Please do NOT alter Dark Knight AF for female characters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niwashi

Actually, in terms of heavy plate armour, if it's supposed to be useful and protective, then it would be as skintight as the people making it are capable of making it. The way plate armour protects you is by spreading out the force of blows. You get hit by a weapon in one spot and you absorb that blow with your entire body, with the force dispersed by the larger area.

---

Eh? XD, do you understand the laws of gravity and force?. Actually if you read up on female armor and how FULL plate works you would know that females are better off wearing as little armor as possible on the upper torso.

On a side note - have supported this thread and DO NOT MIND females in full plate armor. I for one would actually love(if i ever make one) my female Au Ra to wear full plate with no revealing parts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kosmos992k

Snip .

---

What on earth are you talking about? I'm supposedly a man because I want to play a character model that I can identify with and not have to deal with stupid looking "Feminine" armor? How on earth do I denigrate female characters? I keep emphasizing the fact that armor isn't suppose to be masculine or feminine, it's suppose to protect a person. Either way, my gender doesn't change anything with my argument. I am a girl for your information, but that ultimately doesn't matter, focus on my argument and not whatever my gender is.

You ought to look up the concept of male power fantasies, because that's all Conan is. Sonja is made by men, for men, to look skimpy and "Badass" for men (A metal bikini top is hardly more than what Conan wears anyways). Seriously, I'm just saying men and women aren't as uniform as folks keep implying. Roegadyn women look more masculine than Lalafell men do, so tell me, why don't Lalafell men have a cute little bellyhole and all or why don't Roegadyn women have more covering because they look far more masculine than either Lalafell or Elezen do. Men and women aren't that different and whenever someone starts going "All women have curves and look feminine!" you have to ask them, well what about this women who doesn't have curves and doesn't look feminine? Let me ask you something, what makes a woman a woman? http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1470673/original.jpg Would you say any of these women aren't women? I can tell you several of those women aren't "Feminine" so would you start talking about how they aren't celebrating their differences?

I'm not against women being feminine, I'm against men (Or really this idea that a woman MUST be feminine) making women feminine. A "truly" (And I'm saying "truly" because this is a hilarious concept, it's like saying there's "True capitalism" or "True communism" it's an ideology which will have many interpretations of what "truly" is) feminist point of view would allow a woman to make what of her gender identity she wills to be, if that's present masculine (And this is to divide masculinity from "being a man") then she ought to be able to. Whenever you start saying "Celebrate the differences!" you lock women into a certain role, and what is the traditionally feminine? Sexy, submissive, quiet, complacent. However, we're not arguing about gender and all that sort of stuff, we're arguing armor here, armor exists to protect the body, not emphasize femininity or masculinity. On Sonja: She literally doesn't have a will of her own, she's a character created by a man, she doesn't have agency outside of what her creator gives her.

Again please look up Kate Beaton's "Strong Female Characters", as it provides a funny parody of what I'm attempting to talk about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niwashi

Snip

---

Well, it needs to be "tight" in the sense that you can't have any extra loose bits hanging or it be too heavy, but it's got to be loose enough to often fit a layer of chain mail and be able to allow your body to move (Such as breathing or flexing) underneath it as well. Metal having thickness to it is important in ultimately keeping a blade/arrow from riding through. Though you are right with it being ill fitted, the transfer of force will end up being devastating in some spots.

I do feel there needs to be a difference between form-fitted and skin tight however. Like, for example, should armor accommodate for breasts? Yes it should, but not by emphasizing the breasts with a shape that gives clear distinct form to the boobs, rather it just be larger in that area. https://www.reddit.com/r/mountandbla...other_related/ This thread on reddit has a pretty reasonable explanation on what I'm talking about, though I disagree with one or two points of what the OP is saying.

Either way, you're definitely not wrong about the armor needing to be well fitted for it to be effected.

It's less an argument against well fitted, and more against one that's skin tight. In a fantasy setting like this, if the men's armor is bulky, then I feel the girl's ought to as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Onikimaru

Actually if you read up on female armor and how FULL plate works you would know that females are better off wearing as little armor as possible on the upper torso.

---

Can you go more further in depth? The primary difference between men and women with regards to their torso is the presences of breasts (Well, large ones). You're going to want to have those safe under armor either way. Like.. How do boobs change the need for armor on the upper body any more than a flat chest would?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SDaemon

Nothing about the roundness of the helmet indicates she is female. You could argue about the thigh armor and her figure, but not about the roundness of the helmet. -____-

---

Never played 12. It's the boobs that give it away. Her plate is rounded with a depression while the rest of them are flat across.

But seriously, these are pixels. I don't want reality. Give me something pretty to look at damn it.

Looks > function wins every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samcaesar

Well, it needs to be "tight"

---

Few misconceptions in this part but yes plate armor was designed to be form fitting as you have said.

But it's got to be loose enough to often fit a layer of chain mail:

Plate armor was not THAT tight.
Knights wore gambeson, or doublets under their armor, this was form-fitted quilted cloth armor designed to soak up the force of a blow, and prevent piercing weapons from penetrating too deep. Often it would be paired with 'MAIL' armor (chain mail is a misnomer) for added protection from piercing weapons.

Though you are right with it being ill fitted, the transfer of force will end up being devastating in some spots.

Plate armor was not designed around transfer of force (The Gambeson was actually designed to soak the force of weapon attacks.), it was designed to deflect and direct blows away from important areas of the body, the link you posted also states this. plate armor was then designed around the underarmor, and despite popular misconception it wasn't entirely thick or heavy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samcaesar

snip

---

http://io9.com/what-kind-of-armor-di...ear-1502779338 It is said that if females were to wear plate armor that it would need to be custom fitted in order for it to be safe and allow proper mobility in battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telsyr

Snip

---

Correction noted. Thanks for the corrections!

