Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Could you please stop making high heels and skimpy armor for females?


Recommended Posts

I wish there were more armor options, outside of some of the cultural armor that showed more fur on Charr, both male and female.Unlike most of the other races where skin is just skin, the fur often has neat patterns that go unnoticed as the application of new armor designs on Charr often feels like somewhat of an afterthought.

And people actually wonder why Anet doesn't want to introduce another (likely anthropomorphic) race.

~ Kovu

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 206
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@"Gaile Gray.6029" said:We see this topic arise quite often. But it seems that for each person who asks for less, another asks for more. In recent days, in threads other than this one, a player mentioned they are "unhappy with the lack of skimpy armors on medium and heavy armour for female humanoids" and another said, "I'm a female who plays females and I say my armour isn't skimpy enough." But the OP of this thread has said in a couple of threads that they want "Cool armor sets for human and norn females that aren't skimpy and don't sport high heels."

The point is: What is and is not attractive is subjective. What is "too much" for one is "not enough" for another. This applies to so many things in life, and in-game armor, outfits, and clothing -- in our game, in games in general, in media as a whole -- definitely gets discussed a lot.

I'm not sure there's a design solution that would address each and every personal opinion. But I agree with what folks have been saying about our games for more than a dozen years: Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 offer a wide variety of looks and customization options, enabling players to choose what suits them best. I celebrate the options and enjoy making my character my own through outfits, armor, dyes, accessories, and all the other choices available.

Last word: Please keep this thread on topic and avoid inappropriate comments. We want you to have a chance to contribute to the conversation, but can't carry on if this is going to go other the top. Thanks.

Something we agree on. Thank you Gaile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get to be popular today.

@Dragon Priestess.9760 said:

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:The problem isn't suiting ones ideals. The problem is hurting people. Most of the time, when somebody argues that you shouldn't do something (I.E. have skimpy armor), their case is that having such a thing creates tangible distress and harm in other people's lives. Even if it isn't easy to directly measure or see the outcome, doing the unspecified act still contributes to the ether of oppression that causes all of this distress.

In this case it's all wrong, as this
goes into the depths of research on this. The short version is: teenagers will always be self conscious no matter what you do, and people have realistic self-esteem instead of low self-esteem as adults.

Not sure what the argument is here. Are you trying to say that skimpy armour due to someone's personal choice is hurting people?

Nope. I'm saying that other people say that. I'm clarifying that, when somebody goes into full aesthetic dictator, they're usually doing it to safeguard society.

@Zeefa.3915 said:

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

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

Hence, booby plates on Plate Mail.

So... if you see a woman with massive boobs, dressed kinda masculine, acting like the sterotypical male trucker and you can hear in her voice that she smokes a lot... she is still more feminine than a woman with a flat chest, wearing a pretty dress and heels, put effort into her hair and makeup, and have a more gentle and soft personality? Yes this might be an extreme example... but I really don't doubt that women like these 2 examples are actually out there.

I very much get that physical appearance do mean a lot to how feminine a person is perceived by most people... however even if you only look at appearance it is more than just boobs.

It's hard to measure disparate facets of the feminine, as their is no exact unit of femininity. Let me put this into a more sterile example: A woman with massive boobs who dresses and acts like a dock worker is more feminine that a woman with a flat chest who dresses and acts like a dock worker. The more variables you throw in, the harder it becomes to weigh one over the other.

@robertthebard.8150 said:

The problem isn't suiting ones ideals. The problem is hurting people. Most of the time, when somebody argues that you shouldn't do something (I.E. have skimpy armor), their case is that having such a thing creates tangible distress and harm in other people's lives. Even if it isn't easy to directly measure or see the outcome, doing the unspecified act still contributes to the ether of oppression that causes all of this distress.

In this case it's all wrong, as this
goes into the depths of research on this. The short version is: teenagers will always be self conscious no matter what you do, and people have realistic self-esteem instead of low self-esteem as adults.

Fire is hot. Instead of going all nuts running around trying to make fire cold, I just don't stand in it, problem solved. If video game armor is distressing someone that bad, then my suggestion would be not to play video games: If the fire's hot, don't stand in it. "But maybe they enjoy the games", I'm not buying it, if something as simple as armor can cause distress, they likely aren't having a lot of fun, because armors are everywhere in the game, and some of them are going to be "distressing". It's a lot simpler, and a lot cleaner of a solution than forcing the entirety of the video game industry to dress all of their characters in burlap bags to avoid "distressing" someone.

