Skimpy armors

TicToc

Yes

Maverick827 wrote: »

TicToc wrote: »

What rules?.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Consistency

Not sure what that was supposed to prove. That was rules for TV, not how characters should look in a fantasy setting. There was nothing about how they should dress. And since you brought up TV, there have been many scantily clad female (and male) warriors in movies and TV shows.

Eivar wrote: »

So you seem to have missed my point COMPLETELY.


I mentioned tolkein as a way to show the differences context makes when using the word fantasy. A tolkein-esque world is a world of "High fantasy" with things like magic and elves, etc etc. Not "hey you shut up tolkein said no skimpy armor!" The argument is that in a world where people need armor to protect themselves.....you need armor to protect yourself. if the answer is simply i gotz magic ahrmur spellz, then no one would need to wear armor, and it wouldn't exist. Since the ES world has armor, that obviously isn't the case.

No, I didn't miss anything. That is the subject of the thread and resulting from the discussion the person you quoted was having. There was no difference in the use of the word "fantasy" other than what you might have read into it.

People may need armor to protect themselves, but it does not need to be full body armor, it can be strategically placed pieces. Sure, magic could be a factor, as could agility. You can be far more agile wearing less armor, thus more agile people would get more benefit out of wearing less armor while less agile people cover themselves in a metal shell. Not to mention, cloth is not really armor and is not really going to protect you from much of anything, so it doesn't matter how much or how little you are wearing.

Maverick827

No

Aeradon wrote: »

Maverick827 wrote: »

Aeradon wrote: »

Maverick827 wrote: »

You read the one part of that page that doesn't apply to the topic. Read the others.

Are there specific lines that I'm supposed to read, and specific lines that I'm supposed to skip because you want me to? And I'm wrong if I do not follow your rules?

So the article you posted has valid and invalid points? So how trustworthy is that article if it contradicts itself?

I clearly overestimated your abilities of comprehension.

You posted an article that contains a fact of which contradicts what you were trying to prove using said article. Who's the idiot?

Still you, because you misunderstood the article so severely that you still think the part you quote contradicts me. Since I'm waiting on a group to start a dungeon, I'll explain it to you.

External Consistency: Consistency with the real world.
The fictional universe is Like Reality Unless Noted. Violations of external consistency are "unrealistic."

External consistency, like the quote says, means that, unless otherwise noted, things within a fictional universe should behave as they do in the real world.

This is why every fictional universe doesn't need to set up for the reader that gravity exists, that being stabbed with a sword is a bad thing, and that finding a chest full of gold coins is a good thing. We expect these things because that's how they are in the real world. Now, if in any particular fictional universe gold was not a rare commodity, then said fictional universe would would have explicitly say so. I wasn't even planning on using external consistency to argue my point but it works just the same:

Since no where is it stated that armor doesn't protect you in the Elder Scrolls universe, we expect that it does. If armor protects you, then not wearing it, by definition, means that you are vulnerable.

"But what about magic," you say, "I can have rings that magically grant me armor, and magical spells can protect me as well!" True, but that's where internal consistency comes into play:

Internal Consistency: Consistency with itself.
Any rules, events, settings, or characters that have been established within the fictional work continue to exist and function as they did previously, unless otherwise indicated.

Since characters in the game world wear full plate armor, it only stands to reason that doing so offers some benefit. Why would they wear full plate armor, which restricts mobility and more quickly tires one out in combat, if they could just wear shorts, a tee-shirt, and a magic ring?

Obviously, armor does something. Kings and queens in this game wear armor into battle. The fighter's guild wears armor into battle. If it were even remotely possible to reach the same level of protection via enchantments and spells, then surely the richest and most powerful warriors would do so.

But since they don't, the universe establishes that armor equals protection, and obviously no armor equals no protection. "Skimpy" armor violates the established rules of the universe.

mlecho74

No

Skimpy armor? No. *However* I wouldn't mind seeing social clothing for roleplayers, or people like my main, who exists solely to craft for my alt. My main doesn't need armor and weapons, because she never leaves Wayrest. Having a blacksmith outfit (or just civilian gear) would be nice, in my opinion.

