513 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexanderCousland]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

And FYI most women don't like being objectified and seen sorely as sex objects ethier.

Tough. Most Men don't like the social pressure to live up to Archtypes of themselves. No one group has it easy.

[Shadow Fox]

frankf43 wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

frankf43 wrote...

Rogue armor was never about ac and more about defence. The whole idea of a rogue is to not stand in the way of the pointy sharp sword.

Still Rogue Armor in DA is stupid from a realistic standpoint and in order for Rogues to avoid sword strikes in DA they have to have inhuman reflexes.*blocking arrows with daggers*

If you look at history armor died out long before the use of melee weapons did. When it came down to it a faster fighter with a smaller more nimble sword would beat someone wearing 20lbs of armor and carrying a two handed sword 90 times out of 100.

When the technology came around to make strong thin blades armor became a thing of the past.

Metal armor did some varients of leather and chainmail still existed just worn as a vest under a coat usually.

[mickey111]

[quote]Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

[quote]mickey111 wrote...

[quote]Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

[quote]mickey111 wrote...

[quote]Giantdeathrobot wrote...

[quote]Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...


[/quote]Forsworn,Falmer and Saviour's Hide armor would like to have a word with you:P also both types of armor are capable through Smithing and Enchanting of reaching the Armor Cap.
[/quote]

Yeah well they were also skimpy on men. What I don't like is men wearing 100 pounds of steel and women looking like prostitutes on a battlefield.


[/quote]

Well duh obviously wearing skimpy outfits that makes them dirty, sinful skanky ****s by default! If they had any decency they'd not show a single speck of skin, and be wrapped up like an egyption with only a narrow eye slit for them to peep through!


[/quote]Wow overreaction much?
[/quote]

If you really need me to spell it out for you, giantdeathrobots way of thinking has some rather... nasty implications, if you think about it. But that's a whole other discussion for another topic. Suffice to say, women don't like to be judged based on how much skin they decide to show

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut_walk
The kind of attitude I respnded to is something that I feel needs to change, so I speak up about it when I can. I hope that my sarcasm came through clearly enough?
[/quote]His post  simply said he doesn't like it when full plate magically becomes lingerie on females so yes you are overreacting,being a dick and picking a fight for no reason.


[/quote]
Do I really need to highlight the exact part of the comment that bothed me to start this conversation? hint: the phrasing did not include the word "lingerie".

Modifié par mickey111, 12 octobre 2013 - 08:39 .

[giveamanafish...]

Addressing two old points:

1) Iron swords. Yes there were iron swords, but they were awful bendy. Bronze swords were more durable in the heat of battle, however they could not take an edge. Iron sword: --/-~~~. As I understand it iron as a basis for blades did not overtake bronze until people developed the higher forge temperatures needed to reform the iron into steel.

2) Katanas: I actually pointed out the basis of the superiority of the katana and it had nothing to do with mystic qualities,. Laminated construction (mild steel core, med. steel backing, hi-carbon or hardened steel edge). Curve form: allowed concentrated blows. Differential tempering: the penultimate step in making a katana involved encasing it in different layers of mud and the like before reheating the blade and quenching it. This gave differing levels of hardness,. strength and flexibility to the blade where it was needed . WHAT I FAILED TO STATE WAS HOW DEPENDENT THIS WAS ON THE TIME AND EFFORT PUT INT0 THE BLADE BY THE CRAFTSMAN, HOW THIS DEPENDED IN THE HI LEVELS OF INEQUALITY IN JPNESE FEUDAL SOCIETY AND THAT THE QUALITY OF A BLADE WOULD DEPEND ON FOR WHOM THE BLADE WAS MADE. Now you know.

3) Mickey111. You know the ****walk thing is a call back to the 80s when studies showed that it was extremely difficult for authorities to prosecute a rape case even with physical evidence, where the victim was a prostitute or a 'woman of loose morals'. In Canada we have what are called the "Rape Shield Laws" as a response to that.

