Better looking armor?

Arcanasx

Mumnoch wrote: »

Arcanasx wrote: »

TheShadowScout wrote: »

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"?

I am not saying "exclude skimpy armor". I am saying "skimpy shouldn't get the same protection as non-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!

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.

...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...

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"...

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.

Please, don't try to tell me what I like or not like.

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.

MercyKilling wrote: »

It's already been proven to be in the lore of the game, so "it isn't in lore" is false.

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 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.

I am not easily offended. By none of the above. And I actually would like to see more armor options, including the skimpy ones...
...As Long As They Do Not Provide The Same Protection As Full Coverage Armor

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.

Again... magic is one thing, coverage another.

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)

1. Less armor from your argument's stance would = more mobility which would = less hits
2. 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!

What you are failing to understand is that you simply don't know how armor really is and how it works. The less armor, more mobility you have ideas in movies and games completely distort history and the realistic uses of such armors. That whole idea is ridiculous, and if it were true, no one would buy and fight in the expensive full armors that knights/men at arms (the best fighters in Europe in their time) have actually fought in near-exclusively on the battlefield. Armor not only was supposed to be protective, but also allow you to be mobile as well, or else barely anyone would have worn it. The only real disadvantage to fighting in full armors was that you would tire out quicker in extended fights if you were unfit/untrained for its use. And heavy armor is not only defensive, but also offensive as well; which some games seem to get wrong (including ESO). Simply put, wearing heavy armor allows you to take certain hits/position yourself in ways that do little to no harm to you, while putting yourself in a position that could then make lighter armored foes very vulnerable to your attacks.

And as for your 2 handed mace, they should also reduce the attack speed and make them easier to block/parry/dodge as they were slower, unbalanced weapons that you needed to telegraph to your opponent, leaving you vulnerable, to make effective use of it. As if the 20% ignore armor isn't enough for you. There's a reason why many books on swordsmanship exist, and not those of "macemanship"; the type of books targeted to those expected to be well trained and well armored, especially those of "half swording".

And the irony is that you are based in fallacy; considering what you "believe" to be true, is blatantly false, and that you probably have gotten your information of medieval fighting/equipment from Hollywood movies.

And I don't understand why you think this game is biased against females; males have their heavy armor covering them as well, and females also happen to make up about 80% of those in leadership/officer positions in this game.

Grayphilosophy

Mumnoch wrote: »

snipped to save space

You raise some interesting points about more armour affecting mobility, and being vulnerable to blunt weapons. Unfortunately, it isn't entirely accurate.

A decently made set of plate armour would make you virtually invulnerable to blades, and offer no significant loss of mobility. Often times the armour joints are able to bend more than the person wearing it. The only thing it really affects is how quickly you run out of breath, right untill you get used to wearing it. Oh and your relationship to gravity, of course.
Furthermore, a plated armour would actually be more vulnerable to piercing weapons, like the pike on a war hammer or spiked maces, which focus the force of impact to a narrow point. Unless there are spaces in the armor plates that aren't covered of course.

Naturally, if you hit an armoured knight with a blunt weapon he's going to feel it...it's gonna hurt.. but hitting him hard enough to actually dent the armour inward and deal damage is rather difficult without a large two handed weapon. In which case any type of weapon is unwieldy in close quarters.

drackonir

If by better looking armour you mean, less armour and more nude i suggest you find yourself a girlfriend. Problem solved

Mumnoch

Arcanasx wrote: »

What you are failing to understand is that you simply don't know how armor really is and how it works. The less armor, more mobility you have ideas in movies and games completely distort history and the realistic uses of such armors. That whole idea is ridiculous, and if it were true, no one would buy and fight in the expensive full armors that knights/men at arms (the best fighters in Europe in their time) have actually fought in near-exclusively on the battlefield. Armor not only was supposed to be protective, but also allow you to be mobile as well, or else barely anyone would have worn it. The only real disadvantage to fighting in full armors was that you would tire out quicker in extended fights if you were unfit/untrained for its use. And heavy armor is not only defensive, but also offensive as well; which some games seem to get wrong (including ESO). Simply put, wearing heavy armor allows you to take certain hits/position yourself in ways that do little to no harm to you, while putting yourself in a position that could then make lighter armored foes very vulnerable to your attacks.

And as for your 2 handed mace, they should also reduce the attack speed and make them easier to block/parry/dodge as they were slower, unbalanced weapons that you needed to telegraph to your opponent, leaving you vulnerable, to make effective use of it. As if the 20% ignore armor isn't enough for you. There's a reason why many books on swordsmanship exist, and not those of "macemanship"; the type of books targeted to those expected to be well trained and well armored, especially those of "half swording".

