Knowing what gear other players have equipped should not be considered "pertinent information." I don't see much of a difference between that and being able to see what spells someone has unlocked, what their faction standings look like, what keys/flags they have unlocked, or what quests they have completed. At least not in the context of what is considered "pertinent information" for forming groups. There has always been a very simple way to acquire this information. Ask other players. We are supposed to be bringing back social interaction. Players have no need to discuss any of these things if the information is always readily available. We should encourage players to communicate rather than creating a bunch of data sets that filter the player base. I have played games where people can simply click a player and navigate through their "achievement profile" to see what they have completed. It waters down communication to the lowest common denominator.
oneADseven said:Zorkon said:I'm with Syria on this. I would prefer there just wasn't any appearance slots at all. If I wanted to dress up a doll I'd go buy a doll. Hopefully Pantheon is so much more than a dress up game.
If they do choose to have the slots, let me turn them off. (And, no, I don't care if you "want" me to see your character "that" way)
Interesting way to look at things. If you want to attack things with a sword, would you go and buy a real-life sword instead? Does the existence of swords in Pantheon result in the same logic, where hopefully it would be so much more than just a hack and slash game?
Bottom line is that appearance slots do not turn the World into a "dress up game" any more than the existence of food/drink turns it into a virtual restaurant. No idea where you are getting that from but it's a mega stretch.
Yes 187, you have your opinion and I have mine, both have been stated and your continued WALLS of text are not going to change mine, as a matter of fact, on that point TLDR for most of them.
The devs. Have heard both our positions so stop trying to change mine... I don't care to see you in your boa and tutu and I shouldn't need to if I choose not. In turn if you want to wear it you indeed should be able too.
Thus why the toggle the Devs are considering is a perfect solution.
Zorkon said:The devs. Have heard both our positions so stop trying to change mine ... I don't care to see you in your boa and tutu and I shouldn't need to if I choose not. In turn if you want to wear it you indeed should be able too.
Thus why the toggle the Devs are considering is a perfect solution.
There is no perfect solution that features boas and tutus as part of Pantheon. Nobody expects to see either of those in-game but people continue to use those kinds of immersion-shattering outfits as justification for purposely creating visual disparity in the world and thus destroying the shared experience that we all covet. If the game were to feature ridiculous stuff like that ... or candy cane swords, santa hats, angel wings, etc, then I would be in 100% agreement with you. If we approach this with a mentality that ridiculous outfits wouldn't exist (and that "appearance slots" would have heavy restrictions that do not allow for crafting gear, harvesting gear, festive gear, roleplaying gear, etc) I think it's possible to find a healthy middle-ground. Unfortunately, a toggle that allows players to alter the appearance of others ... that shatters immersion beyond all repair. Many folks have attested to that on this thread.
oneADseven said:Knowing what gear other players have equipped should not be considered "pertinent information." I don't see much of a difference between that and being able to see what spells someone has unlocked, what their faction standings look like, what keys/flags they have unlocked, or what quests they have completed. At least not in the context of what is considered "pertinent information" for forming groups. There has always been a very simple way to acquire this information. Ask other players. We are supposed to be bringing back social interaction. Players have no need to discuss any of these things if the information is always readily available. We should encourage players to communicate rather than creating a bunch of data sets that filter the player base. I have played games where people can simply click a player and navigate through their "achievement profile" to see what they have completed. It waters down communication to the lowest common denominator.
Why do you keep adding in things that have nothing to do with the thread? social interaction is important but again doesn't really have anything to do with what we are talking about, your only adding it in so twist some narrative that it makes it seem okay to have cosmetic gear and just "ask" you what you really have, so if we know if you are prepared or not, OR i could simply see your adventure gear, and if i don't recognized a iece bnut noticed most is good i could still ask, this whole "Social" card your pulling is a strech and im sure most people know it, i shouldn't have to ask every single group member everytime i make a party to do something if i could simply just look at them and grab 90% of the information with vision, there is so much more headache than what it is actually worth, seriously i understand you want cosmetics, have them they are their for the taking, but have the people that don't wan tto see them have a way to midigate the affects it has on them, or are you still too stubborn.
oneADseven said:Zorkon said:The devs. Have heard both our positions so stop trying to change mine ... I don't care to see you in your boa and tutu and I shouldn't need to if I choose not. In turn if you want to wear it you indeed should be able too.
Thus why the toggle the Devs are considering is a perfect solution.
