What should a female breastplate really look like

[Merlkir]

Despite a few useful thoughts on shape differences and recognition from the iso view, this thread seems to have gone on for far too long.

[Jerky33]

Just as in sports nowadays, I'm guessing that they would do something to flatten out their chest when preparing to battle.  So I'm guessing they would be able to wear standard armor.

[Dream]

 

 

 

 

NO- boob plate but still looks like women

 

Only reason she looks like a woman is because she has no helmet.

[Tamerlane]

Don't worry. I'm sure if the cameraman had panned down a bit, you'd notice a lack of

 

 

Obviously a woman, then. Obviously.

[Ulquiorra]

 

 

 

 

 

NO- boob plate but still looks like women

 

Only reason she looks like a woman is because she has no helmet.

 

 

Im not talking about head.

 

An armor is a little bit tighter at the waist then thypical man armor.

[Elerond]

 

 

Edited April 23, 2013 by Elerond

[Ulquiorra]

 

 

 

I think that guy also needs a boobplate

[Dream]

Im not talking about head.

 

An armor is a little bit tighter at the waist then thypical man armor.

 

Googling "knight" indicates otherwise.

[Ffordesoon]

Despite a few useful thoughts on shape differences and recognition from the iso view, this thread seems to have gone on for far too long.

Why do you think I stopped responding?

[Lephys]

No, I don't think you're crazy.

I just think that what you're asking for is completely unnecessary and there are better and more immersive ways of dealign with visibility "issues".

Haha... You don't think I'm crazy. You just think that literally the opposite of everything I've said so far is the truth.

 

For what it's worth, there are better and more immersive ways of realistically representing character armor than displaying it on a 100-pixel-tall character model. And yet, here we are. But, scaling (a person down to a tiny character model) obviously has nothing to do with anything here (but also I'm not a buffoon), and there's absolutely no reason realistically fitted armor would work better than colorful tabards with sigils upon them (such as when your party was trying to keep their identities discreet), and no one should even HAVE a party that's all wearing steel plate (even though you can, it's wrong), and if they DID, they should just turn on floating UI names and be cool with that.

 

Because... having fitted armor in a fictitious world in which we know not the factors that would affect the availability of fitted armor (or how the production of female armor would differ from that of it in historical reality, in which .000007% of the armor-wearers were ever female) would obviously be a much larger detriment to players of the game and the game's functionality as a piece of computer software than would forced tabards and other blatant armor markings and/or mandatory floating names, etc.

 

Apparently it's not a big deal, but how little of a deal it is is a HUGE deal.

 

You win, Trashman. I realize the folly of my ways. I'm sending a petition to Obsidian, as we speak, to beg them to make sure the breastplates aren't subtly different, like in their character concepts, so that the game can be so much more enjoyable and functional than it would've been with that HORRENDOUSLY eye-burning 15% difference in breastplate fitting to the female physique.

 

Also, I'm hoping they'll make it so that shops only sell very specifically-sized (down to the inch/centimeter) breastplates, so that if your character is 5'3" and the only one for sale is sized to a 5'8" person, you have to have one specially made, or have that one re-sized to your character, but heaven FORBID that during that process, they change its shape because your character's waist is abnormally narrow as the people of their race go, or their chest abnormally large, etc.

 

Also, we'd better be able to tell the difference between that broad-chest breastplate and that narrow-chest one, even if the difference in the chest is only 2" in game-world distance. Because, if we can't, then it might appear as though they went with the subtle-differences approach after all.

 

Who will sign my petition, so that our character models will not be "butchered"?! Save the character models! Down with armor being abstractly customized to actually fit your character's person!

Edited April 24, 2013 by Lephys

[keiichimorisato98]

^{I think I would prefer this}

Edited April 24, 2013 by keiichimorisato98

[rjshae]

What should a female breast...

 

[clicking]

 

...plate. Damn!

 

Breast teaser lead-in ever...

[Larkaloke]

Breastplates that are sculpted such that they aren't functional any more make my teeth grit, but I find the concept art to be just fine. Both versions look like entirely reasonable and practical armor, and that's all I ask of it. I don't care if they are precisely the same. No two people's armor would be precisely the same anyhow, so I'm completely willing to accept that there's a different standard model for male and female characters, so long as it looks more or less the same and both are functional. I don't care at all if I can't tell the gender of the PCs just by looking at them if they're armored. The only thing I would need to be able to tell is which one is which, and other specifics of equipment or color schemes (I like the tabard and device idea) do that nicely.

