the way you want to guys, and let others do the same, stop being so selfish as to think your way is the only way things sould be.

If you don't understand that a fantasy world needs to obey its own established rules, then you have no business posting in this topic.

Vlaxitov

Yes

This thread is pure win. You will have 1001 neckbeards needlessly practicing their chivalry skills even though it can't make a difference.

Lunerdog

Maverick827 wrote: »

Lunerdog wrote: »

Magical spells cracking off all over the place, monsters waltzing about, undead being undead and just plain nasty in general, familiars, clanfears, twilights, deadric princes, vampires, werewolves, portals to mystical planes, Molag the Mc'nasty being a pest and a toothless prophet to boot.

And some people think skimpy armour is unrealistic ???

Play the game the way you want to guys, and let others do the same, stop being so selfish as to think your way is the only way things sould be.

If you don't understand that a fantasy world needs to obey its own established rules, then you have no business posting in this topic.

Seems like you don't understand the word "fantasy".

Eivar

No

Lunerdog wrote: »

Maverick827 wrote: »

Lunerdog wrote: »

Magical spells cracking off all over the place, monsters waltzing about, undead being undead and just plain nasty in general, familiars, clanfears, twilights, deadric princes, vampires, werewolves, portals to mystical planes, Molag the Mc'nasty being a pest and a toothless prophet to boot.

And some people think skimpy armour is unrealistic ???

Play the game the way you want to guys, and let others do the same, stop being so selfish as to think your way is the only way things sould be.

If you don't understand that a fantasy world needs to obey its own established rules, then you have no business posting in this topic.

Seems like you don't understand the word "fantasy".

seems like you don't understand the context. we're talking tolkein-esque fantasy realms, not that fantasy you have of mila kunis sitting in your lap.

Lunerdog

Eivar wrote: »

Lunerdog wrote: »

Maverick827 wrote: »

Lunerdog wrote: »

Magical spells cracking off all over the place, monsters waltzing about, undead being undead and just plain nasty in general, familiars, clanfears, twilights, deadric princes, vampires, werewolves, portals to mystical planes, Molag the Mc'nasty being a pest and a toothless prophet to boot.

And some people think skimpy armour is unrealistic ???

Play the game the way you want to guys, and let others do the same, stop being so selfish as to think your way is the only way things sould be.

If you don't understand that a fantasy world needs to obey its own established rules, then you have no business posting in this topic.

Seems like you don't understand the word "fantasy".

seems like you don't understand the context. we're talking tolkein-esque fantasy realms, not that fantasy you have of mila kunis sitting in your lap.

You see, people just have to nasty don't they ?

Falmer

Yes

Voted 'yes' but it really should be more 'depends'. I don't need chainmail bikinis or anything like that. Full plate armor that full covers everything in steel is perfectly fine by me as well.

However, mage robes.... Yes, please a little bit more variety please. Some of which can be skimpy too. Why is it that light armor mage robes, which SHOULD have the highest variety of looks because you don't have to have metal plates everywhere, all happen to have the least variety.

Light armor is little more than clothing and yet, many games give us the standard bath robe as the only option.

Kreager

Yes

Lunerdog wrote: »

You see, people just have to nasty don't they ?

Seems to be standing room only under the bridge today lol

Lunerdog

Kreager wrote: »

Lunerdog wrote: »

You see, people just have to nasty don't they ?

Seems to be standing room only under the bridge today lol

Agreed

Adramelach

Yes

As for the "realism" argument, it's ridiculous.

Here's the non-lore-breaking, obvious solution:

We already can craft rings and necklaces that enhance armor. Clearly, the simple and clear reason skimpy armor protects the same as non-skimpy is *magic*. The skimpy armor simply comes with automatic, built-in armor enhancement that stacks with any "normal" enchantment you'd like to put on it.

Problem solved, realism argument finished.

Bhakura

Yes

The best comment so far was the one stating that a character like heman or Conan are portrayed with bare chests and arms to show their power as a hero. It is however not considered sexist. A female doing the same thing, and its considered sexist, forget power and successful hero, its sexist.

