I have to ask why exactly do you have such a disdain for such an option. I get you listed your reasons but at the core it seems far deeper then what you have listed. Just seems more personal then anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caitlyn
-
09-29-2021, 04:44 AMAwha
-
09-29-2021, 05:24 AMraelgunApparently they need to be validated in game and want people to wear what they want but then made a passing but very obvious statement about headscarfs as a negative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Awha
So the person is a look at me person and vouches for choice yet when it comes to headscarfs its a no (to which was brought out of no where mind you), yeeeeeeeeeee this person should be ignored in game and irl. -
09-29-2021, 07:54 AMSilverObiQuite a few of the arguments against this option (or hell the DISCUSSION of the option itself) do seem to come from a place of being perturbed that someone somewhere might not see their character how they want them to, which seems like a pointless thing to get emotional about when mods and the game's own graphical settings exist. What if someone is playing with reshade or bad light settings and that makes their character look less than optimal on that person's screen? Do they break out in a cold sweat? What about lewd mods? You'd think with that visceral level of hatred for this idea that they'd never leave their inn room or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by raelgun
Yes I'm being a bit hyperbolic but that seems to be the flavor of disagreement folks are offering right now.
I can understand making your character look the way you want and that it is personal expression but I do that for me alone and not to impress people, especially in a multiplayer online game where you know someone may be seeing something different than you. -
09-29-2021, 09:58 AMNanaWiloh
The jokester in me from earlier aside. Put the glam off option in. Then add a glam on option that when activated removes said player from a glam off players view and vice versa. Immersion is not ruined and people get seen how they want to be seen. If options are so good then both sides should get and option.
-
09-29-2021, 10:03 AMKrotoanThis works until you have to party with that player. I'd love to have people turn themselves off in the overworld from my view. That would be great.. but if I need to play an instance with them that option quickly becomes an actual hindrance. The logical extension of that being not to allow those two to party together... but that might increase queue times undesirably.Quote:
Originally Posted by NanaWiloh
-
09-29-2021, 10:45 AMNanaWilohGlam on could be automatically disbaled when entering a duty. Its only a visual option would not stop parties from being formed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krotoan
-
09-29-2021, 10:54 AMKrotoanAnd then that person has to be seen differently than they would wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by NanaWiloh
If people would have no problem with possibly being seen differently within an instance and just not being seen in the overworld.. I would have no issue with that implementation. -
09-29-2021, 11:01 AMNanaWilohThats exactly how it would be only in a party would both sides chosen view be disabled. When going solo it would be enabled, also means fewer player models being loaded on screen for those players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krotoan
-
09-29-2021, 11:42 AMKrotoanAgain if BOTH sides are disabled you are defeating the purpose of the original feature. Do you understand that some people who want this feature want it working in dungeons and instances for the specific purpose of not having "weird" glamours in their cutscenes and battles?Quote:
Originally Posted by NanaWiloh
-
09-29-2021, 12:02 PMAwha
I could live with a toggle that disables other player characters during cutscenes, and turns other peoples character while in a dungeon as their job icon. This would be much more difficult to implement.
-
09-29-2021, 12:12 PMhbapartner dance
I think it would be cool to have partner dances
and simple make it so you ask like a trade. they can except of decline
this it for people that enjoy parties have merited,dating,friends, ex
I think it would be fresh and fun! -
09-29-2021, 12:20 PMhbaswimming Pools for housing/ volleyball game
I think it would be cool if we added pools to housing. For outdoor party where you can swim go down a slide. Fun floaty items and new inspiration for housing.
I think this would be best if we implement getting it though volleyball games and fun events where you get a new currency or golden saucer. This will prevent people that have billions of gil from just buying it. And make it fun to try and get it as a guild.
Volleyball game it would be fun to have volleyball to gain the pool. 2v2 or 3v3 volleyball where the more you play the more awards and glam you can get! making it a new fun game with the theme of obtaining your swimming pool! -
09-29-2021, 12:27 PMNanaWilohThere is a low class healing set in game that makes you look like a court jester rather then a healer.There plenty of other horrifying sets like that present in game. Glam off wont save your immersion understand that. Its a actaul set!!! So glam off wont EFFECT ITQuote:
Originally Posted by Krotoan
-
09-29-2021, 12:34 PMVirusOnline
People like to make the argument that "more options is always better". More options, in a system as complex as an MMO, is only better when it benefits enough people otherwise it's a useless and unnecessary feature.
