Afterglow effect - option to disable or to move it to the weapon only?

[Nyclia]

Hello folks!

I'm working on the Afterglowed Ryunohige, but i'm troubled about the Afterglow animation itself.
I only do the quest for the maxed damage of Ryunohige, but is there no option to disable the shining animation from your inner body? There should be. SE should implement that if not, thought.
I also think that the glow should come from the weapon and not from an undefined source of your inner body. Let's SE force to do the changes to the Afterglow animation!
What do you think? :P

[Nyarlko]

No animation changes please. I'd rather not lose an update's worth of content in order to adjust AG animation.. >_>

I thought that glow effects were already able to be turned off.. though I don't remember if it was a config option or a /command... If AG aren't included in that, then that might be simple enough to add to hope for I guess?

[Walkul]

Hello folks!

I'm working on the Afterglowed Ryunohige, but i'm troubled about the Afterglow animation itself.
I only do the quest for the maxed damage of Ryunohige, but is there no option to disable the shining animation from your inner body? There should be. SE should implement that if not, thought.
I also think that the glow should come from the weapon and not from an undefined source of your inner body. Let's SE force to do the changes to the Afterglow animation!
What do you think? :P

this makes no sense to me, the shiny animation is like a badge showing off all that you have accomplished, but whatever, you can just lockstyle another weapon of the same type and you wont get the animation

[Jakuk]

this makes no sense to me, the shiny animation is like a badge showing off all that you have accomplished, but whatever, you can just lockstyle another weapon of the same type and you wont get the animation

Maybe some people don't care about the "badge"

Also that is an awful idea, if you don't want the aura to show lockstyle it to a completely different weapon.

A non-glowing weapon already exists, all they'd need is a command to reference that one instead of the aura one.

[Rwolf]

The game isn't gonna implode upon itself because someone requests for a cosmetic or animation change. They can continue to release content and do these minor things if chosen to do so based on track record of cosmetic changes. Let SE decide on that. Instead just disagree without having to extrapolate on hidden factors.

To my knowledge, it's been brought up on the forums before with no comment [Link] and the only glow option I recall being added to be removed was avatars/special trusts.

[Nyarlko]

The game isn't gonna implode upon itself because someone requests for a cosmetic or animation change. They can continue to release content and do these minor things if chosen to do so based on track record of cosmetic changes. Let SE decide on that. Instead just disagree without having to extrapolate on hidden factors.

To my knowledge, it's been brought up on the forums before with no comment [Link] and the only glow option I recall being added to be removed was avatars/special trusts.

Ok, that avatar/trust thing must be what I was thinking of. ><;; For some reason I just fuzzily remembered it as "turn off all glowy effects". Thanks for the clarification. ^^

If you look thru or kept up with the last few years of devposts, you'd probably notice the same thing frequently popping up (paraphrased): "We can't do >that< because it would be the work equivalent of an entire monthly update." Yes, the game's not gonna implode if we hear it yet again, but it makes sense to avoid asking for things in a way that is likely to get that canned response since that also means that our suggestions are being trashed by default. We also know that there are hardware-related difficulties in adding any new models/animations at this point due to lack of PS2 devkits, which is why we haven't gotten anything actually "new" other than the three Master Trial weapons in the past 2yrs. "Adjustments" to Afterglow animations would almost certainly fall into that category, which is why I suggested tacking gear glow display onto the same command/config that turns off avatar/trust glows. I believe that it would be a simpler task to connect AG animations to the aura blocker command than it would be to directly change anything regarding animations.

[Rwolf]

Ok, that avatar/trust thing must be what I was thinking of. ><;; For some reason I just fuzzily remembered it as "turn off all glowy effects". Thanks for the clarification. ^^

If you look thru or kept up with the last few years of devposts, you'd probably notice the same thing frequently popping up (paraphrased): "We can't do >that< because it would be the work equivalent of an entire monthly update." Yes, the game's not gonna implode if we hear it yet again, but it makes sense to avoid asking for things in a way that is likely to get that canned response since that also means that our suggestions are being trashed by default. We also know that there are hardware-related difficulties in adding any new models/animations at this point due to lack of PS2 devkits, which is why we haven't gotten anything actually "new" other than the three Master Trial weapons in the past 2yrs. "Adjustments" to Afterglow animations would almost certainly fall into that category, which is why I suggested tacking gear glow display onto the same command/config that turns off avatar/trust glows. I believe that it would be a simpler task to connect AG animations to the aura blocker command than it would be to directly change anything regarding animations.

