The tag alias #56592 skimpy_armor -> unconvincing_armor has been approved.

Reason: both tags cover the same material

topic #14426 bit weird, that has the links and stuff but isn't on the actual lists of aliases.

furrin_gok said:
post #899961
This one looks skimpy but also convincing. The chest and head, two major targets in a gunfight, are covered. Legs are also covered, it's just the pelvic region that's uncovered.
skimpy doesn't have to mean lacking, it could just be made to accentuate a person's sexual features, without exposing them.

Nah, that's definitely unconvincing. Feels like I've dropped into a Tumblr argument from 2013 when people are seriously trying to argue that a pair of panties is effective protective wear.

wat8548 said:
Nah, that's definitely unconvincing. Feels like I've dropped into a Tumblr argument from 2013 when people are seriously trying to argue that a pair of panties is effective protective wear.

You normally wouldn't try to deflect blows with your ass. It makes sense to have less armor there so that you can more effectively move about from the hip, so that you can deflect using the armored bits.

furrin_gok said:
You normally wouldn't try to deflect blows with your ass.

You normally wouldn't try to deflect blows with your chest or head either, but they're still important areas to cover up. The point of armor is to protect yourself in the case of incoming blows or projectiles, to reduce the potential for damage when something does hit in that area, and having your butt and upper thighs wide open leaves your hips and legs more susceptible to damage, which can really harm your mobility if taken advantage of.

If there really is a difference, it’s too insignificant to matter, IMO. +1

Maybe it's just the wiki definition of unconvincing_armor, but it rubs me the wrong way. Consider archetypes like barbarians. I doubt most would consider them unconvincing (i.e., breaks suspension of disbelief) yet they're typically dressed in a skimpy manner.
There's also fighting style to consider. Physical protection is going to be a lesser concern for an agile fighter. For that fighting style, something less covered would make sense as part of their defense strategy.

That aside, the two tags don't necessarily cover the same thing. Someone wearing armor made of unsuitable material(like cardboard) would be covered yet still inadequately protected. Or someone who has magical or natural armor would still be covered even if it was skimpy.

popoto said:
Maybe it's just the wiki definition of unconvincing_armor, but it rubs me the wrong way. Consider archetypes like barbarians. I doubt most would consider them unconvincing (i.e., breaks suspension of disbelief) yet they're typically dressed in a skimpy manner.

I would not describe stereotypical barbarian "clothing" as armour at all. But if they do happen to be wearing, say, a chainmail_bikini, unconvincing_armor is definitely the right tag for that.

popoto said:
There's also fighting style to consider. Physical protection is going to be a lesser concern for an agile fighter. For that fighting style, something less covered would make sense as part of their defense strategy.

That aside, the two tags don't necessarily cover the same thing. Someone wearing armor made of unsuitable material(like cardboard) would be covered yet still inadequately protected. Or someone who has magical or natural armor would still be covered even if it was skimpy.

This is literally a TWYK argument, and deserves the same amount of respect as "she breathes through her skin". Did I mention that all of this has been litigated to death before?

wat8548 said:
I would not describe stereotypical barbarian "clothing" as armour at all. But if they do happen to be wearing, say, a chainmail_bikini, unconvincing_armor is definitely the right tag for that.

I was thinking less chainmail bikini and more along the lines of a barbarian from Diablo III. Sort of like these

https://www.diablowiki.net/images/0/03/Barb-f-pose1.jpg
https://www.diablowiki.net/images/0/05/Barbarians.jpg (left image)

This is literally a TWYK argument, and deserves the same amount of respect as "she breathes through her skin". Did I mention that all of this has been litigated to death before?

Is it? The wiki doesn't entirely hammer out the criteria for unconvincing armor in the first place. "fails to adequately protect it's wearer" is vague and open to interpretation. What's unconvincing for a warrior might pass for a rogue. I don't see how that's TWYK.