Maintenance for the week of November 25:
• [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
Better looking armor?
-
Arcanasx✭✭✭✭✭MercyKilling wrote: »Imagine if she showed some cleavage and some midriff wearing that...people need to understand that there is a fundamental difference between certain "clothing apparel" and "armor". Its like making a tank that's less armored in the front than everywhere else, or castle wall finished with "an intentional opening".
And what is the equally silly notion that just because an armor shows some skin, it cannot protect equally well or perhaps even better thanks to magical enchantments?
Look, this wont provide as much protection compared to being fully armored. It should be common sense. So what if you can enchant skimpy armor to provide more protection? You could do the same for armor that fully covers you as well!
And on the flip-side, you could enchant a tongue piercing and wear nothing but that into battle. Sure would create some distraction and confusion within the enemy ranks.
I'm sure it would; there are only two options for battle apparel...the protection choice, or the very, very distracting choice, especially with all the bits bouncing around!0 -
MercyKilling✭✭✭✭✭the very, very distracting choice, especially with all the bits bouncing around!
Red Sonja says it best right here:
I am not spending a single penny on the game until changes are made to the game that I want to see.
1) Remove having to be in a guild to sell items to other players at a kiosk.
2) Cosmetic modding for armor and clothing.
3) Difficulty slider.
4) Fully customizable player housing that isn't tied to anything in the game other than having the correct resources and enough gold to build. Don't tie it to PvP, guild membership, or anything at all. Oh, make it instanced so as not to take up world map space, too. Zeni screwed this one up already.
Any /one/ of these things implemented would get me spending again, maybe even subbing.3 -
Arcanasx✭✭✭✭✭
\MercyKilling wrote: »Look, this wont provide as much protection compared to being fully armored. It should be common sense. So what if you can enchant skimpy armor to provide more protection? You could do the same for armor that fully covers you as well!
So? You'd think common sense tells you that it's impossible to breathe fire, or throw out a chain to pull a foe to you, or summon a massive fireball directly from the sun to smash into the ground and damage JUST your enemies, and not the other people around you.
Common sense argument has no place in a fantasy setting. Yes, that skimpy armor you pictured IN A FANTASY SETTING can(and does) provide equivalent protection to armor that covers you head to toe. Why? Because.....
And while we're at it, might as well remove gravity, let us punch the keep walls to create a breach, make our skin immune to steel, and shoot lightning from our arse, because why not? It's a fantasy game, there's no such thing as plausibility and common sense in such a game.
To add to that, lets also have:
Lasers that argonians shoot from their eyes
Magical farts that burn the enemy
Natural walking on water
Cloth that provides more protection than plate
Heat-seeking arrows
Cruise missiles made from troll bones and nirn root
20th century battleships that are capable of flight
Why? Cuz magickz and fantasy land.
2 -
PKMN12✭✭✭✭✭
\MercyKilling wrote: »Look, this wont provide as much protection compared to being fully armored. It should be common sense. So what if you can enchant skimpy armor to provide more protection? You could do the same for armor that fully covers you as well!
So? You'd think common sense tells you that it's impossible to breathe fire, or throw out a chain to pull a foe to you, or summon a massive fireball directly from the sun to smash into the ground and damage JUST your enemies, and not the other people around you.
Common sense argument has no place in a fantasy setting. Yes, that skimpy armor you pictured IN A FANTASY SETTING can(and does) provide equivalent protection to armor that covers you head to toe. Why? Because.....
And while we're at it, might as well remove gravity, let us punch the keep walls to create a breach, make our skin immune to steel, and shoot lightning from our arse, because why not? It's a fantasy game, there's no such thing as plausibility and common sense in such a game.
To add to that, lets also have:
Lasers that argonians shoot from their eyes
Magical farts that burn the enemy
Natural walking on water
Cloth that provides more protection than plate
Heat-seeking arrows
Cruise missiles made from troll bones and nirn root
20th century battleships that are capable of flight
Why? Cuz magickz and fantasy land.
*looks at list*
*goes to Skyrim nexus*
funnily enough, pretty much all of these are possible in skyrim thanks to mods, lol
also,
Lasers could just be spells and the mage is having some fun with teh casting
same with mthe magical farts
you can easily cast a spell, find an enchantment, etc in other TES games to walk on water
i would think magical shields WOULD protect more then plate actually, considering, you know, magic and all
Heat-seeking arrows are already in tge game techincally
we have catapults, all we need is to shape them like missles using those materials and ta-da
well, there ARE Airships in lore, mostly by teh dwemer, but still......1 -
MercyKilling✭✭✭✭✭
To add to that, lets also have:
Lasers that argonians shoot from their eyes Simply change the origin point of flames to the eyes instead of hands.
Magical farts that burn the enemy See the above, but change the origin point to....the posterior.
Natural walking on water Levitation.
Cloth that provides more protection than plate Steel wool. Nuff said.
Heat-seeking arrows Completely plausible, by enchanting them with a life detection spell. Because undead corpses are cold.
Cruise missiles made from troll bones and nirn root Well, an enchanted catapult........
20th century battleships that are capable of flight
Why? Cuz magickz and fantasy land.
Are you quite finished with the straw man argument? I hope not, because you're funny when you're angry.
I am not spending a single penny on the game until changes are made to the game that I want to see.
1) Remove having to be in a guild to sell items to other players at a kiosk.
2) Cosmetic modding for armor and clothing.
3) Difficulty slider.
4) Fully customizable player housing that isn't tied to anything in the game other than having the correct resources and enough gold to build. Don't tie it to PvP, guild membership, or anything at all. Oh, make it instanced so as not to take up world map space, too. Zeni screwed this one up already.
Any /one/ of these things implemented would get me spending again, maybe even subbing.2 -
Arcanasx✭✭✭✭✭MercyKilling wrote: »
To add to that, lets also have:
Lasers that argonians shoot from their eyes Simply change the origin point of flames to the eyes instead of hands.
Magical farts that burn the enemy See the above, but change the origin point to....the posterior.
Natural walking on water Levitation.
Cloth that provides more protection than plate Steel wool. Nuff said.
Heat-seeking arrows Completely plausible, by enchanting them with a life detection spell. Because undead corpses are cold.
Cruise missiles made from troll bones and nirn root Well, an enchanted catapult........
20th century battleships that are capable of flight
Why? Cuz magickz and fantasy land.
Are you quite finished with the straw man argument? I hope not, because you're funny when you're angry.
Angry? no lol. I actually had some fun making that list, thanks. And btw, mods don't count towards the lore.
And you're doing somewhat of a strawman...lol, do you know what that means?
0 -
PKMN12✭✭✭✭✭MercyKilling wrote: »
To add to that, lets also have:
Lasers that argonians shoot from their eyes Simply change the origin point of flames to the eyes instead of hands.
Magical farts that burn the enemy See the above, but change the origin point to....the posterior.
Natural walking on water Levitation.
Cloth that provides more protection than plate Steel wool. Nuff said.
Heat-seeking arrows Completely plausible, by enchanting them with a life detection spell. Because undead corpses are cold.
Cruise missiles made from troll bones and nirn root Well, an enchanted catapult........
20th century battleships that are capable of flight
Why? Cuz magickz and fantasy land.
