[Female Avatars] How did we go from . . . [Archive]

LordFyre

05-29-2007, 07:10 PM

<cite>Velshara wrote:</cite><blockquote>Jalathan@Lucan DLere wrote: <blockquote>wierd, I don't think it shows for me at all now...</blockquote> My video disappeared a while ago, also. And stop drooling over [I cannot control my vocabulary] female video game characters! I don't need to see twenty wood elves running around in their thong armor. That's one of the reasons I left WOW. </blockquote>Nonsense! I don't see why I should stop drooling over female video game characters. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />(And I would also want to give High Elves, Dark Elves, and Half-Elves their due!)"Thank Heaven for Wood Elf Girls! 'Cause without them what would drunken dwarves do!"

Velsha

05-29-2007, 07:16 PM

Ok, when the day comes when I can chain male Wood Elves and Half elves in my basement as House Status Items.. then you can have your thong armor.

LordFyre

05-29-2007, 07:19 PM

<cite>Velshara wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ok, when the day comes when I can chain male Wood Elves and Half elves in my basement as House Status Items.. then you can have your thong armor. </blockquote>I have no problem with that. <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> But, the male avatars in EQ2 are not especially inspiring. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />(And to capture those Wood Elven and High Elven men, you are gonna want that thong armor. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> &nbsp<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Velsha

05-29-2007, 07:22 PM

<cite>LordFyre wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Velshara wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ok, when the day comes when I can chain male Wood Elves and Half elves in my basement as House Status Items.. then you can have your thong armor. </blockquote>I have no problem with that. <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> But, the male avatars in EQ2 are not especially inspiring. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </blockquote>You're telling me!

Chay

05-29-2007, 07:53 PM

<cite>Velshara wrote:</cite><blockquote>I personally like the realism in the armor compared to other games. Since when does "combat armor" = "lingerie"?</blockquote> Rarely was full plate worn from head to toe. I don't find the armor to be realistic so much as simplified and homogenized. The game is high fantasy which generally means some license between practical and esthetically pleasing. When have you ever seen a wizard wearing a bathrobe? Usually the ropes are flowing and not meant to be protection from anything but the elements. Combat armor would most likely allow freedom of movement and would cover vital organs rather than every inch. Personally, I find it all to be rather sad, uninspired, ridiculous, cookie cutter, and boring. Everyone looks IDENTICAL. Why even have races or classes or genders if everyone is the same? All that said... I'm pretty sure SOE get that they failed. I'm pretty sure their intent was to have more variety. Corners were cut, budgets were slashed, and as usual in big business they compromised quality for bottom line. And we don't even have a belly button

selch

05-29-2007, 08:15 PM

<cite>LordFyre wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Velshara wrote:</cite><blockquote>I personally like the realism in the armor compared to other games. Since when does "combat armor" = "lingerie"?</blockquote>Well, since the 1920s with the art styles used on the Pulps for fantasy stories. <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> But also, since there is no "social element" to EQ2 to speak of. </blockquote> Than this is not THAT kind of fantasy you are imagining. Never been. Armor is looking like armor (even somes colors do suck or look alike) beside that, there are lots of THAT kind of fantasy games around to hang out with. I heard they even started THAT kind of fantasy games in Second Life. They even have whips for that.Mentioning armor lookalikes also, I don't think medieval armors looks really distinct from person to person in their categories.

LordFyre

05-29-2007, 08:38 PM

<cite>selch wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>LordFyre wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Velshara wrote:</cite><blockquote>I personally like the realism in the armor compared to other games. Since when does "combat armor" = "lingerie"?</blockquote>Well, since the 1920s with the art styles used on the Pulps for fantasy stories. <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> But also, since there is no "social element" to EQ2 to speak of. </blockquote> Than this is not THAT kind of fantasy you are imagining. Never been. Armor is looking like armor (even somes colors do suck or look alike) beside that, there are lots of THAT kind of fantasy games around to hang out with. I heard they even started THAT kind of fantasy games in Second Life. They even have whips for that.Mentioning armor lookalikes also, I don't think medieval armors looks really distinct from person to person in their categories. </blockquote>You know, selch, I don't think that there is a single posting on these forums that I have ever actually agreed with you?I actually wasn't going to "THAT kind of fantasy." Others might have been - I cannot say - but I wasn't quite going there with this subject.And, with the idea that medieval armors looking similar. I believe that is why surcoates were invented.

selch

05-29-2007, 08:52 PM

<cite>LordFyre wrote:</cite><blockquote>You know, selch, I don't think that there is a single posting on these forums that I have ever actually agreed with you?I actually wasn't going to "THAT kind of fantasy." Others might have been - I cannot say - but I wasn't quite going there with this subject.And, with the idea that medieval armors looking similar. I believe that is why surcoates were invented. </blockquote> My my.. I'm sorry that we can't get on together well. I'm sorry not to understand connection of "Social element" to quote "Lingerie" type of fantasy armor in another way.

LordFyre

05-29-2007, 09:05 PM

<cite>selch wrote:</cite><blockquote>My my.. I'm sorry that we can't get on together well. I'm sorry not to understand connection of "Social element" to quote "Lingerie" type of fantasy armor in another way.</blockquote>Well, given the way this thread flowed I can see how you would make that connection. Of course, I still do not understand why it upsets you so. In any event, where I was going with this is that for whatever else the visual environment of an MMO is, it is also a piece of art. So it should look cool. And, in our western society, for a female looking cool usually does include an element of "sex appeal." <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />As to not getting on well, We just have sincerely held, but diametrically opposing, viewpoints on this subject. <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

selch

05-29-2007, 09:16 PM

It upsets me such desires because in combat there is no such thing as gender. Only thing is to survive AND beat the opponent and to do it correctly, it is necessary to pick best accessories, rather than caring for the look. It is combat, gory, bloody combat. That's a roleplaying issue. While I hate to wear my purple-pink boots in combat, black pants, red chest plate it is necessary for me to survive. That's not different. For me reality of art what makes me more into this game. I don't mind having this types of clothes for people to wear around cities unless not categorized as public nudity, just in the degree of real life traditions, I strongly disagree having those as "combat" gear. Because combat is combat, requires armor, not piece of cloth not bigger than a palm to be stronger than hardest steel. As for me, I wear my formal suit that has zero stats or mitigation in cities or when not fighting and it does not hurt to walk around with that when not fighting.

Naubeta

05-30-2007, 09:31 AM

Ratonga don't even have underwear!

Polywogus

05-30-2007, 09:47 AM

Robes in EQ2 have always annoyed me. They're understandably boring in the beginning. But when I see a 70 running about w/ the same robe (altho w/ a different skin)...I never say 'Wow, where can I get that??" I go back to EQLive last week for a few screenies & am suddenly loving my Nec's robe, when prior to leaving I was FD'ing (har) for a replacement. Finding another robe in my bag (lesser stats), I throw it on, & there's a very obvious difference. Colour, obviously, but the cut, pattern, & coverage have all changed. I would prefer to enjoy how my avatar looks *and* having it grant me +4000 hp/mana/end too. (oops, nvm the endurance, see what too many years of eq does?). Wanting more looks, for all armour, doesn't mean taking away the ultra stuffy matron look & replacing it w/ something akin to pornography. *edited for formatting [curse, expletive, swear]*

hansomepete

05-30-2007, 11:23 AM

careful what you wish for, they might just give us more NPC clothes to wear but in diffrent colors... <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />There are two but you need status to get them the formal wear has that sexy look, no mit but dam sexy. I don't ask for much just take the leggings out of the robes to show leg like the NPC clothing, and maybe give the chick plate a choice to show a mid drift and possibly the leg plate to show some leg. i have a guild wars char that is good looking and it's something you could go out and fight in.

Kamimura

05-30-2007, 05:41 PM

<cite>Chayna wrote:</cite><blockquote>The game is high fantasy which generally means some license between practical and esthetically pleasing. </blockquote> That's what I'd like to see. No, I do not want my tank to run into battle with a bikini or anything, but I also don't want every inch of my body covered constantly by armor that all looks the same.. I want to see a good mix, different choices, just more. I hope we see that someday.(Especially when it comes to my casters. I mean, they're sure as heck not wearing their robes for protection against swords or anything like that. Let's see some creative styles! Head to toe robes and those weird pants.. all the time.. ugh..)

Image_Vain

05-31-2007, 05:40 AM

I, have complete faith in the DEV team, I believe right now they're sweating and pulling 19 hour days to revamp the armor, yes SOE will Update the game and when we log in our characters will look like abunch of badasses

Novusod

05-31-2007, 06:20 AM

<cite>Chayna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Velshara wrote:</cite><blockquote>I personally like the realism in the armor compared to other games. Since when does "combat armor" = "lingerie"?</blockquote> Rarely was full plate worn from head to toe. I don't find the armor to be realistic so much as simplified and homogenized. The game is high fantasy which generally means some license between practical and esthetically pleasing. When have you ever seen a wizard wearing a bathrobe? Usually the ropes are flowing and not meant to be protection from anything but the elements. Combat armor would most likely allow freedom of movement and would cover vital organs rather than every inch. Personally, I find it all to be rather sad, uninspired, ridiculous, cookie cutter, and boring. Everyone looks IDENTICAL. Why even have races or classes or genders if everyone is the same? All that said... I'm pretty sure SOE get that they failed. I'm pretty sure their intent was to have more variety. Corners were cut, budgets were slashed, and as usual in big business they compromised quality for bottom line. And we don't even have a belly button </blockquote>When have you ever seen a wizard? Last I checked they don't exist and never did. Maybe they all just like to take a lot of baths and don't have time for real clothes or maybe they just want to hide that they have no belly buttons.

Cersiana

05-31-2007, 12:34 PM

I'm tired of hearing that eq2 armor is realstic. Its not... At all.. Monks tank in scraps of cloth and helms protect you even if you can't see them. Not to mention but I'm sure you wouldn't walk through a desert luggin round mass amounts of plate armor.. And heck you wouldn't go even near a volcano in the first place, much less in silk or plate which would melt or something =p. This is a fantasy game there can be a little bit of fantasy in it!Now no, I'm not askin for chain mail bikinis or nearly nothing in the way or cloth armor. But my "evil" enchantress looks more like a court jester in bright yellow than well... an evil enchantress. ((I like the conju white/gold combo of the exact same model mind you just the yellow/black is very unappealing.. specially for an evil race...)) So if a monk can tank with nothing.. And I'm not supposta get hit at all.. Why can they get cool looking armor and I have to look like I'm layered up for winter in the robes or well.. W/e you wanna say the class sets look like. I have respect for the art team building models that look nice and don't take up tons of memory isn't an easy job. I just wanna see a little more thought go into this "realisim" arguement. And maybe something a little more magey for my mages! Btw my ranger loves her fabled class set I think it looks great. I just thing the fabled set for Coercers is well.... a bit silly for what they are.

Chay

05-31-2007, 02:36 PM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Chayna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Velshara wrote:</cite><blockquote>I personally like the realism in the armor compared to other games. Since when does "combat armor" = "lingerie"?</blockquote> Rarely was full plate worn from head to toe. I don't find the armor to be realistic so much as simplified and homogenized. The game is high fantasy which generally means some license between practical and esthetically pleasing. When have you ever seen a wizard wearing a bathrobe? Usually the ropes are flowing and not meant to be protection from anything but the elements. Combat armor would most likely allow freedom of movement and would cover vital organs rather than every inch. Personally, I find it all to be rather sad, uninspired, ridiculous, cookie cutter, and boring. Everyone looks IDENTICAL. Why even have races or classes or genders if everyone is the same? All that said... I'm pretty sure SOE get that they failed. I'm pretty sure their intent was to have more variety. Corners were cut, budgets were slashed, and as usual in big business they compromised quality for bottom line. And we don't even have a belly button </blockquote>When have you ever seen a wizard? Last I checked they don't exist and never did. Maybe they all just like to take a lot of baths and don't have time for real clothes or maybe they just want to hide that they have no belly buttons. </blockquote> Maybe... You could be on to something there. Maybe their robes hide the fact that shhh they really are wearing some kind of armor. And sure wizards exist... just as much as minotaurs, centaurs, and any other taurs you can come up with. Stating "When have you ever seen a wizard? Last I checked they don't exist and never did" would suggest that the whole point of the game is lost on you. Then again, I've never seen you so maybe you don't exist. SOE just needs to get on the stick. Give us a time table. They've been on this for a year now (at least) and pardon me if I'm a little impatient. I'm tired of my characters looking like they can't dress themselves, have no style, and can't be more than clones of every other character I see.

Allisia

05-31-2007, 02:47 PM

Cersiana@Lucan DLere wrote: <blockquote>I'm tired of hearing that eq2 armor is realstic. Its not... At all.. Monks tank in scraps of cloth and helms protect you even if you can't see them. Not to mention but I'm sure you wouldn't walk through a desert luggin round mass amounts of plate armor.. And heck you wouldn't go even near a volcano in the first place, much less in silk or plate which would melt or something =p. This is a fantasy game there can be a little bit of fantasy in it!</blockquote>None of that has anything to do with whether or not the armors in the game are realistic in an artistic sense. The armors look quite a bit like their real world counterparts, but with a bit of artistic license. Some people just want the artists to have more license and less accuracy than others. None of that has anything to do with deserts or volcanoes.

selch

05-31-2007, 02:48 PM

Cersiana@Lucan DLere wrote: <blockquote>I'm tired of hearing that eq2 armor is realstic. Its not... At all.. Monks tank in scraps of cloth and helms protect you even if you can't see them. </blockquote> Hey there, we tank by dodging... not getting hit , beside you can see our helm kilometers away <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Cersiana

05-31-2007, 02:49 PM

Arrex - Its goes back to the armor being realstic to the area/times ect. It's a very very old arguement. I think I've been around too long, And just stating the fact that guess what... Its a fantasy game =/And as for monks. I love your hats lol. They look awesome. Its just the fact your tanking in so little but mages are not supposta get hit at all.

Allisia

05-31-2007, 03:03 PM

Cersiana@Lucan DLere wrote: <blockquote> And just stating the fact that guess what... Its a fantasy game =/</blockquote> You'll have to come up with a more compelling argument than that. It's a fantasy game, but a large part of it is based on the real world we are quite familiar with. Gravity works, there is magnetic north, the sun rises in the east, world is a sphere, etc. There is fantasy, but it's seems the devs Dropped a whole lot of reality in your fantasy. It's a tired, trite, and IMO hollow argument to whip out "it's fantasy".

Chay

05-31-2007, 03:21 PM

Arrex@Kithicor wrote: <blockquote>Cersiana@Lucan DLere wrote: <blockquote> And just stating the fact that guess what... Its a fantasy game =/</blockquote> You'll have to come up with a more compelling argument than that. It's a fantasy game, but a large part of it is based on the real world we are quite familiar with. Gravity works, there is magnetic north, the sun rises in the east, world is a sphere, etc. There is fantasy, but it's seems the devs Dropped a whole lot of reality in your fantasy. It's a tired, trite, and IMO hollow argument to whip out "it's fantasy". </blockquote> And that isn't a compelling argument either... Norrath is a planet, its very likely large enough to have gravity to have an atmosphere. If it has gravity it probably has a magnetic field thus compass directions. Call North, North is just a convention so people would understand. The sun rising in the East as well. Stating that "the devs Drooped a whole lot of reality in your fantasy" is as trite, tired, and hollow as your "realism". If you want realism try reality. There is a difference between immersive (not sure there is a word immersive but should be) fantasy and whatever you're talking about. The realism you are latching onto is all there to give us our bearings and allow us to interact with the fantasy elements.

Allisia

05-31-2007, 03:36 PM

<cite>Chayna wrote:</cite><blockquote>And that isn't a compelling argument either... Norrath is a planet, its very likely large enough to have gravity to have an atmosphere. If it has gravity it probably has a magnetic field thus compass directions. Call North, North is just a convention so people would understand. The sun rising in the East as well. Stating that "the devs Drooped a whole lot of reality in your fantasy" is as trite, tired, and hollow as your "realism". If you want realism try reality. There is a difference between immersive (not sure there is a word immersive but should be) fantasy and whatever you're talking about. The realism you are latching onto is all there to give us our bearings and allow us to interact with the fantasy elements. </blockquote>I don't need a compelling argument, because I don't want to change anyone's opinions. I like the status quo, I am not trying to enact change. Norrath didn't have to be a planet. It could have been flat, or on the back of a turtle, but it's not. They made it operate exactly like a planet in real life. The sun could have rose in the west and set in the east, but it doesn't. The theme for EQ2 could have been high fantasy, but it's not. I'm not saying you don't have the right to ask for what you want, but I am saying that you should have a better position than "it's fantasy" like that's some kind of "Get out of a Debate" card. Realism and Fantasy are at opposites end of a slider, and the game wouldn't work if it was too far at either end. Saying "it's fantasy" is pointless and accomplishes nothing. If I wanted to belabor the point I could always reply with "it's realistic", but what would that accomplish?

Xev

05-31-2007, 03:56 PM

Arrex@Kithicor wrote: <blockquote><cite>Chayna wrote:</cite><blockquote>And that isn't a compelling argument either... Norrath is a planet, its very likely large enough to have gravity to have an atmosphere. If it has gravity it probably has a magnetic field thus compass directions. Call North, North is just a convention so people would understand. The sun rising in the East as well. Stating that "the devs Drooped a whole lot of reality in your fantasy" is as trite, tired, and hollow as your "realism". If you want realism try reality. There is a difference between immersive (not sure there is a word immersive but should be) fantasy and whatever you're talking about. The realism you are latching onto is all there to give us our bearings and allow us to interact with the fantasy elements. </blockquote>I don't need a compelling argument, because I don't want to change anyone's opinions. I like the status quo, I am not trying to enact change. Norrath didn't have to be a planet. It could have been flat, or on the back of a turtle, but it's not. They made it operate exactly like a planet in real life. The sun could have rose in the west and set in the east, but it doesn't. The theme for EQ2 could have been high fantasy, but it's not. I'm not saying you don't have the right to ask for what you want, but I am saying that you should have a better position than "it's fantasy" like that's some kind of "Get out of a Debate" card. Realism and Fantasy are at opposites end of a slider, and the game wouldn't work if it was too far at either end. Saying "it's fantasy" is pointless and accomplishes nothing. If I wanted to belabor the point I could always reply with "it's realistic", but what would that accomplish? </blockquote>If you are going to take a stance opposing what is being asked for, then you do need to have a compelling argument for it...if you don't have an argument, then what is the point in saying anything at all? And anyway, yes the world behaves somewhat realistically in some senses, but at the same time it is very different. Look at Kingdom of Sky for example...I don't recall ever seeing islands floating in the sky anywhere on earth....is that behavior that operates exactly like a real planet? Not to mention that the world is filled with magic, which doesn't exist in the real world...and it is filled with elves, orcs, fairies and lizard people...that isn't like the real world. The point is, the game is a fantasy game, not a realism game. Think of it is a fantasy world that is somewhat grounded in reality, but make no mistake, the game is all about fantasy, and as such, should be filled with sights and objects that cannot exist in the real world. If we wanted reality, well, we have reality. Saying it is fantasy isn't a "get out of debate" card as you say, but rather it is calling the game what it is...fantasy. That is indisputible. That being said, I do think that the devs try to make content that is believable to some degree. At least in the sense that stuff you see in the game is stuff you could imagine seeing in the real world if the real world allowed for such things. I think it is very possible for them to make content and armor that looks imaginitive and magical while still being believable and somewhat realistic.

Allisia

05-31-2007, 04:14 PM

And it is a fantasy game already, so calling it fantasy in and of itself doesn't really change anything. Even if they never come out with a revealing bit of armor, it's still a fantasy game. It being fantasy does not really have any bearing on the debate. There is fantasy in the game, everyone knows that, but that doesn't require the changes being requested, so it really doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand. It has been and will remain a fantasy game regardless of whether or not anything is changed.