4) People have left out mages in discussing the armour issue. Agro, this weird convention based I guess on old board RPGs, used as a substitute for actual tactics.
"Hey sword person (or worst yet archer), don't attack the most dangerous person or the only healer in my party who hasn't had time to change out of his or her bathrobes and so is physically vulnerable! Attack me because....well because I'm taunting you."
"Okay".

Sure in the heat of battle people might get distracted by someone yelling at them. But surely the enemy has to have someone smart enough to tell his crew. "Ignore the tank, keep her occupied! Kill that effing mage, turn him into a arrow cushion. Make him bleed from every pore. And so on!" 
You shouldn't be able to count on the stupidity of your enemies. Mages have to be able to withstand melee and ranged attacks.

Modifié par ismoketoomuch, 12 octobre 2013 - 09:07 .

[Shadow Fox]

[quote]mickey111 wrote...

[quote]Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

[quote]mickey111 wrote...

[quote]Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

[quote]mickey111 wrote...

[quote]Giantdeathrobot wrote...

[quote]Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...


[/quote]Forsworn,Falmer and Saviour's Hide armor would like to have a word with you:P also both types of armor are capable through Smithing and Enchanting of reaching the Armor Cap.
[/quote]

Yeah well they were also skimpy on men. What I don't like is men wearing 100 pounds of steel and women looking like prostitutes on a battlefield.


[/quote]

Well duh obviously wearing skimpy outfits that makes them dirty, sinful skanky ****s by default! If they had any decency they'd not show a single speck of skin, and be wrapped up like an egyption with only a narrow eye slit for them to peep through!


[/quote]Wow overreaction much?
[/quote]

If you really need me to spell it out for you, giantdeathrobots way of thinking has some rather... nasty implications, if you think about it. But that's a whole other discussion for another topic. Suffice to say, women don't like to be judged based on how much skin they decide to show

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut_walk
The kind of attitude I respnded to is something that I feel needs to change, so I speak up about it when I can. I hope that my sarcasm came through clearly enough?
[/quote]His post  simply said he doesn't like it when full plate magically becomes lingerie on females so yes you are overreacting,being a dick and picking a fight for no reason.


[/quote]
Do I really need to highlight the exact part of the comment that bothed me to start this conversation? hint: the phrasing did not include the word "lingerie".


[/quote]Tell me what are prostitutes usually depicted wearing in media and why are they depicted this way?

[mickey111]

Were swords ever a part of the mainstream? seems to me that they'd be more like something that soldiers put on their "I wish I had a unicorn" list of fantasies than a thing that's worth equipping an army with. Seems like it involves a lot more than just sharpening a stick to shoot from a bow, plus spears are mostly wood, possibly with a sharp metal tip for stabbing and there is a lot more availability and less time involved compared to smithing a steel sword.

[frankf43]

mickey111 wrote...

Were swords ever a part of the mainstream? seems to me that they'd be more like something that soldiers put on their "I wish I had a unicorn" list of fantasies than a thing that's worth equipping an army with. Seems like it involves a lot more than just sharpening a stick to shoot from a bow, plus spears are mostly wood, possibly with a sharp metal tip for stabbing and there is a lot more availability and less time involved compared to smithing a steel sword.

The Roman Empire was built on the use of swords. They used to stand in columns with their shields up waiting for an opening in the enemies guard then stab through with their Gladius.  Then wait back behind the cover of the shield wall for the next opening.

[mickey111]

Tell me what are prostitutes usually depicted wearing in media and why are they depicted this way?

To cause sexual thoughts. If you read the wiki article you'd know I started this over the whole "rape culture thing". I'm talking about the choices people make, and the person I replied to chose to jump to a fairly offensive conclusion, one shifts the blame towards women who are "asking for it" by choosing to show skin. This arguement should have died an hour ago.

/end conversation

Modifié par mickey111, 12 octobre 2013 - 09:13 .

[Shadow Fox]

mickey111 wrote...

Tell me what are prostitutes usually depicted wearing in media and why are they depicted this way?