Dunno what discrimination means but this comes an awful lot close to it. If its sexist for one gender so should it be to the other and not to show power and heroism, or, do females lack the potential of heroism, or god forbid physical prowess?

Again, because i see alot of replies skimpy means lingerie, sexslave type of deal, this is NOT what i had in mind. And quite frankly, all that stuff i find rediculous myself, like those shown in video in first page of this thread, thats NOT what i want.
Im not asking to show *** or just enuf cloth to cover a *** and thats it, no, im asking for armors that, like the Heman character, or Conan character to be heroic while showing some skin.
Yes yes, armor is ment to protect ones body, this is fantasy, you have fireballs and lightning bolts and damage shields and what not, is that realistic then?
To go even further, a hero that wears an armor that has these obvious weak points, thats just screaming, please plunge dagger here, makes her or him even look more badass because he isnt afraid at all of getting hit there. Her or his skill is so advanced theres no way you gonna plunge a dagger there.
Theres absolutely no reason why you cant trash stuff in style and HAVE to be covered from top to bottom in metal. Makes you look like a footsoldier and not a hero.

Sakiri

Yes

Maverick827 wrote: »

Sakiri wrote: »

That doesnt justify putting women in burkas or dressing is like Mennonites.

This is an absurd exaggeration. Wearing full armor in a combat is not "wearing a burka." Please, just stop this nonsense argument.

Might as well be. Have you seen high level redguard robes? I suggest you take a good look.

Sakiri

Yes

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

I'm wondering why no one is demanding skimpy outfits for the men.

Seriously, if you want to look at scantily-clad women, there are websites for that. This is a game where women may not (horror of horrors) prioritize fulfilling some deluded male fantasy over looking badass.

I like skimpy outfits on the men too. Ive not once said otherwise.

Sakiri

Yes

Aeradon wrote: »

Maverick827 wrote: »

Aeradon wrote: »

@Mortuum‌

The second one isn't terrible, though there's no reason why she'd have bare shoulders and arms. The top "boob window" armors are just ridiculous, however.

Top pictures: It's a key hole. An opening that near your neck, necks are what people aim for, you would protect it anyhow, and it's hardest to hit. If you do kendo you would know.

If you really want to be so logical, crafting armours for females wouldn't have the boob shape; it should simply look like any male armours. The scarcity of ores would also make armour available to those important, that said, female warriors would wear what is prepared for men. Should there be any female warriors, that is. The types of armour would also reduce to round, and layers, in order to divert the course of incoming weapons when it hits.

Bottom: I had never seen the need for covering arms with a thin piece of tin foil. It restricts movement and any optimum weight would require it to be near useless. If cuts and scrapes is what one is worried about, get off the battlefield.

Shoulders is reasonable. However, given her physique, a tough blow that a shoulder piece is meant to protect against would've shattered her collar bone, even if the shoulder piece is in place.

For females, it has always been movement>armour. They may survive the cut, but they won't survive the blow.

The picture depicts a mix of leather and layers of thin sheet, this is meant to be under a set of heavy armour, should she wish to suit up.

I think most of the "realistic" folks have never actually seen a suit of armor worn or made irl.

Ive seen both. Ive worn it. None of the plate you see in these games would be feasible to move in.

Eivar

No

Lunerdog wrote: »

Eivar wrote: »

Lunerdog wrote: »

Maverick827 wrote: »

Lunerdog wrote: »

Magical spells cracking off all over the place, monsters waltzing about, undead being undead and just plain nasty in general, familiars, clanfears, twilights, deadric princes, vampires, werewolves, portals to mystical planes, Molag the Mc'nasty being a pest and a toothless prophet to boot.

And some people think skimpy armour is unrealistic ???

Play the game the way you want to guys, and let others do the same, stop being so selfish as to think your way is the only way things sould be.

If you don't understand that a fantasy world needs to obey its own established rules, then you have no business posting in this topic.

Seems like you don't understand the word "fantasy".

seems like you don't understand the context. we're talking tolkein-esque fantasy realms, not that fantasy you have of mila kunis sitting in your lap.

You see, people just have to nasty don't they ?

