Leo G.4501

> @"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!

> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> I do not like high heels whatsoever so I would not miss them if they were somehow to not be created.

How can you miss something that isn't going anywhere? Or are you advocating the removal of high heels?

> @"Tekoneiric.6817" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > Sure, but only when suffering from the Confusion condition.

> >

> > In fact, why didn't they do that? Would have made its PvP effect particularly dangerous if your entire skill bar were shuffled...

>

> I'm talking about a setting check box for "Reverse weapon skills bar". A player would need to check it if they wanted it. Having the option wouldn't affect players who didn't want to use it.

>

> Checked would make the skills like this:

>

> 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 "health" 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

>

> With the controller on the left hand it would typically have the keys programmed to be 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 because the right key is under the index finger. Currently you have to look at the skills on the screen in the opposite of what you hit on the game controller.

I was commenting in a way to implement the idea in a relevant fashion, i.e. it'd have a purpose to actually confuse the victim intentionally.

The order the skills rest on the bar is irrelevant as it's merely a display for the skill recharges and ordered in a manner to separate weapon skills from utility skills. You shouldn't even be looking at the bar at all while hitting the buttons on the controller. In fact, you should have your buttons programmed so that the skills you hit most or in tandem are mapped to the controller for ease and comfort of use, not order they are on the bar.

That said, I'm indifferent about the suggestion. If the devs want to make the option available, it probably wouldn't be difficult considering improvised weapons, potions and transformations change skills on the bar too.

Sure, but only when suffering from the Confusion condition.

In fact, why didn't they do that? Would have made its PvP effect particularly dangerous if your entire skill bar were shuffled...

I read it as Skritt Physics. Was thinking maybe they were advancing :anguished:

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @"Edge.8724" said:

> > > @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > So basically you want another race that's human but not human? To me this would be a waste of time. I'm not sure what purpose it serves. Just make more hair styles, face choices for the existing races, and this way you can have more looks. Adding another race that's human by any other name isn't likely to happen even if Anet adds another race.

> > >

> > > Pretty much what I was thinking. In most games human is my last choice for a race because they're boring to me - I spend all day every day being a human in real life, why wouldn't I make my character something more interesting? (Admittedly I do play elves or 1/2 elves in a lot of games, but that's ones where all the races are ' tall skinny human', 'short bearded human', 'green human', 'human with horns' etc.) In GW2 my main is human, but that's because I wanted her to be descended from my GW1 character and there weren't any other playable races in that game. Otherwise she'd be a sylvari.

> > >

> > > Considering we already have humans, norn who look like humans but bigger and sylvari who can be made to look almost human but with a wider choice of skin and hair colour I think the last thing we need is yet another human looking race. Considering the most asked for race seems to be tengu, followed closely by quaggan, skritt and kodan I think a lot of people would be disappointed if Anet announced a new race and it was another 'human with 1 defining feature' race.

> >

> > I won't even talk about Final Fantasy 14. Probably the worst races ever... Humans, humans with horns, humans with cat ears, tall human, big human, small human... literally.

>

> Even more annoying, their races are based on their previous MMO's races but their new Galka (now Roegadyn) look more human by removing their tail and morphing their proportions and skin tones to make them nearly identical to humans.

>

> While Galka wasn't a very popular race back in FFXI, it was heavily enjoyed by the players that did play Galka...but kitten those ppl. Gotta appease the people that need their different flavor of humans.

>

> Also also, I hate how the names of their races are so damned forgettable. Galka kind of has a connotation of gruffness and bulk, Taru-taru was cute and reflected in how their speech patterns were unique, I can't even remember the names of their new races. I have to look them up every time I need to reference them lol.

Well I guess I gotta eat some of my words here. Only just found out about their upcoming news... They even named the race logically.

> @"Balsa.3951" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Balsa.3951" said:

> > > Are u one of those Mount NO people? if enough people are willing to spend money on that Anet will do it.

> > >

> > > I personal dont need another race in the game Combat Tonics could the solution for everybody

> > >

> > > you can make a Norn look like a Drawf already with a Tonic and u can make a Largos use a Sylvary and that backpack from the gemstore, Koda Combat tonic is also already here.

> > >

> > > now just need be able to mount and done

> >

> > I might just be crazy here, and hear me out on this...but you can't customize combat tonics...