Cersiana

05-31-2007, 04:19 PM

Lol, this has gotten silly. I don't even want what you'd consider normal fantasy attire. (Girls running around 90% naked ugh) I just think that it would be nice if we had more opitions for well, not looking like we have on bath robes? All of this post is personal opinion. I don't are to change anyone elses veiws. And personally I'm prolly not gonna care if you like my arguement or not. The robes we have now look good... They looked good back when the game came out... But I have played this game since decemeber after it came out and I just want a new model. Something a bit more fantasy to fit the realms. I don't want a full revamp and would ratehr like to keep the current robes (my warlock arasi looks adorable in her oracle robe =p) I just want more choices for robe wearers that doesn't transist over to being a vest.You guys don't get all up tight cause someone wants a bit more of a fantasy realm in her fantasy wear! I have an eyeball on my hat! Why can't I have a cute dress with eyeballs on it to go with it ! Lol geeze silly ppl ~ <3

selch

05-31-2007, 04:26 PM

That's not argument at all.You could simply add a post to yet another billion topics opened with very same subject since start of the game.

Allisia

05-31-2007, 04:27 PM

This debate really has nothing to do with EQ, or even MMOs, it's a very common debate in the fantasy genre. RPGs, literature, games, anywhere people gather to discuss something fantasy related will probably address this debate at some point (likely ad nauseam). I don't necessarily even disagree with your opinion, but it's gets old and tiresome to see someone say "it's fantasy" like it's some kind of debate trump card. I suppose the basis of the debate could be extended to scifi as well. For someone that has been playing D&D for nearly 30 years, and playing computer RPGs since the Commodore 64 era I just get a little irritated at seeing people say "it's fantasy" like it was an end to the debate. This board SO needs a preview post option!

Cersiana

05-31-2007, 04:30 PM

I've been playing D&D and other such games for years myself. And I think the point its a fantasy is a good reason to have lotsa thing. Flying carpets, dragons, and alkidna races. Why can't it be a good arguement for wanting a different look to clothes. And which ever dev made my eyeball hat... I've grown to love it and its ability to freak ppl out <3's for you! It grows on you ^_^

LordPazuzu

05-31-2007, 04:36 PM

I remember an EQ2 demo video I saw of actual supposed in-game footage of a female paladin in some class armor that was very much like what Antonia Bayle or Firiona Vie are wearing. The video was set in Befallen and it was still refered to as Befalled rather than Stormhold. What ever happened to that?

LordFyre

05-31-2007, 04:40 PM

Cersiana@Lucan DLere wrote: <blockquote>Lol, this has gotten silly. I don't even want what you'd consider normal fantasy attire. (Girls running around 90% naked ugh) . . . </blockquote>Well, that (Girls running around 90% naked) IS kind of what I was asking for when I started this thread. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Allisia

05-31-2007, 04:43 PM

Cersiana@Lucan DLere wrote: <blockquote>And I think the point its a fantasy is a good reason to have lotsa thing. Flying carpets, dragons, and alkidna races. Why can't it be a good arguement for wanting a different look to clothes. </blockquote>Because it is still fantasy without those things. What you want is your vision of how a fantasy game should be, which is fine and natural, but it isn't what my vision of a fantasy game should be. You want Forgotten Realms, i want Greyhawk. They're both fantasy.

Cersiana

05-31-2007, 04:43 PM

<cite>LordFyre wrote:</cite><blockquote>Cersiana@Lucan DLere wrote: <blockquote>Lol, this has gotten silly. I don't even want what you'd consider normal fantasy attire. (Girls running around 90% naked ugh) . . . </blockquote>Well, that (Girls running around 90% naked) IS kind of what I was asking for when I started this thread. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </blockquote> All I have to say is roflmaoAs for the paladin armor that video was recently put up on the fan art forums. Was some very nice armor.

Velsha

05-31-2007, 04:57 PM

<cite>LordFyre wrote:</cite><blockquote>Cersiana@Lucan DLere wrote: <blockquote>Lol, this has gotten silly. I don't even want what you'd consider normal fantasy attire. (Girls running around 90% naked ugh) . . . </blockquote>Well, that (Girls running around 90% naked) IS kind of what I was asking for when I started this thread. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </blockquote> Part of the problem with that is that you alienate a large portion of your female population who doesn't want to see that. Yes, I know there are some female gamers who like the skimpy stuff, but for the most part, not all of us do. I certainly like my female fully armored and looking like she's ready to kick butt, but then again, I am an SK and not a caster wearing a huge clunky robe.

Jesdyr

05-31-2007, 05:36 PM

I play a dark elf female Coercer .. if ANY class should get skimpy outfits it is coercers. We all know that a little bit of skin can greatly increase the effects of subjugation. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Siogai

05-31-2007, 05:52 PM

I wouldn't mind some outfits for Brigands similar to the BrokenSkull Pirates from the EQLive Legacy of Ykesha expansion. Wearing chainmail or heavier armour aboardship would be rather impractical. Not only would it rust rather quickly, but you'd sink like a rock if you fell overboard, regardless of how well you thought you could swim. I'd think the best option would be exactly that, an option. For those who want to have chainmail bikinis, more power to them. For those who want crown-to-sole coverage, good on them. Some people want a happy medium, akin to some of the Lineage2 armours, protecting (some of the) just the right places, while leaving enough bare skin to be aesthetically pleasing. Why not have an option, in the same manner that we display our helmets, illusions and heraldry, that allows us to adjust the coverage of our clothing to suit personal tastes.

Velsha

05-31-2007, 05:56 PM

Bleh... no Lineage 2 clothes, PLEASE! I'd be thrilled with a happy medium.

LordFyre

05-31-2007, 06:13 PM

<cite>Velshara wrote:</cite><blockquote>Bleh... no Lineage 2 clothes, PLEASE! I'd be thrilled with a happy medium. </blockquote>How about a "Short Medium at Large"? <img src="/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Well, it is a pity that if SOE were going to have a third Fantasy MMO (i.e., Vanguard) that it was not more like EQ2 for gameplay, but more like Lineage II for costuming. That would have resolved this conflict.And, we would likely not be having this conflict if Lineage II was a better game. <img src="/smilies/e78feac27fa924c4d0ad6cf5819f3554.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Siogai

05-31-2007, 06:21 PM

Despite its many design and playability flaws, Lineage2 has some of the best armour designs, for both genders, of any MMO currently or previously on the market. Especially some of the human male plate armours, such as the Nightmare and Tallum sets, and still manages to look great. Also, though the majority of those who don't like L2's armour designs seem to focus on the Dark Elves, there's the Light Elf armour sets which, while not the chin-to-ankle coverage we have in EQ2, are magnitudes more demure than those of the dark elves. Just tossing it out there as an idea. As I said, best idea would be to make it a player option, something like "Coverage: () Full, () Partial, ()Skimpy" in the Options menu. If you want to fight in your lingerie, hey, more power to you. Personally, as a agi-based class, I'd rather have my avatar appear to utilize a balance of natural ability (AGI) and protective clothing, rather than being draped in several layers of mail, yet still ducking, bobbing and weaving to avoid attacks.

selch

05-31-2007, 11:11 PM

<cite>Siogai wrote:</cite><blockquote>Despite its many design and playability flaws, Lineage2 has some of the best armour designs, for both genders, of any MMO currently or previously on the market. </blockquote>If you mean player genders, no.. Not both genders... "For men", to be more precise "Shounen", "For teenage boys over 13" Considering more than 50% of female toons are played by "boys".

Naubeta

06-01-2007, 09:30 AM

Ok: You have "high fantasy", which is LoTR etc, then you have DnD type fantasy... and this is about where Norrath lies, finally you have 'fantasy' meaning sword-and-sorcery genre (conan etc) with the chain-mail bikini's. These are artistic categories, it has nothing to do with prudery or whatever. You can enjoy all three, and most EQ2 players enjoy it being the middle category. If they wanted to play LoTR they can, if they wanted to play Conan it's out in a year or less now.

Armawk

06-01-2007, 11:34 AM

I think a couple of things.1: the problems (and they are real) are not related to skin, to realism, whatever, but to design that many of us dont like, robes are an area of almost universal loathing, various other armours liked and disliked variously.2: The game has not enough work on SETS.. not enough of them that work together well, not enough encouragement/mechanism to get and keep them. Sets are key to fantastic looks, but you need lots of them with variation in effect etc to make everyone not look the same. Someone kitted up in cobalt chain looks simply kickass! but its rare.

Velsha

06-01-2007, 01:15 PM

<cite>Siogai wrote:</cite><blockquote>Despite its many design and playability flaws, Lineage2 has some of the best armour designs, for both genders, of any MMO currently or previously on the market. Especially some of the human male plate armours, such as the Nightmare and Tallum sets, and still manages to look great. Also, though the majority of those who don't like L2's armour designs seem to focus on the Dark Elves, there's the Light Elf armour sets which, while not the chin-to-ankle coverage we have in EQ2, are magnitudes more demure than those of the dark elves. Just tossing it out there as an idea. As I said, best idea would be to make it a player option, something like "Coverage: () Full, () Partial, ()Skimpy" in the Options menu. If you want to fight in your lingerie, hey, more power to you. Personally, as a agi-based class, I'd rather have my avatar appear to utilize a balance of natural ability (AGI) and protective clothing, rather than being draped in several layers of mail, yet still ducking, bobbing and weaving to avoid attacks. </blockquote>Last I recall, every time a female cast a spell in Lineage, regardless if she was Dark Elf or not, her skirt flew up and we could see her LACEY underpants. Yeah... I'm calling that some awesome armor designs!

Image_Vain

06-01-2007, 01:46 PM

We all know this kind of armor would protect a female from an<img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/Image_Vain/amazon_female.jpg" border="0"> SKs 2h double edged sword right?

Allisia

06-01-2007, 01:59 PM

<cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think a couple of things.1: the problems (and they are real) are not related to skin, to realism, whatever, but to design that many of us dont like, robes are an area of almost universal loathing, various other armours liked and disliked variously.2: The game has not enough work on SETS.. not enough of them that work together well, not enough encouragement/mechanism to get and keep them. Sets are key to fantastic looks, but you need lots of them with variation in effect etc to make everyone not look the same. Someone kitted up in cobalt chain looks simply kickass! but its rare.</blockquote> I would agree with both of your points. The robes in the game are uninspired. Except for the skin applied to the robe, they seem to be identical. They are all cut and wear the same way, and that's unfortunate. I like the sets they have put in the game, and I think there needs to be more of them, with each having a unique combination of model and skin. Both of these are unlikely to be developed very far given the current limitations of the models but might come to pass if the often mentioned, never directly discussed "skeleton revamp" ever reaches completion.

Malloc

06-01-2007, 02:41 PM

One of the original EQ2 promo screenshots<img src="http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j142/malloc5555/elf2.jpg" border="0">Thats was supposed to be a human female. How did they end up with the current non SOGA human female model? Armor with that much detail would be a nice addition to the game.

selch

06-01-2007, 03:55 PM

<a href="mailto:Maloc@Crushbone" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Maloc@Crushbone</a> wrote: <blockquote>Thats was supposed to be a human female. How did they end up with the current non SOGA human female model? Armor with that much detail would be a nice addition to the game.</blockquote> Because they have realised that most players will not have "SiliconGraphics (tm)" computers they did those promo pictures in 2003.

LordFyre

06-01-2007, 05:34 PM

<cite>Image_Vain wrote:</cite><blockquote>We all know this kind of armor would protect a female from an<img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/Image_Vain/amazon_female.jpg" border="0"> SKs 2h double edged sword right? </blockquote>You might be surprised.As was noted earlier, a Monks/Bruser gi is not more protective, yet they are able to dodge most incoming attacks.And, consider, "realistically" the heavy armor worn by most tanks (Guardians/zerkers/pallys/sks) would not offer a great deal of protection against the massively powerful attacks of huge creatures like giants, demons, dragons, and the like. Its weight would slow the warrior down, however, making him/her easier to kill.Neither of these cases even consider the "magical" nature of the world. There is no reason that the plate armor worn by the heavy tank is not magically crafted to take the giant's blow. But, likewise, that bikini could provide just as much protection via magical "force fields" on the woman's body.So really it has more to do with the "feel" that the designer (and players) want for the world. (WTB - Game with Lineage II style graphics and EverQuest II quality game play!)

Siogai

06-01-2007, 08:51 PM

Maloc@Crushbone wrote: <blockquote>One of the original EQ2 promo screenshots<img src="http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j142/malloc5555/elf2.jpg" border="0">Thats was supposed to be a human female. How did they end up with the current non SOGA human female model? Armor with that much detail would be a nice addition to the game.</blockquote>Pretty... but not as detailed as L2's armours, which runs fine without the aforementioned "SiliconGraphics" PC. Though a set of armour that looked like that would be fine, I think, were I playing a... whatever that's supposed to be....Templar of some kind, I suppose. IIRC, both L2 and EQ2 are running on modified Unreal2 engines, so both games should function ably. Though, commenting on the effectiveness of armour... doesn't really matter if you're wearing plate or lingerie, if you get walloped with a greatsword, it's either going to cut you in half (lingerie) or shatter your ribs and spine (platemail), take your pick. Personally, I think I'd rather be cut in half, it's a less painful death. Truthfully, I'm of the opinion that it's better to not get hit at all rather than relying on a quarter-inch of sheetmetal to keep an arm's length of steel from going into me. Plate, as an aside, is also next to useless against blunt weapons, which is why they used them. Sure, the mace might not actually penetrate the armour, but that's not important when the helmet buckles in on the side and crushes your skull. "Realism" of armour isn't really a factor, unless you want to also add realism to the various weapon types, not to mention add the several minutes that changing into and out of armour would otherwise normally take you... assuming you had a squire to help buckle your plate on, and a crane to lift you up onto your horse. <blockquote>(WTB - Game with Lineage II style graphics and EverQuest II quality game play!)</blockquote> Me too! <blockquote>If you mean player genders, no.. Not both genders... "For men", to be more precise "Shounen", "For teenage boys over 13" Considering more than 50% of female toons are played by "boys".</blockquote>Which I didn't, I meant character genders.Some examples of L2 Male Human, Elf and Dark Elf armour:http://www.lineage2.com/images/item_screens/2382_0_1.jpg <a href="http://www.lineage2.com/images/item_screens/356_1_1.jpg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.lineage2.com/images/item...ens/356_1_1.jpg</a> <a href="http://www.lineage2.com/images/item_screens/2381_2_1.jpg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.lineage2.com/images/item...ns/2381_2_1.jpg</a> Some of my favourite female armours, as well: <a href="http://www.lineage2.com/images/item_screens/2381_1_2.jpg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.lineage2.com/images/item...ns/2381_1_2.jpg</a> <a href="http://www.lineage2.com/images/item_screens/2394_1_2.jpg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.lineage2.com/images/item...ns/2394_1_2.jpg</a> <a href="http://www.lineage2.com/images/item_screens/374_2_2.jpg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.lineage2.com/images/item...ens/374_2_2.jpg</a> <a href="http://www.lineage2.com/images/item_screens/396_0_2.jpg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.lineage2.com/images/item...ens/396_0_2.jpg</a> Now, as far as the presence of panchira in L2 goes, with the casting animations, that's simply avoided by not animating the character models in such a fashion. Though it really brings me to the question of "so what?" With as much running, jumping, fighting and what not that goes on in Norrath, it's inevitable that someone's going to get a peek at your knickers completely unintentionally (or not!) anyway. At the end of the day, though, it's a video game... it's not real. And, btw, only Light Elves wear lace. Humans have granny-panties, Dwarves wear ruffled bloomers, Orcs wear leather, and Dark Elves thongs (or black bikinis, depends on the set).

selch

06-01-2007, 09:06 PM

Those are Asian school uniforms, not armor

Chay

06-01-2007, 10:41 PM

Arasai in a Japanese School Girl Uniform? Sign me up!!! As long as they add a classic V sign emote and fan service pose. Honestly... There just plain needs to be more variety, more style, more choices in the game for armor and clothing. I don't think the "realism" argument really holds up. I understand the feeling that it adds to the immersion for some folks but for me I don't find the realism very realistic. But I'm being redundant now. Let's just look at T7 equipment... and for consistency lets just look at Master Craft items. To me they all look rather BAD. Plate, chain, leather, cloth... all pretty boring and uninspired. In fact they look like PLACEHOLDERS. (Sorry I capitalize even when I speak, there is no malfunction in my shift key... gurgle.) To me the newbie armor looks better (well all robes look bad and all cloth alternatives to robes look really bad). Personally I would rather my clothing and armor reflect a more feminine taste. I think my casters might want to show as much skin as my monk in her gi and not look like they just strolled in for breakfast. My scouts would probably prefer their arms not be hindered by the weight of all that metal and maybe their legs would be free as well for all that agility. My brawlers would like more variety of gis instead of the same one used over and over. My druids would prefer skirts gosh darn it. Maybe even a Japanese School Girl Uniform!!! <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> V!!!

Salox

06-02-2007, 01:17 AM

The screenshots from beta were amazing. I wish they stuck with a lot of those ideas. The armor is, to an extent, very boring. It doesn't need to be as cartoony and over-exaggerated as WoW's armor was, but it should be a little bit more interesting.

Armawk

06-02-2007, 06:28 AM

See I think those armours go totally againt the intention and point of EQ2 design. I hate them in fact. If it goes down that route it would suck the uniqueness from the game for me.Also commenting about plate being inneffective is pointless unless you are a weapons expert, and if I am, its still pointless in this kind of game. Suffice to say the difference in survivability in a pre-firearms world is like being in a tank or being in a jeep. A lot like it.

Image_Vain

06-02-2007, 07:22 AM

Yes, SOE, do you listen to our cries? we want striper outfits we say! striper outfits!

Chay

06-02-2007, 10:57 AM

<cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote>See I think those armours go totally againt the intention and point of EQ2 design. I hate them in fact. If it goes down that route it would suck the uniqueness from the game for me.Also commenting about plate being inneffective is pointless unless you are a weapons expert, and if I am, its still pointless in this kind of game. Suffice to say the difference in survivability in a pre-firearms world is like being in a tank or being in a jeep. A lot like it.</blockquote> Which armors go against the intention and point of EQ2 design? The bikinis? Or the original designs that SOE came up with? Or the ones they spash on the retail boxes of every EQ game? Or the ones they put on all the online prelaunch? Or stuff from WOW? Which those??? I understand a lot of the art is intended to draw us in (male and female alike). But I would regard anything in the marketing as part of the intention and point of the design of the game (even if they can't implement it... they want it). Let me direct you to... Dun dun duhhh... exhibit A... EoF promo pic... Is not the Fae wearing a bikini! I'm jealous of her! <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> And the caster on the horse is apparently a spell casting stripper... Yeehaw! <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><img src="http://everquest2.station.sony.com/expansions/echoesoffaydwer/images/en/splash.jpg" border="0"> I'm just impatient for the game to have more visual appeal as far as character armor, equipment, and customization. I'm not sure why this discussion turns to extremes... Plate versus Bikinis... If you "realism"/plate supporters feel that the look and feel of the game is complete. That no improvements need be made to the armor. Congratulations!!! The armor is dull, repetitive, laughable, and quite probably not where the designers of the game hope to take it. Since they are mum on it who knows. Maybe they want us to wear cardboard and tin foil armor.

Polywogus

06-02-2007, 11:00 AM

I see absolutely nothing unique about EQ2's current armour. A piece here, a piece there, but otherwise, I agree with Chayna 100%...almost like placeholder. The dress-up clothes are all the same, & I want clothes that look good when I'm adventuring as well as in city/RP. We can still have the current armour - I have no objection...but I do want more styles to choose from. Variety is the spice of life, yes? Doesn't need to be on the edge of [Removed for Content] - there is a middle ground.

