Forced aesthetic changes should not exist

Firstly, I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, as the "feedback" board is mostly for apps and the website and not for game features. So I'm sorry if this would be better suited to another board.

That said;

Reaper's Enshroud, and Scholar's new ability, forcefully replace your character model with a generic one-size-fits-all model during the ability's buff duration, and this really should not be a feature. I'm worried that this is a testing phase to see how well the concept is received, and may see even more widespread use in the future.

After the amount of (deserved) backlash over what is relatively minor aesthetic differences in the benchmark character creator, I genuinely do not understand why it's acceptable for a job buff to completely overwrite your entire character's aesthetic, pigeonholing jobs into a singular look and style, and I really hope that we are given the option to disable this going forward, especially if it becomes a more standard feature of job buff phases.

While I love how Enshroud looks for my character, I understand how annoying it would be for someone who had a different aesthetic preference. I dislike actions in most games that replace the character model, too.

I'd like more transformations, and Enshroud should definitely continue to be a feature, but I wouldn't care if someone wanted to turn it off on their character.

Ideally we could benefit a lot from a cosmetic system to alter those things, pretty much like you can /petglam the fairy or the carbuncle.

It should definitely be an optional "reduced effects" toggle. I HATE that there are now two classes that disregard my racial and glamour customization options. :(

I wanted to like reaper, but can't play it because I like my character choices more.

Stop amputating my body parts SE!! D':

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roda

It should definitely be an optional "reduced effects" toggle. I HATE that there are now two classes that disregard my racial and glamour customization options. :(

I wanted to like reaper, but can't play it because I like my character choices more.

Stop amputating my body parts SE!! D':

---

you know with enshroud youre being taken over by a demon right? thats the point of it, you sacrifice yourself for a bit to gain the power of a devil...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acelyn

you know with enshroud youre being taken over by a demon right? thats the point of it, you sacrifice yourself for a bit to gain the power of a devil...

---

On the other hand Seraphism is completely out of place. "Throw a tablecloth onto your face to heal more."

"Sir, I'm a condecorated war veteran from an ancient city."

"HEAL MORE"

yep. as a reaper i hate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acelyn

you know with enshroud youre being taken over by a demon right? thats the point of it, you sacrifice yourself for a bit to gain the power of a devil...

---

Well.. Voidsent*

But sure, let's engage with this from that angle then. What body parts are hyur and roegadyn sacrificing? Or do they get to keep their racial identity/aesthetics and get to choose more metaphorical/spiritual sacrifices that don't actually impact their character representation? Or... :eek: How come races with fun features have to cripple their senses and balance when they need to be more effective in battle? Doesn't seem very productive to me.

Are there voidsent vaults with jars of miqo'te tails, viera ears, and au ra horns? How come they grow back? Not much of a sacrifice, more of like a borrowing situation really..

Could I like dump all my wardrobe into a satanic circle and get cool powers if that's the cost?

I agree with the feedback about the fusion but what's the deal with the use of the term "forced" here?

So are you being forced to do any other actions? Are you being forced to do MSQ? Playing a game is an at will experience in totality. No one is forcing you to do anything. I find use of this word to be highly bizarre.

Like I'm just imagining if the fusion was something people liked would it then not be "forced"? Is Enshroud unfair enforcing? I just don't get it. Has some kind of positive feedback response been developed between Yoshi P and players where if they imply lack of free will any given thing is 10x worse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

I agree with the feedback about the fusion but what's the deal with the use of the term "forced" here?

So are you being forced to do any other actions? Are you being forced to do MSQ? Playing a game is an at will experience in totality. No one is forcing you to do anything. I find use of this word to be highly bizarre.

---

I mean the other options are to:
A) Pick a new main
B) Play your main wrong
or
C) Quit

The game doesn't have build diversity, you can't spec into a non-transformative reaper and now scholar, so if you want to engage with a job and play it correctly (and until they add some kind of, er, glamour glamour???), you will be forced to change your appearance when you need to access certain utilities/burst abilities.

given the skill is an important part of using scholars kit effectively I think calling it forced in this particular case is a fair thing to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roda

I mean the other options are to:
A) Pick a new main
B) Play your main wrong
or
C) Quit

The game doesn't have build diversity, you can't spec into a non-transformative reaper and now scholar, so if you want to engage with a job and play it correctly (and until they add some kind of, er, glamour glamour???), you will be forced to change your appearance when you need to access certain utilities/burst abilities.