There is no perfect solution that features boas and tutus as part of Pantheon. Nobody expects to see either of those in-game but people continue to use those kinds of immersion-shattering outfits as justification for purposely creating visual disparity in the world and thus destroying the shared experience that we all covet. If the game were to feature ridiculous stuff like that ... or candy cane swords, santa hats, angel wings, etc, then I would be in 100% agreement with you. If we approach this with a mentality that ridiculous outfits wouldn't exist (and that "appearance slots" would have heavy restrictions that do not allow for crafting gear, harvesting gear, festive gear, roleplaying gear, etc) I think it's possible to find a healthy middle-ground. Unfortunately, a toggle that allows players to alter the appearance of others ... that shatters immersion beyond all repair. Many folks have attested to that on this thread.
It doesn't break immserion beyond repair becuase you would have to see it for it to break whag is immersing you ? if you cant see it than it can't hurt you, as for you seem to think that me not having the toggle, and no way to unsee a optional feature that does break my immersion is prefectly okay, yeah i believe we see where you stand, onvious it isn't actually on the side of immersion, its on the side of what is going to making you happy, there a clear difference, and pleae use immersion correctly.
Which by the way means:
Deep mental Involvement.
And to have this you actually have to "See" it to hurt it, as it is a visual affect, and so if you can see the world you want to see and the way you want to see it than your "immersion" isnt being hurt
We are merely asking for the same thing yet you are denying us.
And around and around we go.
Zorkon said:Yes 187, you have your opinion and I have mine, both have been stated and your continued WALLS of text are not going to change mine, as a matter of fact, on that point TLDR for most of them.
The devs. Have heard both our positions so stop trying to change mine...
When I respond on this thread it's usually because I read something interesting or odd that I wish to clarify or discuss. 1AD7 does the same. Both of us post in the hopes of making our position understood and sometimes stopping things being misrepresented. I'm posting here *again* even though I've made my case over and over because you've come along and said: -
Zorkon said:I don't care to see you in your boa and tutu...
Good grief aren't we past this stuff? There will be no boas and tutus or anything like that no matter whether there is an appearance system or how it is implemented. It has thankfully been clearly stated by devs many times, but similar silly falsehoods keeps being (ab)used and perpetuated.
If you want this argument to be over, I suggest refraining from trying to make those wanting a worthwhile appearance system seem like they are weirdos wanting to play a bizarre dress-up game.
That sort of comment is not only baseless and insulting, but it guarantees a robust response.
Zorkon said:Thus why the toggle the Devs are considering is a perfect solution.
Clearly, no, it's not, since it defies the whole point of an appearance system for at least some and probably most of those wanting it: To define how others see their character. It also messes up immersion by having players seeing different things when they look at each other.
No matter how many times it is said, it will not become true. The devs do not, in fact, present the toggle as 'perfect'. They say it is a compromise and that is clearly debatable, since compromise involves mutual consession, not a solution that is 100% for one side and less for another.
I'm not suggesting *not* having a toggle is a perfect solution, but having one, objectively, is not, since some clearly object.
It's perfect for some - those that don't want the appearance system - which is why, unsurprisingly, they keep suggesting it.
The truth of it is, is that you can still share your cosmetic gear with like minded individuals, even with the toggle and be happy that some share your point of view and enjoy looking at something that can be appealing to you, but if you give the ones that only want to see adventure gear nothing, than what I just jhave to deal with it and have my immersion broken everytime i look at my screen? The toggle does serve both sides the ones that allow to see mosmetic gear will and they can do whatever they want and have their screen filled with things they want to do, and it serves the other side as well, it might not make the "purists" happy, but think about it, the "putists" of adventure gear already isn't happy if you truly think about it, you get a cosmetic pieces of gear simply by supporting pantheon, which I'm kinda fine with to a point but it still brings something in that to me doesn't belong, but sense i understand it their i want to midigate it's affect it has on me, and the purists on the other side of the matter don't want to budge, or lose control of something they shouldn'y have control over, give it to the individuals that deserve it, the ones behind the computer looking at their game, they are the ones that need it most, not the other way around.
What about just a better player /consider or a final stat mouse over inspect that cannot be disabled in the LFG tool?
If seeing an item shows that players achievements and there also exists a very fast and simple way to see if the character is adequately geared, then a transmog system where you were allowed to put a hard to get low level appearance on an easy to get high level item of the same type would show both your skill and your character power which is different.
We are approaching this concept entirely from the perspective of EQ which did not have any real means of seeing the relative power of another character without inspecting and mousing over each item. Other than chest items usually indicating what power level your gear is at because it was typically the hardest piece in a tier visible gear didn't really tell you anything about the total character power. Most of the other pieces of gear other than weapons were less recognizable and had a significantly lower stat impact. Weapons themselves were very impactful though.
In WoW the gear was much more recognizable because they were able to do a wide range of 3d models that EQ just never really had access to, at least prior to PoP.