Armawk

06-02-2007, 11:02 AM

<cite>Chayna wrote:</cite><blockquote>Which armors go against the intention and point of EQ2 design? The bikinis? Or the original designs that SOE came up with? Or the ones they spash on the retail boxes of every EQ game? Or the ones they put on all the online prelaunch? Or stuff from WOW? Which those??? </blockquote> THe (Lineage 2?) pictures posted/linked that were held up as a good example. I think they are an awful example, not because of the skin count (thought that was daft) but because the style is yech. The EQ2 prerelease is a bit much for my tastes, but is in fact STRUCTURALLY only lacking in quantity not style.

Naubeta

06-02-2007, 11:16 AM

I think armour needs to look cooler, not be less of it. And if 'social clothing' is pointless, then that just means the social aspects of the game need improving. Guild halls would be nice, and then you could hang out (ok.... bad choice of words) there nearly naked if you like p

Armawk

06-02-2007, 03:47 PM

High status areas where the best merchants and some other top stuff is, where armour and weapons are not acceptable, but neither is nakedness.. only things classed as "social clothing" allow you entry?

Chay

06-02-2007, 09:38 PM

<cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Chayna wrote:</cite><blockquote>Which armors go against the intention and point of EQ2 design? The bikinis? Or the original designs that SOE came up with? Or the ones they spash on the retail boxes of every EQ game? Or the ones they put on all the online prelaunch? Or stuff from WOW? Which those??? </blockquote> THe (Lineage 2?) pictures posted/linked that were held up as a good example. I think they are an awful example, not because of the skin count (thought that was daft) but because the style is yech. The EQ2 prerelease is a bit much for my tastes, but is in fact STRUCTURALLY only lacking in quantity not style.</blockquote> I'm mostly indifferent about the outfits in Lineage 2. Some of the plate armor is a bit over the top elaborate but certainly not boring and flat as here. I happen to like the idea of skirts for cloth, leather, and even chain wearers. Most of the outfits from Lineage 2 seem to follow the same repetitiveness as here but they hide it with lots of detail and funky junk. They aren't really better than what we have but I think there is potential here for much more variety and style. I really hate elves with gigantic eye gouging ears. Yuck! Nasty nasty. (Though Lineage 2 models look better than SOGA.)

Hamervelder

06-03-2007, 04:50 AM

Paznos@Mistmoore wrote: <blockquote>The armors in this game are simply the worse thing about it imo. compared to EQ1 and all the concept/early beta shots we saw of EQ2. </blockquote> Yep. Agreed. The art team is capable of making great clothing, such as what the vampires in CMM wear. Yet we're stuck with horrible armor.

Armawk

06-03-2007, 04:56 AM

<cite>Chayna wrote:</cite><blockquote> I happen to like the idea of skirts for cloth, leather, and even chain wearers. Most of the outfits from Lineage 2 seem to follow the same repetitiveness as here but they hide it with lots of detail and funky junk.</blockquote>Skirts as options make some sense.Exactly the point really about l2.. its not REAL design imaginativeness its glue on spikes.

Seraki

06-03-2007, 06:26 AM

One of the things I liked when I used to play wow was the shirt slot. It was designed for no other purpose than to add coverage for the more demure minded. That and you could get them in different colors and styles. The problem with the armor here is they were designed with full coverage into the pieces. I complained about it in beta as many did but there were also people afraid of too much exposure and the world being effected by certain types of role players *cough*. The argument raged on even to almost a year and a half ago when I left and played wow until recently. Its almost refreshing to see the this fire of discord still flickers and flares now and then.Ah the memories... anyway...Much of the armor would have to be completly redesigned or at least edited to get skin exposure. I think somewhere one of the devs said for every race and gender something like 40 times per piece?... something like that.I think it would be worth the effort even if it would have to be a slow change. I would love and option to not show the under cloth like parts of the garment. The neck to wrist to ankle thing is just too much even for combat wear. [incoming subtle suggestion] Sense there is no role play garment slot with the option to show or not show role play wear and you have to remove so much clothing to get out of all the heavy looking gear I think the armor should be reworked.

xOnaton1

06-03-2007, 08:48 AM

<cite>Image_Vain wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes, SOE, do you listen to our cries? we want striper outfits we say! striper outfits! </blockquote>Striper, you say? or do you mean STRYPER? <img src="http://www.azheavymetal.com/white_metal/3_stryper.jpg" border="0">

Naubeta

06-03-2007, 02:41 PM

It's got nothing to do with how "demure minded" or "afraid" ppl are (or how you imagine they are). You know nothing about them. Maybe they play IRL naked! It's about the artistic genre of the game and what fits with that.

Cica

06-03-2007, 05:45 PM

i have a illusionist and a druid, and while robes can be boring and ugly too, i think they are still better than those leather pants that have a skirt with them that just go right below your knee (or above)... i would love to have some more pants that dont have a skirt attached to them .... <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Chay

06-03-2007, 06:38 PM

I'd rather see the skirt without the leggings underneath... or the crazy knee guards. But some things would look better without the skirt and just the leggings. I dislike the tubes on the arms of a lot of armor and mitten plate gauntlets and grinning faces on my Fae Ranger's chest (Bridgekeeper's Tunic has some funny grooves right over the apex of her assets though all in all I like the look of what she's wearing). There are a few armor looks that I like in the leather and chain sets. Plate, I'd be hard pressed to find anything that stands out. Robes have some nice textures but they are uninspired and bulky... Ok I think I'm starting to repeat myself.

Guy De Alsace

06-03-2007, 06:48 PM

*shrug* I've yet to see a game with better looking toons than in EQ2. Only bad thing is SOGA seem to be having too large a say in they way things are going visuals wise.

crookshan

06-03-2007, 06:54 PM

I definately agree that armor needs more variations. As for the original topic. I think that female armor could be more feminine, and still realistic without being all prostitute-ish. Or possibly giving the good side a more wholesome look as they should and the evil side maybe a bit more provocative. At the same time I would like to see a SK stand next to a Pally and tell them apart stricktly by the armor they are wearing. Variety in the way the gear looks and even the stats they offer should be re-evaluated. I know it would take work and I'm not expecting change over night. But, change is good. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

LordFyre

06-03-2007, 07:00 PM

Othesus@Lucan DLere wrote: <blockquote><cite>Image_Vain wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes, SOE, do you listen to our cries? we want striper outfits we say! striper outfits! </blockquote>Striper, you say? or do you mean STRYPER? </blockquote>Funny. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> But, you do bring up a related issue . . . Male avatars (and their armor/clothing) are not very inspiring either.

Image_Vain

06-03-2007, 08:14 PM

<cite>LordFyre wrote:</cite><blockquote>Othesus@Lucan DLere wrote: <blockquote><cite>Image_Vain wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes, SOE, do you listen to our cries? we want striper outfits we say! striper outfits! </blockquote>Striper, you say? or do you mean STRYPER? </blockquote>Funny. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> But, you do bring up a related issue . . . Male avatars (and their armor/clothing) are not very inspiring either. </blockquote>Maybe we should all be female avatars and walk around half naked swinging axes and stuff.

Raveller

06-03-2007, 09:19 PM

<cite>Siogai wrote:</cite><blockquote>Despite its many design and playability flaws, Lineage2 has some of the best armour designs, for both genders, of any MMO currently or previously on the market. Especially some of the human male plate armours, such as the Nightmare and Tallum sets, and still manages to look great. Also, though the majority of those who don't like L2's armour designs seem to focus on the Dark Elves, there's the Light Elf armour sets which, while not the chin-to-ankle coverage we have in EQ2, are magnitudes more demure than those of the dark elves. Just tossing it out there as an idea. As I said, best idea would be to make it a player option, something like "Coverage: () Full, () Partial, ()Skimpy" in the Options menu. If you want to fight in your lingerie, hey, more power to you. Personally, as a agi-based class, I'd rather have my avatar appear to utilize a balance of natural ability (AGI) and protective clothing, rather than being draped in several layers of mail, yet still ducking, bobbing and weaving to avoid attacks. </blockquote>Your taste in visuals is juvenile.

Raveller

06-03-2007, 09:21 PM

<cite>LordFyre wrote:</cite><blockquote>Othesus@Lucan DLere wrote: <blockquote><cite>Image_Vain wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes, SOE, do you listen to our cries? we want striper outfits we say! striper outfits! </blockquote>Striper, you say? or do you mean STRYPER? </blockquote>Funny. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> But, you do bring up a related issue . . . Male avatars (and their armor/clothing) are not very inspiring either. </blockquote>I happen to think they did a great job with the avatars for male characters. You aren't looking at that SOGA garbage, are you? If you are, flip back to standard avatars. They're so much better than that little kiddie stuff. Female avatars in this game, on the other hand, could not be any sillier than they are. They're so unrealistic it's not funny.

Seraki

06-04-2007, 01:00 AM

Ignius@The Bazaar wrote: <blockquote>The screenshots from beta were amazing. I wish they stuck with a lot of those ideas. The armor is, to an extent, very boring. It doesn't need to be as cartoony and over-exaggerated as WoW's armor was, but it should be a little bit more interesting. </blockquote> Those were from early beta or before beta 2 anyway. I was in beta 2 and the armor was the same as it is now only more limited. The character models looked better IMO but whats in beta doesnt always make it to the final first patch. There are time constraints and budget to consider I guess. I recall dev post saying there were issues with the armor shown on what I call the first EQ2 poster girl (think I still have some of the old movies somewhere on my back up drive). I think its pretty obvious that they thought they needed to simplify the art to get it ready in time, but I really wish they had not covered ALL the skin on the models for functional armor.

Hamervelder

06-04-2007, 04:29 AM

Othesus@Lucan DLere wrote: <blockquote><cite>Image_Vain wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes, SOE, do you listen to our cries? we want striper outfits we say! striper outfits! </blockquote>Striper, you say? or do you mean STRYPER? <img src="http://www.azheavymetal.com/white_metal/3_stryper.jpg" border="0"> </blockquote> *cries out in abject horror* Noooooooooooo! Dear God not glam rock again!

Memmoch

06-04-2007, 05:12 AM

SOE's Developer's failed so miserably when it came to designing the player-base Avatar's of this game. Too bad there is 100+ threads between the new forums/old forums and nothing will ever be done about it cause it's not "important" enough to warrant SOE devoting time to. Rally all you want, rave at how puritan all the females look, plead with the art team...it'll get you no-where. Lucky enough for me that I am a werewolf and don't have to look at the ugly [Removed for Content] Avatar!

KunamitsuUK

06-04-2007, 09:02 AM

Some different Meshes and class distinction would not go amiss, especially multi class items, Flowing Robe of Immortality for example would look different on a Necro than it would on a Wizard, plus variations for male and female.This thread reminds me of when I was playing as a Necro in late 60s, I did not pay much attention the way my toon looked until I won a Fabled Robe in a Raid, and was disappointed when I equipped it and it looked almost exactly the same as my previously equipped robe.More variety please.Not sure if this has been mentioned, althought it must have, how about Guild Heraldry on Armour/Clothing, that would be great.

Chay

06-04-2007, 12:06 PM

Guy De Alsace wrote: <blockquote>*shrug* I've yet to see a game with better looking toons than in EQ2. Only bad thing is SOGA seem to be having too large a say in they way things are going visuals wise.</blockquote> This sent a chill of total fear through me. I hate the SOGA models. (If Fae and Arasai were designed by the SOGA team then those would be exceptions.) If the new skeletal system or what ever they are supposedly doing or any new character designs that drift far from the originals will be a major disappointment, disaster, and so forth.

selch

06-04-2007, 02:03 PM

They are not , Chayna, exception of hair styles grabbed. You should already understand this by just looking at proportional bodies <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Velsha

06-04-2007, 02:11 PM

Considering that the Japanese, Korean, and Chinese artists are the ones that make the half-naked female armors and avatars, I'd figure most of you clamoring to see your avatars in thigh high armor and thongs would be thrilled that the SOGA team might have more say in the artistic direction of EQ2.

LordFyre

06-04-2007, 02:33 PM

And you would be right! <img src="/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> The cothing/armor styles typical of anime would be closer to what we are looking for. (However, there are plenty of American/European examples of sexy armors.)It is very possible that the Fae/Arasai models are what the SOGA is capable of now that they have mastered the tools. I certainly hope so.

Rast

06-04-2007, 02:41 PM

My problem with the armor isn't the amount of skin that shows (though it is a bit stiffling in that full plate day in and day out <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />) but with the pure bland look of the armor... There is little to no 'pretty' factor to it. No ornaments, no crests, nothing that makes it feel right.Take a look at the L2 Human Paladin Armor (for males), that is decent looking armor even though it fully covers the body. It isn't so blah... and it certainly isn't yellow lego space man...

Beldin_

06-04-2007, 02:57 PM

<cite>Chayna wrote:</cite><blockquote>shaunfletcher wrote: (Though Lineage 2 models look better than SOGA.) </blockquote>The lineage models look way better then soga, i liked the lineage models, but i really hate the female soga models. And yeah .. i wish i could have armor like that in EQ2 .. AND i also wish we had a sitting animation like that :<img src="http://beldin.be.funpic.de/l2/Shot00034.jpg" border="0"> Ahh .. and since i'm just in the old L2 images .. the townportal animation was also much cooler <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><img src="http://beldin.be.funpic.de/l2/Shot00019.jpg" border="0">

LordFyre

06-04-2007, 03:23 PM

<a href="mailto:Shalla@Valor" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Shalla@Valor</a> wrote: <blockquote><cite>Chayna wrote:</cite><blockquote>shaunfletcher wrote: (Though Lineage 2 models look better than SOGA.) </blockquote>The lineage models look way better then soga, i liked the lineage models, but i really hate the female soga models. And yeah .. i wish i could have armor like that in EQ2 .. AND i also wish we had a sitting animation like that : </blockquote>I also like the basic "standing" idle animation for female characters in Lineage II better then EQ2. Definitely more distinctly feminine.

Velsha

06-04-2007, 03:28 PM

LOL. Why don't you guys just go play Lineage?

LordFyre

06-04-2007, 03:46 PM

Because the actual game play of Lineage II is poor - both mechanics and content wise. And their game economy is completely dominated by gold farmers. Also, their version of PvP does not thrill me. <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />(WTB - MMO with Lineage II style avatars, but EverQuest 2 quality game play.)

Velsha

06-04-2007, 03:47 PM

<cite>LordFyre wrote:</cite><blockquote>Because the actual game play of Lineage II is poor - both mechanics and content wise. And their game economy is completely dominated by gold farmers.(WTB - MMO with Lineage II style avatars, but EQ2 quality game play.)</blockquote> Yep! Exactly! Lineage 2 sucks!!!! Basically, an MMO will never please everyone. You have to take the good with the bad.

LordFyre

06-04-2007, 03:58 PM

<cite>Velshara wrote:</cite><blockquote> Yep! Exactly! Lineage 2 sucks!!!! Basically, an MMO will never please everyone. You have to take the good with the bad. </blockquote>That is why I am playing EverQuest 2, and not Lineage II. (or World of Warcaft for that matter.)Of course, it is that pasion for the game that will lead me to push to make the game look (my version of) better.(WTB - MMO with Lineage II style avatars, but EverQuest 2 quality game play.)

Armawk

06-04-2007, 06:09 PM

Hey whats with quoting me saying things I didnt say anywhere? sheeshIts interesting that people either love or loathe soga.

Siogai

06-04-2007, 09:03 PM

<cite>Velshara wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>LordFyre wrote:</cite><blockquote>Because the actual game play of Lineage II is poor - both mechanics and content wise. And their game economy is completely dominated by gold farmers.(WTB - MMO with Lineage II style avatars, but EQ2 quality game play.)</blockquote> Yep! Exactly! Lineage 2 sucks!!!! Basically, an MMO will never please everyone. You have to take the good with the bad. </blockquote> Sucks? To some. I still have 2 accounts in it, compared to my 1 EQ2 account, and it has a certain charm and flair. The PvP is better, and not as dependent on level between certain builds (though, to be fair, certain builds are grossly overpowered in L2, regardless of level). It looks a [Removed for Content] sight better, and getting somewhere, or improving your gear, in a legitimate fashion, is a definite achievement, rather than the instant gratification of WoW or EQ2. This is, though, both a blessing and a curse, in both games. In the end, our suggestions here are to improve EQ2, not turn it into L2. I used L2 as an example because a) it looks better, graphically, than any other MMO on the market and b) it's built, afaik, on the same engine EQ2 is.

Naubeta

06-04-2007, 09:38 PM

Lineage 2 is one of the worst games I've ever played. It's game play is extremely poor. Graphically it's bland. Technically it's a generation behind EQ2. The only 'plus' is the character models... *IF* you like them. "charm and flair" are what lineage lacks entirely.

Naubeta

06-04-2007, 09:55 PM

My disagreement here is that armour (plate armour specifcally) looks better the less there is of it. The problem is it's hard to create good full armour sets (though they are what looks by far the best in the end) and EQ2s seem to have been rushed :/ What's very easy to do is to churn out by-rote anime style models and put armour-clothing on them. It takes very little artistic ability. You do all realise that the lineage/guild wars look is the cheap option for any game maker, right?

Chay

06-04-2007, 10:39 PM

<cite>Velshara wrote:</cite><blockquote>LOL. Why don't you guys just go play Lineage? </blockquote> I think you missed the point of the discussion. You later state "You have to take the good with the bad"... Well, part of the process of improving something is to voice an opinion, to offer solutions, examples of ways to correct perceived issues. If you're in a restaurant and your meal arrives but its not what you expected would you just settle? Or would you point out what needs to be corrected? That is the point of the discussion. The graphics in EQ2 are not a finished product. They are only half cooked as it were. That's no slam against the designers (more so to the bean counters). Bringing in examples of what the competition does, both good and bad, is part of any process improvement or really any development. You assess, you analyze, you plan, you implement, you gather feedback, and you repeat. If you settle, then the whole endeavor is pointless.

selch

06-05-2007, 09:00 AM

A woman from our office, playing Lineage II, just because of spanking animation to enjoy with her online mistresses.I don't play it, just because it allows such lowness...It is simple matter of choice. EQ2 graphics while can be improved, for me, best. I would play Lineage 2 if I like my avatar there better. You can do that too. It is not matter of bringing good to EQ2. You just try to bring your choice. For me, they are irritating models. Which one will be done? My choice or yours?Remember: Good or bad are OPINIONS. In the end, I love EQ2 as it is. You are the one who does not like it. So likely I get to stay.

ToiletBomb

06-05-2007, 03:44 PM

Yea I'm kinda boggled by this love for L2 models. I haven't liked the look of L2 since it started. I certainly hope they do nothing of the sort to our models here. But, I do agree on the armor. All of it actually. Our gear changes very little from level 10 to 70. We get a new hue and maybe an etching added here or there. I stick in my mostly full relic because at least it matches /shrug. I think the EoF setgear (legendary and fabled) is a step in the right direction as there is much more ornamentation. I know its a pipe dream (in the present system) but providing the same loot that has different looks based on race would really add some diversity imo. I think they are taking the armor designs / looks in a good direction and would like to see the same trend. It is sad tho that the concept art and promo things are so badly out of skew with what is actually in game. Adding a little appeal couldn't hurt too much (look at eq1 dark elves haha) but then again I think I've met more females in this game than I did in eq1 so maybe the change helped <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Image_Vain

06-05-2007, 04:47 PM

L2 Dark elf female, owns EQ2s

Velsha

06-05-2007, 05:00 PM

<cite>Image_Vain wrote:</cite><blockquote>L2 Dark elf female, owns EQ2s </blockquote> Can you even post a pic of one without breaking the EQ2 forums rules?

sorn

06-05-2007, 05:18 PM

I want to contribute to this topic, I agree that there certainly could be more 'designer' type outfits, in both clothing and armor. Dont get me wrong, the armor in the game looks very realistic to me, but I think it should really look way more 'cool', streamlined, and even in cases for females, some optional /secksy/ armor - now, I mean somewhat revealing, not thong armor - what we have now is the extreme opposite. Personally I think Oblivion is a GREAT example of how [Removed for Content] awsome armor can look if its not just merely made to look 'realistic' but its also made to look cool, look tough, and in many cases personalizes appearance. There were a few mods I downloaded as well from Oblivion that had some really amazing looking armor as well. Of course tho, in Oblivion there is also not really an option for females to wear any sort of somewhat revealing armor, which I wish it had as well. As far as clothing IMHO, I think SWG is a great example of what can be done, if I even had 1 tenth of the selection in EQ2 as in SWG of some cool looking designer type clothing, unique, personalized, and for females some - again - revealing yet not *extreme* clothing, would be nice. This is the most amazing game ive ever seen for MMO's (after unsticking myself from SWG), I think personally if SOE went out and spent some time getting some really cool armor/clothing and ya, some revealing (not extreme) female armor/clothing, it would allow players to enjoy alot more the experience of being very satisfied with their own personalized look.

