Tbh, I don't think Magic, dragons, demons, dinosaurs, the void, giant dolls, animated statues, eikons,or primals were considered in real world armor designs either... Ramuh would be fun in steel plate right!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nestama
How does that skimpy outfit offer protection, magic is how. We aren't exactly playing Calvary Sim 3.0 here.
If you want to star arguinig real world designs, why don't we start talking about armor weights, mobility, endurance etc. Maybe you can throw on your darksteel plate and your skill speed goes down by half, but your chance of taking a crit hit also goes down, maybe it decreases your inventory by half, since it is so heavy, that whole thing games used to do.
I'm assuming real world semantics only count as far as the benefits to your point go, right?
Male Armor Sets too flamboyant. Bring full armor back!
Printable View
-
03-10-2016, 05:38 AMWhiteroom
-
03-10-2016, 06:01 AMNestama
All I did was ask a simple question. Are they appropriate to wear in a war-like setting (regardless of fantasy)?
Glamour doesn't 'change' what you wear, only the appearance (that's where the "magic" comes in. If we actually wore what we glamoured, we'd be incredibly vulnerable). So while my Roe may look like someone you'd expect to 'wake up' in Pulp Fiction, he's still appropriately geared. -
03-10-2016, 06:28 AMohmRICE
Please keep the skimpy tank armor coming, most roegadyn are tanks which means more scantily clad roes. (´▽`ʃƪ)♡
In all seriousness though I do admit I wouldn't mind having some more "casual" outfits to balance out the more outlandish ones, but I'd rather keep the "flamboyant" outfits if the alternative is sacrificing design freedom for the sake of realism. -
03-10-2016, 07:08 AMSnugglesD
Aww c'mon. You know you want to look like the daytime stripper equivalent of a drag queen.
-
03-10-2016, 08:35 AMHarlow
We should go through the conversation cycle of:
"Men have historically worn _______ so it's historically accurate."
"But it wasn't used for battle historically."
"It doesn't HAVE to be historically accurate! It's a FANTASY game!"
a few more times before this thread dies I think. -
03-10-2016, 09:41 AMRoegadyn_BearProbably the only real argument I've heard for keeping armor skimpy that I agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmRICE
http://orig13.deviantart.net/a542/f/...io-d4pn1ee.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Harlow
-
03-10-2016, 10:22 AMWhiteroomWell that is unknown isn't it. As I said, magiked products can account for duribility. Who here knows the properties of dragon skin? Who know what technologies an ancient civilzation, that could imprision dragon gods in moons, could incorperate in their protective wear?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nestama
You are asking for realism in a fantasy setting, and trying to bring in real world laws to it. So, I asked, at what point do your real world needs end? Apparently right where you want them to.
Did heavy armors not die out with the advent of the musket? We now have gun using classes in game, and heavy armors have been on the decline. There is that if you are looking for some kind of real world reasoning.
If you are looking for fantasy /real world cross over reasoning. Couldn't we just apply the logic that any one of the giant monsters in game could crush you in your tin suit? Can we not reason that the lighter armor makes the tank more agile, so they deflect and dodge the blows better, resulting in the lowered damage.
Or is it better just to say, "This is a fantasy video game, and when in doubt, some sort of magic is the reason."
Also since glamour doesn't change what we are wearing, can't you just say that lighter armor is just a heavy suit with a permanent glamour attached?
So, you see, your question wasn't that simple. But if I were to answer it in its most basic form, no, in a fantasy setting,with magic, and then our laws applied, thick metal armor does not necessarily provide the best protection. On top of armor crush, you have a lot of elemental magic attacks coming at you, and for any fire, ice and especially electrical based attacks, it is pretty much the worst thing you could have on, something like leather would be much better for that. (but yeah, this is where trying to bring real world logic into a fantasy video game takes us, this kind of uhhh... debate.) -
03-10-2016, 10:48 AMCyrilLucifer
This is the strangest thread.
I see a lot of threads criticizing particular decisions because muh immersion, but skimpy battle armor seems to be an exception to this rule. Because looking good, even if it's ridiculous, apparently wins over immersion in arguments on the OF.
Edit: Amusingly, SE actually fixed this issue in FFXI where you have the option to view players who aren't you in their default RSE.
(I wouldn't mind more heavy armor for mages like Darklight, though. Darklight boots are the best). -
03-10-2016, 10:52 AMDualbladeRule of Cool/Sexy at work.Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilLucifer
-
03-10-2016, 04:20 PMLadyValWell... traditionally they are worn under the clothing just like a woman, to get the "wasp waist" aesthetic that was popular for men at the time. I just chose pictures where they were fully clothed and not in a woman's frilly corset/bustier as a joke lol. You're welcome for the post btw, glad my degree came in handy. \o/Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowyne
Also to address if they were worn into battle: no. They were mostly worn by socialites and well-to-do men who wanted to look good in society. Though I would suspect some military officers would wear them when not on the battlefield, especially if they were looking for a wife.