 

I think that Dragon Age did a decent job of keeping the armor the same between male and female characters, particularly with the massive armors -- there were some issues in my opinion with the armors lighter than that -- but the armor designs as a base were a bit on the ridiculous side, especially in the area of the pauldrons. 

 

While on the one hand I might like it if plate had to be fitted to the individual wearer in game, I suppose it would likely get tiresome (and costly) after not very long. I expect that's one of those realistic things that it would be a deal more trouble than it's worth to implement, particularly since when you get down to it most equipment shouldn't fit right off the bat (I certainly wouldn't be able to wear the same gauntlets or boots as most people I know either, let alone other types of armor). I do realize that suggestion was not serious, but it's something I've thought from time to time might be interesting to have, only to usually come to the same conclusion that it really wouldn't be that interesting. 

[PrimeJunta]

As per the latest update, color customization is already in. What with that and cloaks that -- presumably -- look different, and of course all those splendid hats, I don't think there will be difficulties in being able to tell your characters apart.

 

I'm thinking hot pink barbarian hide armor. Fabulous!

[TrashMan]

 

Because... having fitted armor in a fictitious world in which we know not the factors that would affect the availability of fitted armor (or how the production of female armor would differ from that of it in historical reality, in which .000007% of the armor-wearers were ever female) would obviously be a much larger detriment to players of the game and the game's functionality as a piece of computer software than would forced tabards and other blatant armor markings and/or mandatory floating names, etc.

 

Apparently it's not a big deal, but how little of a deal it is is a HUGE deal.

 

You win, Trashman. I realize the folly of my ways. I'm sending a petition to Obsidian, as we speak, to beg them to make sure the breastplates aren't subtly different, like in their character concepts, so that the game can be so much more enjoyable and functional than it would've been with that HORRENDOUSLY eye-burning 15% difference in breastplate fitting to the female physique.

 

Why do I get the feeling that you arguing against some perception or mental image of my stance than my actual stance?

Could it be because you dont' seem to get what my actual stance is? Yay, verily.

 

 

My entire point is that they should design armor, plain, simple and functional. They shouldn't fidget with the model and blow up differences just so they can be visile from maximum zoom. If they can be seen as they are great. If not, no.

If armor for male and femlaes is pretty much the same (as it probably would be) great. If it's not, great.

I don't want any additions or extra chagnes for the sake of "enhanced visibiltiy". I don't need artificial enhancments or abstractions.

Like I said, I already have all the tools necessary to tell characters apart without it.

 

 

 

Also, I'm hoping they'll make it so that shops only sell very specifically-sized (down to the inch/centimeter) breastplates, so that if your character is 5'3" and the only one for sale is sized to a 5'8" person, you have to have one specially made, or have that one re-sized to your character, but heaven FORBID that during that process, they change its shape because your character's waist is abnormally narrow as the people of their race go, or their chest abnormally large, etc.

 

I'm all for fitting plate armor, I told you that before.

Without fitting you either can't equip it or you use it with a penalty.

 

I'd even go so far as to go for sizes - the armor made for a thin elf and for a stocky dwarf should be so different that you really can't equip it without re-fitting. Take it to a smith and let him adjust it.

[ShadowTiger]

I think China has the right idea : D
 

http://twitchfilm.com/assets/2008/02/An_Empress_and_the_Warriors_33.jpg

http://www.moviedevil.com/images/bd/CWs5jwQ6GN.jpg
http://www.sikharchives.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/An_Empress_and_the_Warriors.jpg

An Empress and the Warriors
 

http://www.chinesefilms.cn/mmsource/images/2012/06/06/642fa7375da14c149adab8fea0a4ba37.jpg

http://www.chinesefilms.cn/mmsource/images/2012/03/05/ae3f017140ea46c782588a306761783c.jpg

Painted Skin 2
 

http://baltazar.org.ua/uploads/posts/2012-10/1349947800_2.jpg

http://andronico.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/hua-mulan.jpg

Hua Mulan

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zblbijc8fzoekka/snapshot.jpg

Seven Swords

As you can see, most of the depictions (especially Mulan because she is impersonating a man) are almost identical. 