Another thing I'd love to see is the ability to completely customize your armor - beyond just dyeing and tinting, I would love to see the ability to design your own armor/clothing motif.

Aeradon

Yes

Eivar wrote: »

Aeradon wrote: »

Eivar wrote: »

Aeradon wrote: »

Eivar wrote: »

Aeradon wrote: »

Eivar wrote: »

Aeradon wrote: »

Eivar wrote: »

Aeradon wrote: »

Maverick827 wrote: »

TicToc wrote: »

What rules?.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Consistency

External Consistency: Consistency with the real world.
The fictional universe is Like Reality Unless Noted. Violations of external consistency are "unrealistic."

You mean to tell me there's nobody in the real world that puts on skimpy dresses?

so you're implying there is a secret clan of bikini clad ninjas out there wading into combat wearing 3 cloth triangles and some string?

Have you been to the Amazon? Did you know some amazonian tribes are still cut off from the world? They fight naked, they hunt naked. After all these years, they're still, naked.

what are their mortality rates like? do they have massive battles over territory with large armies? do they siege keeps, use flaming oil and other nastiness on eadch other?

1. They are still alive. And population grows despite migration outwards and zero influx.
2. Does wearing skimpy clothes means you need to engage in massive battles and siege keeps with flaming oil and nastiness? If flaming oil is your concern, I highly doubt that armour of yours could help you, it would in fact act as an oven, and your skin in contact with metal would receive burns. The flames might even get in and you have fire within.

1. you realize armor was created for a reason, and it wasn't prudishness. Had they worn armor of some type there would be a lot more and their society would be much different.
2. again missed the point completely, i mean like wow seriously missed it. i don't even know that i have the patience to try to explain this to you.

1. Armor in ESO is mainly a stat. Armor in real life is to prevent heavy damage upon first clash with enemies, it is not as protective as what you might think it should be. The really reinforced ones are so heavy it could only be used on a horse. Ores are a scarcity in real life, do you really think all soldiers are fully plated? They'll be lucky if given a sword.
2. Did anybody mention that Skimpy Armor is supposed to provide an armour boost like the other armours? You assume it does. Can any player run away from battle before engaging? That's right, they can.

Will you survive flaming oil without heals? If you need heals to survive, so can players with Skimpy Armors use heals to survive.

1. So you're implying that they didn't add armor to this world for the same function it has in the real world? I don't know when this discussion became about full plate mail, armor whether leather armor or plate is still armor. leather armor protects much better than naked skin.
2. If that's your point then why not put on a disguise with no armor and run around, since you're not asking for actual armor value.

1. How are virtual items supposed to have the same function compared to actual world?? The armours are merely values, calculations, created by the developers with no link to reality. Reality is a much more complex RNG that nobody understands. Yes, you are right, no matter what armour it is, it's better than skin, so why can't someone wear Skimpy Armor when they go for some random ninja fight you proposed?
2. That, is exactly what I did after level 34. I got so fed up with changing armours and repairing, I reach VR1 with all armours broken since 34. I'm sure a lot of people do this as well.

*edit: from 10-50 I run naked in Cyrodiil. Stats are boosted.

1. i'm sorry but that's the most ridiculous argument yet. it's not even worth rebutting.
2. see problem solved!

I posted, "You mean in the real world nobody wears a Skimpy dress?"
You want proof of whether warriors with exposed bodies exist. Done.
You demand to know whether these naked people fight wars and how well they are surviving. Done.
You demand whether being naked is as effective as having armours. Yes, they pose as much threat and armours regardless of material is a scarcity not all soldiers could have.
You then proceed to ask a question as to whether I feel that virtual armour has the same function as the armour in real world. I answered of course not.
You also stated any type of armour would be better than skin. So I proposed that Skimpy Armor is a choice free to be made by happy free willed bikini clad ninjas, should they choose to do so.

I run naked, I'm not wearing Skimpy attire. I want Skimpy attire. Comprende?

NakedSnake

Yes

Play the way you want. That's what TES games have always been about. Give me choice and lots of it.