It would be a bit more like saying "If you don't like pollution, don't live in the city." Yes, you can get a breath of fresh air out in the country, but the problem of pollution still exists. The pro-censorship crowd doesn't want to censor things because they don't like it, they want to censor things because those things contribute to and sustain a problem in society. Effectively it is culture pollution. Running away from offensive content doesn't matter because eventually it comes to get you. The only solution is to get rid of everything, because otherwise all of the evils will take refuge in whatever's left.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:So long as babies are birthed at the hips and fed at the breast, society will always consider hips and boobs as prominent
female
features. Always know that the fact of biology comes first, and it is from this biology that society has built all of its constructs upon.

I fixed that for you, now I can agree.

Wide hips, narrow waists and boobs are prominent features of the Female body, yet they
do not
embody Femininity, at all, which was my point.Going back to my bolded quote that I raised the issue with;

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

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

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

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

Hence, booby plates on Plate Mail.

Blood, I'm going to have to a agree with HaleyDawn on this one...and I can attest with numerous visual sightings of females that have breasts but DO NOT even look feminine at all...and visa versa, but that isn't what this discussion is about and unless we can manage to keep it on track with the OP's original post then it will be closed.

As Gaile said, it's all a matter of personal taste...I personally disagree with the OP, after all, why not attempt to distract your opponent before battle even starts, it might just give you enough opening to end it before any harm could come to you. I think there's enough variety in game to suit everyone, but you'd have to unlock ALL the armor skins to most likely find something that suits you, and if that's to much trouble...then we have another issue entirely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:I get to be popular today.

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:The problem isn't suiting ones ideals. The problem is hurting people. Most of the time, when somebody argues that you shouldn't do something (I.E. have skimpy armor), their case is that having such a thing creates tangible distress and harm in other people's lives. Even if it isn't easy to directly measure or see the outcome, doing the unspecified act still contributes to the ether of oppression that causes all of this distress.

In this case it's all wrong, as this
goes into the depths of research on this. The short version is: teenagers will always be self conscious no matter what you do, and people have realistic self-esteem instead of low self-esteem as adults.

Not sure what the argument is here. Are you trying to say that skimpy armour due to someone's personal choice is hurting people?

Nope. I'm saying that other people say that. I'm clarifying that, when somebody goes into full aesthetic dictator, they're usually doing it to safeguard society.

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

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

Hence, booby plates on Plate Mail.

So... if you see a woman with massive boobs, dressed kinda masculine, acting like the sterotypical male trucker and you can hear in her voice that she smokes a lot... she is still more feminine than a woman with a flat chest, wearing a pretty dress and heels, put effort into her hair and makeup, and have a more gentle and soft personality? Yes this might be an extreme example... but I really don't doubt that women like these 2 examples are actually out there.

I very much get that physical appearance do mean a lot to how feminine a person is perceived by most people... however even if you only look at appearance it is more than just boobs.

It's hard to measure disparate facets of the feminine, as their is no exact unit of femininity. Let me put this into a more sterile example: A woman with massive boobs who dresses and acts like a dock worker is more feminine that a woman with a flat chest who dresses and acts like a dock worker. The more variables you throw in, the harder it becomes to weigh one over the other.

The problem isn't suiting ones ideals. The problem is hurting people. Most of the time, when somebody argues that you shouldn't do something (I.E. have skimpy armor), their case is that having such a thing creates tangible distress and harm in other people's lives. Even if it isn't easy to directly measure or see the outcome, doing the unspecified act still contributes to the ether of oppression that causes all of this distress.

In this case it's all wrong, as this
goes into the depths of research on this. The short version is: teenagers will always be self conscious no matter what you do, and people have realistic self-esteem instead of low self-esteem as adults.

Fire is hot. Instead of going all nuts running around trying to make fire cold, I just don't stand in it, problem solved. If video game armor is distressing someone that bad, then my suggestion would be not to play video games: If the fire's hot, don't stand in it. "But maybe they enjoy the games", I'm not buying it, if something as simple as armor can cause distress, they likely aren't having a lot of fun, because armors are everywhere in the game, and some of them are going to be "distressing". It's a lot simpler, and a lot cleaner of a solution than forcing the entirety of the video game industry to dress all of their characters in burlap bags to avoid "distressing" someone.

It would be a bit more like saying "If you don't like pollution, don't live in the city." Yes, you can get a breath of fresh air out in the country, but the problem of pollution still exists. The pro-censorship crowd doesn't want to censor things because they don't like it, they want to censor things because those things contribute to and sustain a problem in society. Effectively it is culture pollution. Running away from offensive content doesn't matter because eventually it comes to get you. The only solution is to get rid of everything, because otherwise all of the evils will take refuge in whatever's left.