So TLDR cause its Trasak
Appearance indicates player skill (you are most proud of the hardest to get items)
/Con or /inspect clearly and quickly shows character power (might need some way to indicate which epic powers have been unlocked)
Riahuf22 said:The truth of it is...
Lol. No. Your opinion is not some kind of objective "truth". You know others feel differently and you don't really understand why they feel that way, but yet persist in telling everyone that somehow you know the "truth" of the matter?
To some (and I think most) people, the *whole point* of having appearance slots is to define how *others* see you. It's a simple concept.
The toggle is not a compromise. A compromise, by definition, involves mutual consession. The toggle works 100% for those that don't want an appearance system and between 0% and 99% for those that do. It is my opinion that it is nearer 0% than 99%, but it is objectively obvious that the toggle is not a compromise.
It could just as well be said that having no toggle is a fine compromise, because not *everyone* will use appearance gear, so you will see somewhere between 0% and 99% 'real' gear. So that's fine, yeah?
Having a separate server is the only way to have both sides anywhere near happy, but even that will have a lot of people unhappy with being forced to go to that separate server just so appearance slots work for them.
Attempting to paint people that want appearance slots with no toggle as being somehow unreasonable is not ok.
In addition to those wanting the appearance slot concept to work properly, there are plenty of people that disagree fundamentally with the concept of anything that has players seeing the world differently to each other for any reason. Another reason the toggle is not 'perfect'.
I have no probems with this in PvE for most parts. As long as the appearance armor fits with the game and has different looks depending on what you really wear.
But in PvP, games like ESO, you think you attack someone in cloth armor but then to your suprise they actually wear heavy plate armor.
At least in ArcheAge you can see the icon of which type they wear. But in the heat of the battle it doesn't always get checked. Also i do no like all the sparkly fairy hawtpants glimmering armor they wear from the cash shops.
Trasak said:
What about just a better player /consider or a final stat mouse over inspect that cannot be disabled in the LFG tool?
If seeing an item shows that players achievements and there also exists a very fast and simple way to see if the character is adequately geared, then a transmog system where you were allowed to put a hard to get low level appearance on an easy to get high level item of the same type would show both your skill and your character power which is different.
We are approaching this concept entirely from the perspective of EQ which did not have any real means of seeing the relative power of another character without inspecting and mousing over each item. Other than chest items usually indicating what power level your gear is at because it was typically the hardest piece in a tier visible gear didn't really tell you anything about the total character power. Most of the other pieces of gear other than weapons were less recognizable and had a significantly lower stat impact. Weapons themselves were very impactful though.
In WoW the gear was much more recognizable because they were able to do a wide range of 3d models that EQ just never really had access to, at least prior to PoP.
So TLDR cause its Trasak
Appearance indicates player skill (you are most proud of the hardest to get items)
/Con or /inspect clearly and quickly shows character power (might need some way to indicate which epic powers have been unlocked)
This is a good idea for those that are concerned with wanting to assess others' power at a glance (espcially because you could never really do it anyway), but doesn't help those who simply want to see 'the truth' of what others are wearing. Some folks out there just can't cope with gear not looking exactly as it 'should'.
Though it occurs to me that the model will change depending on the race or sex of the wearer... 'Reality' is a pretty mutable thing in a fantasy game, but that's what they want.
Another concept is that the epic class quests could in fact be to unlock the exclusive armor appearances for your class as well as unlocking abilities. The would be your “epic appearance slots” and therefor could not be traded.
How far you were able to get on your epic line would be a matter of player skill and character power. The appearances you had access to would be gradually fancier iterations of the same basic design. The appearance tier you were able to get to would also be a very good indicator of both your character power and player skill regardless of what rando piece of gear was hiding under the appearance slot.
These epic quests could be brutal 100 hour slogs per tier with 10 total tiers and it would not unbalance the game. People with tons of time would be able to really work on something and people with less time would just know they were stuck with lesser appearances as the raw mechanical power might be matched by rando gear.
An expansion later you may still be working on your class epic line and therefor still proud of your appearance gear so you want to keep it as you work through new content with higher stats. Rather than throwing your hard earned epics in the junk pile you keep them and maybe there is a new tier added along with the content for those who have already completed the first 1000 hours of epic quest.
knoote said:I have no probems with this in PvE for most parts. As long as the appearance armor fits with the game and has different looks depending on what you really wear.
But in PvP, games like ESO, you think you attack someone in cloth armor but then to your suprise they actually wear heavy plate armor.
At least in ArcheAge you can see the icon of which type they wear. But in the heat of the battle it doesn't always get checked. Also i do no like all the sparkly fairy hawtpants glimmering armor they wear from the cash shops.
