934 réponses à ce sujet

[Esbatty]

Slidell505 wrote...

Esbatty wrote...

I was promised nudity and violence. This thread better deliver.

Berserkers were Viking warriors that would get high on mushrooms strip naked and start killing everything in sight. Nudity and violence, delivered.

You get one Internet Striptease, just jump on Chatroulette and I'll see ya in a moment. Just need to find some ice... for the nipples.

[Matchy Pointy]

One thing that would make me react would be if they put Isabela in bulky, heavy armor. What pirate would willingly wear something that would amake them drown som uch easier if they fell overboard?

[Ryzaki]

Like that gold around her neck?

[upsettingshorts]

Matchy Pointy wrote...

One thing that would make me react would be if they put Isabela in bulky, heavy armor. What pirate would willingly wear something that would amake them drown som uch easier if they fell overboard?

These arguments always make me laugh.  She might have been a pirate, but now she's a pirate without a ship, so worrying about drowning isn't really a valid concern. 

Ryzaki wrote...

Like that gold around her neck?

I imagine it's pretty easy to take off a bunch of necklaces before you hit the bottom of the ocean, not so much a suit of armor.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 novembre 2010 - 07:18 .

[Sir JK]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

These arguments always make me laugh.  She might have been a pirate, but now she's a pirate without a ship, so worrying about drowning isn't really a valid concern.

If her ship went down, so did likely all her possession except what she was wearing at the time. So what she's wearing migth not only be what's practical on a ship but also the sum total of everything she owns.

[Matchy Pointy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Matchy Pointy wrote...

One thing that would make me react would be if they put Isabela in bulky, heavy armor. What pirate would willingly wear something that would amake them drown som uch easier if they fell overboard?

These arguments always make me laugh.  She might have been a pirate, but now she's a pirate without a ship, so worrying about drowning isn't really a valid concern. 

Ryzaki wrote...

Like that gold around her neck?

I imagine it's pretty easy to take off a bunch of necklaces before you hit the bottom of the ocean, not so much a suit of armor.

Well, the way I see it, a pirate without a ship is still a pirate, and if I have a pirate as a companion, she might as well look like one . When it comes to warriors though, they should have a bit more practical armour, though that don't mean it can't look a bit like a fantasy armour, I'm all for looking cool

[upsettingshorts]

Sir JK wrote...

If her ship went down, so did likely all her possession except what she was wearing at the time. So what she's wearing migth not only be what's practical on a ship but also the sum total of everything she owns.

That assumes she didn't also have a house somewhere.  Or any other property where she could have stored things.  Or didn't steal some stuff off of clothes hangers.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 novembre 2010 - 07:23 .

[Ryzaki]

Upsettingshorts wrote...


I imagine it's pretty easy to take off a bunch of necklaces before you hit the bottom of the ocean, not so much a suit of armor.

Ah true but why like the armor wear it in the first place? It's a needless hinderance and adds weight that she aparently doesn't need because her dodging skillz are so grand.

And that all depends on how easy the necklace is to get off in the first place. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to be fumbling with an extremely heavy gold necklace when I fall overboard.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 novembre 2010 - 07:24 .

[upsettingshorts]

Ryzaki wrote...

Ah true but why like the armor wear it in the first place? It's a needless hinderance and adds weight that she aparently doesn't need because her dodging skillz are so grand.

Because she thinks they look pretty?  Since when do women have to dress sensibly? How many pairs of shoes that serve precisely the same utilitarian purpose do they own?  Isabela, indulging? You don't say!

I'm not going to argue about the logic of her "dodging" versus the logic of protection, I've already dismissed the notion of appealing to logic with regards to fixed outfits and I'm not going to go down that path.  It leads to nowhere.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 novembre 2010 - 07:26 .

[Sir JK]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

That assumes she didn't also have a house somewhere.  Or any other property where she could have stored things.  Or didn't steal some stuff off of clothes hangers.

Nope it just assumes that somewhere is nowehere nearby. She could very well have a house in Rivain, Llelwyn (or whatever that island is called) or Antiva. Isn't going to help much in Kirkwall I think.

But yes, it does as you say assume she didn't steal anything of a clothes hanger.

