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

[SoloWingMetatron]

And that apply's to me because I'm calling out the fact people be giving it lip in a conversation about polygons? My entire point from the start being you want it just to have it is perfectly fine in and of itself. No need for rhetoric, IRL examples or patronization.

[Krotoan]

True. I have not read the whole thread. Only about half a dozen pages worth. But ain't no body got time for reading through a couple hundred pages, to find the point in this none issue. Exactly, side tracks. Which is what this has all become since I jumped into the frey (big mistake with these forums) and was my soul purpose in my replies with some added hashtags for the giggle.

Oh is it educational?...did your education teach you not to be so incredibly condescending?...see we can all do it. And your boy Theo be talking about attacks?...Where you at Theo?

The term you're trying to use is "non-issue", and considering there is this much discussion about it, that can't possibly be the case. I'm going to guess maybe English isn't your first language, which is fine of course but I will say that your assumption I'm being intentionally condescending is incorrect. This is just how I talk. If you want to make claims as you have you really SHOULD read more of the thread and it is very educational, no sarcasm intended. And Theo is not my "boy". I believe there are other threads where we were pretty at odds if you want to check out our particular post histories.

Your final point is exactly it. The real T and one I can get behind. I shall happily discuss things as they are. But once it becomes about trying to "win" and/or about bizarre sidetracks. Then what is even anymore?

When I reply to people arguing morals I have to discuss morals and how they relate. I'm not about to let people steer the conversation away without calling them out on it. I think only a few pages back there was an actual discussion about implementation before we got someone literally making an argument that earlier someone had said nobody would make : "everyone who supports this is a bigot".

Seriously carby slippers and frog suits be odd and not too my taste. But some peeps like that and to truly tolerate something is not to hide yourself from it. But to allow it to exist around you without you reacting.

I tolerate it fine and do not react in the slightest. If someone mentions something that could enhance my enjoyment of the game though, I'll speak up to support it. If you are however asking me to change my actual likes and dislikes.. then who's being intolerant?

[Canada_bangs]

Jeeze I'm shocked this is still going honestly. I still think if this ever became a thing both sides should have a switch, if not that then when it's turned on, like with the afk, cpose, and other things an icon should appear over the person who turned off glams. That way everyone has a choice. Like If I turn it on people who don't like the feature should have a say in rather they want to party with me or not. I think that's the most fair way to do it.

Because if SE put the feature in people will know and for some people just knowing the feature is in the game will cause them to be upset. So if they can see " Oh.. they have that turned on" They have the option to not party with me. I think it's the best of both worlds honestly. I'm just trying to be fair, cause clearly if this thread is proof of anything is that having that WILL upset people. Doesn't matter if you think it'll make sense or not, but just know it does.

[Theodric]

I take it you arnt British?

I am British, actually - and swear like a sailor in the real world. Though I don't swear on this forum because the mods tend to bring down the ban-hammer rather easily around these parts.

[SoloWingMetatron]

The term you're trying to use is "non-issue", and considering there is this much discussion about it, that can't possibly be the case. I'm going to guess maybe English isn't your first language, which is fine of course but I will say that your assumption I'm being intentionally condescending is incorrect. This is just how I talk. If you want to make claims as you have you really SHOULD read more of the thread and it is very educational, no sarcasm intended. And Theo is not my "boy". I believe there are other threads where we were pretty at odds if you want to check out our particular post histories.

Ah so your still going for the extreme condescending approach? Not to fight fire with fire, but It's pretty clear I know Theo ain't your boy and that it is a comment on the fact he jumped to your defense despite you throwing plenty "attacks" yourself. But of course if you werent trying to "win" here you would have acknowledged that part of my post and your attitude.

What was that about rule breaking? Yep I'm the only guilty party here. Sure let's go with that.

Again your final point is exactly it and one I agree with. See how if you just went with that and cut out all the garbage above we'd be happy campers.

[SoloWingMetatron]

I am British, actually - and swear like a sailor in the real world. Though I don't swear on this forum because the mods tend to bring down the ban-hammer rather easily around these parts.

Then by being British you know damn well that was not aimed at any individual. But sure I'll be your "bad" guy...

[Krotoan]

Jeeze I'm shocked this is still going honestly. I still think if this ever became a thing both sides should have a switch, if not that then when it's turned on, like with the afk, cpose, and other things an icon should appear over the person who turned off glams. That way everyone has a choice. Like If I turn it on people who don't like the feature should have a say in rather they want to party with me or not. I think that's the most fair way to do it.

Because if SE put the feature in people will know and for some people just knowing the feature is in the game will cause them to be upset. So if they can see " Oh.. they have that turned on" They have the option to not party with me. I think it's the best of both worlds honestly. I'm just trying to be fair, cause clearly if this thread is proof of anything is that having that WILL upset people. Doesn't matter if you think it'll make sense or not, but just know it does.