Siogai

06-05-2007, 06:10 PM

<blockquote>A woman from our office, playing Lineage II, just because of spanking animation to enjoy with her online mistresses.</blockquote> What? The bend? That's not a spanking animation, though I suppose with enough creative positioning of other avatars, unarmed attacks, and some timing you could make it out to be that. Though I suppose, given the same set of circumstances, I could do the same thing with the crouching bit we can do here, far more easily. I suppose I could also position the camera just right to peek up someone's formal wear, if I were really so inclined. Actually, now that I think about it, does not one of the EQ2 /flirt animations turn the avatar around so she shakes her backside? That's as much a "spanking" animation as anything in L2. Seriously, it's not *about* anything like that. Do you not play Oblivion just because someone created a nude patch for it? WoW for the same reason? Did you ever play EQLive? Neriak had a "strip" club then, and even more revealing outfits than L2 does now. Many of the models in EQ2 *now* show more skin than they do in L2, and are in constant /flirt animation loops. Those "courtesans"? That's a nice way of saying "high-class prostitute". It's not a prudery issue, the sexuality is already there, it's already implied. The right /flirt animation Ooh, here's a question for the old timers.... anyone else play a Dark Elf pre-SOL graphics? *raises hand* Anyone else a member of the Buttless Chaps Club? Anyone? Anyone? It's ok, we Teir can still hold our heads high, most of us endured that until we got Bronze Armour from HPH in our 30s... Remember the green bikinis the Wood Elves had? Heck, in the old days, you couldnt tell a level 50 druid from a newbie, they both seemed to walk around naked. <blockquote>It is simple matter of choice. EQ2 graphics while can be improved, for me, best. I would play Lineage 2 if I like my avatar there better. You can do that too. It is not matter of bringing good to EQ2. You just try to bring your choice. For me, they are irritating models. Which one will be done? My choice or yours?Remember: Good or bad are OPINIONS. In the end, I love EQ2 as it is. You are the one who does not like it. So likely I get to stay.</blockquote> Did I say "zomg, the avartars here are teh suk!!!11one!11!eleven!!11 Im going to QWIT!!eleven!!oen!1"? No, I didn't. There's a lot of things about EQ2 I like. There are some things that I don't. I offer suggestions, and examples, that, IMO, are ways to improve things. Oh, and as I said before, I still play L2. I have 2 accounts there, 1 here. They aren't mutually exclusive. Each game has aspects that attract me, as a customer. When one or both cease to have those things, that's when that game will stop being allowed to keep me.

Velsha

06-05-2007, 06:24 PM

<cite>Siogai wrote:</cite><blockquote> Ooh, here's a question for the old timers.... anyone else play a Dark Elf pre-SOL graphics? *raises hand* Anyone else a member of the Buttless Chaps Club? Anyone? Anyone? It's ok, we Teir can still hold our heads high, most of us endured that until we got Bronze Armour from HPH in our 30s... </blockquote>LOL... I forgot about those. <a href="http://pages.prodigy.net/sasandra/EQ1_dark_elf.jpg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://pages.prodigy.net/sasandra/EQ1_dark_elf.jpg</a>

LordFyre

06-05-2007, 06:36 PM

<cite>Velshara wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Image_Vain wrote:</cite><blockquote>L2 Dark elf female, owns EQ2s </blockquote> Can you even post a pic of one without breaking the EQ2 forums rules? </blockquote>Sure you can: <img src="http://www.lineage2.com/pds/official/mid/14_1.jpg" border="0">(From NCSoft's website)On a more "adult" note: Is there room for compromise on this topic?

Velsha

06-05-2007, 06:42 PM

<cite>LordFyre wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Velshara wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Image_Vain wrote:</cite><blockquote>L2 Dark elf female, owns EQ2s </blockquote> Can you even post a pic of one without breaking the EQ2 forums rules? </blockquote>Sure you can: <div align="center"><img src="http://www.lineage2.com/pds/official/mid/14_1.jpg" border="0">On a more "adult" note: Is there room for compromise on this topic? </div></blockquote>Probably not with me, considering I do like my full body armor. But those of us who want to show more skin, well, you might have yourself a deal there. I don't care, as long as I am not forced to wear lingerie armor.

Siogai

06-05-2007, 07:31 PM

And that's what I've been saying the whole time. *Options* Some people want to wear the crown-to-sole iron plate. I'm fine with that. Some people want the chainmail thong bikini. More power to them. Some people want something somewhere in between, which is the camp I fall into. Giving the players the option to wear what they wish is what we're asking for here. I know plenty of people on my server that, because of how they portray their characters, wouldn't want to wear a g-string and pasties, whereas others would. Myself... well, not so much, but somewhere a little more towards the middle of the two I'm fine with. Even ignoring L2 entirely for the moment, I think we're all in agreement that the armour and robe designs we currently have, as well as the basic avatar models, could be greatly upgraded. As a starting point, since the NPCs are based on the same models our characters are, I'd like to see us have the clothing and armour available to NPCs also available to players. Personally, I love the styles in Maj'Dul. I'm sure some like the styles of Mara, and still others would kill for the outfits that are worn by the vampires in MMC, Neriak and elsewhere.

selch

06-06-2007, 04:00 AM

Will I have *Option* Not to see them?

Image_Vain

06-06-2007, 04:08 AM

<cite>Velshara wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>LordFyre wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Velshara wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Image_Vain wrote:</cite><blockquote>L2 Dark elf female, owns EQ2s </blockquote> Can you even post a pic of one without breaking the EQ2 forums rules? </blockquote>Sure you can: <div align="center"><img src="http://www.lineage2.com/pds/official/mid/14_1.jpg" border="0">On a more "adult" note: Is there room for compromise on this topic? </div></blockquote>Probably not with me, considering I do like my full body armor. But those of us who want to show more skin, well, you might have yourself a deal there. I don't care, as long as I am not forced to wear lingerie armor. </blockquote>Ahhhhhh!!! my virgin eyes!!!!!

Armawk

06-06-2007, 05:06 AM

I say let people wear what they like.. as long as they accept the penalty, which is a sword in the, exposed, guts first fight they come to. Oh and frostbite in everfrost <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Image_Vain

06-06-2007, 06:19 AM

I know this is for female avatars, but, I think scout armor should look like this. <img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/Image_Vain/dhoom2.jpg" border="0"> Yeah... thats what I'm talking about.. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Velsha

06-06-2007, 02:23 PM

<cite>selch wrote:</cite><blockquote>Will I have *Option* Not to see them?</blockquote> Good question... And also, I have no problem with the current avatars.

Siogai

06-06-2007, 03:04 PM

<blockquote>Will I have *Option* Not to see them?</blockquote> Why not? I already have the option to see you in SOGA or Not, whichever suits my preference, regardless of which you prefer to be seen in.

LordFyre

06-06-2007, 03:28 PM

<cite>selch wrote:</cite><blockquote>Will I have *Option* Not to see them?</blockquote>But then, by the same token - would I have the *Option* to always see the "scantily clad" versions?

LordFyre

06-06-2007, 03:33 PM

That would not be a good idea, btw. The primary idea would be to give the "player" a measure of control about how his/her female character would be seen (and reacted to) by others.(Many players have have voiced similar complaints about others not seeing them in the "correct" model type -SOGA vs Original- as is.)

LordFyre

06-06-2007, 03:40 PM

<cite>Siogai wrote:</cite><blockquote> Some people want something somewhere in between, which is the camp I fall into. </blockquote> Actually, given the effort that would be required to make three versions for every armor/clothing item in the game, having the option to set an avatar's modestly level would not be likely.But then, in terms of the "compromise" I was asking about earlier. Adding some armor/clothing types that would fit into the mid-range between the full neck to toe that is in game now and the bikinis that some (including myself) have been clamoring for would help a lot.Also, if they replaced the rags that a "naked" female character wears now and replaced them with a bikini like garment (that the player could tint - like the could do with the under-rags in the old tutorial), that would help too. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

LordFyre

06-06-2007, 03:44 PM

<cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote>I say let people wear what they like.. as long as they accept the penalty, which is a sword in the, exposed, guts first fight they come to. Oh and frostbite in everfrost <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></blockquote>Why? Given the magical nature of the world, there is no reason that a chainmail bikini would not be as protective or warm a the full chainmail suit?Or, are you willing to accept the penalty of extreme fatigue in the Deserts and Jungles for being in full armor? Or the drowning from not being able to swim in that full heavy armor?

Armawk

06-06-2007, 04:25 PM

<cite>LordFyre wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote>I say let people wear what they like.. as long as they accept the penalty, which is a sword in the, exposed, guts first fight they come to. Oh and frostbite in everfrost <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></blockquote>Why? Given the magical nature of the world, there is no reason that a chainmail bikini would not be as protective or warm a the full chainmail suit?Or, are you willing to accept the penalty of extreme fatigue in the Deserts and Jungles for being in full armor? Or the drowning from not being able to swim in that full heavy armor? </blockquote>Yes I am. but then Im special.Indeed a string bikini could provide steel like protection, but would need expensive magic to do that. whereas any old lump of steel will do much the same for 1000th the price <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

LordFyre

06-06-2007, 04:57 PM

<cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote>Indeed a string bikini could provide steel like protection, but would need expensive magic to do that. whereas any old lump of steel will do much the same for 1000th the price <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </blockquote>Does not follow. The cost of such magic is what the developers say it is.And, given that this is a computer game, no magic may be required at all. That "string bikini" can have what ever stats the developers want it to have.In other words, there is no reason that it would not be both more protective then that full suit of plate and cheeper too.

Siogai

06-06-2007, 05:00 PM

On the other hand, monks and bruisers wear nothing but cloth, and they do rather well for themselves. Maybe that magic is not so expensive after all.

LordFyre

06-06-2007, 05:03 PM

There are a lot of good reasons for armor to look this way or that, but in a world of of Elves and Dragons and Wizards - "Realism" is not one of them.

Naubeta

06-06-2007, 05:30 PM

Why not just haver everyone naked, in fact there are mods for lineage that do this... so it must be a great idea?

LordFyre

06-06-2007, 06:04 PM

Naubitzi@Crushbone wrote: <blockquote>Why not just haver everyone naked, in fact there are mods for lineage that do this... so it must be a great idea? </blockquote>Right . . . Let me think of a few reasons:<ul><li>ESRB rating. After the "Hot Coffee" incident, we should all see that having an ESRB rating that is too high causes lots of marketing problems.</li><li>That would turn off a huge number of players.</li><li>Are you really sure you want to some some races/genders naked?</li></ul>

Deadrus

06-06-2007, 06:05 PM

I would love to see more sexy/fatasyish armor for cloth chain and plate. Or Any veriety at all. I think many of us are chomping at the bit to just see something different. I konw I am. Everything looks the same. Ever single robe in the game has the exact same cut from lv 1-70. With a differnt color patern but the material cut is the same. Sure there are some non robe cloth armor witch is fine but unless its a fabled set or a quested set they dont come close to matching each other. I wish some Devs would come out and give us a progress report on this new skelton system. Like how far into it they are when do they expect to be done something anything i've not read anything offical on it in quite a while. I think its been about a year since ive seen a dev coment on it. (there maybe a more recent one since i dont check the forums everday i dont konw.) But Id like to hear something more then we are working on it. Screenshots, a estimated date something to look forward to. With the new skely system they say they can make armor easier. Once this happens i hope there will be something for every one. A choice to buy armor that looks more sexy that has a more fantasy flare to it and heck some armor that just looks Differnt then the copy past change color of the armor we have now from t1-t7.

Siogai

06-06-2007, 06:08 PM

Such mods in L2 are client-side only, however. They don't affect what others see. I imagine such mods could be created for EQ2 as well, if they haven't already. Editing my previous post, I should have said: Monks and Bruisers wear nothing but light armour... Also, a pic someone posted earlier in the thread reminded me to comment that I'm not biased in the call for "sexier" outfits. Cheesecake goes best when complimented with Beefcake.

LordFyre

06-06-2007, 06:13 PM

<cite>Siogai wrote:</cite><blockquote>Such mods in L2 are client-side only, however. They don't affect what others see. I imagine such mods could be created for EQ2 as well, if they haven't already. Editing my previous post, I should have said: Monks and Bruisers wear nothing but light armour... Also, a pic someone posted earlier in the thread reminded me to comment that I'm not biased in the call for "sexier" outfits. Cheesecake goes best when complimented with Beefcake. </blockquote> EverQuest 2 tends to react poorly to client side modifications. (Of course, some goldfarmer bots still get around this) so I am not sure if that kind of mod would work with EQ2.As to the idea of Beefcake - Absolutely! Sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander.

Naubeta

06-06-2007, 06:18 PM

I was being sarcastic... I hope. But I'm confused about your reply. Naked would be bad, but naked with armour just enough to cover up the "offending" bits would be good? This is my basic disagreement. I think the artists should start from the point of view of making good looking armour sets. Not from the point of view of starting with the naked from than then sticking things on it (a la lineage 2).

LordFyre

06-06-2007, 06:25 PM

Naubitzi@Crushbone wrote: <blockquote>I was being sarcastic... I hope. But I'm confused about your reply. Naked would be bad, but naked with armour just enough to cover up the "offending" bits would be good? This is my basic disagreement. I think the artists should start from the point of view of making good looking armour sets. Not from the point of view of starting with the naked from than then sticking things on it (a la lineage 2). </blockquote>You never know around here when people are being sarcastic. <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />But yes I am saying that - "Naked with armour just enough to cover up the "offending" bits would be good?"

Deadrus

06-06-2007, 06:29 PM

Some one very early in the thread said that armor would have to be really expensive to be skimpy but have high midigation and stats. That is totaly untrue. In RL armor is armor there is not tiers in RL with armor there is quality but one peice of master artisan armor in RL compared to another simialr peice probaly wont be that much differnt they will be just as effective in protecting you. In eq the higher your Teir the higher your mitigation and magical stats. The fact is All armor with any stats other then mitigation is already magicly enhanced. T7 armor isnt 7 times thicker then T1 armor thus it has more midigation. it has more midigation because of the magic that is in it that gives it it's other stats also. So to have armor that doesnt cover ever square inch of you to protect you becuase of the magic effect. So the peice could be quite small and as long as its magicly imbued (like most everything is because the increase your stats) and can still protect just as well as something that covers the entire body. I'm not saying haveing female tanks run around in string bikini's but the consept sreen shots some one posted of the woman in the sexy white and gold armor that is very detaled is perfect. Id love to see stuff like that put into the game. They should still have some armor sets that cover everything if people want to look all armored and bad [Removed for Content] i just think there should be more veriety to give us more choices.

Naubeta

06-06-2007, 06:42 PM

That lineage armour doesn't actually look any good though. They get away with it not looking any good by having so little of it that you look at the character underneath instead. And this seems to work for allot of you. This is what I dislike about it, it's so cheap. Make generic 'anime' models and then put bits of stuff on them. It takes no artistic ability, anyone with poser and no talent could do the same.

Velsha

06-06-2007, 06:44 PM

Naubitzi@Crushbone wrote: <blockquote>That lineage armour doesn't actually look any good though. They get away with it not looking any good by having so little of it that you look at the character underneath instead. And this seems to work for allot of you. </blockquote>My sentiments exactly. It's not creative, it's trashy.

lilmohi

06-06-2007, 06:57 PM

I just got a good Gi for my monk and found out i didn't have a bellybutton. What's up with that? Was i born or spawned? I also would like to see more varied armor sets than the current walking trashcans or burkas.

LordFyre

06-06-2007, 07:02 PM

Naubitzi@Crushbone wrote: <blockquote> They get away with it not looking any good by having so little of it that you look at the character underneath instead. And this seems to work for allot of you. </blockquote> That would be a "Yes!" <img src="/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

mellowknees72

06-06-2007, 07:04 PM

<cite>selch wrote:</cite><blockquote>Cersiana@Lucan DLere wrote: <blockquote>I'm tired of hearing that eq2 armor is realstic. Its not... At all.. Monks tank in scraps of cloth and helms protect you even if you can't see them. </blockquote> Hey there, we tank by dodging... not getting hit , beside you can see our helm kilometers away <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></blockquote> hear, hear...Amen, brother and all that stuff.Monks can tank wearing nothing because we're MONKS! <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />And I've never thought that caster robes looks like "bathrobes"...not that I think they look marvelous, but they're definitely not bathrobes. Otherwise, all casters would have terrycloth belts around their waists with one end of the belt wet (from it falling in the toilet, you see).Can I have footie pajamas for all my halflings, please? <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Siogai

06-06-2007, 07:27 PM

<blockquote> Make generic 'anime' models and then put bits of stuff on them. It takes no artistic ability, anyone with poser and no talent could do the same.</blockquote> Since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I'll take someone with Poser and no talent over the bland, lifeless bathrobes, flappy-tailed catsuits, and metal barrels created by the highly professional, extremely skilled EQ2 team, thanks. Of course, there's nothing very unique about the EQ2 models, either. Most of them are basic humanoids, like you or I sitting behind our keyboards, with more or less pointed ears. Some are like Bob down the hall, who's morbidly obese, or Jerry over in accounting who played basketball in college. Sure, we have some races not commonly seen in fantasy MMOs, such as the Slaan and the Skaven... er, I mean, the Iksar and the Ratonga, as well as the Fairies, uh, I mean, the Fae... not the Fairies from DragonRealms at all... those little winged things. Wait, what were talking about again? Originality vs Generic? Sorry, lost my place there. Now that we've established that conundrum... As I demonstrated in the L2 pictures I posted, regardless of one's personal opinion on their artistic merits, many armour sets actually cover more than 60% of the wearer (not counting the head, as there are no helms in L2). Some, such as the Nightmare Heavy in a couple pics, cover the wearer chin to sole. I'm not even suggesting that we need to go full-frontal or anything like that. However, how many people have rolled a Halasian and said "You know, I wanna make me a Conan... big, bronzed, animal-skin loincloth, and just wade in there and kick butt!" or a human or half-elf and said, "It would be killer if I gave her red hair, a chain bikini, and had Red Sonja!"? These are iconic characters in fantasy fiction, I would hazard to say moreso than furry-footed hobbits and angsty woodsmen. <blockquote> hear, hear...Amen, brother and all that stuff.Monks can tank wearing nothing because we're MONKS!</blockquote> I would agree with you if Monks never got hit... but they do. If it were so that monks were avoiding 95% of the attacks directed at them, and losing 80% of their HP when a hit *did* land... well, that would be more in-line with the "zomg!1! You couldn't wear that litl thing and live!1one!1eleven!1" argument. Since that is not the case, relative defensive value and skin-coverage goes out the window.

