Male Armor Sets too flamboyant. Bring full armor back!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyuRoots

That's hilarious. I mean I know you're not trying to be funny but it really, really is.

---

Bowie hate is so dank. You make me sad, boy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gray_Spy

I love how homie listed like 15+ different OLD sets of gear and says "deal with it"
I've explicitly made notions to make more options for new gear, not old

---

New gear, when? All of the "old gear" that "homie" listed was new to us, the players who equip them, at SOME point. When each gear was found or introduced, some liked it and others didn't; the latter group probably glamoured something else over it once the glamour system was introduced.

You're basically saying this latest patch introduced a single new gearset that you don't like, and extrapolating that out to "new gear, in general, doesn't have enough options". It's actually not a logical leap to make, at all.

And yeah, listing old gear that you can glamour is a perfectly acceptable response to your complaint. You don't like that primal battle armor set? Glamour something else over it. What else would you expect the solution to be? Some people DO like that set. Others just don't care. Any single set or piece of armor is going to be liked by some, but not all; aesthetics are entirely subjective, after all. And since there IS a pretty good variety of gear in this game, and a glamour system, then everyone can be happy!

Re: the primal set itself - as mentioned, some people DO like it and have said so in this thread. If you don't, that's your prerogative, but "just deal with it" is the solution because there will be some gear you do like and some you don't. That's just the breaks when the game has a wide variety of gear. Next time they introduce new armor, maybe you'll love it and some of the people in this thread who've argued with you will hate it. Then they can glamour over it while you don it happily.

Also, if you think it looks silly and terrible on a guy, and GOOD on a woman, well, that's your problem. Bit amusing to me to see this tired old double standard being paraded out in the open so bluntly here: armor that is horribly impractical for the sake of showing skin and being sexy~ is fine on a female character, but put that same armor on a guy, and suddenly it's a no-go? To the point where your solution was to fantasia your character INTO a woman? Well. Says more about you than SE.

Quote:

---

As said before. They're getting lazy. It shows.

---

So because one armor set in one patch wasn't to your personal liking, this is evidence of objectively measurable laziness or incompetence on the part of the people who design the gear.

Sure.

ALL OF THAT SAID: just for its own sake, I love the idea of introducing an armor set modeled after the female Knight set from FF Tactics, because it's freaking gorgeous (and way better looking than the male Knight, I always thought, though hey why not bring both into XIV while we're dreaming!). It's also an excellent example of how to make armor that looks solid, practical, serious, AND still has a "feminine" touch to it.

Wear a scarf or something...

Thinking back on the gear progression since when the game came out, it certainly took a strange turn. Before the top gear was dark light gear, which was heavy, heavy armor. Even the mages were armored. And then it stayed pretty armor driven for a while.

Then alligan gear came out. It was robe like but it was ancient technology armor, so whatever it works. Now...pffttt that just opened the door to these silly designs. Don't get me wrong, I love some of the sets and it's a welcome addition every so often. But now it's becoming the norm...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valkyrie_Lenneth

I think this was there answer to people complaining that the drg and nin af bodies were different on females. They make them uniform, and now people are complaining.

SE literally can't win.

---

Lol this is so true. I forgot about that old complaint, in fact i thought it was sexy. Oh well, people will complain, who needs logic right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zojha

Or at least a miqo'te belly fur option...*scritchscratchgiggletickle*

---

One day! I hope

The current trend in designs are (mostly) trying to go with a theme, though, right? Ishgard gave us a lot of strong influence from a fantasy version of medieval Europe so you have knights with intricate armour, house livery and religious iconography everywhere. If we get a future expansion with a strong Doman theme and/or samurai, we can probably expect quite a few gearsets to resemble Sengoku-era warrior armour. The lore gear is separate to this overall theme, but it just happens to be of a fanciful design as well this time.

(I'm not a great fan of the healer/caster model on my character but I like it far more than the Daystar or Ironworks gear - it's 100% subjective.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morzy

Lol this is so true. I forgot about that old complaint, in fact i thought it was sexy. Oh well, people will complain, who needs logic right?

