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

[Packetdancer]

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?".

Allow me to list a few of the canon, SquareEnix-created Squadron Recruit NPCs who may show up for your Grand Company squadron:

• Seserikku, a lalafell who shows up dressed in a snowman costume.
• Crilde, an elezen who shows up dressed as a reindeer.
• Raelthota, an elezen who shows up wearing basically underwear, greaves with weird hoof-like feet, and a half-mask over the lower half of her face.

Is it not an issue rooted in insecurity? Why would you need to seek the approval of others if you were happy with yourself? Needing this approval from others would imply that such a person needs additional affirmation from others to bolster their opinion in themselves, as if they are uncertain of the value of their existence. That seems like insecurity to me.

If the only possible reason I could have any opinion about the idea of someone having a button to potentially put me into underwear in their cutscenes is insecurity, then the only possible reason you could have to want not to see other people's glamoured outfits is some equally reductive and oversimplified motive, such as "you are filled with bigoted rage at the very idea of a masculine character wearing a wedding gown somewhere in the game".

I mean, there's about the same degree of accuracy to both those things. And if it seems unreasonable to reduce all arguments for the feature to the latter motive, please recognize it's equally unreasonable to do the same to all possible motives to be exasperated by a 'remove glamour' button you can use on others.

When women end up objectified in day-to-day life and treated to comments like "you'd be prettier if you just smiled" or "you know, you'd look so much nicer in a skirt" (or alternatively, "damn, those pants are tight" as someone stares at your ass), is it so hard to believe that it would inspire a bit of "urgh, really?" when someone insists they should be given the right to strip off my avatar's virtual clothing in game as well? Especially when like 60% of all female healer leg gear is effectively just underwear?

If you run into a tank who's leveling and wearing Shisui gear because it's got the best stats for them but who's glammed themselves back into plate because that's what feels 'right' for them as a tank (i.e., me when I was leveling DRK), that's not necessarily insecurity; I'll wear relatively revealing clothing for DNC, because it feels thematically appropriate to me for that job where it doesn't for my tank. But even if there's no technical difference between "your DNC is wearing their artifact gear, which shows a lot of skin" and "I stripped away your DRK glam to put you back in the Shisui bikini", it still feels different.

If someone is staring at you iRL and picturing you naked, even if it does not physically do anything to you—and even if you are the most confident person in the world—it can feel uncomfortable to be reduced to an object like that. (Or at the very least, emotionally exhausting.) So is it completely impossible to understand that adding a button that basically could be pressed to potentially remove someone's clothing in game—regardless of the intended purpose—might make some folks feel, maybe not personally violated, but at least a little more exhausted?

Why on earth would it be so terrible to just do the blanket switch proposed earlier? Where basically, if you toggle it on, it turns off glamours and everyone in the game is put in the iconic gear for their current job? Dragoons wear the Azure Dragoon-style armor. White mages wear the cleric robes. Paladins wear plate. Etc. If the argument for this feature is 'immersion', I literally cannot see how that harms someone's immersion; it seems like it would be better for that mindset than just removing glamours. After all, just removing glamours entirely might put someone in not just Rainbow Pimp Gear, but Pants-Free Rainbow Pimp Gear.

And how on earth is that "immersive"?

#PantsAreThematic #GiveUsMorePants2k20 #TheHashtagsWillContinueUntilMoraleImproves #OrThisThreadEnds #WhichAreProbablyTheSameThing

[Wavaryen]

Allow me to list a few of the canon, SquareEnix-created Squadron Recruit NPCs who may show up for your Grand Company squadron:

• Seserikku, a lalafell who shows up dressed in a snowman costume.
• Crilde, an elezen who shows up dressed as a reindeer.
• Raelthota, an elezen who shows up wearing basically underwear, greaves with weird hoof-like feet, and a half-mask over the lower half of her face.

You put this stuff in better words than I could. The immersion reason is just weird in the context of the game lore.

[Theodric]

You put this stuff in better words than I could. The immersion reason is just weird in the context of the game lore.

It's not weird. The game deliberately gives players the tools to avoid the weirder/sillier stuff. Hildibrand exists in his own little bubble, for instance. You can also dismiss the sillier squadron members outright and/or tweak their glamour to one's personal tastes. We're not asking to alter what players see on their screen. Just how they appear on our own. Which is already something we can tweak in various ways already.

While I would not go with unethical..well maybe if they explain it better why they see it like that. A bad idea is still a bad idea. More reasons not to do it than to do it. Being it is a social game after all.

It's not necessarily a social game. Please don't compel a play-style!

[Zabuza]

Allow me to list a few of the canon, SquareEnix-created Squadron Recruit NPCs who may show up for your Grand Company squadron:

• Seserikku, a lalafell who shows up dressed in a snowman costume.
• Crilde, an elezen who shows up dressed as a reindeer.
• Raelthota, an elezen who shows up wearing basically underwear, greaves with weird hoof-like feet, and a half-mask over the lower half of her face.