Other people like to argue that "you people with glamours just want to be seen and ruin my experience". The argument can go the other way: "you people just want other people to be a lore prop for your experience and downplay expression for your own benefit".
Really, accept the game for what it is. If you want another experience, go to another game to get your high fantasy lore fix. -
09-29-2021, 12:37 PMKrotoanSo.. several posts back (and multiple times in multiple threads) it was suggested that it could replace whatever glamours or appearances with level appropriate AF or traditionally "fantasy" armor to create easily identifiable looks that were neutrally impactful. This would be technically just as easy and create no extra data throughput or processor restraint since the technical aspect is the same as what glamour does, possibly even less since your client with the option enabled would process LESS data from others. I know the set you're thinking of though, and honestly it's not half as bad as what people here are actually complaining about. A tri-tipped doingy hat isn't really immersion breaking for me personally.Quote:
Originally Posted by NanaWiloh
If you'd like to continue this line of conversation I would love it if you'd read further back in this thread to see if your next particular argument has been discussed already.
If the actual devs had this attitude we'd be playing something else entirely because 1.0 would have simply failed and rotted. Games that adjust to their players concerns and wants and broaden their appeal survive, games that narrowly and stubbornly focus generally will fail or live in obscurity.Quote:
Originally Posted by VirusOnline
-
09-29-2021, 12:45 PMVirusOnlineSure, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krotoan
Do you see wanting to deglamour everyone being something that adjusts to the mass appeal of their player's concerns ?
SE is far from stubborn, but not stupidly blind to follow every single concern brought to their doorstep. -
09-29-2021, 12:46 PMNanaWilohThe gear I spoke is not a glam. Its role gear and role specifc to healers. I thinks its level 50 something gear. If the game load a pre-determined glam and made everyone on your screen wear it no matter if they are glam'd or not. That would avoid all immersion breaking sets. As I said earlier everyone would look the sameQuote:
Originally Posted by Krotoan
-
09-29-2021, 12:52 PMKrotoanAhh , the "Evenstar" set then. Also still not that bad in my personal opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by NanaWiloh
I have no problem if other people look the same. This is generally not a concern for people who'd like to use this option. However a small amount of "randomization" could be used if that became an actual concern. As I mentioned in my original response a set of neutral but class appropriate gear sets could be used.
You really don't have a say in the experience if you don't like or want a feature. Saying you don't want something but then also voice complaints about how it'd work if you were to use it seems like just being negative for no reason. You're complaining about the color of the bus seats when you refuse to ever ride in it. -
09-29-2021, 12:55 PMZsolenThe odds of someone actually wearing a "Jester's set" is low and not even immersion breaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by NanaWiloh
-
09-29-2021, 01:02 PMKrotoanI see and have experienced that there are substantial amount of people I have talked to in game and otherwise who would prefer to have their experience as customizable as possible especially when going through important story plot points and when hanging around in public areas. More than I've ever heard about people being jazzed about umbrellas and comparably to the amount of people who actually enjoy every aspect of Eureka.Quote:
Originally Posted by VirusOnline
The more people you appeal to , by large groups or "small", the bigger your playerbase gets.
Personally I'm excited about having my minions fuss about in the new garden content we're supposedly getting (it was mentioned they'd be part of it), but that's about it. However the fact they mentioned the minions part kept my attention and look, one more player who is engaged now that wouldnt have been before. -
09-29-2021, 01:31 PMNanaWilohI am not trying to be negative but I look at this thread and see players who value immersion and those who value glams. Neither willing to accomidate and both are down playing the others side. Both sides wanting the other to just play ignorant. If you cant find a middle ground then I feel SE should just ignore both sides and do what they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krotoan
-
09-29-2021, 01:49 PMKrotoanI see very little compromise from people who wish to insist that absolutely everyone see their glam no matter what. This desire is in direct opposition to the desire to customize ones experience and tends to be enforced by this misconceived perception of this feature as some sort of suppression of expression. They don't or can't understand that a video game client isn't the real world and someone saying they don't want to see something doesn't equate to telling a real person they cannot wear or be something.Quote:
Originally Posted by NanaWiloh
Many compromises have been accepted by those proposing this and next to none have been accepted by those against it and in addition several antagonistic and outright hostile takes on it have been presented. "I would do whatever I can to make you see stuff you don't want to anyway" "I think you should lose functionality if you want this!".