Aeradon

Yes

Maverick827 wrote: »

Aeradon wrote: »

Maverick827 wrote: »

Aeradon wrote: »

Maverick827 wrote: »

You read the one part of that page that doesn't apply to the topic. Read the others.

Are there specific lines that I'm supposed to read, and specific lines that I'm supposed to skip because you want me to? And I'm wrong if I do not follow your rules?

So the article you posted has valid and invalid points? So how trustworthy is that article if it contradicts itself?

I clearly overestimated your abilities of comprehension.

You posted an article that contains a fact of which contradicts what you were trying to prove using said article. Who's the idiot?

Still you, because you misunderstood the article so severely that you still think the part you quote contradicts me. Since I'm waiting on a group to start a dungeon, I'll explain it to you.

External Consistency: Consistency with the real world.
The fictional universe is Like Reality Unless Noted. Violations of external consistency are "unrealistic."

External consistency, like the quote says, means that, unless otherwise noted, things within a fictional universe should behave as they do in the real world.

This is why every fictional universe doesn't need to set up for the reader that gravity exists, that being stabbed with a sword is a bad thing, and that finding a chest full of gold coins is a good thing. We expect these things because that's how they are in the real world. Now, if in any particular fictional universe gold was not a rare commodity, then said fictional universe would would have explicitly say so. I wasn't even planning on using external consistency to argue my point but it works just the same:

Since no where is it stated that armor doesn't protect you in the Elder Scrolls universe, we expect that it does. If armor protects you, then not wearing it, by definition, means that you are vulnerable.

"But what about magic," you say, "I can have rings that magically grant me armor, and magical spells can protect me as well!" True, but that's where internal consistency comes into play:

Internal Consistency: Consistency with itself.
Any rules, events, settings, or characters that have been established within the fictional work continue to exist and function as they did previously, unless otherwise indicated.

Since characters in the game world wear full plate armor, it only stands to reason that doing so offers some benefit. Why would they wear full plate armor, which restricts mobility and more quickly tires one out in combat, if they could just wear shorts, a tee-shirt, and a magic ring?

Obviously, armor does something. Kings and queens in this game wear armor into battle. The fighter's guild wears armor into battle. If it were even remotely possible to reach the same level of protection via enchantments and spells, then surely the richest and most powerful warriors would do so.

But since they don't, the universe establishes that armor equals protection, and obviously no armor equals no protection. "Skimpy" armor violates the established rules of the universe.

External Consistency.
The game did not state there is no Skimpy factor in game. Hence, Skimpy exists in ESO just like it exists in real world.
Armor exists in both worlds.

Internal Consistency.
I don't even know why you bring up whether armour does anything.
Armor exists.
Skimpy, as a fashion style, exists.
It's not up to Tamriel whether or not they want to use Skimpy Armor.
If in doubt, look at "Arena" disc cover posted by @Laura It exists in lore, accept it.

Mortuum

No

Sakiri wrote: »

Mortuum wrote: »

Huge selection of armor, costumes, dresses, casual clothing etc etc-YES!
Metal bikini for little boys who never seen piece of female body-NO!

xxx sites -> this way

Excuse me, I *have* those parts and I fully enjoy the option to not look like a nun, thanks.

Enjoy it all way you want All i said is about heavy armor sets, IN GAME, if you read up few posts earlier, you would notice that, explained it twice actually.
Also if you notice'' '' it was more of a joke then serious statement, which comes later with mentioned explanation. But selective reading seems to be very popular on those forums...

fiachsidhe

No

Vlaxitov wrote: »

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

and 1001 neckbeards disingenuously preaching the usual logical fallacies of denying sexism while unknowlingly identifying themselves as such.

See, I can do that too!

Arreyanne

Yes

Witch Elfs rock bikini wearing dual dagger weilding Tank killers with all their heavy armor

Arsvita

Yes

Eivar wrote:

No

Arsvita wrote: »

Skimpy armors
BhakuraBhakura
Skimpy armors 199 votes
Yes ... 45%
No .... 54%

Eorea wrote:

No
I'd have voted yes if the implication was not meant only for females

Where, please show me, does it state, claim, or even suggest that the "skimpy" outfit is for Females Only? The "implication" is from your own mind.