And the irony is that you are based in fallacy; considering what you "believe" to be true, is blatantly false, and that you probably have gotten your information of medieval fighting/equipment from Hollywood movies.

And I don't understand why you think this game is biased against females; males have their heavy armor covering them as well, and females also happen to make up about 80% of those in leadership/officer positions in this game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour

Go educate yourself. Then reread the numerous threads here including the OP debunking your argument. There is no way you guys can justify in this fantasy game based in a fantasy world where magic is abundant and all armor types from sexy to skimpy to prudish have been traditionally represented in TES games.

The option's everyone in this thread is asking for stays 100% inside the lore of this universe. This is a fact.

Mumnoch

drackonir wrote: »

If by better looking armour you mean, less armour and more nude i suggest you find yourself a girlfriend. Problem solved

I've got a wife, who also wants sexier armor for her avatar. Should I tell her to go get a "girlfriend" so her "problems could be solved"? Or do I tell you to grow up and realize that what we are asking for has nothing to do with sexual satisfaction?

jkemmery

drackonir wrote: »

If by better looking armour you mean, less armour and more nude i suggest you find yourself a girlfriend. Problem solved

By this logic, I suppose anyone who appreciates the human form is sexually frustrated in such a manner that it can only be quenched through female companionship?

Yes, that makes sense ...

Psychobunni

I am 100% for cosmetic modding, assuming their mod only effects their game and I'm not somehow forced to see their mod'ed look.

I like that allowance much better than ZOS changing armor sets. One of the things I enjoy about ESO is that female characters are respected and on equal footing and not treated as eye candy ala asian games (despite the missed opportunity to make AD Queen heroic).

It is mostly realistic, which again is another thing I love about TES in general, and the very reason I downloaded and deleted WoW in the same day. Yeah, yeah, I know OP doesn't want realism, but OP needs to understand that for some players the lack of cheesy and realistic approach is very much why we play in the first place.

Arcanasx

Mumnoch wrote: »

Arcanasx wrote: »

What you are failing to understand is that you simply don't know how armor really is and how it works. The less armor, more mobility you have ideas in movies and games completely distort history and the realistic uses of such armors. That whole idea is ridiculous, and if it were true, no one would buy and fight in the expensive full armors that knights/men at arms (the best fighters in Europe in their time) have actually fought in near-exclusively on the battlefield. Armor not only was supposed to be protective, but also allow you to be mobile as well, or else barely anyone would have worn it. The only real disadvantage to fighting in full armors was that you would tire out quicker in extended fights if you were unfit/untrained for its use. And heavy armor is not only defensive, but also offensive as well; which some games seem to get wrong (including ESO). Simply put, wearing heavy armor allows you to take certain hits/position yourself in ways that do little to no harm to you, while putting yourself in a position that could then make lighter armored foes very vulnerable to your attacks.

And as for your 2 handed mace, they should also reduce the attack speed and make them easier to block/parry/dodge as they were slower, unbalanced weapons that you needed to telegraph to your opponent, leaving you vulnerable, to make effective use of it. As if the 20% ignore armor isn't enough for you. There's a reason why many books on swordsmanship exist, and not those of "macemanship"; the type of books targeted to those expected to be well trained and well armored, especially those of "half swording".

And the irony is that you are based in fallacy; considering what you "believe" to be true, is blatantly false, and that you probably have gotten your information of medieval fighting/equipment from Hollywood movies.

And I don't understand why you think this game is biased against females; males have their heavy armor covering them as well, and females also happen to make up about 80% of those in leadership/officer positions in this game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour

Go educate yourself. Then reread the numerous threads here including the OP debunking your argument. There is no way you guys can justify in this fantasy game based in a fantasy world where magic is abundant and all armor types from sexy to skimpy to prudish have been traditionally represented in TES games.

The option's everyone in this thread is asking for stays 100% inside the lore of this universe. This is a fact.

Wiki can be a good starting point for learning about something, but ultimately it isn't something you can rely on as its not entirely accurate. Never tell anyone to to go educate themselves and put a wiki link in the same post; it makes you look foolish to those who actually have an idea of what they're talking about.

And just because there has been traditionally skimpier armors in the lore, doesn't mean at all that it provides the same protection as armor that fully covers you. And no, magic is not as abundant as you think; most humanoids in the game don't use magic at all, so by trying to rely on magic to protect you thinking you can get away with skimpy armor is just wrong.

