Thanks for change to light armour!

[Vayne.8563]

I think it's a good change.  It doesn't matter that I have no problem with skimpy outfits on woman, nor does my wife. What matters is a percentage of people might feel uncomfortable and if it's their first exposure to the game, I'd rather have them comfortable. There are tons of reasons to leave an MMO and not feeling like you can connect to your character, for a lot of people, is one of them.  I doubt people would fell uncomfortable if they dont' start in skimpy armor, so this change is good for the game. I'm fine with it. 

Honestly, the skimpier armor looks like higher level armor anyway. 

[Kurrilino.2706]

On 12/17/2021 at 5:28 AM, Mungrul.9358 said:

Much like people who have anime girls as their avatars, I find it's generally wise to ignore and discount the opinion of anyone who uses the word "woke" as a derogatory term.

These are just a couple of my personal rules for using the internet.

 

While i completely agree with the degoratory woke folks, why do we ignore now people with anime girls as their avatars?

[Rasimir.6239]

6 minutes ago, Gibson.4036 said:

And, for what it's worth, she's only recently got into combat. For the last three years she's played the game mostly exploring the main cities and running around the world collecting ranger pets.

Sounds familiar to me 😂. When my youngest was little, she enjoyed GW2 the most when I let her pick out new outfits and hairstyles for my characters. I remember a time (I think she may have been around 10) when she wanted to go out into the Caledon Forest. She asked me to be her bodyguard because she refused to fight, and she used a quaggan tonic on her character because she felt like that made her seem harmless and the mobs would have less reason to attack her 😉.

 

We never had the light armor problem since she only plays asura, but she did scold me one time I made a new Norn thief and had the poor girl run through the Hoelbrak snow in sneakthief armor 🤣.

[Artemis.8034]

You mean they took out the frilly set for starter gear! What did they replace it with a nuns habit or a potato sack?

[Artemis.8034]

On 12/17/2021 at 10:30 AM, Gibson.4036 said:

Well, it'll save my family the little grimace we all share when my daughter creates another new light armor character. Yeah, she quickly replaces it, but she doesn't feel comfortable with her character wearing it, so it's a little awkward moment after character creation.

The game is rated teen and up, I dont want anet to start changing the game based on child players. Im sorry but my little cousins barbie dolls have skimpier outfits. Not to mention the game is about killing, maybe a better choice would be a game for her that isnt so mature.

[Gibson.4036]

9 minutes ago, Artemis.8034 said:

The game is rated teen and up, I dont want anet to start changing the game based on child players. Im sorry but my little cousins barbie dolls have skimpier outfits. Not to mention the game is about killing, maybe a better choice would be a game for her that isnt so mature.

Hey, I didn't ask for any outfits to be removed, and didn't even ask for this change. I'm not sure why it's so upsetting to you. The armor is still easily available if you want it.

A quick look at things released in the past few years demonstrate clearly that ANet isn't trying to shift the game. If anything, they are making more outfits that show skin. My guess is that they made this to make the game a little more immediately palatable for some other cultures they'd like to gain audience in.

[Rogue.8235]

7 hours ago, Rasimir.6239 said:

When my youngest was little, she enjoyed GW2 the most when I let her pick out new outfits and hairstyles for my characters. I remember a time (I think she may have been around 10) when she wanted to go out into the Caledon Forest. She asked me to be her bodyguard because she refused to fight, and she used a quaggan tonic on her character because she felt like that made her seem harmless and the mobs would have less reason to attack her 😉.

This is the most adorable thing I have ever read on the forums.

On 12/17/2021 at 1:46 PM, Gibson.4036 said:

Yeah, there was totally work arounds. Small thing, I've never complained about it, but this new change does make a difference to someone. And doesn't hurt anyone else.

(emphasis added).  Because I really want to emphasize this.  This causes no harm at all.  Complaints about it are merely complaints for the sake of complaining as there is no logical basis for said complaints.

 

[Lotus.8574]

What was the reason for the change?  it is  a very American thing to do in 2021.

[TheQuickFox.3826]

At least the males get to use some skimpy armor and outfit choices in the recent years. For many years this was almost a female-only thing.

[Kathkere.3068]

I can certainly understand the perspective of how "this is a trend" if we're looking at the industry as a whole. I find it extremely silly that Blizzard felt the need to cover up Jaina's portrait in Hearthstone, and I actually think that that sort of retroactive "fixing" sends the wrong message.