Armawk

06-06-2007, 07:41 PM

This game has a certain internal logic. Its a good internal logic in fact, which says that in terms of actual protection, "cloth<leather<chain<plate". It also says "higher quality>lower quality", that "additional armour pieces>missing armour pieces" and that magical bonuses are available for many things, so that "highly magical and quality cloth>poor quality unmagical chain" for example. "heavier armour type also<lighter" where avoidance is concerned.It WORKS. it isnt realism but it has an internal consistency and logic which makes the game work. I cant see any argument for replacing this with a system which says "protection from not wearing any armour on the arms and legs=protection from wearing armour on the arms and legs". why? why must the game take one visual look and use it because some people like it? The fact is the developers decided to go with a certain, totally fundamental and structural, system. You might not like it but it IS a system, it IS applied with general consistency and it does have solid internal logic.There are many flaws, and some design I personally loath (robes robes robes) and many suggestions that can be made, but none of them are more than "I like this thing more because I think it is prettier" which is fine but I dont expect it to be given much weight when I say it.

selch

06-06-2007, 07:55 PM

<cite>lilmohi wrote:</cite><blockquote>I just got a good Gi for my monk and found out i didn't have a bellybutton. What's up with that? Was i born or spawned? I also would like to see more varied armor sets than the current walking trashcans or burkas.</blockquote> Monks does not born, they are summoned...

Siogai

06-06-2007, 09:21 PM

<blockquote>It WORKS. it isnt realism but it has an internal consistency and logic which makes the game work. I cant see any argument for replacing this with a system which says "protection from not wearing any armour on the arms and legs=protection from wearing armour on the arms and legs". why? why must the game take one visual look and use it because some people like it? The fact is the developers decided to go with a certain, totally fundamental and structural, system. You might not like it but it IS a system, it IS applied with general consistency and it does have solid internal logic.</blockquote> That would be true if every piece of armour actually appeared on the avatar, and followed that you could build "sexy armour" by choosing not to wear certain pieces because you felt like it. However, this isn't the case. Gloves and Bracers have a texture. Sleeves do not. Don't believe me? Pop on a pair of chainmail sleeves while dressed in only your undershirt. Look! No sleeves! Take your sleeves off and pop your chainmail tunic on. Viola! Sleeves! Given this fact, there's nothing saying that we can't have armour items for every slot, as we do now, and still have "sexy" looking armour (for lack of a better term). You can still have your leather/chain/plate breastplate, greaves, vambrace, bracers, gloves, and boots, but, rather than being a walking tin-can, you end up looking like: <a href="http://www.lineage2.com/images/item_screens/351_1_2.jpg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.lineage2.com/images/item...ens/351_1_2.jpg</a> Sorry, yes, another L2 pic... it's the most readily-available source for images. Though that one seems to have been taken using low-definition graphics... anyway. What we're talking about is an aesthetic change, not a mechanics or system change. The way the inventory system works need not change. Moreso, with the options I mentioned in a previous post, there might actually be textures created for items worn in every slot (wouldn't it be cool, as a Monk, to actually *see* the FBSS around your waist?).

LordFyre

06-06-2007, 09:41 PM

Try . . . <img src="http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/7795/grayseqs3.jpg" border="0">For a "Non-Lineage" graphic which shows the same idea.

selch

06-06-2007, 09:55 PM

LordFyre Man, your problem is easy to solve really, you can go buy a magazine or just download some from internet to satisfy yourself without disturbing others or was that you in that video looking at animated dancing figure in famous YouTube video?

Siogai

06-06-2007, 09:55 PM

Blizzard sites are blocked where I work (and where 95% of my posting is done from) and, as well, I have never played WoW so I was, until just now, not sure what it looked like. At least, I'm assuming that's a Night Elf? Or is that from WC3?

Naubeta

06-06-2007, 10:26 PM

<cite>LordFyre wrote:</cite><blockquote>Try . . . <img src="http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/7795/grayseqs3.jpg" border="0">For a "Non-Lineage" graphic which shows the same idea.</blockquote>I hope there's some humour if you're suggesting that looks good?

selch

06-06-2007, 10:30 PM

He does not suggest it looks good, he means, he needs a girlfriend.

Velsha

06-06-2007, 10:40 PM

FlamingDuck

06-06-2007, 11:36 PM

<cite>Velshara wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>LordFyre wrote:</cite><blockquote>Try . . . <img src="http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/7795/grayseqs3.jpg" border="0">For a "Non-Lineage" graphic which shows the same idea.</blockquote>That's exactly what I'm afraid of getting. </blockquote>Same.I swear if my character ends up having no choice but to wear something like that I am quitting the game. I have nothing against sexy fantasy armor, some of it looks nice, but when wearing stylized lingere is the only thing my female characters can wear I get [Removed for Content]. Hopefully if they do revamp the armors in the game (its about time) there will be more choice and styles to make most people happy...I'm just afriad they might go overboard and make Norrath [I cannot control my vocabulary]-land or something to "appeal to the masses." I hope it doesn't up end like that.

selch

06-06-2007, 11:39 PM

You can not make everyone(!) happy until you put option for complete naked models and /dance /spank /lick /**** emotes, some different hairs, belly button too. So I'd give up for sure.

06-07-2007, 01:04 AM

I agree more sexy armor is needed for EQ2.That WoW armor would look great if it was rendered in EQ2 and not wow if you can imagine. Base line is though sex sells and its good for SOEs pockebook to make the game sexy and its good for me to look at nice models when i choose to sit at home and not look for real women. thats just all IMHO though

Armawk

06-07-2007, 03:46 AM

<cite>Siogai wrote:</cite><blockquote> That would be true if every piece of armour actually appeared on the avatar, and followed that you could build "sexy armour" by choosing not to wear certain pieces because you felt like it. However, this isn't the case. Gloves and Bracers have a texture. Sleeves do not. Don't believe me? Pop on a pair of chainmail sleeves while dressed in only your undershirt. Look! No sleeves! Take your sleeves off and pop your chainmail tunic on. Viola! Sleeves! Given this fact, there's nothing saying that we can't have armour items for every slot, as we do now, and still have "sexy" looking armour (for lack of a better term). You can still have your leather/chain/plate breastplate, greaves, vambrace, bracers, gloves, and boots, but, rather than being a walking tin-can, you end up looking like: <a href="http://www.lineage2.com/images/item_screens/351_1_2.jpg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.lineage2.com/images/item...ens/351_1_2.jpg</a> Sorry, yes, another L2 pic... it's the most readily-available source for images. Though that one seems to have been taken using low-definition graphics... anyway. What we're talking about is an aesthetic change, not a mechanics or system change. The way the inventory system works need not change. Moreso, with the options I mentioned in a previous post, there might actually be textures created for items worn in every slot (wouldn't it be cool, as a Monk, to actually *see* the FBSS around your waist?). </blockquote> Its definitely something I comment "god I wish" several times a week.. that ALL items worn had a display component. Jewellery, belts etc. Its never going to happen though, no way not in a finished game. The sleeves thing is a mess too. Needs fixing.But god that pic represents where eq2 doesnt belong, as far as I am concerned.

Image_Vain

06-07-2007, 04:52 AM

E V E R "Q U E S T" not E V E R "P O R N" This is what the currant armor design is for females, more or else: <img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/Image_Vain/20050221223759_0big.jpg" border="0"> Decent. Heres what it should look like: <img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/Image_Vain/smifor061.jpg" border="0"> I like. ....... Now, heres what you guys want: <img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/Image_Vain/seductive-bikini-girl.jpg" border="0"> Maybe the ART team can get creative ideas from these 3 pictures.

Beldin_

06-07-2007, 09:32 AM

Ah .. just found that picture from L2, and away from sexy armor or not .. have you ever played a tank with a tower-shield hier ? There really isn't anything in EQ2 thats uglier then towershield. And now simply look at that shield :<img src="http://www.lineage2.com/pds/official/mid/12_38.jpg" border="0">And no .. i won't play L2 anymore because gameplay sucks, its pure grind, and every second play is a farmer, but some of the armor-designs are the only things i miss at EQ2. Avatar-wise i also think the faces of the females here (non-SOGA) are much better then in L2 as long as we forget about the humans .. i will never understand why they changed them in the Beta from the old look, that was much better, to what we have now.

rvbarton

06-07-2007, 10:05 AM

I would like to see more variations in the models for armor. it doesn't have to be all "burlesque" (not that I would mind), but simple variations... Different robe styles for casters, and different armor combinations. Change and variance is good, in allowing individuals to customize their characters more to their personal liking... Just my 2 cents.

Image_Vain

06-07-2007, 10:25 AM

<cite>rvbarton wrote:</cite><blockquote>I would like to see more variations in the models for armor. it doesn't have to be all "burlesque" (not that I would mind), but simple variations... Different robe styles for casters, and different armor combinations. Change and variance is good, in allowing individuals to customize their characters more to their personal liking... Just my 2 cents.</blockquote> /agree, there should be different kinds of robes, not just 1 kind, the DEV team should stop playing WoW and start adding cool content, Neriak was a start.....

DanaDark

06-07-2007, 10:57 AM

With all honesty, I want Equality in the armors. So... if the MEN want sexxy female toon armors in the game, then by all means, my male toon better be able to wear that chainmail thong too!!!For the most part though, my female toons would look weird in the "sexxy" armors many guys want.What I would prefer is more ELEGANT armor, not sexxy.

Beldin_

06-07-2007, 11:26 AM

<cite>DanaDark wrote:</cite><blockquote>What I would prefer is more ELEGANT armor, not sexxy.</blockquote>Nothing wrong with that .. in my eyes however something like THIS shield : <img src="http://www.lineage2.com/pds/official/mid/12_38.jpg" border="0">is simply much more ELEGANT than something like that :<img src="http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l297/lawlorama/EQ2_000047.jpg" border="0">

DanaDark

06-07-2007, 12:29 PM

Exactly.Just because the game TRIES to focus on more realistic armors, doesn't mean all toons (female and male alike) have to look like a tin can in a train accident.

Rast

06-07-2007, 12:31 PM

There is a distinct difference between what we have and what looks good. It isn't the models that look bad, it is the texturing and coloration and the lack of any really 'good' looking armors.Right now, my Pally looks like a bloody clown (xegonite arms, Shadowfire cuirass, Legs from labs, books from DT, Helm from Hooloh)... THIS is what I want to avoid.Give us the ability to at least look like we aren't from the bozo the clown reject farm and it would go a long ways towards improving the look. Use some 'shiny' colors for goodness sakes.It doesn't have to be skimpy, it doesn't have to show skin, but dang gone it, make it look good!

Armawk

06-07-2007, 12:58 PM

I love how someone posts a carefully posed and lit shot with top graphics settings and carefully chosen props and angle and compares against a crappy random in game grab with low settings, bad backdrop, no camera angle and random gear. Yeah that will make your point for you.

Beldin_

06-07-2007, 01:22 PM

<cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote>I love how someone posts a carefully posed and lit shot with top graphics settings and carefully chosen props and angle and compares against a crappy random in game grab with low settings, bad backdrop, no camera angle and random gear. Yeah that will make your point for you.</blockquote> Sorry, but i didn't found a better quality picture with a Tower-Shield .. and i suspect the reason is that nobody really makes screenies with these ugly shields. Heck i never used my Grizzlefazzles shield even if it was the best statwise, because i simply could look at my character running around with a door on the back. At least i have now this shield that looks not so bad :<img src="http://beldin.be.funpic.de/eq2/EQ2_000332.jpg" border="0">

Velsha

06-07-2007, 02:06 PM

<cite>MaxM wrote:</cite><blockquote>I agree more sexy armor is needed for EQ2.That WoW armor would look great if it was rendered in EQ2 and not wow if you can imagine. Base line is though sex sells and its good for SOEs pockebook to make the game sexy and its good for me to look at nice models when i choose to sit at home and not look for real women. thats just all IMHO though</blockquote> Here we go again with that crappy BS line that "sex sells". Yeah... tell that to the guys who developed BMX XXX. I'm sure they followed that philosophy too. Quality sells... sex has nothing to do with it, unless it's [Removed for Content].

DanaDark

06-07-2007, 02:25 PM

I can honestly see some classes as "sexxy" I suppose. Such as a fair voiced bard or perhaps an enticing enchantress of some sort.But the Ogre female beserker... not so much O.o

selch

06-07-2007, 02:49 PM

People should stop comparing promo pictures of other games to in-game screenshots with no details on. Here is a few I took myself.Here is a hint for people who thinks armors are flat: "Open up your textures" <img src="http://www.level.com.tr/images/selcuk/eof/25.jpg" border="0"><img src="http://www.level.com.tr/images/selcuk/eof/26.jpg" border="0">

LordFyre

06-07-2007, 02:56 PM

<cite>Velshara wrote:</cite><blockquote> Here we go again with that crappy BS line that "sex sells". Yeah... tell that to the guys who developed BMX XXX. I'm sure they followed that philosophy too. Quality sells... sex has nothing to do with it, unless it's [Removed for Content]. </blockquote>"BMX:XXX" never heard of it. <img src="/smilies/0a4d7238daa496a758252d0a2b1a1384.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Clearly, what you say about the idea that "Quality sells... sex has nothing to do with it" is true. Otherwise I (and those on this thread that have strongly agreed with me) would be playing Lineage II, and we are not.

selch

06-07-2007, 02:59 PM

And yet you try to cheapen quality with sex included in it.That's what bad games do. They include erotism in them for the likes of you.Hear hear: Naughty America might be really good game for you.

Rast

06-07-2007, 05:08 PM

The armors in this game are blah, and it has nothing to do with the sex appeal of them, NONE. They are ugly models with ugly textures, both of which could be fixed.When the best looking armor in the game is the status armor from Qeynos, there is something wrong.I would even accept less variety if the stuff looked good (and especially if you could actually find matching pieces!)Also, I don't think I'd use the yellow lego spaceman armor to sell your point that the armor looks good bud, paladins always complained about how bad it looks <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Velsha

06-07-2007, 05:51 PM

I really like that shield... And is that vampire chick made out of rubber?

selch

06-07-2007, 08:24 PM

No, all models are like that. You always keep your head straight up and towards target. Even on rotating kicks and such, you don't notice but your head never turns, just your body <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> @Jalathan: I can agree you with the color selection of your armor but definitely model is good.

Rast

06-08-2007, 10:08 AM

I disagree Selch, I find the model they use for the 'paladin plate' to be horrid, ugly and otherwise undesirable other than it might actually match.

WeatherMan

06-08-2007, 11:27 AM

Actually, there's a lot more historical (hysterical?) precedent for naked men in battle than women. Ever hear of the Picts? They ran screaming into battle with nothing on but body paint, and they gave as good as they got. 'Nudity as [Removed for Content]' is a cop-out. No, I don't want every female running around in a chain thong and plate battle-pasties (although the concept is amusing) - but what's available now is more typical of a religious cloister. Aside from brawlers, the clothing and armor choices suck. Plain and simple. Historically, a woman in battle (before the twentieth century) was an anomaly, not the rule. Boudeccea, for example, stands out - why? One reason is the fact that she was a female, and females simply did not fight (and another reason, granted, is that she fought and won a lot). So if we are to cater to the 'realist' crowd, you would only have a 1 in 1,000 chance of being able to play a female, anyways, determined at character creation (and that is being very generous). Needless to say, this would not go over well with the player base. The highlander clans focused more on weapons than armor. Even in the later periods when gunpowder was changing warfare, the Scottish claymore was a highly prized and valuable weapon to carry into battle - those same revolutionary advances made most armor obsolete, which was one reason the highlanders continued to carry blades along with their muskets or pistol braces. The point? A suit of full plate has always been as much a liability as a help. A well-designed and well-forged (aforementioned) claymore, in the hands of a strong man, could punch through it like a kitchen knife through a soda can (and yes, I have seen it done). Someone wielding a two-handed blade should be able to (speaking in terms of game mechanics) be able to negate roughly half of a plate wearer's armor protection. And lest we forget the success of English longbowmen (aka 'tailors'<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> against mounted French knights (aka 'pincushions'<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />, scouts and anyone else capable of wielding a bow should be able to do extra damage against these slow-moving, cumbersome plate wearers. Not to mention having a squire to dress you and a winch to get you onto your horse. All for the sake of realism, of course. And when a giant in the Thundering Steppes steps on you? SQUISH. Physics dictates you are dead. Realistically, of course. While we're at it, horses. Non of this 'blow a whistle, there's your mount' crap. Stables, baby! Make them PAY. Pay for housing the animal, pay for grooms and stablehands, pay for horse feed, pay, pay pay. Realism, by god! You wanna ride your horsie? Off to the Elddar Grove Stables and get your animal! The dev teams have shown themselves, in many instances, to simply be lazy. Either that, or some fat git at corporate HQ is afraid of losing his Christmas bonus if they actually let the devs and the art teams deliver on what was promised. The artwork on the box is predicated on attractiveness and variety, none of which actually translates into the game. The few times that a garment that has drawn tremendous praise has appeared, it has vanished. Remember Blissful Awareness? Any non-arcanist could wear it. People at level 60 (the max level at the time) were coming back and doing the level 15 quest, just so they could get it. Freeportians came west to do the quest. People loved it. Not liked it, loved it. It was revealing and attractive, but not slutty. NPC's of all races were wearing it as well, even iksar (whose females are decidedly bosom-challenged). And... ...they took it away. With no compensation. Because they were too bloody tight in the tush to let ONE artist figure out what needed to be done to 'fix it'. They copped out, and made a decision that caused a lot of people a lot of grief. To this day, I hope the person that made that decision never procreates - they'd probably take away their kid's toys after they were opened on Christmas.

Armawk

06-08-2007, 12:10 PM

<cite>WeatherMan wrote:</cite><blockquote>The point? A suit of full plate has always been as much a liability as a help. A well-designed and well-forged (aforementioned) claymore, in the hands of a strong man, could punch through it like a kitchen knife through a soda can (and yes, I have seen it done). Someone wielding a two-handed blade should be able to (speaking in terms of game mechanics) be able to negate roughly half of a plate wearer's armor protection. And lest we forget the success of English longbowmen (aka 'tailors'<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> against mounted French knights (aka 'pincushions'<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />, scouts and anyone else capable of wielding a bow should be able to do extra damage against these slow-moving, cumbersome plate wearers. Not to mention having a squire to dress you and a winch to get you onto your horse. All for the sake of realism, of course. And when a giant in the Thundering Steppes steps on you? SQUISH. Physics dictates you are dead. Realistically, of course. </blockquote> You couldnt be more wrong in fact..On melee.. The claymores and silly toys like that were just that. Toys, foolish local traditions that hidebound their owners and prevented them from being half the army they could have been. Sure a large sword wielder has an advantage against plate (because anything less than a large sword is virtually useless) But that claymore is no use to you dead, and dead is what you are if you have one more often than not. In a one to one a well trained equipped plate knight with an appropriate weapon is goignt o win the great majority of times because one hit, any hit, and its all over for the "berserk"On to ranged weapons. bows were indeed a power on the field, mainly crossbows and the longbow. Lighter bows were good for hunting. The problem with both is that a crossbow is short of range, innacurate and has massive reload times. Crossbowmen were no match for knights at all. The longbow was useful but there is a big constraint.. the person equipped with one needs to be a full time bowman, carry virtually no other weapons and almost no armour, and if caught is dead. Only with numbers, smart tactical use and dumb tactical use of horse did it dominate the field.Plate became irrelevant and was retired with the advent of cheap mass produced handguns. Until that happens in EQ2 plate is still appropriately the best defense available

Naubeta

06-08-2007, 12:39 PM

" 'Nudity as [Removed for Content]' is a cop-out. " So is suggesting that everyone who isn't for semi-nudity is some kind of prude.

Naubeta

06-08-2007, 12:40 PM

And actually lineage models arguably are '[Removed for Content]'. They exaggurate female sexual characteristics and cuteify the face.

lilmohi

06-08-2007, 01:08 PM

Naubitzi@Crushbone wrote: <blockquote>And actually lineage models arguably are '[Removed for Content]'. They exaggurate female sexual characteristics and cuteify the face. </blockquote> Even if you could strip the lineage models naked it still wouldn't be [Removed for Content]. Nudity is not [Removed for Content], and the game mechanics don't support activities that would allow for activities that would make the models quality for [Removed for Content].Besides i don't think even the most rabid steel g-string crowds want all armor to be scanty they just want some more options and if you have problems with people having options than i suspect you really are a prude.

