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

You totally missed the point. It just flew over your head in your zeal to respond with your lackluster excuse to keep the status quo. What's the difference between the current mage cloth armor design and the social clothing design in the game ? [size="medium"] The answer: Nothing really except one has stats and the other doesn't ! [/size] You cannot seriously expect us to believe that the current in game mage cloth armor in this fantasy game would actually provide more protection then the in game social clothing in the real world do you ? Or worse yet you cannot also expect us to take your post seriously when you insinuate that all mages should only wear real world functional battle armor like chain mail or plate? If this is true then bring it on !!! This has got to be the lamest reasoning in a post ever IMHO. Jesus sometimes I wonder if people are just arguing to read their own thoughts and but fail to actually consider or think through what others have said and what they are posting.

Drakonous@Najena wrote:

Beep, wrong. Maybe you should actually look at the clothing/armor before commenting about them. Its obvious that the cloth armor is made out of much stronger material than the sociual clothing is. And I am pretty sure that the slitted long skirts the social clothing have are rather hindering in combat.

Also if, like some people before me, say that all those armor is enchanted, what do you think is easier to make an enchantment for. Making a flexible material (which by the way we do not know if it doesn't has and reinforced leather plates or metal wires under the surface) harder to cut or making magical force fields which protect otherwise totally unprotected skins? Most likely the first one. But oh noes! That means that cloth armor still has to cover the vulnerable body parts. Hurray for EQ2 armor designs because the cloth armor does exactly that.
And if you come with the argument that "casters don't need mitigation anyway", answer me why a enchanter would waste his magic to enchants non protective armor when he could use the same magic on protective armor with the exact same result? The only difference is that the adventurers would when giving the choice wear the protective version. After all mitigation never hurts, even for wizards.

And again, people who like the look of EQ2 do not want that people start adventuring in outfits more suitable for a summer holiday.
PS: Is it just a concidence or did you describe your behaviour in your last paragraph on purpose?

Yet somehow healers manage to buff mitigation and put up wards that protect without actually affecting the armor of the target. Embedding runes into armor that does the same thing should not be too hard in modern day Norrath.

Ulvhamne@Nagafen wrote:

[p]So you (and maybe all other here that only want to fight in tin-cans) would vote for taking Items like "Gi of Ashen Disciple" out of the Game ?[/p][p] [/p]

Ixalmaris wrote:

This is just complete BS ! It's a freaking fantasy game you don't know what materials it's made out or how difficult an enchantment may or may not be because it's all a freaking make-believe game !!! The so called mitigation properties of a bathrobe style mage cloth armor vs the social wear in the game is completely irrelevant due to the make believe nature of this GAME. It something which cannot be painted into a corner because it's all one big giant make believe game with make believe properties. You're basically arguing a fallacy to try to somehow discredit the real world desire of people who want more variety in the game in terms of styles of armor.

Einina@Runnyeye wrote:

Which is the point. It's a game. A game based on fantasy. so for someone to somehow say something has to be real world 16th century military approved in order to be worn as armor in a fantasy game is just absurd thinking when you factor in the make believe magical nature of a fantasy games and the alleged magical properties found on the armor already in the game. It really is all just a fallacy of an argument based on certain peoples selfish desire to keep the game stagnant in the art department because they don't like change or choices period. No real answer has been put forth as to way we shouldn't have more varied armor styles in this game by anyone. All I've read are just vain attempts to justify a opinion against such an idea as to expand and grow the creative art styles found in this game.

And the people who want to change the whole tone of EQ2 which many players like and makes EQ2 different from otehr fantasy games just because they want to wear silly dresses while questing aren't selfish? Just because it is fantasy doesn't mean that everything must be different than in the real world. And you should actually read what I and others have written. New Textures etc. are ok. But armor styles which look more like everyday clothes are not (except as social clothing).