You're absolutely right about PvP. It should probably have different rules.
In both PvE and PvP, though, sparkly fairy hotpants will not be a thing in Pantheon, not matter what happens with the appearance slot system. We have had dev assurances many times in various ways.
disposalist said:Riahuf22 said:The truth of it is...
Lol. No. Your opinion is not some kind of objective "truth". You know others feel differently and you don't really understand why they feel that way, but yet persist in telling everyone that somehow you know the "truth" of the matter?
To some (and I think most) people, the *whole point* of having appearance slots is to define how *others* see you. It's a simple concept.
The toggle is not a compromise. A compromise, by definition, involves mutual consession. The toggle works 100% for those that don't want an appearance system and between 0% and 99% for those that do. It is my opinion that it is nearer 0% than 99%, but it is objectively obvious that the toggle is not a compromise.
It could just as well be said that having no toggle is a fine compromise, because not *everyone* will use appearance gear, so you will see somewhere between 0% and 99% 'real' gear. So that's fine, yeah?
Having a separate server is the only way to have both sides anywhere near happy, but even that will have a lot of people unhappy with being forced to go to that separate server just so appearance slots work for them.
Attempting to paint people that want appearance slots with no toggle as being somehow unreasonable is not ok.
In addition to those wanting the appearance slot concept to work properly, there are plenty of people that disagree fundamentally with the concept of anything that has players seeing the world differently to each other for any reason. Another reason the toggle is not 'perfect'.
So your saying you can't enjoy s preference with like minded individuals? hows that? so your saying their is no truth to that statement? I'm confused becuase you can always enjoy sometihng with like minded individuals and i don't see where there isn't any truth to this statement.
And it is a compromise, just not to the eyes of a purists and that, as I've stated many times, you dont want a compromise, you want it purely just what you want and telling me to just deal with it and not caring what it does to my immersion for as long as you are happy with your play of wanting to display yourself, even if it breaks other peoples immersions.
If there is a toggle and the split is 50/50 that is a even split, now this probably wont happen, but if it is lets says 80/20 is cosmetic favor than the effect would hardly be noticed by most but those 20% will be happy in their world, and if it is 80/20 in adventure favir than cosmetic will still be happy in seeing things in their point of view.
But if you add in cosmetic gear and give no way for them to un see it and 25% of your player base dont want tot see it but have no midigate its affect than 25% of the playerbase will be unhappy, for no reason at all and something that can be easily solved through a toggle
Or they can take out cosmetic gear entirely and have the player base that wanted it, simply not get it at, and they lost it simply becuase they couldn't agree to a simple toggle and made them lose the entire feature all together.
Either way no matter how you look at it Adventure gear should always be the priotity in the game, and not some appearance feature that can be immersion breaking to other and for seeing adventure gear cant be immersion breaking becuae it does nothing but show true progression into the game you are playing, even though you might not like the way you look.
Riahuf22 said:disposalist said:Riahuf22 said:The truth of it is...
Lol. No. Your opinion is not some kind of objective "truth". You know others feel differently and you don't really understand why they feel that way, but yet persist in telling everyone that somehow you know the "truth" of the matter?
To some (and I think most) people, the *whole point* of having appearance slots is to define how *others* see you. It's a simple concept.
The toggle is not a compromise. A compromise, by definition, involves mutual consession. The toggle works 100% for those that don't want an appearance system and between 0% and 99% for those that do. It is my opinion that it is nearer 0% than 99%, but it is objectively obvious that the toggle is not a compromise.
It could just as well be said that having no toggle is a fine compromise, because not *everyone* will use appearance gear, so you will see somewhere between 0% and 99% 'real' gear. So that's fine, yeah?
Having a separate server is the only way to have both sides anywhere near happy, but even that will have a lot of people unhappy with being forced to go to that separate server just so appearance slots work for them.
Attempting to paint people that want appearance slots with no toggle as being somehow unreasonable is not ok.
In addition to those wanting the appearance slot concept to work properly, there are plenty of people that disagree fundamentally with the concept of anything that has players seeing the world differently to each other for any reason. Another reason the toggle is not 'perfect'.
So your saying you can't enjoy s preference with like minded individuals? hows that? so your saying their is no truth to that statement? I'm confused becuase you can always enjoy sometihng with like minded individuals and i don't see where there isn't any truth to this statement.
Wanting to define how others see you is unconnected with how those others feel about *thier* external appearance.
When you care about how others see you it doesn't matter if those others care how others see *them*. It matters how *all* others see *you*.
It seems a simple concept to me. How else to explain?...
