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

[Krotoan]

I can't guarantee how people interpret my appearance, but I have control over what that appearance is.

I have demonstrated that even in the real world , this is untrue.

[Canada_bangs]

People who use glamour mods are already forcing players to be displayed in a way that is not in accordance with their wishes, so that point is moot.

Why bother spending gil to get the latest look? I know, so I can enjoy how my character appears on my screen, I don't care what other people think about my style. The same applies to mogstation outfits. I don't play for other people's validation and adoration.

So yes, get over it honey.

The thing with mods is well .. they are mods. Which SE doesn't inforce. That is kindof the difference. But if you say it isn't then the people who are asking for this should just mod. Why do we need SE to make a mode for modders already have? Yes I know PS4 users can't, but that's been the case for everything. We can't use DPS meters either and that'll never become part of the game.

[Canada_bangs]

I'd argue that, for the sake of fairness, if the game's established aesthetics were changed based on a portion of the community being very vocal about their 'need' for silly looking glamour then it's fair for other players to have the option to hide such things on their screen. As a client side option, it's a pretty sensible compromise that doesn't really step on anybody's toes.

Nobody's character is actually them - so they're not being 'attacked' just because other players do not want to see particular character designs upon their screen.

The fact this topic reached over 200 pages proves otherwise. People care and noone can stop them from caring. Which is most likely why this will never become a thing. SE should stay well enough away unless they are wiling to give everyone options to do it and to not be effected by doing it. It's the only fair way to do it. Or give icons so people who don't want to be -effected- can stay away from people who have it turned on.

[Reinha]

You can say the same about people on the other side of this coin. If people are so uncomfortable because people dress how they want to dress then that's their problem. It goes both ways.

Of course. This is a minor QoL request at best. We can already turn our camera away from characters with ugly glamours, so I don't see why people are so upset about the possibility of hiding them in the settings.

[Krotoan]

SE should stay well enough away unless they are wiling to give everyone options to do it and to not be effected by doing it. It's the only fair way to do it. Or give icons so people who don't want to be -effected- can stay away from people who have it turned on.

1. having a way to "defeat" the filter nullifies the whole purpose of it as those who dress to annoy will DEFINITELY use the "don't let me be filtered" option

2. We have already floated the idea of marking those who use the feature and it's been agreed upon that this would make them targets for retaliation.

[Iscah]

It's not choosing what they wear, it's choosing not to see what they wear. They are still wearing what they are wearing. If attention seekers get uncomfortable because people aren't looking at them, that's their problem.

If you can already turn the camera away, then do that?

The issue isn't being "not seen", it's being seen - but in something we didn't choose and have no control over, yet still have our character and in-game identity attached to.

[Iscah]

2. We have already floated the idea of marking those who use the feature and it's been agreed upon that this would make them targets for retaliation.

"Agreed upon"... by the side of the argument in favour of implementing it.

[Canada_bangs]

1. having a way to "defeat" the filter nullifies the whole purpose of it as those who dress to annoy will DEFINITELY use the "don't let me be filtered" option

2. We have already floated the idea of marking those who use the feature and it's been agreed upon that this would make them targets for retaliation.

I can't see another way to do it honestly. 'Sides just not making it. Its been awhile since I was here in this topic ( I thought it died.. ) So forgive me if I don't remember where I left off. All I'll say is if they were to put it in you already have people saying they'll want an option to yes, block them from being changed. People already expressed this. I just don't think you can add this without creating an outcry. This being 200 plus pages is proof of that.

[Reinha]

If you can already turn the camera away, then do that?

The equivalent of "If you can already take off your headphones, then do that?" when we could instead have a feature to turn off character sounds. Like I said, minor QoL request. This community seems to be chronically against many small and harmless additions so it's nothing new.

2. We have already floated the idea of marking those who use the feature and it's been agreed upon that this would make them targets for retaliation.

People are marked when they go afk or use gpose or queue for a duty, this is a non-issue. Why would anyone want to associate with a petty person who needs people to look at them or they retaliate?

[Krotoan]

"Agreed upon"... by the side of the argument in favour of implementing it.

You can go back and find the posts if you want, but it was definitely conceded that it would be a source of possible targeting by both sides.

The issue isn't being "not seen", it's being seen - but in something we didn't choose and have no control over, yet still have our character and in-game identity attached to.

It was also discussed that possibly "stand in" randomized characters could be generated for placeholders with generic names. None of it would be relatable to you other than your position in that world on that server. Removing all "misrepresentation' relation to your character.

I can't see another way to do it honestly. 'Sides just not making it. Its been awhile since I was here in this topic ( I thought it died.. ) So forgive me if I don't remember where I left off. All I'll say is if they were to put it in you already have people saying they'll want an option to yes, block them from being changed. People already expressed this. I just don't think you can add this without creating an outcry. This being 200 plus pages is proof of that.

IF it's put in, super huge IF, the people who don't want it will just have to put up with it as many others have done with other features and items they didn't want in. This is how things seem to work. While making everyone happy would be nice, that's just not possible with a feature like this.

All it says is that there is quite a bit of discussion about it. It's also a LOT of the same people posting. However I can see the same pattern repeating over and over again. Assuming something won't be implemented just because there's people against it will disappoint you quite a bit. Even with outcry there have been many things SE has simply done and left.