Are you quite finished with the straw man argument? I hope not, because you're funny when you're angry.
Angry? no lol. I actually had some fun making that list, thanks. And btw, mods don't count towards the lore.
And you're doing somewhat of a strawman...lol, do you know what that means?
no, we both just pointed out INGAME lore that actually proves all of your "points against this" are not only possible in TES, but can actively happen. Maybe next time, use an argument that is an actual argument.2 -
Arcanasx✭✭✭✭✭MercyKilling wrote: »
To add to that, lets also have:
Lasers that argonians shoot from their eyes Simply change the origin point of flames to the eyes instead of hands.
Magical farts that burn the enemy See the above, but change the origin point to....the posterior.
Natural walking on water Levitation.
Cloth that provides more protection than plate Steel wool. Nuff said.
Heat-seeking arrows Completely plausible, by enchanting them with a life detection spell. Because undead corpses are cold.
Cruise missiles made from troll bones and nirn root Well, an enchanted catapult........
20th century battleships that are capable of flight
Why? Cuz magickz and fantasy land.
Are you quite finished with the straw man argument? I hope not, because you're funny when you're angry.
Angry? no lol. I actually had some fun making that list, thanks. And btw, mods don't count towards the lore.
And you're doing somewhat of a strawman...lol, do you know what that means?
no, we both just pointed out INGAME lore that actually proves all of your "points against this" are not only possible in TES, but can actively happen. Maybe next time, use an argument that is an actual argument.
Find me in game lore that states people use their fists to punch down keep walls, people that can walk on water NATURALLY without magical alteration, cloth that provides more protection than plate by itself, people aren't actually constrained by gravity in anyway...etc
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
0 -
Mumnoch✭✭✭While I agree that Zenimax seriously needs to expand on female armor, and I also agree regardless of my personnel tastes if it's in the lore it's in the lore and needs to be included (all the way from skimpy to habits), and I also agree the few individual's who are spamming this thread with "arguments" don't care about the lore as long as females are subjugated to only their tastes I'd still like this to still be a civil discussion.
For you 3 who are spamming this thread over and over repeating the same thing...plenty of people have debunked your case's against improving female armor. If you can't come up with reasonable reason's why ESO's female armor shouldn't be improved, I'm going to start reporting you for trolling the thread with no other intent except to disrupt this discussion in a attempt to get it locked/deleted. Thanks.Edited by Mumnoch on April 28, 2015 4:47AM2 -
TheShadowScout✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Don't make me quote myself...TheShadowScout wrote: »Citing "fantasy" is no reason to throw realism out of the window and introduce bladeproof nudity. The setting within itself has to make sense within the constraints of its logic, and wearing something tough to keep the metal pointy ends of the things in your enemies hands away from the red stuff in your veins is logical in most backgrounds.
There. See what you made me do?
It annoys me a little that it always comes back to people saying "because magic" to justify skimpy armor having the same protection as full coverage armor.
EVEN if that was the case, and magic skimpy armor provided the same protection as nonmagic full plate, wouldn't it mean magic full coverage armor had more protection still? And all armor being equally enchantable and usually enchanted, that would mean... back where we started, skimpy armor has less protection then full coverage armor.
Epic heroes in movies and TV shows who are protected by the power of plot like Conan or Xena can get away with is due to their "it says so in the script" success ad dodging. How many unnamed characters in concn movies try the same... and what happens to them?
And again... I am ALL for improving female armor. As long as "improving" doesn't translate into "removing half of its skin coverage factor". I like having options! I even have some characters who would wear skimpy armor, because it fits the character idea. I just don't want to see people in chainmail bikinis enjoying the same armor protection as people in full plate. Form and function, function and form.0 -
MercyKilling✭✭✭✭✭TheShadowScout wrote: »Don't make me quote myself...
Citing "fantasy" is no reason to throw realism out of the window and introduce bladeproof nudity. The setting within itself has to make sense within the constraints of its logic, and wearing something tough to keep the metal pointy ends of the things in your enemies hands away from the red stuff in your veins is logical in most backgrounds.
Okay, but it's still irrelevant to the issue at hand. Or did you not see the dozens of posts in two threads about this subject where we (proponents of armor mods in general) say we're not asking for skimpy armor, but we're not going to exclude it "just because it's skimpy"?TheShadowScout wrote: »There. See what you made me do?
It annoys me a little that it always comes back to people saying "because magic" to justify skimpy armor having the same protection as full coverage armor.
EVEN if that was the case, and magic skimpy armor provided the same protection as nonmagic full plate, wouldn't it mean magic full coverage armor had more protection still? And all armor being equally enchantable and usually enchanted, that would mean... back where we started, skimpy armor has less protection then full coverage armor.
Granted, and perhaps the only valid argument I've seen. But again, nobody is asking for it, but we're not going to exclude it. It's inclusion is simply "why not?" for me. If I don't download a skimpy armor mod, I'll never see it. Therefore, I have no reason to WANT to exclude it. Just like everyone else who is against it.TheShadowScout wrote: »Epic heroes in movies and TV shows who are protected by the power of plot like Conan or Xena can get away with is due to their "it says so in the script" success ad dodging. How many unnamed characters in concn movies try the same... and what happens to them?
I've been a rabid epic fantasy fan for decades. I've read all the E. R. Burroughs books on both Tarzan and John Carter. Ditto all the Robert E. Howard fantasy books on Conan and Brak Man Morn. Solomon Kane and Kull of Atlantis. Red Sonja.
All these characters wore little to no armor...and weren't protected by the "power of plot". That's just ridiculous. REFLEXES.
I'm gonna quote DIRECTLY from the story "The Phoenix on the Sword" as proof.
With his back to the wall he faced the closing ring for a flashing
instant, then leaped into the thick of them. He was no defensive
fighter; even in the teeth of overwhelming odds he always carried the
war to the enemy. Any other man would have already died there, and
Conan himself did not hope to survive, but he did ferociously wish to
inflict as much damage as he could before he fell. His barbaric soul
was ablaze, and the chants of old heroes were singing in his ears.
As he sprang from the wall his ax dropped an outlaw with a severed
shoulder, and the terrible backhand return crushed the skull of
another. Swords whined venomously about him, but death passed him by
breathless margins. The Cimmerian moved in, a blur of blinding speed.
He was like a tiger among baboons as he leaped, side-stepped and spun,
offering an ever-moving target, while his ax wove a shining wheel of
death about him.
I could pull from each story the parts describing combat in great detail about how these heroes, BEREFT OF ARMOR, or even wearing next to nothing simply evade blows. Skimpy armor provides equivalent protection by dint of reduced weight and greater mobility.
After all, hitting a suit of plate mail with a weapon dents the armor....and thus the flesh underneath. It's why maces were feared by knights, and most great swords were little more than metal clubs themselves. We seem to agree for the most part on all this.TheShadowScout wrote: »And again... I am ALL for improving female armor. As long as "improving" doesn't translate into "removing half of its skin coverage factor". I like having options! I even have some characters who would wear skimpy armor, because it fits the character idea. I just don't want to see people in chainmail bikinis enjoying the same armor protection as people in full plate. Form and function, function and form.
