Forced aesthetic changes should not exist

[Roda]

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.

I think you might be loading the word with more impact than it's really being used with then.

It's forced as in "a cause and effect of interacting with the game features" not as in "SE has sent an agent to my house and held me at gunpoint to press the 'amputate tail' button

[fulminating]

I would be upset but more understanding if it were an enforced tonberry phase. I am just baffled that it is a white mage phase.

[TaleraRistain]

I am usually all for options but in this case the change is part of the aesthetic of the job. Something like Enshroud for instance is part of the job identity and is a visual representation of that identity. I don't agree that someone should get the benefits of the job identity in terms of using the skill but without embracing that identity.

[Turtledeluxe]

I think you might be loading the word with more impact than it's really being used with then.

It's forced as in "a logical consequence of interacting with the game features" not as in "SE has sent an agent to my house and held me at gunpoint to press the 'amputate tail' button

It's think it's a combo of that and it just made me wonder "well then what isn't forced?". I guess buying a house isn't forced. But lots of other things in the game fall under this definition of "force".

That doesn't in any way make the feedback invalid or even weaker. It just feels almost distracting and redundant to say. For example

"The job transformations are a horrible concept and should be optional."
"The forced job transformations are a horrible concept and should be optional."

Both things communicate the same thing, but one makes it worse by adding in this word. That's how it seems to me.

[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.

[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.

[Roda]

I would be upset but more understanding if it were an enforced tonberry phase. I am just baffled that it is a white mage phase.

GOD YOU'RE SO FREAKING RIGHT, YOUR BRAIN IS HUGE

for the record, total transformation > partial transformation into a hyur with particle effects. I prefer partial transformations that retain character choices like racial features where reasonable (so like, if there was a skill that gave you a centaur or naga-like bodyplan, you could drop the tail), but full transformations can get as crazy as they want imo.



Post limit already?????? at 13?????? CAN'T EVEN POST FOURTEEN TIMES ON MY FINAL FANTASY FOURTEEN WEBSITE?!

It's think it's a combo of that and it just made me wonder "well then what isn't forced?". I guess buying a house isn't forced. But lots of other things in the game fall under this definition of "force".

That doesn't in any way make the feedback invalid or even weaker. It just feels almost distracting and redundant to say. For example

"The job transformations are a horrible concept and should be optional."
"The forced job transformations are a horrible concept and should be optional."

Both things communicate the same thing, but one makes it worse by adding in this word. That's how it seems to me.

To me the first one reads like the person fully DOES NOT LIKE even the concept of transformations while offering a solution that acknowledges that other people may like the function.
The second one reads like the person MIGHT like to enjoy transformations, but on their terms, and would prefer a solution that gives them more agency in the situation.

So if you removed the suggested solutions (which gamers are notoriously bad at giving the right ones) to
"The job transformations are a horrible concept." (fully DOES NOT LIKE even the concept of transformations)
"The forced job transformations are a horrible concept." (MIGHT like to enjoy transformations, but on their terms)

The second one can be solved with adding a toggle, while the first one wants it gone entirely. So, adding the extra flair of feeling forced actually helps give a more open feeling to the idea of transformations.

[Mihka]

I would be upset but more understanding if it were an enforced tonberry phase. I am just baffled that it is a white mage phase.

As a Lalafell, I'm pretty sure nothing would change if you became a Tonberry

[Turtledeluxe]

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.

Yes. To quote myself:

That doesn't in any way make the feedback invalid or even weaker. It just feels almost distracting and redundant to say. For example

"The job transformations are a horrible concept and should be optional."
"The forced job transformations are a horrible concept and should be optional."

Both things communicate the same thing, but one makes it worse by adding in this word. That's how it seems to me.

It's really just this. I don't find it to be concise, or condensing. But you do you.

And it's like you said, developers have a responsibility to interpret the feedback in a way most useful to them.

I think your posts indicate that your very last concern is being "concise" and in fact, you're here to troll.

[Mihka]

It's really just this. I don't find it to be concise, or condensing. But you do you.

Then perhaps you should expand your vocabulary and not take everything at face value /shrug