Your particular "compromise" itself removes the entire purpose for wanting this feature. Understand the desire maybe and you can come up with a better compromise.
There is no proposed loss of functionality to anyone just a loss of audience which they apparently cannot stand to think about. -
09-29-2021, 02:22 PMNanaWilohNailed problem on the head.Quote:
Originally Posted by VirusOnline
-
09-29-2021, 02:54 PMShurrikhanIs the group of people who would be offended by others' not seeing their frog costume so large a group as those who'd really rather not go straight from a serious, emotional cutscene just to return to the open world to see a player in a frog costume emoting into (yes, into) another in a pig costume while a couple of WHMs in bikinis attempt to out-Holy-spam the other?Quote:
Originally Posted by VirusOnline
If, for instance, there is only a small part of Group B whose experience would be worsened by the Group A's ability not to have their experience worsened by Group B, that is a net positive, since previously immersion and freedom of expression would have been mutually exclusive in this regard. Now, they'd be only mutually exclusive to the degree that people care that their glamour has a portion of players who, not wishing to see it if/when it would break their immersion, will not see it. That reduced conflict (from a zero-sum situation to far from it) is precisely the point of having options.
You're dismissing the benefits all while implying that the player costs would be far greater than is probable. Why? -
09-29-2021, 03:37 PMNanaWiloh
LOL I just realized something funny about all this. The people who want the Glam off, in essence break each others immersion. Its like two people who are good friends but cant stand each other's personal taste in clothes. To the point they have to both wear something neutral to avoid ruining their own friendship. :D:D:D:D:D Should name it The Contradiction option
I will support this idea just for that alone lol -
09-29-2021, 04:33 PMCaitlynQuote:
Originally Posted by VirusOnline
Thank you. This exactly! : ) -
09-29-2021, 04:33 PMVirusOnlineYou don't know the numbers and I don't know the numbers. I won't pretend to know and I never suggested knowing. The original argument still stands that whether a feature is necessary stands upon it being such an issue that it's brought to the attention of the team. It being an issue implies that a majority complain about this en mass and whether the team thinks it warrants serious attention. A good team will always take in consideration the player's interests but must also find balance in their own view and goals for the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
The world will always be the same outside of the cutscene. The cutscene, especially those with such emotion are generally isolated to the player. Should we change the shape of the world just so the player can on for the next few days in the 'book hangover'? And whether a whm is deglammed or not they will still spam holy. They can still stand on you. Come EW, you'll have hordes of people standing at the NPC. Immersion breaking ? Should we start solo instances in the world to negate this ? It becomes silly to attempt to isolate glamour as such a distressing source of broken immersion when we have mounts, crossovers, raids that have nothing to do with FFXIV, and even some would argue the existence of viera being in the overworld en masse.
I dismissed nothing. I know the benefits. It's why I play ESO. But while we're here, if you want to talk about freedom of expression you'll also need to talk about censorship. Expression in an mmo is outward. It's clothing. It's the mount you choose. It's how you talk. The things that make you an individual. When we see someone we see their expression be it glammed or not. If the player glamming is freedom of expression then the person removing that glam on their client is a censorship of those around them even if it's on their own client and affects no one. It's still censorship at its base idea. The same goes for illegal mods. It goes both ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
You have a good argument and it's simply put, but there are two sides to the coin here and to deny it exists is faulty. Zero sum game or not - there is so much more nuance than that to consider and it can be summed up as politics. The team will judge whether it's something they want to involve themselves in and doing so will set a statement as the current game culture is that "glam is the true end game". -
09-29-2021, 04:51 PMShurrikhanI think you'll find those criteria sorely lacking from the majority of fixes in this game.Quote:
Originally Posted by VirusOnline
Quote:
You have a good argument and it's simply put, but there are two sides to the coin here and to deny it exists is faulty. Zero sum game or not - there is so much more nuance than that to consider and it can be summed up as politics.
- I never denied that the coin, nor two conflicting sides thereupon, exist(s). Such is right there in what you've just quoted.
