Leo G.4501

> @"Kas.3509" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Kas.3509" said:

> > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > > > @"Aodlop.1907" said:

> > > > > Because I don't pay for outfits at all, never purchased one. I don't buy outfits because I enjoy being able to customize my gear, hide items, and make combinations.

> > > > > If you don't want to sell armor sets at the same price as the previous ones, fine. Make them more expensive, as long you make them. I'd pay for it, or I'd farm for it.

> > > > > I really don't like outfits. Can you please start making armor sets again ? Even if you make them more expensive ?

> > > > > Thanks. <3

> > > >

> > > > Are you willing to pay 5000 gems for a new armor set? ANet's implied that it takes 8-9x more effort to produce armor sets: there are multiple weights, more variations of dye channels, the pieces have to mix & match with other skins of the same weight, and so on. People already balk at paying 2k for premium MountFits. It seems unlikely that ANet would be able to price armor sets high enough to significantly increase the rate at which they are released.

> > >

> > >

> > > If you want to look at it in that way then the question should be - why are we paying 800 gems for outfits that require 8-9x less work than armor sets and all armor sets are 800 gems from the game beggining?

> > >

> > > I'd also prefer more armors, outfits are so NOT unique, makes you feel like army of clones. If you could at least use helmet skins with outfits, maybe it would be a little better.

> > >

> >

> > I'd contest the notion that outfits are not unique. How are they not? How many armor options exist that look like one seamless piece of armor/suit? Most armor looks like it's a jumbled of pieces that vaguely resemble a theme. By the logic that there are MORE jumbled together looks than seamless looks, that already makes it more unique.

>

> With outfits its the fact that when new one comes out a lot of people wears it for a long time. Also it annoys me when I like 90% of the outfit but not like 1 element and I have no way of fixing it.

> Not saying outfits are bad, just not very customizable.

Still doesn't invalidate that there are other outfits that isn't the new FotM that you can wear that a lot of people won't be wearing.

As for the issue with turning off parts, I think it's harder to promote improvements to outfits when you have people bemoaning them as bad, unoriginal, not unique and such. Lol how many "Improve Outfit" threads are there? But beside that, I have, in the past, put forth the idea to add unique custom options for outfits that would basically amount to "check this box to turn off helmet", "check this box to turn off shoulders", "check this box to turn off special unique part" that would be, IMO, pretty easy to implement.

There are other suggestions for outfits I've made but you get the point.

> @"Kuya.6495" said:

> They nerfed all auto damage traits. If you had read their explanation you would have known that already. They said auto damage traits aren't good for gameplay so they would bring them all in line. It didn't matter whether the trait was good or not.

>

> Stop being drama queens.

I guess we need to get rid of traps or severely Nerf them.

I don't understand this mentality of slowly removing variety of styles. Are we not allowed to catch someone off guard with a set up, basically an innocuous offense as a defense?

I do this for all my characters and the origin of this for me is City of Heroes, of course, where all my characters have origins, motivations, connections to my other characters, etc. With GW2, a lot of the added lore for my characters either goes into their origins or their connections with my other characters. One that I often like to describe:

Dexx was basically an aspiring youngster who was fascinated by the studies going on in the Thaumanova reactor and would have likely ended up becoming a researcher in the Inquest had not for the whole disaster incident and being nearly killed by being bombarded by chaos magic. He fully recovered and later joined the College of Statics after being rejected from Synergetics due to his frank demeanor, presence (he grew abnormally tall with dark skin) and the dozens of catastrophic lab accidents he'd been the center of. Shifting his expertise to formulas and calculations, he made his notoriety on his study of chaos magic and how he was a living experiment of it, noting his abnormal height and unproportional physical abilities and his ability to absorb chaos magic. He became the target of the group he once considered joining, was captured and experimented on. Through some brash and brutish tactics along with the help of an adventuring Norn, he managed to escape the Inquest in one piece as well as find a new appreciation for the physicality of the Norn, which his shorter form rivaled. He appreciated it so much, he trained in the ways of the Warrior under a Norn fighter. During his training, either because of the Inquest experiment or maybe it was innate from the first exposure to the chaos magic, Dexx learned of the limits of his strength: that all his Norn-like strength vanishes for a time if he ever tells a lie. Apparently it's just too chaotic to have an Asura flinging around Charr single-handed who just happens to tell a half-truth.