On the other hand... she might be looking for a new ship to get out of there. Looking like a sailor will kind of help with that (because the crew of other ships might try to recruit you if you do look like one).

[Ryzaki]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Ah true but why like the armor wear it in the first place? It's a needless hinderance and adds weight that she aparently doesn't need because her dodging skillz are so grand.

Because she thinks they look pretty?  Since when do women have to dress sensibly? How many pairs of shoes that serve precisely the same utilitarian purpose do they own?  Isabela, indulging? You don't say!

I'm not going to argue about the logic of her "dodging" versus the logic of protection, I've already dismissed the notion of appealing to logic with regards to fixed outfits and I'm not going to go down that path.  It leads to nowhere.

There's a difference between indulging and that giantmass of gold she has around her neck. It's not the least bit attractive and frankly looks gaudy.

I expect someone who claims to rely on "quickness and wit" to dress sensibly. But that's my fault for assuming the woman to be clever. :innocent:

I never brought that up. Just the fact that heap on her neck isn't helping her mad dodging skillz.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 novembre 2010 - 07:28 .

[chunkyman]

Kroaks wrote...

chunkyman wrote...

I know that enchantments could be a reasonable explanation for a lack of armor. However, I still find it silly that Isabela wouldn't wear armor (or pants). Suspension of Disbelief only goes so far. Some people seem to be thinking that realistic and logical are the same thing. I don't want a game that follows the real world functionality and availability of real armor and weapons, but I do want the game and the characters in it to operate in a fairly believable way. If i were dropped into the Dragon Age universe, I wouldn't find it illogical for women fighters (fighters who are of the female sex, not wife beaters!) to walk around looking like eye-candy. It just seems so corny to me, because it seems like sex appeal would be the last thing an experienced swashbuckler would consider in their clothing choice. In order to make a game practical from a developmental and fun point of view, it's made so the player has to suspend their disbelief for things like potion-chugging or not being permanently maimed after being hit with a maul. These kind of things are acceptable because our immersion into the game usually isn't broken. This is okay because the game wouldn't be fun without reasonable deviations from our reality. Some things (at least for me) break immersion because it's incompatible with what makes sense according to that universe. I think there is a distinction between creating different realities and creating illogical situations. Many great movies and books have unrealistic scenarios and premises, but they usually have internal consistency and verisimilitude that allows you to accept it as reasonable. A lot of you accept armor-less fighting as reasonable, but I find it to be overly absurd. I don't care that much about armor, and I know I'll love DA2, but I would prefer characters to wear a bit more armor so I don't have to ignore what I (and others) find to be a silly outfit. 

The silly outfits in some  games have always annoyed me.

Yeah but like you pointed out; she's a pirate and pirates never were big on wearing armor, even in the real world.

Good point, but she apparently stops being a pirate (or whatever she is) while in Kirkwall, so I would think that she would get regular "land-lubber" gear when she isn't on a boat.

[Matchy Pointy]

As for the whole Isabela wearing no pans thing, many cultures in history have gone without pants (though they mostly wore togas is true )

[Aermas]

Sir JK wrote...

Actually Aermas, maille and plate turns swords from cutting weapons to ineffetice clubs. But they're still more than capable of causing internal hemorraging (bleeding) and fractures. They can't cut through you however and a broken arm is certainly better than a severed one. But either way you won't be able to use it any more that fight.

While sensationalist tv and under optimal expermental conditions this youtube clip neatly demonstrates what I mean. Rest assured a sword can most certainly achieve the same thing. Maces, warhammers, pollaxes and similar are designed to cause just that as well.

That's why you keep moving. Never let the enemy fight on his terms or even hit you. Don't take any chances if you can. Regardless of what you're wearing.

As for moving: Constantly moving is key. Combat is always shifting and ther's no such thing as a better tactical location. You're going to constantly keep me from attacking, so I must move to make sure you don't know from where I'll attack. I must also keep moving to prevent you from seeing the weaknesses in my defence. Just like in modern boxing and martial arts... footwork is key.
If you're just standing there and waiting for me... that means I can get to attack you the way I want to. Not the way you want me to. Even if you have good defence, you want me to attack you in a manner you decide. Don't ever let me choose. A bit of bad luck and I'll have chosen something you didn't think of... and acted faster than you could adapt.