While the gambeson did most of the job of soaking the blow, plate did do a fine job of helping as well (Though.. If one couldn't afford actual plate armor the gambeson did provide alright protection). Ultimately a mixture of chain, plate, and the quilted (Or leather) padding would be what a well equipped knight would wear. Plate armor would oft provide enough protection from sword slashes and arrows as well. There is a lot of mixing and matching with armor really, it's kind of neat to look at the evolution of it. Like.. The introduction of plate armor to the more common soldier lead to a lot of weaponry evolving to adapt to it. Fencing as an art and swords meant for piercings in particular were designed around the idea of hitting weak spots, such as the joints or gaps in armor, or just piercing the armor in general.

It's not heavy per se (As, in the 14th century plate armor would weigh a max of around 50 pounds total apparently), but it's thick enough to stop a sword from cutting into you. IMHO a lot of the "feminine" armor goes against this sort of idea, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Onikimaru

http://io9.com/what-kind-of-armor-di...ear-1502779338 It is said that if females were to wear plate armor that it would need to be custom fitted in order for it to be safe and allow proper mobility in battle.

---

A misunderstanding on my behalf then. I interpreted what you said as "Women shouldn't wear much armor on their upper torsos!" as opposed to it just being modified to accommodate for breasts.. Though I suppose a flat chested woman wouldn't have much of an issue in that sort of scenario, would they? Either way, enjoyed the link, it was a fun read, Onikimaru!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samcaesar

snip

---

No worries, i found that awhile ago after some medieval lore junkies over at the skyrim nexus were arguing about armor and one of them had mentioned joan of arc and an interesting story behind her journey and i found that nice little article. It is actually a good piece of information about history and how females were eventually recognized as more than just females and more of brave warriors!.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphyna

But seriously, these are pixels. I don't want reality. Give me something pretty to look at damn it.

Looks > function wins every time.

---

Which is why we have a glamour system. We are most likely going to be getting more glamour options in HW and chances are some will be to your (and depending on how Roe males will look, my) tastes. As FFXIV exists in a "serious" world, armour that is supposed to protect the wearer (tanks) will always come before how "pretty" your character looks wearing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nestama

As FFXIV exists in a "serious" world, armour that is supposed to protect the wearer (tanks) will always come before how "pretty" your character looks wearing it.

---

A game ... a fantasy world... made up... not real.

A story.

People wanting to protect pixels.

You do realize that no amount of armour would protect you from falling from great heights, all these "magics", being roasted, etc, etc.? Right?

I'm sorry, but I just can't take you seriously.

And maybe when they create a better glamour system, because the current one is severely lacking, in customization and style, compared to other MMO's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samcaesar

some stuff including huffington post stuff

---

i said I think you're a guy because you're trying so hard to be politicaly correct in this discussion, I said nothing about your character.

I'm aware of how and why Red Sonja was created, and it didn't have much to with gender politics of any kind.Conan wasn't a figure in popular culture much before 1970, although the basic character was older, the comic book version either traces to Mexico in the 50's or Marvel in 1970.Sonja was added something like 3 years later. Conan's original garb was not a minimal loincloth, that was done to the comic book version in the 70's. The original was much more conventionally attired. the way you originally stated the history of Sonja, she sounded very much like an accessory created as an after thought. That's not really the case though.

The original Conan stories were pulp novels inthe 30s and were out of print for a long time. The comic book character is based on that original, and appeard only 3 years prior to Sonja. As for attire, Sonja wore more than Conan, a two piece bikini armor with gauntlets and boots vs a loincloth and boots.

The point being not why the character was added to the Conan story, rather your characterization of it, and dismissal of the character.

As for the concept of male power fantasies, I think you are projecting a lot. I am not defending the Sonja character or it's creation, I am pointing out the fallacy of your argument that the character created in the 70s, along with Conan in his present form, somehow indicates a lack of progress today, some 42-45 years later.

Huffington post articles not withstanding, equality for women does not mean uniformity, or suppressing their gender in order to get ahead. The idea that a woman wearing a suit almost identical to a male one somehow represents progress utterly misses the meaning of progress. Progress would mean that women can choose whatever mode of dress they wish and still be treated with respect, dignity and equally. Progress would mean that society in general, and men in particular would have moved on from seeing a woman in a skirt and blouse as somehow lees than a woman dressed similarly to her male peers.

Celebrating differences does NOT force gender roles on people, your mind is pretty well locked ito a presumption that everyone is trying to force femininity on others, but by that attitude you are casting femininity in a negative light. I think you need to jump off this hobby horse of yours where females are all physically equivalent to males, that simply not the case and not supported by science. Thats not to say the there are not females who are physically stronger than some males, but aside from statistical outliers, the point stands.

BTW, Sonja exists purely to take revenge against the men who robbed her of her home and people, and brutally assaulted her. Her character is driven buy revenge. Her costume is the archetypal female barbarian, I think you are too tied up in your own narrow view of femininity and feminism to look beyond the conspiracy of men making a character as an object of fantasy.

Retuning to the topic at hand, the point I would like to make once again is that armor for female characters can be feminine without being sexy, further more it can be feminine without cutesy ribbons and frills. Making the armor for females more fitted to there form makes it feminine, nothing else is requied. Also as someone else pointed out, armor needs to be tight and properly fitted or else you might as well go without. Ill fitting armor is dangerous to the wearer. So, please do modify any/all AF and other armor sets for females.