---

I'm not trying to be annoying, but I just think isn't the fusion bad because of how it looks and/or how it relates to the job? By arguing it's bad because it's forced, you can argue down anything in the game..

Or even if it is purely based on choice, ask for a toggle? I just don't think the devs are trying to force anyone into anything. They probably assumed you'd like it.

Except from what people have been saying its not just the fact that its forced, thats just one aspect of why people don't like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

I agree with the feedback about the fusion but what's the deal with the use of the term "forced" here?

So are you being forced to do any other actions? Are you being forced to do MSQ? Playing a game is an at will experience in totality. No one is forcing you to do anything. I find use of this word to be highly bizarre.

Like I'm just imagining if the fusion was something people liked would it then not be "forced"? Is Enshroud unfair enforcing? I just don't get it. Has some kind of positive feedback response been developed between Yoshi P and players where if they imply lack of free will any given thing is 10x worse?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

I'm not trying to be annoying, but I just think isn't the fusion bad because of how it looks and/or how it relates to the job? By arguing it's bad because it's forced, you can argue down anything in the game..

---

If they gave me the option to disable the visual component of the skill, then I could not care less that the skill has a transformation component as I could turn it off. There is no option to disable it, therefore if I want to play the job correctly, yes. I AM forced to use it. The entire basis of your argument is like Spec Ops: The Line saying "well if you didn't want to do bad things, you should've just stopped playing the game, aren't I so insightful?"

We can argue until the cows come home how or why forced transformations are bad for each specific job that decides to implement them (currently only two, who knows if they will expand this to other jobs in the future). My argument is that the entire CONCEPT of hijacking a player's character model is bad at the base level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by W4rm0nger5

Except from what people have been saying its not just the fact that its forced, thats just one aspect of why people don't like it.

---

Idk, I just see the term a lot here. And what I interpret it to mean is "I don't like this, please add a toggle" or something similar. And the post itself does say this to be fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mihka

We can argue until the cows come home how or why forced transformations are bad for each specific job that decides to implement them (currently only two, who knows if they will expand this to other jobs in the future). My argument is that the entire CONCEPT of hijacking a player's character model is bad at the base level.

---

To be honest, I find it hard to articulate what has me so curious. I guess what I'm thinking is normally wouldn't we just say "Hey, these transformations are bad, please make them optional"? The addition of agency is just unusual to me.

You're even saying "hijacking". It just feels very strong when all we really need is a toggle.

Idk if the aesthetics didn't feel like the equivalent of getting a panic box of raisins because mum ran out of halloween candy it wouldn't feel so much like it was being forced upon people.

Changing stuff like eye color or giving you various forms of effects are fine. but when you cut off my tail...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

I'm not trying to be annoying, but I just think isn't the fusion bad because of how it looks and/or how it relates to the job? By arguing it's bad because it's forced, you can argue down anything in the game..

Or even if it is purely based on choice, ask for a toggle? I just don't think the devs are trying to force anyone into anything. They probably assumed you'd like it.

---

[Thing happens that people do not like & would rather avoid] -> [cannot avoid thing] -> [The fact that the thing cannot be avoided feels bad] => "I don't like being forced to do this"
The intent of the devs thinking people would like it is nice and all, but intent does not define people's experiences in practice, and people communicating that they feel like they lack agency in situations like this is VERY good feedback for those creating interactive media.

That is the significance of the "forced" aspect in this.


Any designer worth their salt can read a "I don't like that I'm forced to do/experience this [non-mechanical thing]" as "make [that thing] optional/don't overvalue [that thing] in gameplay as much" (when possible/reasonable)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roda

[Thing happens that people do not like & would rather avoid] -> [cannot avoid thing] -> [The fact that the thing cannot be avoided feels bad] => "I don't like being forced to do this"
The intent of the devs thinking people would like it is nice and all, but intent does not define people's experiences in practice, and people communicating that they feel like they lack agency in situations like this is VERY good feedback for those creating interactive media.