And as long as you don't download any skimpy armor mods, you'll never see anybody wearing any skimpy armor. It really is as simple as that. But to exclude them just because YOU don't like them or want to see them........well, I don't want the thread to get locked or myself moderated for expressing the truth of the matter. We're supposed to discuss the subject, not the poster. Suffice to say "because I don't like it" isn't a valid reason.
Edit:
It's already been proven to be in the lore of the game, so "it isn't in lore" is false.
It's already been proven to be personal in nature, and not a client side modification, so "I don't want to see it" or "it offends me" isn't valid for the exclusion. There are bold sexual innuendos as character names. Blatant ripoffs of copyrighted characters from other media. Male Orcs and Nords running around in wedding dresses. These things offend me, but I'm not on some crusade to exclude them...because I realize it's futile to try and change them. You just don't realize it's futile. Yet.
"Because skimpy armor doesn't provide enough/equivalent protection"is also patently false, because while you may be sick of hearing it...it doesn't make it any less true that magic can be used to strengthen fabric, or even provide invisible shielding that outright prevents blows from landing or absorbs the damage done. Or regenerates health....or steals it from the enemy. There's dozens of ways to make less covering armor equivalent....that is only limited by imagination. If you exercise that imagination. If you don't...then of course you cannot accept it.
Edited by MercyKilling on April 28, 2015 7:34AMI am not spending a single penny on the game until changes are made to the game that I want to see.
1) Remove having to be in a guild to sell items to other players at a kiosk.
2) Cosmetic modding for armor and clothing.
3) Difficulty slider.
4) Fully customizable player housing that isn't tied to anything in the game other than having the correct resources and enough gold to build. Don't tie it to PvP, guild membership, or anything at all. Oh, make it instanced so as not to take up world map space, too. Zeni screwed this one up already.
Any /one/ of these things implemented would get me spending again, maybe even subbing.2 -
TheShadowScout✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
I am not saying "exclude skimpy armor". I am saying "skimpy shouldn't get the same protection as non-skimpy"MercyKilling wrote: »Okay, but it's still irrelevant to the issue at hand. Or did you not see the dozens of posts in two threads about this subject where we (proponents of armor mods in general) say we're not asking for skimpy armor, but we're not going to exclude it "just because it's skimpy"?
If they added a alternate "half-mail" version for each armor piece that happens to be on the skimpy side but also gives a good deal lower protection (say, only 65-75%) then the "full mail" version... I'd rejoice, since that's -exactly- what I would be happy with!
...and those reflexes are what I meant with plot-scripted perfect dodges. Though I seem to recall Conan wearing chain or scalemail most of the time (except when he had lost his armor again) I have to grant you Kull and Sonja though, or Tarzan, though latter wasn't that much for jumping into swordfights, I expect his choice of attire was more influenced by what he had at hand then anything else...MercyKilling wrote: »I've been a rabid epic fantasy fan for decades. I've read all the E. R. Burroughs books on both Tarzan and John Carter. Ditto all the Robert E. Howard fantasy books on Conan and Brak Man Morn. Solomon Kane and Kull of Atlantis. Red Sonja.
All these characters wore little to no armor...and weren't protected by the "power of plot". That's just ridiculous. REFLEXES.
-snip-
I could pull from each story the parts describing combat in great detail about how these heroes, BEREFT OF ARMOR, or even wearing next to nothing simply evade blows. Skimpy armor provides equivalent protection by dint of reduced weight and greater mobility.
But while heroes in stories cannot miss that vital dodge through power of plot, it doesn't work quite that well in places where no plot is in effect. Like, say, history. Which is why for the most part of history, the "naked barbarians" found it rather difficult to win against armored opponents unless they had some great advantage of numbers or surprise, yes? Just ask the celts how it worked out for them. You may notice they didn't leave all that much records on the naked-with-woad-markings fighting prowess of their warroirs, mostly due to the "cowardly hiding behind large shields and armor" roman empire legions somehow getting the better of them...
That stated...
I -would- enjoy it if our characters had an integral "dodge" chance, that is reduced by armor. Say, base 25%, -1% for each piece of light armor, -2% for medium, and -3% for each piece of heavy armor? With the medium armor "evade" adding to this chance instead of providing a dodge chance?
That would give me this feel of "reflexes"...
Please, don't try to tell me what I like or not like.MercyKilling wrote: »And as long as you don't download any skimpy armor mods, you'll never see anybody wearing any skimpy armor. It really is as simple as that. But to exclude them just because YOU don't like them or want to see them........well, I don't want the thread to get locked or myself moderated for expressing the truth of the matter. We're supposed to discuss the subject, not the poster. Suffice to say "because I don't like it" isn't a valid reason.
Once more, the only thing here I don't like is form and function not matching up. Is a few strips of leather providing the same protection as a full leather breastplate.
I am not trying to exclude anything... I am just saying, make the effect fit the looks.
Once that is out of the way... I'm all for more armor & clothing options. All of the options.
Skimpy armor is in the lore. Magical force field armor... not so much. Even the "fortify armor" ehnchantments of prior TES games didn't grant magical protection, they added to the skill (which improved protection, I expect by the warrior knowing how to move to take strikes to curved areas of their armor). So... magical protection to unarmored areas of skin isn't in the lore.MercyKilling wrote: »It's already been proven to be in the lore of the game, so "it isn't in lore" is false.
I am not easily offended. By none of the above. And I actually would like to see more armor options, including the skimpy ones...MercyKilling wrote: »It's already been proven to be personal in nature, and not a client side modification, so "I don't want to see it" or "it offends me" isn't valid for the exclusion. There are bold sexual innuendos as character names. Blatant ripoffs of copyrighted characters from other media. Male Orcs and Nords running around in wedding dresses. These things offend me, but I'm not on some crusade to exclude them...because I realize it's futile to try and change them. You just don't realize it's futile. Yet.
...As Long As They Do Not Provide The Same Protection As Full Coverage Armor
Again... magic is one thing, coverage another.MercyKilling wrote: »"Because skimpy armor doesn't provide enough/equivalent protection"is also patently false, because while you may be sick of hearing it...it doesn't make it any less true that magic can be used to strengthen fabric, or even provide invisible shielding that outright prevents blows from landing or absorbs the damage done. Or regenerates health....or steals it from the enemy. There's dozens of ways to make less covering armor equivalent....that is only limited by imagination. If you exercise that imagination. If you don't...then of course you cannot accept it.
Magic-strengthened materials? Bring them on, what do people think voidstone is, huh? Doesn't mean wearing only a bra of the stuff will protect your belly.
Invisible shielding? All magic shielding in ESO is quite visible, and if anyone likes to rely on it, its there in the class skills, le them go for it.
Absorbing damage? Again, the skills are there, anyone can use it with their underwear if they so desire. Doesn't mean their underwear should protect them like full plate.
Regenerating health? Ditto. Dragonknights swear by that trick, or so I hear... again, no extra protection for your undies.
Lifestealing? Ditto again.
All this is there in the class/guild skills.
Doesn't mean is could or should make bikinis provide equivalent protection to plate mail.
And yet again, IF there was a method to make something with less then full coverage give more protection, the very same method would be used everywhere to make something with full coverage give more protection still, which would result in... wait for it... full coverage armor giving more protection then half coverage armor.