To cause sexual thoughts. If you read the wiki article you'd know I started this over the whole "rape culture thing". I'm talking about the choices people make, and the person I replied to chose to jump to a fairly offensive conclusion, one shifts the blame towards women who are "asking for it" by choosing to show skin. This arguement should have died an hour ago.

/end conversation

No he was asking for female armor  not to be over sexualized compared to male armor a fair request there was no "**** shaming" outside your head.And it would have had you simply admited you overreacted and took a post out of context instead of continuing to be a self righteous dick looking to start a fight.

/end converstion.

Modifié par Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke, 12 octobre 2013 - 09:32 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

frankf43 wrote..
If you look at history armor died out long before the use of melee weapons did. When it came down to it a faster fighter with a smaller more nimble sword would beat someone wearing 20lbs of armor and carrying a two handed sword 90 times out of 100.

When the technology came around to make strong thin blades armor became a thing of the past.

Way praytell hast thou aquired that knowledge sir?
Thou art speaking out of yon hind quarters.


Go in leather, I'll take field plate. Then let us fight.
The only way you'll survive is if I'm horribly incompetent or unlucky.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 12 octobre 2013 - 10:41 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

In general I'd agree however I do think Elven and Dragonscale armors should offer more protection then Steel for example.

I'd actually make dragonscale crap.
Because all the dragon-X overuse makes me want to kill every single dragon that ever existed, exists or will exist just so that I never have to read the word dragon or see a dragon again.

[Shadow Fox]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

In general I'd agree however I do think Elven and Dragonscale armors should offer more protection then Steel for example.

I'd actually make dragonscale crap.
Because all the dragon-X overuse makes me want to kill every single dragon that ever existed, exists or will exist just so that I never have to read the word dragon or see a dragon again.

*shrugs*Haters Gonna Hate!...*feeds crazy Templars and crazy Mages to High Dragon*

[Giantdeathrobot]

mickey111 wrote...



If you really need me to spell it out for you, giantdeathrobots way of thinking has some rather... nasty implications, if you think about it. But that's a whole other discussion for another topic. Suffice to say, women don't like to be judged based on how much skin they decide to show

Yes, yes, I'm a hardcore mysogynist for thinking a women that goes to battle with a metal bra and thong looks more like a sex worker/porn star rather than a warrior, and was designed by a team of (male) artists solely for the titillation of a certain sort of guys. Heard that one a hundred times.

Frack's sake I'm not judging the pixelated character in the game. That would be ridiculous. I'm judging the people who designed the character. I'm for gender equality; if both men and women run around half-naked and seductive, fine, then it falls under artistic licence. If women are sexualized like crazy yet men are burly, badass types clad from head to toe in all sorts of scary-looking armor, then I call bull**** and objectivization. Bioware isin't there yet... but women are still more sexualized in their games than men. And they're still much less bad at this than most of the industry.

EDIT: also, to whoever said metal armor died down before melee weapons, uhhh. no? Both died down when guns and artillery became powerful and accurate enough to grind any other weapon into the dust at range. The only ones who still used melee weapon (save for the bayonets) were the specialized cavalry of some nations, and many still had armor, like Napoleon's cuirassiers.

Melee weapons do predate armor, as until the Greco-Roman era a soldier's armor was usually his shield and perhaps padded cloth or simple leather. The Greeks used leather and metal, the Roman used metal quite extensively, and the Gauls who could afford it used chainmail. Those who couldn't didn't wear much since, against a gladius or a javelin, cloth won't help much. And everyone always wore a helmet. And that was in the Ancient era. During the medieval period, which Dragon Age is inspired from, armor was even more important, a knight in full plate would mop the floor with any idiot trying to fight him one on one clad in leather or cloth unless there was a dramatic difference in skill, and since knights were far more skilled at war than anybody else it just didn't happen. No matter how agile you are, if your enemy can strike you anywhere yet you can only hit his weak points, he's got you at a solid dissadvantage. Melee Rogues as we see them in Dragon Age (and elsewhere) weren't a proper fighting style on a battlefield, but for the sake of variety we accept them in video games.