> >

> > I mean, can we replace the whole of the wardrobe system with combat tonics? Yes, that works? Okay, then let's get rid of armor and the custom character creator and make-over kits and outfits and let's just have human, asura, sylvari, etc tonics instead!

>

> agreed ok how about than a size slider for norn in the character creation which enables drawfen size ? Humans got kinda a new race with Elonians kinda kinda without getting to political lol. For Sylvari add some Largos Faces and skin patterns

>

> that would be 2 new races

For the record, I have always been flexible and negotiable when it comes to the subject of adding races. The issue is, the subject is always sidetracked by [insert dev comment from an article] or "I want races to have all the pies in the sky and since the pies are too big, it is impossible!" The moment you start to poke the subject from other angles, those that don't even care about the subject either way (because they're fine with their humans or whatever) shut it down.

Regarding tonics, I have never been a fan of tonics and even with the changes to them, I still find pretty meh. They could beef up tonics even more or cross current features to facilitate many new things (can you imagine customizing tonics? or blending outfits with some tonics?) Having tweeked models/faces for certain races to facilitate additional races is another aesthetic avenue but I personally would still like some kind of story bringing that aspect of your character to light before pushing them into the miasma of "ambiguous main protagonist".

Other avenues could be NPC followers that have some customizeability while supporting new races or perhaps even main team members that are of other races beside the main 5. Some of these things can even be stepping stones toward bigger and more polished additions over time as these ideas don't have to come at the cost of another.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > I love how everyone says this is impossible. It isn't; it would just require some creativity.

>

> Hardly anyone is saying it's "impossible." The point is that it's a lot more work (including the creativity) than some people are assuming in their remarks. The question isn't "can ANet do it" but "should they," given all the other suggestions that we would like them to implement, all the plans they already have for the game, and the fact that they don't have infinite resources.

So you're trying to pit other suggestions against this one.

Why? If Anet wants to implement those ideas, they can/will. If Anet wants to put in work to make other races playable, they can/will. It's not a matter of this vs that or finite resources but merely time and choice. To put it plainly, suggestions on the forums don't have to be ideologically or objectively exclusive and in the case of this suggestion, are not exclusive to the talking points you made.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"phs.6089" said:

> > What would be wrong with picking up a RACE from lv 60 and getting trough very personal starting zone on any profession?

> >

> > Thtat was just an example how devs went on other game, just an idea, that could work for anything.

>

> Well I'm quite sure if they ever add a new race, it will "skip" all previous content and start from the most current expansion. Maybe they'll need a low level starting zone to get to 80, but that can also be ignored by having the new race characters only available at level 80, further, if they make them level-80 only, they won't have to design the new map for low levels, instead make the new map level 80 as well. Make the new race available only to players that finished the current expansion story, so you can't make a character with the new race if you haven't beaten the expansion at least once. Give a character slot and a level-80 booster with the expansion that provides the race and we are all set for a very good sale. Make this race a Tengu because they have a starting city, culture, lore, animations similar to charr, and they can work wonderfully in GW2.

>

> I'm positive that creating the entire personal story, the living world, and two expansions worth of voice acting for a new race will be a royal waste of resources and money, so it will never happen, after all as you said, other games aren't doing that either.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"phs.6089" said:

> > What would be wrong with picking up a RACE from lv 60 and getting trough very personal starting zone on any profession?

> >

> > Thtat was just an example how devs went on other game, just an idea, that could work for anything.

>

> Well I'm quite sure if they ever add a new race, it will "skip" all previous content and start from the most current expansion. Maybe they'll need a low level starting zone to get to 80, but that can also be ignored by having the new race characters only available at level 80, further, if they make them level-80 only, they won't have to design the new map for low levels, instead make the new map level 80 as well. Make the new race available only to players that finished the current expansion story, so you can't make a character with the new race if you haven't beaten the expansion at least once. Give a character slot and a level-80 booster with the expansion that provides the race and we are all set for a very good sale. Make this race a Tengu because they have a starting city, culture, lore, animations similar to charr, and they can work wonderfully in GW2.

>

> I'm positive that creating the entire personal story, the living world, and two expansions worth of voice acting for a new race will be a royal waste of resources and money, so it will never happen, after all as you said, other games aren't doing that either.