Eivar wrote:

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

BUT, This isn't Tolkein, Middle Earth, nor is it LoTR.
It's simply choice for some people to have other styles, beyond the few motifs we already have, for their gear.

it's amazing how you can cherry pick one phrase and make an assumption about hwat i was talking about, try rereading that a few times if it's difficult.

I have read most, if not all, of the posts in this thread.Maybe if you didn't flip flop like a fish or political entity there would be less confusion on your part?

It falls upon you and what you post. I did not take that statement out of context. Although you did sort of recant in a garbled and incoherent manner.

Eivar wrote:

No

Lunerdog wrote:

« hide previous quotes

Eivar wrote:

Lunerdog wrote:

Maverick827 wrote:

Lunerdog wrote:

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

And some people think skimpy armour is unrealistic ???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you only used Tolkein as an EXAMPLE of FANTASY to highlight differences that is supposed to be clear to people on the web ... huh. Right.

It's fantasy, of a large variety, created by many different minds.

As I stated in my post you quoted as inaccurate: It's simply choice for some people to have other styles, beyond the few motifs we already have, for their gear.

You want "realism" then first:
No Magic.
Clerics, be thankful if they enter the fray to drag you out to wrap a wound or leave you to die.
Heavy Armors, wow, heat stroke, and those light raiders picking you off as they swoop past.
Hack and Bash. No "special Abilities".
Archers, no armors for most and some leathers for the rich. Caught, well a little duh revelation, get your middle finger cut off so you can no longer shoot a bow.

fiachsidhe

No

Bhakura wrote: »

is this sexist then?
Because, dunno bout you, im just an average guy and she looks like she could rip my head off and laugh doing it, just look at those muscles you think she needs a metal plate to protect her when she goes into a frey?
First thing to pop in my head, "shes friggin badass", and not "so sexist"

As if those two things are mutually exclusive. How come every male nerd who defends sexist art direction or designs has THE worst logic and arguments?

Lets go over the thread and go down the checklist and see how many this thread can meet:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-8-stupidest-defenses-against-accusations-sexism/

fiachsidhe

No

deleted

Mortuum

No

Aeradon wrote: »

1. Maormer? >>> 2. Arena Imperial Gladiator? >>> 3. Dwemer


@Mortuum‌

Yup mate, again, nothing wrong with those sets, maybe except for top middle, with spear. Why wear have armor, if your most vital organs are so exposed to attack?
Last one is best and close to what i would like to see in ESO It is still armor, its still protective, allowing character for agile movement. I never said i disagree with your choices
And again-all i said was about heavy armor, as it supposed to give full protection in close combat. Light and medium armors are different, as mentioned earlier.

What i disagree to see in ESO is something like



or



If i post 1 more ill get banned...But you getting an idea

gurluasb16_ESO

No

No. Armor isn't made to be skimpy, it's made to protect you in battle.

HandofBane

Yes

Mortuum wrote: »

Aeradon wrote: »

1. Maormer? >>> 2. Arena Imperial Gladiator? >>> 3. Dwemer


@Mortuum‌

Yup mate, again, nothing wrong with those sets, maybe except for top middle, with spear. Why wear have armor, if your most vital organs are so exposed to attack?
Last one is best and close to what i would like to see in ESO It is still armor, its still protective, allowing character for agile movement. I never said i disagree with your choices
And again-all i said was about heavy armor, as it supposed to give full protection in close combat. Light and medium armors are different, as mentioned earlier.

What i disagree to see in ESO is something like

<snip>

If i post 1 more ill get banned...But you getting an idea

Almalexia herself must drive you nuts, then.

Zabus

Yes

I say yes. Have it show some skin. Nothing exposing too much skin around those parts, so that people don't complain.

lioslinn

No

HECK no. As a lifelong female gamer one of the big appeals on ES was the lack of ridiculous degrading immersion breaking skimpy armor. I've played dozens of MMOs and seeing those is an immediate turn-off. I already have a tough enough time defending gaming to my 'regular' friends who insist gaming is for nerdy no social skills 15 year olds. Been putting up with it enough in tabletop RPGs.

