It's time (Option to Hide other players Glamour)

[Sairys]

Theme/feel/immersion still applies to personal story and outright ridiculous glamours. While thematically it may be available in universe lots of "exceptions" are on main characters of their respective importance in the story. Like the main character in an anime they get a pass because they're supposed to be exceptional. The player character is essentially a godlike hero, how they dress is entirely mutable because of that. All the 2ndary (and everyone is 2ndary in everyone elses story) characters need to at least somewhat follow physical rules. I'm not sure why thornmarch is a particular excuse for silly. Moogles are cute for sure but dangerous enough given weapons and/or being a summoned eikon. Just because something exists in-universe does not excuse it being either widely propagated or used in an incongruous situation.

The specific examples I've seen around immersion, separate from silly, are things like people wearing clothing that's not really battle appropriate. But, 5.0 gives us trusts and there are trust npcs that wear outfits which people are arguing break their immersion. This would indicate those complaining have some preconceptions about how the world of ffxiv is which are inaccurate.
The arguments around things being silly have involved claims that the devs have intentionally sectioned such things off so that players who want to ignore their existence don't have to encounter them as part of their personal story, Thornmarch runs counter to that.

Role recognition I thought was more about cloth for squishies and armor for tankies. While we already are at a point where you can wear in-story available gear that blurs the heck out of this rule, the devs continue to cite role recognition as a reason for no cross-role glamming. This may not be the actual reason they don't do it, but it would completely remove that layer of excuse.

I mean, the caster Deepshadow gear looks to be a tabbard over scalemail, the Ronkan looks plate like merged with robes. There are some looks you can't really achieve but if the devs don't want us to be able to use certain appearances on certain classes it doesn't seem likely any kinda block would change things.

Right now there is largish pushback, on the forums anyway, whenever something non-traditional or incongruous is presented. Removing that pushback or attitude with an option of "well you don't have to see it if you don't want to" quells those arguments pretty quickly. And without that looming slog of damage control after any "weird" offering or worrying about offending more conservative markets, they MIGHT (again conjecture) feel more free in their offerings. I agree it DOES affect how many people they would reach but that doesn't particularly invalidate the idea that a wider offering wouldn't pull in more than the potential "ooh shiny" of random viewing by someone who's likely to block glamours. Again this particular reason is completely un-provable either way unless implemented to observe the change, especially since I have no actual insight into what really affects their decisions.

Again, I understand the words you are saying and I have seen that stuff like that doesn't really play out that way, even if the option was given SE wouldn't be able to stop that pushback. There are people here just arguing the principle of a feature they don't even necessarily see a real need for, that same argument around choice applies to people being then "forced" to block glamours when "they shouldn't have to".

[Krotoan]

The specific examples I've seen around immersion, separate from silly, are things like people wearing clothing that's not really battle appropriate. But, 5.0 gives us trusts and there are trust npcs that wear outfits which people are arguing break their immersion. This would indicate those complaining have some preconceptions about how the world of ffxiv is which are inaccurate.
The arguments around things being silly have involved claims that the devs have intentionally sectioned such things off so that players who want to ignore their existence don't have to encounter them as part of their personal story, Thornmarch runs counter to that.

Sure people conveniently ignore things that break their proposed rules, but you have to admit while things like wearing a white frilly gown are pretty non-combat oriented, wearing a rudolph nose and bikini (or other wildly incongruous outfit) just doesn't happen in the story. There's "that looks like a bad choice of gear in a fight" and then theres "why is there a joke outfit?".

And again.. while the moogles do edge on the cute/silly side, they're not clownshoes. Thornmarch is still about a beasttribe falling to Eikon dependancy. It's subjective on how "silly" something has to be to break that line, but even when it first hit it didn't feel particularly out of universe for me.

I mean, the caster Deepshadow gear looks to be a tabbard over scalemail, the Ronkan looks plate like merged with robes. There are some looks you can't really achieve but if the devs don't want us to be able to use certain appearances on certain classes it doesn't seem likely any kinda block would change things.

Like I said, blurred already. And maybe it wouldn't but at least they'd have to come up with a different excuse or the true reason.

Again, I understand the words you are saying and I have seen that stuff like that doesn't really play out that way, even if the option was given SE wouldn't be able to stop that pushback. There are people here just arguing the principle of a feature they don't even necessarily see a real need for, that same argument around choice applies to people being then "forced" to block glamours when "they shouldn't have to".

No matter how reasonable something is, someone will argue against it. You never are going to have a unanimously accepted addition. If there's anything this forum has taught me it's that. There is no NEED for this feature, I've been playing for well on 10 years without it, but it'd be nice.

What I'm more surprised about is how the focus of the debate remains completely unchanged. I was under the impression 15 pages ago that people would have realized that their viewpoints are not universal and that any further discussion should be about different, yet closely-related subjects.

Guess I was wrong.

Some have eventually conceded that there is a level of the proposed option they'd accept or given conditions for when they would accept it, so there's that. Lots of trying to say how it's wrong or how supporting it makes you.. wrong.... but there is some discussion in the .. jeebus.. 100+ pages.