 

Here is one I found that is more form fitting, more of a stylistic choice I imagine.

http://cf2.imgobject.com/t/p/original/f72ZsuGUzy4sRJpQlWAF9cef8uB.jpg

Edited April 24, 2013 by ShadowTiger

[Lephys]

Why do I get the feeling that you arguing against some perception or mental image of my stance than my actual stance?

Could it be because you dont' seem to get what my actual stance is? Yay, verily.

Or could it be because I'm actually simply defending my own stance, and you keep taking even that as an attack on your own (like that time you thought I said I didn't want any armor embellishments or coloration or tabards to even exist in the game).

 

 

My entire point is that they should design armor, plain, simple and functional. They shouldn't fidget with the model and blow up differences just so they can be visile from maximum zoom. If they can be seen as they are great. If not, no.

If armor for male and femlaes is pretty much the same (as it probably would be) great. If it's not, great.

I don't want any additions or extra chagnes for the sake of "enhanced visibiltiy". I don't need artificial enhancments or abstractions.

Like I said, I already have all the tools necessary to tell characters apart without it.

*siiiigh*... You know what? I like you, and I like OODLES of your other posts in other threads, even when you don't agree with me (Like the Weapon Familiarity thread, where we debated things into thinking up entirely new awesome details. That rocked, ^_^). So, I'm gonna actually implore you one more time to actually just read my point, and not apply random context to it as if it were the primary point. I'll even summarize:

 

I also want armor to remain simple and functional in design. And I agree that there are oodles of visual options (the key word being "options") for making your armored character models not look too much alike. That's splendid. It is. But I also quite simply feel that you shouldn't NEED to have 5 different-colored armors with different types of cloaks just to not be prevented from visually discerning your characters on-screen.

 

You're a proponent of RP, right? What if you want to play a group of "uniformed" plate-wearing warriors (and/or a mix of plate-wearing classes)? "Oh, you can do that, Mr. Player, but have fun figuring out who's who, because we made SURE not to visually represent physiological differences in the armor models in ANY WAY shape or fashion! 8D" is not a very RP-supportive stance on that.

 

Is it necessary? No it isn't. I already said that. Is visually discerning your party members useful? Yes. Which is why they don't all look exactly alike by default (among other reasons). Is a slight difference in the armor designs of genders as seen in the posted character concepts (to account for the fitting difference of a standard female Human and a standard male Human, JUST like your example of the difference between a stocky, wide Dwarf and a lithe Elf, regardless of gender) a "butchering" of the character models? Is that armor not still plain, simple, and functional? Why yes it is. There are no boobs on it, and it's not 70% different or anything. Boom. Then why not do it? Just because?

 

Which brings us to fitting. I like fitted armor in games. I already said that, too. But, there's a reason most games have abstracted character sizes (Tiny, small, medium, large, etc.), and not individual fitting measurements. At some point, you're GOING to have to abstract it, obviously, because maintaining the realism of armor fitting/crafting factors just no longer benefits the player and starts SEVERELY detrimenting him (i.e. "I found this steel plate on an Elf, but my chest measurement is 4 inches smaller than his, and he's 6 inches taller than me, so I have to go to a blacksmith and get it fitted to me. But then, when I want to get new armor, and I hand-me-down this perfectly good steel plate to the OTHER Human in my party, we'll have to get it fitted again, because he's kinda muscly. But, due to the economy in this area, the fitting of that armor will take weeks. So, it's gonna be about 10 hours of in-game time, doing other stuff without quality equipment before I can get my quality equipment. But, by then, I'll probably have the resources to get even BETTER armor made."). I know that's ridiculous. That's the point. Eventually, you say "Well, let's just abstract the amount of time it takes to fit armor, or the cost, or let's just say that if you're a Human male, armor that fits any other Human male fits you, too."

 

Alas, we're not going to have a 100% fully realistic fitting system for armor. It's just not worth that much accuracy, in a video game. It would STILL be really cool, in a way. But, it gets abstracted.