Plus, I don't think it has ever occurred to you that "incomplete" armors would be less expensive; so the poorer ones could still get some armor but it does not protect as much. Anyone wealthy enough to buy full armors would obviously buy those.

And from the wiki:

"A complete suit of plate armour made from well-tempered steel would weigh around 15–25 kg(33-55 pounds).[2] The wearer remained highly agile and could jump, run and otherwise move freely as the weight of the armor was spread evenly throughout the body. The armour was articulated and covered a man's entire body completely from neck to toe."

"While this armour was effective against cuts or blows, their weak points could be exploited by long tapered swords or other weapons designed for the purpose, such as pollaxes and halberds."

Did you even bother to read this wiki page? My god, the audacity you have...and you tell me to go educate myself...lol.

Having gaps in your plate armor that show your skin is plain dumb and unpractical; it would be too easy too exploit such an opening. And citing fantasy and magic while simultaneously ignoring that a full covered armor would not only provide more protection but also have more material for magical enhancement. There are different values for different pieces basically determined by total protection in eso, including the magnitude of enchants. Your magical fantasy land arguments are a poor excuse. End of story.

Arcanasx

Grayphilosophy wrote: »

Mumnoch wrote: »

snipped to save space

You raise some interesting points about more armour affecting mobility, and being vulnerable to blunt weapons. Unfortunately, it isn't entirely accurate.

A decently made set of plate armour would make you virtually invulnerable to blades, and offer no significant loss of mobility. Often times the armour joints are able to bend more than the person wearing it. The only thing it really affects is how quickly you run out of breath, right untill you get used to wearing it. Oh and your relationship to gravity, of course.
Furthermore, a plated armour would actually be more vulnerable to piercing weapons, like the pike on a war hammer or spiked maces, which focus the force of impact to a narrow point. Unless there are spaces in the armor plates that aren't covered of course.

Naturally, if you hit an armoured knight with a blunt weapon he's going to feel it...it's gonna hurt.. but hitting him hard enough to actually dent the armour inward and deal damage is rather difficult without a large two handed weapon. In which case any type of weapon is unwieldy in close quarters.

I think its hard for these people to understand how plate armor really works; they get all their information from games and hollywood movies and think wearing a full suit of plate armor would reduce the percentage of damage by 33% and lessen their mobility by 50%. As for piercing weapons yes they are the most effective way to deal with heavy armor. Half swording techniques in training manuals along with those of poleaxes generally show us that those were the usual weapons to use in combat between two well trained and well armored fighters, or getting them in a vulnerable position through grappling and using a dagger to the vulnerable parts.

Mumnoch

Arcanasx wrote: »

Grayphilosophy wrote: »

Mumnoch wrote: »

snipped to save space

You raise some interesting points about more armour affecting mobility, and being vulnerable to blunt weapons. Unfortunately, it isn't entirely accurate.

A decently made set of plate armour would make you virtually invulnerable to blades, and offer no significant loss of mobility. Often times the armour joints are able to bend more than the person wearing it. The only thing it really affects is how quickly you run out of breath, right untill you get used to wearing it. Oh and your relationship to gravity, of course.
Furthermore, a plated armour would actually be more vulnerable to piercing weapons, like the pike on a war hammer or spiked maces, which focus the force of impact to a narrow point. Unless there are spaces in the armor plates that aren't covered of course.

Naturally, if you hit an armoured knight with a blunt weapon he's going to feel it...it's gonna hurt.. but hitting him hard enough to actually dent the armour inward and deal damage is rather difficult without a large two handed weapon. In which case any type of weapon is unwieldy in close quarters.

I think its hard for these people to understand how plate armor really works; they get all their information from games and hollywood movies and think wearing a full suit of plate armor would reduce the percentage of damage by 33% and lessen their mobility by 50%. As for piercing weapons yes they are the most effective way to deal with heavy armor. Half swording techniques in training manuals along with those of poleaxes generally show us that those were the usual weapons to use in combat between two well trained and well armored fighters, or getting them in a vulnerable position through grappling and using a dagger to the vulnerable parts.

Even when presented with historical fact you press on and ignore it. You'll need to reread the OP in this case as if you continue cluttering up this thread with "I don't want to see any part of a woman's skin!" comments I'm just going to report you for trolling.

It is in fact you who just can't get it. The armor currently represented in this game is based on "hollywood" movies. The armor currently in this game is impractical for real combat. That's why it's in a fantasy game. How can you not understand this simple concept?

There are a ton of us across multiple forum's who are in agreement here against you. This armor sucks. It looks horrible for the most part. It cater's to the "ideal" man by being "heroic, sexy, powerful, masculine". It only caters to women via being prudish.

