REQUEST: Can we have both /changepose Poses?

[Niwashi]

I like to see variety rather than the other half of the population using my poses.

Giving people more options adds more variety, not less. Seeing every female with the same pose 1 and every male with the same pose 2 isn't much in the way of variety. Making it so some females use pose 1 and others use pose 2 because they've been given a choice, while some males use pose 1 and others pose 2 for the same reason, is at least a bit more variety than what we have now.

[Canadane]

Giving people more options adds more variety, not less. Seeing every female with the same pose 1 and every male with the same pose 2 isn't much in the way of variety. Making it so some females use pose 1 and others use pose 2 because they've been given a choice, while some males use pose 1 and others pose 2 for the same reason, is at least a bit more variety than what we have now.

Working with limitations adds variety. Giving everyone access to the same poses effectively cuts the uniqueness by half, not multiplies it as you seem to suggest.
This is the same reason I'm always pushing for more gender locked gear and more racial locked gear, not less.

[Dualgunner]

Working with limitations adds variety. Giving everyone access to the same poses effectively cuts the uniqueness by half, not multiplies it as you seem to suggest.
This is the same reason I'm always pushing for more gender locked gear and more racial locked gear, not less.

I would argue working with limitations creates the illusion of variety. Every female has the same pose. Every male has the same pose. The only variety is the variety between male and female, it's boolean Male = True, pose 1. How is that variety?

[Canadane]

I would argue working with limitations creates the illusion of variety. Every female has the same pose. Every male has the same pose. The only variety is the variety between male and female, it's boolean Male = True, pose 1. How is that variety?

From an outsiders perspective, you see approximately twice as much.

[Dualgunner]

From an outsiders perspective, you see approximately twice as much.

Like I said: It's an illusion. From the perspective of someone invested in the game, you know exactly who has what in regards to this.

[Zojha]

I would argue working with limitations creates the illusion of variety.

It doesn't even do that. Limitations objectively hamper variety - that's simply a mathematical fact. If you have 2 races with 1 Head, 1 Body, 1 Arm and 1 Leg option each, you have exactly 2 unique combinations. If you cull the racial limitation, both races suddenly have 2 Head, 2 Body, 2 Arm and 2 Leg options leading to a possible total of 16 unique combinations. That's "a tad" more. Every limitation reduces variety, full stop. There's not an argument to make here. It's a fact.

Limitations are in the realm of flavor - You could have Hyurs with dragon heads and it would add variety (since Hyurs get 1 more head option that multiplies with the other body options to over a dozen new Hyur combinations from just one addition), but it might look silly. Hence, dragon heads are limited to dragons. This is the only thing you can argue for when it comes to limitations. But I personally don't think these animations would look silly on the other gender at all - and that is an opinion.

[Felis]

I would argue working with limitations creates the illusion of variety. Every female has the same pose. Every male has the same pose. The only variety is the variety between male and female, it's boolean Male = True, pose 1. How is that variety?

I think I quote myself to this

Instead of getting old /cpose on both genders, how about alternative new poses for both genders?
I mean really new, not a silly gender swap

[Saito_S]

And with all that stuff about suspension of disbelief, I forgot to actually say anything else about the topic!

I think I quote myself to this

The only thing that's "silly" is the idea that poses and stances are gendered. There was no good reason for them to be gender-locked in the first place. As to removing these restrictions vs. adding new poses, how about both? Considering that new emotes, dances, etc. get added periodically anyway, and we will probably continue to see more, and considering the minimum amount of work required to allow all players to access all existing emotes and poses regardless of gender, it really doesn't need to be one or the other.

I mean... surely more variety is good? To be honest, the idea that anyone is legitimately against opening up battle stances and other emotes so that there is no longer a gender-lock on them is baffling.

[Nezerius]

Working with limitations adds variety. Giving everyone access to the same poses effectively cuts the uniqueness by half, not multiplies it as you seem to suggest.
This is the same reason I'm always pushing for more gender locked gear and more racial locked gear, not less.

Racial locked gear makes sense, as there's gear that one race would wear, which another wouldn't. Same goes for gender locked gear, whether only worn by one gender, or the gear looking different for each gender.

However, holding a lance slightly differently isn't something that should be restricted by gender, as I don't see how a female character wouldn't be able to do the Kain pose that males get, and vice versa.

[Naunet]

Racial locked gear makes sense, as there's gear that one race would wear, which another wouldn't.

Honestly, it doesn't considering clothes are clothes and styles are swapped around from culture to culture IRL pretty constantly.