I might even say go so far as to introduce new characters as the side-kicks, tailoring such an expansion to a "new" main protagonist making even more sense. You could still have your old characters participate and star in the content but it would feel just as organic as creating a new character and exploring a new side of the plot.

I mean, I think I've read enough "[insert important character] should die" threads/posts to believe it wouldn't be wholly hated to push a few more characters into the background.

> @"Lonami.2987" said:

> In retrospective, I wish they had been their own weapon type, but it's clear the focus type was designed to cover them and many other things, something I believe it's a mistake. I can't even tell [what the hell 80% of the foci skins are](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Gallery_of_foci), they're just ugly things with no point whatsoever. They should have been books, orbs, scrolls, and stuff like that, instead of random junk. Really bad design decision with foci skins all around, but too late to fix that, I guess.

>

> If it was in my hands, I would redesign the whole focus category and make them all book skins and such, or make sure new skins are actually decent instead of those weird hand-weapon things, but I'm not sure the "purpose" of books/tomes would be different from that of foci, thus me not splitting them in two.

>

> Hopefully, this will be the case now we got custom animations for the new legendary focus, but I don't know.

Nah, no point. Unless you like pissing people off just for your own OCD, you're better off just making a new class of weapon focused on something coherent enough and just accept the mistake of the focus weapon and let those players that enjoy it as is have it. You can still have, for example, an orb weapon category along with the focus category if you make them mechanically and aesthetically different.

> @"Klowdy.3126" said:

> > @Conncept.7638 said:

> > I cannot believe you don't have tomes on the first priority list.

> >

> > * Like the underwater weapons, they are, or were, already in game.

> > * As a magic weapon, it would be more particle effect driven, requiring way less animation work than any martial weapon.

> > * There are no caster weapons left. The game only launched with three, already available to every caster profession. There is so much design space left for more traditional spellcasting, but no magic weapons to place traditional spellcasting skills on.

> > * And finally, we already have a profession that should have had it, the axe makes absolutely no sense for the firebrand and was clearly a tacked on compromise on the firebrands aesthetic and theme. We have a sophisticated mystical librarian and lorekeeper, wielding the most primitive, brutish, barbaric weapon in the game.

>

> Tomes are now abilities, used by two classes. They aren't going to turn them into something that is bought/dropped after implementing them as spells, especially since one is an elite spec.

>

> "I'm using a tome in order to use my tomes more effectively...in my tome build...with tomes"

>

> No.

Lucky for you, mate, Firebrand doesn't even use tomes...they use pages!

> @"Einsof.1457" said:

> > @"phs.6089" said:

> > New race not necessarily have to be part of story so far.

> > Lets see, when Tera introduced first new class: reaper, it has gotten own starting zone, own story, to don't break the flow. They made exeptinal rules, repaers would start from lv 40 (cap was 65) and played had to have a lv 65 on acc in order to get a reaper. Something like this would work in GW2. Not a big fun of Tengu and I bet even if it comes most pepole that ask for it, won't play it.

>

> I don't know if you have noticed or not but the entire story up to level 30 is based on race, not profession, in GW2.

It was an example, i.e. Reaper introduced new content where you start at 45, do some stuff and then flow right back into the main game.

In the context of GW2, a new race can have some new content but skip the normal zhaitan/mordremoth part and flow into the current stuff.

> @"Balsa.3951" said:

> Are u one of those Mount NO people? if enough people are willing to spend money on that Anet will do it.

>

> I personal dont need another race in the game Combat Tonics could the solution for everybody

>

> you can make a Norn look like a Drawf already with a Tonic and u can make a Largos use a Sylvary and that backpack from the gemstore, Koda Combat tonic is also already here.

>

> now just need be able to mount and done

I might just be crazy here, and hear me out on this...but you can't customize combat tonics...

I mean, can we replace the whole of the wardrobe system with combat tonics? Yes, that works? Okay, then let's get rid of armor and the custom character creator and make-over kits and outfits and let's just have human, asura, sylvari, etc tonics instead!

What is the appeal, exactly, for graphic overhaul? Maybe in the future, when vr tech is much improved that it's necessary for a re released version of the game or some similar situation, but you're better off getting your dx11/12/14 on a GW3 release.

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > @"Celsith.2753" said:

> > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > @"coso.9173" said:

> > > > Enough with people telling others what to say or what to no say. Let people ask for what they want, and the devs will decide what to do. It's not your job.