Actually, they do want to censor it because they don't like it, and you sort of point that out in this post. What problem in society is created by skimpy armor in a video game? I'm not aware of any, got any actual insight, or just "but skimpy is evil"? I've been playing games for a very long time, and I have yet had any characters from the games I've played "come to get me". It offends their sensibilities, and their feelings are all that matter to them, and so everyone needs to be controlled to not do what they find offensive, which can range from wearing skimpy armor in a video game, to playing, or not playing a female character at all, depending on what day of the week it is, and which easily offended group you're talking to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

GW2 is possibly the most tame MMO on the market. There are more than plenty of non-sexualized options to choose from. Hell really only light armor has a majority of revealing outfits. Most female medium armor and nearly all heavy armor is quite modest. Funfact: the most revealing options for heavy armor are actually on male Norn.

Just because you are offended doesn't mean you are right.

21d.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure,we playing same game? 99% outfits are full covered body, 99% of heavy armor sets are tin cans and probably 1x heels.sad part is,that basicly 90% of heavy armor on females looks extremly bad,bcs they are made for males. even last set,you can see female feets gets completly lost in metal and its look so dumb,she whoud be even able to lift leg. only skimpy armor class is light and ofc everybody gona wear that,bcs they want more of it,but sadly they dont have much options,so 80% is using profane armor set.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@robertthebard.8150 said:

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:I get to be popular today.

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:The problem isn't suiting ones ideals. The problem is hurting people. Most of the time, when somebody argues that you shouldn't do something (I.E. have skimpy armor), their case is that having such a thing creates tangible distress and harm in other people's lives. Even if it isn't easy to directly measure or see the outcome, doing the unspecified act still contributes to the ether of oppression that causes all of this distress.

In this case it's all wrong, as this
goes into the depths of research on this. The short version is: teenagers will always be self conscious no matter what you do, and people have realistic self-esteem instead of low self-esteem as adults.

Not sure what the argument is here. Are you trying to say that skimpy armour due to someone's personal choice is hurting people?

Nope. I'm saying that other people say that. I'm clarifying that, when somebody goes into full aesthetic dictator, they're usually doing it to safeguard society.

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

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

Hence, booby plates on Plate Mail.

So... if you see a woman with massive boobs, dressed kinda masculine, acting like the sterotypical male trucker and you can hear in her voice that she smokes a lot... she is still more feminine than a woman with a flat chest, wearing a pretty dress and heels, put effort into her hair and makeup, and have a more gentle and soft personality? Yes this might be an extreme example... but I really don't doubt that women like these 2 examples are actually out there.

I very much get that physical appearance do mean a lot to how feminine a person is perceived by most people... however even if you only look at appearance it is more than just boobs.

It's hard to measure disparate facets of the feminine, as their is no exact unit of femininity. Let me put this into a more sterile example: A woman with massive boobs who dresses and acts like a dock worker is more feminine that a woman with a flat chest who dresses and acts like a dock worker. The more variables you throw in, the harder it becomes to weigh one over the other.

The problem isn't suiting ones ideals. The problem is hurting people. Most of the time, when somebody argues that you shouldn't do something (I.E. have skimpy armor), their case is that having such a thing creates tangible distress and harm in other people's lives. Even if it isn't easy to directly measure or see the outcome, doing the unspecified act still contributes to the ether of oppression that causes all of this distress.

In this case it's all wrong, as this
goes into the depths of research on this. The short version is: teenagers will always be self conscious no matter what you do, and people have realistic self-esteem instead of low self-esteem as adults.

Fire is hot. Instead of going all nuts running around trying to make fire cold, I just don't stand in it, problem solved. If video game armor is distressing someone that bad, then my suggestion would be not to play video games: If the fire's hot, don't stand in it. "But maybe they enjoy the games", I'm not buying it, if something as simple as armor can cause distress, they likely aren't having a lot of fun, because armors are everywhere in the game, and some of them are going to be "distressing". It's a lot simpler, and a lot cleaner of a solution than forcing the entirety of the video game industry to dress all of their characters in burlap bags to avoid "distressing" someone.

It would be a bit more like saying "If you don't like pollution, don't live in the city." Yes, you can get a breath of fresh air out in the country, but the problem of pollution still exists. The pro-censorship crowd doesn't want to censor things because they don't like it, they want to censor things because those things contribute to and sustain a problem in society. Effectively it is culture pollution. Running away from offensive content doesn't matter because eventually it comes to get you. The only solution is to get rid of everything, because otherwise all of the evils will take refuge in whatever's left.