I gave you a LOL for that, funny. Somehow YOU saying someone OBVIOUSLY doesn't understand something isn't nasty, but ME saying YOU don't is just obviously being a troll...lol the circles people go through to feel like they are right is hilarious.

Oh no wait maybe it's because my example talked about tolkein? hmmm or the idea of a beautiful celebrity sitting in your lap? i was highlighting the differences in context in a way most people on the internet would undertand XD

Eorea

No

I'd have voted yes if the implication was not meant only for females. All armor should be equally skimpy on males and females. I want my manflesh in adhesive *** pasties, too.

Asasinka

Yes

For all of you, fighters
If I was developer, I'd implement it that way you can switch it in options on/off so everyone will enjoy it in a way he/she likes.

Worstluck

No

No. If you want to prance around in some ridiculous armor go play Skyrim.

There is already skimpy armor for Males btw. Check out the Sygian set.

Aeradon

Yes

Sakiri wrote: »

Aeradon wrote: »

Maverick827 wrote: »

Aeradon wrote: »

@Mortuum‌

The second one isn't terrible, though there's no reason why she'd have bare shoulders and arms. The top "boob window" armors are just ridiculous, however.

Top pictures: It's a key hole. An opening that near your neck, necks are what people aim for, you would protect it anyhow, and it's hardest to hit. If you do kendo you would know.

If you really want to be so logical, crafting armours for females wouldn't have the boob shape; it should simply look like any male armours. The scarcity of ores would also make armour available to those important, that said, female warriors would wear what is prepared for men. Should there be any female warriors, that is. The types of armour would also reduce to round, and layers, in order to divert the course of incoming weapons when it hits.

Bottom: I had never seen the need for covering arms with a thin piece of tin foil. It restricts movement and any optimum weight would require it to be near useless. If cuts and scrapes is what one is worried about, get off the battlefield.

Shoulders is reasonable. However, given her physique, a tough blow that a shoulder piece is meant to protect against would've shattered her collar bone, even if the shoulder piece is in place.

For females, it has always been movement>armour. They may survive the cut, but they won't survive the blow.

The picture depicts a mix of leather and layers of thin sheet, this is meant to be under a set of heavy armour, should she wish to suit up.

I think most of the "realistic" folks have never actually seen a suit of armor worn or made irl.

Ive seen both. Ive worn it. None of the plate you see in these games would be feasible to move in.

I don't know where they got the idea where every warrior on the field wears full plate.

Most armours are only worn on horses, taken off at first pierce. How do you even move with so much weight without a horse? Logic tells me armour is crumblesome and completely not feasible in sword fights, until the age of bullets.

Maverick827

No

Adramelach wrote: »

As for the "realism" argument, it's ridiculous.

Here's the non-lore-breaking, obvious solution:

We already can craft rings and necklaces that enhance armor. Clearly, the simple and clear reason skimpy armor protects the same as non-skimpy is *magic*. The skimpy armor simply comes with automatic, built-in armor enhancement that stacks with any "normal" enchantment you'd like to put on it.

Problem solved, realism argument finished.

No, problem not solved. Read the damn thread, your argument is invalid.

Sakiri wrote: »

Maverick827 wrote: »

Sakiri wrote: »

That doesnt justify putting women in burkas or dressing is like Mennonites.

This is an absurd exaggeration. Wearing full armor in a combat is not "wearing a burka." Please, just stop this nonsense argument.

Might as well be. Have you seen high level redguard robes? I suggest you take a good look.

No, it might not as well be. It's a ridiculous argument, and it's borderline reportable comment in and of itself.

Eivar

No

Maverick827 wrote: »

Sakiri wrote: »

That doesnt justify putting women in burkas or dressing is like Mennonites.

This is an absurd exaggeration. Wearing full armor in a combat is not "wearing a burka." Please, just stop this nonsense argument.

Might as well be. Have you seen high level redguard robes? I suggest you take a good look. No, it might not as well be. It's a ridiculous argument, and it's borderline reportable comment in and of itself.

while i agree the argument is ridiculous, i don't see how that could be considered in any way reportable. They took a race in game, based it loosely on middle eastern themes, and have a clothing style that reflects that, is it a burkha? no not even close, but ignorance of that isn't reportable.