> > >

> > > Pretty much this.

> > >

> > > Companies often spend significant resources trying to find out what their customers want. These forums allow Anet at least a small insight into their customers' desires. Arguing to deprive the company of this resource does no one any good.

> >

> > While telling people that wanting to have more races is pointless, its not stupid to express your own thoughts if you see no need for more races. If people who dont want or care for it dont express their opinion too, then anet gets a skewed idea of what percent are interested in it.

> >

> > I dont care either way. Asura master race.

>

> I am all for people expressing a preference for not adding new races. I am not as good with those, such as the OP, telling others to not express their preferences for new races. Attempting to suppress feedback, whatever side it is on, does the game a disservice IMO.

>

> That said, the post you quoted is more than seven months old. I am surprised that this thread is back on the front page.

Yeah, why not make a new thread lol

> @"Edge.8724" said:

> > @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > So basically you want another race that's human but not human? To me this would be a waste of time. I'm not sure what purpose it serves. Just make more hair styles, face choices for the existing races, and this way you can have more looks. Adding another race that's human by any other name isn't likely to happen even if Anet adds another race.

> >

> > Pretty much what I was thinking. In most games human is my last choice for a race because they're boring to me - I spend all day every day being a human in real life, why wouldn't I make my character something more interesting? (Admittedly I do play elves or 1/2 elves in a lot of games, but that's ones where all the races are ' tall skinny human', 'short bearded human', 'green human', 'human with horns' etc.) In GW2 my main is human, but that's because I wanted her to be descended from my GW1 character and there weren't any other playable races in that game. Otherwise she'd be a sylvari.

> >

> > Considering we already have humans, norn who look like humans but bigger and sylvari who can be made to look almost human but with a wider choice of skin and hair colour I think the last thing we need is yet another human looking race. Considering the most asked for race seems to be tengu, followed closely by quaggan, skritt and kodan I think a lot of people would be disappointed if Anet announced a new race and it was another 'human with 1 defining feature' race.

>

> I won't even talk about Final Fantasy 14. Probably the worst races ever... Humans, humans with horns, humans with cat ears, tall human, big human, small human... literally.

Even more annoying, their races are based on their previous MMO's races but their new Galka (now Roegadyn) look more human by removing their tail and morphing their proportions and skin tones to make them nearly identical to humans.

While Galka wasn't a very popular race back in FFXI, it was heavily enjoyed by the players that did play Galka...but kitten those ppl. Gotta appease the people that need their different flavor of humans.

Also also, I hate how the names of their races are so damned forgettable. Galka kind of has a connotation of gruffness and bulk, Taru-taru was cute and reflected in how their speech patterns were unique, I can't even remember the names of their new races. I have to look them up every time I need to reference them lol.

> @"Leablo.2651" said:

> IMO what they should have done is make the automatic pass-through salvaging a function only of the salvage-o-matics. It's a convenience feature and those who want it can pay the gems to obtain one. The regular salvage kits should retain their original function.

I like that idea.

> @"DemonSeed.3528" said:

> > @"Spartacus.3192" said:

> > > @"Blasino.3128" said:

> > > Defender is probably going to be nerfed... pretty insane on warriors with shield 5 and DH VoC, etc...

> > Any of you who think defender rune on warrior is insane definitely never played it before today. Ive been playing it off and on since it was released years ago and it was way better then for warrior. Warrior only has one block with shield and one with mace.

> >

> > Previously you would get 2 sec regen for every block with no ICD and a nice fat 5K heal on block with 30 sec cd. Now you get no regen and only 5% heal on block with 1 sec ICD. for a warrior in zerker gear you're looking at a 1k heal on block with 1 sec icd . Shield blocks lasts 3 sec but you need to ensure you're getting hit at least 3 times across the entire 3 sec evenly spaced out and all you will get is 3K heal. Whereas previously a single block got you 5K heal.

> >

> > So sorry people defender rune is nerfed for warriors. Sure it got some toughness but now its not good on warrior at all. Its better for classes that have access to lots of aegis or blocks like Firebrand.

> >

>

> One of my warrior builds is sword/shield + mace/sword, I got blocks out the wazoo and it can have more with mace and shield reduction traited along with sbreaker full counters. It's hilarious now with defender runes. Shield block, mace block, offhand sword block, full counter... I'm having some fun with it but that's all it does cos I'm not configured for damage atm. Going to see if I can build it up for damage before any changes to the rune happens but it will probably be more useful on my guard.