So rather than people be slightly and unverifiably distressed you'd rather a concrete representation of just how many people are NOT seeing them as they want... creating targets and numbers for them to obsess over?

This sounds.. unwise.

If you don't wish to party with people with it off, it should remain anonymous and just be in the matchmaker not to put you together with those people... but again it'd affect queue times (to what degree we wouldn't know till it happened) AND if you tried to party with someone it'd have to give you a warning message, therefore "outing" the person with it on.

I don't see an implementation of your proposition that doesn't make it worse or turn it into a sort of "scarlet letter" situation.

Ah so your still going for the extreme condescending approach? Not to fight fire with fire, but It's pretty clear I know Theo ain't your boy and that it is a comment on the fact he jumped to your defense despite you throwing plenty "attacks" yourself. But of course if you werent trying to "win" here you would have acknowledged that part of my post and your attitude.

Again, not intentionally being condescending. I specifically stated that. Please show me one example of me throwing "attacks" that aren't just responses to accusations?

What was that about rule breaking? Yep I'm the only guilty party here. Sure let's go with that.

You're the one who came in with the "shutup" attitude and trying to tell both sides they were wrong or arguing about nothing.

Again your final point is exactly it and one I agree with. See how if you just went with that and cut out all the garbage above we'd be happy campers.

That's great you agree with the statement I've made since the beginning that "this feature is something I want". However you're ignoring about 100 pages of people making morality and character attacks. You are lacking context.

[SoloWingMetatron]

Such a feature would cost server space surely. All data has to be allocated. As such data for the glams has to be stored. Then that would have to be separated out into who has the toggle on and who does not. Meaning that is extra data on top of the original glamour data that has to be stored and allocated for the server to read. Unless it was a toggle that literally turned off the whole glamour system. But then that would have to include the player character. Which is why I believe the devs won't implement this.

[Penthea]

So rather than people be slightly and unverifiably distressed you'd rather a concrete representation of just how many people are NOT seeing them as they want... creating targets and numbers for them to obsess over?

This sounds.. unwise.

If you don't wish to party with people with it off, it should remain anonymous and just be in the matchmaker not to put you together with those people... but again it'd affect queue times (to what degree we wouldn't know till it happened) AND if you tried to party with someone it'd have to give you a warning message, therefore "outing" the person with it on.

I don't see an implementation of your proposition that doesn't make it worse or turn it into a sort of "scarlet letter" situation.

While I definitely do see the issue you're highlighting...I do think that if a person feels they have a right to change how others appear to them, then those other people have a right to not be matched with someone who is altering their outfit without their control.

Just as you say how others appear to you matters a great deal, to others how they appear in a world where others can see them matters a great deal.

Though I obviously am against glam removal, and I admit I would tick that checkbox that prevents me from grouping with those who do, I'm not fond of the idea because it would result in dividing the playerbase into those who use glam removal, and those who do not.

Maybe it would even be for the above reason that SE would never introduce glam removal. Maybe they want everyone to experience the same game so that the community is more unified. Introducing glam removal would be in essence allowing players to play another version of the game.

[Theodric]

Sorry but I'm not sure what is civil about "please allow me to remove traces of other people's preferences from my view" when that could easily be taken as the most entitled narrow-minded snobbish crap ever. Especially when it comes from a person who has explicitly said they do not want to see men in dresses.

Sure some people asking for glam removal have been perfectly civil and maybe even reasonable. I can understand wanting glams around you to not be things like a metallic gold pig suit. But that is quite different to asking for glam removal so that you can make people around you conform to your preferred gender roles.

Wanting to remove a metallic gold pig suit is targetting the outfit because the player wants it gone regardless of who is wearing it. Wanting to remove dresses from men is targetting characters because a person wants to remove dresses only from men.

I'm sure you can see the difference but you likely won't admit it. It suits you to pretend that gatekeeping who you think has the right to wear a certain outfit is the same as not wanting to see the outfit on anyone, because it allows you to hide behind those who want glam removal for a less discriminatory purpose.

I disagree. I don't see it as a case of stifling someone's identity as nobody playing this game is actually their character after all is said and done. There's also nothing wrong with finding certain fashion choices to be tacky or unappealing. As a guy into other guys, I can fully appreciate the male form. That doesn't mean I like looking at the male form when it's clad in a dress, though.

That aside, my primary support for the idea stems from not wanting to look at tacky pig and frog suits. The game itself goes to great lengths to lock the 'silly' stuff away in specific side quests and makes efforts to ensure that the bulk of the game world is cohesive and consistent. Yellowjackets, Immortal Flames and Brass Blades all dress a certain way for instance - and so when I'm going through the story, I don't necessarily want to see random characters popping up in jarring equipment.

Not everybody cares about immersion - and that's fine, but a client side toggle is a pretty reasonable and efficient compromise.