And that is my point.
Not including any style.0 -
Arcanasx✭✭✭✭✭TheShadowScout wrote: »
I am not saying "exclude skimpy armor". I am saying "skimpy shouldn't get the same protection as non-skimpy"MercyKilling wrote: »Okay, but it's still irrelevant to the issue at hand. Or did you not see the dozens of posts in two threads about this subject where we (proponents of armor mods in general) say we're not asking for skimpy armor, but we're not going to exclude it "just because it's skimpy"?
If they added a alternate "half-mail" version for each armor piece that happens to be on the skimpy side but also gives a good deal lower protection (say, only 65-75%) then the "full mail" version... I'd rejoice, since that's -exactly- what I would be happy with!
...and those reflexes are what I meant with plot-scripted perfect dodges. Though I seem to recall Conan wearing chain or scalemail most of the time (except when he had lost his armor again) I have to grant you Kull and Sonja though, or Tarzan, though latter wasn't that much for jumping into swordfights, I expect his choice of attire was more influenced by what he had at hand then anything else...MercyKilling wrote: »I've been a rabid epic fantasy fan for decades. I've read all the E. R. Burroughs books on both Tarzan and John Carter. Ditto all the Robert E. Howard fantasy books on Conan and Brak Man Morn. Solomon Kane and Kull of Atlantis. Red Sonja.
All these characters wore little to no armor...and weren't protected by the "power of plot". That's just ridiculous. REFLEXES.
-snip-
I could pull from each story the parts describing combat in great detail about how these heroes, BEREFT OF ARMOR, or even wearing next to nothing simply evade blows. Skimpy armor provides equivalent protection by dint of reduced weight and greater mobility.
But while heroes in stories cannot miss that vital dodge through power of plot, it doesn't work quite that well in places where no plot is in effect. Like, say, history. Which is why for the most part of history, the "naked barbarians" found it rather difficult to win against armored opponents unless they had some great advantage of numbers or surprise, yes? Just ask the celts how it worked out for them. You may notice they didn't leave all that much records on the naked-with-woad-markings fighting prowess of their warroirs, mostly due to the "cowardly hiding behind large shields and armor" roman empire legions somehow getting the better of them...
That stated...
I -would- enjoy it if our characters had an integral "dodge" chance, that is reduced by armor. Say, base 25%, -1% for each piece of light armor, -2% for medium, and -3% for each piece of heavy armor? With the medium armor "evade" adding to this chance instead of providing a dodge chance?
That would give me this feel of "reflexes"...
Please, don't try to tell me what I like or not like.MercyKilling wrote: »And as long as you don't download any skimpy armor mods, you'll never see anybody wearing any skimpy armor. It really is as simple as that. But to exclude them just because YOU don't like them or want to see them........well, I don't want the thread to get locked or myself moderated for expressing the truth of the matter. We're supposed to discuss the subject, not the poster. Suffice to say "because I don't like it" isn't a valid reason.
Once more, the only thing here I don't like is form and function not matching up. Is a few strips of leather providing the same protection as a full leather breastplate.
I am not trying to exclude anything... I am just saying, make the effect fit the looks.
Once that is out of the way... I'm all for more armor & clothing options. All of the options.
Skimpy armor is in the lore. Magical force field armor... not so much. Even the "fortify armor" ehnchantments of prior TES games didn't grant magical protection, they added to the skill (which improved protection, I expect by the warrior knowing how to move to take strikes to curved areas of their armor). So... magical protection to unarmored areas of skin isn't in the lore.MercyKilling wrote: »It's already been proven to be in the lore of the game, so "it isn't in lore" is false.
I am not easily offended. By none of the above. And I actually would like to see more armor options, including the skimpy ones...MercyKilling wrote: »It's already been proven to be personal in nature, and not a client side modification, so "I don't want to see it" or "it offends me" isn't valid for the exclusion. There are bold sexual innuendos as character names. Blatant ripoffs of copyrighted characters from other media. Male Orcs and Nords running around in wedding dresses. These things offend me, but I'm not on some crusade to exclude them...because I realize it's futile to try and change them. You just don't realize it's futile. Yet.
...As Long As They Do Not Provide The Same Protection As Full Coverage Armor
Again... magic is one thing, coverage another.MercyKilling wrote: »"Because skimpy armor doesn't provide enough/equivalent protection"is also patently false, because while you may be sick of hearing it...it doesn't make it any less true that magic can be used to strengthen fabric, or even provide invisible shielding that outright prevents blows from landing or absorbs the damage done. Or regenerates health....or steals it from the enemy. There's dozens of ways to make less covering armor equivalent....that is only limited by imagination. If you exercise that imagination. If you don't...then of course you cannot accept it.
Magic-strengthened materials? Bring them on, what do people think voidstone is, huh? Doesn't mean wearing only a bra of the stuff will protect your belly.
Invisible shielding? All magic shielding in ESO is quite visible, and if anyone likes to rely on it, its there in the class skills, le them go for it.
Absorbing damage? Again, the skills are there, anyone can use it with their underwear if they so desire. Doesn't mean their underwear should protect them like full plate.
Regenerating health? Ditto. Dragonknights swear by that trick, or so I hear... again, no extra protection for your undies.
Lifestealing? Ditto again.
All this is there in the class/guild skills.
Doesn't mean is could or should make bikinis provide equivalent protection to plate mail.
And yet again, IF there was a method to make something with less then full coverage give more protection, the very same method would be used everywhere to make something with full coverage give more protection still, which would result in... wait for it... full coverage armor giving more protection then half coverage armor.
And that is my point.
Not including any style.
I don't think Mercykilling is capable of understanding the simple fact that more coverage = more protection. And he uses magic to justify skimpy armor can be more protective, but completely ignores that you could also have magical protection along with your full cover armor as well (which I had previously mentioned). He uses magic as an excuse to throw practicality out the window. Even in this game, it should be quite obvious that magic is best not used a substitute, but rather a force multiplier/enhancement to what you can bring to a fight. After all, if all you need is magic, why bother wearing robes and a staff to boost its potential?
"After all, hitting a suit of plate mail with a weapon dents the armor....and thus the flesh underneath. It's why maces were feared by knights, and most great swords were little more than metal clubs themselves. We seem to agree for the most part on all this."
Seriously, this is a red flag that shows he has no idea what he's talking about lol. Never mind the fact that a good suit of well fitted plate armor would reduce your maneuverability...by like 1%..For example, 40 pounds of full plate armor, worn by a fit and trained knight/man at arms. That is 40 pounds of weight distributed throughout the body. A modern American soldier's equipment? 60-80 pounds, mostly on the back. He's also ignorant of the fact that they'd have cloth padding underneath that armor as well, which further cushions blows.
That part where he said swords were little more than metal clubs...lol. Maces were generally for the untrained/less skilled. If you were a knight that wanted to use concussion based weapons, you used a poleaxe, because it was a very versatile weapon as well.
Simply put, its like expecting to use half of a paper towel to clean a mess and expect to absorb just as much as a full one, because magic.