 

And as for the whole graphical scaling thing... you're just not really getting my point there, I'm sorry to say. Maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough, but you're misunderstanding me, big time. It has nothing to do with "So we put boobs on the armor." That's an exaggeration of visual features, sure, but that's more than what I'm talking about. And it's not about making sure things show up at maximum zoom. Maximum zoom is NEVER going to be a 6-foot monitor, so it's never going to be life-size.

 

It was a simple point about dealing with very tinily-represented aesthetics. Lines, shapes, contrast, etc. When you get things all close together and made out of significantly fewer pixels like that, you have to find the subtlest ways possible to exaggerate features enough to say "this is a curvy line instead of a straight one," or "This character has a ponytail," or "this staff has a figure-eight on its head with a green gem in the middle." Because, if it doesn't show up like it's supposed to, then it's wasted effort modeling it in the first place. That's why they're not giving us things like eye color in our character customization. Because there's no possible way to exaggerate that enough to make it visible without screwing up the character model. But there ARE ways to do that with a figure-eight staff (make the head slightly proportionately larger than it would be), or a ponytail (maybe it's 15% larger/longer than you wanted, or it's shaped ever-so-slightly differently so that the player can see it and say "Ahh, a ponytail"), or a rapier (I've used this example like 15 times, but trying to make a rapier or estoc as thin as it really should be, on-screen, in proportion to the character model, would result in it almost not even being visible at all).

 

The POINT of my bringing up the scaling thing is that, you're suggesting we should simply have 100% accuracy on the armor of a like 1/32-scale person on a screen, where all these little exaggerations are having to take place so we can tell what the hell things are (2 pixels could be 3 inches of width difference on a chest or collar or waist of a breastplate). What I'm saying is, even if you try, you're not going to achieve that. No amount of effort in that area is going to produce models that make you say "Ahh, yes, now THAT'S exactly how that armor would be in real life!", because you can't really tell, because of the scaling. The breastplate could actually be too big for that person, or too small, or too wide, or bear the wrong curve of convexity, etc. You'll just be assuming it's not different from actual armor proportions, as best your eyes can tell. That being said, I'm not saying "We might as well go CRAZY with it! 8D!". I'm just saying, if you've got a 10% margin of error there, then 10% in the other direction isn't really going to hurt anything, but it WILL help some things that are ONLY factors because it is a video game. It'd be really nice to simply ignore those factors, but they exist nonetheless.

 

So, do with that what you will. If you're cool with the concepts Obsidian presented in the last (or 2nd-to-last?) update, then awesome. Maybe you'd like for armor to not be different, ideally, but you don't feel that the extremely subtle difference is hurting anyone, and that the armor design is still well within practical and simple? If so, awesome. That's literally my stance on all this. If not, then I dare not try to comprehend your priorities, but I'll leave you to them.

[Ulquiorra]

 

 

Haha the whole discussion remaind me of lineage 2 ahaha ... swords biger them humans and women armor risembling to bikini haha

 

 

I don't mind this type of setting but not in PE ! This type more suits to Jrpgs or mmorpgs ..

[Lephys]

^ The AC on that armor's gotta be over 9,000.

[mcmanusaur]

TL;DR for this thread- anyone who wants bikini armor or boobplate is bad and should feel bad

[Spiritofpower]

^ The AC on that armor's gotta be over 9,000.

And another thing I hated about D&D: Armor Class.

 

Not necessarily that having a better AC gave you more survivability, but that they decided to abstract something so simple so much. Having a better AC makes you harder to hit, and doesn't even help if you get hit. One could argue AC represents the armor totally redirecting the blow, but that doesn't change the fact that wearing plate is still going to absorb a lot of damage, even if it fails to deflect blows. And that's also ignoring the fact that leather and chain armor were easier to move in, making it easier to dodge. A better way to do it (at least off the top of my head and without refining the concept at all) would've been to have damage absorption and damage deflection/avoidance values, with plate having the highest absorption and good deflection/avoidance, and chain and leather having less absorption but roughly the same, if not higher, avoidance/deflection.

 

But I digress.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Spiritofpower

[TrashMan]

 

Or could it be because I'm actually simply defending my own stance, and you keep taking even that as an attack on your own (like that time you thought I said I didn't want any armor embellishments or coloration or tabards to even exist in the game).

 

I get a strange feeling of deja vu...