The last part is another aspect of my kind of personality creation...I tend to give some kind of quirk to a character for RP purposes.

> @"Kas.3509" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > @"Aodlop.1907" said:

> > > Because I don't pay for outfits at all, never purchased one. I don't buy outfits because I enjoy being able to customize my gear, hide items, and make combinations.

> > > If you don't want to sell armor sets at the same price as the previous ones, fine. Make them more expensive, as long you make them. I'd pay for it, or I'd farm for it.

> > > I really don't like outfits. Can you please start making armor sets again ? Even if you make them more expensive ?

> > > Thanks. <3

> >

> > Are you willing to pay 5000 gems for a new armor set? ANet's implied that it takes 8-9x more effort to produce armor sets: there are multiple weights, more variations of dye channels, the pieces have to mix & match with other skins of the same weight, and so on. People already balk at paying 2k for premium MountFits. It seems unlikely that ANet would be able to price armor sets high enough to significantly increase the rate at which they are released.

>

>

> If you want to look at it in that way then the question should be - why are we paying 800 gems for outfits that require 8-9x less work than armor sets and all armor sets are 800 gems from the game beggining?

>

> I'd also prefer more armors, outfits are so NOT unique, makes you feel like army of clones. If you could at least use helmet skins with outfits, maybe it would be a little better.

>

I'd contest the notion that outfits are not unique. How are they not? How many armor options exist that look like one seamless piece of armor/suit? Most armor looks like it's a jumbled of pieces that vaguely resemble a theme. By the logic that there are MORE jumbled together looks than seamless looks, that already makes it more unique.

> @"Jski.6180" said:

> > @"jbrother.1340" said:

> > > @"Einsof.1457" said:

> > > Arena Net, you made a great game. Really. All the pieces are there, yet it seems the only enemy you have is yourself. You aren't just tweaking professions every few months, you are fundamentally altering them every few months. It is very jarring to log in, and have such glaringly extreme changes to your profession that you are unable to get back into doing content in raids and fractals until you pour through the math and test what works. I don't know if this is supposed to be the design, but I hate it. Tweaks here and there to duration etc. is fine and expected for an MMO, but massive overhauls every 3-6 months need to stop. If these changes are really truly necessary then the design was awful to begin with, which really is not only disappointing but embarrassing for you. Please either stop this madness, or save these overhauls for huge events like expansion releases. I can't take the heartbreak anymore to log in and have no idea how to play anymore for the 4th time this year. It really really sucks.

> >

> > Are you seriously heartbroken over this?

> >

> > Most people reserve that level of emotion for dead loved ones and their pet that got crushed by a truck.

> >

> > Why does dealing with change come so hard to humans? Learn not to hate and maybe this won't feel the same after possibly.

> >

> > You are using a strong word in using "hate" and if you truly hate why do you keep coming back for more?

>

> To feel is to be human to feel nothing is not to be human putting 5 years of your life is a big investment and its meaningful what happens. Not every one can make an alt to play class of the month ppl have real ties to there hero and that hero is locked into a class. My alts are more or less mules that i have no real attachment to. The hero i want to play has a lot tide to it but its an ele so rip lol. I even have items i held on to because they have meaning in game. I still have my pic of a drawing from way back that most ate for karma. All from that ele hero i cant play any more and still be of use to others at the same level as other classes.

Then I'll just say you're going about things wrong and you shouldn't do that...or at the very least, when you do, don't create an emotional bridge built ontop of a sand foundation.

I made the same mistake as you when City of Heroes was still around and suffered greatly for that mistake. You should be grateful the game still exists for you to enjoy and without paying a subscription fee.

So there's a dialog on boons, huh?

My 2cents: boons has always seemed pretty limiting and rather secondary since the beginning. I feel there's room for improving it or modifying the system but limiting boons by class send counter to the point of boons, which is a generic boost system that is meant to cross classes. The problem that came with this system isn't who generates the boons but rather the meta has changed to incorporate max or generous boon application. Unless your trying to change that, I don't think it'll have much other effect besides making the means of that application more strict.