I agree with Chefren - mitigation buffs and protection wards that protect on a permanent basis when imbued into an item would make an excellent foundation for providing armor types that expand our choices away from bathrobes and tin cans. These recipes could be put in the inventory of the crafting advisors along with the Basic Armorer' recipes, or, much the same as 'Advanced Armorer' recipes, be made available as a drop from certain mobs. As to what is easier to make an enchantment for...that is a non-argument. A mage who specializes in making the protection buff scrolls that the crafting advisor sells may not have any idea whatsoever about the loom or the forge. In this case, the answer to your question is definitively 'magical force fields' (using the terms you provided). A caster would be looking for many things in a garment, and 'coverage' is only applicable in certain cases. More pressing issues to a spellcaster are comfort, utility, and yes, appearance. The actual material used is irrelevant. To haul out the tired 'realism' argument, it doesn't matter what you make that garment out of...without the mitigation buffs and protection wards, all it takes is one well-aimed sword blow, and you have a wounded or dead caster. Five feet of carbon steel wielded by a stong and skilled swordarm will cut through any cloth available to Norrathians with astonishing efficiency and brutality. Thus, in this case, 'coverage' is a non-issue. It also render your 'protective' versus 'non-protective' argument null and void, because by that line of reasoning, everyone should be dressed neck to knees in full plate, and is a completely ludicrous argument. There is a reason monks and bruisers wear supple leathers (they need to be able to move fluidly and fast), and there is a reason casters would wear light, comfortable cloth garments (primarily ease and facility of spellcasting, which the heavier and more restrictive cloth would make that much more difficult) Garments along the lines of the 'social clothes' with the proper enchantments and mitigation imbuements would seem to me to be a much more attractive prospect to a caster than a full-coverage robe that has the same effect as wearing a down parka in July.

Sorry but the whole bath robe vs dress vs what would work in reality debate is just absurd beyond belief. Of course if you want to continue on going in this route I'll jump out of your way and leave you with these parting words and pic below. | | | | | | V Say hello to my level 70 human alt Warlock "TheDude" in his new ( in realty it is just a re-used armor design from the past 7 tiers with a new paint job and texture ) EQ2 fabled wizard class cloth armor. It offers tons of protection in the "real world" if it were real. Yeah that's a fabled secondary in his hand and fabled class head gear as well. Notice the magical ancient ward runes of defense on the secondary item he is holding.

What do you mean by 'change the tone'? There really isn't one...Valita pegged it when she said that the 'tone' was what was available when SOE bundled everything they had up into a hastily-assembled package and tossed it onto the market to beat Blizzard to the punch. The work wasn't finished, and there was no definitive 'style'. That is a non-argument. And the people who want to wear 'silly dresses' are asking for something that, in the final analysis, affects people around them a lot less than the other way around. Forcing them to wear something they dislike (and that is precisely what you are advocating) affects their game to a much larger degree than a 'silly dress' affects yours. You can always choose not to be near them - while inversely, they have to put up with the crap clothing they've been straightjacketed into wearing, and have no means of escaping. Thus, your 'selfishness' example is hollow and meaningless. And not everything is different - just playing the game demonstrates that. There are enough basic similarities to establish that - the problem is that there are too many similarities. We want a little more High Fantasy in our High Fantasy world, is all. And we have read what you and others have written. We simply disagree with you and consider your arguments flawed.

Drakonous@Najena wrote:

Bahh ... that won't give any protection because that half-naked pervert shows much too much skin around his Neck :shock:

Changing the whole tone of EQ2? What tone? Oh you mean the monotonous droning? The utter sameness of everything? Greetings comrade. Welcome behind the iron curtain. You must adhere to a regiment of dullness. You must not want to be an individual. You must dress the same for 70 (soon to be 80 levels). You are just a cog in the machine. Talk about selfish. Silly dresses? You'd rather people wear silly outfits like the clown get ups that are EoF fabled??

Actually, basically every mmo out there have the same problem with everything being reused over and over.

Admittedly I was stretching the point a bit. In a confused battle, missiles or otherwise, where you could be hit from any direction then armour obviously is better, as otherwise (as you say) no-one would have bothered with it. But... people still did fight practically naked despite that sometimes. Both the spartans and other groups fought that way regularly as a proof of bravery. The celt/german versions generally only had a helmet and shield, the spartans a helmet, shield and a greave on their leading leg under the shield. My stretched point is just that even in a pitched battle historical warriors sometimes fought that way and didn't consider it a suicidal policy. A riskier option yes, generally only undertaken by the most courage-obsessed cultures, but not suicidal. Gladiators are another example.
In single combat where you are only facing one attack from one direction I still think mit and avoidance are about equal. Never done it obviously, but if i was forced into an arena i think i'd go with mobility/visibility more than full plate.

