Trasak said:Riahuf22 said:thats still just transmoging at the end of the day, and transmogging has pros to and they are the same as mentioned above along with the cons and most of said no transmog please, why would this is veiwed any differently just becuase it takes a crafter to do it.
Then I guess I am in the “Yes to item destroying transmog and dies, no to silly skins, no to appearance toggle options (my image is my own and I want to control it)“.
This might be another case of a server setting that selectively turned on or off. PVP and the EQ emulator server could have it turned off an the RP servers could have it turned on and the balance of servers will depend on what the greater population actually wants.
That could be a solution, yes. Good thinking. I wouldn't want to split the community unnecessarily, but I suppose the set of RP-sensitive folks would be similar to the set of appearance-sensitive folks. I tend to play on RP servers anyway as they tend to have people more respecting of- and focused on- lore, atmosphere, setting, etc.
RP servers: Toggle fixed on.
Normal servers: Toggle user set.
PvP servers: Toggle fixed off.
RP-PvP servers: Toggle user set, but overridden to off in contested areas?
Would that work?
Doesn't change the discussion, but might provide a way we can just agree to disagree and everyone has a server to go to where they are happy.
Riahuf22 said:disposalist said:Riahuf22 said:thats still just transmoging at the end of the day, and transmogging has pros to and they are the same as mentioned above along with the cons and most of said no transmog please, why would this is veiwed any differently just becuase it takes a crafter to do it.
It's different because a lot of people are saying appearance slots are somehow not reflecting 'reality', but when has a role-playing game ever been about reality? A crafting-based solution would be as real as any other in-game 'reality'. It might satisfy the objections of some.
You appear to be a 'prestige' guy and can't enjoy showing off your acquisitions unless you can compare them at a glance with everyone else you see? Is that right? /inspect wouldn't be enough?
I am seriously trying to get to the crux of your opinion. It's not 'realism' because a crafter based transmog would be as real as anything else.
What is it about being able to recognise at a glance the name of the item someone else is wearing that is essential to you?
It's simply i want an item to look the way its suppose to, while giving the freedom to the people that want to see cosmetic gear, my option satisifies honestly both parties your just being stubborn, my Tunic of the Snakepit should look exactly like the Tunic of the snakepit with no exceptions unless you toggle on your cosmetic filter to make it look the way you want, exceot to the people that have it toggled off. And the fact your getting what you want but are so determined to try to force me into seeing what i dont want is the real problem.
Because I'm *not* getting what I want if people can choose to ignore what I want them to see. It's a simple concept. In real life a rarely care at all what people think of what I wear. I dress for comfort and function. In my fantasy life, unsurprisingly, I like it differently: I like to choose what my characters look like and other people choosing not to see that just ruins it.
And of course, once again, there is the whole bizarre, immersion-breaking, shared-experience-breaking, weirdness of players seeing different things.
But I'm glad to get to the crux of your view. You just want things to look like what they really are. Fine.
We're obviously not going to agree on the toggle thing. I've explained it so many ways. Fine too.
Riahuf22 said:You feel like im going completely against Cosmetic gear when I'm finding a compromise to have both cosmetic and adventure gear exsist, your being the extremist here, not me you want it to where regardless of what I think I should be able to see your cosmetic gear if you put it on with no regards of what i think, not me. In my opinion I'm fine with it for as long i can turn it off, I'm the one saying there is a compromise into realizing there is a world where both can co exsist techincally in harmony, the ones saying their shouldn't be a toggle and I have no choicevbut to see what you want me to see is the problem in this discussion, your not even giving another opinoin that could be a better fit in your eyes other than I want it all or nothing at all. So don't come at me like I'm being part of the problem when it is me that is compromising and seeing a way for them both to exisst where you simply dont want them too.
