A sneak peek at Guild Wars 2's PvP Scholar armor [Updated]

For those wanting 'more' armor, check out this thread over @ MMO-Champ, it shows the wide variety of armors that ANet is going for, including fully armored behemoths.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1064247-GW2-I-m-gonna-get-THIS-armorset

To see the variety of armors that ANet is capable of doing (from GW1), the link below contains armor per profession (click the profession on the right side, at the top).

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Armor

As for the set on display here, I like the shoulders, arms and waist (the dress part). Luckily one can mix and match their armor pieces, then choose what bonuses go on them (including a 'set' bonus on a mix and match set).

I don't have a problem with revealing clothing. Some Characters like to dress provocatively for their own reasons. A sultry sorceress. However, perhaps my sorceress has more class or doesn't care to lead men into temptation of their lust?

Armor designs should allow a choice in fashion. We shouldn't be forced into one set.

Plus, I think sensual armors should have a option between appealing vs modest. I think a single under layer with this armor would fix that problem and shouldn't be that much of an issue to sort.

And don't complain about it if you aren't going to do anything about it. Write to ArenaNet explaining your concerns about sex appeal vs modesty in clothing designs.

@Wargfoot

Like these?

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/2/23/Heavy_armor_02_concept_art.jpg

http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/attachments/gaming/24543d1317657995-guild-warz-kekaiheavy.jpg

http://www.guildwars2news.de/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/GW2_Orrian-680x433.jpg

I can appreciate the pin up art, but that armor doesn't quite say 'scholar' to me. Now sex sorceress? There you go.

It shouldn't be very difficult to simply provide a more filled in armor skin for those who want it, because this does stretch the definition of clothing, much less armor.

I always thought LotRO handled female armor quite well, showing you can still have an attractively-dressed female toon without showing excessive amounts of skin.

And please, just because someone has artistic differences with the depiction of armor doesn't mean they're offended by skin. It's not offensive, it's silly.

I like the outfit. Never cared for the "aggressive tank" look of an armor. So it suits me fine. If the devs allow a full range of customization of outfit appearance where everyone can achieve his or her desired look, I'm fine with that too, especially where we can keep the stats of one armor set but adjust its appearance with another set. -shrugs-

It's not even the skin showing that bothers me so much. It's just...not flattering or attractive at all. I've seen the set before, and it doesn't get any better with repeat exposure. From the concept art on the official wiki it's easy to see what they were going for: it's supposed to look like fancy masquerade/costume party attire. The male version (which is considerably classier) reflects that, too. Unfortunately, it doesn't translate well in the actual graphics. There are things that a posed, drawn figure can get away with that a mobile figure with three visible dimensions can't, and that frontpiece with the bizarre diaper attachment is one of them.

I love you, ANet, but this one is a miss. It looks like the kind of overly fussy ornamental lingerie sold at adult novelty shops, and the fact that it's on a norn probably doesn't help; the human character wearing it at G-Star was pretty tiny and didn't scream "teach me to dress for my body type" quite so loudly. The poor lady in these screens is lovely, but she looks -so- out of place in all of that. Take pity!