When women wear lipstick or whatever, they don't just do it for other women who wear lipstick. They care how everyone sees them, in fact they care more about how non-lipstick-wearers (men) see them.
No, I am not likening those wanting appearance slots to lipstick-wearing women (not that there's anything wrong with that).
When I buy a new pair of trousers, I want them to look good to everyone, not just other trouser-wearers.
It's the same for anyone who cares about their appearance. It's not just for other people who care abour thier own appearance. I find it odd I have to explain this. Seems totally and trivially obvious.
Caring about your appearance is not just a 'like-minded' group activity. I guess you may have more involvement with those people. You might discuss your appearance more, but the importance of your appearance is not just reflected in that group.
Riahuf22 said:...no matter how you look at it Adventure gear should always be the priotity in the game, and not some appearance feature that can be immersion breaking to other...
I agree with this. This is why I've suggested if they can't get a genuine good compromise for appearance gear, then they shouldn't bother developing it at all.
Riahuf22 said:and for seeing adventure gear cant be immersion breaking becuae it does nothing but show true progression into the game you are playing, even though you might not like the way you look.
This is not true. Seeing adventure gear *if others see appearance gear* is immersion breaking. Having different players see different things is bad and weird no matter what the reason.
disposalist said:Riahuf22 said:disposalist said:Riahuf22 said:The truth of it is...
Lol. No. Your opinion is not some kind of objective "truth". You know others feel differently and you don't really understand why they feel that way, but yet persist in telling everyone that somehow you know the "truth" of the matter?
To some (and I think most) people, the *whole point* of having appearance slots is to define how *others* see you. It's a simple concept.
The toggle is not a compromise. A compromise, by definition, involves mutual consession. The toggle works 100% for those that don't want an appearance system and between 0% and 99% for those that do. It is my opinion that it is nearer 0% than 99%, but it is objectively obvious that the toggle is not a compromise.
It could just as well be said that having no toggle is a fine compromise, because not *everyone* will use appearance gear, so you will see somewhere between 0% and 99% 'real' gear. So that's fine, yeah?
Having a separate server is the only way to have both sides anywhere near happy, but even that will have a lot of people unhappy with being forced to go to that separate server just so appearance slots work for them.
Attempting to paint people that want appearance slots with no toggle as being somehow unreasonable is not ok.
In addition to those wanting the appearance slot concept to work properly, there are plenty of people that disagree fundamentally with the concept of anything that has players seeing the world differently to each other for any reason. Another reason the toggle is not 'perfect'.
So your saying you can't enjoy s preference with like minded individuals? hows that? so your saying their is no truth to that statement? I'm confused becuase you can always enjoy sometihng with like minded individuals and i don't see where there isn't any truth to this statement.
Wanting to define how others see you is unconnected with how those others feel about *thier* external appearance.
When you care about how others see you it doesn't matter if those others care how others see *them*. It matters how *all* others see *you*.
It seems a simple concept to me. How else to explain?...
When women wear lipstick or whatever, they don't just do it for other women who wear lipstick. They care how everyone sees them, in fact they care more about how non-lipstick-wearers (men) see them.
No, I am not likening those wanting appearance slots to lipstick-wearing women (not that there's anything wrong with that).
When I buy a new pair of trousers, I want them to look good to everyone, not just other trouser-wearers.
It's the same for anyone who cares about their appearance. It's not just for other people who care abour thier own appearance. I find it odd I have to explain this. Seems totally and trivially obvious.
Caring about your appearance is not just a 'like-minded' group activity. I guess you may have more involvement with those people. You might discuss your appearance more, but the importance of your appearance is not just reflected in that group.
Your right but when a women only has Maroon lipstick, they cant magically make it a bright red can they no they got what they have and have to deal with it until they go and get bright red and than put that on.
So if your going to use the analogy i can say if you want to "Red Lipstick" (Breastplate of Almighty) and not "Maroon Lipstick" (Breastplate of the Snakepit) than put on your "Red Lipstick" and not try to make your "Maroon Lipstick" look like "Red Lipstick."
Riahuf22 said:disposalist said:Riahuf22 said:disposalist said:Riahuf22 said:The truth of it is...
Lol. No. Your opinion is not some kind of objective "truth". You know others feel differently and you don't really understand why they feel that way, but yet persist in telling everyone that somehow you know the "truth" of the matter?
To some (and I think most) people, the *whole point* of having appearance slots is to define how *others* see you. It's a simple concept.
The toggle is not a compromise. A compromise, by definition, involves mutual consession. The toggle works 100% for those that don't want an appearance system and between 0% and 99% for those that do. It is my opinion that it is nearer 0% than 99%, but it is objectively obvious that the toggle is not a compromise.