Edited by Arcanasx on April 28, 2015 12:39PM1 -
eventide03b14a_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭This is all I have to say.
https://youtu.be/eSiiJ8uvc60
And this.
http://www.dorkly.com/post/41589/rpg-lady-armor
Edited by eventide03b14a_ESO on April 28, 2015 12:41PM:trollin:0 -
BuggeX✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Find me in game lore that states people use their fists to punch down keep walls, people that can walk on water NATURALLY without magical alteration, cloth that provides more protection than plate by itself, people aren't actually constrained by gravity in anyway...etc
Oblivion Vanilla on PS3
If u got 100 Points in Acrobatic u were able to JUMP over the watherEdited by BuggeX on April 28, 2015 1:50PM#makemagickadkgreataigan
#givemeaexecute
#ineedheal
#betterhotfixgrindspots2 -
Arcanasx✭✭✭✭✭
Find me in game lore that states people use their fists to punch down keep walls, people that can walk on water NATURALLY without magical alteration, cloth that provides more protection than plate by itself, people aren't actually constrained by gravity in anyway...etc
Oblivion Vanilla on PS3
If u got 100 Points in Acrobatic u were able to JUMP over the wather
And with 100 mercantile every available shop automagically had an extra 500 gold to the amount you could sell.
0 -
Shaarizad✭✭Let's take a step back here. People who want more revealing armor aren't teenage boys looking for bikini plate. On the other hand, people who are against it aren't sexually repressed. Nor are the armor options currently in game all prudish nun's habits. It's just a matter of personal opinion.
As for what belongs in an elder scrolls game, the best examples of functional revealing armor are, ironically, already available - golden saint and dark seducer armor. You may disagree on the execution, but these are two good examples of "sexy" armor that has a reason for existing - they were created by daedric beings which are well established as being seducers by nature.
Also, there are actually examples of spells in the elder scrolls which give protection equivalent to armor, specifically the stoneflesh/ironflesh/etc. spells introduced in Skyrim. However, these are spells which require a significant amount of magicka for upkeep. There is a clear tradeoff in this case - less armor worn, higher magicka requirement. I'm not saying this should be implemented as a game mechanic, because I can't see any way to do it that wouldn't either unbalance the game, severely and needlessly overcomplicate the system, or create significant incentives against wearing a specific armor type.
What I do want to stress is that there is an underlying logic to things, even in a fantasy game. Every benefit comes at a cost - wearing revealing armor comes at the cost of vulnerability, magically reducing your vulnerability comes with the costs inherent to using powerful magic. Yes, it is easy to ignore this for certain game mechanics. No one is arguing that the wedding dress disguise is actually viable combat wear. However, going off the deep end of skimpy armor (which, again, I don't think most people are asking for) would have a clear effect on the feel of the game - to have it would require stating implicitly "this is acceptable within the context of the game world". In other words, anything that you put into the game, regardless of whether it's as a main component or as a costume, becomes part of the setting, and has to fit with it to some degree.
I'm all in favor of more aesthetic options, and I think that there is room for some more revealing choices. I only ask that these choices being considered in the context of the game world. Add armor with a bare midriff - as long as it's leather armor designed for extra maneuverability, not plate armor that leaves a soldier's intestines exposed. This game belongs to its players, but first it must be true to its source.
(P.S. the discussion of whether there should be cosmetic modding is a separate question, and I'm not going to comment on it right now)Edited by Shaarizad on April 28, 2015 2:23PM2 -
Vaerth✭✭✭✭So is ESO's stance going to be to bury/lock every thread asking for better looking armor for female avatars? There are a few vocal fanboy's who are ruining this forum by bashing anyone with a different opinion than theirs.
This game has some great content/potential but a lot of us isn't going to stare at ugly "habit wearing" avatar's all day to play it. Costume's are not the answer either as it's a all or nothing and you can't dye it.
Get back to the TES lore this game was "built" on. Give the masses option's instead of prudish ugly armor for females, heroic sexy armor for males!
Disclaimer:
This is a fantasy based game, "realism" post's don't hold in a fantasy based game with demon's and magic.
This is a TES game. This is the only game set in the TES universe that has been this strongly biased against female avatars.
This isn't a post asking for all armor to be converted. This is a post asking (justified imo) for better looking options for both views (repressed/non-repressed)
This is a post that would improve replay ability in a game with very little replay ability (we need a wardrobe tab but 1 thing at a time)
This post welcomes debate, but keep it civil and keep it on point. Please don't "shout" down people just because you can't stand to see females in anything but fully clothed gear.
So sexy armor but no cloaks? I do not know about that...If you are half naked I think you should be 1 shot to my arrows, considering there is nothing protecting the flesh from harm...Pact Bloodwraith0 -
Shunravi✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭"After all, hitting a suit of plate mail with a weapon dents the armor....and thus the flesh underneath. It's why maces were feared by knights, and most great swords were little more than metal clubs themselves. We seem to agree for the most part on all this."
Seriously, this is a red flag that shows he has no idea what he's talking about lol. Never mind the fact that a good suit of well fitted plate armor would reduce your maneuverability...by like 1%..For example, 40 pounds of full plate armor, worn by a fit and trained knight/man at arms. That is 40 pounds of weight distributed throughout the body. A modern American soldier's equipment? 60-80 pounds, mostly on the back. He's also ignorant of the fact that they'd have cloth padding underneath that armor as well, which further cushions blows.
That part where he said swords were little more than metal clubs...lol. Maces were generally for the untrained/less skilled. If you were a knight that wanted to use concussion based weapons, you used a poleaxe, because it was a very versatile weapon as well.
Simply put, its like expecting to use half of a paper towel to clean a mess and expect to absorb just as much as a full one, because magic.
http://m.medieval-life-and-times.info/medieval-weapons/mace.htmThe weapon was primarily used for bludgeoning an opponent and was particularly effective against opponents wearing plate armor and reducing the effectiveness of the shieldThis one has an eloquent and well thought out response to tha... Ooh sweetroll!0 -
Lord_Draevan✭✭✭✭✭
✭One thing I've seen suggested is to allow us to pick the look of armor when crafting it.
Example: I craft Ebony (Tier 4+) Imperial-Styled Armor. I have to option of giving it the look of Iron (Tier 1), Steel (Tier 2), or Orichalcum (Tier 3). It'll be Ebony stats, but I can choose the look from previous tier sets.
This should be simple to do, since the look is already in the game. All that would be needed to is tweak the stats to bring it up to Ebony, in this example.Edited by Lord_Draevan on April 28, 2015 3:00PMI'm a man of few words. Any questions?NA/PC server2 -
MercyKilling✭✭✭✭✭Seriously, this is a red flag that shows he has no idea what he's talking about lol.
So you resort to ad hominem, attacking me, rather than the argument. Way to totally disqualify anything you wrote after this sentence. Your points, however valid or invalid they may be just became totally irrelevant once you opened with this tactic.TheShadowScout wrote: »Doesn't mean is could or should make bikinis provide equivalent protection to plate mail.
And yet again, IF there was a method to make something with less than full coverage give more protection, the very same method would be used everywhere to make something with full coverage give more protection still, which would result in... wait for it... full coverage armor giving more protection than half coverage armor.
And that is my point.
Not including any style.