Could it be possible to build for lots of vitality and power (maybe ferocity too) then use vision and maybe celerity (just get some quickness) for quick bursts of damage? Won't be a dps monster but still capable of dropping a Target if needed and still have your blocks and heals.

Hearing about the new change, I was afraid it was going to be too strong and eventually nerfed. Apparently it's not?

Cool. I've been using a bulkier Valk Ele/tempest with near maxed Ferocity and it's always felt more fun to control my crits. Don't even care about price cause I already have enough stocked with some other sigils I might have to get rid of now.

> @"WereDragon.6083" said:

> Toss my hat in as well. Sure it was far from powerful and effective, but it was fun... The fun was what mattered.

I thought the same my my Phantasm mesmer and Spirit Weapons Guardian when those were taken away.

> @"Magicienne Endormie.5182" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Magicienne Endormie.5182" said:

> > > It's not a contradiction to me. If you can't see why it relies on who makes the choice, it just means we have different opinions about it. :)

> >

> > Sure, to an individual who thinks no responsibility comes with empowerment, no contradiction exists here...

> >

> > To those individuals who understand "With great power comes great responsibility", espousing empowerment while absolving responsibility when that empowerment has adverse effects in certain circumstances shows a lack of maturity and exhibits a contradiction when removing that responsibility.

> >

> > > @"Magicienne Endormie.5182" said:

> > > I'm sorry if I offended someone here. I did say I would oversimplify because I was trying to make it really short. However, your wording is poor too, because it's really not the actions of a few men. That's what Me Too taught us. It's not A FEW men. Believing that is the reason why those NOT FEW men can still continue to do what they do without being bothered. I don't know what you mean by talking about "constant victimization" and facts that somehow demolish it but it makes you sound like someone who doesn't listen when women talk about very real societal problems (I'm not attacking you, just saying how it sounds like to me).

> >

> > Mmm, we'll have to just disagree then. MeToo is a witch-hunt. Sure, it's show that there are unseely men in certain powerful and prominent positions, but that is factually and proveably a minority of a minority of men (that is, a percent of a percent).

> >

> > Your language ("men can still continue to do what they do without being bothered") demonstrates to me you aren't interested in hearing facts and you don't mind if innocent individuals suffer consequences. That's fine, but like I said, don't play the victim (or defend the victim) while you make innocent victims in the process. It's hypocritical.

> >

> > And you don't know what I'm talking about with "constant victimization"? You're doing it now. Conflating certain behavior to sexual harassment (dressing a female avatar up to be sexy? er mer gerd the wimmins!1), inflating percieved statistics based on mere anecdote (it's NOT a few men! it's so MANY men, we need to hold ALL men accountable!).

> >

> > One issue is, women say they want to be heard when they talk about these things but NO ONE is silencing them. No one is telling them they can't...but at the same time, they refuse to listen to the other side of the coin. Listening AND understanding is a two-way street and you don't get understood without listening on your part.

> >

> > > @"Magicienne Endormie.5182" said:

> > > Anyway, you're right that I phrased it poorly so I'll try to make it clearer: when I said men as a group harass women as a group, I'm talking about numbers. It doesn't mean 'all men harass all women', it means that most sexual harassments are committed by men to mostly women and that most women have been sexually harassed at least once in their life, which means it's a social and gendered issue. That's what it means. No man should take it personnally unless they are one of those men or know one of them and did nothing about it.

> >

> > Oh please...

> >

> > At least you admit you phrased it poorly (I didn't phrase anything poorly, though). But like I said, I predicted what you meant and it's still faulty when you consider what sexual harassment is and how the definition of such has changed. I'm certain women face unique difficulties in their day-to-day but don't pretend no one cares...while on the other side of the coin ignoring some egregious acts that women commit against men that are simply ignored or worse, normalized.

> >

> >

> Wow, everything you said was wrong. I am no longer going to discuss with you because it's no longer a matter of opinion here (also it's not the subject of this thread). That you think that Me Too is a witch-hunt just shows how you don't understand anything about the subject. If you really wanted to educate yourself, there are many studies out there about kitten culture, sexual harassment, kitten, etc. that would provide you with facts and numbers. Have a good day.

