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.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.
ElfFromSpace wrote: »I HATE THESE CHANGES!!! Please do not do this, it's awful.
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.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??
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??
That depends on which theory of why they made this change you believe in:My question is, are the other styles going to get the same love in the coming weeks and months?
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.
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.
Of course there are. Low level Bosmer and Argonian desperately need some "love" from the dev team.Maverick827 wrote: »
Greeniewolfub17_ESO wrote: »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.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 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.
Greeniewolfub17_ESO wrote: »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.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 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.
Greeniewolfub17_ESO wrote: »Greeniewolfub17_ESO wrote: »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.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 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.
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.
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.
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
Greeniewolfub17_ESO wrote: »Greeniewolfub17_ESO wrote: »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.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 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_b2. 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-1502779338There 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
It already lost the rating. PEGI is changing from 16 to 18 with Tamriel Unlimited, ESRB has always been M.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+.