Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Poll: How do you like your armor?

2»

Comments

  • grogstormgrogstorm Peyton, COPosts: 304Member Uncommon

    A good stretch goal for CU would be armor that changes in looks as it degrades.  So it’s last 1/3 of durability it would really look haggard and beat up.  Only after you repair it would it look new again.

    Grog

  • TroianmanTroianman Somewhere, CAPosts: 82Member

    In some games the extremely bright color palette and completely nonfunctional but nice or cool to look at armor designs work with the overall feel. But for CU, function over form seems to be what CSE is going for and personally I certainly hope they keep doing that. That being said, magical armor should still look magical to some extent but not at the expense of making me cry on the inside.

  • FearumFearum Cinnaminson, NJPosts: 1,166Member Uncommon
    I like to the look of armor to match its rarity. If I have the greatest set of armor I don't want it to just look functional, I want it to be decorated and magical like it is a honor to wear it, not like some starting gear that I purchase with a few pennies. There is a fine line between over doing it though, like giant shoulder pads for one instance.  
  • VerbVerb Newtown Square, PAPosts: 14Member
    I voted for the functional with some flare (3rd one).  I like armor to look practical, but if someone is wearing something special I think you should be able to identify it on sight.  It is pride for the wearer and a warning for their enemies.
  • meddyckmeddyck Athens, GAPosts: 1,140Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sornin

    I voted this: Functional but with some flare and magic touches

    I like armour that is not crazily overdone; I dislike it being too big and bulky, like your character could not even move in it.

    Then again, I play fantasy games to escape, and do not mind a bit of flare and stuff that clearly is not realistic. If it all looked realistic, our characters would be wearing scratched, dinged up, torn, patchy, crappy armour. I want to look a little badass.

    So far what has been shown is awesome, in my books. It is not silly looking, or too big and bulky, and has a lot of nice flare and style.

    Bring on the Arthurians!

    What he said. I like armor that looks like it does what armor is supposed to do: protect your body from attacks while not restricting your ability to attack back. But since it's also armor in a game not real life, it is okay for it is also to look impressive. I'm fine with what we have been shown so far in the TDD and Viking concepts.

    Camelot Unchained Backer
    DAOC [retired]: R11 Cleric R11 Druid R11 Minstrel R9 Eldritch R6 Sorc R6 Scout R5 Healer

  • StilerStiler Athens, TNPosts: 599Member

    I would also like to point out, just to some who may not know.

    Aamour (especially late middle ages plate, etc) could be quite decorative, even the men-at-arms armour(Chain not so much, mainly talking about plate).

    It could come in different colours (IE black from the hammer, blued, golden, etc). Be embossed, Etched, Gilded, painted on, covered with a cloth with the cloth having designs on it, etc.

    There a few surviving examples of just how decorative armour could be found in museums. You can also look at many historial painitngs of the time period and see quite the difference then what you might "think" of when you think of armour.

     

    The whole idea of plate armour all being this shiny steel with nothing on it was quite different.

     

    Here is  a  link showing some pics of a Sallet helmet from around 1490 with it's original painting on it still.

    http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2700

     

    Probably not something you'd "think" of when picturing historical armour.

     

    Also for earlier armour, pre-plate armour, they could still have quit ethe decorations on over the armour. With tabbards, shields that were painted, helmets, etc.

  • TimothyTierlessTimothyTierless Columnist M, ORPosts: 2,163Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Stiler
    I would also like to point out, just to some who may not know.Aamour (especially late middle ages plate, etc) could be quite decorative, even the men-at-arms armour(Chain not so much, mainly talking about plate).It could come in different colours (IE black from the hammer, blued, golden, etc). Be embossed, Etched, Gilded, painted on, covered with a cloth with the cloth having designs on it, etc.There a few surviving examples of just how decorative armour could be found in museums. You can also look at many historial painitngs of the time period and see quite the difference then what you might "think" of when you think of armour. The whole idea of plate armour all being this shiny steel with nothing on it was quite different. Here is  a  link showing some pics of a Sallet helmet from around 1490 with it's original painting on it still.http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2700 Probably not something you'd "think" of when picturing historical armour. Also for earlier armour, pre-plate armour, they could still have quit ethe decorations on over the armour. With tabbards, shields that were painted, helmets, etc.

    They definitely had that armor but it was rare and usually belonged to a rich guy that didn't fight too much. The majority of the people wore much different armor.