- That a conflict is zero sum or capable of a greater-than-sum resolution is huge. However, finding and widening the difference between the two, such that each side can better achieve their desires without that coming at cost to the other, is exactly the goal of such game design.
- That difference, moreover, is not merely "politics". It has far more to do with the specific means by which the given interests can be achieved.
Does my wearing headphones repress your right to speech? Would my not looking at you deny you your freedoms in clothing yourself? My vision is poor. Have I therefore inherently dismissed or devalued your efforts in skincare?Quote:
It's still censorship at its base idea.
In in-game terms, are filters now likewise, what, anti-democratic? Most iterations of glamour-hiding ideas are effectively just that: if the appearance is Z (or not A through Y), it's filtered out, per that specific player's preferences (not, mind you, some arbitrary overlying ruleset).
If you can make the case that a player blacklist, for instance -- I hear A-Y, but not Z -- amounts to a net loss in player freedoms and ultimately toxifies the environment, you might have a point here. But I doubt it. -
09-29-2021, 05:45 PMKrotoan
And we're here again.
Saying that a filter on an individuals computer is "censorship".
At what point do your "freedoms" end and mine begin?
Should I not have control over what I see on my screen? Should I not be the final arbiter of what the hardware I paid for, running on the electricity I pay for, using the internet access I pay for shows me? Just because you can wiggle your mouse and make a character on my screen move, does that give you the right to display whatever you wish on my screen?
At what point does the information you're renting to access stop being yours and become my problem? Should you be allowed to broadcast whatever you wish via the medium of an MMO straight into my experience as long as it does not violate actual mechanics of the game? Why does a character you do not own (you by license do not), have any right to representation in any place? What guarantee says you're promised this?
Do we not allow anti-harassment measures currently? We have text harassment, audio harassment, even visual harassment. How far a stretch is this to be visual harassment? Where is the line drawn for your window into my experience?
One more time, me not seeing someones glamour is not even remotely related to telling someone in real life they cannot dress/be/eat/kiss/date/interact with anyone or anything. Its within the cyber world akin to me unfollowing you on a social media we share. I cannot understand it. Nobody I know understands it. I tried my hardest to find someone I associate with who can fathom why it'd be so important that every single person you interact with HAS to see the video game character you dressed up and even the thought of it distresses you. I could not. Every single real world person I interacted with about it was either mystified or laughed especially when I brought up people citing censorship and oppression as opposition.
I believe in the rights of a human being to be who they want to be in real life. To extend that protection to a video game character is detachment from reality and disrespectful to people who actually struggle with societies intolerance of their immutable being. Your character can be an escape but it's still a representation in a fake environment with entirely different rules to reality. As long as I'm not able to stop you from actually making choices for your own character or from playing, you do not need to concern yourself with what I see. -
09-29-2021, 05:47 PMSilverObiYou are trying really hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by NanaWiloh
-
09-29-2021, 08:50 PMFayt1203
Stop hiding behind "immersion" and come clean,
asking about glamour toggle had no traction few patch cycles ago.
it was not until dev team allows males to wear bunny suit and wedding dress that these threads started to pop up and getting some traction. i said my peace in the original thread that came up soon after dev did the changes, I will admit that i used way to strong word there but i have not change my stand on the matter.
Also its funny that it always the other player glamour that is ruining the immersion not the all other things thats in this game.
we have talking mecha down to a guy running in the east shroud in chocobo costume and a lot of bosses with questionable outfits but no its the players glamour that is ruining things.
and if it would be added for me it would feel like the dev team was giving them self the middle finger, because always when they bring up glamour in interview Yosi is always saying how difficult it as been to get to the way it is today then just add off button undo the hard work. -
09-29-2021, 09:41 PMAwha
Something seems off to me for those so against the idea. If it is useless or not needed isn't it safe to assume that you also feel many would not use the feature cause it is not needed? So where exactly is the fear for the option really stemming from? I do not think it comes from a place of caring about the devs work, cause their work would still be seen and appreciated by many. The reason behind why someone would want to use the option is also moot. Sure some may want to use it because they do not want to see a man in a wedding dress, or they do not want to see people in the frog or pig suits, or they simply find ones glam looks weird.
In the end their reason and use will not hamper your expression or experience. It will only be impacted if you either assume everyone uses the option or go out of your way to see if someone is using it or not.