ESO's.armor.does.not.follow.TES.lore.nor.realistic.lore


Get it through your thick brain already.

Mumnoch

Psychobunni wrote: »

I am 100% for cosmetic modding, assuming their mod only effects their game and I'm not somehow forced to see their mod'ed look.

I like that allowance much better than ZOS changing armor sets. One of the things I enjoy about ESO is that female characters are respected and on equal footing and not treated as eye candy ala asian games (despite the missed opportunity to make AD Queen heroic).

It is mostly realistic, which again is another thing I love about TES in general, and the very reason I downloaded and deleted WoW in the same day. Yeah, yeah, I know OP doesn't want realism, but OP needs to understand that for some players the lack of cheesy and realistic approach is very much why we play in the first place.

That's perfectly fine that you like prudish armor (it's not realistic, go look up realistic armor). What is not ok is that you want to force everyone else here to view the types of armor you are comfortable seeing while not accepting other people's tastes. This game isn't about you. This game is supposed to be about TES's lore. It fails horribly in this department. The many different people that have read this thread agrees. This armor is ***. It needs to change. I'd rather Zenimax do the right thing and introduce or convert "some" of the armor back to it's roots. I'm fine if they want to truely support TES lore and introduce everything from skimpy to prudish armor. What all of us on this thread (except you 2 or 3 spammers) are not fine with is this crappy looking, prudish, backwards, biased against females, ugly armor being "ok" with no choices available to those of us who isn't scared of the female form.


Go google 1950 female's, 90% of them show more skin than what is represented in this game for females. And oh ya, those are outfits your grandmother was ok with wearing. You prude.

MercyKilling

Mumnoch wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

I am 100% for cosmetic modding, assuming their mod only effects their game and I'm not somehow forced to see their mod'ed look.

I like that allowance much better than ZOS changing armor sets. One of the things I enjoy about ESO is that female characters are respected and on equal footing and not treated as eye candy ala asian games (despite the missed opportunity to make AD Queen heroic).

It is mostly realistic, which again is another thing I love about TES in general, and the very reason I downloaded and deleted WoW in the same day. Yeah, yeah, I know OP doesn't want realism, but OP needs to understand that for some players the lack of cheesy and realistic approach is very much why we play in the first place.

That's perfectly fine that you like prudish armor (it's not realistic, go look up realistic armor). What is not ok is that you want to force everyone else here to view the types of armor you are comfortable seeing while not accepting other people's tastes. This game isn't about you. This game is supposed to be about TES's lore. It fails horribly in this department. The many different people that have read this thread agrees. This armor is ***. It needs to change. I'd rather Zenimax do the right thing and introduce or convert "some" of the armor back to it's roots. I'm fine if they want to truely support TES lore and introduce everything from skimpy to prudish armor. What all of us on this thread (except you 2 or 3 spammers) are not fine with is this crappy looking, prudish, backwards, biased against females, ugly armor being "ok" with no choices available to those of us who isn't scared of the female form.


Go google 1950 female's, 90% of them show more skin than what is represented in this game for females. And oh ya, those are outfits your grandmother was ok with wearing. You prude.

There's no need for name calling, and that will only get the thread locked. Please don't.
You are empowering these people to get under your skin. Don't let their opinions or words even matter. Just keep suggesting options and/or designs. Like so:

How would you actually like to be a pirate?

Male:




Female:




I could definitely go for clothing that looks like this for women:



and male: (personally, this is what the male cloth armors SHOULD HAVE looked like in this game at launch, but....)



And last(for now) but not least....GET YOUR FLAMEPROOF SUITS ON. Here comes the courtesan costume!

if Zeni can fix the clipping issue of the skirt part, that is.....:



Of course, allowing cosmetic modding would solve the problem of Zenimax having to solve the clipping issue.

drackonir

Mumnoch wrote: »

drackonir wrote: »

If by better looking armour you mean, less armour and more nude i suggest you find yourself a girlfriend. Problem solved

I've got a wife, who also wants sexier armor for her avatar. Should I tell her to go get a "girlfriend" so her "problems could be solved"? Or do I tell you to grow up and realize that what we are asking for has nothing to do with sexual satisfaction?

jkemmery wrote: »

drackonir wrote: »

If by better looking armour you mean, less armour and more nude i suggest you find yourself a girlfriend. Problem solved

By this logic, I suppose anyone who appreciates the human form is sexually frustrated in such a manner that it can only be quenched through female companionship?

