Barbarians. Yes or no.



  • Simple. Do you think torn banners barbarian skins were the best of ideas and should they be implemented in the game.



  • Yes. Though new 3’rd faction would be way cooler, though I doubt TBS is gonna go trough that work. I vote YES!



  • The barbarian skins are most likely scrapped skins from DW.
    If any third faction were to be introduced I’d want something with more thought and care.

    If they do add them I really want to be able to not see them on other players because they look terrible and will most likely confuse new players.

    -edit
    Agathian skins look alright but still not my taste.
    I wouldn’t mind those being in the game but, the Mason skins are a definite no-go.



  • @Alyx:

    The barbarian skins are most likely scrapped viking skins from DW.
    If any third faction were to be introduced I’d want something with a more thought and care.

    If they do add them I really want to be able to not see them on other players because they look terrible and will most likely confuse new players.

    I doubt they were goes at trying to make a Viking. Considering none of them look like Vikings and the Viking skin was made around 8 months ago.
    They look like a mixture of Picts, ancient Eastern Europeans, Skyrim Forsworn and from a guy porn magazine.

    I’m right with you. If they do as them I don’t want to see them. Not in this game.



  • Agatha ones are good but need some tweaking on the beef-scale. Masons maybe should be wearing heavier furs or something. Mason VG looks retarded.



  • A barbarian mod; yeah, why not but mixing them with the existing character skins? No thanks.



  • Agatha ones look great, especialyy Vangie.



  • Put them shirts on



  • hell yes with more armor :D



  • I don’t think they’d really fit in, maybe as a third faction, but not as a new skin.



  • These sigs are getting pretty good :P



  • I think they do fit in some maps. Like for stoneshill mason side. But overall? I don’t think they are a good fit to the game.



  • Shirts (and armor) on - variety is good but it should not go as far as completely destroying immersion.

    Agatha skins can work for the most part: They are too big and the Vanguard might be a little less bulky (to show he is wearing medium armor opposed to heavy armor). Maybe minor adjustments to make clear which armor class they belong too - Barbarian Knight armor should offer the same amount of protection as the standard Knight armor (and also look like this) etc.

    The Mason skins need armor - all of them. If we look at standard Archers they are wearing a gambeson - which is cloth armor. So by common sense all Mason Barbarians should have an armor class worse than the Archers (and of course for the sake of consistency, immersion and balance they also should have the same hitpoints). So all of them would need more protection as they are even too vulnerable for being Archer skins. Unless:

    They could be kept if there was a different armor class for them though. Something like:
    Cut 1.2, Pierce 1.0, Blunt 1.0* and maybe double damage from fire (exposed skin)
    Why? Because even in the middle ages (or especially in the middle ages as for lack of uniforms) there were lunatics who might charge into battle without any armor. Maybe because they were fanatics, idiots or just plain mad.

    In short: As long as the skins look reasonable medieval and represent their armor class I see no problems in adding them.

    *I tried to reflect the influence of wearing a gambeson - which protects against blunt and cutting attacks but can be stabbed through.



  • There are still a boatload of issues with the game, I’d rather those be fixed before any more unnecessary cosmetic changes are added in.



  • Barbarians?

    Please, no.



  • @Evil:

    Shirts (and armor) on - variety is good but it should not go as far as completely destroying immersion.

    Agatha skins can work for the most part: They are too big and the Vanguard might be a little less bulky (to show he is wearing medium armor opposed to heavy armor). Maybe minor adjustments to make clear which armor class they belong too - Barbarian Knight armor should offer the same amount of protection as the standard Knight armor (and also look like this) etc.

    The Mason skins need armor - all of them. If we look at standard Archers they are wearing a gambeson - which is cloth armor. So by common sense all Mason Barbarians should have an armor class worse than the Archers (and of course for the sake of consistency, immersion and balance they also should have the same hitpoints). So all of them would need more protection as they are even too vulnerable for being Archer skins. Unless:

    They could be kept if there was a different armor class for them though. Something like:
    Cut 1.2, Pierce 1.0, Blunt 1.0* and maybe double damage from fire (exposed skin)
    Why? Because even in the middle ages (or especially in the middle ages as for lack of uniforms) there were lunatics who might charge into battle without any armor. Maybe because they were fanatics, idiots or just plain mad.

    In short: As long as the skins look reasonable medieval and represent their armor class I see no problems in adding them.

    *I tried to reflect the influence of wearing a gambeson - which protects against blunt and cutting attacks but can be stabbed through.

    Yes, this is pretty much how I feel about them as well.



  • Barbarian skin? What are you talking about?

    I must have missed something because I’ve no idea what’s going on in this thread.

    EDIT: I have now educated myself and am aware of these barbarians. It’s funny how much you can miss out on by not going on the forums for just a day. In my ignorance, I voted “no” on the poll, but if I could take my vote back, I would change it.



  • Beta has Barbarian skins now. They… show too much skin.



  • @Evil:

    Beta has Barbarian skins now. They… show too much skin.




Log in to reply