I'm intrigued you believe I'm new to this subject.

I certainly wouldn't suggest you "educate" yourself on this subject, but rather expose yourself to other viewpoints. Look up Karen Straughan in your free time.

> @"Magicienne Endormie.5182" said:

> It's not a contradiction to me. If you can't see why it relies on who makes the choice, it just means we have different opinions about it. :)

Sure, to an individual who thinks no responsibility comes with empowerment, no contradiction exists here...

To those individuals who understand "With great power comes great responsibility", espousing empowerment while absolving responsibility when that empowerment has adverse effects in certain circumstances shows a lack of maturity and exhibits a contradiction when removing that responsibility.

> @"Magicienne Endormie.5182" said:

> I'm sorry if I offended someone here. I did say I would oversimplify because I was trying to make it really short. However, your wording is poor too, because it's really not the actions of a few men. That's what Me Too taught us. It's not A FEW men. Believing that is the reason why those NOT FEW men can still continue to do what they do without being bothered. I don't know what you mean by talking about "constant victimization" and facts that somehow demolish it but it makes you sound like someone who doesn't listen when women talk about very real societal problems (I'm not attacking you, just saying how it sounds like to me).

Mmm, we'll have to just disagree then. MeToo is a witch-hunt. Sure, it's show that there are unseely men in certain powerful and prominent positions, but that is factually and proveably a minority of a minority of men (that is, a percent of a percent).

Your language ("men can still continue to do what they do without being bothered") demonstrates to me you aren't interested in hearing facts and you don't mind if innocent individuals suffer consequences. That's fine, but like I said, don't play the victim (or defend the victim) while you make innocent victims in the process. It's hypocritical.

And you don't know what I'm talking about with "constant victimization"? You're doing it now. Conflating certain behavior to sexual harassment (dressing a female avatar up to be sexy? er mer gerd the wimmins!1), inflating percieved statistics based on mere anecdote (it's NOT a few men! it's so MANY men, we need to hold ALL men accountable!).

One issue is, women say they want to be heard when they talk about these things but NO ONE is silencing them. No one is telling them they can't...but at the same time, they refuse to listen to the other side of the coin. Listening AND understanding is a two-way street and you don't get understood without listening on your part.

> @"Magicienne Endormie.5182" said:

> Anyway, you're right that I phrased it poorly so I'll try to make it clearer: when I said men as a group harass women as a group, I'm talking about numbers. It doesn't mean 'all men harass all women', it means that most sexual harassments are committed by men to mostly women and that most women have been sexually harassed at least once in their life, which means it's a social and gendered issue. That's what it means. No man should take it personnally unless they are one of those men or know one of them and did nothing about it.

Oh please...

At least you admit you phrased it poorly (I didn't phrase anything poorly, though). But like I said, I predicted what you meant and it's still faulty when you consider what sexual harassment is and how the definition of such has changed. I'm certain women face unique difficulties in their day-to-day but don't pretend no one cares...while on the other side of the coin ignoring some egregious acts that women commit against men that are simply ignored or worse, normalized.

> @"Magicienne Endormie.5182" said:

> Now, remember the empowerment thing? Other comments before me talked about how, for a woman, being sexy can be female empowerment. It's true (and that's feminist, too: the goal is for women to simply be able to dress as they like).

I guess you're talking about me? Well, I feel pulling more socio-political context into this underminds everyone and is only catering to a minority (the majority being the feminist that feel empowerment with choice, the males/females who enjoy seeing attractive women, the people in the middle that simply don't care, along with the pervs and misogynists and creeps vs the minority of the prudes, the moral guardians, the SJdub feminist on man-hunts/witch-hunts). What is gained by catering to a minority in this context?

But I'll demonstrate why I brought up female empowerment into my previous statements:

> @"Magicienne Endormie.5182" said:

> Now, remember the empowerment thing? Other comments before me talked about how, for a woman, being sexy can be female empowerment. It's true (and that's feminist, too: the goal is for women to simply be able to dress as they like). However:However:

> - it is female empowerment only if it is the woman herself who freely chooses to wear the sexy attire.

> - while there would certainly be female players choosing to dress their female character with bikini armor, the vast majority would be male players => whatever the player's intent is, whether it's perveted or not, the female character doesn't choose to be sexy. It's not empowerment.

This is a contradiction. It is a blatant contradiction and is exactly why the argument doesn't hold water.