No thank you. Just go buy yourselves a few fantasy posters and call it a day =p

gurluasb16_ESO

No

HandofBane wrote: »

Mortuum wrote: »

Aeradon wrote: »

1. Maormer? >>> 2. Arena Imperial Gladiator? >>> 3. Dwemer


@Mortuum‌

Yup mate, again, nothing wrong with those sets, maybe except for top middle, with spear. Why wear have armor, if your most vital organs are so exposed to attack?
Last one is best and close to what i would like to see in ESO It is still armor, its still protective, allowing character for agile movement. I never said i disagree with your choices
And again-all i said was about heavy armor, as it supposed to give full protection in close combat. Light and medium armors are different, as mentioned earlier.

What i disagree to see in ESO is something like

<snip>

If i post 1 more ill get banned...But you getting an idea

Almalexia herself must drive you nuts, then.

She's a Goddess though.
Doesn't have to care about whether armor is protective. Her skin can be her armor if she wants to. She could wander around naked and arrows would break when they touched her.

Mortuum

No

HandofBane wrote: »

Mortuum wrote: »

Aeradon wrote: »

1. Maormer? >>> 2. Arena Imperial Gladiator? >>> 3. Dwemer


@Mortuum‌

Yup mate, again, nothing wrong with those sets, maybe except for top middle, with spear. Why wear have armor, if your most vital organs are so exposed to attack?
Last one is best and close to what i would like to see in ESO It is still armor, its still protective, allowing character for agile movement. I never said i disagree with your choices
And again-all i said was about heavy armor, as it supposed to give full protection in close combat. Light and medium armors are different, as mentioned earlier.

What i disagree to see in ESO is something like

<snip>

If i post 1 more ill get banned...But you getting an idea

Almalexia herself must drive you nuts, then.

For 7th time, or more: all i said here is about MY CHARACTER, not NPCs, and what i choose to use.And few things about what doesnt fit ESO, like above screens.
Before posting unrelated BS please read those few pages, it doesnt hurt, really...

Asasinka

Yes

18 more and we have a draw
c'mon girls, let's show them we love to look sexy even in games

HandofBane

Yes

Mortuum wrote: »

HandofBane wrote: »

Mortuum wrote: »

Aeradon wrote: »

1. Maormer? >>> 2. Arena Imperial Gladiator? >>> 3. Dwemer


@Mortuum‌

Yup mate, again, nothing wrong with those sets, maybe except for top middle, with spear. Why wear have armor, if your most vital organs are so exposed to attack?
Last one is best and close to what i would like to see in ESO It is still armor, its still protective, allowing character for agile movement. I never said i disagree with your choices
And again-all i said was about heavy armor, as it supposed to give full protection in close combat. Light and medium armors are different, as mentioned earlier.

What i disagree to see in ESO is something like

<snip>

If i post 1 more ill get banned...But you getting an idea

Almalexia herself must drive you nuts, then.

For 7th time, or more: all i said here is about MY CHARACTER, not NPCs, and what i choose to use.And few things about what doesnt fit ESO, like above screens.
Before posting unrelated BS please read those few pages, it doesnt hurt, really...

That's nice you don't want it for your character. What, pray tell, is the difference between seeing a NPC dressed like that vs seeing another player dressed like that? That they are running around in the same phase you are, failing to die horribly because of exposed skin in combat?

ers101284b14_ESO

No

I never understood the whole less is more thing. I think as a gamer we need to get away from the juvenile T&A thoughts and focus on gameplay and immersive entertainment over jiggley parts. Things like skimpy outfits and fear of an uknown medium are what make the media blame video games for everything.

zinoviy22b14_ESO

No

This is from a table top game.. Which I love.. fully covered women with sass!

Aemon_Isklexi

Yes

I'd like to see armor models similar to Sai Sahan's.

