Brunswick's bascinet and chainmail coif need reworking?

[von Langen]

Don't you think? Perhaps it can (should) be made less ornate and more "combat" rather than tournament-like, and the incorrectly functioning visor (which is not visually there) can be removed or fixed. It is especially strange that this is a closed helmet, but we look through it as if there is no mask in front of our face - i.e., nothing restricts our view.

The chainmail coif icon looks like a whole bascinet, although it is just a lining under the main helmet.

P.S. Although, I think the developers won’t bother with such trifles, and this topic is just a cry from my heart.

[makbthemf]

Originally posted by von Langen:

Don't you think? Perhaps it can (should) be made less ornate and more "combat" rather than tournament-like,

Crest (Helmkleinod) were worn in battles.

Originally posted by von Langen:

and the incorrectly functioning visor (which is not visually there) can be removed or fixed.

Topfhelm has no visor. It's just a metal bucket with holes for eyesight and breathing.

Originally posted by von Langen:

The chainmail coif icon looks like a whole bascinet, although it is just a lining under the main helmet.

Because bascinets were worn under the topfhelm. In combat, topfhelm was taken off after the equestrian clashes ended, so users needed some head protection. Game mechanics don't allow to wear helmet over helmet, so bascinet for the kit was made as coif.

[von Langen]

Originally posted by makbthemf:

Topfhelm has no visor. It's just a metal bucket with holes for eyesight and breathing.

What does the topfhelm have to do with it? In the game, this helmet is designated as a BASCINET, and according to the game mechanics, it has a visor. And the fact that the developers depicted this glitchy misunderstanding as a topf/kubelhelm is an obvious hack job.

The same goes for the chainmail coif, which you called a "bascinet". Even the description of the item says that it is a hood. The developers either got confused in their items, or simply did not bother much. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

[makbthemf]

Originally posted by von Langen:

What does the topfhelm have to do with it? In the game, this helmet is designated as a BASCINET, and according to the game mechanics, it has a visor. And the fact that the developers depicted this glitchy misunderstanding as a topf/kubelhelm is an obvious hack job.

*facepalm* game mechanics don't allow helmets to be fully enclosed. That's why topfhelm has a visor in FPV gameplay.

Originally posted by von Langen:

The same goes for the chainmail coif, which you called a "bascinet". Even the description of the item says that it is a hood. The developers either got confused in their items, or simply did not bother much. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

*double facepalm* The type of item in the description is picked from its class in DB. Because of the problems with game mechanics I've mentioned earlier:

Originally posted by makbthemf:

Game mechanics don't allow to wear helmet over helmet, so bascinet for the kit was made as coif.

The bascinet from the kit was classified as "coif" in the game files.

[von Langen]

That's exactly it, you can't close it. So why the hell did they make this helmet a topfhelm, which by definition has no visor? They had so much scope for implementation, and such an awkward choice in the end.

I, like other players, should not care what is indicated in the DB. In the game itself, this item has a different description.

[makbthemf]

Originally posted by von Langen:

That's exactly it, you can't close it. So why the hell did they make this helmet a topfhelm, which by definition has no visor? They had so much scope for implementation, and such an awkward choice in the end.

Because the kit was made for normies who know the only one medieval helmet.

Originally posted by von Langen:

I, like other players, should not care what is indicated in the DB. In the game itself, this item has a different description.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that all your theory is based on error in English localization (2 seconds for localizer to make a mistake), but is ignoring the fact that both topfhelm and bascinet are modeled as topfhelm and bascinet (10-15 and 4-5 hours to make the 3D model)?

[von Langen]

There is no "theory". There is a fact that the final helmet has banal flaws.

It just would have been worthwhile to just make a normal helmet right away, and not poke a bascinet on us under the guise of a topfhelm, if the game, according to its mechanics, cannot give us an correct helmet without a visor.

[makbthemf]

Originally posted by von Langen:

It just would have been worthwhile to just make a normal helmet right away, and not poke a bascinet on us under the guise of a topfhelm, if the game, according to its mechanics, cannot give us an correct helmet without a visor.

Do you realize that it's "bascinet on us under the guise of a topfhelm" only in English localization? It's a mistake of localization, and nothing more. In both Russian and Ukrainian localizations, it's described as a topfhelm.

[theo]

Brunswick armor is 13th century armor from the times when bascinets were smaller and worn under topfhelm.
The game otherwise features 15th century equipment with developed bascinets with visors worn over mail coifs.
To make Brunswick armor work they just had to make it the way it is. Brunswick bascinet is a "coif", and topfhelm is a "bascinet" because "coif" and "bascinet" are appropriate item slots. What's so difficult to understand here.
I don't think it's a localisation mistake, just a different approach to naming. In english these items are named according to their slots as to not confuse american audience.
Since it's non canon bonus content I don't think it should bother anyone.
Not sure what's the deal with the visor or whatever you call a visor. If you can see through the topfhelm it probably should be fixed