Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
* * * - - 2 votes

Transmuting Armors: Can be different types please?


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#31 Flavvor

Flavvor

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 608 posts
  • Location:FL, USA

Posted 02 November 2012 - 10:47 PM

I dissagree Transmutating Armor should stay the way it is now. ( as an example) Seeing a ELE runing around in heavy armor would be terrible.

ANet keep it the way it is now.

#32 Hep

Hep

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Curse Premium
  • Curse Premium
  • 599 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 11:01 PM

View PostXionValkyrie, on 02 November 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

There's good complexity and bad complexity.   You can add more complexity to the game by hiding all the cooldown timers so players have to memorize when a skill becomes available again, but that really isn't adding any kind of depth to the game.  I consider memorizing armor appearances to gain an advantage that kind of complexity, especially since quite a few dye/racial types would completely obfuscate the armor type.   Just look at the Sorrow's Embrace armor.   Hiding the helm/shoulders and dying it black would pretty much make it nearly impossibly to tell which version is which.   There's also a color filter applied to enemy players that make it even harder spot the details on players.

Well, now you're going in the opposite direction. The issue isn't suggesting more complexity. You're now arguing that it needs less. I don't agree with that at all. I don't believe Anet does, either, else they would have allowed it from the get-go (I believe they even mentioned this on the boards in beta, but don't quote me on that). And that obfuscation you talk about adds to the complexity, since it allows you to try and "hide" your profession, and forces others to learn to identify that. It's not a roll of the dice, which is essentially what you're advocating.

#33 XionValkyrie

XionValkyrie

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 11:25 PM

View PostHep, on 02 November 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

Well, now you're going in the opposite direction. The issue isn't suggesting more complexity. You're now arguing that it needs less. I don't agree with that at all. I don't believe Anet does, either, else they would have allowed it from the get-go (I believe they even mentioned this on the boards in beta, but don't quote me on that). And that obfuscation you talk about adds to the complexity, since it allows you to try and "hide" your profession, and forces others to learn to identify that. It's not a roll of the dice, which is essentially what you're advocating.

Well, I said that there's good complexity and bad complexity.  I believe that using armor/dye/size to hide your profession is bad complexity that detracts from the game for the following reasons:

1.  Racial advantage, especially for Asuras
2.  Dye Advantage, dark dyes would hide detals making it hard to discern armor differences, thus making dyes cross over to a gameplay advantage.
3.  Penalizes players for their aesthetic preferences when the entire endgame item grind revolves around aesthetic armor.  
4   Whatever complexity there is regarding this is completely thrown out the window if everyone wears Sorrow's Embrace armor dyed Abyss black.   Now you can't identify people by armor appearance anyways, except everyone looks the same as opposed to everyone being able to wear what they want.

Just throwing another example out there.   Let's say there were skills that did/reduced damage based on if your target is male or female.   Now you're adding the complexity of identifying whether or not the enemy PC is male or female based on appearance.   This gives a significant advantage to Asura and Charr, especially since they use the same models for male and female armor.  The game is now more complex, but is it actually better because of this added complexity?

Edited by XionValkyrie, 02 November 2012 - 11:35 PM.


#34 Hep

Hep

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Curse Premium
  • Curse Premium
  • 599 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 11:48 PM

You're now mixing completely different subjects. You're taking a vague difference where either side could have an advantage, and making it a distinct advantage of one over the other that's decently significant. I mean, how does your argument not apply to racials being used in WvW? Because I know that's been discussed and is considered something not going away in WvW. And it seems it applies every bit to your analogy that armor differences does.

#35 RedStar

RedStar

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1793 posts
  • Location:_________________ (\__/)(\__/) (\__/)Help__ (='.'=)(='.'=)(='.'=)Allie__ (")_(")(")_(")(")_(")Bunny

Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:15 AM

View PostXionValkyrie, on 02 November 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

A big hole in almost half the shields in the game (sometimes upwards of 50% of the shield is clipped into the back) on a Charr is a pretty big issue.   There's also nothing forcing you to use mixtures that clip.
I'm not against this idea, I would love it if light armor classes had something similar to medium and heavy armor leggings, and if a thief could have more than 2 choices of top that isn't a coat or something similar.
But I'm saying that it has a very low chance of being implemented.

Anet doesn't like to do something that will look more than terrible. Most of the clipping issues only affect a few characters depending on their choice of race/haircut/height/body shape. It's pretty much something most players unfortunately expect when selecting certain options (long hair, big body, non-humanoid race/shape).
But allowing those kind of transmutation ? With all the current clipping issues and the enormous amount of clipping issues that would be created by this, Anet probably won't allow that.

#36 FoxBat

FoxBat

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 3929 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 01:29 AM

The OP seems to have not grasped why there even are armor classes in the first place. The actual defense stat difference is nearly negligible, it's entirely for the purpose of keeping certain classes to certain armor looks. It's a well worn trope that mages wear cloth and warriors wear plate, and most of Anet's classes aesthetically are doing anything but defying convention.

Edited by FoxBat, 03 November 2012 - 01:34 AM.


#37 Xunlai Agent

Xunlai Agent

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Banned
  • 540 posts
  • Server:Desolation

Posted 03 November 2012 - 02:25 AM

This will never happen. I have no idea why it would be suggested and I am even more surprised that this is sparking debates.