Instead of limiting boons to certain classes, I think it should focus on the aspect of unique buffs via traits and gear. Unique utility buffs or traits that directly modify boons is more beneficial. For example, similar to how inspiring presence gives healing power with each stack of might for a warrior, you can have bonuses to certain boons per class that could act more as game changers rather than being minor little changes (like the above example is).

Like what if there was a traits that reduces the healing regeneration you provide to 0 but instead reduces condition damage and condition duration? I'm sure someone more creative than me can come up with new things certain classes could accomplish with boons.

Would you feel guilty about eating a Sylvari? NO! Of course not!

In fact, take some of that Choya blood and spritz it on a roasted Sylvari-on-the-cob...pure bliss. And if you don't know what part of a Sylvari is on a cob, you don't know what living is like.

> @"PlagueParade.7942" said:

> At least you'll know the guild using it are 12 year olds.

I didn't see any death-bloodreaper-emo-edgelord emblems in there.

> @"Trise.2865" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Einsof.1457" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"Einsof.1457" said:

> > > > > I'd prefer real content(more pvp modes,, new skills, masteries, raids, fractals, open world metas, recipes, wvw objectives, etc) over asthetic nonsense like a new race, personally. The five we have cover all archetypes.

> > > >

> > > > What archetypes are those?

> > >

> > > https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FiveRaces

> > >

> > > Stout (Dwarf): Strong and tough, usually associated with hard physical work and masculinity, to the point that they may be a One-Gender Race of males. The archetypal Stout in fantasy is the dwarf. While in Science Fiction settings, the role may be given to one of the more warlike alien races, robots or cyborgs or possibly even humans genetically or cybernetically enhanced for heavy labour or life on high-gravity planets. Stouts can be quick to anger and often have a culture focused on strength, honor and martial values, and may share an uneasy peace with other peoples of the setting.

> > >

> > > Fairy (Elf/Fairy/Angel): The most magical or technological race, relatively speaking, and often depicted as so removed from the other races as to border on the alien or out of touch. This can make some of the other races, especially the Stouts, openly despise them. It can include angelic types, or on rare occasions even gods. The typical Fairy is an elf, correspondingly more "feminine" in contrast to the "masculine" Stouts (longer hair, greater delicacy, and likely to depend on ranged weaponry and their wit to get them out of danger) and more ascetic or emotionally restrained to counter the gruff passion of the Stouts. Some works go as far as to turn them into a One-Gender Race of females. Recently, having this be a Cute Monster Girl is more and more common. In Speculative Fiction, substitute humans with psionic abilities, Artificial Intelligences when they aren't crapshoots, or advanced but not quite Sufficiently Advanced Aliens. See also Space Elves.

> > >

> > > Mundane (Human): What the modern reader supposedly most identifies with. The least magical race, usually enjoys simple pleasures instead of adventuring, a la Tolkien's Hobbits. Usually the Jack of All Trades of the races. This is usually a role assigned to humans, unless you have...

> > >

> > > High Men (High Elf/Human/God): The most powerful, civilized and magically or technologically advanced race in the setting. Usually a historical or fantastic interpretation of what humans are or want to be. A setting without elves as Fairy or High Men simply will not have elves. If the Precursors still exist in a Speculative Fiction setting, they might fill this role if The Federation isn't heavily idealized.

> > >

> > > Cute (Hobbit or Gnome): The fifth, increasingly common group, and becoming especially popular in modern gaming. They may seem weak, but through cleverness and inner strength they are able to come out on top. Tends to either overlap with Mundane (to produce Hobbits) or Fairy (to produce gnomes), but usually designed with a larger dose than usual of Fun Personified.

> >

> > Well then GW2 is missing at least one of those.

>

> "Stout" Norn/Charr

> "Fairy" Asura/Sylvari

> "Mundane" Human

> "HighMen"

> "Cute" Asura

>

> Which one is missing?

Fix'd.

