Forced aesthetic changes should not exist

[Roda]

I agree with the feedback about the fusion but what's the deal with the use of the term "forced" here?

So are you being forced to do any other actions? Are you being forced to do MSQ? Playing a game is an at will experience in totality. No one is forcing you to do anything. I find use of this word to be highly bizarre.

I mean the other options are to:
A) Pick a new main
B) Play your main wrong
or
C) Quit

The game doesn't have build diversity, you can't spec into a non-transformative reaper and now scholar, so if you want to engage with a job and play it correctly (and until they add some kind of, er, glamour glamour???), you will be forced to change your appearance when you need to access certain utilities/burst abilities.

[Turtledeluxe]

I mean the other options are to:
A) Pick a new main
B) Play your main wrong
or
C) Quit

The game doesn't have build diversity, you can't spec into a non-transformative reaper and now scholar, so if you want to engage with a job and play it correctly (and until they add some kind of, er, glamour glamour???), you will be forced to change your appearance when you need to access certain utilities/burst abilities.

I'm not trying to be annoying, but I just think isn't the fusion bad because of how it looks and/or how it relates to the job? By arguing it's bad because it's forced, you can argue down anything in the game..

Or even if it is purely based on choice, ask for a toggle? I just don't think the devs are trying to force anyone into anything. They probably assumed you'd like it.

[Mihka]

I agree with the feedback about the fusion but what's the deal with the use of the term "forced" here?

So are you being forced to do any other actions? Are you being forced to do MSQ? Playing a game is an at will experience in totality. No one is forcing you to do anything. I find use of this word to be highly bizarre.

Like I'm just imagining if the fusion was something people liked would it then not be "forced"? Is Enshroud unfair enforcing? I just don't get it. Has some kind of positive feedback response been developed between Yoshi P and players where if they imply lack of free will any given thing is 10x worse?

I'm not trying to be annoying, but I just think isn't the fusion bad because of how it looks and/or how it relates to the job? By arguing it's bad because it's forced, you can argue down anything in the game..

If they gave me the option to disable the visual component of the skill, then I could not care less that the skill has a transformation component as I could turn it off. There is no option to disable it, therefore if I want to play the job correctly, yes. I AM forced to use it. The entire basis of your argument is like Spec Ops: The Line saying "well if you didn't want to do bad things, you should've just stopped playing the game, aren't I so insightful?"

We can argue until the cows come home how or why forced transformations are bad for each specific job that decides to implement them (currently only two, who knows if they will expand this to other jobs in the future). My argument is that the entire CONCEPT of hijacking a player's character model is bad at the base level.

[Roda]

I'm not trying to be annoying, but I just think isn't the fusion bad because of how it looks and/or how it relates to the job? By arguing it's bad because it's forced, you can argue down anything in the game..

Or even if it is purely based on choice, ask for a toggle? I just don't think the devs are trying to force anyone into anything. They probably assumed you'd like it.

[Thing happens that people do not like & would rather avoid] -> [cannot avoid thing] -> [The fact that the thing cannot be avoided feels bad] => "I don't like being forced to do this"
The intent of the devs thinking people would like it is nice and all, but intent does not define people's experiences in practice, and people communicating that they feel like they lack agency in situations like this is VERY good feedback for those creating interactive media.

That is the significance of the "forced" aspect in this.


Any designer worth their salt can read a "I don't like that I'm forced to do/experience this [non-mechanical thing]" as "make [that thing] optional/don't overvalue [that thing] in gameplay as much" (when possible/reasonable)

[Turtledeluxe]

[Thing happens that people do not like & would rather avoid] -> [cannot avoid thing] -> [The fact that the thing cannot be avoided feels bad] => "I don't like being forced to do this"
The intent of the devs thinking people would like it is nice and all, but intent does not define people's experiences in practice, and people communicating that they feel like they lack agency in situations like this is VERY good feedback for those creating interactive media.

That is the significance of the "forced" aspect in this. Optional toggles are the ideal solution, but ceasing their implementation and adding more options later is also seen as a solution for those affected. Finding a solution that is a good compromise between people who like the feature and those who do not is why discussion boards exist '3'

Yeah, that's why I said I agree and everything. And it's hard to explain because we use inflammatory language pretty casually all the time I guess. "Hijacking, forcing, etc". It just gets weird for me on this particular subject. But that's just me.