With that said, I've never really been a fan of overly skimpy outfits in roleplaying games. If I play a warrior I want them to look the part regardless of gender. My female warriors don't need to have an exposed abdomen and cleavage. I've always viewed that as something immersion breaking. For medium armor and light armor I'm more forgiving, and as a fashion choice I think an exposed midrift can look quite cool! But Guild Wars 2 does go a bit overboard, or perhaps take too many creative liberties with certain outfits. Many outfits, I feel, are completely ruined for female characters due to "over-skimpification" (example: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Sneakthief_armor).

So all-in-all, I much approve of the changes to the starting armor for light armor users.

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

I don't know... I'm not sure if it is a good idea to curb the out-the-gate sex appeal...

[Firefox.2348]

I'm a girl and love skimpy armor. I will never quite understand those who get offended by pixels or feel 'uncomfortable' enough by some skin as expressed by some people in this thread. 

 

But am I the only one like this who's glad it got changed? I always thought that starter armor was ugly asf circus armor. Not because, "Oh nooo female body is covered in skin gotta cover her up!" If you feel that way, how about you stop sexualizing women so much in your head that showing skin in a video game sets you off. What if it was a girl showing as much skin in real life? Telling her to cover up for showing her legs/ankles would be a disgusting thing to do. I swear its almost like people who complain about skimpy armor don't realize that a woman could like/prefer it too.

[The Greyhawk.9107]

5 minutes ago, Jools.6293 said:

I'm a girl and love skimpy armor. I will never quite understand those who get offended by pixels or feel 'uncomfortable' enough by some skin as expressed by some people in this thread. 

 

But am I the only one like this who's glad it got changed? I always thought that starter armor was ugly asf circus armor. Not because, "Oh nooo female body is covered in skin gotta cover her up!" If you feel that way, how about you stop sexualizing women so much in your head that showing skin in a video game sets you off. What if it was a girl showing as much skin in real life? Telling her to cover up for showing her legs/ankles would be a disgusting thing to do. I swear its almost like people who complain about skimpy armor don't realize that a woman could like/prefer it too.

It IS funny, as kitten near every female gamer I've known going all the way back to early GW1 agrees with you for the most part in preferring those skimpy armors (or at least having the options) while other people try to change this thinking they are being "progressive".....as if that word isn't almost totally meaningless now.

[Firefox.2348]

6 minutes ago, The Greyhawk.9107 said:

It IS funny, as kitten near every female gamer I've known going all the way back to early GW1 agrees with you for the most part in preferring those skimpy armors (or at least having the options) while other people try to change this thinking they are being "progressive".....as if that word isn't almost totally meaningless now.

Exactly. I almost find it offensive that all of these decisions are made to 'protect' players of my sex. Either that or we are always used as an excuse for any '*progressive*' change. I'd rather not have anyone else decide what I want and don't want. Thankfully the armor wasn't completely removed for people who want it. But I truthfully found it really ugly...lol

 

I don't play WoW anymore for years, but I know for a fact some of those skimpy mogs will get censored eventually. Sad days. I don't know who decided for me that skimpy is degrading...

[Sobx.1758]

7 hours ago, Jools.6293 said:

I'm a girl and love skimpy armor. I will never quite understand those who get offended by pixels or feel 'uncomfortable' enough by some skin as expressed by some people in this thread. 

 

But am I the only one like this who's glad it got changed? I always thought that starter armor was ugly asf circus armor. Not because, "Oh nooo female body is covered in skin gotta cover her up!" If you feel that way, how about you stop sexualizing women so much in your head that showing skin in a video game sets you off. What if it was a girl showing as much skin in real life? Telling her to cover up for showing her legs/ankles would be a disgusting thing to do. I swear its almost like people who complain about skimpy armor don't realize that a woman could like/prefer it too.

Yup, some people are too preoccupied with virtue signalling in an effort to paint themselves as "the good guys" to actually understand whether or not it's an issue in the first place.

I don't have a problem with that change, since we can still use any armor we want later on in the game. But if -in this particular situation- someone starts writing things like "it's a real shame you had to experience this", then that's just bizarre.