---

Well, I assume it's different people on both sides of the debate otherwise that would be silly! The original point is still valid, however; some people like the belly windows, others like to feel their character would choose to wear more practical equipment (though with DRG gear that ship has probably sailed; most of it is so jagged you're likely to give yourself a fatal wound just getting dressed anyway, belly window or otherwise).

Honestly, I'm loving it. I just come up to good looking hyur males and stare at their bare chest.

I love this because I get to tell all of my guy tank friends, "You know, that corset really does wonders for your figure."

Also, men wearing corsets was kind of a thing back in the day and is sometimes mirrored in steampunk fashion, which the devs have said they wanted to incorporate ideas from in the 3.x gear sets.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...1b59fea443.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...649009574d.jpg

http://www.scoundrelleskeep.com/uplo...42221_orig.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...ff1e0f0af7.jpg

http://corsetdealblog.com/wp-content...ts-700x394.jpg

https://31.media.tumblr.com/bd75f521...bjR1swf4p8.gif

So yeah. Male corsetry has been a thing for a while, though certainly not mainstream since Edwardian times. Now it has come to Eorzea. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyVal

*gag*

---

Oh god put it away! *Hrmmphh* ugh... I kinda see what the OP is saying. Tanks are wearing less tank looking gear and looking less armored than they should. Honestly I'd actually like to see the soup can armors come back as well as the dungeon exclusive metal armor plate sets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurogaea

Oh god put it away! *Hrmmphh* ugh...

---

If you're that worked up over seeing fully clothed men in moderately laced/fastened corsets, I would hate to see you react to anything more vulgar than Care Bears. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurogaea

Tanks are wearing less tank looking gear and looking less armored than they should. Honestly I'd actually like to see the soup can armors come back as well as the dungeon exclusive metal armor plate sets.

---

But what is tank gear supposed to look like? And how much should a tank be required to wear to visually qualify for their role? If you want to start getting into the realm of realism, no amount of armor would feasible protect you from most of the creatures we fight anyway so how little or how much anyone wears should make no difference (yeah that plate armor is going to do you a whole lot of good against something that blasts you with super-heated plasma or swats you with a paw the size of a sedan). But this isn't real life, it's a High Fantasy game so basic logic need not apply.

I just find it funny that people are fine with our characters being able to survive hits from things that would most certainly kill you in real life, but having armor that shows a little skin or doesn't look "tanky enough" is suddenly going too far and breaks immersion. Where's your consistency?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyVal

If you're that worked up over seeing fully clothed men in moderately laced/fastened corsets, I would hate to see you react to anything more vulgar than Care Bears. lol

---

Its not the fact that they're fully clothed, obviously. You do know what happens to your organs when you keep those laces on for too long as tight as they did in that last picture right? They all shift to your lower regions. For a guy it sounds just as horrifying X(

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...uL._SX300_.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElHeggunte

But what is tank gear supposed to look like? And how much should a tank be required to wear to visually qualify for their role? If you want to start getting into the realm of realism, no amount of armor would feasible protect you from most of the creatures we fight anyway so how little or how much anyone wears should make no difference (yeah that plate armor is going to do you a whole lot of good against something that blasts you with super-heated plasma or swats you with a paw the size of a sedan). But this isn't real life, it's a High Fantasy game so basic logic need not apply.

I just find it funny that people are fine with our characters being able to survive hits from things that would most certainly kill you in real life, but having armor that shows a little skin or doesn't look "tanky enough" is suddenly going too far and breaks immersion. Where's your consistency?

---

What? I never even said anything about reality now did I? All I said they're wearing gear that doesn't look tanky and I see what the OP is saying. As for an idea of tanky gear, I would probably talk about adamanite armor being probably the strongest metal, like Wolverine strong so it'd make sense if reality played a part though I don't care for it in my Fantasy RPG MMO. Though I do see people playing the reality card when some ask for child races in this game, or more bikini skin revealing armor in dungeons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurogaea

What? I never even said anything about reality now did I? All I said they're wearing gear that doesn't look tanky [...]