 

 

 

 

 

I also want armor to remain simple and functional in design. And I agree that there are oodles of visual options (the key word being "options") for making your armored character models not look too much alike. That's splendid. It is. But I also quite simply feel that you shouldn't NEED to have 5 different-colored armors with different types of cloaks just to not be prevented from visually discerning your characters on-screen.

 

And this is where we disagree because I think that you SHOULD NEED it.

If you're zoomed out far and have everyone wearing the smae amor - yes, you damn well should need extras to tell them quickly apart.

That is one aspect where "player convenience" can take a back seat.

 

In other words, I rather the difference and visibiltiy be a product of my equipment choices and customization, rather than something intrinsic and "default"

 

 

 

 

 

You're a proponent of RP, right? What if you want to play a group of "uniformed" plate-wearing warriors (and/or a mix of plate-wearing classes)? "Oh, you can do that, Mr. Player, but have fun figuring out who's who, because we made SURE not to visually represent physiological differences in the armor models in ANY WAY shape or fashion! 8D" is not a very RP-supportive stance on that.

 

Except I did exactly that in many other games with less customization and never had a problem.

Small psychological differences at a zoomed out level shouldn't even be noticable in 99% of cases.

 

Unless of course you have vast differences in height and physique of races.

But if your party consists of 6 humans all in the same plate? Yeah, they kinda should look the same.

Females are in general slighty shorter and less bulky, so even with completely identical armor you might be able to tell.

 

 

 

 

 

Is it necessary? No it isn't. I already said that. Is visually discerning your party members useful? Yes. Which is why they don't all look exactly alike by default (among other reasons). Is a slight difference in the armor designs of genders as seen in the posted character concepts (to account for the fitting difference of a standard female Human and a standard male Human, JUST like your example of the difference between a stocky, wide Dwarf and a lithe Elf, regardless of gender) a "butchering" of the character models? Is that armor not still plain, simple, and functional? Why yes it is. There are no boobs on it, and it's not 70% different or anything. Boom. Then why not do it? Just because?

 

They might look alike by default. We don't even know the physique of otehr races. What if elves have the same body build as humans? How do you tell them apart then?

 

Or what if you have a party of 6 human females? How do you tell them apart? Will we now blow up any differences between them too?

 

Why is it necessary to tell the difference between Bob and Sarah at a glance by default, but not between Bob and Joe? If visibility is that big of an issue than every party member should - by default, without player input - be a beacon of uniqunes that stands out like a black man on a KKK meeting.

 

Having a different cloak or weapon or helemet or plume is far easier and more visible than some tiny bulge on the armor that you have to squint to see anyway.

 

 

Which brings us to fitting. I like fitted armor in games. I already said that, too. But, there's a reason most games have abstracted character sizes (Tiny, small, medium, large, etc.), and not individual fitting measurements. At some point, you're GOING to have to abstract it, obviously, because maintaining the realism of armor fitting/crafting factors just no longer benefits the player and starts SEVERELY detrimenting him (i.e. "I found this steel plate on an Elf, but my chest measurement is 4 inches smaller than his, and he's 6 inches taller than me, so I have to go to a blacksmith and get it fitted to me. But then, when I want to get new armor, and I hand-me-down this perfectly good steel plate to the OTHER Human in my party, we'll have to get it fitted again, because he's kinda muscly. But, due to the economy in this area, the fitting of that armor will take weeks. So, it's gonna be about 10 hours of in-game time, doing other stuff without quality equipment before I can get my quality equipment. But, by then, I'll probably have the resources to get even BETTER armor made."). I know that's ridiculous. That's the point. Eventually, you say "Well, let's just abstract the amount of time it takes to fit armor, or the cost, or let's just say that if you're a Human male, armor that fits any other Human male fits you, too."

 

Alas, we're not going to have a 100% fully realistic fitting system for armor. It's just not worth that much accuracy, in a video game. It would STILL be really cool, in a way. But, it gets abstracted.

 

Everything gets abstraced. The quesion is only where you draw the line and how much you abstract.

 

You kinda could mod this in BG2.. If you recall some charactes had personal items usable only by them. So you could use that usabiltiy flag to do it.

 

Personally I'd do it with 3 basic sizes - and you must be of proper size to use it at all. A dwarf won't be able to use elven plate.