If the only possible reason I could have any opinion about the idea of someone having a button to potentially put me into underwear in their cutscenes is insecurity, then the only possible reason you could have to want not to see other people's glamoured outfits is some equally reductive and oversimplified motive, such as "you are filled with bigoted rage at the very idea of a masculine character wearing a wedding gown somewhere in the game".

I mean, there's about the same degree of accuracy to both those things. And if it seems unreasonable to reduce all arguments for the feature to the latter motive, please recognize it's equally unreasonable to do the same to all possible motives to be exasperated by a 'remove glamour' button you can use on others.

When women end up objectified in day-to-day life and treated to comments like "you'd be prettier if you just smiled" or "you know, you'd look so much nicer in a skirt" (or alternatively, "damn, those pants are tight" as someone stares at your ass), is it so hard to believe that it would inspire a bit of "urgh, really?" when someone insists they should be given the right to strip off my avatar's virtual clothing in game as well? Especially when like 60% of all female healer leg gear is effectively just underwear?

If you run into a tank who's leveling and wearing Shisui gear because it's got the best stats for them but who's glammed themselves back into plate because that's what feels 'right' for them as a tank (i.e., me when I was leveling DRK), that's not necessarily insecurity; I'll wear relatively revealing clothing for DNC, because it feels thematically appropriate to me for that job where it doesn't for my tank. But even if there's no technical difference between "your DNC is wearing their artifact gear, which shows a lot of skin" and "I stripped away your DRK glam to put you back in the Shisui bikini", it still feels different.

If someone is staring at you iRL and picturing you naked, even if it does not physically do anything to you—and even if you are the most confident person in the world—it can feel uncomfortable to be reduced to an object like that. (Or at the very least, emotionally exhausting.) So is it completely impossible to understand that adding a button that basically could be pressed to potentially remove someone's clothing in game—regardless of the intended purpose—might make some folks feel, maybe not personally violated, but at least a little more exhausted?

Why on earth would it be so terrible to just do the blanket switch proposed earlier? Where basically, if you toggle it on, it turns off glamours and everyone in the game is put in the iconic gear for their current job? Dragoons wear the Azure Dragoon-style armor. White mages wear the cleric robes. Paladins wear plate. Etc. If the argument for this feature is 'immersion', I literally cannot see how that harms someone's immersion; it seems like it would be better for that mindset than just removing glamours. After all, just removing glamours entirely might put someone in not just Rainbow Pimp Gear, but Pants-Free Rainbow Pimp Gear.

And how on earth is that "immersive"?

#PantsAreThematic #GiveUsMorePants2k20 #TheHashtagsWillContinueUntilMoraleImproves #OrThisThreadEnds #WhichAreProbablyTheSameThing

There was a post in this thread where I acknowledged this and basically said I would not care if everyone was in colored robes. I just don't want to look upon animal mascot suits when in a dungeon or cutscene. We are not advocating for a glamour toggle so that we can see a character in their underwear. I guess on some distant level, I could see how you would feel violated, but in the end that is an amalgamation of pixels, not your real life self. There are already third party mods out there that strip players down completely. This is not what is being proposed by the OP or anyone here. With that concern, the other prominent issue that has cropped up is the opposite end of the spectrum — people upset that this would take away their option to show off their glamour. For that particular concern, my recent replies to others absolutely do apply in that instance.

Well have fun telling most women they are insecure.



This has to be a anime nerdy thing right? The cool edge person who does not care about people around him type deal? It sounds kinda weird to be honest. Hell even the goths I use to hang out with growing up, cared about fashion and made a statement with it.



I hate to tell you all this but, if you dress up just for yourself in a social game. That is more weird on yall. I can see it in single player games and such..but a MMO? ehhhh or even if you go out in public. That is weird. <.<

I see someone is trying to characterize me by their own understanding, thinking I must be acting this way for a reason that centers around other people. I assure you that I am not playing a part for anyone, nor trying to be cool. I'm simply being myself. Other people's thoughts and feelings about me, I choose to try to keep those out of the equation. I prefer to not be subject to the waves of other people's opinions. Especially on the internet, I could imagine myself becoming upset quite often if I took their words or thoughts of me to heart. If I put weight behind what people felt about me on the internet, I'd be in perpetual depression.

[Wavaryen]

There was a post in this thread where I acknowledged this and basically said I would not care if everyone was in colored robes. I just don't want to look upon animal mascot suits when in a dungeon or cutscene. We are not advocating for a glamour toggle so that we can see a character in their underwear. I guess on some distant level, I could see how you would feel violated, but in the end that is an amalgamation of pixels, not your real life self. There are already third party mods out there that strip players down completely. This is not what is being proposed by the OP or anyone here. With that concern, the other prominent issue that has cropped up is the opposite end of the spectrum — people upset that this would take away their option to show off their glamour. For that particular concern, my recent replies to others absolutely do apply in that instance.



