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] (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/51473-Command-to-hide-the-visual-effect-of-Afterglow-Weapons?) 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] (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/51473-Command-to-hide-the-visual-effect-of-Afterglow-Weapons?) 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.

[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.

[Jakuk]

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.

Because they DON'T exist if you want the look of the weapon. but not the glow.


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."

The difference is the weapons already exist without the glow, they could just have it reference that weapon.

[Nyarlko]

Because they DON'T exist if you want the look of the weapon. but not the glow.

The difference is the weapons already exist without the glow, they could just have it reference that weapon.

You are right that /lockstyle is not a solution to the OP's request. Aren't all REMA unique models after all? Since we can't have two copies of the same one, there is no way to /lockstyle an identical model weapon in that case.

Also, it sounds to me like the OP requested a repositioning of the location of the glow effect, which would indeed require some likely intensive animation work in order to do. Personally, I think it's feasible, and likely rather simple to implement, to add AG-type glow effects to the currently existing no-glow option to allow for an on/off switch.

[Traxus]

There should be an option to disable afterglow visuals in general (like for avatar glows), if only for the fact that they can negatively impact game performance. If I'm in a high population area where the framerate is already unstable (or playing with weather/shadows on), afterglows seem drop it further. Yeah you can lockstyle your REMA into something else, but you can't force other players to do the same.

[Nyarlko]

There should be an option to disable afterglow visuals in general (like for avatar glows), if only for the fact that they can negatively impact game performance. If I'm in a high population area where the framerate is already unstable (or playing with weather/shadows on), afterglows seem drop it further. Yeah you can lockstyle your REMA into something else, but you can't force other players to do the same.

The only thing that bugs me personally about AG effects is that even if you put the game into the "everybody in their undies" mode, AGs still display.

[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." ^_~

[Songen]

since the afterglow effect is simply a light that sits in the middle of your charactor, a on or off /switch would work, while i am a master of a job the stars above my head annouys me so i am glad they gave the option to remove it

[Songen]

also, being able to disable the afterglow effect would probably reduce lag for those with older computers much like removing the shadow effect, it might not seem like much, but it makes a difference

[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.

[Songen]

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.

perhaps what you shoulda done is read what she wrote, she was paraphrazing from SE quotes

[Rwolf]

You didn't read what I wrote at all if you believe I'm saying she isn't paraphrasing. Instead of just replying read what she wrote in a combative tone, have a discussion.

[Songen]

i was refering to the part that where you said "you can't speak for SE because you're not a representative of the company"

[Rwolf]

Until SE says there is no graphical changes whatsoever and to not suggest any changes to it. It is speaking for them through guesswork and reinterpretation.

[Nyarlko]

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.

We are well past the heyday of development for this game.. There are only a handful of people still working on it, and I believe that it's an exercise in futility to expect/ask for anything significantly difficult to implement. I brought up FP only to point out that, as far as I know, they have not said that they have anyone left on staff who is capable of creating art/models/animation.

At this point, I believe that it is far more productive to tailor our requests to work within the stated/known limitations that the dev team has to work with. Please think of my critical posts not as policing, but instead splashing cold water on the OP to wake them up from their dream. There are just not enough people on staff to make many dreams reality at this point. :( It has nothing to do w/ ComRep time and I would be ecstatic if we heard from them more frequently. Dev time is only a concern for me because the devs have said it's a concern for them.

In addition to an on/off switch (which I am in support of,) the OP also asked to move the AG effect from the static center of the character model to the weapons themselves (and weapons move around a whole lot more than our center mass so it's likely there'd have to be adjustments made directly to the animation of the AG effect itself.) That sounds to me like a task with whole lot of time/effort involved, with zero impact on how anything actually works, so does not sound like a good idea to me even if you were to ignore all of the technical limitations involved. I'd prefer the dev team focus on bug fixes and adding new stuff to do and/or collect.

[Jakuk]

Until SE says there is no graphical changes whatsoever and to not suggest any changes to it. It is speaking for them through guesswork and reinterpretation.

True, but by the fact they screwed GEO and RUN over with no afterglow but the same ridiculous cost to upgrade, it's a fairly informed guess.

[Rwolf]

An informed guess is still a guess in the end. Doesn't make it a fact or something the company said themselves.

All it boils down to is if SE wants to and can provide something, they will. Calculating what content we receive versus cosmetics in an update and stating it as factual information is just misrepresentation.

All these paragraphs over a minor graphical suggestion. The need to feel vindicated and right is real. It's ok to disagree.

[Numquam]

Can't you make a second relic of the AG one and keep it as 75? It would fix the solution. Have an AG and a non-AG weapon and bam! Lockstyle the non the AG one with no loss and no fuss!

[Nyarlko]

Can't you make a second relic of the AG one and keep it as 75? It would fix the solution. Have an AG and a non-AG weapon and bam! Lockstyle the non the AG one with no loss and no fuss!

I've never tried myself, but I've been told by many others that you can not have two copies of any same-name REMA, regardless of upgrade status.

[Jakuk]

I've never tried myself, but I've been told by many others that you can not have two copies of any same-name REMA, regardless of upgrade status.

This, the rare tag is exclusive to the weapon regardless the level, the minute you get to where it becomes the named weapon you can not continue or collect it unless you drop your current.

[Songen]

This, the rare tag is exclusive to the weapon regardless the level, the minute you get to where it becomes the named weapon you can not continue or collect it unless you drop your current.

actually, trial of magian dumps that concept as long as your not doing the current trial at that time, same weapon, different trial.

however you are right, the "Rare" status prevents weapons of the same name being attained twice, a +1 or +2 must be added to the name in order to change it to something else

[Nyarlko]

actually, trial of magian dumps that concept as long as your not doing the current trial at that time, same weapon, different trial.

however you are right, the "Rare" status prevents weapons of the same name being attained twice, a +1 or +2 must be added to the name in order to change it to something else

The Trial weapons that can be duped are only tagged EX. You can't have a lv85 Twashtar and a 119III one is my understanding.

[Nyclia]

Joy! All the responses. :)

Ok, i feel it's time to define what is most important to me.
To relocate the center of the Afterglow source was just an idea i had. Something we could discuss, nothing more.

What is REALLY important to me, is that SE should expect that not anything they implement is wanted by everyone.
Like i don't like that people abuse "/lockstyle" to lock sets they don't wear or never could wear. And you are/i am disappointed that you can't see the names of the armors on "/check" that the player seem to wear from the outsite view. (I wish i could disable lockstyle on other chars outside of fights also. :P)

>>>I will be completely happy, if SE would implement an on/off switch to disable the Afterglow animation on your char, like they did on the Master stars. (Which i disabled already. ;P)<<<
And honestly, why are glows so special? I don't even want a glowing Lu Shang's or Ebisu +1 fishing rod, when i ever get the normal versions. <.<

I just hope SE's development team does read this, so i can disable Afterglow later.
Thanks so far for the responses! :)

[zataz]

personally idc about were the glow comes from but they should make first item equipped glows 1st. as i'm tired of having to lockstyle my degen to allow my afterglowed shields to glow.=P i wanna see my 4 billion gill afterglow on my ochain when i get done with it please!