Idk I just have a hard time thinking people are coming from a place on genuine concern if it was added. Seems more like people are up that their overall audience that will see their glam will be smaller and they cannot stomach that idea. Which I get, wanting to show off drip is part of the reason why many buy expensive clothing. -
09-29-2021, 11:01 PMkaynideFor me it's always been NOT that it was a bad idea, but that I would rather the dev resources be used elsewhere, especially with how often we are told how tight their schedule is and the obvious results of said tight schedule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Awha
Eg. if there even is time for side projects, they should spend it fixing Hrothgar/Viera headgear. Or a TLC update to fix the glaring world-edges when you fly around 2.0 maps and see parts previously not meant to be seen. Or a billion other things that are on the to-do but low priority. -
09-29-2021, 11:13 PMAwhaI get that but the reality is we do not have much say in what is a worth while investment of dev time and resources. So I get that argument we do not have much say in what is considered a better use. So to a degree that is a largely a moot point. As mentioned in my other posts I get the position of it being seen as a waste of development time.Quote:
Originally Posted by kaynide
While I also Fall in that camp personally I made my own bootleg fix so I am okay. I do not think itnis fair to dismiss an idea solely based on the Dev resources because what people find important is not all the same.
Like personally I think that performance feature is a waste of resources though I get many enjoy it so who am I to say what is a waste or not.
That I'd why I say something is deeper going on here. -
09-29-2021, 11:20 PM_Pigzig
its supposed to be an online game. people have the freedom to do what they want like in real life, if you dont like how people dressed tough imo.
people shouldnt look different on different screens because you dont like it. thats just weird
also if you turn glamours off people will look like clowns with a mess of different armor. doesnt seem very immersive. -
09-29-2021, 11:33 PMAwhaHow is it weird? They would not even know. I imagine people in different attire all the time IRL does that make me weird? That is legit what this is. It is locally done.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Pigzig
-
09-29-2021, 11:55 PMNanaWilohAt what? Its true :D not my faultQuote:
Originally Posted by SilverObi
-
09-30-2021, 01:16 AMKrotoanThis is how I feel about Eureka, extra bard performance instruments, umbrellas, the fact Viera/Hrothgar are getting their "missing" genders and MANY other things that have been put in the game. The thing being that EVERYONE feels this way about something you wanted. It's really not relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by kaynide
and a couple more things I don't care about that I would personally consider "wasted" developer time. You see how this works? I don't say anything because while I would rather they make stuff I care about.. so does everyone else who has wildly different wants and while i don't care about the features and content directly, I can concede that my personal preference isn't a compelling reason to prioritize or backburner anything in particular.Quote:
Originally Posted by kaynide
Do you see how this is a non-argument yet?
One mans priority is anothers absolute last concern.
Discussing whether something has merit or not is one thing, arguing that it's not as important as "thing" so it shouldn't even be considered is another.
I suggest you read the thread, your counterpoints are all addressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Pigzig
That you've degenerated into making up stories that have nothing to do with the discussion? I'd say that's entirely your fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by NanaWiloh
-
09-30-2021, 01:44 AMkaynideQuote:
Originally Posted by Awha
That’s fair. And kind of my earlier point too- people can already adjust how things look via modifications, so devs are not needed. Similarly, there are mods that fix hrothgar/viera hats, so maybe those are also low-priority.
Of course it’s not up to me what the devs do, I just hope they utilize their time wisely.
I believe I said I don’t have anything more to say to you on this topic. Your overly aggressive responses to almost everyone in this thread make it clear we can not discuss this matter further.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krotoan
-
09-30-2021, 02:04 AMAwhaYeah sure I admit it is a lower priority feature also in my view especially for myself since I created my own work around. That said it is disingenuous to use outside fixes as a suitable solution since not everyone has the knowledge or ability to use such tools. This goes for a toggle and for Hrothgar and Viera.Quote:
Originally Posted by kaynide
Though as mentioned I do get the stance but I also do not feel it is a non argument in the sense it is a largely a moot point. It is a valid point and valid concern but generally moot in yhe sense that we have no real say in what is worthy of dev time or not outside of our own subjective view.
Hope that makes sense. That is why I say not you but generally I do feel those against it have a deeper reasoning behind it that stems more so behind a sense of validation.