True. the Brigandine does vary a lot. The lightest are contemtory to plate (figures really, why try to do the same thing when plate does it better) the heaviest predates it. Still, it's not an insignificant weight to carry. It's not something you'll want to carry on the morning stroll exactly

EDIT: Nice pictures of harnesses by the way

To the first part, I thought that was the whole point of my post. Having armor negates the effects of an enemy's strikes 
As for the latter, I was talking about fighting defensively, you can spend all the energy you want running around me when all I have to do is turn or shift my weight. Think of one circle within another, it takes more time/energy to move around the outer circle than the inner circle.


If I was fighting aggressively I would just press the attack & make you move to wherever I wanted by forcing you to dodge & give ground.

Also the way you swing your sword is more important than where you are or where you are facing when you swing.  Manipulating where they think I am going to strike & fooling them into giving me the opening is better than moving around a lot until I am finally able to strike. The more you move the more open you are & the more energy you exert.

[Aermas]

Matchy Pointy wrote...

One thing that would make me react would be if they put Isabela in bulky, heavy armor. What pirate would willingly wear something that would amake them drown som uch easier if they fell overboard?

Newsflash! Pirates & sailors could rarely swim!
& If she would wear leather armor she could take it off easier or swim in it if she had the ability to swim
Also, plate armor is not bulky.

[Sir JK]

The most prevalent of those "cultures" being sailors worldwide... seriously. At sea in a boat that's constantly washed over by waves and where the wind is carrying an aerosol cloth gets wet quickly. You'll be wanting to wear as little as possible. Having boots instead of pants mean that she can take those off when on a boat. Very practical.

Also, fun trivia: Pants is a arab concept, before the crusades noone in europe wore pants. But leggings (often separate things for each leg).

EDIT Also: the no swimming thing is a myth coming from the British navy who had it as a common practise to "Shanghai" random people to serve on their ships. Most professional sailors could swim and swim well.

Modifié par Sir JK, 29 novembre 2010 - 07:49 .

[Aermas]

Obvious Troll is obvious. Please GTFO.

[Matchy Pointy]

Aermas wrote...

Matchy Pointy wrote...

One thing that would make me react would be if they put Isabela in bulky, heavy armor. What pirate would willingly wear something that would amake them drown som uch easier if they fell overboard?

Newsflash! Pirates & sailors could rarely swim!
& If she would wear leather armor she could take it off easier or swim in it if she had the ability to swim
Also, plate armor is not bulky.

I know plate armour is way easier to move in then many think, it's still not something pirate would wear though, and not something any sane person would wear when sailing as a living, seeing that even if you can't swim and just float, doing so wearing plate armour would ensure you died way faster then if wearing clothes, there is a reason sailors don't wear platemail for a uniform.

[Sir JK]

Aermas wrote...

To the first part, I thought that was the whole point of my post. Having armor negates the effects of an enemy's strikes

Diminishes, not negates. If I manage to hit you then it is going to hurt. No matter what you're wearing.

As for the latter, I was talking about fighting defensively, you can spend all the energy you want running around me when all I have to do is turn or shift my weight. Think of one circle within another, it takes more time/energy to move around the outer circle than the inner circle.
 
*pic*

Ooh, nice picture. It's not quite so easily though. There's a lot I as a attacker could do to lodge you out of that nice little circle... or for that matter I could trick you into thinking that I'm circling to the left when the next step I'm going to do is press forward. If I succeed then you'll be preparing to face the left and be completely taken by surprise when I'm coming from the front.

If I was fighting aggressively I would just press the attack & make you move to wherever I wanted by forcing you to dodge & give ground.

Unless I as a defender manage to sidestep you and strike you from the side and take up the offene myself. Fights are dynamic things. One can go from full offense to full defence in a split second.

Also the way you swing your sword is more important than where you are or where you are facing when you swing.  Manipulating where they think I am going to strike & fooling them into giving me the opening is better than moving around a lot until I am finally able to strike. The more you move the more open you are & the more energy you exert.