It's a contradiction because in one hand, you say this can be female empowerment in the hands of a female. In the other, when not in the hands of a female, the previous statement becomes null and responsibility (i.e. empowerment) is thus taken away from the female. That is DEpowerment. Putting choice and freedom in the hand of an individual isn't suddenly voided because another individual misuses it.

> 4. Bikini armor is heavily connoted. We may think it's merrily a sexy thing, but to a lot of women it really is a symbol of sexualization, not empowerment, and it will probably remain so as long as women (as a group) will still get sexually harassed everywhere by men (as a group).

That's actually an offensive statement, IMO. Men sexually harass women as a group? I know what you actually mean but you phrased it so poorly, it's basically saying men (as a group) are collectively at fault for the actions of a few and the freedoms of women (as a group) must be curtailed so as to facilitate a narrative of men (as a group) being predators.

This whole dynamic might be somewhat acceptable if it weren't for the constant victimization narrative strewn out at a constant fever pitch while ignoring all the facts that demolish such claims.

> @"Naxos.2503" said:

> Swimsuit yes, but bikini armor is stretching it. Then again, if it's particularly well designed, and has some form of relevancy in the game world (For example southsun)...

> As an outfit though, I dont see this realistically working as an armor for players. As an outfit, pretty sure you'd get customers.

I don't think it would be bad as an armor skin. Like I mentioned before, if it were made into a skin, I personally would look into methods of incorporating it into a look that previously was hindered by lack of options for exposed legs. For me, I tend to re-use skins that are more form fitting and those form fitting options are limited. Basically, it doesn't just have to be wearing a few cloth triangles and nothing more...players could certainly blend them with heavy, covered or bulky options to accentuate the openness of a particular piece.

I'm not mandating it should certainly be an armor skin over a swimwear outfit, just saying the possibilities can be very positive in the hands of a creative character.

> @"kapri.5918" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"kapri.5918" said:

> > > First and foremost, if you think my argument is somehow political then you have blatantly missed my stance on this.

> >

> > I was talking about your previous posts that wasn't the one quoted had political slants. The post I quoted didn't have much of an argument at all.

> >

> > > @"kapri.5918" said:

> > > This topic and the issue that I have is Bikini Armor. Armor being the key word.

> >

> > Perhaps you don't understand the mechanics of GW2 cosmetics. Cosmetics aren't armor. Cosmetics are *SKINS* that you put on armor. Armor is merely the quantifiable object in a player's inventory that holds stat points. If the prospect of a skin that is designed to be open and expose the avatar's body is the problem, then perhaps I could leave you be, but it seems you're complaining about semantics.

> >

> >

> > > @"kapri.5918" said:

> > > The stuff one wears when going into battle. Do not have an issue with having a bikini in the game but with no armor value and just as a cosmetic...but as actual armor I find it horrendous.

> >

> > And this is the argument of realism. It doesn't work. What do you even gain by trying to prohibit a character from using a specific skin to fight in? It's extremely petty.

> >

> > > @"kapri.5918" said:

> > >You want it as a skin...go for it. I have made my statements. You have neither addressed or acknowledged them. Each time you have responded has been a deflection or a blatant different thing. The only point raised has been that "it could work cause this game isn't real." To which I say Scarlet Blade. Apparently, we seem to be done. Good day.

> >

> > To sum up your argument: "You want to look like a half-naked bimbo on my screen? Well I want to punish you for it. Good day."

> >

> > Bye Felicia.

>

> Hopefully I can make this clear. I gave my reasons on why it is wrong to me and how GW2/fantasy lore is. You seem to have thought that I wish you punished for having a bikini "skin." I honestly do not. Each person in this game wants their characters to be unique in their own way. If that involves their character wearing a bikini then who am I to judge? I am tired of saying this and being punished for it...so I apologize if you felt that I was being offensive.

I don't seem to have thought anything. You literally said, having a bikini skin is fine but if a player uses it they should have their armor values nulled. If that's not a punishment, I don't know what is.

As for being offensive, I'm pretty thick skinned and I pull my punches significantly on these forums (I only ducked my head back in the game because I heard there's some overhauls to runes/sigils and I'm trying them out on my new PC). As a warning, I suggest you be careful accusing posters deflection or dodging the subject. If you do, state what they deflect or dodge.