And I totally get this. Really I do. What I’m saying is that your opinion on this matter is totally irrelevant to the actual issue at hand. The issue at hand being Zenimax either allowing cosmetic modding so we can have better looking armor, or they do it themselves by either hiring better artists or allowing the ones the already employ to stretch their creative muscles. Who really cares if it offers equivalent protection? Let’s just get it in the game first. THAT’s my point. THEN worry about “balance”.
After all, PvP is a complete mess….if you believe even half the posts in the PvP sections. Besides, I don’t PvP, so “balance” isn’t something I figure into my equations or reasoning. I just want better looking (which includes “sexier” armor, by dint of my not wanting to exclude anything based upon “sensibility” or “preference”) armors.And you're doing somewhat of a strawman...lol, do you know what that means?
Sure do. It means someone in the debate/argument is making up completely outlandish statements about the issue at hand…which is exactly what you resorted to with all those very exaggerated “examples” you provided in that post. I’ve gone to great lengths to be calm and methodical about my posts because it’s something that I want very much….and I don’t want to get this thread locked or sunk by doing just what you did.
Nothing about my posts has been strawman or ad hominem. Yet…the opposition to them has been nothing but.
All I want is a reasonable debate about it. If someone comes up with something new, I’ll respond to that….but if all that’s going to happen is the same people tossing the same reasons up, then I’ll simply stop responding to them. Might even get a coveted spot on my ignore list.
This is my last response to you unless you come up with something new to share.
Edit:Lord_Draevan wrote: »One thing I've seen suggested is to allow us to pick the look of armor when crafting it.
Example: I craft Ebony (Tier 4+) Imperial-Styled Armor. I have to option of giving it the look of Iron (Tier 1), Steel (Tier 2), or Orichalcum (Tier 3). It'll be Ebony stats, but I can choose the look from previous tier sets.
This should be simple to do, since the look is already in the game. All that would be needed to is tweak the stats to bring it up to Ebony, in this example.
This actually isn't a half bad idea. It's a start, to be sure. What I find disgusting and totally unattractive about armors is there's no...depth or dimension to them. When things like teeth or claws are used like buttons or latches, but look flat as paper....it's horrible. When fur looks like spray paint, it's godawful. When a leather strap looks like a tattoo...something needs to be done about it.
Rather than divert the art department further, I'd simply like to see Zenimax open up armors and weapons to cosmetic modding. I see this as a win-win for everyone involved. Zenimax, the players, and the modding community.
Edited by MercyKilling on April 29, 2015 12:47AMI am not spending a single penny on the game until changes are made to the game that I want to see.
1) Remove having to be in a guild to sell items to other players at a kiosk.
2) Cosmetic modding for armor and clothing.
3) Difficulty slider.
4) Fully customizable player housing that isn't tied to anything in the game other than having the correct resources and enough gold to build. Don't tie it to PvP, guild membership, or anything at all. Oh, make it instanced so as not to take up world map space, too. Zeni screwed this one up already.
Any /one/ of these things implemented would get me spending again, maybe even subbing.0 -
Grayphilosophy✭✭✭skimpy and revealing clothes?... sure
But when it comes to actual physical armour, despite being a fantasy game with magic and monsters, the elder scrolls universe seems to consistently have a semi-realistically practical approach to armour design. With emphasis on semi-realistic, because gosh darn it some of the armour designs throughout TES games just would not work in practice.
Almexia and Nocturnal are both gods with what looks like ceremonial garbs. I.E. clothes, there is a vast difference between clothes and armour.
I'm sure there could exist a chain-bikini with an enchantment that offers protection like armour, but that would make it an enchanted chain-bikini, not actual armour.
Magic doesn't seem to be a scarce resource in TES universe though, so it's probably easily possible to create, lore-wise. But given how enchantments on equipment drains and needs recharging, it doesn't seem like a reasonably sensible alternative to just wearing armour.
1 -
NewBlacksmurf✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Seems logical to have better looking items sexy, handsome, Gq, some even skimpy.
I don't know the companies position but I did notice an anti-armor move with Reguards which are one of my prefers races.
I'm open to having things on both sides of any hypothetical line drawn.
It's a mature game so while we realize kids may play, going from of to r and or a little further doesn't seem crazy. Maybe it will drive parenting to be more concerned but otherwise if not an issue, I'd like to see more options or let's say...crafting cosmetic changes that cost some sort of existing mats to trim outfits.
-PC (PTS)/Xbox One: NewBlacksmurf
~<{[50]}>~ looks better than *5010 -
Vaerth✭✭✭✭So is ESO's stance going to be to bury/lock every thread asking for better looking armor for female avatars? There are a few vocal fanboy's who are ruining this forum by bashing anyone with a different opinion than theirs.
This game has some great content/potential but a lot of us isn't going to stare at ugly "habit wearing" avatar's all day to play it. Costume's are not the answer either as it's a all or nothing and you can't dye it.
Get back to the TES lore this game was "built" on. Give the masses option's instead of prudish ugly armor for females, heroic sexy armor for males!
Disclaimer:
This is a fantasy based game, "realism" post's don't hold in a fantasy based game with demon's and magic.
This is a TES game. This is the only game set in the TES universe that has been this strongly biased against female avatars.
This isn't a post asking for all armor to be converted. This is a post asking (justified imo) for better looking options for both views (repressed/non-repressed)
This is a post that would improve replay ability in a game with very little replay ability (we need a wardrobe tab but 1 thing at a time)
This post welcomes debate, but keep it civil and keep it on point. Please don't "shout" down people just because you can't stand to see females in anything but fully clothed gear.
https://youtu.be/0cgbZqR2AGI Pact Bloodwraith1 -
Mumnoch✭✭✭TheShadowScout wrote: »
I am not saying "exclude skimpy armor". I am saying "skimpy shouldn't get the same protection as non-skimpy"MercyKilling wrote: »Okay, but it's still irrelevant to the issue at hand. Or did you not see the dozens of posts in two threads about this subject where we (proponents of armor mods in general) say we're not asking for skimpy armor, but we're not going to exclude it "just because it's skimpy"?
If they added a alternate "half-mail" version for each armor piece that happens to be on the skimpy side but also gives a good deal lower protection (say, only 65-75%) then the "full mail" version... I'd rejoice, since that's -exactly- what I would be happy with!
...and those reflexes are what I meant with plot-scripted perfect dodges. Though I seem to recall Conan wearing chain or scalemail most of the time (except when he had lost his armor again) I have to grant you Kull and Sonja though, or Tarzan, though latter wasn't that much for jumping into swordfights, I expect his choice of attire was more influenced by what he had at hand then anything else...MercyKilling wrote: »I've been a rabid epic fantasy fan for decades. I've read all the E. R. Burroughs books on both Tarzan and John Carter. Ditto all the Robert E. Howard fantasy books on Conan and Brak Man Morn. Solomon Kane and Kull of Atlantis. Red Sonja.
All these characters wore little to no armor...and weren't protected by the "power of plot". That's just ridiculous. REFLEXES.
-snip-
I could pull from each story the parts describing combat in great detail about how these heroes, BEREFT OF ARMOR, or even wearing next to nothing simply evade blows. Skimpy armor provides equivalent protection by dint of reduced weight and greater mobility.