Naubeta

06-08-2007, 01:46 PM

You're right nudity isn't [Removed for Content]. And neither are images of sex either (which seems to be your definition).

lilmohi

06-08-2007, 02:09 PM

I'm proud of you! <img src="/smilies/ed515dbff23a0ee3241dcc0a601c9ed6.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> You are absolutely right, it is just close enough to the grey line that i don't bother trying to argue it.

LordFyre

06-08-2007, 02:18 PM

<cite>lilmohi wrote:</cite><blockquote>Besides i don't think even the most rabid steel g-string crowds want all armor to be scanty they just want some more options . . . [Stopping the sentence right there! - for reasons that I hope are obvious.]</blockquote>This is true. As one of the "rabid steel g-string crowd," what is I really wanted is SOE adding more options for character "costuming." (. . . admittedly in a particular direction.)It is unfortunate that this thread is on the road to being locked by the board moderator, as - at 180+ posts - it is clearly a hot button issue for many of us. My feeling is - and has always been - that when EverQuest 2 was released SOE cut corners on player character armor/clothing for some reason and that the art team has never been able to recover from the problems the game suffered from at launch.

lilmohi

06-08-2007, 03:26 PM

All things asside i would be happy if they put in a 'costume slot' that would let you equip one non stat item that would give you a full look. There is already a number of nice looking outfits that cover all your armor, however you have to currently give up your BP to wear them which makes it very impractical except while in town. I think with a special no stats costume slot then the people who hate mismatched armor will be happy as well as the people who are afraid of having to wear the g-string of death because it is the best pants (belt?) in the game.That just leaves me wondering one thing. What would happen if you wore the G-string of death with the Breastplate of Purity? <img src="/smilies/49869fe8223507d7223db3451e5321aa.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Naubeta

06-08-2007, 03:38 PM

I want more options too. Monks and bruisers don't look right in body covering leather armour unless it's robes I guess.

LordFyre

06-08-2007, 04:23 PM

<cite>lilmohi wrote:</cite><blockquote>That just leaves me wondering one thing. What would happen if you wore the G-string of death with the Breastplate of Purity? <img src="/smilies/49869fe8223507d7223db3451e5321aa.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></blockquote>My guess is that would be "Extreme Hotness?" <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Naubeta

06-08-2007, 04:25 PM

I think we know how Lord Fyre got his name <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

selch

06-08-2007, 07:09 PM

Beating dead horse I say

sorn

06-09-2007, 06:24 PM

<cite>Siogai wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>It WORKS. it isnt realism but it has an internal consistency and logic which makes the game work. I cant see any argument for replacing this with a system which says "protection from not wearing any armour on the arms and legs=protection from wearing armour on the arms and legs". why? why must the game take one visual look and use it because some people like it? The fact is the developers decided to go with a certain, totally fundamental and structural, system. You might not like it but it IS a system, it IS applied with general consistency and it does have solid internal logic.</blockquote> That would be true if every piece of armour actually appeared on the avatar, and followed that you could build "sexy armour" by choosing not to wear certain pieces because you felt like it. However, this isn't the case. Gloves and Bracers have a texture. Sleeves do not. Don't believe me? Pop on a pair of chainmail sleeves while dressed in only your undershirt. Look! No sleeves! Take your sleeves off and pop your chainmail tunic on. Viola! Sleeves! Given this fact, there's nothing saying that we can't have armour items for every slot, as we do now, and still have "sexy" looking armour (for lack of a better term). You can still have your leather/chain/plate breastplate, greaves, vambrace, bracers, gloves, and boots, but, rather than being a walking tin-can, you end up looking like: <a href="http://www.lineage2.com/images/item_screens/351_1_2.jpg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.lineage2.com/images/item...ens/351_1_2.jpg</a> Sorry, yes, another L2 pic... it's the most readily-available source for images. Though that one seems to have been taken using low-definition graphics... anyway. What we're talking about is an aesthetic change, not a mechanics or system change. The way the inventory system works need not change. Moreso, with the options I mentioned in a previous post, there might actually be textures created for items worn in every slot (wouldn't it be cool, as a Monk, to actually *see* the FBSS around your waist?). </blockquote> IMO, as far as Armor avaliable that can be "sexy' for women, I dont know how others feel, personally I think that armor looks [Removed for Content] awsome, is not "thong" armor, is stylish, cool - There is another pick in here a little farther back of another female in armor from L2, which is even less revealing on Page 8, but still shows some skin, and has a radical, "cool" look to it, personally, what I think is we just need a selection, everything doessent have to go overboard and be rediculously skimpy, nor do I think it should be as it is, where u are always in a "tin can" - I think there should be a selection avaliable that offers stuff up that is within reason (not going extreme into thong armor), heck, even for starters I think at least provide some "cool" looking "stylish" armor, maybe a few types that allow "some" skin for those that want it, and go from there. I get the impression alot of people, including me, would like stylish armor to choose from, and even some that shows skin and looks cool, but is not extreme. Seems to me L2 is a good place for Soe to secretly take some notes from? :p

WeatherMan

06-09-2007, 07:57 PM

<cite>lilmohi wrote:</cite><blockquote>All things asside i would be happy if they put in a 'costume slot' that would let you equip one non stat item that would give you a full look. There is already a number of nice looking outfits that cover all your armor, however you have to currently give up your BP to wear them which makes it very impractical except while in town. I think with a special no stats costume slot then the people who hate mismatched armor will be happy as well as the people who are afraid of having to wear the g-string of death because it is the best pants (belt?) in the game.That just leaves me wondering one thing. What would happen if you wore the G-string of death with the Breastplate of Purity? <img src="/smilies/49869fe8223507d7223db3451e5321aa.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></blockquote>Okay...this is one of THE best, well-conceived ideas EVER. It makes sense, is an inherently non-controversial concept, and allows for practically *limitless* variety with a minimum of effort and (hopefully) expense. Go to the vendor (or perhaps a tailor), buy the item, and drop it in. Boom. Clothing issue resolved. Those who want to dress like cloistered nuns or walking Starkist cans will be able to. Those who want to dress like Conan or Red Sonja will be able to. Those who want the happy medium between these two will be able to. Everyone, everyone wins. Which means, Sony being Sony, it will never happen.

WeatherMan

06-09-2007, 08:21 PM

<cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>WeatherMan wrote:</cite><blockquote>The point? A suit of full plate has always been as much a liability as a help. A well-designed and well-forged (aforementioned) claymore, in the hands of a strong man, could punch through it like a kitchen knife through a soda can (and yes, I have seen it done). Someone wielding a two-handed blade should be able to (speaking in terms of game mechanics) be able to negate roughly half of a plate wearer's armor protection. And lest we forget the success of English longbowmen (aka 'tailors'<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> against mounted French knights (aka 'pincushions'<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />, scouts and anyone else capable of wielding a bow should be able to do extra damage against these slow-moving, cumbersome plate wearers. Not to mention having a squire to dress you and a winch to get you onto your horse. All for the sake of realism, of course. And when a giant in the Thundering Steppes steps on you? SQUISH. Physics dictates you are dead. Realistically, of course. </blockquote> You couldnt be more wrong in fact..On melee.. The claymores and silly toys like that were just that. Toys, foolish local traditions that hidebound their owners and prevented them from being half the army they could have been. Sure a large sword wielder has an advantage against plate (because anything less than a large sword is virtually useless) But that claymore is no use to you dead, and dead is what you are if you have one more often than not. In a one to one a well trained equipped plate knight with an appropriate weapon is goignt o win the great majority of times because one hit, any hit, and its all over for the "berserk"On to ranged weapons. bows were indeed a power on the field, mainly crossbows and the longbow. Lighter bows were good for hunting. The problem with both is that a crossbow is short of range, innacurate and has massive reload times. Crossbowmen were no match for knights at all. The longbow was useful but there is a big constraint.. the person equipped with one needs to be a full time bowman, carry virtually no other weapons and almost no armour, and if caught is dead. Only with numbers, smart tactical use and dumb tactical use of horse did it dominate the field.Plate became irrelevant and was retired with the advent of cheap mass produced handguns. Until that happens in EQ2 plate is still appropriately the best defense available</blockquote>On the issue of claymores, we must agree to disagree. Your example holds up in a one-on-one instance, certainly, and assuming it is in the years before firearms as a legitimate battlefield weapon, and assuming the wielder is a complete idiot. That is where, IMO, someone who is stupid enough to assault an armored knight in small numbers or one-on-one with anything less than a large mace that can dent a helmet enough to crush bone and cartilage is asking to be turned into cold cuts. And truthfully speaking, no weapon is useful to anyone if they are dead, be it a claymore or an AK-47. In game terms, the 'claymore' is not designed along 'realistic' lines anyways, thus, in a Norrathian context also, the argument is moot. Otherwise, swords that negate the ability to use a shield would not have been included in the game. The fact that someone can plunge into the Coldwind waters and not sink like a rock already renders plate 'unrealistic' With one exception (a proviso, actually), your statement on bows is correct. It would have been sheer lunacy to place a lone crossbowman against an armored knight, thus it rarely (if ever) happened. In this instance, crossbowmen were used in capacities that did not require 'close contact' with the enemy - that was why battlefields were often constructed in advance, with sharpened logs used to impale a mounted rider's horse to bring him down - where he could be 'properly disposed of'. Cheap, mass-produced handguns were not a reality until the nineteenth century, whereas plate armor pretty much went the way of the dodo bird prior to the advent of the Age of Exploration. A steel helm and sometimes a metal cuirass were long holdovers from that age (such as what Cortez wore in his arrival in Tenochtitlan), but by the seventeenth century, when guns were still pretty much made by skilled craftsmen and not an assembly line, plate was in its last throes, mostly relegated to museums and private collections.

Armawk

06-10-2007, 05:11 AM

Many truths there, though stupidity in war was not rare, and led to the downfall of some of the "border kingdom" armies. Also, swimming in plate is pretty stupid yep heh. Doesnt mean everything else has to be though!And good lord no, arqeubus and early muskets were used in vast masses from the 16th century, and changed everything..

Ixalmaris

06-11-2007, 03:31 AM

People (or I should rather say "Guys"). Please spread your testosterone elsewhere. Armor has to be functional, not sexy. Females on the battlefield should look like soldiers, not prostitudes. Showing naked skin in combat is a bad idea. You can always cover it with a layer of leather or chain. Having no armor on a body part is only a real option when you need this body part to be unencumbered (for example sword arms or monks in general). Wanting more armor styles is ok, but they should look like real, usefull armor which is capable to protect you from attacks and not bikinies. If you want something which promotes the racial/gener attributes of a character more than what armor does (still, no prostitute outfits), then ask for more social clothing (and I agree that we need more styles as most clothing are just recolored variants of each other).

Ruut Li

06-11-2007, 06:18 AM

Please a couple of agressive defenders of the nun/burka-look stop jumping to conclusions and generalizing. There are plenty of us feminine female eq2 players who would like more feminine battle clothing for our chars. There are those of us who dont feel threatened by skin and beauty, but can enjoy it and enjoy it without losing control as some poster above has implied...Such accusations is just proof of ones own fears of losing control.Its sad that some feel the need to cry "prostitute" as soon as a female dont look like a nun <img src="/smilies/385970365b8ed7503b4294502a458efa.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Gameplay-wise there is no reason why my mage has to run around in a burka. There could be a middle road here, where tanks got the covering armor, and those who dont tank could look more..relaxed? Just to help keep the illusion of realism in the game up or whatever.

selch

06-11-2007, 06:25 AM

Ruut Li wrote: <blockquote>ts sad that some feel the need to cry "prostitute" as soon as a female dont look like a nun <img src="/smilies/385970365b8ed7503b4294502a458efa.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </blockquote>I was wondering when this term will be thrown in, like any topics on this matter. I wish there were nuns already covering every side of their breasts tight to make them visible like in current robes.

Ruut Li

06-11-2007, 06:31 AM

do you really wish that? kinda goes against what you been posting before.. what would you doif that was the case? <img src="/smilies/385970365b8ed7503b4294502a458efa.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />I dont think nun is a negative "term". I feel the nun-ish look is boring and there should be options. Prostitute is generally considered to be a very negative "term", and yea I think its sad that for some people feminine clothing = prostitute.

KunamitsuUK

06-11-2007, 07:03 AM

I like the idea of a clothing "style" slot, one with no stats but when you put an outfit into it it defines the style and colouring of your whole armour. That would be great. The devs were blowing trumpets at the inclusion of the cloak slot, now lets go for the double and have overall clothing style slot. <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />This would give Tailors more to make money on, would open up the option of Guild Livery on armour and the option of conservative/ not-so conservative for your toons (Male and Female) <img src="/smilies/ed515dbff23a0ee3241dcc0a601c9ed6.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />EQ2 has fantastic gameplay, hands down, the game could do however with being smartened up a bit, especially in the character looks dept.

Image_Vain

06-11-2007, 07:18 AM

<cite>KunamitsuUK wrote:</cite><blockquote>I like the idea of a clothing "style" slot, one with no stats but when you put an outfit into it it defines the style and colouring of your whole armour. That would be great. The devs were blowing trumpets at the inclusion of the cloak slot, now lets go for the double and have overall clothing style slot. <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />This would give Tailors more to make money on, would open up the option of Guild Livery on armour and the option of conservative/ not-so conservative for your toons (Male and Female) <img src="/smilies/ed515dbff23a0ee3241dcc0a601c9ed6.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />EQ2 has fantastic gameplay, hands down, the game could do however with being smartened up a bit, especially in the character looks dept.</blockquote> Give the Females thongs. But give the Males spike like armour.

Ixalmaris

06-11-2007, 07:30 AM

Ruut Li wrote: <blockquote>Please a couple of agressive defenders of the nun/burka-look stop jumping to conclusions and generalizing. There are plenty of us feminine female eq2 players who would like more feminine battle clothing for our chars. There are those of us who dont feel threatened by skin and beauty, but can enjoy it and enjoy it without losing control as some poster above has implied...Such accusations is just proof of ones own fears of losing control.Its sad that some feel the need to cry "prostitute" as soon as a female dont look like a nun <img src="/smilies/385970365b8ed7503b4294502a458efa.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Gameplay-wise there is no reason why my mage has to run around in a burka. There could be a middle road here, where tanks got the covering armor, and those who dont tank could look more..relaxed? Just to help keep the illusion of realism in the game up or whatever.</blockquote>I doubt many nuns wore armor in the past or present. Armor is designed to shield one from lethal blows. Looking sexy has a very low priority when you fight for your life. And thats what the armor should reflect. So please no chainmail bikinis and no Xena outfit. I do not want that it to becomes like in WoW where armor gets more protective the less it covers the body. If you want feminine "sexy" clothing then please only as social cothing like the dresses which are currently in game. But even then no outfits which could serve as working outfit for strip tease dancers (after the strip). Just look at what people posted in here (for example the Wow picture) as examples to see what I mean.

KunamitsuUK

06-11-2007, 08:19 AM

I see nothing wrong with the following, these are great, and not "stripper" style but definitely effeminate, and the Male equivalents are cool too.<a href="http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=142605" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/...ad.php?t=142605</a>Ahem, especially partial to Minion Master and Revenant, cough, ahem....

Ixalmaris

06-11-2007, 08:27 AM

WeatherMan

06-11-2007, 11:45 AM

<cite>KunamitsuUK wrote:</cite><blockquote>I see nothing wrong with the following, these are great, and not "stripper" style but definitely effeminate, and the Male equivalents are cool too.<a href="http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=142605" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/...ad.php?t=142605</a>Ahem, especially partial to Minion Master and Revenant, cough, ahem....</blockquote>Guild Wars, regardless of any faults it may have, managed to achieve the delicate balancing act between burlap bags (EQ2) and dental floss (WoW) in its armor sets, a fact their art teams have cause to be justifiably proud of. I will not make the error of pointing out flaws in the armor sets based on an arbitrary application of real-world physics. The fact remains that no one can point to these armors, or even a Conan/Red Sonja look, in truth, and say 'This isn't realistic, because....' I will need to see all the real-world data on armor of all sorts when tested by infuriated dragons, rampaging giants, and a gauntlet through a castle filled with restless undead. Then, and only then, will real-world physics become a viable argument in the play of the game in relation to what is possible and what is not in what armor does or does not protect. I would venture to say that even the stoutest of any armor in the real world would be useless against any of these phenomenon, were they actually to exist. As far as coverage for appearance's sake - Starkist cans and cloistered burlap robes are in no way 'realistic', either, unless you live in a sartorially straightjacketed society like Iran (as evinced by my sister-in-law's attire she is forced to wear when she and her husband go to visit his family there). I'm glad I don't live in a society like that - and I resent the fact that my Norrathian avatars do.

DanaDark

06-11-2007, 12:15 PM

Personally... I prefer armors to be that: Armor.Despite popular hormonal belief, Jeanne d'Arc did not wear a chainmail thong and two pieces of duct tape on her nipples when she confronted the English army outside of Orleans.The simple solution would be to add the "sexxier" armors to the game indeed, but keep with the idea that armor is armor and used to protect. So... A female paladin wearing full plate armor will surely have more mitigation than the one in the chainmail thong... but ofcoarse, more men will flock to aid the chainmail thonged high elf female paladin, while the Ogre female paladin in full plate can still defend herself.More skin that shows = less protection.Thus, classes like wizards and illusionists for example, can feel more free to dabble in the sexxier armors, while the tank classes might feel more inclined to stay with plate.I am also a firm believer in EQUALITY. So, if a female character can wear a chainmail thong, by all means, my wood elf boy swashbuckler should be allowed to wear it too, without it turning into a massive hunk of metal. As well, my female ogre beserker should surely be allowed to equipt the duct tape [Removed for Content] armor too.So, bring the sexxy armors I say... and I will surely have the best drag queen wood elf boy you've ever seen!!!

KunamitsuUK

06-11-2007, 12:31 PM

<cite>DanaDark wrote:</cite><blockquote>Personally... I prefer armors to be that: Armor.Despite popular hormonal belief, Jeanne d'Arc did not wear a chainmail thong and two pieces of duct tape on her nipples when she confronted the English army outside of Orleans.The simple solution would be to add the "sexxier" armors to the game indeed, but keep with the idea that armor is armor and used to protect. So... A female paladin wearing full plate armor will surely have more mitigation than the one in the chainmail thong... but ofcoarse, more men will flock to aid the chainmail thonged high elf female paladin, while the Ogre female paladin in full plate can still defend herself.More skin that shows = less protection.Thus, classes like wizards and illusionists for example, can feel more free to dabble in the sexxier armors, while the tank classes might feel more inclined to stay with plate.I am also a firm believer in EQUALITY. So, if a female character can wear a chainmail thong, by all means, my wood elf boy swashbuckler should be allowed to wear it too, without it turning into a massive hunk of metal. As well, my female ogre beserker should surely be allowed to equipt the duct tape [Removed for Content] armor too.So, bring the sexxy armors I say... and I will surely have the best drag queen wood elf boy you've ever seen!!!</blockquote> I am also a firm believer in EQUALITY. So, if a female character can wear a chainmail thong, by all means, my wood elf boy swashbuckler should be allowed to wear it too, without it turning into a massive hunk of metal. As well, my female ogre beserker should surely be allowed to equipt the duct tape [Removed for Content] armor too.So, bring the sexxy armors I say... and I will surely have the best drag queen wood elf boy you've ever seen!!!Your Scaring me!! /Hides <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Ruut Li

06-11-2007, 12:38 PM

Yeah guys seriously, the fact that Jeanne did not wear a thong and duct tape made it possible for her to survive fights against dragons, goblins, gnolls, oh twas a slaughter fest really! I remember one time when she had been killing sirens guarding an underwater temple, she swam ashore and bumped into this griffon named Grimfeather. I was like..ok shes sooo dead. But she wasnt! why? Grimfeather was grey! and hence totally ignored Jeanne. But had she had that thong on ol' pervy grim would of been all over her, and thats the truth by ruuth!

lilmohi

06-11-2007, 12:40 PM

<cite>Ixalmaris wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>KunamitsuUK wrote:</cite><blockquote>I see nothing wrong with the following, these are great, and not "stripper" style but definitely effeminate, and the Male equivalents are cool too.<a href="http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=142605" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/...ad.php?t=142605</a>Ahem, especially partial to Minion Master and Revenant, cough, ahem....</blockquote> Most female "armor"are ok as clothing but the only real armor I see are the Sentinel, explorer and shepard. Many others are close but lack important armor parts like legs and stomach armor or are too troublesome for combat. The male armor is mostly ok. </blockquote> More armor isn't always better. Historically the only people who wore full plate armor also rode horses. Once on the ground the heavy armor was more of a liablity and they usually died very quickly. Even on horses a number of crusaders learned the hard way that the lightly armored muslim calvalry was not easy pickings.In this game magic comes into play. A magic ring can lend protection even though it has no practical "coverage". In fact i'd say the legendary and fabled armor, has more protection from the magic in it than the physical protection offered by the metal. In tolkien's world one of the best armors was simply a shirt of mithril chain.Finally not everyone is a front line fighter. Realistically a scout draped from head to toe in chain armor isn't going to sneak up on anything. And a mage doesn't even wear metal armor so any protection they have is purely of a magical nature.