Actually, they do want to censor it because they don't like it, and you sort of point that out in this post. What problem in society is created by skimpy armor in a video game? I'm not aware of any, got any actual insight, or just "but skimpy is evil"? I've been playing games for a very long time, and I have yet had any characters from the games I've played "come to get me". It offends their sensibilities, and their feelings are all that matter to them, and so everyone needs to be controlled to not do what they find offensive, which can range from wearing skimpy armor in a video game, to playing, or not playing a female character at all, depending on what day of the week it is, and which easily offended group you're talking to.

To be fair, they're pretty terrible at explaining their own case. Most of the time they just shout vague things about body positivity and the patriarchy, or odd language of their own invention. If you want the full argument (along with a thorough disproof of said argument), the Aydin Paladin video I linked above does a good job of explaining everything in detail. The tl;dr is: "Unrealistic standards of beauty feed misogyny and the patriarchy, make regular women feel bad, and make women receive oppression/harassment. To combat this, we must remove all unrealistically beautiful depictions of women everywhere and defeat the male gaze."

This idea gets wrapped up with other strange notions, but it is the crux of their motives. Whether they overtly consider this notion, or merely understand it intuitively is anyone's guess. In the medium outfit thread, Asharanta actually called the different outfit designs in this game sexist because of their clear gender differences. Though it was a year ago and not outwardly stated, I still think this is the underlying reason for this thread existing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:Asharanta actually called the different outfit designs in this game sexist because of their clear gender differences. Though it was a year ago and not outwardly stated, I still think this is the underlying reason for this thread existing.

I agree with this, and I'm almost positive the original poster has abandoned this thread because of the disagreement with the notion to Anet to "Stop making High heels and Skimpy armor for females." Full stop. no exceptions. Here's my demand sorta thing.Asking for variety. Fine, more is good.Asking for a full halt to anything that you (OP) find unacceptable for whatever vague reason you choose to justify the demand (yes it is a demand)? No no nope, not going to happen. Variety is the spice of life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Gaile Gray.6029" said:We see this topic arise quite often. But it seems that for each person who asks for less, another asks for more. In recent days, in threads other than this one, a player mentioned they are "unhappy with the lack of skimpy armors on medium and heavy armour for female humanoids" and another said, "I'm a female who plays females and I say my armour isn't skimpy enough." But the OP of this thread has said in a couple of threads that they want "Cool armor sets for human and norn females that aren't skimpy and don't sport high heels."

The point is: What is and is not attractive is subjective. What is "too much" for one is "not enough" for another. This applies to so many things in life, and in-game armor, outfits, and clothing -- in our game, in games in general, in media as a whole -- definitely gets discussed a lot.

I'm not sure there's a design solution that would address each and every personal opinion. But I agree with what folks have been saying about our games for more than a dozen years: Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 offer a wide variety of looks and customization options, enabling players to choose what suits them best. I celebrate the options and enjoy making my character my own through outfits, armor, dyes, accessories, and all the other choices available.

Last word: Please keep this thread on topic and avoid inappropriate comments. We want you to have a chance to contribute to the conversation, but can't carry on if this is going to go other the top. Thanks.

I agree. Its not like devs should stop making this or this. It's just that you should have multiple options to choose from -> some skimpy ones, some fully dressed etc.

I would like short pixie skirt for light armor without covered legs. Not necesarilly skimpy, just pixie like for my tinkerbell identity: P I'd also like some more feminine shoes but without heels. But many people would like many different things.

I believe overall GW2 is doing good with giving each of us a lot of different options.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Kovu.7560" said:I wish there were more armor options, outside of some of the cultural armor that showed more fur on Charr, both male and female.Unlike most of the other races where skin is just skin, the fur often has neat patterns that go unnoticed as the application of new armor designs on Charr often feels like somewhat of an afterthought.

And people actually wonder why Anet doesn't want to introduce another (likely anthropomorphic) race.

~ Kovu

I remember seeing the Scallywag chest for the first time on my Human Guardian (https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Scallywag_armor_human_male_front.jpg) and I thought "heck no, that looks silly on a heavy armor wearer".