Agree, even if the "realistic" argument was the guiding principle in the plate armours, it doesn't apply to leather/chain as much and not at all to cloth.
~~~

I'm pretty sure no-one wants stuff that looks like the sort of stuff one wears everyday. I think everyone wants it to look like a fantasy world, just different visions.
~~~

For some weird reason I like fantasy worlds/games to have a coherent internal logic, even if it is fantasy logic. I have a problem with metal armour covering half the body having the same mitigation as the same metal covering the whole body. This ward idea however works very well for me. Perhaps if such armours had less mit and a high hp buff instead. You could say why not have full plate with the same ward and get both benefits to which the answer would be...umm
Either way, the shape of the armour could be different and still be full plate. It's not just the coverage it's the shape-hiding aspect of some of the art design that seem a bit anti-nature.
~~~

More LotR films type aragorn for rangers. More jack sparrow/highwaymen/ninja for other scouts. More leathery.
Lots of really flashy clothes for casters, whether skimpy or otherwise.
Not so shape-hiding plate. If i had an ogre tank i'd want him to look like an actual real-world tank but otherwise something a bit more streamlined. Also, it'd be good if they took ideas from other times/places than just medieval europ. Roman/ancient/greek/japanese etc sets would be cool to see if a suitable back-story could be developed.
I'd actually prefer the chain classes to be more heavy leather and the current leather classes more soft leather and give the chain to the warriors. So instead of having full plate from the beginning they start of with chain then move on to sets that are partial plate and chain then finally get to full plate around tier 3-4.

Ulvhamne@Nagafen wrote:

I'm shocked at this! Really? I started playing EQ at start up, played a couple other MMOs as well, and it never ever occurred to me that they would reuse stuff over and over. I'm so glad you took time from your busy schedule to let me know that.

But you totally missed the point didn't you?

They reuse styles and textures TOO much in EQ2. That is one of the reasons there are so many threads asking for variety. Many people want styles that actually look different and that evoke the context of the class or race or gender. Skip back a couple of my posts on why it all looks the same.

And its more than just that its the same... its the same and ugly (for the most part).

well their sorta stuck with it though, they have modified the variety of armor textures before and let it trickled down through the levels and people went ballistic with having their armor "stealth changed" by graphical tweaks, which is why some of the newer armor additions from EoF and KoS haven't trickled down to the lower level armors, I think. Examples of additions would be some of the new staff designs I've seen from EoF and the skull/finned/bird head shoulder armor designs from KoS. On the Other hand once that skeletal revamp gets done, who knows maybe they can make certain body parts more realistic, soft moving kerran/troll/ratonga ears, more realistic tail mount interactions [no more violating my mount with my tail as an Iksar (>_<)] plus maybe more textural variety in armor like you know having more than the 2 plate armor designs...

And, you know what? The devs know it. And they are actually working on a new system to make it feasible to add more armor variety.

Strange. When I look at pictures from the LOTR movies I see many armors which are very similiar looking to what is the the game. http://www.theonering.com/images2-9...InFangornForest http://www.theonering.com/images2-9...romirandFaramir http://www.theonering.com/images2-8...fGondorandRohan http://www.theonering.com/images2-8188/Theodenking And look! Bathrobe! http://www.theonering.com/images2-7...ndalfandAragorn If you don't see the similiarities in armor design I can search for EQ2 armor similiar to those armors. Jack Sparrow http://www.emezeta.com/weblog/jack-sparrow.jpg Swashy http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v.../EQ2_000184.jpg Of course the movie looks better but there are similarities. Ninja (in stealth dress. When going into battle they wore normal japanese armor) http://www.imperialweapons.com/orie...forms/ninja.jpg Assasin http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/...q2000018kq5.jpg

Ulvhamne@Nagafen wrote:

I think everyone is aware of that, though given the lack of any communication from them in over a year it does give some cause to worry. This discussion is about what we'd like to see in regards to armor/wardrobe specifically relating to female characters. Some would appreciate less regimental looks a more "personalized" such as the styles present in the previews (see OP). *Now some one will respond about how difficult a task it is to do a revamp and so on and so forth... yadda yadda yadda... and the whole back and forth will roll on out again."

Well I'm just so glad this skeletal revamp thing is coming end of this year (it better, to be frank) we're all sick of waiting no doubt.