Feedback talk:User/Kormon Balser/Protective ARMOR

I agree! I suppose Scholars could get away with skimpy armor (to an extent) because they are behind the Soldiers and Adventurers casting spells the entire time. But a Warrior in a metal bra and thong, or wearing nothing but a loincloth, looks incredibly stupid! The purpose of it is to attract young male gamers who enjoy touching themselves while playing near-nude female characters... and I suppose that, yeah, Arenanet wants the cash from those customers. But they could make sexually suggestive outfits for their human/norn females without making them so unrealistic! With Arenanet's creativity that shouldn't be a problem at all. Weindrasi 07:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Weindrasi

Actually, yes. Never made sense to me, the armors look great and all. But on this subject I gotta give it, it doesn't seem correct. Tomoko 07:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I don't think it would be too hard to kill the Norn elementalist (for example), even if she was in a party with 4 soldiers. You could just step around them (maybe dodge or shadow step) run up to the ele, and eviscerate her (or shoot an arrow or magical blast from a distance). There is nothing stopping you... (ok, you might take 10 damage if she is attuned to fire or air). If she just had a full robe/dress/whatever you want to call it, it could be enchanted to deflect blades/arrows/bullets and absorb magical energy. 174.27.191.97 16:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. How does lingerie and dominatrix attire count as armor, again? Regardless, this likely won't change because of exactly what Weindrasi wrote:

" The purpose of it is to attract young male gamers who enjoy touching themselves while playing near-nude female characters... "

While the majority of the game-playing population remains adolescent males, game developers will continue to cater to that demographic's sensibilities because that's where the money is. Otherwise, with no money, there's no game. It's the price we pay to play. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 00:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It is too bad they can't just make half the servers "Skank" servers, and the other half be designated as "Modest" servers. Lol... Kormon Balser 04:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a thought: satisfy the needs of the adolescent males, and the people who want the game to be more realistic. Why not make the MAGICAL profession's armor MAGICAL. Basically, make armor a shield. A force field, if you will. It could be a body shield, magical, that protects the same way that physical professions armor does. It may be too late to implement this concept, but I think it would be amazing. That way, both sides are satisfied. Arenanet doesn't lose any money due to less adolescent males, and people who want the game to be more realistic *cough* will be happy. 76.27.73.198 04:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea random IP person, they should just enchant the armor with runes inside the cloth, so that it is as strong as steel when struck violently, but otherwise soft, squishy, and maybe a little plush. Then it would make sense for the scholar professions to cover their bodies with it. Kormon Balser 05:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

In the end, what we're really up against is a legacy from the ancient days of gaming. And I'm talking about paper-and-pencil gaming pre-dating computer gaming (yes, I AM that old). Warriors had armor. Mages had magic (arguably more powerful - offensively - than a warrior's hack-and-slash sword techniques). To achieve "balance", mages were given less armor than warriors. Otherwise - if a mage had just as good armor as a warrior - warriors would become completely irrelevant.

The in-game rationale for mages having less armor is that the metal of a warrior's chain mail or plate armor would interfere with or otherwise short-circuit the channeling of a mage's magical energies. Thus, a mage was confined to cloth for "armor". Fast-forward 31 years later and we're still stuck with the same paradigm. For better or worse, that's not likely to change.

So game developer's take the unarmored mage and run with it to a ridiculous-if-logical-extreme to satisfy the majority of the fan base (read: skantily clad mages who look like strippers and hookers; notice the female mages in GW1 look like belly dancers while the male mages are pretty well covered up). Sex sells, folks. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 05:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I think that a soldier's armor would provide better protection that a robe made out of steel (it could even be copper :P)... Kormon Balser 15:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm so sick of these kinds of threads. It is a FANTASY game, as such the sole rationale of changing the look of an armor set instantly goes out the window. If you don't want skimpy , ask for it, don't invent reasons for it. A little bit of skin never hurt anyone. Warriors have worn much less in real life in many societies, there quite simply is no basis for anything to change here. Deal with it. Phlemhacker

Ok then, PLEASE DON'T MAKE SKIMPY IN GW2!!! Better? (btw, I censored your post, I hope you don't mind too much) If you like skimpy clothes so much, why play guild wars? Just go to Vegas... Kormon Balser 03:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

If you hate skimpy clothes so much, why play guild wars? Just go to church... Phlemhacker

That is the case on Sunday. I can avoid it in Guild Wars, but I would really rather not have to in GW2, especially because of how different the mechanics are. Why does it matter to you? Kormon Balser 03:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Kormon... and I don't see why realism has to go out the window because it's a "Fantasy Game". With that logic you could justify all the characters having little wings growing out their eyeballs and using them to fly. It's fantasy after all! There's a difference between tasteful fantasy and utterly rediculous fantasy. Weindrasi 04:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Weindrasi

And the more realistic or - at the very least - consistently rationale/logical that fantasy is made, the more immersive the gaming experience. Ele-ies who look like they just finished their shift on the stripper pole while running through snow and fighting monsters breaks that immersiveness.