That's just hyperfocusing on a response. If the devs respond they can't, it doesn't mean they now spent time answering questions that they could have been otherwise answering. It's not an AMA or interview. They already pick what they want to respond to.

It doesn't matter if there's hardware-related difficulties. You keep saying that over and over again in a lot of recent threads but seriously if they think something is feasible and a good idea, they will do it or not do it. What I meant by my earlier post is there's no need predictioning. Suggestions can be put out there and don't need to be shutdown with "oh well I know what SE can and cannot do based on what they said here and there". Until they literally tell us to stop providing feedback to graphical changes in any capacity because it's never gonna happen, don't shut people down.

If you want to quote SE's behavior and words, they also said another expansion is not completely off the table if they can do it. They've also added filters for tons of things there was no huge amount of requests for. There was no "welp no update this month because we added this filter option". You can disagree and not see a reason for it without speaking through SE.

[Nyarlko]

That's just hyperfocusing on a response. If the devs respond they can't, it doesn't mean they now spent time answering questions that they could have been otherwise answering. It's not an AMA or interview. They already pick what they want to respond to.

It doesn't matter if there's hardware-related difficulties. You keep saying that over and over again in a lot of recent threads but seriously if they think something is feasible and a good idea, they will do it or not do it. What I meant by my earlier post is there's no need predictioning. Suggestions can be put out there and don't need to be shutdown with "oh well I know what SE can and cannot do based on what they said here and there". Until they literally tell us to stop providing feedback to graphical changes in any capacity because it's never gonna happen, don't shut people down.

If you want to quote SE's behavior and words, they also said another expansion is not completely off the table if they can do it. They've also added filters for tons of things there was no huge amount of requests for. There was no "welp no update this month because we added this filter option". You can disagree and not see a reason for it without speaking through SE.

"Hyperfocusing" XD
It's been pretty common actually to hear that paraphrase the last couple years. There are reasons, they have talked about the issues involved w/ further development including the difficulties involved with graphical assets, and it most certainly does matter if the hardware-related difficulties involved have to do with the shortage of PS2 devkits they need to use in order to add new graphical assets. I'm relatively certain that there is no one on staff currently who is credited w/ being able to handle creating new graphical assets as well, (at the very least no one has shown up in the Freshly Picked broadcasts.) My stance is simply that it is far more beneficial for all of us if we focus on stuff that we know could be done within the known/stated limitations the current dev team has to work with.

Filters (like what I'm saying they can/should do) are feasible. Adding the AG effect to an existing on/off switch, or making a new on/off switch is probably doable. Changing the location of the graphical effect would involve dealing with animations/models and would be a silly amount of work for no impact on actual gameplay, and changing the animations themselves are basically not doable as far as we've been told.

The way their answer to the new expansion question was worded was more like "It's not a 100% impossibilty" which translates to "We don't want to rule it out now and get yelled at later if we decide to do it." XD As far as content getting left out due to seemingly small/simple changes, I'm betting that the reason that the 3rd stage for Escutcheons is not coming out this month is due to them adding a way to display Craftsmanship changes in the chatlog (which they said took more work than they expected.) If you look at the content of this month's update, there's very little meat to it overall.. You might even say that "welp nearly no update this month because we added this chatlog option." ^_~

[Rwolf]

Filters (like what I'm saying they can/should do) are feasible. Adding the AG effect to an existing on/off switch, or making a new on/off switch is probably doable.

The way their answer to the new expansion question was worded was more like "It's not a 100% impossibilty"

I think you missed what I was trying to point out with the AMA question about expansions. The short of it is, you can't speak for SE because you're not a representative of the company.

Hypothesizing from what they choose to tell us is fine and all for discussion but not a reason to shut down a suggestion. It's not fact and they've done a lot of things that have exceeded expectations in the past.

It's an on/off switch which has been pointed out. Your initial reply to the OP summarized was "no, SE can't handle new graphical changes and you're eating up dev time" with this long reason why.

Watching the latest Freshly picked in Japan and JP posts might feel like there is some expertise into the inner workings of the company, but it's just simply being a fan and there is no offense meant at that. I do it myself.

I'm not trying to change the mind of anyone who wants to make their own truth through SE replies. I only comment on the reality that we don't know 100% through theory. Feeling like the forum needs to be policed for suggestions because it is eating potential dev and community rep time is ridiculous to me.

[xiozen]

I honestly can't see the logic; esp with other options exist within the game that'll accomplish the same thing... /lockstyle. So, short answer is "no" to OP.