That's the entire point with moving around Aermas. To make you think I'm going to come from the wrong direction so you face the wrong side and I'm not. Since both of us will be doing that to each others... we'll both be moving.

But I suppose I'll concede that in some techniques you are right and in some I am. It depends on who you face and how you fight. There are no correct answers beyond if it works or not. If it did work is was the correct move. If not try another one.

[Aermas]

 The whole point I am trying to make Sir JK is that while you have to side step & charge, all I have to do is rotate a few degrees.
Matchy Pointy. Give me a bit to find some pics of sailors/pirates in armor that I have already posted on these forums, but I can assure you that yes, pirates & sailors wore armor. (& pants)
& to tide you over look at this pic of some light weight Brigandine

[Ulicus]

Ryzaki wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Ah true but why like the armor wear it in the first place? It's a needless hinderance and adds weight that she aparently doesn't need because her dodging skillz are so grand.

Because she thinks they look pretty?  Since when do women have to dress sensibly? How many pairs of shoes that serve precisely the same utilitarian purpose do they own?  Isabela, indulging? You don't say!

I'm not going to argue about the logic of her "dodging" versus the logic of protection, I've already dismissed the notion of appealing to logic with regards to fixed outfits and I'm not going to go down that path.  It leads to nowhere.

There's a difference between indulging and that giantmass of gold she has around her neck. It's not the least bit attractive and frankly looks gaudy.

I expect someone who claims to rely on "quickness and wit" to dress sensibly. But that's my fault for assuming the woman to be clever. :innocent:

I never brought that up. Just the fact that heap on her neck isn't helping her mad dodging skillz.

Oh, dearie me. We've already covered this:

Ten hours ago, in this very thread, Ulicus wrote:
----
Besides, how do we know that Isabela's pretty necklace isn't enchanted?

I'm just' saying. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png

Hawke: Izzy, why don't you strap on some armour, already.
Isabela: Don't need it, kitten.
Hawke: Eh?
Isabela: *points to chest* Enchantment.
Hawke: Well, sure, I can see how they might distract your foes, but -
Isabela: *ahem* The necklace is enchanted. Heavily enchanted. Wards me from incoming blows better than any leathers. And it's pretty.
---
Until I find out for certainz that she isn't wearing magic wotsits, I'm not going to get up in arms.

Modifié par Ulicus, 29 novembre 2010 - 08:09 .

[Sir JK]

I know Aermas. My counter is that all I have to do is make you think you need to rotate a few degrees to counter me. That way I will have an advantage. Or you can make me think you're about to rotate those degrees and thus have me just where you want me... Or I can make you think that I think you're about to rotate when I'm really expecting you not to... Ugh... this is giving me a headache... anyways point is: the footwork involved is usually a lot of mindgames. It is from how your opponent position their feet you predict what they're going to do next.

Either way... you'll probably not get more than half a second to figure out if I am sidestepping or not.



Nice picture of a brigandine by the way.

[Matchy Pointy]

Many have worn pants in history, and I imagine atleast as many have not done so. You should try to persuade the Romans about the value of a good pair of pants, seeing as they did quite well without them. Pants are mainly a cultural thing, and in no way better or worse then other posible ways to clothe yourself, and men or women going without pants is nothing weird. The same can much be said about the armour question, lots and lots examples of people going into combat with little/no armour, for all kinds of different reasons (not saying it's always the most effective way, but it's a way that have been used non the less).

*edited for sloppy spelling, bad me.

Modifié par Matchy Pointy, 29 novembre 2010 - 08:16 .

[Aermas]

 Fifteen pages back I found them!
[img]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:GSHv8yw6h3VcnM:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/MorganMadding/DSCF5797.jpg&t=1[/img][img]http://top-10-list.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Pirates-of-the-Caribbean-At-Worlds-End.jpg[/img]

[Matchy Pointy]

That's light armour, my argument was for platemail, nice pics though (even that Pirates of the Carribean one). That being said though, for every one of a pirate with armour, you can find one with a pirate without armour, seing as there were no dress uniform for them, they dressed as they wished (or as their captain wished for some I imagine).