  • syntax42syntax42 Columbus, OHPosts: 1,305Member Uncommon

    I don't care so much about the male armor as long as the female armor offers full mobility:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTGh0EMmMC8

     

  • KarraptathidKarraptathid Tequesta, FLPosts: 78Member
    Originally posted by syntax42

    I don't care so much about the male armor as long as the female armor offers full mobility:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTGh0EMmMC8

     

    image  Reminds me of this post about RIFT: http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=5065

    Midranki - To us, Thidranki Faste is not just some center keep, it's our field Guild Hall.
    Camelot Unchained's Kickstarter - Warrior Forever

  • StilerStiler Athens, TNPosts: 599Member
    Originally posted by Xobdnas

     


    Originally posted by Stiler
    I would also like to point out, just to some who may not know.

     

    Aamour (especially late middle ages plate, etc) could be quite decorative, even the men-at-arms armour(Chain not so much, mainly talking about plate).

    It could come in different colours (IE black from the hammer, blued, golden, etc). Be embossed, Etched, Gilded, painted on, covered with a cloth with the cloth having designs on it, etc.

    There a few surviving examples of just how decorative armour could be found in museums. You can also look at many historial painitngs of the time period and see quite the difference then what you might "think" of when you think of armour.

     

    The whole idea of plate armour all being this shiny steel with nothing on it was quite different.

     

    Here is  a  link showing some pics of a Sallet helmet from around 1490 with it's original painting on it still.

    http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2700

     

    Probably not something you'd "think" of when picturing historical armour.

     

    Also for earlier armour, pre-plate armour, they could still have quit ethe decorations on over the armour. With tabbards, shields that were painted, helmets, etc.


     

    They definitely had that armor but it was rare and usually belonged to a rich guy that didn't fight too much. The majority of the people wore much different armor.

     

    Anyone could paint on their armour, and it was easy to attach cloth to many styles of helmets and other things (there are examples of many helmets having area's to attach cloth covers for this).

    Even if you weren't rich you could still decorate your armour in many different ways, it wasn't  reserved for rich people or knights only.

    Also the point of Men-at-arms was to fight, they weren't just rich and just stood back, they would fight, on horse, on foot, etc.  That's how they earned their living. 

    Also I'd like to point out that armour, even plate, wasn't something restrcited to knights only. Yes it could be expensive, but there are varying degrees of armour. You could buy ready made style armour and cheaper alternatives, there are many people outside of "knights" that had plate armour , helms, and other things. From Mercaneries, to men at arms, etc.

    Sure, the armour itself wouldn't be as high quality or as decorative as say, a kings or a owealthy knight, but it can still be painted, dyed (many pieces of armour could come straight fromt he smiths hammer as black or other colours depending on who made it). or have a simple cloth decoration attached to the helmet, shield could be painted on, a tabbard could be worn over the armour with decoration, etc.

    There was just a variety of ways a person could decorate their armour, regardless of them being a knight and/or rich.

     

  • TimothyTierlessTimothyTierless Columnist M, ORPosts: 2,163Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Stiler

    Originally posted by Xobdnas  

    Originally posted by Stiler I would also like to point out, just to some who may not know.   Aamour (especially late middle ages plate, etc) could be quite decorative, even the men-at-arms armour(Chain not so much, mainly talking about plate). It could come in different colours (IE black from the hammer, blued, golden, etc). Be embossed, Etched, Gilded, painted on, covered with a cloth with the cloth having designs on it, etc. There a few surviving examples of just how decorative armour could be found in museums. You can also look at many historial painitngs of the time period and see quite the difference then what you might "think" of when you think of armour.   The whole idea of plate armour all being this shiny steel with nothing on it was quite different.   Here is  a  link showing some pics of a Sallet helmet from around 1490 with it's original painting on it still. http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2700   Probably not something you'd "think" of when picturing historical armour.   Also for earlier armour, pre-plate armour, they could still have quit ethe decorations on over the armour. With tabbards, shields that were painted, helmets, etc.
      They definitely had that armor but it was rare and usually belonged to a rich guy that didn't fight too much. The majority of the people wore much different armor.
     

    Anyone could paint on their armour, and it was easy to attach cloth to many styles of helmets and other things (there are examples of many helmets having area's to attach cloth covers for this).

    Even if you weren't rich you could still decorate your armour in many different ways, it wasn't  reserved for rich people or knights only.

    Also the point of Men-at-arms was to fight, they weren't just rich and just stood back, they would fight, on horse, on foot, etc.  That's how they earned their living. 