Modifié par Giantdeathrobot, 13 octobre 2013 - 12:18 .

[Psearo]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

frankf43 wrote..
If you look at history armor died out long before the use of melee weapons did. When it came down to it a faster fighter with a smaller more nimble sword would beat someone wearing 20lbs of armor and carrying a two handed sword 90 times out of 100.

When the technology came around to make strong thin blades armor became a thing of the past.

Way praytell hast thou aquired that knowledge sir?
Thou art speaking out of yon hind quarters.


Go in leather, I'll take field plate. Then let us fight.
The only way you'll survive is if I'm horribly incompetent or unlucky.

What if he's better with a sword than you are?
What kind of weapons will be used?
When you say field plate, do you mean what knights and nobles would wear, or armoured infantry?

Nimble, energetic and good reflexes and accuracy beats slower "lumbering" power reliance.
That goes for both in and out of metal armour, depending on the design of said armour. If it was one that allowed for a decent range of movement and speed, it's obviously sacrificing protection to favour offensive capability. Also take into account the helmet and any visor it may have - how much does it obscure vision and the head's range of movement.

Ultimately the use of full plate armour was never wide spread. Each suit had to be tailor made to the wearer according to role and need, and most importantly factored against cost. That's why you had to be very wealthy to go around in full plate.
If you weren't of a "noble" house or bloodline and/or weren't wealthy, you had to settle for far less protection in your from your armour in the field. Not to mention this was often inferior and heavier armour than the best quality/higher costing armour.

What really lead to the decline of suits of armour, was firearms.
As better and more powerful firearms came to be, body armour became less and less prevelant. The cost and weight of fielding armour that could resist firearms kept rising along with the lethal potential of firearms, making such armour that could withstand firearms more implausible.


On the subject of OTT weapons and armour, I honestly felt that DA:O/A had the more OTT armours (especially the massive sets), while DA2 had the more ridiculously scaled weapons.
The armour worn by Kirkwall's city guards and the Templars looked more believable (read: more sensibly scaled to bodies) than the heaviest armours from DA:O/A, with the exception of armours using the Dwarven Massive Armour template, like the Blood Dragon armour or Armour of The Legion.

[TheFinalDoctor]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

In general I'd agree however I do think Elven and Dragonscale armors should offer more protection then Steel for example.

I'd actually make dragonscale crap.
Because all the dragon-X overuse makes me want to kill every single dragon that ever existed, exists or will exist just so that I never have to read the word dragon or see a dragon again.

Well, the name of the series is Dragon Age, so I think you might have a hard time of that.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Psearo wrote...
Nimble, energetic and good reflexes and accuracy beats slower "lumbering" power reliance.[/quote]

* implies field plate is "slow and lumbering"

* proves he doesn't know what he'stalking about


[quote]
Ultimately the use of full plate armour was never wide spread. Each suit had to be tailor made to the wearer according to role and need, and most importantly factored against cost. That's why you had to be very wealthy to go around in full plate.[/qutoe]

And the very fact that anyone who could afford it, used it, proves how effective it was.

[Psearo]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Psearo wrote...
Nimble, energetic and good reflexes and accuracy beats slower "lumbering" power reliance.

* implies field plate is "slow and lumbering"

* proves he doesn't know what he'stalking about

Your reading skills leave a lot to be desired. Don't cherry pick.
The paragraph is relevant to the first line, and changes its context from a simple view of "field plate is slow and lumbering" to "it's about the wearer and the quality of the armour". A full suit of plate amour was around 20 - 25kg, lighter than all the gear and apparatus firemen have to wear when going inside a burning building.

Modifié par Psearo, 13 octobre 2013 - 01:05 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

My apologies then.

[Fardreamer]

This is why need sexy armor.

[MissCurlsbel]

You know this is quite an interesting question.

I am currently working on that shield I mentioned on the "Next Info Dump" thread and was a bit worried about the design and if I mean for the shield to actually be usable or just for heraldic decoration. I am trying to make it viably usable in a way but I might add more to it if I wanted to make it for decoration purposes (I'm a sucker for stone sculpting, you see).