That is the significance of the "forced" aspect in this. Optional toggles are the ideal solution, but ceasing their implementation and adding more options later is also seen as a solution for those affected. Finding a solution that is a good compromise between people who like the feature and those who do not is why discussion boards exist '3'

---

Yeah, that's why I said I agree and everything. And it's hard to explain because we use inflammatory language pretty casually all the time I guess. "Hijacking, forcing, etc". It just gets weird for me on this particular subject. But that's just me.

And I do realize the transformations are part of the action, to be clear. I'm not disputing that. Devs do miss the mark on certain things, that's true. I'm not sure how that's relevant (to implying they're forcing something).

It really is fair as well because people can do whatever they want. I was just curious, like I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

Yeah, that's why I said I agree and everything. And it's hard to explain because we use inflammatory language pretty casually all the time I guess. "Hijacking, forcing, etc". It just gets weird for me on this particular subject. But that's just me.

---

I think you might be loading the word with more impact than it's really being used with then.

It's forced as in "a cause and effect of interacting with the game features" not as in "SE has sent an agent to my house and held me at gunpoint to press the 'amputate tail' button

I would be upset but more understanding if it were an enforced tonberry phase. I am just baffled that it is a white mage phase.

I am usually all for options but in this case the change is part of the aesthetic of the job. Something like Enshroud for instance is part of the job identity and is a visual representation of that identity. I don't agree that someone should get the benefits of the job identity in terms of using the skill but without embracing that identity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roda

I think you might be loading the word with more impact than it's really being used with then.

It's forced as in "a logical consequence of interacting with the game features" not as in "SE has sent an agent to my house and held me at gunpoint to press the 'amputate tail' button

---

It's think it's a combo of that and it just made me wonder "well then what isn't forced?". I guess buying a house isn't forced. But lots of other things in the game fall under this definition of "force".

That doesn't in any way make the feedback invalid or even weaker. It just feels almost distracting and redundant to say. For example

"The job transformations are a horrible concept and should be optional."
"The forced job transformations are a horrible concept and should be optional."

Both things communicate the same thing, but one makes it worse by adding in this word. That's how it seems to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

To be honest, I find it hard to articulate what has me so curious. I guess what I'm thinking is normally wouldn't we just say "Hey, these transformations are bad, please make them optional"? The addition of agency is just unusual to me.

You're even saying "hijacking". It just feels very strong when all we really need is a toggle.

---

I use strong language when discussing things I have strong opinions about, particularly when those words effectively condense multiple aspects of how I feel into a much more concise package.

I could say "Abilities that replace a player's character model - which is often carefully glamoured after hundreds of hours to create a specific aesthetic style that is in line with the player's desired image of themselves and expression of their class identity - with a model that has a set in stone aesthetic seriously undermines character agency in the way they are perceived and the way they experience and express their job identity, which are very important factors in this game due to the high emphasis on role playing and the social aspect of the game".

Or, I can condense the vast majority of that sentiment into "hijacking the player's character model", which effectively conveys my dislike of the system and the way it intrusively alters the job identity with no regard for a player's character aesthetic.

As Roda said; any developer worth their salt should be capable of reading feedback and distilling it for useable information. Though, I would clarify this is usually filtered through a good community management team, whose job is to make sure the spirit of feedback reaches developers without the need for developers to spend their development time dealing with mountains of player noise every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

I'm not trying to be annoying, but I just think isn't the fusion bad because of how it looks and/or how it relates to the job? By arguing it's bad because it's forced, you can argue down anything in the game..

Or even if it is purely based on choice, ask for a toggle? I just don't think the devs are trying to force anyone into anything. They probably assumed you'd like it.

---

A toggle is what I am hoping for, personally, especially since I know some people quite like the model change--but, we have been given no indication that we are going to be getting one and healer mains are unfortunately accustomed to having their grievances ignored, so the response is understandable.

