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

[Joven]

Looks like we agree! The devs waste a lot of resources! So why should they even bother wasting more time reading something like this?!

You've missed the point entirely. People are getting upset at the thought of the developers wasting time with this "useless" idea because of other things that need to be improved yet actively welcome useless features such as umbrellas without hesitation. Why is it OK for the devs. to waste time on one useless idea, but not another?

[Arillyn]

You've missed the point entirely. People are getting upset at the thought of the developers wasting time with this "useless" idea because of other things that need to be improved yet actively welcome useless features such as umbrellas without hesitation. Why is it OK for the devs. to waste time on one useless idea, but not another?

I don't have a dog in this fight. I can see where both sides are coming from. I'd rather the devs not use their resources on this because I believe if you don't like someone's glamour (and there have been some I've seen that I've been like "um.. no.. ew") you can walk away. Like I have. Also, I've not really seen that many glams that are truly offensive. A couple yes, but I've been playing since 1.0 and even after the glam system was put in place I can count on one hand the time I've ever seen a truly offensive glam. And I just walked away so I didn't have to see it. So just anecdotally I don't think this is really that big of a deal for the devs to implement this. I mean if they do I'll smh at it, shrug my shoulders and move on. My glamours are for me so I don't have to be in hideous looking gear. Ultimately it's the devs choice what they implement and don't because it's their game.

[Joven]

I don't have a dog in this fight. I can see where both sides are coming from. I'd rather the devs not use their resources on this because I believe if you don't like someone's glamour (and there have been some I've seen that I've been like "um.. no.. ew") you can walk away. Like I have. Also, I've not really seen that many glams that are truly offensive. A couple yes, but I've been playing since 1.0 and even after the glam system was put in place I can count on one hand the time I've ever seen a truly offensive glam. And I just walked away so I didn't have to see it. So just anecdotally I don't think this is really that big of a deal for the devs to implement this. I mean if they do I'll smh at it, shrug my shoulders and move on. My glamours are for me so I don't have to be in hideous looking gear. Ultimately it's the devs choice what they implement and don't because it's their game.

The point is that you can't walk away during an instanced event. You're stuck with the other person unless you decide to drop and inconvenience yourself and that group. While I do agree that this is the developers game, they don't really get a choice on what they implement. The number of things they've apologized for or backtracked on due to fan outrage is proof of that.

[Arillyn]

The point is that you can't walk away during an instanced event. You're stuck with the other person unless you decide to drop and inconvenience yourself and that group. While I do agree that this is the developers game, they don't really get a choice on what they implement. The number of things they've apologized for or backtracked on due to fan outrage is proof of that.

Well I mean... you can. People leave instances all the time. Honestly I've never been bothered by anyone's glams in an instance. The handful of times I've seen a really offensive glamour was in one of the starter cities (probably Limsa but I can't actually recall). I mean I guess they could make it so glamours don't work in instances but that would make me very unhappy if it affects my own glamour that I see in the dungeon.

[Zabuza]

We downplay the likes because of the number of dislikes. We are not shocked that 100 people want to waste developers time. That is normal. I mean even lets say 30 percent of the player base wanted this feature. (i doubt it.) It can be twisted around to say..It is unfair to that 30 percent who pay blah blah blah.


Point is, it is a bad idea. Your reasons for wanting it is not good enough, and that is that.

Contrast the OP's amount of likes with the amount of likes that are on the first poster who opposed the idea(they are the 4th post on the thread). That's your like/dislike ratio. The results of like vs dislike seems to be pretty evenly split, which is part of why this topic has reached so many pages(roughly 50% for 50% against).

Honestly, I learned something from all this though. It seems some people's vain desires to show off to everyone trump their empathy for other people's freedom of choice. I did not expect so many people to be opposed to this in my wildest dreams considering it doesn't hurt anyone, but here we are.

[Jadedsins]

Contrast the OP's amount of likes with the amount of likes that are on the first poster who opposed the idea(they are the 4th post on the thread). That's your like/dislike ratio. The results of like vs dislike seems to be pretty evenly split, which is part of why this topic has reached so many pages(roughly 50% for 50% against).

Honestly, I learned something from all this though. It seems some people's vain desires to show off to everyone trump their empathy for other people's freedom of choice. I did not expect so many people to be opposed to this in my wildest dreams considering it doesn't hurt anyone, but here we are.

That is silly because you can focus all your likes in one place, many people said no, and that is spread out with others. Just like all the people saying no and the likes it got..will add up to be way more than 100 i would bet.


Either way, 100 likes is not that much for such an amazing idea <.< lol.

[Zabuza]

That is silly because you can focus all your likes in one place, many people said no, and that is spread out with others. Just like all the people saying no and the likes it got..will add up to be way more than 100 i would bet.


Either way, 100 likes is not that much for such an amazing idea <.< lol.

Those who dislike it will place a like on the first post they see that opposes it, just as those who support it will place their like behind the first post they see, which is the OP. Of course 100 likes is not a lot by itself, but you have to consider the forum environment and how many users even utilize it, much less browsing through this topic specifically. I doubt many topics on the forum reach that level of likes.

[Iscah]

Honestly, I learned something from all this though. It seems some people's vain desires to show off to everyone trump their empathy for other people's freedom of choice. I did not expect so many people to be opposed to this in my wildest dreams considering it doesn't hurt anyone, but here we are.

And some people's insistence on freedom of choice "trumps their empathy" for others who feel differently about the situation and have explained that they do feel unhappy, if not actually hurt, about the prospect of others having control over how their character is presented.

It goes both ways, and it seems like the people in favour put no value in others' explanations of why they wouldn't feel unaffected by it, and just keep repeating "nobody would be affected".

People on both sides can be arguing for what they consider to be empathetic.

[DumdogsWorld]

...

And then you get my sorry self, who cares nothing for whether or not people empathize with me or my points as long as they don't tell me what I can and can't do with my screen.

I hardly care if this feature ever gets implemented or not, seeing as to how I rarely ever look at other characters. And if it did get added, I would most likely never use it. It's more of a principle thing.

[Zabuza]

And some people's insistence on freedom of choice "trumps their empathy" for others who feel differently about the situation and have explained that they do feel unhappy, if not actually hurt, about the prospect of others having control over how their character is presented.

It goes both ways, and it seems like the people in favour put no value in others' explanations of why they wouldn't feel unaffected by it, and just keep repeating "nobody would be affected".

People on both sides can be arguing for what they consider to be empathetic.

This argument is unfortunately not equivalent. We do empathize with that you want to express your character freely. We're not preventing you from doing that. Of course it has already been said.

If the glamour toggle actually changed your clothing server side then you would be correct in saying that we do not emphasize and the two sides would be logically equivalent in their opposition. However, as it stands it is not because one side doesn't give a rat's behind if keeping things as they are makes someone uncomfortable or hurts them whereas the side that supports the feature is still trying to account for the user's preferences to express themselves. One side is showing empathy while the other isn't. One side is offering a compromise while the other is unwilling to budge even an inch to compromise. You can't be hurt because you wouldn't even know it's happening unless by some freak .001% chance someone takes a screenshot who enabled the toggle and you come across it.