#38 moirgane

moirgane

    Pale Tree Seedling

  • New Members
  • 5 posts
  • Server:Jade Quarry

Posted 03 November 2012 - 03:12 AM

View PostFoxBat, on 03 November 2012 - 01:29 AM, said:

The OP seems to have not grasped why there even are armor classes in the first place. The actual defense stat difference is nearly negligible, it's entirely for the purpose of keeping certain classes to certain armor looks. It's a well worn trope that mages wear cloth and warriors wear plate, and most of Anet's classes aesthetically are doing anything but defying convention.

I was actually just focusing on the aesthetic aspect of armors and I gave a specific profession which is engineer. I'm disappointed that its classified as medium armor, have you seen the medium armor sets? >_< I think the nicest that would fit an engineer would be the rugged set. Engineers are supposed to be geniuses and scholars. It just breaks the immersion when my character is dressed up like a thief or a skimpy ninja with lower boob showing with a giant back pack chucking grenades. Since you mentioned tropes, engineers in this game really can fit both scholarly clothes and leather armor. I didn't really consider the defense stats and I understand now all the problems that would arise. It would be a nice dream though...or maybe a nice armor set expansion (ღ˘⌣˘ღ)

View PostXunlai Agent, on 03 November 2012 - 02:25 AM, said:

This will never happen. I have no idea why it would be suggested and I am even more surprised that this is sparking debates.

That's why we have forums right? to talk about things :'D

#39 MFGrady

MFGrady

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 273 posts
  • Server:Maguuma

Posted 03 November 2012 - 07:52 PM

PVP Reasoning behind this is dumb.

Armor is not class specific. If you think you can size up an opponent based upon what armor they are wearing you probably face plant a lot.

The armor value provided by heavy/medium/light is not that huge, so saying that "omg it doesn't make sense" makes about as much sense as "Pew pew laser sword".

This game has several Tankinis in it. I can assure you that studded leather provides much more protection than a metal bra.

#40 MFGrady

MFGrady

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 273 posts
  • Server:Maguuma

Posted 03 November 2012 - 07:59 PM

View PostXionValkyrie, on 02 November 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

Just throwing another example out there.   Let's say there were skills that did/reduced damage based on if your target is male or female.   Now you're adding the complexity of identifying whether or not the enemy PC is male or female based on appearance.   This gives a significant advantage to Asura and Charr, especially since they use the same models for male and female armor.  The game is now more complex, but is it actually better because of this added complexity?

How is this the same?

A person in light armor is not automatically an easier target than someone in heavy. Thought processes like this is the problem with Hot Join in WvW now. You don't automatically deal more damage to someone in lighter armor, and the idea that killing the easiest target first is a complex strategy is laughable at best.

The only reason to not have cross armor transmutation is to keep the style exclusive to each armor class. Don't try to bring any other reasoning into it because it is unfounded.

#41 Crantson

Crantson

    The Shadow

  • Members
  • 121 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 09:40 PM

View PostMFGrady, on 03 November 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:


The only reason to not have cross armor transmutation is to keep the style exclusive to each armor class. Don't try to bring any other reasoning into it because it is unfounded.

i would agree completely with this if it were not for the fact that the butt capes on light armor make the basic profiles for light and medium armor almost exactly the same at first glance.  I have gotten to the point where I click on the person and check to see what symbol is beside their name instead of looking at the armor because it seems like almost everyone is wearing some kind of knee lengthe or ankle length coat or robe which, when dyed a very light or a very dark color looks almost like very other knee/ankle length garment in the game.

On the other hand, merely allowing cross armor transmutation won't solve that problem anyway - so it's moot I guess.

#42 Arquenya

Arquenya

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1200 posts
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Guild Tag:[DVDF]
  • Server:Gandara

Posted 04 November 2012 - 02:32 AM

I'm in favour of being able to wear lighter armour classes.

Lore wise (and well, realism wise), it's often argued that for example warriors are stronger than casters and can move more easily wearing heavy clothing. Look at the Elder Scrolls, where your str directlky influences what you can wear. There's also other games where heavy armour wearers can use lighter versions - but not the opposite.

Also I find it a bit weird that mesmers, who in GW were the most classy and "noble" class now run around wielding tree trunk sized greatwords?!?! It's disturbing!! ;) and doesn't make a lot of sense to me. A lot less sense than a warrior being able to wear leather pants.

If someone wants to sacrifice his/her armour class for aesthetic purposes, I'm all for it to at least have the option.

And what recognition is concerned: we don't have class specific armour anymore, from gear you can't tell the difference between engineers, thieves and rangers anyway.

Edited by Arquenya, 04 November 2012 - 02:41 AM.


#43 Hep

Hep

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Curse Premium
  • Curse Premium
  • 599 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 12:27 AM

View PostMFGrady, on 03 November 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

Armor is not class specific. If you think you can size up an opponent based upon what armor they are wearing you probably face plant a lot.

If you can't glean the profession from a light armor wearer using a greatsword, or a heavy armor wearer with a staff, or can't use that to your advantage, then you probably shouldn't worry about others and their face plants.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users