 

Then you can fit it personally to you to get rid of any use penalty (or better yet, get a bonus)

This isn't a big issue, since plate usually had room to spare - which is why a woman could wear a mans plate..

 

How long would it take and how much would it cost as a issue of balance. You are free to assume it would take weeks and you'll find a far superior armor by then, but it's as accurate as my assumption that armor is done in a matter of hours and plate is so rare you likey won't find anything better for a long time.

 

But I like the little details that make the world feel real and that give me options and consequences.

And this is. Resource and time alocation. Choices.

Whom do I give that armor to? Do I fit it or not? Will I need that money later?

 

 

 

 

And as for the whole graphical scaling thing... you're just not really getting my point there, I'm sorry to say. Maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough, but you're misunderstanding me, big time.

 

Stop apologizing for nothing already...

 

 

 

 

 

Because, if it doesn't show up like it's supposed to, then it's wasted effort modeling it in the first place.

 

It shouldn't be a problem with high resolutions and monitors. Not to mention that models aren't 2D renders anymore. They are 3D models so detail gets preserved a lot better.

Also, you have zoom levels so it's harldy a waste.

 

It's more of a metter on the difference on what the devs should focus than an actual big diagreement.

 

Personally I feel the devs should make a model that looks good zoomed in and not waste time fiddling and blowing up differences for maximum distance, since the tools for great visibiltiy are already there.

Edited April 25, 2013 by TrashMan

[TrashMan]

 

^ The AC on that armor's gotta be over 9,000.

And another thing I hated about D&D: Armor Class.

 

Not necessarily that having a better AC gave you more survivability, but that they decided to abstract something so simple so much. Having a better AC makes you harder to hit, and doesn't even help if you get hit. One could argue AC represents the armor totally redirecting the blow, but that doesn't change the fact that wearing plate is still going to absorb a lot of damage, even if it fails to deflect blows. And that's also ignoring the fact that leather and chain armor were easier to move in, making it easier to dodge. A better way to do it (at least off the top of my head and without refining the concept at all) would've been to have damage absorption and damage deflection/avoidance values, with plate having the highest absorption and good deflection/avoidance, and chain and leather having less absorption but roughly the same, if not higher, avoidance/deflection.

 

But I digress.

 

 

I actually modded this in BG2.

Armors had damage reduction values.

 

In plate, you'd get hit a lot (no AC bonus) , but a lot of the attacks would fail to do any damage.

Light armor, you wouldnt' get hit a lot (it too had damage reduction, but it was tiny), but when you did get hit, it hurt.

 

 

That said, plate would offer the most protection and the highest deflection of any armor. But avoidance is a function of dodging, hence character. Plate makes it a more difficult to dodge, but not by much really. Interestingly enough chainmail was more uncomfortable to fight in, as all the weight fell to the shoulders.

[Tamerlane]

 

 

^ The AC on that armor's gotta be over 9,000.

And another thing I hated about D&D: Armor Class.

 

Not necessarily that having a better AC gave you more survivability, but that they decided to abstract something so simple so much. Having a better AC makes you harder to hit, and doesn't even help if you get hit. One could argue AC represents the armor totally redirecting the blow, but that doesn't change the fact that wearing plate is still going to absorb a lot of damage, even if it fails to deflect blows. And that's also ignoring the fact that leather and chain armor were easier to move in, making it easier to dodge. A better way to do it (at least off the top of my head and without refining the concept at all) would've been to have damage absorption and damage deflection/avoidance values, with plate having the highest absorption and good deflection/avoidance, and chain and leather having less absorption but roughly the same, if not higher, avoidance/deflection.

 

But I digress.

 

 

I actually modded this in BG2.

Armors had damage reduction values.

 

In plate, you'd get hit a lot (no AC bonus) , but a lot of the attacks would fail to do any damage.

Light armor, you wouldnt' get hit a lot (it too had damage reduction, but it was tiny), but when you did get hit, it hurt.

 

 

That said, plate would offer the most protection and the highest deflection of any armor. But avoidance is a function of dodging, hence character. Plate makes it a more difficult to dodge, but not by much really. Interestingly enough chainmail was more uncomfortable to fight in, as all the weight fell to the shoulders.

 

Wait... you made the Full Plate and Packing Steel mod?

[Jerky33]

I'm surprised there are no pictures of Xena in here.