It could just as well be said that having no toggle is a fine compromise, because not *everyone* will use appearance gear, so you will see somewhere between 0% and 99% 'real' gear. So that's fine, yeah?
Having a separate server is the only way to have both sides anywhere near happy, but even that will have a lot of people unhappy with being forced to go to that separate server just so appearance slots work for them.
Attempting to paint people that want appearance slots with no toggle as being somehow unreasonable is not ok.
In addition to those wanting the appearance slot concept to work properly, there are plenty of people that disagree fundamentally with the concept of anything that has players seeing the world differently to each other for any reason. Another reason the toggle is not 'perfect'.
So your saying you can't enjoy s preference with like minded individuals? hows that? so your saying their is no truth to that statement? I'm confused becuase you can always enjoy sometihng with like minded individuals and i don't see where there isn't any truth to this statement.
Wanting to define how others see you is unconnected with how those others feel about *thier* external appearance.
When you care about how others see you it doesn't matter if those others care how others see *them*. It matters how *all* others see *you*.
It seems a simple concept to me. How else to explain?...
When women wear lipstick or whatever, they don't just do it for other women who wear lipstick. They care how everyone sees them, in fact they care more about how non-lipstick-wearers (men) see them.
No, I am not likening those wanting appearance slots to lipstick-wearing women (not that there's anything wrong with that).
When I buy a new pair of trousers, I want them to look good to everyone, not just other trouser-wearers.
It's the same for anyone who cares about their appearance. It's not just for other people who care abour thier own appearance. I find it odd I have to explain this. Seems totally and trivially obvious.
Caring about your appearance is not just a 'like-minded' group activity. I guess you may have more involvement with those people. You might discuss your appearance more, but the importance of your appearance is not just reflected in that group.
Your right but when a women only has Maroon lipstick, they cant magically make it a bright red can they no they got what they have and have to deal with it until they go and get bright red and than put that on.
So if your going to use the analogy i can say if you want to "Red Lipstick" (Breastplate of Almighty) and not "Maroon Lipstick" (Breastplate of the Snakepit) than put on your "Red Lipstick" and not try to make your "Maroon Lipstick" look like "Red Lipstick."
Your taking an example to explain one thing and using it to argue another.
I'm not saying appearance slots should work like lipstick... Just clarifying the nature of caring about external appearance has nothing to do with like-minded groups.
If there were 'realistic' ways of adjusting appearance in Pantheon we might not want appearance slots. For example, if I got a new set of shoulder gear I didn't like the look of, I might want to throw some chainmail over it or a cape or let it get dirty or rusty or I might get it painted or enamelled or whatever. We are unlikely to have that level of 'realistic' control, so the next best thing is to allow me to keep the look of gear I had before.
In real life a woman might well carry different lipsticks with her and change them as she felt she needed. Changing the lipstick wouldn't alter its function or her lips.
A fantasy game is not real life though. We don't have to see the 'real' gear (none of it is 'real' anyway). We can satisfy the desire to look how we want very easily in lots of different ways.
One thing that doesn't change, though. Wanting to look good to others means wanting to look good to *all* others, not just some or like-minded people.
disposalist said:Riahuf22 said:disposalist said:Riahuf22 said:disposalist said:Riahuf22 said:The truth of it is...
Lol. No. Your opinion is not some kind of objective "truth". You know others feel differently and you don't really understand why they feel that way, but yet persist in telling everyone that somehow you know the "truth" of the matter?
To some (and I think most) people, the *whole point* of having appearance slots is to define how *others* see you. It's a simple concept.
The toggle is not a compromise. A compromise, by definition, involves mutual consession. The toggle works 100% for those that don't want an appearance system and between 0% and 99% for those that do. It is my opinion that it is nearer 0% than 99%, but it is objectively obvious that the toggle is not a compromise.
It could just as well be said that having no toggle is a fine compromise, because not *everyone* will use appearance gear, so you will see somewhere between 0% and 99% 'real' gear. So that's fine, yeah?
Having a separate server is the only way to have both sides anywhere near happy, but even that will have a lot of people unhappy with being forced to go to that separate server just so appearance slots work for them.
Attempting to paint people that want appearance slots with no toggle as being somehow unreasonable is not ok.
In addition to those wanting the appearance slot concept to work properly, there are plenty of people that disagree fundamentally with the concept of anything that has players seeing the world differently to each other for any reason. Another reason the toggle is not 'perfect'.
So your saying you can't enjoy s preference with like minded individuals? hows that? so your saying their is no truth to that statement? I'm confused becuase you can always enjoy sometihng with like minded individuals and i don't see where there isn't any truth to this statement.