> @"Einsof.1457" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Einsof.1457" said:

> > > I'd prefer real content(more pvp modes,, new skills, masteries, raids, fractals, open world metas, recipes, wvw objectives, etc) over asthetic nonsense like a new race, personally. The five we have cover all archetypes.

> >

> > What archetypes are those?

>

> https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FiveRaces

>

> Stout (Dwarf): Strong and tough, usually associated with hard physical work and masculinity, to the point that they may be a One-Gender Race of males. The archetypal Stout in fantasy is the dwarf. While in Science Fiction settings, the role may be given to one of the more warlike alien races, robots or cyborgs or possibly even humans genetically or cybernetically enhanced for heavy labour or life on high-gravity planets. Stouts can be quick to anger and often have a culture focused on strength, honor and martial values, and may share an uneasy peace with other peoples of the setting.

>

> Fairy (Elf/Fairy/Angel): The most magical or technological race, relatively speaking, and often depicted as so removed from the other races as to border on the alien or out of touch. This can make some of the other races, especially the Stouts, openly despise them. It can include angelic types, or on rare occasions even gods. The typical Fairy is an elf, correspondingly more "feminine" in contrast to the "masculine" Stouts (longer hair, greater delicacy, and likely to depend on ranged weaponry and their wit to get them out of danger) and more ascetic or emotionally restrained to counter the gruff passion of the Stouts. Some works go as far as to turn them into a One-Gender Race of females. Recently, having this be a Cute Monster Girl is more and more common. In Speculative Fiction, substitute humans with psionic abilities, Artificial Intelligences when they aren't crapshoots, or advanced but not quite Sufficiently Advanced Aliens. See also Space Elves.

>

> Mundane (Human): What the modern reader supposedly most identifies with. The least magical race, usually enjoys simple pleasures instead of adventuring, a la Tolkien's Hobbits. Usually the Jack of All Trades of the races. This is usually a role assigned to humans, unless you have...

>

> High Men (High Elf/Human/God): The most powerful, civilized and magically or technologically advanced race in the setting. Usually a historical or fantastic interpretation of what humans are or want to be. A setting without elves as Fairy or High Men simply will not have elves. If the Precursors still exist in a Speculative Fiction setting, they might fill this role if The Federation isn't heavily idealized.

>

> Cute (Hobbit or Gnome): The fifth, increasingly common group, and becoming especially popular in modern gaming. They may seem weak, but through cleverness and inner strength they are able to come out on top. Tends to either overlap with Mundane (to produce Hobbits) or Fairy (to produce gnomes), but usually designed with a larger dose than usual of Fun Personified.

Well then GW2 is missing at least one of those.

> @"Einsof.1457" said:

> I'd prefer real content(more pvp modes,, new skills, masteries, raids, fractals, open world metas, recipes, wvw objectives, etc) over asthetic nonsense like a new race, personally. The five we have cover all archetypes.

What archetypes are those?

> @"Dante.1763" said:

> > @"Chasind.3128" said:

> > The only new content we will get for the next few years are mounts and gliders and maybe a story/ map you can finish within the hour of release. Basically, what it has been for the last 2 years.

>

> Jeez you burn through content quickly! I still dont have Jahais achievements done! Hell i still dont have the PoF achievements done!

Different types of content for different type of people. You're not wrong, but not everyone may consider marking off check-boxes on a menu as content.

> @"Menzo.2185" said:

> Is possible introduce a new playable race (tengu, dwarf, etc), without personal history or vigil/whisper/priory instance, in one of the Living World Season like you did with bettle mount?

> Can Anet create something viable and well animated (all weapons, old and new armor skins), not tonics kitten, to finally bring new races to the game?

> Anet is doing something about it or not?

Well, what if the possible work toward new races was corralled with QoL additions and improvements to tonics?

I'm not a fan of tonics either but what if they made certain tonics (specifically the racial ones) stackable with outfits so that you can be a skritt in a jungle explorer outfit or a tengu in a tux. There might be outfits that aren't compatible at the start but who knows...

Along with that, the ability to have tonics on mounts and the expiration time and circumstances could be tweaked as well.

Maybe even some day, the ability to customise tonic forms colors as well. What do you think?

