I guess you would have to focus more on spells and effects than you would armour. May not be so bad. Remember, every perk counts.

Maybe we'll get lucky and light armor will have a perk ark for those who dress in normal clothing?

Ya...probably a pipe dream.

You don't wear armor, you won't level up due to armor skill and you won't pick armor perks, so you can use it on something else.

Also you're fastest without armor.

That's exactly what I said.

Bonuses for no armour : Spell effectiveness, faster movement, less encumbrance.
Though it may seem Skyrim has simplified many mechanics, they seem to be adding the necessity of tactical choices. No spellmaking, but the need to choose the right spell for the job, and the need to equip to a hand, for example. I can't believe, given this design ethos, that there won't be a choice between protection and spell effectiveness. The two hands approach limits the spellsword/battlemage type more than any other, similar limiting vis. armour would only make sense.
Faster movement speaks for itself. he only differences in speed are by armour type.
Encumbrance has been said to be a bit more forgiving, but a successful mage is not going to be able to take much in the way of extra stamina. so your carrying capacity won't increase as higher quality, and heavier, armours become available. want to carry all those ingredients and all that shiny magical loot home? Enchanted robes seem more atractive than a heavy tin suit in that situation.

Heavy Armor. Makes you appreciate going naked.

Altering the method of definition is not devolution, if anything it's quite the opposite. The real loss that comes with the removal of attributes is a loss of the refinement and variety those would certainly bring, but don't make the mistake of thinking that attributes were the big thing in the past two games. They've been understudy to the skills themselves for a very long time now when it comes to what your character can actually do.

Perks are good. Perks plus attributes would have been even better, but I prefer perks and no attributes to the prior system when it comes down to it.

The Mage's Armor skill is called "Alteration". Pretty sure it has some perks.

why unarmored?its ridiculous running around without armor

Its ridiculous to be running around with heavy knights armor if you are a pure mage.

Not everybody wears armour, this should be pretty obvious.

I don't like being a pure mage in all honesty anyways plus I dont like running around unarmored as its gonna be so cold don't my wood elf shivering her butt off.

Irrelevant.

I have a feeling robes wont count towards an armour class again so just wear them if they don't.

Shield spell + higher spell effectiveness + style factor leads to the fact that real mages wear robes.

If they're going to balance it with spell effectiveness, it better be better than vanilla OB where the "penalty" for wearing armor was laughable. I hope for, but again dont expect, to at least feel the difference bet armor weights (and unarmored). Some OB mods really made you feel heavy while in heavier armor (noticeably slower, tire faster, etc).

I would love a harsher penalty for wearing light/heavy armor or a proper bonus for wearing only robes.

Definitely agree with the harsher penalty, maybe a separate penalty for gloves, helm, boots and armour, but balanced by no penalty for a shield, after all it's using up a spellcasting hand already.

I don't really understand a problem....If not wearing armour,you'll move faster.You'll also have shield spells,spells that slow people etc. You'll have perks to enhance defensive or affensive magic also.....there is always a way.....just need to think a little is all.

How I would put the question is, if you don't wear armor, will your defense be too gimped? Probably not. You will have to choose block or lots of healing or magic shielding, or try to kite. If it was in as a skill, you would level up with it whether you wanted to or not, if you were going around without armor. At least this way you can put the points into magic or something. It is hard to tank as a pure mage, that's life.

Might as well get use to it, mages in Nirn are now just warriors or thieves with flamethrowers.

Bethesda no longer belive there is a place for pure mages in RPG's. You are expected to play a sorceror, spellsword or nightblade of some type.

Playing as a pure mage will be no problem.

I have serious doubts it will be any where near as enjoyable as previous TES games.

For what reason?

Why would you think that?

I really do think the wait for this game is eating away at people,causing many doubts. Everything isn't going to be perfect,but i believe it's going to be a cracker of a game. Maybe i'm blind ,but i can't see anything other than that at the moment.