    Also I'd like to point out that armour, even plate, wasn't something restrcited to knights only. Yes it could be expensive, but there are varying degrees of armour. You could buy ready made style armour and cheaper alternatives, there are many people outside of "knights" that had plate armour , helms, and other things. From Mercaneries, to men at arms, etc.

    Sure, the armour itself wouldn't be as high quality or as decorative as say, a kings or a owealthy knight, but it can still be painted, dyed (many pieces of armour could come straight fromt he smiths hammer as black or other colours depending on who made it). or have a simple cloth decoration attached to the helmet, shield could be painted on, a tabbard could be worn over the armour with decoration, etc.

    There was just a variety of ways a person could decorate their armour, regardless of them being a knight and/or rich.

     


    All good and true points. I'm just saying what a lot of people might not realize is that outside of a few forces the majority of large armies were made up of people with little real armor or even weapons (depending on how "dark" you wanna go into the dark ages timeline. Outside of a few special units, tt was not usually the uniform military unit we always see in movies. Did they decorate their stuff, I'm sure many of them did, but much of the "gear" they had was a few odds and ends or less.

    I suppose it doesn't matter, this is a fantasy game so I want more fanatical armor, I just hope it shows the strain of war. During war times things are not pristine, they are worn torn and gritty. I don't care if they are dark or realistic as much as I want them to show that they are used in combat. In a perfect world it would damage as your wear it but that would probably be undoable at this point in MMORPG technology.

    The axe from the viking woman concept art looks great, now we just need her gear to look as battle tested as her weapon.

  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Talahasee, FLPosts: 2,556Member

    So far the concept art I've seen has me worried.

     

    I thought DAoC had the perfect art direction. It was very realistic without being too boring. There are so many kinds of real world armor to model after, all the spikes and fancy fantasy things aren't necessary to have unique armor! LotRO did this quite well (probably the only thing LotrO did well)

     

    I loved being able to tell who I was fighting and what kind of armor they had in DAoC just by looking at their armor. After ToA, with the coral armor (which looked cool, but...) it was much harder to tell. Coral chain looked like coral leather which looked like choral plate.

     

    Please, tone down the armor a bit, keep it on the side of realism!

  • Squeak69Squeak69 Colorado Springs, COPosts: 956Member
    Originally posted by syntax42

    I don't care so much about the male armor as long as the female armor offers full mobility:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTGh0EMmMC8

     

    image

    this is the exact kind of armor in games im sick of seeing.

    image

    F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used toimage
    Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.

  • TimothyTierlessTimothyTierless Columnist M, ORPosts: 2,163Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    So far the concept art I've seen has me worried.

     

    I thought DAoC had the perfect art direction. It was very realistic without being too boring. There are so many kinds of real world armor to model after, all the spikes and fancy fantasy things aren't necessary to have unique armor! LotRO did this quite well (probably the only thing LotrO did well)

     

    I loved being able to tell who I was fighting and what kind of armor they had in DAoC just by looking at their armor. After ToA, with the coral armor (which looked cool, but...) it was much harder to tell. Coral chain looked like coral leather which looked like choral plate.

     

    Please, tone down the armor a bit, keep it on the side of realism!



    Me too, but go back and look at the metal stuff in the female concept art. Weathered, rough, war damaged, beautiful. I think if you make her armor resemble that, make it look like it's used in battle not relaxing at a ski lodge and were good to go.

  • Squeak69Squeak69 Colorado Springs, COPosts: 956Member
    Originally posted by Xobdnas

     


    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    So far the concept art I've seen has me worried.

     

     

    I thought DAoC had the perfect art direction. It was very realistic without being too boring. There are so many kinds of real world armor to model after, all the spikes and fancy fantasy things aren't necessary to have unique armor! LotRO did this quite well (probably the only thing LotrO did well)

     

    I loved being able to tell who I was fighting and what kind of armor they had in DAoC just by looking at their armor. After ToA, with the coral armor (which looked cool, but...) it was much harder to tell. Coral chain looked like coral leather which looked like choral plate.

     

    Please, tone down the armor a bit, keep it on the side of realism!


     


    Me too, but go back and look at the metal stuff in the female concept art. Weathered, rough, war damaged, beautiful. I think if you make her armor resemble that, make it look like it's used in battle not relaxing at a ski lodge and were good to go.

    yes please, while armor should adjust to fit the female body thats it in all other regards it should be the same as what men wear,

    at the most i would say maybe some cleavage, but i still would rather not, but that kind of armor was used by women some times, just for the fact that men are easly distracted.

    F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used toimage
    Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.

2»
Sign In or Register to comment.