On the matter of the word 'forced', I cannot comment on past forum use of the word, but in this instance I believe it is apt. The distinction between what your character does and what your character is is an important one as it impacts the player's connection to the action on the screen, and having the character we designed replaced with a model bereft of all customization is jarring and alienating. Our individual WoL now looks like every other WoL that plays this job, at least for a little while, and that is a significant downgrade from getting to see how our particular character looks when executing a new skill, especially when the replacement form in question has a very dubious tie to the job it represents in the first place.

With Reaper, it was understood from the beginning that Enshroud was part of the class, so no one was going to be surprised by it; it also matches the Reaper aesthetic, as Reaper was designed with the mechanic in mind from the start. Scholar on the other hand has been around since ARR without any such mechanic, and none of us signed up for this when we initially became attached to the job. Additionally, Scholar does not have the very unified identity of Reaper, which means those of us who main it tend to have differing glamour interpretations of its varied military tactician/war doctor/fairy mage/bookworm influences. This bizarre angel form eradicates the personal expression of the individual Scholar and replaces it with something that isn't even a part of the job lore. In this case especially, using the word 'forced' is more than justified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fulminating

I would be upset but more understanding if it were an enforced tonberry phase. I am just baffled that it is a white mage phase.

---

GOD YOU'RE SO FREAKING RIGHT, YOUR BRAIN IS HUGE

for the record, total transformation > partial transformation into a hyur with particle effects. I prefer partial transformations that retain character choices like racial features where reasonable (so like, if there was a skill that gave you a centaur or naga-like bodyplan, you could drop the tail), but full transformations can get as crazy as they want imo.



Post limit already?????? at 13?????? CAN'T EVEN POST FOURTEEN TIMES ON MY FINAL FANTASY FOURTEEN WEBSITE?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

It's think it's a combo of that and it just made me wonder "well then what isn't forced?". I guess buying a house isn't forced. But lots of other things in the game fall under this definition of "force".

That doesn't in any way make the feedback invalid or even weaker. It just feels almost distracting and redundant to say. For example

"The job transformations are a horrible concept and should be optional."
"The forced job transformations are a horrible concept and should be optional."

Both things communicate the same thing, but one makes it worse by adding in this word. That's how it seems to me.

---

To me the first one reads like the person fully DOES NOT LIKE even the concept of transformations while offering a solution that acknowledges that other people may like the function.
The second one reads like the person MIGHT like to enjoy transformations, but on their terms, and would prefer a solution that gives them more agency in the situation.

So if you removed the suggested solutions (which gamers are notoriously bad at giving the right ones) to
"The job transformations are a horrible concept." (fully DOES NOT LIKE even the concept of transformations)
"The forced job transformations are a horrible concept." (MIGHT like to enjoy transformations, but on their terms)

The second one can be solved with adding a toggle, while the first one wants it gone entirely. So, adding the extra flair of feeling forced actually helps give a more open feeling to the idea of transformations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fulminating

I would be upset but more understanding if it were an enforced tonberry phase. I am just baffled that it is a white mage phase.

---

As a Lalafell, I'm pretty sure nothing would change if you became a Tonberry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mihka

I use strong language when discussing things I have strong opinions about, particularly when those words effectively condense multiple aspects of how I feel into a much more concise package.

I could say "Abilities that replace a player's character model - which is often carefully glamoured after hundreds of hours to create a specific aesthetic style that is in line with the player's desired image of themselves and expression of their class identity - with a model that has a set in stone aesthetic seriously undermines character agency in the way they are perceived and the way they experience and express their job identity, which are very important factors in this game due to the high emphasis on role playing and the social aspect of the game".

Or, I can condense the vast majority of that sentiment into "hijacking the player's character model", which effectively conveys my dislike of the system and the way it intrusively alters the job identity with no regard for a player's character aesthetic.

As Roda said; any developer worth their salt should be capable of reading feedback and distilling it for useable information. Though, I would clarify this is usually filtered through a good community management team, whose job is to make sure the spirit of feedback reaches developers without the need for developers to spend their development time dealing with mountains of player noise every day.

---

Yes. To quote myself:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

That doesn't in any way make the feedback invalid or even weaker. It just feels almost distracting and redundant to say. For example

"The job transformations are a horrible concept and should be optional."
"The forced job transformations are a horrible concept and should be optional."