Lol. Of course you're "fine with it" if you can completely make it not exist for you with a toggle. Unfortunately for me to have control of how I look includes how I look to *everyone* not just those who leave the toggle on. A toggle is 100% giving you what you want and somewhere above 0% (but not 100% unless no one uses it lol) for me. That is not a compromise.
disposalist said:Riahuf22 said:You feel like im going completely against Cosmetic gear when I'm finding a compromise to have both cosmetic and adventure gear exsist, your being the extremist here, not me you want it to where regardless of what I think I should be able to see your cosmetic gear if you put it on with no regards of what i think, not me. In my opinion I'm fine with it for as long i can turn it off, I'm the one saying there is a compromise into realizing there is a world where both can co exsist techincally in harmony, the ones saying their shouldn't be a toggle and I have no choicevbut to see what you want me to see is the problem in this discussion, your not even giving another opinoin that could be a better fit in your eyes other than I want it all or nothing at all. So don't come at me like I'm being part of the problem when it is me that is compromising and seeing a way for them both to exisst where you simply dont want them too.
Lol. Of course you're "fine with it" if you can completely make it not exist for you with a toggle. Unfortunately for me to have control of how I look includes how I look to *everyone* not just those who leave the toggle on. A toggle is 100% giving you what you want and somewhere above 0% (but not 100% unless no one uses it lol) for me. That is not a compromise.
? how do you not see the compromise in the fact you can earn cosmetic gear and i have the choice in not seeing it. if you can keep earning cosmetic gear and which in and out of them without sacraficing stats and playability going into different areas which like a prefect way of using cosmetic gear, much like i have the choice of not seeing you do it seems to make me happy, again you just want the entire topic to go your way much like 1AD7 and Liav, with very little to no desire to have me have a simply toggle switch.
The biggest difference in our opinion is simple, i want to give "Control" to the individual that is looking at his computer screen switch is the way it should be.
Your trying to "Control" everyone on how they see you, and give little regards on how they think about it.
I'm simply giving the power to everyone equally, as for you are trying to take it away from them, to make it simplier.
Riahuf22 said:The biggest difference in our opinion is simple, i want to give "Control" to the individual that is looking at his computer screen switch is the way it should be.
Your trying to "Control" everyone on how they see you, and give little regards on how they think about it.
I'm simply giving the power to everyone equally, as for you are trying to take it away from them, to make it simplier.
Do you think you should be able to control whether or not you see the helmets of other players when they have /hidehelm toggled on?
Riahuf22 said:disposalist said:Riahuf22 said:You feel like im going completely against Cosmetic gear when I'm finding a compromise to have both cosmetic and adventure gear exsist, your being the extremist here, not me you want it to where regardless of what I think I should be able to see your cosmetic gear if you put it on with no regards of what i think, not me. In my opinion I'm fine with it for as long i can turn it off, I'm the one saying there is a compromise into realizing there is a world where both can co exsist techincally in harmony, the ones saying their shouldn't be a toggle and I have no choicevbut to see what you want me to see is the problem in this discussion, your not even giving another opinoin that could be a better fit in your eyes other than I want it all or nothing at all. So don't come at me like I'm being part of the problem when it is me that is compromising and seeing a way for them both to exisst where you simply dont want them too.
Lol. Of course you're "fine with it" if you can completely make it not exist for you with a toggle. Unfortunately for me to have control of how I look includes how I look to *everyone* not just those who leave the toggle on. A toggle is 100% giving you what you want and somewhere above 0% (but not 100% unless no one uses it lol) for me. That is not a compromise.
? how do you not see the compromise in the fact you can earn cosmetic gear and i have the choice in not seeing it. if you can keep earning cosmetic gear and which in and out of them without sacraficing stats and playability going into different areas which like a prefect way of using cosmetic gear, much like i have the choice of not seeing you do it seems to make me happy, again you just want the entire topic to go your way much like 1AD7 and Liav, with very little to no desire to have me have a simply toggle switch.
The biggest difference in our opinion is simple, i want to give "Control" to the individual that is looking at his computer screen switch is the way it should be.
Your trying to "Control" everyone on how they see you, and give little regards on how they think about it.
I'm simply giving the power to everyone equally, as for you are trying to take it away from them, to make it simplier.
? How do *you* not see that a toggle ruins the concept of appearance slots (and messes up immersion and shared experience) and a toggle giving you 100% what you want and ruining what I want is not a compromise?
I don't need this topic to 'go my way' any more than you do. It is simply frustrating to be mis-understood and mis-stated. I admit, I find it hard to not try and explain further when I think I'm being mis-understood or mis-stated, but I think I may as well give up at this point.