Wanting to define how others see you is unconnected with how those others feel about *thier* external appearance.
When you care about how others see you it doesn't matter if those others care how others see *them*. It matters how *all* others see *you*.
It seems a simple concept to me. How else to explain?...
When women wear lipstick or whatever, they don't just do it for other women who wear lipstick. They care how everyone sees them, in fact they care more about how non-lipstick-wearers (men) see them.
No, I am not likening those wanting appearance slots to lipstick-wearing women (not that there's anything wrong with that).
When I buy a new pair of trousers, I want them to look good to everyone, not just other trouser-wearers.
It's the same for anyone who cares about their appearance. It's not just for other people who care abour thier own appearance. I find it odd I have to explain this. Seems totally and trivially obvious.
Caring about your appearance is not just a 'like-minded' group activity. I guess you may have more involvement with those people. You might discuss your appearance more, but the importance of your appearance is not just reflected in that group.
Your right but when a women only has Maroon lipstick, they cant magically make it a bright red can they no they got what they have and have to deal with it until they go and get bright red and than put that on.
So if your going to use the analogy i can say if you want to "Red Lipstick" (Breastplate of Almighty) and not "Maroon Lipstick" (Breastplate of the Snakepit) than put on your "Red Lipstick" and not try to make your "Maroon Lipstick" look like "Red Lipstick."
Your taking an example to explain one thing and using it to argue another.
I'm not saying appearance slots should work like lipstick... Just clarifying the nature of caring about external appearance has nothing to do with like-minded groups.
If there were 'realistic' ways of adjusting appearance in Pantheon we might not want appearance slots. For example, if I got a new set of shoulder gear I didn't like the look of, I might want to throw some chainmail over it or a cape or let it get dirty or rusty or I might get it painted or enamelled or whatever. We are unlikely to have that level of 'realistic' control, so the next best thing is to allow me to keep the look of gear I had before.
In real life a woman might well carry different lipsticks with her and change them as she felt she needed. Changing the lipstick wouldn't alter its function or her lips.
A fantasy game is not real life though. We don't have to see the 'real' gear (none of it is 'real' anyway). We can satisfy the desire to look how we want very easily in lots of different ways.
One thing that doesn't change, though. Wanting to look good to others means wanting to look good to *all* others, not just some or like-minded people.
It achieving the same tihn your trying to explain, Lipstick is a cosmetic feature women use to impress other people, Everyone knows this
But my point still stands you are esentially taking a a color, hat, pair of pants, a shirt, all fo it and ultimately changing the way it looks without taking it off and simply want to change the way it looks, without actually putting it on.
As that is the mian function of what appearance gear does, again seeing cosmetic gear is immersion breaking a white shirt should look like a white shirt, not have that white shirt looking like a something its not simply becuase you want it to look that way.
If you want it to look different than put it on, that's it, or give me the option to see you are actually wearing a white shirt, becuase that is what you are actually wearing.
Riahuf22 said:disposalist said:Riahuf22 said:disposalist said:Riahuf22 said:disposalist said:Riahuf22 said:The truth of it is...
Lol. No. Your opinion is not some kind of objective "truth". You know others feel differently and you don't really understand why they feel that way, but yet persist in telling everyone that somehow you know the "truth" of the matter?
To some (and I think most) people, the *whole point* of having appearance slots is to define how *others* see you. It's a simple concept.
The toggle is not a compromise. A compromise, by definition, involves mutual consession. The toggle works 100% for those that don't want an appearance system and between 0% and 99% for those that do. It is my opinion that it is nearer 0% than 99%, but it is objectively obvious that the toggle is not a compromise.
It could just as well be said that having no toggle is a fine compromise, because not *everyone* will use appearance gear, so you will see somewhere between 0% and 99% 'real' gear. So that's fine, yeah?
Having a separate server is the only way to have both sides anywhere near happy, but even that will have a lot of people unhappy with being forced to go to that separate server just so appearance slots work for them.
Attempting to paint people that want appearance slots with no toggle as being somehow unreasonable is not ok.
In addition to those wanting the appearance slot concept to work properly, there are plenty of people that disagree fundamentally with the concept of anything that has players seeing the world differently to each other for any reason. Another reason the toggle is not 'perfect'.
So your saying you can't enjoy s preference with like minded individuals? hows that? so your saying their is no truth to that statement? I'm confused becuase you can always enjoy sometihng with like minded individuals and i don't see where there isn't any truth to this statement.
Wanting to define how others see you is unconnected with how those others feel about *thier* external appearance.
When you care about how others see you it doesn't matter if those others care how others see *them*. It matters how *all* others see *you*.