Nakaru-Nitepaw

06-11-2007, 12:54 PM

<cite>KunamitsuUK wrote:</cite><blockquote>DanaDark wrote: my female ogre beserker should surely be allowed to equipt the duct tape [Removed for Content] armor too.</blockquote> thats so scary lol. It reminds me of when i used to play anarchy online and saw Atroxes running around with pink Mohawks and bikinis. A race that has no gender, but looks like big ugly hairy men with constipated facial expressions.

Siogai

06-11-2007, 01:55 PM

<cite>DanaDark wrote:</cite><blockquote>Personally... I prefer armors to be that: Armor.Despite popular hormonal belief, Jeanne d'Arc did not wear a chainmail thong and two pieces of duct tape on her nipples when she confronted the English army outside of Orleans.The simple solution would be to add the "sexxier" armors to the game indeed, but keep with the idea that armor is armor and used to protect. So... A female paladin wearing full plate armor will surely have more mitigation than the one in the chainmail thong... but ofcoarse, more men will flock to aid the chainmail thonged high elf female paladin, while the Ogre female paladin in full plate can still defend herself.More skin that shows = less protection.Thus, classes like wizards and illusionists for example, can feel more free to dabble in the sexxier armors, while the tank classes might feel more inclined to stay with plate.I am also a firm believer in EQUALITY. So, if a female character can wear a chainmail thong, by all means, my wood elf boy swashbuckler should be allowed to wear it too, without it turning into a massive hunk of metal. As well, my female ogre beserker should surely be allowed to equipt the duct tape [Removed for Content] armor too.So, bring the sexxy armors I say... and I will surely have the best drag queen wood elf boy you've ever seen!!!</blockquote>As I mentioned previously, cheesecake is best complimented with beefcake. Dish as this was meant to be served on the same plate.

Image_Vain

06-11-2007, 02:08 PM

Males will always look better then the females, although the there are more female character models running around then male. 95% of the Female models are guys IRL, judging by that % I'm guessing 99% of the people posting here that want "sexy armour" are guys aswell. No matter how protective the armour looks, it's all about stats. Hopefully, when the new models/armour comes out, it will be "sexy" so that when you click on EQ2 it will say "By playing this game you are aware that is as adult content and you are 18 years of age or older? Yes/No." [Removed for Content] I can see this happening: <img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/Image_Vain/1.jpg" border="0"> <img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/Image_Vain/2.jpg" border="0"> <img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/Image_Vain/3.jpg" border="0"> <img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/Image_Vain/4.jpg" border="0"> <img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/Image_Vain/NewBitmapImage4.jpg" border="0"> over exaggerated? Maybe.

LordFyre

06-11-2007, 02:46 PM

<cite>Image_Vain wrote:</cite><blockquote>Males will always look better then the females, although the there are more female character models running around then male. 95% of the Female models are guys IRL, judging by that % I'm guessing 99% of the people posting here that want "sexy armour" are guys aswell. No matter how protective the armour looks, it's all about stats. </blockquote>"Males will always look better then the females" Huh?? I don't think so. Male avatars are less scrutinized then female avatars and less importance is placed on their appearance (kind of like real life), but as to actually "looking better" I cannot actually agree. <img src="/smilies/97ada74b88049a6d50a6ed40898a03d7.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />"95% of the Female models are guys IRL" That does not follow. What information is there one way or the other on this? As to the second part - "I'm guessing 99% of the people posting here that want "sexy armour" are guys aswell." While I could dispute your numbers, I have no doubt that a majority of the posters advocating sexier armor are guys. (I know that I am. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I also believe that the most vigorous posters arguing against such are also guys. "No matter how protective the armour looks, it's all about stats." That is very true, and what I have been saying all along. So what matters is what kind of "look" the designers (and us the consumers) want for EverQuest II.

DanaDark

06-11-2007, 03:31 PM

Im a boy (Yay boys!) I prefer female toons for certain characters, and males for others... I got a mixxed bag. Overall though... males in EQ2 are just butt [Removed for Content] ugly. I've seen better things walk out of a flaming train wreck.Not saying the females are flawless... the [Removed for Content] are so huge they could put down a horse just by spining around. Sheesh.I want my female toons to look Awesome. Not 2c prostitutes. Heck, if my toon is gonna be a prostitute, I want high class stuff... a nice slim black number with an awesome pair of black pumps. Perhaps maybe a nice hair style and some pleasing make up. My [Removed for Content] of a toon ain't gonna be working the slums of Freeport thank you very much!!!! It's all about working for the Ironforge family -nods- 5 gold make ya holla... ?_?Overall though... Some people want more revealing armors... I guess that's alright so long as most armors remain more functional looking.

Image_Vain

06-11-2007, 03:35 PM

<cite>DanaDark wrote:</cite><blockquote>Im a boy (Yay boys!) I prefer female toons for certain characters, and males for others... I got a mixxed bag. Overall though... males in EQ2 are just butt [I cannot control my vocabulary] ugly. I've seen better things walk out of a flaming train wreck.Not saying the females are flawless... the [Removed for Content] are so huge they could put down a horse just by spining around. Sheesh.I want my female toons to look Awesome. Not 2c prostitutes. Heck, if my toon is gonna be a prostitute, I want high class stuff... a nice slim black number with an awesome pair of black pumps. Perhaps maybe a nice hair style and some pleasing make up. My [Removed for Content] of a toon ain't gonna be working the slums of Freeport thank you very much!!!! It's all about working for the Ironforge family -nods- 5 gold make ya holla... ?_?Overall though... Some people want more revealing armors... I guess that's alright so long as most armors remain more functional looking. </blockquote> Some females look better then males, but Male DE >> Female DE

DanaDark

06-11-2007, 03:42 PM

This is true. Depending on the race and the class I choose toon gender. Some races just have FUGLY males and some have FUGLY females. And ofcoarse... then there is the accident that is non-soga humans.

Deadrus

06-11-2007, 03:53 PM

WTB more veriety of armor/clothing

Ixalmaris

06-11-2007, 03:57 PM

<cite>DanaDark wrote:</cite><blockquote>Overall though... Some people want more revealing armors... I guess that's alright so long as most armors remain more functional looking. </blockquote>Exactly. More revealing clothing: Ok (as long as it doesn't get too cheap. Generally when you can wear the cloths in real life, stand at a street corner and no "tricks" will come flocking to you it is ok with me) More revealing armor: Ok as long as the armor is still functional. That means no unprotected bellies (great entry point for stabbing weapons because there are no bones between the skin and organs) or legs (are a rather good target for slashing weapons). Magic and monsters doesn't change that naked skin means unprotected skin and is bad. You can always wear light armor or cloth over such places to have good menuverability and protection. Nonfunctional Armor: Absolutly not Ok! That only the stats count is no argument. I don't want 800 mitigation bikinies and a server where half of the population wears thongs because that are the best armor for their level.

Ruut Li

06-11-2007, 04:39 PM

Always remember to /show_helm before pull, and always remember to exaggerate <img src="/smilies/97ada74b88049a6d50a6ed40898a03d7.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> xtremism 4tw!

Image_Vain

06-11-2007, 04:40 PM

Ruut Li wrote: <blockquote>Always remember to /show_helm before pull, and always remember to exaggerate <img src="/smilies/97ada74b88049a6d50a6ed40898a03d7.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> xtremism 4tw!</blockquote> High five

selch

06-11-2007, 04:42 PM

Ruut Li wrote: <blockquote>do you really wish that? kinda goes against what you been posting before.. what would you doif that was the case? <img src="/smilies/385970365b8ed7503b4294502a458efa.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />I dont think nun is a negative "term". I feel the nun-ish look is boring and there should be options. Prostitute is generally considered to be a very negative "term", and yea I think its sad that for some people feminine clothing = prostitute.</blockquote> Actually people call piece of cloth smaller than a hand = prostitute and it has nothing to do with feminine clothing. Not to mention in battle, you are not making sex or try to attact someone to wear any "feminine" "ARMOR", sadly, armor and clothing is really confused in this game.+I always have my helm shown <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Ruut Li

06-12-2007, 06:01 AM

Funny how the middle road suggestions are totally ignored by the prude-patrol (sorry! lol). Also funny that its those ppl who are mostly talking about dreaded thongs, uncontroled self-pleasuring, [Removed for Content], turning tricks and so on. I am sorry I cannot relate since my mind is not that perverted <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Right above this forum section I have a banner showing two e2 females in battle; swords swinging. One is Antonia herself. Imo these two outfits are quite nice, and obviously so does SoE since they are flaunting the pics here <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Siogai

06-12-2007, 03:27 PM

One of my favourite characters (not my own) on AB is an ogress. She's totally cool, and looks great in her formal wear. It's hilarious to watch her interact with all the little DE boys who think they're all that and a bag of jumjum chips... more woman than they can handle. As far as the "no bare midriff goes"... Miss Bayle in the upper right has a bare belly, and, looking closely at the elf on the left, it appears she does as well (look very closely at the bottom edge of the frame). For those of you who play D&D 3rd Ed+, you could wear a leather thong with a +30 Deflection bonus, and never be touched... "soft" armour with high mitigation would be enchanted in such a manner. I like the picture of the archer. Is that from Guild Wars? Another MMO-lite I've never tried. <blockquote> More revealing clothing: Ok (as long as it doesn't get too cheap. Generally when you can wear the cloths in real life, stand at a street corner and no "tricks" will come flocking to you it is ok with me)</blockquote> Which is somehow different than what I see in modern high-schools? Though, keeping it in the realm of Norrath, it hasn't escaped my notice that all of our "formal wear" is also worn by "courtesans" in those cities which have them. Apparently, looking like a prostitute is in vogue, even for the Queen.

LordFyre

06-12-2007, 08:30 PM

<cite>Siogai wrote:</cite><blockquote>As far as the "no bare midriff goes"... Miss Bayle in the upper right has a bare belly, and, looking closely at the elf on the left, it appears she does as well (look very closely at the bottom edge of the frame). For those of you who play D&D 3rd Ed+, you could wear a leather thong with a +30 Deflection bonus, and never be touched... "soft" armour with high mitigation would be enchanted in such a manner. </blockquote>Here is the original graphic that the boarder for this BB is made from.<img src="http://www.trialoftheisle.com/fr/site_images/en/whatis/whatisit_c2_right.jpg" border="0"> (I thought Antonia Bayle was a - sword swinging - arcane caster?)

Velsha

06-12-2007, 08:31 PM

<cite>Siogai wrote:</cite><blockquote>One of my favourite characters (not my own) on AB is an ogress. She's totally cool, and looks great in her formal wear. It's hilarious to watch her interact with all the little DE boys who think they're all that and a bag of jumjum chips... more woman than they can handle. As far as the "no bare midriff goes"... Miss Bayle in the upper right has a bare belly, and, looking closely at the elf on the left, it appears she does as well (look very closely at the bottom edge of the frame). For those of you who play D&D 3rd Ed+, you could wear a leather thong with a +30 Deflection bonus, and never be touched... "soft" armour with high mitigation would be enchanted in such a manner. I like the picture of the archer. Is that from Guild Wars? Another MMO-lite I've never tried. <blockquote> More revealing clothing: Ok (as long as it doesn't get too cheap. Generally when you can wear the cloths in real life, stand at a street corner and no "tricks" will come flocking to you it is ok with me)</blockquote> Which is somehow different than what I see in modern high-schools? Though, keeping it in the realm of Norrath, it hasn't escaped my notice that all of our "formal wear" is also worn by "courtesans" in those cities which have them. Apparently, looking like a prostitute is in vogue, even for the Queen. </blockquote>What queen? The human's queen? Oh yeah.. she's a total ho.

Image_Vain

06-12-2007, 10:59 PM

She secretly meets with Lucan<img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Naubeta

06-14-2007, 06:05 PM

Firiona Vie is a paladin, and in EQ1 paladins are a full plate class. The box and promotional art have never reflected the in game aesthetic for the Everquest franchise (just like with DnD). And I'm not a "prude", I just dispute the false dichotomy where either clothing is "showing off the beautiful female body" or it's a "burkah". You know... maybe clothes look good because the clothes themselves look good, and that's why ppl spend so much money on them? In EQ, plate armour is a suit of armour something like that from arthurian legend (or again like DnD). That can look very cool... and that's what I would like (shinier, cooler looking, more ornate armour).

Siogai

06-14-2007, 06:32 PM

<blockquote>Firiona Vie is a paladin, and in EQ1 paladins are a full plate class.</blockquote> Not sure if that's true. She used to wield the Staff of Life, and staves were restricted to casters and monks. I think she was a cleric. She's also never depicted wearing plate at any time... in fact, iirc, isn't her get-up the SOL-era High Elf underwear? Clerics were a full-plate class, too. That didn't prevent me from wearing the buttless chaps we mentioned few pages back, nor the Tizmak Leggings which, on DE, looked like I strapped red plates onto my thighs and tied them on across my bare butt. Speaking of High Elves, in EQL they had those black vinyl, curve-hugging dresses with the plunging backline and the lace-up boustier. I'd be happy to have a robe patterned after that for starters... even the chaps, now that Neriak has returned. A return to traditional Teir fashions in the works, perhaps? After all, the city has been sealed off for so long, they shouldn't be hip to modern Norrathian fashions.

Naubeta

06-14-2007, 08:19 PM

Firiona's staff is actually an in game item in EQ1 now. <a href="http://lucy.allakhazam.com/item.html?id=10819" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">The Lifeguide</a>

WeatherMan

06-15-2007, 10:30 PM

<cite>Siogai wrote:</cite><blockquote> A return to traditional Teir fashions in the works, perhaps? After all, the city has been sealed off for so long, they shouldn't be hip to modern Norrathian fashions. </blockquote><sputter> How dare you use logic! How DARE you! In all seriousness, this sentence makes a lot of sense. Meaning, as usual, SOE will ignore it and do whatever the <explicative> they want - Neriak casters will suddenly all sport the exact same fashions that Qeynosians do...maybe they astral-projected and ransacked the minds of Qeynos and Freeport tailors or something...its evident thats what the tailors in Kelethin did...

Terayon

06-17-2007, 02:08 AM

Female erudites do.. or least I see something looks like one :p

Chanaluss

06-17-2007, 05:30 AM

i play a mixture of male and female characters, based on my pre-set character designs (all 24 class options are accounted for in terms of race, gender, and look) i work hard to make my characters perfect, needless to say. i dont mind the armor here tbh. it could use some more variety, but eh. however, id love a way to add emblems and crests to my armor, to customize it more. ive always wanted to put the sebilisian crest on my armor and shield in EQ1 on my SK, and the same is true of my SK on EQ2. chana votes no on skimpy armor, my female iksar SK gets embarrassed by too much scale showing.

Chay

06-17-2007, 01:55 PM

Chayna votes: "Skimpy? I think I said more feminine, but skimpy is fine as long as its not ugly." Chaylynn votes: "As long as its elegant, refined, and beautifully crafted more ~revealing~ clothing does not offend me." Qixa votes: "I want to run around topless like the guys... You didn't write that down did you?" Briari votes: "Full plate is just too confining to really BASH monsters... Just don't ask me to use a buckler!!!" Valita votes: "You ever try to sneak up on someone in chain link? The less: the better..." Maei votes: "Even in chain I look naked... so whatever" Cathexis votes: "If I must wear a bathrobe can I at least have some cute bunnyslippers?" Chayni votes: "Less is more fun! And so much easier to get out of..." Loud votes: "Depends... Does it match my hair?" Felony votes: "As long as it doesn't match Loud's hair." Quiet votes: "Ever try to fly in a robe that weighs more than you do??? My poor wings *sniff*" Capris votes: "What are you talking about? They don't have clothes like that here..." Misha votes: "Do you want to die?" Kamil votes: "I might be too young to vote... And if I don't follow along I'll just get deleted..." How EQ2 gave me MPD/DID.

Siogai

06-18-2007, 05:03 PM

<cite>Chayna wrote:</cite><blockquote>Chayna votes: "Skimpy? I think I said more feminine, but skimpy is fine as long as its not ugly." Chaylynn votes: "As long as its elegant, refined, and beautifully crafted more ~revealing~ clothing does not offend me." Qixa votes: "I want to run around topless like the guys... You didn't write that down did you?" Briari votes: "Full plate is just too confining to really BASH monsters... Just don't ask me to use a buckler!!!" Valita votes: "You ever try to sneak up on someone in chain link? The less: the better..." Maei votes: "Even in chain I look naked... so whatever" Cathexis votes: "If I must wear a bathrobe can I at least have some cute bunnyslippers?" Chayni votes: "Less is more fun! And so much easier to get out of..." Loud votes: "Depends... Does it match my hair?" Felony votes: "As long as it doesn't match Loud's hair." Quiet votes: "Ever try to fly in a robe that weighs more than you do??? My poor wings *sniff*" Capris votes: "What are you talking about? They don't have clothes like that here..." Misha votes: "Do you want to die?" Kamil votes: "I might be too young to vote... And if I don't follow along I'll just get deleted..." How EQ2 gave me MPD/DID. </blockquote> Say huh?

DanaDark

06-18-2007, 07:05 PM

[Removed for Content].. just [Removed for Content]...But yeah... honestly guys, my half elf pally boy REALLY wants to be fighting in a pink thong and [Removed for Content] clamps all connected by a chain while weilding his Cat-o-nine-tails flail... Skimpy armors for the win!!!!!

Ruut Li

06-19-2007, 04:58 AM

Again I ask: what is up with all the perverts spamming the thread about thongs and [Removed for Content] clamps, and totally ignoring reasonable suggestions?Pervs ftw? <img src="/smilies/385970365b8ed7503b4294502a458efa.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Emerix

06-19-2007, 09:37 AM

Its the simple fact that one half of the human population has an IQ lower than 100 that makes them say things like that .

DanaDark

06-19-2007, 11:45 AM

Kalyria@Antonia Bayle wrote: <blockquote>Its the simple fact that one half of the human population has an IQ lower than 100 that makes them say things like that .</blockquote>Sigh. I suppose some people have never heard of sarcasm. Nor have they utilized it in a way to point out other arguments. That's fine. I suppose I have to SPELL it out for some people.The desire for one particular type of armor design, be it skimpy or otherwise, will ultimately result in further desire for other such armors. Conceding to the demand of one group for one particular armor set type will ultimately bring about another group with similar, yet obviously different and possibly even more offensive desires, making such said demands as some have made and succeeded in gaining.So a horde of people demand skimpier armors, if the developers put such said armors in game for the sole purpose of pleasing the populus, what is to stop them from putting in a Monkey Suit for example if there are an equal amount of supporters for that as well. By not putting in such said suit would ultimately be a direct cause of favoritism.The solution is rather simple: let the developers develope the armors as they see fit.