Yes, that makes sense ...

you both can deny but the truth is quite different. Playing females with little clothing or none at all is linked to the psychological problem; sexuality etc.

something with an eye wink: https://justjillsblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/the-real-reason-men-play-video-games-as-women/

I have a friend. He is a professor who has spend last 15 years playing MMO games. His main purpose was not fun thou, he has focused on the social aspect of MMO games and various human behaviour we encounter on-line. Sadly i don't have any of his work translated to English but what is written in that link above is not that far from the truth.

Lord_Draevan

Odd how people say they want more revealing female armor for "realism" or "inclusiveness"... but I see none of those people are clamoring for revealing MALE armor!



Oh my... we need more of this

In all seriousness, I don't think we're going to get more revealing female armors unless ZOS allows modders to make it. ZOS has substantially bigger fish to fry.

UrQuan

Lord_Draevan wrote: »

Odd how people say they want more revealing female armor for "realism" or "inclusiveness"... but I see none of those people are clamoring for revealing MALE armor!

Then you clearly haven't paid much attention to the other threads on the topic that keep popping up. Because lots of people have asked for exactly that.

Not in this thread that I've noticed, though... This thread seems to have fallen into very strange arguments, and I've found it has started to get weird to try to follow what's being argued here...

jkemmery

drackonir wrote: »

you both can deny but the truth is quite different. Playing females with little clothing or none at all is linked to the psychological problem; sexuality etc.

Yes, obviously it is given how much commonality there is between the instances each ...

Just because YOU believe something, doesn't make it true. I think THAT is a more serious psychological condition.

drackonir wrote: »

something with an eye wink: https://justjillsblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/the-real-reason-men-play-video-games-as-women/

I have a friend. He is a professor who has spend last 15 years playing MMO games. His main purpose was not fun thou, he has focused on the social aspect of MMO games and various human behaviour we encounter on-line. Sadly i don't have any of his work translated to English but what is written in that link above is not that far from the truth.

The link is a joke, and just a rant from an angry, self-proclaimed feminist with nothing, NOTHING to back up it's ridiculous claims.

There is such a thing as Google Translate which does a decent job of translating. Please, post these links from your professor friend's research. (If this is even true, you seem like the type of person who makes things up to try to convince others of your point of view). I'm sure we'll be able to get the point of his or her message.

I'll be waiting for you to show me some of this "scholarly research" in to the psychological problems that involve playing MMOs with women in more clothing than you see women wearing on the average beach throughout the world on any given freaking day.

Lord_Draevan

UrQuan wrote: »

Lord_Draevan wrote: »

Odd how people say they want more revealing female armor for "realism" or "inclusiveness"... but I see none of those people are clamoring for revealing MALE armor!

Then you clearly haven't paid much attention to the other threads on the topic that keep popping up. Because lots of people have asked for exactly that.

Not in this thread that I've noticed, though... This thread seems to have fallen into very strange arguments, and I've found it has started to get weird to try to follow what's being argued here...

I'm only referring to this thread, this is actually the first one I've read on these forums asking for more revealing female armors.

UrQuan

Lord_Draevan wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Lord_Draevan wrote: »

Odd how people say they want more revealing female armor for "realism" or "inclusiveness"... but I see none of those people are clamoring for revealing MALE armor!

Then you clearly haven't paid much attention to the other threads on the topic that keep popping up. Because lots of people have asked for exactly that.

Not in this thread that I've noticed, though... This thread seems to have fallen into very strange arguments, and I've found it has started to get weird to try to follow what's being argued here...

I'm only referring to this thread, this is actually the first one I've read on these forums asking for more revealing female armors.

Yeah, if you're just looking at this one thread, I think you're right. If you look at some of the other threads on the topic, though, you'll find that a lot of people are advocating it for both males and females.

Most (if not all) of the threads on this topic have a tendency to devolve into personal attacks and get locked. This one hasn't quite gotten to that point (although given that there are now accusations of people having psychological problems in the thread, I expect it will get there shortly), but it sure has gotten to a point of very strange arguments, with (IMO) incredibly convoluted logic.

ZOS_AlanG

We appreciate the feedback in this thread, but the discussion has gotten off track and inflammatory, so we are locking it.

It’s perfectly fine to be critical or disagree, but these comments need to be kept civil and constructive. This is especially important in a debate with very strong opinions on both sides, as it is easy for them to break down.

This isn’t the first debate on the forums between those who want more revealing armor, and those who don’t. It also isn’t the first to be locked for getting inflammatory. These discussions have seen rational explanations and rebuttals from both sides, but it is a very charged topic.