For me, this isn't about prudishness or being conservative. I, personally, have no problem with the amount of flesh exposed. What I do have a problem with is the amount of flesh exposed and then being expected to suspend disbelief to the point that I can accept a scantily clad ele - or even an insufficiently armored warrior for that matter - duking it out with monsters in harsh environments with nary a scratch. Paraphrasing Weindrasi, it's the difference between believable fantasy and ridiculous fantasy. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 18:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"Believable fantasy" What? What I am more concerned about is, people seem to be complaining about the scantily clad women. While there are definitely more scantily clad women then men, the men do have their share, so why are people not complaining about that? Are scantily clad men more believable then men? This really has nothing do do with believability at all, it's simply people complaining about the amount of flesh shown for women specifically. -Cheesethief

I think everyone can agree that scantily clad men is really gross. So are scantily clad women. It also makes no sense.

Believable fantasy.

• In the Inheritance Cycle (Eragon) how "magic" is just the manipulation of energy. A task requiring a certain amount of energy requires the same (more energy with more distance) amount of energy, usually from you (just a thought: sucking energy from plants could be a really cool trait/skill in gw2). Though there are some extreme moments, it is, for the most part, believable. If you can accept that some people have brains special enough to control other things.
• Something like, Care Bears, on the other hand, is much less believable (sorry to spoil your perfect world). The magic has no apparent limits, but is only used for certain things, and the laws of physics are completely disregarded (ok, sometimes there is gravity. SOMETIMES.) and irrationality embraced.
• Notice, the people in the Inheritance Cycle wear pretty good armor, Care Bears.....don't really wear anything. Coincidence? I think NOT!

One fun thing to imagine when you are bored is a warrior running around in their armor (or lack there of; for this example), through the snow/acid caves/lava pits fighting off yetis/spiders/dragons. What we do for entertainment.... Kormon Balser 00:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And that same ability to manipulate energy can't be used to protect oneself instead of massive thick armor. In my mind, if you can manipulate energy, you can manipulate it into a force field as easily as you could a projectile to harm someone, which would mean that you wouldn't need a ton of armor which would then mean that you would mean you could move both faster and more efficiently. Heavy armor in a fantasy world makes no sense. -Cheesethief

Since you obviously havn't read those books, I will tell you that it makes much more sense to block attacks with armor than pure energy. It would take an enormous amount of energy to stop a dragon attacking you, and probably kill you, but armor just absorbs and dissipates the energy. If thats the argument you want to make, then why not just use a small portion of all the saved energy to increase your movement speed? And it is much easier to fire an arrow/bullet and then use energy to speed it up or give it additional damage dealing properties than to just use a beam of pure energy, even if you just pick up a rock to throw. Heavy armor makes more sense than no armor. Saying it makes no sense is like saying that war makes no sense (and it doesn't really), and then you would be saying that GW2 makes no sense, and you wouldn't be wasting your time here. And not very many things make sense in a fantasy world. But that breaks immersion. The incredible GW2 programmers are starting a new revolution with this entirely new game play style that enhances immersion, and it would just make more sense to have armor on the scholars, even if it is light. Kormon Balser 02:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I give up. The amount of logic in that post requires far more sensitive equipment than I (or indeed anyone) have to detect it. I believe I will just say this: I am so glad they are not caving to your suggestions. -Cheesethief

So what you are saying is, "I am stupid, and so I am glad that my way is better"? Haha, maybe not the best way to make a convincing point, but whatever. Kormon Balser 23:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Lets leave out the NPAs, buddy, its not going to help you with your suggestion.--Will Greyhawk 18:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

guild wars 2 is an mmo, just like real life it will be full of people, some of whom will want to wear skimpy clothes. Just like in life, whereas you might not like skimpy clothes, you should respect people's freedom to wear them. Don't try force your values on the world/game, as the world/game is for everyone, most people will not share the same values and beliefs as you Ealias 15:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Ok, so why can't Anet just do some minor touch-ups on some certain sets of armor (because they are immodest or unreasonable) and then make an optional setting a person can set to decide which version to display? Does anybody have any problems with that? Everybody can have what they want, and I doubt it would take too much time to touch up on a few armor sets. :) Kormon Balser 20:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)