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > @"Haleydawn.3764" said:

> > > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > > So long as babies are birthed at the hips and fed at the breast, society will always consider hips and boobs as prominent **female** features. Always know that the fact of biology comes first, and it is from this biology that society has built all of its constructs upon.

> >

> > I fixed that for you, now I can agree.

> >

> > Wide hips, narrow waists and boobs are prominent features of the Female body, yet they *do not* embody Femininity, at all, which was my point.

> > Going back to my bolded quote that I raised the issue with;

> >

> > >And I can tell you for a fact a big part of what makes a woman feminine are breasts on a woman

> >

> > This can mean that flat chested women aren't feminine in the posters eyes. "Being a woman" is more than boobs. It's how we walk, talk, express ourselves (Clothing/makeup/hairstyling etc).

> >

> > Femininity is partially socially constructed, being made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors. This makes it distinct from the definition of the biological female sex, as **both males and females can exhibit feminine traits**. There's even lots of people that simultaneously display masculine and feminine qualities.

>

> The physical features are intrinsically linked to femininity. The fact is that yes, a woman with a flat chest is less feminine than one with shoulder boulders. Obviously. Expanding the scope of femininity the entirety of the universe doesn't change this relationship. It's not fair, but that's the nature of the beast.

>

> Hence, booby plates on Plate Mail.

I agree with this. Expanding the scope of femininity is merely appealing to notions of body positivity and such, which are more ideals than objective views.

Make up, hairstyle, clothing and the like are superficial. If you had said more like agreeable, empathetic/emotionally motivated, risk averse, choosy or aesthetic motivated or some such, I could agree, but the points you list are as easily changed as your shoes and it's more a disservice to females to say their femininity is so one dimensional.

But I do agree, femininity is more than just boobs.

> @"Batel.9206" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Dashingsteel.3410" said:

> > > > @"Haleydawn.3764" said:

> > > > > @"Bolero Bloodreign.9025" said:

> > > > > There's a lot of fit men with a slim waist. The hip in the photo is not wide, it's the kilt you're mistakenly staring at. **And I can tell you for a fact a big part of what makes a woman feminine are breasts on a woman**, something you refuse to notice that armor is lacking.

> > > >

> > > > Stop confusing “femininity” with the gender of being Female.

> > > > What makes a woman/man “feminine” is demeanor, not boobs.

> > >

> > > I disagree with you. Femininity is not only demeanor but is also associated with appearance. I can see a woman at a distance having never observed her demeanor and think she looks feminine. Some women are very feminine looking while other women are not feminine looking. Same thing with men some are very masculine looking while others are not.

> > >

> >

> > Not to mention feminine demeanor had no place in tactical/combat environments.

>

> Tell that to Kasmeer. ~~I hate Kasmeer~~

Well when you've got her kind of power, you can do whatever you want... But just imagine her abilities in the hands of a no-nonsense practical tactician.

> @"Dashingsteel.3410" said:

> > @"Haleydawn.3764" said:

> > > @"Bolero Bloodreign.9025" said:

> > > There's a lot of fit men with a slim waist. The hip in the photo is not wide, it's the kilt you're mistakenly staring at. **And I can tell you for a fact a big part of what makes a woman feminine are breasts on a woman**, something you refuse to notice that armor is lacking.

> >

> > Stop confusing “femininity” with the gender of being Female.

> > What makes a woman/man “feminine” is demeanor, not boobs.

>

> I disagree with you. Femininity is not only demeanor but is also associated with appearance. I can see a woman at a distance having never observed her demeanor and think she looks feminine. Some women are very feminine looking while other women are not feminine looking. Same thing with men some are very masculine looking while others are not.

>

Not to mention feminine demeanor had no place in tactical/combat environments.

> @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > > > @"Zhou.3605" said:

> > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > > > @"Zhou.3605" said:

> > > > > > I gotta say this....My roommate, who is female, has the same complaint. Well in opposition to you. I mean...she loves heels and hates that there are literally like one attempt maybe two at heels in general. And she thinks they suck. I mean....I agree that as far as heavy and medium armor goes...nothing is girly really. I feel it would be great to have some options where my heavy and medium armor characters are not busy trying to be men. Last time I checked it was okay to be a girl.... but I dunno these days if you can't dress like a man then for some reason its offensive. But then... you can dress like a man or woman in GW2. Just less often can you be effeminate if you are heavy or medium armor. Heavy you are a Knight of the Round Table usually, and medium you are a pirate....Yarr do not get me started on that kitten medium armor that makes you look like a kitten rooster....