---

Yes, you kind of did. Pointing out that tanks "look less armored than they should" or that the gear doesn't look "tanky" implies a realism argument. If you aren't applying realism, it shouldn't matter what the armor looks like outside of aesthetic preference. If you mean to say the appearance of the armor simply doesn't fit the popular knight-in-a-can archetype, fine. Fair enough. But if you mean that the armor doesn't look like it would offer enough protection from attacks you need to check your logic at the door.

Because like I mentioned in my previous post, most of the things we fight in this game (and most fantasy games for that matter) have the strength or abilities that would immediately render armor completely useless if you start trying to be realistic. If you're fine with being able to survive a blow from a creature the size of a house or any of the other crazy attacks we're hit with in this game you should have no problem with how practical your equipment looks. It's inconsistent reasoning otherwise.

Paladin: *survives being punched by Sephirot* Man, look at this crazy Hellfire armor. Someone could stab me right in my perfectly sculpted chest and there's nothing there to protect me. Talk about impractical design. It's so unrealistic!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElHeggunte

Yes, you kind of did. Pointing out that tanks "look less armored than they should" or that the gear doesn't look "tanky" implies a realism argument. If you aren't applying realism, it shouldn't matter what the armor looks like outside of aesthetic preference. If you mean to say the appearance of the armor simply doesn't fit the popular knight-in-a-can archetype, fine. Fair enough. But if you mean that the armor doesn't look like it would offer enough protection from attacks you need to check your logic at the door.

Because like I mentioned in my previous post, most of the things we fight in this game (and most fantasy games for that matter) have the strength or abilities that would immediately render armor completely useless if you start trying to be realistic. If you're fine with being able to survive a blow from a creature the size of a house or any of the other crazy attacks we're hit with in this game you should have no problem with how practical your equipment looks. It's inconsistent reasoning otherwise.

Paladin: *survives being punched by Sephirot* Man, look at this crazy Hellfire armor. Someone could stab me right in my perfectly sculpted chest and there's nothing there to protect me. Talk about impractical design. It's so unrealistic!

---

This. People seem to be having a bit of trouble understanding what Fantasy is. If you want to start getting into the whole "That doesn't look like it would offer protection" arguement, where are the, "that looks like it would hinder movement, why doesn't it have negative skill speed?" discussions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElHeggunte

Because like I mentioned in my previous post, most of the things we fight in this game (and most fantasy games for that matter) have the strength or abilities that would immediately render armor completely useless if you start trying to be realistic. If you're fine with being able to survive a blow from a creature the size of a house or any of the other crazy attacks we're hit with in this game you should have no problem with how practical your equipment looks. It's inconsistent reasoning otherwise.
Paladin: *survives being punched by Sephirot* Man, look at this crazy Hellfire armor. Someone could stab me right in my perfectly sculpted chest and there's nothing there to protect me. Talk about impractical design. It's so unrealistic!

---

It implies I seen how tank armor used to look and how it looks now. You happen to be thinking about realism for some reason when I'm thinking about previous armor sets in the game that just happen to be what I can clearly see as tank gear (metal plates, chainmail, etc).

Also you do realize the WoL are basically immortal right? We can't die thanks to the Echo and Hydaelyns blessing. We just get beat up till we pass out and promptly warp to a safe spot. That's why we take as much damage as we do and move around like nothing happened. Or at least thats what I heard from my lore buddies anyway. >_>

I think the primal armor overall is pretty lackluster and a wasted opportunity. The palette swaps are a bit lazy and honestly the tank armor looks horrible. With enough primals to cover the jobs they could have easily utilized independent job sets. Most of the tanks seem to be just glamoring over it. I would agree that it resembles a female set in the same way the AF Dragoon armors are different based on character sex. The saving grace of this patch is the dyable HA armor sets imo which are the best looking raid sets in the game and having them dyeable is quite awesome.