Taking into account the artstyle for Dragon Age, I'd say that a little exageration is often applied to their art work. Take the characters for example: You would never see many people who actually look like that (besides the characters based on real life personalities like Talis who in my opinion really stood out as different in comparison to others in-game), you are able to look at something with Dragon Age's art style and be able to point out straight away where the art style is based on without anyone ever telling you.

This is a fantasy game afterall, not reality. And Bioware has found a wonderful balance between the two styles.

[Boycott Bioware]

I don't see the balances, it is over exaggerated.

Who wear armor like Hawke Champion armor in Thedas?

No one, only Hawke wear that kind of armor

[bEVEsthda]

ismoketoomuch wrote...
I agree with almost all of your points. However, Quistina is probably correct on the point that the European swords was most useful as a thrusting, penetrating weapon against any kind of armour as opposed to be used for slashing. Check out this comparison between a Katana and a European longsword:
 
6:14 on for a comparison of use against plate armor. Although the katana, with its layered composition, curved form and differential tempering is a superior weapon in all regards, the longsword is not able to penetrate the armor except via thrusting.

Thrusting penetrating.

That video is a falsification. Entirely.

That's a katana copy made from modern steel stock. And the longsword is too. So there's no differense in them, other than how much they've been sharpened and in how deliberately he uses them. So he cheats. And the armor is modern mild steel plate, quite thin, it seems.

And trust me, a longsword has much better thrusting penetration than a katana, - and a katana can't be used against plate armor. It's all in the effort, and the backing material of the 'armor', and where that cheat aims his strikes.

A genuine, classic katana will bend, and stay permanently bent, needing straightening, if carelessly used, like stabbing at hard armor.
It also has a hard edge, which will chip, if carelessly used, in particular against hard things.
The samurais needed to be very particular about how they used their swords.

As for the construction, the japanese swords are not made to any uniform formula or method. This is commonly believed, but is false. The methods differed through times and with different smiths. One of the interesting observations is that the last, and possibly best, japanese swords were made with much the same construction methods as the early western swords. That is -  hard edge(s) welded into a milder blade. If you commission a 'genuine' samurai sword today, from a japanese smith who is the real deal, that is what you'll get. (and it will be ridiculously expensive and the smith likely won't accept you for customer, but that is another thing).

That is not to say that they weren't better constructed. They were, ... at times (there was a lot of rubbish blades made too). They were perfectly polished. And they were much sharper, because they tolerated their edges to be harder (and more brittle) and sharpened them more carefully.

But all the craftsmanship of constructing blades from different steels were means to compensate for the shortcomings of partially hardened steel. This is the typical blacksmith (even today) way of hardening steel. In order for the steel to not crack and split like ceramics or glass, the hardening process is interrupted and/or heating is not sufficient.
But around 1400, tempering processes which made it possible to completely harden steel, throughout, and yet make it tough, springy and almost unbreakable, were discovered in Europe. The japanese never did.

[AresKeith]

Fardreamer wrote...

This is why need sexy armor.

No, that's why we don't need armor like that

[DarthSideus2]

AresKeith wrote...

Fardreamer wrote...

This is why need sexy armor.

No, that's why we don't need armor like that

No, This is why we DO need armor like that.

[bEVEsthda]

frankf43 wrote...
If you look at history armor died out long before the use of melee weapons did. When it came down to it a faster fighter with a smaller more nimble sword would beat someone wearing 20lbs of armor and carrying a two handed sword 90 times out of 100.

Armor didn't disappear because it was defeated by any weapon. Not even firearms. It disappeared because social changes meant armies were becoming bigger. He who mobilized the biggest army won. Put pikes in their hands, organize them and back them with artillery. Personal armor became a less efficient use of money.

Today, western soldiers are costly again, just like the knight and the old mercenary, so armor is back in. It really is that simple. Armor is always good if it makes economic sense. It's never been useless.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 20 octobre 2013 - 08:03 .