> > > > > > More heels, more effeminate armors.. Please. I am tired of it being wrong to be a girl and only right to be a man.

> > > > >

> > > > > Nearly all of the female medium and heavy armors are feminine.

> > > >

> > > > I am not saying they do not show that the character is female. But they are without a doubt masculine femininity.

> > >

> > > Many (most?) of the female heavy armour sets have boobplates. Are you saying boobplates are masculine?!

> >

> > And men have *breastplates* that looks like a man's chest. I'd assume at least some of those would have been requested to not look like a man's breast on a female, if we're covering the various bases here.

> >

> > While you can use real-world logic to dictate that women would just wear men's armor, you're glossing over the fact that in the real-world, there isn't a large need for female exclusive body armor.

> >

> > Further still, I know for a fact, if female armor were carbon copies of male armor people will complain and accuse the creators for being lazy. Confer real-world logic till the cows come home, but players want these rules bent regardless.

>

> Wow, you're putting an awful lot of words into my mouth. I didn't say anything about real-world armour, make any reference to real-world logic, or suggest that the female armour should be carbon copies of the male armour. I was just questioning the suggestion that boobplates are masculine, nothing more.

I suppose I was addressing the notion of "boobplates" being particularly gendered rather that being custom. It's gendered, sure, but it only seems degrading to some because standards regarding armor are supported by male standards usually with the disregard of females.

The thing about masculinity is it's tinted by perception. Boobplates could be considered masculine to some if you consider practicality in combat as masculine (because it tends to be). Heck, that a female is charging into combat at all is rather masculine but we're not suppose to think that way I guess.

Apologies if I directed an undue argument toward you.

> @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > @"Zhou.3605" said:

> > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > @"Zhou.3605" said:

> > > > I gotta say this....My roommate, who is female, has the same complaint. Well in opposition to you. I mean...she loves heels and hates that there are literally like one attempt maybe two at heels in general. And she thinks they suck. I mean....I agree that as far as heavy and medium armor goes...nothing is girly really. I feel it would be great to have some options where my heavy and medium armor characters are not busy trying to be men. Last time I checked it was okay to be a girl.... but I dunno these days if you can't dress like a man then for some reason its offensive. But then... you can dress like a man or woman in GW2. Just less often can you be effeminate if you are heavy or medium armor. Heavy you are a Knight of the Round Table usually, and medium you are a pirate....Yarr do not get me started on that kitten medium armor that makes you look like a kitten rooster....

> > > > More heels, more effeminate armors.. Please. I am tired of it being wrong to be a girl and only right to be a man.

> > >

> > > Nearly all of the female medium and heavy armors are feminine.

> >

> > I am not saying they do not show that the character is female. But they are without a doubt masculine femininity.

>

> Many (most?) of the female heavy armour sets have boobplates. Are you saying boobplates are masculine?!

And men have *breastplates* that looks like a man's chest. I'd assume at least some of those would have been requested to not look like a man's breast on a female, if we're covering the various bases here.

While you can use real-world logic to dictate that women would just wear men's armor, you're glossing over the fact that in the real-world, there isn't a large need for female exclusive body armor.

Further still, I know for a fact, if female armor were carbon copies of male armor people will complain and accuse the creators for being lazy. Confer real-world logic till the cows come home, but players want these rules bent regardless.

> @"Ashantara.8731" said:

> > @"Dragon Priestess.9760" said:

> > I really do understand that some people want to play with practical armour - and that is totally okay. You are allowed to want that, and you should be allowed to have that.

> >

> > But GW2 already has options for people to do that if they want.

>

> No, it doesn't. The "not totally skimpy" female armor sets and outfits are extremely limited, and even those sport high heels and/or naked hips/ribs/back/shoulders/thighs or enhance your boobs' size. Not cool.