If I don't this will just go around and around pointlessly.
oneADseven said:Riahuf22 said:The biggest difference in our opinion is simple, i want to give "Control" to the individual that is looking at his computer screen switch is the way it should be.
Your trying to "Control" everyone on how they see you, and give little regards on how they think about it.
I'm simply giving the power to everyone equally, as for you are trying to take it away from them, to make it simplier.
Do you think you should be able to control whether or not you see the helmets of other players when they have /hidehelm toggled on?
Going to delete this comment as i do actually support /hidehelm, and also proved at least to me that this feature has nothing to do with this discussion specifically.
oneADseven said:Riahuf22 said:The biggest difference in our opinion is simple, i want to give "Control" to the individual that is looking at his computer screen switch is the way it should be.
Your trying to "Control" everyone on how they see you, and give little regards on how they think about it.
I'm simply giving the power to everyone equally, as for you are trying to take it away from them, to make it simplier.
Do you think you should be able to control whether or not you see the helmets of other players when they have /hidehelm toggled on?
Of course he does. He wouldn't have ignored those common appearance options just because they are popular, accepted and hard to argue against.
Hiding helm and cloak will have to go too, else people aren't showing what is really there and prestige (of helmets and cloaks at least) is ruined.
We really should be showing backpacks full of stuff and be able to clearly see at a glance what is in them, too. Nevermind if it ruins the look of the character and might be considered private.
You should probably have level number next to your name, too. Having to do a /who command is just as difficult as an /inspect command after all.
This debate is useless, your not even trying to compromise which is suppose to be the main point of a debate, which I have been doing this entire time, nor have you even come up with other solutions to talk about which is another part of a debate, which you have failed to do as well, congrats at failing at debating.
Riahuf22 said:oneADseven said:Riahuf22 said:The biggest difference in our opinion is simple, i want to give "Control" to the individual that is looking at his computer screen switch is the way it should be.
Your trying to "Control" everyone on how they see you, and give little regards on how they think about it.
I'm simply giving the power to everyone equally, as for you are trying to take it away from them, to make it simplier.
Do you think you should be able to control whether or not you see the helmets of other players when they have /hidehelm toggled on?
keep grasping at straws i see.
Lol. So an option like that that hides what is really equipped for the sake of appearance only is not relevant to the discussion? Sounds pretty familiar to me...
Riahuf22 said:If they have it hidden than it should be hidden to others as that was their choice, again giving the power to the individual and not to myself.
This is pretty much the entire premise of what has been discussed here. Players should have the choice of portraying their characters how they want to. If I utilize the /hidehelm feature but half the players have the option to disable the /hidehelm toggle on their screen, my choice as an individual was undermined. The idea that some players can "opt-out" of having to see my character without a helmet on defeats the main purpose of the feature. Allowing players to disable something like that seems extremely counterproductive. I can't think of a single MMORPG that allowed players to do that.
Well, I see now that you just edited your post to:
Riahuf22 said:keep grasping at straws i see.
It's unfortunate because you were being reasonable for a moment. After realizing that being reasonable wasn't consistent with everything you were saying before, you chose to edit and deflect.
Riahuf22 said:This debate is useless, your not even trying to compromise which is suppose to be the main point of a debate, which I have been doing this entire time, nor have you even come up with other solutions to talk about which is another part of a debate, which you have failed to do as well, congrats at failing at debating.
You started to compromise by being reasonable with the /hidehelm response. That lasted a whole two minutes before you reverted back to your original position. Why the change of heart? Is doubling down on bad logic synonymous with "winning at debating?"
Riahuf22 said:This debate is useless, your not even trying to compromise which is suppose to be the main point of a debate, which I have been doing this entire time, nor have you even come up with other solutions to talk about which is another part of a debate, which you have failed to do as well, congrats at failing at debating.
Nope, we are just not accepting your 'compromise' because it isn't one. It just makes you 100% happy and doesn't help us much at all.
"failing at debate". Lol. I think failing to respond to a question because it's awkward is more of a failure, no?
Look, I don't want this to decend to ill-feeling. That is definitely a failure in a debate.
A perfectly acceptable outcome is to agree to disagree. Shall we do that? I'm going to do that.
oneADseven said:Riahuf22 said:If they have it hidden than it should be hidden to others as that was their choice, again giving the power to the individual and not to myself.