And I do realize the transformations are part of the action, to be clear. I'm not disputing that. Devs do miss the mark on certain things, that's true. I'm not sure how that's relevant (to implying they're forcing something).

It really is fair as well because people can do whatever they want. I was just curious, like I said.

[MAD_ARCHITECT]

I'm not trying to be annoying, but I just think isn't the fusion bad because of how it looks and/or how it relates to the job? By arguing it's bad because it's forced, you can argue down anything in the game..

Or even if it is purely based on choice, ask for a toggle? I just don't think the devs are trying to force anyone into anything. They probably assumed you'd like it.

A toggle is what I am hoping for, personally, especially since I know some people quite like the model change--but, we have been given no indication that we are going to be getting one and healer mains are unfortunately accustomed to having their grievances ignored, so the response is understandable.

On the matter of the word 'forced', I cannot comment on past forum use of the word, but in this instance I believe it is apt. The distinction between what your character does and what your character is is an important one as it impacts the player's connection to the action on the screen, and having the character we designed replaced with a model bereft of all customization is jarring and alienating. Our individual WoL now looks like every other WoL that plays this job, at least for a little while, and that is a significant downgrade from getting to see how our particular character looks when executing a new skill, especially when the replacement form in question has a very dubious tie to the job it represents in the first place.

With Reaper, it was understood from the beginning that Enshroud was part of the class, so no one was going to be surprised by it; it also matches the Reaper aesthetic, as Reaper was designed with the mechanic in mind from the start. Scholar on the other hand has been around since ARR without any such mechanic, and none of us signed up for this when we initially became attached to the job. Additionally, Scholar does not have the very unified identity of Reaper, which means those of us who main it tend to have differing glamour interpretations of its varied military tactician/war doctor/fairy mage/bookworm influences. This bizarre angel form eradicates the personal expression of the individual Scholar and replaces it with something that isn't even a part of the job lore. In this case especially, using the word 'forced' is more than justified.

[W4rm0nger5]

given the skill is an important part of using scholars kit effectively I think calling it forced in this particular case is a fair thing to do.

[W4rm0nger5]

Except from what people have been saying its not just the fact that its forced, thats just one aspect of why people don't like it.

[Turtledeluxe]

Except from what people have been saying its not just the fact that its forced, thats just one aspect of why people don't like it.

Idk, I just see the term a lot here. And what I interpret it to mean is "I don't like this, please add a toggle" or something similar. And the post itself does say this to be fair.

We can argue until the cows come home how or why forced transformations are bad for each specific job that decides to implement them (currently only two, who knows if they will expand this to other jobs in the future). My argument is that the entire CONCEPT of hijacking a player's character model is bad at the base level.

To be honest, I find it hard to articulate what has me so curious. I guess what I'm thinking is normally wouldn't we just say "Hey, these transformations are bad, please make them optional"? The addition of agency is just unusual to me.

You're even saying "hijacking". It just feels very strong when all we really need is a toggle.

[Mihka]

To be honest, I find it hard to articulate what has me so curious. I guess what I'm thinking is normally wouldn't we just say "Hey, these transformations are bad, please make them optional"? The addition of agency is just unusual to me.

You're even saying "hijacking". It just feels very strong when all we really need is a toggle.

I use strong language when discussing things I have strong opinions about, particularly when those words effectively condense multiple aspects of how I feel into a much more concise package.

I could say "Abilities that replace a player's character model - which is often carefully glamoured after hundreds of hours to create a specific aesthetic style that is in line with the player's desired image of themselves and expression of their class identity - with a model that has a set in stone aesthetic seriously undermines character agency in the way they are perceived and the way they experience and express their job identity, which are very important factors in this game due to the high emphasis on role playing and the social aspect of the game".

Or, I can condense the vast majority of that sentiment into "hijacking the player's character model", which effectively conveys my dislike of the system and the way it intrusively alters the job identity with no regard for a player's character aesthetic.

As Roda said; any developer worth their salt should be capable of reading feedback and distilling it for useable information. Though, I would clarify this is usually filtered through a good community management team, whose job is to make sure the spirit of feedback reaches developers without the need for developers to spend their development time dealing with mountains of player noise every day.