Talk:Warrior Primeval armor
From Guild Wars Wiki
[edit] Boots
Its nice, but i hate the boots on the male version. I didn't really pay attention to it until i bought the set... now i regret getting the boots. Female version looks better for sure.--PimpC1125 00:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- No. Actually, the boots look perfect in my opinion. You can even make very nice combos with them. Markus Clouser
12:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Gauntlets
Okay, does anyone else notice that the arm on the left of the male set looks WAY too small? I dont mean to be sexist or anything, but on all the other armors the male arms are bigger than the female arms.--72.223.77.197 00:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- It does...It's like atrophic or something. I really like the male boots though. I'm going to get them when I get my warrior this far. xP 72.81.247.139 02:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think this looks like a very nice armor set, but im not a big fan of the helmet, but i guess i could just dye the armor a dark purple (like the tormented weapons "glowing patterns")and put on a blindfold. this is probably the best looking primeval armor, followed by the mesmer. Valion Sentis 00:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- The 'atrophic' effect of the arm might be because that's the dominant arm and would hold a sword or axe. The smaller armor means less metal and less weight allowing for the person to swing their weapon harder. If you look at any video game, and some photos of historical armor, the dominant hand or arm has less 'protection' because of the fact that, that's the arm the weapon goes in. Anyway my two sense is that I don't like the warrior primeval, but that's just me... Arty 23:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- the left arm simply has no extra armor. It's just the bicep covered with black. Look at your warrior from the same angle.Atomisk 15:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, @Atomisk, it is the Right arm that has no extra armor, not the left :P. Secondly, wouldn't it make more sense to have armor guarding the dominant arm? Think about it... you have only a sword (or axe ._.) to protect that arm, so any smart foe would swipe at it and render the warrior useless, due to severe muscle damage in the dominant arm. IMO a warrior should have more armor on his dominant arm and less on the arm carrying the shield, cause the shield will be defending that arm anyway. Elite Gladiator.
Kaoz|talk 12:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, @Atomisk, it is the Right arm that has no extra armor, not the left :P. Secondly, wouldn't it make more sense to have armor guarding the dominant arm? Think about it... you have only a sword (or axe ._.) to protect that arm, so any smart foe would swipe at it and render the warrior useless, due to severe muscle damage in the dominant arm. IMO a warrior should have more armor on his dominant arm and less on the arm carrying the shield, cause the shield will be defending that arm anyway. Elite Gladiator.
- the left arm simply has no extra armor. It's just the bicep covered with black. Look at your warrior from the same angle.Atomisk 15:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The 'atrophic' effect of the arm might be because that's the dominant arm and would hold a sword or axe. The smaller armor means less metal and less weight allowing for the person to swing their weapon harder. If you look at any video game, and some photos of historical armor, the dominant hand or arm has less 'protection' because of the fact that, that's the arm the weapon goes in. Anyway my two sense is that I don't like the warrior primeval, but that's just me... Arty 23:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think this looks like a very nice armor set, but im not a big fan of the helmet, but i guess i could just dye the armor a dark purple (like the tormented weapons "glowing patterns")and put on a blindfold. this is probably the best looking primeval armor, followed by the mesmer. Valion Sentis 00:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
this set is the best of the game its looks fckn great78.176.160.40 06:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