But while heroes in stories cannot miss that vital dodge through power of plot, it doesn't work quite that well in places where no plot is in effect. Like, say, history. Which is why for the most part of history, the "naked barbarians" found it rather difficult to win against armored opponents unless they had some great advantage of numbers or surprise, yes? Just ask the celts how it worked out for them. You may notice they didn't leave all that much records on the naked-with-woad-markings fighting prowess of their warroirs, mostly due to the "cowardly hiding behind large shields and armor" roman empire legions somehow getting the better of them...
That stated...
I -would- enjoy it if our characters had an integral "dodge" chance, that is reduced by armor. Say, base 25%, -1% for each piece of light armor, -2% for medium, and -3% for each piece of heavy armor? With the medium armor "evade" adding to this chance instead of providing a dodge chance?
That would give me this feel of "reflexes"...
Please, don't try to tell me what I like or not like.MercyKilling wrote: »And as long as you don't download any skimpy armor mods, you'll never see anybody wearing any skimpy armor. It really is as simple as that. But to exclude them just because YOU don't like them or want to see them........well, I don't want the thread to get locked or myself moderated for expressing the truth of the matter. We're supposed to discuss the subject, not the poster. Suffice to say "because I don't like it" isn't a valid reason.
Once more, the only thing here I don't like is form and function not matching up. Is a few strips of leather providing the same protection as a full leather breastplate.
I am not trying to exclude anything... I am just saying, make the effect fit the looks.
Once that is out of the way... I'm all for more armor & clothing options. All of the options.
Skimpy armor is in the lore. Magical force field armor... not so much. Even the "fortify armor" ehnchantments of prior TES games didn't grant magical protection, they added to the skill (which improved protection, I expect by the warrior knowing how to move to take strikes to curved areas of their armor). So... magical protection to unarmored areas of skin isn't in the lore.MercyKilling wrote: »It's already been proven to be in the lore of the game, so "it isn't in lore" is false.
I am not easily offended. By none of the above. And I actually would like to see more armor options, including the skimpy ones...MercyKilling wrote: »It's already been proven to be personal in nature, and not a client side modification, so "I don't want to see it" or "it offends me" isn't valid for the exclusion. There are bold sexual innuendos as character names. Blatant ripoffs of copyrighted characters from other media. Male Orcs and Nords running around in wedding dresses. These things offend me, but I'm not on some crusade to exclude them...because I realize it's futile to try and change them. You just don't realize it's futile. Yet.
...As Long As They Do Not Provide The Same Protection As Full Coverage Armor
Again... magic is one thing, coverage another.MercyKilling wrote: »"Because skimpy armor doesn't provide enough/equivalent protection"is also patently false, because while you may be sick of hearing it...it doesn't make it any less true that magic can be used to strengthen fabric, or even provide invisible shielding that outright prevents blows from landing or absorbs the damage done. Or regenerates health....or steals it from the enemy. There's dozens of ways to make less covering armor equivalent....that is only limited by imagination. If you exercise that imagination. If you don't...then of course you cannot accept it.
Magic-strengthened materials? Bring them on, what do people think voidstone is, huh? Doesn't mean wearing only a bra of the stuff will protect your belly.
Invisible shielding? All magic shielding in ESO is quite visible, and if anyone likes to rely on it, its there in the class skills, le them go for it.
Absorbing damage? Again, the skills are there, anyone can use it with their underwear if they so desire. Doesn't mean their underwear should protect them like full plate.
Regenerating health? Ditto. Dragonknights swear by that trick, or so I hear... again, no extra protection for your undies.
Lifestealing? Ditto again.
All this is there in the class/guild skills.
Doesn't mean is could or should make bikinis provide equivalent protection to plate mail.
And yet again, IF there was a method to make something with less then full coverage give more protection, the very same method would be used everywhere to make something with full coverage give more protection still, which would result in... wait for it... full coverage armor giving more protection then half coverage armor.
And that is my point.
Not including any style.
I don't think Mercykilling is capable of understanding the simple fact that more coverage = more protection. And he uses magic to justify skimpy armor can be more protective, but completely ignores that you could also have magical protection along with your full cover armor as well (which I had previously mentioned). He uses magic as an excuse to throw practicality out the window. Even in this game, it should be quite obvious that magic is best not used a substitute, but rather a force multiplier/enhancement to what you can bring to a fight. After all, if all you need is magic, why bother wearing robes and a staff to boost its potential?
"After all, hitting a suit of plate mail with a weapon dents the armor....and thus the flesh underneath. It's why maces were feared by knights, and most great swords were little more than metal clubs themselves. We seem to agree for the most part on all this."
Seriously, this is a red flag that shows he has no idea what he's talking about lol. Never mind the fact that a good suit of well fitted plate armor would reduce your maneuverability...by like 1%..For example, 40 pounds of full plate armor, worn by a fit and trained knight/man at arms. That is 40 pounds of weight distributed throughout the body. A modern American soldier's equipment? 60-80 pounds, mostly on the back. He's also ignorant of the fact that they'd have cloth padding underneath that armor as well, which further cushions blows.
That part where he said swords were little more than metal clubs...lol. Maces were generally for the untrained/less skilled. If you were a knight that wanted to use concussion based weapons, you used a poleaxe, because it was a very versatile weapon as well.
Simply put, its like expecting to use half of a paper towel to clean a mess and expect to absorb just as much as a full one, because magic.
What you are failing to understand (to quote how you started your argument against other than prudish armor)- Less armor from your argument's stance would = more mobility which would = less hits
- More armor from your argument's stance would = less mobility which would = more hits.
We'll accept in this fantasy based game that if Zenimax gives us skimpier armor that we get less protection for total stats if you accept by wearing more armor you gain negative stats against specific styles of weapons (IE my 2hand Mace will auto crit you on connection, with a compounding effect of more times you get hit the more dmg you take).
There's several ways you can attempt to debate Zenimax's stance on prudish female armor (and if you look in game...it is biased against female's mostly) but they are all based in fallacy.
In a fantasy game that's rooted in all styles of armor lore (from prudish to skimpy) alienating the sexy to skimpy version's of armor while not providing a way to "re-introduce" it via modding isn't smart. Zenimax needs to either create a tool to unpack/repack armor textures so modder's can mod it themselves or they need to convert/introduce better looking armor's allowing their art designer's to "flex" their creative muscles.
If people are not satisfied with the reasoning of "magic" making skimpy armor's equal to the current prudish armors then you must support and call for a mechanic of more armor = more dmg for blunt style weapons and increased chance "to be hit".
Edit: Quoted the wrong person, sorry!Edited by Mumnoch on April 29, 2015 9:54PM0 -
Mumnoch✭✭✭So is ESO's stance going to be to bury/lock every thread asking for better looking armor for female avatars? There are a few vocal fanboy's who are ruining this forum by bashing anyone with a different opinion than theirs.
This game has some great content/potential but a lot of us isn't going to stare at ugly "habit wearing" avatar's all day to play it. Costume's are not the answer either as it's a all or nothing and you can't dye it.
Get back to the TES lore this game was "built" on. Give the masses option's instead of prudish ugly armor for females, heroic sexy armor for males!
Disclaimer:
This is a fantasy based game, "realism" post's don't hold in a fantasy based game with demon's and magic.
This is a TES game. This is the only game set in the TES universe that has been this strongly biased against female avatars.