When I was gearing up my Male Charr Revenant, I just happened to have an exotic chest piece in the bank and tossed it on, expecting to then transmute it, but when I saw what the back looked like on my Charr (https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Scallywag_armor_charr_male_back.jpg) I thought "YES! that is what a Revenant would wear".I decided to round out the look by adding a Tiger Charr Backpack :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems that the armor effect part of any armor and the armor skins effect on anything worn, that is armor function vs armor appearance are several separate magical quality's, so how skimpy can a skin be? Perhaps an armor skin is just a framework supporting the protection properties and all else is fashion, or perhaps some armor quality's need a thick skin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dragon Priestess.9760 said:I mean at this point, Anet has already stated their stance on things. I wonder if it should become a pinned post so that everyone else who thinks of posting a thread like this can see it.

I think the stance is already obvious without it needing to be pinned ... the fact we already have all these different options ingame makes the point clear. Frankly, the thread should just be shut down because there isn't anything to discuss on such a polarized issued; there are options, people are free to take the ones they like. If the very presence of those options is enough to cause someone dislike, then it's also that person's choice to not play the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you talking about? There isn't a proper set of high heels available for armor sets and outfits are supposed to be skimpy because I for one won't buy em if they aren't.

Armor sets is what you make of them. Therefore, that is quite definitely your problem and not anyone elses. To ask them to stop making stuff people want is ridiculous.On my mesmer I have ridiculously combination of armor sets which is really sexy (or well, I think it is): https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dq7ssxkWsAEQ2E-.jpg:largeBut on the other hand, I have my grieving guardian who you can hardly tell is female: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoLwnGvWkAEtR7_.jpg:large

So it is quite definitely your problem what you make armor sets look like. You don't get to tell others how they use the armors made available to them.

Outfits is also ridiculous because there are plenty of outfits that are not skimpy, to name a few from my own collection:

  • Dynamics Exo-Suit
  • Inquest Exo-Suit
  • Noble Count
  • Lyssa's Regalia
  • Fallen Balthazar
  • Mad Scientist
  • Cook
  • Bandit Sniper
  • Marjory's Shrouded Outfit
  • Spring Promenade

In fact, looking at them again, the only skimpy outfits I have got are:

  • Sunspear (which I personally don't think is skimpy as there is nothing sexy about it but it shows some skin so to support your argument I am including it)
  • Nature's Oath (same as Sunspear, this is not skimpy but I'll throw it under the bus)
  • Ice Encasement
  • Elonian Elementalist

And I am fairly certain that this ratio of 1 in 3 sexy outfits continues, although I am more certain that it actually declines because looking through the list the number of sexy outfits dries up pretty fast after the 4 I mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time a thread like this pops on the forums or anywhere else, it makes me turn my head around a full 360 degrees. When it comes to the wardrobe/armor system, Guild Wars 2 is one of the most (and I shudder to use this tainted word, thank you 21st century internet saints) diverse out there. There are PLENTY of non-skimpy armor for every weight class, and far less skimpy options.Also, perhaps we don't know what a shoe with a HIGH HEEL is anymore, since GW2 has very few shoes with heels to begin with.

Many here that wasted so much of their precious time adding to the echo chamber could have spent it more wisely by looking through the selection of skins available in the wardrobe instead, and we would have both been better off. Unless is cold, take your heads out of your bums and research a subject you are so quick to rage about.

Peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Luxuria.3248 said:Every time a thread like this pops on the forums or anywhere else, it makes me turn my head around a full 360 degrees. When it comes to the wardrobe/armor system, Guild Wars 2 is one of the most (and I shudder to use this tainted word, thank you 21st century internet saints) diverse out there. There are PLENTY of non-skimpy armor for every weight class, and far less skimpy options.Also, perhaps we don't know what a shoe with a HIGH HEEL is anymore, since GW2 has very few shoes with heels to begin with.

Many here that wasted so much of their precious time adding to the echo chamber could have spent it more wisely by looking through the selection of skins available in the wardrobe instead, and we would have both been better off. Unless is cold, take your heads out of your bums and research a subject you are so quick to rage about.

Peace.

That would be great, if they were complaining about what they want to use. They're not, they're complaining about what everyone else is using that offends their sensibilities, and thus needs to be stopped. You can bet they're already using the closest thing they could find to a burlap sack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dragon Priestess.9760 said:

@"Calanthe.3857" said:The armor is magic, so it protects as well even if it looks skimpy.

I just wish there were more skimpy outfits and high heels for males, too. B)

And to go with those skimpy male outfits - some really awesome full body tattoos!

Like Monk tattoo armor in GW1? https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Monk_armorThat would be really cool! (We could finally get an excuse to show off epic norn tattoos.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...