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

[AmeliaVerves]

I'll say it again. Peoples unglamoured gear will be just as ugly and ill-fitting, if not moreso, than their glamour.

Anyone ever accidently picking the "remove all" tab when cycling through the glamour plates? That moment of shock when you see the abomination that is hidden underneath your chosen glam and you cringe real hard. lmao

[Theodric]

No matter how the feature were to be implemented, it wouldn't appeal to everybody. Yet that can be said of pretty much any feature ever added to the game - some of which have been far more niche than this particular premise. I appreciate the concern, though I'm sure the development team could figure out a way to implement the feature in a way that isn't jarring. Perhaps by making the default racial attire the default display if glamour is turned off. Or a pair of plain, grey robes. In my opinion it'd probably end up more interesting to look at than what a large portion of players make use of at the moment.

[Krotoan]

Obviously display is a client-side thing, but which equipment is displayed for each character in sight has to be communicated by the server.
If the game server is already sending both equipped and glamoured equipment ID for each character in sight, then the OP suggestion can easily be done.
But currently there is no need to send them both for each character in sight and would be a waste of bandwidth (it's only needed when you actually right-click > check someone) so it's probable that it doesn't do it. OP suggestion would need the server to send more data, or for the server to juggle between equipped and glamoured depending on individual players choices.

Why would it need to send MORE data? All it would have to be is a toggle client side saying: Dont use the incoming data, instead use a preset glamour for everyone. No additional bandwidth needed. I don't believe there should be an option to glamour individual other people though since that ventures into possible griefing.
I know you probably haven't read the whole thread but we have covered it quite a bit.

[FelixFaust]

My concern would be if Development time would be wasted on a feature that a minuscule amount of players would use.

Adding to this thread, I will now validate the OP's argument by wearing skimpy glamour, out of sheer spite. I already do, and I look fabulous!

You are welcome. ^.~

[BlitzAceRush]

I always find it a little strange when people question realism and immersion when talking about a fantasy setting, not because they don't belong or can't exist they absolutely can and do within the rules of the narrative, but often because when someone is advocating for it, they're often only for the part they want, while ignoring the rest but saying it brakes immersion.

Take that pic of the Bikini Tanks a page or two back, would you go into battle in a medevil setting dressed like that? No, but in that kind of realistic setting you're also not dealing with magic and dragons and mechanised walkers that can shoot energy nukes from their mouths.
The dragon that just crushed you will do so weather you were rocking full plate or a pair of shorts, neither is going to do anything about a literal building falling on you, in that regard the bikini is better as your only hope is to never get hit in the first place and you've more chance of that without tones of metal and padding weighing you down and restricting your movement.

And if a guy in a frog suite takes you out of the moment shouldn't a Lallafell doing literally anything other than magic or ranged weapons? I mean the smallest female Au Ra could punt one with minimal effort but theirs Pippin over there being a mini Raubahn, his whole character makes no sense if we apply "realism to it"

So where do we draw the line? What is actually realistic? To me you always just need to go with the rules the game/film/book gives you, if I can tank a dragon stomp in my underwear, then I can, if I can run in full plate for hours without dying of exhaustion then praise be to my characters constitution and if a Pippin can bench-press a Roe, then good for him.

I know this had little to do with the topic at hand, I'm personally against it, but I always find the topic of realism being applied to unrealistic settings both strange and interesting.

[Ibkee]

My concern would be if Development time would be wasted on a feature that a minuscule amount of players would use.

Oh good, finally someone has taken a poll and has some hard numbers. How many players would use this feature and how much development time would be required to implement it?

Adding to this thread, I will now validate the OP's argument by wearing skimpy glamour, out of sheer spite. I already do, and I look fabulous!

This not only comes across as incredibly petty, but also highlights exactly why this feature would be a good thing to have.

[FelixFaust]

Aside from the OP, and a few others, no one is clamoring for this feature. Hence, the wasted time on this. There has to be great demand for it. Would you want to have dev time and resources on something that clearly isn't going to be used that much, just to please a few players?

Yes, because wanting everyone to conform to my very specific tastes is a good thing to have the devs spend their time to implement, at the cost of something actually useful. /shrug

[Joven]

My concern would be if Development time would be wasted on a feature that a minuscule amount of players would use.

Aside from the OP, and a few others, no one is clamoring for this feature. Hence, the wasted time on this. There has to be great demand for it. Would you want to have dev time and resources on something that clearly isn't going to be used that much, just to please a few players?

Yes, because wanting everyone to conform to my very specific tastes is a good thing to have the devs spend their time to implement, at the cost of something actually useful. /shrug

No different then the devs wasting their time having to remesh the bunny suit and wedding dress for all character models for a minuscule amount of players, but they managed to throw a fit loud enough to make it seem like more people were interested than there really was. The difference here is we're not insulting the devs by claiming they're "sexist" or "homophobic" or other overly used terms.

[Theodric]

The original post has 142 likes as of the time that I'm writing this. That's not exactly a small number, especially compared to the amount of likes many other suggestions receive around these parts. The developers have also added far more niche features to the game based on feedback and/or a desire for furthering player choice.

I'm sure if the question was posed to the community as a whole, the amount of people who would be in support of the idea would be a reasonable amount - and those against it aren't missing out, since they aren't owed anybody else's time or attention to begin with.

[FelixFaust]

Fine, then.

It just doesn't feel right. Whenever someone comes up with the idea to hide player glamour, it is strictly for censorship reasons... and Yes, I am aware that it would be an option for a player to toggle on their side of the screen, but still. /shrug