This isn't a post asking for all armor to be converted. This is a post asking (justified imo) for better looking options for both views (repressed/non-repressed)
This is a post that would improve replay ability in a game with very little replay ability (we need a wardrobe tab but 1 thing at a time)
This post welcomes debate, but keep it civil and keep it on point. Please don't "shout" down people just because you can't stand to see females in anything but fully clothed gear.
So sexy armor but no cloaks? I do not know about that...If you are half naked I think you should be 1 shot to my arrows, considering there is nothing protecting the flesh from harm...
Cloak's are a totally different issue than what is being discussed here. If you want to start a thread on cloaks, go for it.
I'll accept "1 shot to my arrows" if you accept maximum damage from my blunt weapon and me getting 2-4x the hits off on you as you do on me...you know cause of "realism and movement constraints". Furthermore if you want to go the realism route then you move/run half the speed I do, and can carry only 1/2 the total weight I can. Also, you have to prove how shooting someone in the arm or stomach or leg can = a 1 shot from a bow.
Good luck! Or to quote another of your post's.....Noooooooooo!
0 -
Flynch✭✭✭✭Well to be truly on-board with this thread, we'll have to remove the option to hide your helmet as well as the recently deceased 'LOL' button.
Unless combatants heavily prioritise the mid-chest area, the hardest part of the body to hit.0 -
Mumnoch✭✭✭Well to be truly on-board with this thread, we'll have to remove the option to hide your helmet as well as the recently deceased 'LOL' button.
Unless combatants heavily prioritise the mid-chest area, the hardest part of the body to hit.
The "toggle helmet" feature was going to be my ace in the hole as the saying goes
lol0 -
Flynch✭✭✭✭Well to be truly on-board with this thread, we'll have to remove the option to hide your helmet as well as the recently deceased 'LOL' button.
Unless combatants heavily prioritise the mid-chest area, the hardest part of the body to hit.
The "toggle helmet" feature was going to be my ace in the hole as the saying goes
lol
Sorry old chap
0 -
Arcanasx✭✭✭✭✭MercyKilling wrote: »Seriously, this is a red flag that shows he has no idea what he's talking about lol.
So you resort to ad hominem, attacking me, rather than the argument. Way to totally disqualify anything you wrote after this sentence. Your points, however valid or invalid they may be just became totally irrelevant once you opened with this tactic.TheShadowScout wrote: »Doesn't mean is could or should make bikinis provide equivalent protection to plate mail.
And yet again, IF there was a method to make something with less than full coverage give more protection, the very same method would be used everywhere to make something with full coverage give more protection still, which would result in... wait for it... full coverage armor giving more protection than half coverage armor.
And that is my point.
Not including any style.
And I totally get this. Really I do. What I’m saying is that your opinion on this matter is totally irrelevant to the actual issue at hand. The issue at hand being Zenimax either allowing cosmetic modding so we can have better looking armor, or they do it themselves by either hiring better artists or allowing the ones the already employ to stretch their creative muscles. Who really cares if it offers equivalent protection? Let’s just get it in the game first. THAT’s my point. THEN worry about “balance”.
After all, PvP is a complete mess….if you believe even half the posts in the PvP sections. Besides, I don’t PvP, so “balance” isn’t something I figure into my equations or reasoning. I just want better looking (which includes “sexier” armor, by dint of my not wanting to exclude anything based upon “sensibility” or “preference”) armors.And you're doing somewhat of a strawman...lol, do you know what that means?
Sure do. It means someone in the debate/argument is making up completely outlandish statements about the issue at hand…which is exactly what you resorted to with all those very exaggerated “examples” you provided in that post. I’ve gone to great lengths to be calm and methodical about my posts because it’s something that I want very much….and I don’t want to get this thread locked or sunk by doing just what you did.
Nothing about my posts has been strawman or ad hominem. Yet…the opposition to them has been nothing but.
All I want is a reasonable debate about it. If someone comes up with something new, I’ll respond to that….but if all that’s going to happen is the same people tossing the same reasons up, then I’ll simply stop responding to them. Might even get a coveted spot on my ignore list.
This is my last response to you unless you come up with something new to share.
Edit:Lord_Draevan wrote: »One thing I've seen suggested is to allow us to pick the look of armor when crafting it.
Example: I craft Ebony (Tier 4+) Imperial-Styled Armor. I have to option of giving it the look of Iron (Tier 1), Steel (Tier 2), or Orichalcum (Tier 3). It'll be Ebony stats, but I can choose the look from previous tier sets.
This should be simple to do, since the look is already in the game. All that would be needed to is tweak the stats to bring it up to Ebony, in this example.
This actually isn't a half bad idea. It's a start, to be sure. What I find disgusting and totally unattractive about armors is there's no...depth or dimension to them. When things like teeth or claws are used like buttons or latches, but look flat as paper....it's horrible. When fur looks like spray paint, it's godawful. When a leather strap looks like a tattoo...something needs to be done about it.
Rather than divert the art department further, I'd simply like to see Zenimax open up armors and weapons to cosmetic modding. I see this as a win-win for everyone involved. Zenimax, the players, and the modding community.
If someone had a post somewhere on the internet saying that large amounts of hydrogen cyanide is healthy for your cells, simply put, that person is a troll or that person does not know what they are talking about. It would not be an attack if someone else were to say you have no idea what you're talking about, that is wrong, it is actually a dangerous gas if inhaled/ingested in sufficient quantities. The fact of the matter is you are clearly ignorant to how armor actually works (and of swords) because of the content of such a statement, and yes, it is a red flag because it shows your lack of knowledge with such a topic. Trying to correct someone, or saying that they are clearly wrong, is not an ad hominem attack; stop throwing that word around whenever someone disagrees with your logic. If you truly felt "personally attacked" by such a statement, then I don't know what to say other than your're overreacting. And ironically, when you said "I hope you're not done because I find it funny when you're angry", that could be considered baiting, and not a constructive sentence to your argument but rather to cause inflammation, and I could equally say as well; "You just disqualified yourself when you said that and anything you say after that is now invalid".
And a strawman is when you misrepresent someones post to make them easier to "attack". My main initial argument is that armor that doesn't cover you fully is not as protective as armor that does, and that having plate armor with open gaps in it would be plain stupid. You said that this is a fantasy game where common sense and plausibility don't belong because there is magic! I gave you examples that would fit into the game if that were to be true. That is your excuse to throw realistic practicalities out the window to justify your own wanted unpractical modifications; including plate armor with open gaps that are more protective because magic. You also methodically ignore that full plate armor could be magically enhanced as well, and that only a small portion of those in TES actually use magic in the first place. My "list" was to show how silly the game would be if they were to add what I listed, silly things that would diminish the game and making it feel less serious, which you actually tried to justify using "because magic" your go-to counter argument for everything, even if they were completely unpractical/very inefficient. You actually did a strawman in your attempt to misrepresent my post (or you completely missed the point), especially when you posted an image of a lore-unfriendly "flying battleship" that is a mod and does not belong in TES, and twisted my words regarding natural water walking. My list may have been exaggerated to prove a point, but it was definitely not a strawman.Edited by Arcanasx on April 30, 2015 8:42AM0
This discussion has been closed.