It seems a simple concept to me. How else to explain?...
When women wear lipstick or whatever, they don't just do it for other women who wear lipstick. They care how everyone sees them, in fact they care more about how non-lipstick-wearers (men) see them.
No, I am not likening those wanting appearance slots to lipstick-wearing women (not that there's anything wrong with that).
When I buy a new pair of trousers, I want them to look good to everyone, not just other trouser-wearers.
It's the same for anyone who cares about their appearance. It's not just for other people who care abour thier own appearance. I find it odd I have to explain this. Seems totally and trivially obvious.
Caring about your appearance is not just a 'like-minded' group activity. I guess you may have more involvement with those people. You might discuss your appearance more, but the importance of your appearance is not just reflected in that group.
Your right but when a women only has Maroon lipstick, they cant magically make it a bright red can they no they got what they have and have to deal with it until they go and get bright red and than put that on.
So if your going to use the analogy i can say if you want to "Red Lipstick" (Breastplate of Almighty) and not "Maroon Lipstick" (Breastplate of the Snakepit) than put on your "Red Lipstick" and not try to make your "Maroon Lipstick" look like "Red Lipstick."
Your taking an example to explain one thing and using it to argue another.
I'm not saying appearance slots should work like lipstick... Just clarifying the nature of caring about external appearance has nothing to do with like-minded groups.
If there were 'realistic' ways of adjusting appearance in Pantheon we might not want appearance slots. For example, if I got a new set of shoulder gear I didn't like the look of, I might want to throw some chainmail over it or a cape or let it get dirty or rusty or I might get it painted or enamelled or whatever. We are unlikely to have that level of 'realistic' control, so the next best thing is to allow me to keep the look of gear I had before.
In real life a woman might well carry different lipsticks with her and change them as she felt she needed. Changing the lipstick wouldn't alter its function or her lips.
A fantasy game is not real life though. We don't have to see the 'real' gear (none of it is 'real' anyway). We can satisfy the desire to look how we want very easily in lots of different ways.
One thing that doesn't change, though. Wanting to look good to others means wanting to look good to *all* others, not just some or like-minded people.
It achieving the same tihn your trying to explain, Lipstick is a cosmetic feature women use to impress other people, Everyone knows this
But my point still stands you are esentially taking a a color, hat, pair of pants, a shirt, all fo it and ultimately changing the way it looks without taking it off and simply want to change the way it looks, without actually putting it on.
As that is the mian function of what appearance gear does, again seeing cosmetic gear is immersion breaking a white shirt should look like a white shirt, not have that white shirt looking like a something its not simply becuase you want it to look that way.
If you want it to look different than put it on, that's it, or give me the option to see you are actually wearing a white shirt, becuase that is what you are actually wearing.
We're just going around again. *I care* which shirt you see, because I care how I look and I prefer the look of the red shirt.
Why do *you* care what colour my 'real' shirt is? I'm wearing a shirt. I earned and wore both shirts. You ordinarily wouldn't know which shirt I chose to put on. I could have put on the white one. I could have put on the red one. What does it matter to you? You ordinarily wouldn't care which shirt I put on, but with appearance slots, because I *could* look like the red while wearing the white, you somehow *must know*?
Well the last i checked a red shirt doesn't look like a white shirt, so theres that, i mean that seems to be pretty big to me.
Why do you feel like you have to artifically change a white shirt to a red shirt without actually putting on a red shirt to fit the way you want to look, that seems to be the bigger question.
A question that has been answered dozens of times on this thread. Appearance slots simulate the idea of equipping something that fits the way you want to look. Appearance slots do not artificially alter the color of a white shirt to a red shirt. They override the graphic of what gets displayed. This is why they get their very own slot that has the word "appearance" attached to it for simple understanding.
oneADseven said:A question that has been answered dozens of times on this thread. Appearance slots simulate the idea of equipping something that fits the way you want to look. Appearance slots do not artificially alter the color of a white shirt to a red shirt. They override the graphic of what gets displayed. This is why they get their very own slot that has the word "appearance" attached to it for simple understanding.
thats a fancy way of saying it turns a white shirt into a red shirt to me? I mean did it stay the same color or did it chnage into a color of your choosing?
Kilsin said:Community Debate - Do you like being able to change your character's appearance in-game or would you rather all players be known for their accomplishments by allowing everyone to see their earned armour and weapons? #MMORPG#CommunityMatters
Well what's visible should be visible. If you mean like getting primatic armor which has kind of a rainbow shine and being able to mask it to look like mundane armor to the naked eye. Then yes I would like to make it look like normal armor. BUt it should be an option so those who want to broadcast their new armor can do so.