This is going to be an unpopular opinion but as a tank I feel like I almost have too many options for glamour. There's so many good sets that it makes it hard to pick one. I end up rotating from week to week as it is. Now that's not to say that even more options isn't better (hint: more options is ALWAYS better) but personally I just can't relate to anyone who says they don't like any options.

Also I was skeptical about the hellfire armor but now that I've seen it I like it. I have the chest piece glamoured over currently mostly because I'd rather wait until I have the full set before mixing and matching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyVal

So yeah. Male corsetry has been a thing for a while, though certainly not mainstream since Edwardian times. Now it has come to Eorzea. :P

---

Y'know, the ones where they basically blend a corset/vest actually look really sharp to me.

The ones where they just slap a corset on a dude are a little ._. though.

I would like to see more heavy plate options without the dress attached as well. The only nice thing about the new primal chest piece is the color. The open bust is pretty stupid looking.

Once upon a time, the original AF gear for Dragoon had a belly cutout on the female version and no cutout on the male version. People complained a lot about it. Now we have boob cutouts on male gear. *facepalm*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurogaea

Its not the fact that they're fully clothed, obviously. You do know what happens to your organs when you keep those laces on for too long as tight as they did in that last picture right? They all shift to your lower regions. For a guy it sounds just as horrifying

---

Corsets were originally designed for men, you know. They were created to help mens' ppostures and fix hunched backs.

all i can say is people asked for Skirts and SE delivered, then delivered again, and continued delivering because no one said stop

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chasely

Corsets were originally designed for men, you know. They were created to help mens' ppostures and fix hunched backs.

---

Were they good for a war-type setting, though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giantslayer

Once upon a time, the original AF gear for Dragoon had a belly cutout on the female version and no cutout on the male version. People complained a lot about it. Now we have boob cutouts on male gear. *facepalm*

---

now I just need an anchor tattoo right at the middle of my chest :D

Pretty cat girls furiously angry that some citizens of Eorzea would rather not unite and play pretty princess dress up with them. The Lodestone forums run red with the blood of unbelievers. Film at 11.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashkendor

Y'know, the ones where they basically blend a corset/vest actually look really sharp to me.

The ones where they just slap a corset on a dude are a little ._. though.

---

^Agreed. Thanks, LadyVal, for posting this as I was unaware that men ever wore corsets. And that's exactly what the tank armor reminds me of. But the men in all of these pictures are wearing dress shirts and vest combos with them. They're not bare-chested. It's even more jarring to see something that looks like a bare-chested corset incorporated in tank armor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nestama

Were they good for a war-type setting, though?

---

Of course. If you sit striaghter in your saddle you're less likely to fall off.

Personally I like the sexy chest window and I'm glad to see more things that aren't huge bulky tin cans. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bracken

all i can say is people asked for Skirts and SE delivered, then delivered again, and continued delivering because no one said stop

---

Well if they like making skirts someone should tell them to make good looking skirts for mages then. Or just attire that makes you look like a damn Wizard and not some prissy upstart noble or a Black Market merchant with a big ass hat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nestama

Were they good for a war-type setting, though?

---

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!

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?

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.

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.

Aww c'mon. You know you want to look like the daytime stripper equivalent of a drag queen.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohmRICE

Please keep the skimpy tank armor coming, most roegadyn are tanks which means more scantily clad roes. (´▽`ʃƪ)♡

---

Probably the only real argument I've heard for keeping armor skimpy that I agree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harlow

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.

---

http://orig13.deviantart.net/a542/f/...io-d4pn1ee.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nestama

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.

---

Well 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?

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.)

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CyrilLucifer

snip

---

Rule of Cool/Sexy at work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rowyne

^Agreed. Thanks, LadyVal, for posting this as I was unaware that men ever wore corsets. And that's exactly what the tank armor reminds me of. But the men in all of these pictures are wearing dress shirts and vest combos with them. They're not bare-chested. It's even more jarring to see something that looks like a bare-chested corset incorporated in tank armor.

---

Well... 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/

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.