Both things communicate the same thing, but one makes it worse by adding in this word. That's how it seems to me.

---

It's really just this. I don't find it to be concise, or condensing. But you do you.

And it's like you said, developers have a responsibility to interpret the feedback in a way most useful to them.

I think your posts indicate that your very last concern is being "concise" and in fact, you're here to troll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

It's really just this. I don't find it to be concise, or condensing. But you do you.

---

Then perhaps you should expand your vocabulary and not take everything at face value /shrug

Simply Put, Your Racial Features should not Disappear.

Makes it much more neater if your racial features get voidsent traits.
Like Miqo'te/Hrothgar Ears and Tails Get more Feral. And Hrothgar and Moonkitty fangs are noticeable.

Au Ra Scales And Horns Get Unnatural effects.

Lalafels can morph into Tonberries(Semi-jk)

As for Elezen can Become more Castlevania.

And Hyur/Roes just Become the Poster Child of a Well Built Reaper, or skeletal reaper.

_______________________________

As for the Topic of Seraphism.

I like the Concept, No it does not go against what scholar is. (If anything You can View it as A Fairy/Angel/Winged Creature of KNOWLEDGE/TACTICS)

It's basically Being True to what Fairies Are.
While WHMs have always been with the Elementals (Thus their More Connection to the elements. But also Inadvertently, Stasis/LightAether.)

There is no Conflict here.

While Seraphism could be represented in a better way, maybe have a Seraph Glow on the wings, or the whole body(lightly) its alright.

I very strongly dislike this tendency too. To me the Phoenix mount and Zenos possessing the WoL also walk alongside this.

Do people really have time to look at their character model during burst phases while doing mechanics lol

That said yeah being able to toggle it on and off is probably a good call for people who don’t like it

I was expecting terrible changes for healers, I got so mad with EW's lack of changes I quit for pretty much the whole expac.

But forcing attire onto a player? When glam is such a huge part of the game? Holy cow, I thought we'd reached the bottom of the barrel but SE continues to surprise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mihka

Firstly, I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, as the "feedback" board is mostly for apps and the website and not for game features. So I'm sorry if this would be better suited to another board.

That said;

Reaper's Enshroud, and Scholar's new ability, forcefully replace your character model with a generic one-size-fits-all model during the ability's buff duration, and this really should not be a feature. I'm worried that this is a testing phase to see how well the concept is received, and may see even more widespread use in the future.

After the amount of (deserved) backlash over what is relatively minor aesthetic differences in the benchmark character creator, I genuinely do not understand why it's acceptable for a job buff to completely overwrite your entire character's aesthetic, pigeonholing jobs into a singular look and style, and I really hope that we are given the option to disable this going forward, especially if it becomes a more standard feature of job buff phases.

---

Agree. It's the one thing I truly dislike about Reaper. Give us an option to choose an aura/glow instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SongOfTheWind

I very strongly dislike this tendency too. To me the Phoenix mount and Zenos possessing the WoL also walk alongside this.

---

Yeah, this as well. It just feels like taking the easy way out. I would hate to see this become the norm where every other mount is something where you hide inside the mount.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rekh

Yeah, this as well. It just feels like taking the easy way out. I would hate to see this become the norm where every other mount is something where you hide inside the mount.

---

Ironically, Dawntrail Colllector’s Edition Ark mount hides the character model again..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amh_Wilzuun

Do people really have time to look at their character model during burst phases while doing mechanics lol

That said yeah being able to toggle it on and off is probably a good call for people who don’t like it

---

Dog, all I do is admire my character during raid. Maybe I want to dress a little skimpy, or more modern, or don a mascot costume, can always rock the artifact armor. I've associated myself with a certain look.

But nah, I'm gonna be a whitemage nun for 20+ seconds on what's probably a 2min CD.
If they wanted to introduce a transformation that didn't completely wreck my character model that's fine, but that’s sort of the thing. If you like the transformation you're happy. If you don't, you absolutely hate it.

Might as well throw in that they're giving sage all the dps tools they took from scholar. Adding a dot on a 2 minute cd literally does nothing to alleviate the broil spam.