Oh no! Is this true? We should do something about this ?

> @"Plexxing.2978" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > > @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> > > > As for skimpy ... well this is the "worst"

> > > I see your skimpy and raise you mine ...

> > > 

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Now make one for a male character!

>

> ![](https://imgur.com/Bofndg5.jpg"")

>

> BOOM!

FOUL!

You're using the ground to clip the leg through the skirt.

20 yard penalty!

> @"KidRoleplay.3615" said:

> I personally feel we're long overdue for another light armor mini skirt. And I'm all for sexy shoes. Bring on the heels.

>

> But, seriously, there's a lot of variety in this game as is. Blade & Soul, this is not. I'm just not going to go around dictating what the game needs to impose on everyone due to my own preferences.

I've actually heard people complain about the customization in B&S, it's rare to hear anyone praise it's variety. Or are you criticizing its lack of coherent theme? I wouldn't argue with you there although at some point, B&S theme stopped being asian-inspired aesthetic and became anime-hogpog which could be a good or bad thing.

> @"Batel.9206" said:

> > @"Loki.4871" said:

> > That being said, I've been trying to work out a skimpy look for my new revenant and man... heavy armour really doesn't have a chainmail bikini analogue, or even a leather one-I miss the old GW1 Gladiator armour. It's quite annoying because since they're a sylvari I want to see the bio-luminescence and I'm really struggling. I'll probably end up using the citizen outfit instead. Medium armour struggles too unless you're human female or norn imo.

>

> Have you tried the [barbaric ](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Barbaric_armor "Barbaric ")armor? There's also the [scallywag armor](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Scallywag_armor "Scallywag armor"), which is arguably the closest you can get to shirtless for dudes. Also, there's the[ Pit Fighter](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Pit_Fighter_armor " Pit Fighter") armor (or Flamewrath if you want added fire effects).

I use all 3, but more the latter two than the 1st.

The problem is, those are nice choices...for the torso but there aren't many options for the legs.

> @"Telwyn.1630" said:

> > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > As fun as it would be there's just no way Anet could do this without drowning in demands, player anger and workload lol

> >

> > This is literally one of those features that cannot please everyone.

> >

> > Imo the only way this could ever work in Guildwars 2 is purely from a Roleplay perspective and an in game marriage mechanic.

> > Tbh they already do have the means for RP's to organize their own weddings (wedding outfits and a decorated shrine in LA)

> > But no actual mechanic for it so it's purely a cosmetic player event that is vulnerable to trolling.

> >

> > There's just no way they could do it in the story with NPC's.. and tbh I don't think they should even try to do such a thing.

> I can only dream and pretend my male human character is in love with a female charr.

Bah, that's got nothing on my pairing: a female charr infatuated with my male asura.

> @"gebrechen.5643" said:

> I really like the "but it's a fantasy game argument". There isn't another logical reason for high heels existing but "it's fashion", while the things you mentioned have a real use.

> "No one with a brain would use bows when pistols and rifles exist, yet here we are." Yes, bows are still around and are still used for hunting over rifles. Which means there are practical applications of Bows or Crossbows in the world, while there is not a single one for high heels in a fantasy world.

> I can live with them existing, but we don't need more of those but less. I really could see getting a lot more sandals or boots and especially more skirts, kilts, etc.

Well what is the purpose of high heels? The only way your assumption works is if high heels serve no propose in our world. And if that's the case, what do you say to the women buying and wearing something that serves no purpose?

> @"maxan.7836" said:

> After all these years- Sorry out of all the games I have played- Most boring armor ever-

I personally wouldn't call it boring armor... Unflattering, maybe? Not complimentary?

I dunno. To me, when making an outfit for a character, I tend to decide on a part I want emphasized (be it the butt cape, the bulging shoulder piece, something flashy or the weapons or perhaps the character's skin) then try to make the rest of the ensemble more muted so as not to overshadow the part I'm emphasizing.

My problem is the over abundance of "emphasized parts" and dwindling pool of "muted parts". I've seen some impressive armor combos (as well as mish mash of flashy bulky bits) that tend to recycle the same pants or tops because the options for regular form fitting or minimalist stuff is small.