This is pretty much the entire premise of what has been discussed here. Players should have the choice of portraying their characters how they want to. If I utilize the /hidehelm feature but half the players have the option to disable the /hidehelm toggle on their screen, my choice as an individual was undermined. The idea that some players can "opt-out" of having to see my character without a helmet on defeats the main purpose of the feature. Allowing players to disable something like that seems extremely counterproductive. I can't think of a single MMORPG that allowed players to do that.
Yeah i deleted that message as i realized what was said by you, but the choice should involve with the person looking through his own pc not by you.
My question is why do you guys want to be control freaks and not give the power to the individuals playing the game the way they want to.
Riahuf22 said:My question is why do you guys want to be control freaks and not give the power to the individuals playing the game the way they want to.
I should be able to control how my character appears in the world. I'm going to quote Medawky from the first newsletter I could find (08/2016)
Posted date / 8.10.16
"Back when the spark that would eventually become the MMORPG wildfire was first ignited in the late 90’s none of us knew just how integral these games would become to our lives as both a form of entertainment and an integral form of self-expression. The earliest versions of this powerful new genre were harsh worlds where only the heartiest of adventurers could survive and few could do it alone. These punishing worlds forced players to band together to explore and conquer them out of necessity and in doing so they helped forge bonds that persist to this day. As the popularity of the genre exploded games that used to attract crowds in the hundreds of thousands were now pushing into the tens of millions, and communities that used to be insulated and tightly knit also began to burst at the seams. With this increase, an underserved demographic developed that was somewhat overwhelmed with the grit and difficulty of the genre. New systems were added to help accommodate these players; group formation tools, quest hubs, cross server groups and instanced content flourished to help make things more accessible.
While these innovations made the games more accessible and manageable they also had the unfortunate side effect of diminishing the role that community played in the overall health of these shared worlds. No longer did players have to be on their best behavior to assure that they would continue to find groups, raids or guilds, and in fact, in many instances, they no longer needed a group at all. Adding an increased pace of gameplay to the equation has also adversely affected our social interactions, as groups hastily assembled by a queue system just as quickly evaporate after churning through their intended content. Fast forward 10 years and now the underserved community is those that hunger for more challenging, engaging content and a return to community-based games.
We here at Visionary Realms think that these shared experiences are one of the best parts of the overall gaming experience and are the foundation of the world we are creating with Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen. As we bridge the gap back to the days of a more intense experience you will find a commonality with old school MMORPGs, a link to the past that we fiercely cling to: the central focus of this experience is that is best when we share it with each other. Make no mistake however. Pantheon isn’t a wormhole back to simpler times, nor is it the Throwback Thursday of gaming. It’s a brave new world filled with wonder and innovation, awash in not only magnificent settings and environments, but full of fresh ideas like our perception, colored mana and atmosphere systems, just to name a few. Together, with our passionate fans, we are committed to a community-first, player-driven world that keeps us coming back for more. This commitment will never waver but only grow stronger with each new friend we make and obstacle we overcome."
He alluded to things like Dungeon Finder, quest hubs, instances, and cross-server groups as issues that diminished the role community has in these shared worlds. All of that is quite factual. Appearance slots on armor are not in that same category. Appearance slots for armor are a quality-of-life innovation that improves the quality of social interaction, boosts the economy, and content relevance as a whole. Appearance slots are a catalyst for player-driven constructs -- managing a wardrobe is basically a huge/free form of horizontal progression. The game simply needs to allow these constructs to grow and thrive. Allowing players to disable the wardrobe mechanism is contradictive to its purpose in a social setting. To be clear here ... "self-expression" has always been emphasized as an integral component of play. Players should be "control freaks" when it comes to managing self-expression -- that's what the word "self" represents in the equation. You control your identity and self-expression, not others. Suggesting otherwise is ridiculous and runs counter to the magic that makes these kind of games sticky.
Riahuf22 said:My question is why do you guys want to be control freaks and not give the power to the individuals playing the game the way they want to.
"control freaks"? Erm. Subtle transmog or appearance slots = control freakery? That's a bit rude, no. Is /hidehelm or /hidecloak control freakish?