Mortuum

No

HandofBane wrote: »

Mortuum wrote: »

HandofBane wrote: »

Mortuum wrote: »

Aeradon wrote: »

1. Maormer? >>> 2. Arena Imperial Gladiator? >>> 3. Dwemer


@Mortuum‌

Yup mate, again, nothing wrong with those sets, maybe except for top middle, with spear. Why wear have armor, if your most vital organs are so exposed to attack?
Last one is best and close to what i would like to see in ESO It is still armor, its still protective, allowing character for agile movement. I never said i disagree with your choices
And again-all i said was about heavy armor, as it supposed to give full protection in close combat. Light and medium armors are different, as mentioned earlier.

What i disagree to see in ESO is something like

<snip>

If i post 1 more ill get banned...But you getting an idea

Almalexia herself must drive you nuts, then.

For 7th time, or more: all i said here is about MY CHARACTER, not NPCs, and what i choose to use.And few things about what doesnt fit ESO, like above screens.
Before posting unrelated BS please read those few pages, it doesnt hurt, really...

That's nice you don't want it for your character. What, pray tell, is the difference between seeing a NPC dressed like that vs seeing another player dressed like that? That they are running around in the same phase you are, failing to die horribly because of exposed skin in combat?

Because ESO dont need to be another MMO catering to 10 years old boys. Game or no, we still have common physic rules applying to world of Tamriel. You get hit, you will die.Therefore, heavy armor has only one purpose:protect you in close combat, not to show your character curves.
And, again, just for you, as it seems you have problems understanding simple sentences: what i said was all about heavy armor, as simply metal bikinis looks ridiculous at best. Said that many times: light armor and even medium are different.

''medium armor is not heavy that it has to cover every inch of character skin. It need to allow agile and fast movement, giving some protection.
Nothing wrong as well with sexy dress for sorcerer or mage.''

Seen it earlier? Maybe at least it looks familiar? No? Wrote it on page 2...So i guess its back to page 1 for you, again...And again.

TicToc

Yes

ers101284b14_ESO wrote: »

I never understood the whole less is more thing. I think as a gamer we need to get away from the juvenile T&A thoughts and focus on gameplay and immersive entertainment over jiggley parts. Things like skimpy outfits and fear of an uknown medium are what make the media blame video games for everything.

Who are you to decide what people should get away from? The idea that people can't focus on gameplay and immersion entertainment because they are wearing something skimpy, is ridiculous. It may make the game more immersive for some. Skimpy outfits are what make the media blame video games for everything? What? I would think that the violence and killing in games do far more to that end. Of course the media sensationalizes everything and they would find something even if there was nothing to find.

Quit telling other people how to live and play. And if animated characters showing a little skin bothers you so much, maybe you are the one that needs to grow up a little. Play how you want, dress your character how you want, do tell others how they should play.

It is also kind of sad that skimpy = T&A to you. Quite the prude aren't you? We aren't talking about wearing bikinis (sorry if that offends you), we are talking about armor that shows some skin.

The character creator has a whole tab for creating how you want your body to look, including muscles, scars, tattoos, and other markings on various parts of the body, 90% of which you will never see with the current armors. The devs sure wasted a lot of programming time if they didn't actually want people to see it.

ErilAq

No

I said no. I wouldn't mind their inclusion if they were zero stat armor (like the soul shriven robes at the beginning) but I'm actually extremely happy ESO doesn't go more into the anime/manga genre of armor. I don't think skimpy armor is offensive (I mean, come on, humans objectify everything, look at the men in cologne commercials, women on ads for their own underwear, etc) I just find it immersion breaking and unnecessary for the genre.

WhimsyDragon

No for armor.
Yes for costumes.

Maverick827

No

TicToc wrote: »

The devs sure wasted a lot of programming time if they didn't actually want people to see it.

Don't wear a chest piece.

Sev

No

Depends what you mean by skimpy. Bezerker gear (for both sexes), fine. Chainmail bikinis, no.

The key thing is that however much skin it shows, it still has to look like armor. If something looks like it wouldn't stay on you in battle without the aid of double-sided tape (looking at you, Tera), it's not armor.