I see someone is trying to characterize me by their own understanding, thinking I must be acting this way for a reason that centers around other people. I assure you that I am not playing a part for anyone, nor trying to be cool. I'm simply being myself without other people's opinions of me to factor into the equation. I prefer to not be subject to the waves of other people's opinions. Especially on the internet, I could imagine myself becoming upset quite often if I took their words or thoughts of me to heart.

I mean you been doing that all this time. I'm trying to understand your perspective and I can't do it. So I don't think I can understand you, *shrugs* I can't do it I can't do it. I just know that not caring about your looks, and how other people see you is not very healthy. It should not rule your life, but to not care at all? I think that is anti social disorder or something. We live in a society! <.<

[Gula]

I mean you been doing that all this time. I'm trying to understand your perspective and I can't do it. So I don't think I can understand you, *shrugs* I can't do it I can't do it. I just know that not caring about your looks, and how other people see you is not very healthy. It should not rule your life, but to not care at all? I think that is anti social disorder or something. We live in a society! <.<

Glamours rise up!

[Zabuza]

I mean you been doing that all this time. I'm trying to understand your perspective and I can't do it. So I don't think I can understand you, *shrugs* I can't do it I can't do it. I just know that not caring about your looks, and how other people see you is not very healthy. It should not rule your life, but to not care at all? I think that is anti social disorder or something. We live in a society! <.<

For someone who is supposedly unhealthy, I find most of my life to be quite serene, whether I am interacting with people or not. A lot of these people I interact with are often stressing about what those around of them think about them, while I remain at peace, happy with myself. I don't see how I'm the unhealthy one.

[Wavaryen]

For someone who is supposedly unhealthy, I find most of my life to be quite serene, whether I am interacting with people or not. A lot of these people I interact with are often stressing about what those around of them think about them, while I remain at peace, happy with myself. I don't see how I'm the unhealthy one.

I mean you can be happy with yourself and still be anti social. I'm not saying you should stress out and let your fashion rule your life, but dressing up and how others see you is fun, and is part of living in a community. It plays a huge part of human history! I'm saying that not caring at all how others see you is not really normal. It is ok to not agree with how they see you, but not care at all? I'm not so sure.

[Packetdancer]

There was a post in this thread where I acknowledged this and basically said I would not care if everyone was in colored robes. I just don't want to look upon animal mascot suits when in a dungeon or cutscene. We are not advocating for a glamour toggle so that we can see a character in their underwear.

Sure. And cars are not meant to be used for vehicular homicide; it doesn't mean they aren't used for such sometimes. It doesn't mean you should say "no cars" because of that, but it does mean maybe it's not terrible to raise a hand and go, "Hey, since someone might, in some cases, try to use this large metal fast-moving object to kill someone, maybe we should take the jagged pointy blades off the front and make it a bit more rounded or something so there's at least a slightly better chance of survivability."

Hence the "maybe just swap people into their job's iconic outfit rather than stripping away glamour." And when other folks (admittedly not you) speak specifically about how the Frankenarmor would amuse them, I tend to assume we're still talking about specifically stripping off glamour rather than replacing it with a pre-defined job-specific outfit for everyone. In which case, yeah, I'll sing that note again.

After all, "repeating ourselves endlessly" seems to sort of be the point of this thread.

I guess on some distant level, I could see how you would feel violated, but in the end that is an amalgamation of pixels, not your real life self.

Again: you don't have to feel violated to dislike something like this. They are not synonymous. Just like you don't have to be a bigot to dislike something like this; they are also not synonymous.

Seeing someone redraw a favorite character of mine as an NSFW pinup doesn't make me feel violated. It just makes me feel exhausted like, "Really? That's all women are to you? We're still dealing with this? Alright, then."

That people can share the same opinion without the same motive was literally the entire point of my post.

You don't have to be insecure to want to show things off; I know plenty of artists who share their work on DeviantArt and ArtStation, not because they're insecure but because they want to show off the results of their creative efforts. I know a lot of folks who glamour for similar reasons, trying to find just the exact right set of matching pieces to get the look they want, and then wanting to show that off to people. This is, I would argue, literally the point behind the Eorzea Collection glamour website; not that people are insecure, but because they want to say "look, see what I came up with!" It's basically ArtStation for glamours.

Similarly, you don't have to feel personally violated to be exasperated (and maybe a little exhausted) by the idea of a button that can—regardless of the intent behind the feature—potentially remove your pants.

There are already third party mods out there that strip players down completely.

And they're irrelevant to someone disliking the feature. As I said earlier in the thread, there's a difference between "I violated ToS and hacked the game to make everyone naked." and "SquareEnix gave me a button in-game to strip glamours away, and now half of the people who just hit level 80 and are standing around in the Crystarium market are in underwear because they were wearing YoRHa lower gear after running Copied Factory."

The two things are not equivalent, any more than "Because some people rob banks, you should just let me withdraw $100k even though my checking account only has $208.74 in it." would be.