[draxynnic.3719]

Different people have different lines of what they're comfortable with, and different reasons for why those lines are where they are. At the end of the day, nobody is hurt by this change (if you want skimpy armour, you can still get some pretty quickly, and there are plenty of high-end options as well), and some people have a more comfortable start to the game as a result of the change. It was the right call.

There's a big difference between having the freedom to show a lot of skin and being forced to.

Nothing's been removed, it just takes a little longer to get a skimpy armour set if that's the aesthetic you want to have.

Edited December 26, 2021 by draxynnic.3719

[Firefox.2348]

24 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Different people have different lines of what they're comfortable with, and different reasons for why those lines are where they are. At the end of the day, nobody is hurt by this change (if you want skimpy armour, you can still get some pretty quickly, and there are plenty of high-end options as well), and some people have a more comfortable start to the game as a result of the change. It was the right call.

There's a big difference between having the freedom to show a lot of skin and being forced to.

Nothing's been removed, it just takes a little longer to get a skimpy armour set if that's the aesthetic you want to have.

Yes I know it is not removed from the game and there will still be options. But I just find it odd how people would feel uncomfortable about pixel clothes. Thank you for trying to explain the other side of this for me. 😊

[Rogue.8235]

13 hours ago, Jools.6293 said:

Exactly. I almost find it offensive that all of these decisions are made to 'protect' players of my sex. Either that or we are always used as an excuse for any '*progressive*' change. I'd rather not have anyone else decide what I want and don't want. Thankfully the armor wasn't completely removed for people who want it. But I truthfully found it really ugly...lol

 

Question.  Where is it demonstrated that this is the reason for the change?    I see nothing that indicates this is the reason.

Additionally, nothing was removed from the game.  So censorship in any form was not committed here.

 

Many people are complaining about the game becoming prude.  But nothing was removed from the game.   If apprentice armor is still in the game, what is the complaint about?  

People in this thread are complaining that the game is changing because others are getting offended by sexualized armor.  However, apprentice armor is still in the game and can still be used by everyone.  So, since nothing was removed what is the point of this complaint?  It doesn't apply at all in this case.  If they had removed apprentice armor from the game, then yes this would actually apply.  However, apprentice armor was not removed.  

 

Is there something that I am missing?  Is there objective evidence that I missed somewhere?

 

[Firefox.2348]

53 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

 

Question.  Where is it demonstrated that this is the reason for the change?    I see nothing that indicates this is the reason.

Additionally, nothing was removed from the game.  So censorship in any form was not committed here.

 

Many people are complaining about the game becoming prude.  But nothing was removed from the game.   If apprentice armor is still in the game, what is the complaint about?  

People in this thread are complaining that the game is changing because others are getting offended by sexualized armor.  However, apprentice armor is still in the game and can still be used by everyone.  So, since nothing was removed what is the point of this complaint?  It doesn't apply at all in this case.  If they had removed apprentice armor from the game, then yes this would actually apply.  However, apprentice armor was not removed.  

 

Is there something that I am missing?  Is there objective evidence that I missed somewhere?

 

 

4 hours ago, Jools.6293 said:

Yes I know it is not removed from the game and there will still be options. But I just find it odd how people would feel uncomfortable about pixel clothes. Thank you for trying to explain the other side of this for me. 😊

What else would be the reason for this change? I don't think there is an actual answer for that. But, due to the overexaggerated comments in this thread about armor like this, 'light censorship' seems to be the most plausible reason. (I say 'light censorship' because it's no longer in the players face when they first begin playing.) Nothing was removed, yet. But it feels like the first steps because of what happened with WoW.

[Rogue.8235]

Just now, Jools.6293 said:

What else would be the reason for this change? I don't think there is an actual answer for that. But, due to the overexaggerated comments in this thread about armor like this, 'light censorship' seems to be the most plausible reason. (I say 'light censorship' because it's no longer in the players face when they first begin playing.) Nothing was removed, yet. But it feels like the first steps because of what happened with WoW.

 

They wanted plainer looking armor as the start set, similar to how the starter set for heavy armor is extremely plain?

Some players, who are in the minority in this thread, expressed some personal opinions on in-game aesthetics.  You then conflate this with corporate policy?  

There is no proof that you have anything to worry about, with the sole exception of the comments of a few people in this thread expressing their personal opinions that have nothing to do with ArenaNet's intentions.  There is no evidence that ArenaNet is censoring their own game.  There is no evidence that they are moving towards censoring their own game.  