Ruut Li

06-19-2007, 12:08 PM

On the other hand I dont think SoE are obligated to maintain a safe environment for the minority of people who have difficulties in controlling themselves. The mere word feminine and skin causes them to fantasize about boys in pink thongs and [Removed for Content] clamps..[Removed for Content]?? tmi pls! Keep your fantasies to yourself thank you, you are making me blush. Just because less clothes is threatening and pronifying to you doesnt necessarily mean that there is a huge player-base thinking like you. I bet most players are pretty normal actually.I think we can give SoE the green light to trust that the majority of their players are able to behave in a normal manner. Those who cannot will probably end up violating the eula and get banned.

Valita

06-19-2007, 02:21 PM

I'm sorry, I just don't get how more feminine clothes = prostitute clothes or fetish clothes. I guess the problem begins when we say "skimpier" for female clothes. And I'm probably guilty of that as the next person. I'm also not sure why so many people are threatened by the prospect of clothing and armor that doesn't cover every inch of the character. I don't get the clinging on to what we currently have by so many. I want to dress my characters in a way that is pleasing to me and reflects the character's personality and profession. I want uniqueness. I want choices. I want style and grace. What is it that the puritanical types want? Do they really think that every plate wearer would have a full set of armor that encases them? Yes, very realistic. The argument that the current sets are "realistic' or "more realistic" than a leather/chainlink/plate bikini aren't really valid. Saying so is like taking a single look back through time and seeing someone in full ornate armor and saying "yes, that must be how it always was with every culture throughout all time'. It ignores other cultures that didn't follow the same philosophy but were still quite successful in battling enemies. Its a narrow view and that doesn't really fit here. Here we have multiple cultures that would have different aesthetics when it comes to creating equipment. EQ1 kind of took a multicultural view in that equipment often looked different on different races. I'm not sure that would be the best approach. I think it would be a interesting option to allow us to chose a look from several versions of art. Racial, standard, gender, hero... Perhaps the number of options would only open after you reached a certain level or performed some task. I'm not sure how someone feels threatened by a bare tummies, or arms, or legs... skirts, bra tops, or thigh highs... It just makes no sense. It wont ruin the game. What WILL ruin the game is if it continues to look flat, uniform, dated, and uninspired. 3 years now and nothing new. If we have to wait for RoK to come out to get new armor and (please oh please) more character uniqueness well it really really better ROcK! Thank you for your time and consideration.

DanaDark

06-19-2007, 02:39 PM

Ruut Li wrote: <blockquote>On the other hand I dont think SoE are obligated to maintain a safe environment for the minority of people who have difficulties in controlling themselves. The mere word feminine and skin causes them to fantasize about boys in pink thongs and [Removed for Content] clamps..[I cannot control my vocabulary]?? tmi pls! Keep your fantasies to yourself thank you, you are making me blush. Just because less clothes is threatening and pronifying to you doesnt necessarily mean that there is a huge player-base thinking like you. I bet most players are pretty normal actually.I think we can give SoE the green light to trust that the majority of their players are able to behave in a normal manner. Those who cannot will probably end up violating the eula and get banned.</blockquote>LoL, I use sarcasm and exxageration a lot.Anyway, it's not so much as say showing a character's hand or an ankle even or even maybe the thigh. But then again, you forget that we indeed all have different ideas of decency. Some people are gravely offended and will kill a woman for even showing her hair.But, thats more on the extreme side.I remember the chainmail thong in EQ1, and some rather skimpy looking monk armor I saw only once! It was rather revealing, but not exactly something straight out of strip-tease.I am all for some better looking armors and some functional looking armors too. Revealing armors would be best left to those classes that wouldn't be tanking anyway. So, some rather exotic (NOT Erotic) looking chainmail (for male or female) for rangers perhaps, and a nice leather outfit (NOT pleather... this is not BDSM-Quest dang it) and even some fancy robes that look more elegant, graceful, noble would be nice. Some of the revealing clothes I could see would be like a circus magician costume (Not a clown... we have Paladins already).[Removed for Content] clamps+thong is SUPPOSED to make some of you chuckle... But I suppose seeing it on a troll mght make you vomit instead.

Siogai

06-19-2007, 02:53 PM

The original Maiden's Fancy had several dancers in what was then the underwear textures... which were, especilly on the early DE, rather revealing. Oh, and one ogress, as I recall. Obviously, since this *is* a Teen rated game, we're not going to get (nor should anyone be expecting to get) [Removed for Content] clamps, Janus outfits, [Removed for Content] suits, or anything of the like. I think, though, given what we have seen on NPCs here, as well as the armouring textures available to both PCs and NPCs in EQ1, that asking for, for example, that POP-era monk's outfit with the bare midriff, or, say, a leather outfit such as is worn by the Tseralith (sp?) NPC in the back of Fallen Gate, or even the infamous early-EQL DE leather pants (risque without being over-the-line), is not out of order. There was a human model, now that I think about it, in the LoY era that wore a pair of hiphugger pants and a tie-on brassiere that was a phenomenally cool outfit (for the time), and I think something similar (as seen on some models in Maj Dul) would be a great leather set for Rogue classes, with a re-texture in chain and leather for a chainmail set.

Allisia

06-19-2007, 03:07 PM

<cite>Valita wrote:</cite><blockquote>I want to dress my characters in a way that is pleasing to me and reflects the character's personality and profession. I want uniqueness. I want choices. I want style and grace. What is it that the puritanical types want? Do they really think that every plate wearer would have a full set of armor that encases them? Yes, very realistic. </blockquote>Speaking only for myself, I am far from puritanical. I do not oppose "skimpy" outfits for moral reasons--I don't even oppose them for cloth wearers. I do oppose them for classes that wear armor. Seeing warriors run around in nothing (ala Conan) is not the genre of game that I want to play. I always found Conan and Red Sonja to be silly, even as a child. I always loved Arthurian legends and medieval history. That's the genre I want. That's the genre EQ2 currently offers, so I'm happy. <blockquote>I'm not sure that would be the best approach. I think it would be a interesting option to allow us to chose a look from several versions of art. Racial, standard, gender, hero... Perhaps the number of options would only open after you reached a certain level or performed some task. </blockquote> This will never be implemented in EQ2. It would take far too much time and effort. <blockquote>I'm not sure how someone feels threatened by a bare tummies, or arms, or legs... skirts, bra tops, or thigh highs... It just makes no sense. It wont ruin the game. What WILL ruin the game is if it continues to look flat, uniform, dated, and uninspired. 3 years now and nothing new. </blockquote>You seem to try to pigeon-hole people who don't want this into a certain mind view. I'm not "threatened" by your proposal, I just don't want it. What's so hard to understand about people having different tastes? If the artistic style of the game hasn't ruined it by now, I don't think it will. I like the artistic style of the game, but, by this point, anyone that would leave the game over it has already left by now.

Siogai

06-19-2007, 03:43 PM

<blockquote>. I like the artistic style of the game, but, by this point, anyone that would leave the game over it has already left by now.</blockquote> Well, not necessarily. I, for one, am a relatively new player (look at the join date) and while I like a lot of the gameplay elements and the community, visual appeal is an important factor in games these days. Back in the day, when almost everything looked fairly the same, gameplay and story took precedence over graphic quality any day... but, now, with what advances have been made, it's possible for gamers (read as: customers) like myself to have our cake and eat it, too. Any company that neglects one aspect or the other does so at the peril of its subscriber base. By all accounts, SWG is a beautiful game... but who plays it? Conversely, does anyone still MUD anymore? Who takes Runescape seriously? ES4: Oblivion had cookie-cutter questing, a formulaic storyline and rather uninspired gameplay (ie, nothing new to see here)... and was the most graphically lush game that year that flew off the shelves with a quickness. You can bet Fallout 3, built on the same engine and slated for Fall 2008, will do the same thing. Heck, look at the console fighting games! The gameplay hasn't changed in 10-15 years, but people keep buying the latest, greatest title because of newer, shinier graphics, cooler costumes and prettier fighting arenas.

Allisia

06-19-2007, 04:10 PM

<cite>Siogai wrote:</cite><blockquote>I, for one, am a relatively new player (look at the join date) and while I like a lot of the gameplay elements and the community, visual appeal is an important factor in games these days. Back in the day, when almost everything looked fairly the same, gameplay and story took precedence over graphic quality any day... but, now, with what advances have been made, it's possible for gamers (read as: customers) like myself to have our cake and eat it, too. </blockquote>And yet, you're still here. You know what the game looked like before you started, the game had already been out for nearly a year. If the game had no visual appeal, then why would you subscribe to it? My point was that anyone that didn't like the way this game looked, really really didn't like enough to the point where they would leave, have already left. When people leave, I would bet a very small minority would cite "artistic design" as the major reason. <blockquote>Any company that neglects one aspect or the other does so at the peril of its subscriber base. By all accounts, SWG is a beautiful game... but who plays it? </blockquote>I would counter by asking "who ever played it"? It has never been a hugely popular game as far as I know. I know of only a couple of people that have played it. But that's not the same as graphics. You can't tell how a game will play before you try it, but you can tell how a game will look. EQ2 has good graphics, probably not the best, but better than most of the competition IMO. But that's not what we're discussing here. The artistic design of the game is what it is, and probably won't change. If someone came into the game expecting it to change 1-2 years after its release then I think they've dug their own hole.

Arbreth

06-19-2007, 04:53 PM

<--- Female player with female toonsAnd I for one would love some better looking clothes and armor, 20 outfits/armors of different colors in the same cut and style are borrrring to this particular Kerra Mystic. I am not interested in looking like a swimwear model in the middle of battle (unless I am fighting underwater...) but I do not see anything wrong with some fur showing while supporting my groupmates as they slice and dice.Clothing outside of armor truly does need more style and variety for both males as well as females. For those that think the current dresses are not revealing should follow me sometime as I run about my errands, truly, I did not know that the inside of my thighs were that pale... And for some reason I find that more, um - yeah, than if I chose to wear shorts and a halter top. You can keep your thong though, it interferes with the tail.And for those that equate warrior with plate, have you not ever seen a ROMAN or GREEK war movie? Men in miniskirts and leather straps! Historically, those that did battle rarely wore metal, unless they were of higher rank and could afford it, and no self respecting scout would be foolish enough to wear anything that could go clink. Even now, the use of anything resembling full plate is limited to chest peices, helmets, and a really good set of boots.If you wanted realism, then those that wear plate in game should be on a horse (always) or at -40 movement speed, wearing plate would protect them from strikes, but drain them of power and strength. Chain wearers would favor better, though it is still heavy, and can be noisy, no sneaking about! And who said Mages have to be in a robe? Cloth perhaps, as common lore (all of it, not just EQ2) believes that metal would interfere with magic (but then so does running water...), and stiff leather could interfere with movement needed to cast, though there are supple leathers...We already suspend realism for most of the game as it is, can we not compromise on armor that looks good and perhaps provides protection? Give it different stats if you must (that bikini outfit with the handerchief skirt? +50 charisma/distraction & -80 on melee hit) and keep what is already out there for those tin can lovers.

Valita

06-19-2007, 05:16 PM

Arrex@Kithicor wrote: <blockquote><cite>Valita wrote:</cite><blockquote>I want to dress my characters in a way that is pleasing to me and reflects the character's personality and profession. I want uniqueness. I want choices. I want style and grace. What is it that the puritanical types want? Do they really think that every plate wearer would have a full set of armor that encases them? Yes, very realistic. </blockquote>Speaking only for myself, I am far from puritanical. I do not oppose "skimpy" outfits for moral reasons--I don't even oppose them for cloth wearers. I do oppose them for classes that wear armor. Seeing warriors run around in nothing (ala Conan) is not the genre of game that I want to play. I always found Conan and Red Sonja to be silly, even as a child. I always loved Arthurian legends and medieval history. That's the genre I want. That's the genre EQ2 currently offers, so I'm happy. <blockquote>I'm not sure that would be the best approach. I think it would be a interesting option to allow us to chose a look from several versions of art. Racial, standard, gender, hero... Perhaps the number of options would only open after you reached a certain level or performed some task. </blockquote> This will never be implemented in EQ2. It would take far too much time and effort. <blockquote>I'm not sure how someone feels threatened by a bare tummies, or arms, or legs... skirts, bra tops, or thigh highs... It just makes no sense. It wont ruin the game. What WILL ruin the game is if it continues to look flat, uniform, dated, and uninspired. 3 years now and nothing new. </blockquote>You seem to try to pigeon-hole people who don't want this into a certain mind view. I'm not "threatened" by your proposal, I just don't want it. What's so hard to understand about people having different tastes? If the artistic style of the game hasn't ruined it by now, I don't think it will. I like the artistic style of the game, but, by this point, anyone that would leave the game over it has already left by now. </blockquote> Which Arthurian legend? There are several. And I don't think the art here has much basis on medieval history. While some of the art takes a taste of those the game does not fall into an Arthurian Legend/Medieval genre. It's high fantasy/role playing genre so it takes from multiple mythologies and mixes things up. I've no problem with plate armor but full plate as they have it is impractical and frankly its own special kind of silly. Again I state: "Not every plate wearer would have a full set of armor". No where do I say... All you plate wearers need to be in feysteel speedos. Chest guards, arm guards, and leg guards (with of course a cod piece or two) are more likely the case. You have spoken so let it be written, so let is be done. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> The crazy thing about "this will never be implemented" is that far often than not at some point they are done. Several things have changed in the game that have been previously predicted as "this will never be implemented". Is it a pipe dream to have that option? Probably. Is it unreasonable? Hardly. When they finish the mythical skeletal revamp I don't see it to be very difficult at all. Time and effort are all relative: If enough people wanted it and the powers agree... Right click: choose appearance and you're on your way. And there was much rejoicing! I don't pigeon hole people who don't want what I want. Please tell me where I pigeon hole anyone. I think you are putting words into my mouth. The "puritanical types" comment is directed at a specific faction of folk who think the Formal Ensemble and similar are "prostitute clothes" (see the paragraph you failed to quote). As far as the threatened comment... I really doubt anyone is "threatened" by my proposal nor should they be. There's no insult in it, it is what it is. Yet, some have made it clear that they are "threatened" by the prospect of bringing armor/clothing that is more natural in feel and style same as I am offended when people say that certain clothing is "prostitute" clothes. And you are completely wrong in your last statement: "by this point, anyone that would leave the game over it already has left by now". You are wrong. There are many still here that will leave if something isn't done. As someone as already gone into this (see one of the posts between this and your post). And those that have already left and marked that the art wasn't interesting enough on the exit survey, I'm sure SOE wants them back.

Ruut Li

06-19-2007, 06:24 PM

<cite>DanaDark wrote:</cite><blockquote>Anyway, it's not so much as say showing a character's hand or an ankle even or even maybe the thigh. But then again, you forget that we indeed all have different ideas of decency. Some people are gravely offended and will kill a woman for even showing her hair.But, thats more on the extreme side.</blockquote> I dont know what you are going for here. But I do know that I have absolutely no respect for a person who thinks he has the right to play god when another person isnt behaving to his liking. And I think its pretty much universal. The stoning of women in certain parts of the world is frowned upon by civilized countries. I dont feel your example is one that belongs here. And its not "more on the extreme side", its over and beyond extreme. Murder is never right.Now zone to QH and look at the NPC by SS carpet. The femininity is already in the game. And if a mentally ill person feels he/she needs to murder the npc..well I think SOE will survive without that persons money lol.

Kaitar

06-19-2007, 06:30 PM

I'm a female player that plays both male and female characters.I -hated- WoW's metal bikini armor for women. And you know what? Most of the female gamers on that game weren't too fond of it either from my experience speaking and playing with them, so be careful what you wish for. There's such a thing as taking it to the extreme. High fantasy shouldn't mean [Removed for Content] tassles and a thong if you ask me. I don't mind if the armor is pretty and even shows a bit of skin, so long as it's in GOOD TASTE and still looks like armor and not little bits of metal pasted onto the breasts to hide the bare minimum, while your [Removed for Content] hangs out all over the place because your "chainmail leggings" are a thong and high heeled boots. I just don't think I'd feel like a very powerful paladin or bruiser or what have you if that were the case. I'd feel like a street walker. And no, I'm not a prude, but I'm also not a fan of women always having to be prancing around in these games in almost no clothes at all in order for it to be "attractive". Case in point; Lineage 2 panty shots? No thanks. You can make attractive, feminine armor without it looking like some lonely 50 year old bald guy's fantasy. And I hope SOE continues to do so, some of the dresses for RP are rather pretty BUT don't show off too much for it to be in poor taste. However, I'm not sure I'd want to go out fighting orcs in one of them...

Ruut Li

06-19-2007, 06:43 PM

The problem in this thread is that its the opposition that keeps talking about thongs, nipples and whatever bondage items ppl seem to have such intimate knowledge of. Theres horror stories about wow and so on. Well EQ2 already got "skimpy" armor. And I think many are wondering why their character cannot use such armor, its there right in front of them on an npc...I think we will get better looking armor if its easy enough to implement. Its not a question about decensy, it cant be since the skin is already in the game.

Kaitar

06-19-2007, 06:50 PM

Ruut Li wrote: <blockquote>The problem in this thread is that its the opposition that keeps talking about thongs, nipples and whatever bondage items ppl seem to have such intimate knowledge of. Theres horror stories about wow and so on. Well EQ2 already got "skimpy" armor. And I think many are wondering why their character cannot use such armor, its there right in front of them on an npc...I think we will get better looking armor if its easy enough to implement. Its not a question about decensy, it cant be since the skin is already in the game.</blockquote> Your attempt at being subtle and snide has failed. Just because a person proclaims they do NOT want to be stuck in the oh-so-cliche' metal bra and thong doesn't mean we're all closet perverts with a box full of fetish items hidden away. It means, possibly? we don't want to end up feeling like Paris Hilton the High Elf version while we're playing an online game. And like I said, the casual dresses in EQ2 are fine, and yeah they show some skin don't they? Yep. But they're still in decent taste. Some of WoW's stuff, Lineage's stuff, and several other games I could try to remember but don't feel like at the moment...are -not- in good taste. If you doubt me, go toss on some Black Mageweave armor on any female character in WoW and tell me you don't feel a bit trashy in that. I knew several people who went with robes that had lesser stats just because they -refused- to put that crap on, and I don't blame them. The people that did love to wear it? The cyber RP crowd in WoW, so that's gotta say something. You can have -tasteful- female armor without it being trashy, and that was my point.

Ruut Li

06-20-2007, 05:39 AM

Now see, you are doing it again, like a broken record. Have you read all posts in this thread? There are many asking for a middle road. And I have asked many times why "you guys" are totally ignoring this and almost hysterically chanting about your iron thongs or whatever. Im just paying you back with the same coin hun. You assume that I want my toon in bondage underware (I wouldnt care, but for the sake of the community Im suggesting a middle road), so I assume you are having certain..issues. How does it feel? If you dont like it, stop it.

Ixalmaris

06-20-2007, 07:21 AM

Ruut Li wrote: <blockquote>Now see, you are doing it again, like a broken record. Have you read all posts in this thread? There are many asking for a middle road. And I have asked many times why "you guys" are totally ignoring this and almost hysterically chanting about your iron thongs or whatever. Im just paying you back with the same coin hun. You assume that I want my toon in bondage underware (I wouldnt care, but for the sake of the community Im suggesting a middle road), so I assume you are having certain..issues. How does it feel? If you dont like it, stop it.</blockquote> Please show me where "us guys" have histerically blocked a "middle road" suggestion? When you read this thread then you will see that there are a lot of people who want skimpy WoW/Lineage 2 armor. And that is no middle road. As long as the armor is still recognizable as armor and functional it can be as "skimpy" as you want. Same with social clothing. As long as it doesn't make you look like a prostitute it is ok.