 

My personal take is that the change is almost meaningless because you're in starter armor for all of 10 minutes.  You can still use every skin available in the game, and no skins were removed from the game.  There is no indication that any skins will be removed.

I'm just curious about the self-induced fear-mongering.  There are complaints about things that don't exist.  Waht other companies do have no bearing on what ArenaNet does.  I see no indication that Blizzard can impose its will upon ArenaNet.  I see no indication that ArenaNet will change the aesthetics that already exist in Guild Wars 2.  Skimpy armor and rainbow unicorns are here to stay.

 

The reason I care enough about the issue I'm raising is because my country (USA) is lacking critical thought to a devastating extreme.  I try to push people on these forums to exercise critical thinking to at least do something about it.

Meaningless complaints is demonstrative of habitual absence of critical thinking; ergo, I'm injecting logical thought into the conversation in an attempt to disrupt the formation of such habits.

 

[Firefox.2348]

Just now, Rogue.8235 said:

 

They wanted plainer looking armor as the start set, similar to how the starter set for heavy armor is extremely plain?

Some players, who are in the minority in this thread, expressed some personal opinions on in-game aesthetics.  You then conflate this with corporate policy?  

There is no proof that you have anything to worry about, with the sole exception of the comments of a few people in this thread expressing their personal opinions that have nothing to do with ArenaNet's intentions.  There is no evidence that ArenaNet is censoring their own game.  There is no evidence that they are moving towards censoring their own game.  

 

My personal take is that the change is almost meaningless because you're in starter armor for all of 10 minutes.  You can still use every skin available in the game, and no skins were removed from the game.  There is no indication that any skins will be removed.

I'm just curious about the self-induced fear-mongering.  There are complaints about things that don't exist.  Waht other companies do have no bearing on what ArenaNet does.  I see no indication that Blizzard can impose its will upon ArenaNet.  I see no indication that ArenaNet will change the aesthetics that already exist in Guild Wars 2.  Skimpy armor and rainbow unicorns are here to stay.

 

The reason I care enough about the issue I'm raising is because my country (USA) is lacking critical thought to a devastating extreme.  I try to push people on these forums to exercise critical thinking to at least do something about it.

Meaningless complaints is demonstrative of habitual absence of critical thinking; ergo, I'm injecting logical thought into the conversation in an attempt to disrupt the formation of such habits.

 

Huh. It's not hard to grasp my point of view and others because I explained. Not conflating anything, the key word is feel meaning its my opinion of why this happened. I feel that is the true reason. Same how you think its because they wanted plainer looking armor. 🤷‍♀️

[Leo.3428]

ArenaNet, please explain the rationale behind the changes that are listed in the release notes. This will save us some speculation.

That said, the apprentice dress is a tad ridiculous - says my wife and I - and not because of the skimpiness.

 

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Maybe ArenaNet changed it because the skirt/leggings took dye in an odd manner.  Maybe that confused new players. 

[Kathkere.3068]

8 hours ago, Rogue.8235 said:

 

There are complaints about things that don't exist.  Waht other companies do have no bearing on what ArenaNet does.  I see no indication that Blizzard can impose its will upon ArenaNet.  I see no indication that ArenaNet will change the aesthetics that already exist in Guild Wars 2.  Skimpy armor and rainbow unicorns are here to stay.

 

I think ArenaNet keeps a finger on the pulse of what its main competitors are up to. Would this change have happened if Blizzard didn't begin to retroactively "clean" their games? We have no way of knowing, but Blizzard certainly brought attention to a perceived issue and it is not unreasonable to draw the conclusion that what's being going on in that company caused the domino effect that made ArenaNet take this decision. Or maybe ArenaNet would have taken this decision regardless -- but why? Has there been enough complaints to warrant a change such as this? I genuinely don't know as I haven't frequented these forums enough over the years.

Regardless of what the truth is I think ArenaNet made a good decision here. It's a small change with no long-term impact and nothing was lost.

Edited December 27, 2021 by Kathkere.3068

[Lyssia.4637]

I don't care about the change itself at all, but I do hope someone official takes pity on us and tells us why, because the longer this thread goes on, the more I find myself burning with curiosity.  How much you want to bet that it turns out it's because they introduced some bug or something, and changing the starting armor was easier than unraveling some problem, or fixing some conflict with something they intend to introduce with EoD, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the armor itself?  😆