When a power to let one person "play the way they want to" removes that power from others, it is not a compromise.
Your question has been answered a dozen times in as many different ways.
Riahuf22 said:The tihng is i am being reasonable i am giving the power to the individual that is looking through his computer screen and what he wants to see, you are trying to dicate what they see regardless of what they think.
You *think* you are being reasonable because you don't understand why people feel the way they do about how they look to others. You don't feel that way, but you aren't accepting it as a normal and valid way to feel.
Being reasonable would be to accept you don't understand and try to find a compromise that both parties are happy with, not just one that is 100% for one side and much less for the other.
Fine, again I've said what I've had to say your complaining about something you wouldn't even know if i have turned off unless i tell you, and using that as a position of im geting 100% of what i want, when really your always getting 100% when you have it turned on, but not wanting to say that becuase it weakens your Stand of the toggle which is fine becuase i know this to be true, your just only looking at it as if it would be turned off only so you amke it seem like its 100% me, which anyone with an open mind would know this isnt true.
WE both get what we want you get 100% cosmetic when turned on, i get 100% adventure when turned off, that is a very rare thing to get in a game most of the time, and yet your trying to ruin it by only looking at it being off simply becuase i want mine off.
Ultimately this a philosophical difference between the questions of “Who controls how their character appears in game?” vs “Who controls what the player sees while playing the game?”
Character appearance has gotten a lot more personal over the years and many players are very invested in it. To them no one should be allowed to modify their appearance other than themselves. A toggle to turn off cosmetic alterations violates this.
The opposing view is that with so many garbage skins and cash shop bling players are flooded with images they do not want. Additionally if prestige is tied to certain images then they do not want their prestige invalidated by someone simply choosing to cover it up. The value of items that are both aesthetically pleasing and mechanically powerful goes down if the players can combine any appearance with any mechanical properties. In some ways the Prestige viewpoint is the same view point as wanting to control your own image but from the perspective of lack of choice rather than an abundance of choice.
Thirdly there is a fair argument to be made that development time spent on cosmetic gear is time not spent on making new adventuring content. Any new appearances would need to be tied to adventuring content in order to avoid this conflict of interest.
Sadly, these two viewpoints are diametrically opposed and no compromise will be able to be arrived at on the same server, one of the other will need to take precedence.
is it worth splitting the population just because of appearance toggle? i mean, pvp and pve are already split servers... (makes sense because this actually affects gameplay)
i don't think its healthy for an mmo to segregate it's player base so much.
oh for pvp servers though, i would have it togglable. we tend to like having more options XD
stellarmind said:is it worth splitting the population just because of appearance toggle? i mean, pvp and pve are already split servers... (makes sense because this actually affects gameplay)
i don't think its healthy for an mmo to segregate it's player base so much.
oh for pvp servers though, i would have it togglable. we tend to like having more options XD
I was worried momentarily about that, but as I said earlier, the set of RP-sensitive folks would probably be similar to the set of appearance-sensitive folks, so the RP server could accomodate.
RP servers: Appearance toggle fixed on. Normal servers: Toggle user set. PvP servers: Toggle fixed off. RP-PvP servers: Toggle user set, but overridden to off in contested areas?
Would that work?
stellarmind said:is it worth splitting the population just because of appearance toggle? i mean, pvp and pve are already split servers...
i don't think its healthy for an mmo to split it's player base so much.
I think that will largely depend on the total number of players and the target population for each server. I would be surprised if a single server can support more than 5000 concurrent users without instancing. It is possible that a very vast server could support more than 5000 users but with a staff of less than 40 VR is going to have trouble hand crafting enough content to support even concurrent 2000 users. In a previous thread I estimated that a headcount of 20 developers and 20 support staff will require around 110k users to stay profitable in the Southern California area.
This means that there will need to be 20-40 servers to support a profitable population without peak time over crowding. I personally suspect that there will be 1 FFA PVP server, maybe a couple teams PVP servers if they can come up with a good control competition mechanic, 1-2 EQ emulator servers (all QoL features disabled) and the rest will be a mix of RP and modern convenience servers in the 10-30 range. I could even see the appeal of several fast leveling servers with instancing and greater instant gratification tools for people with much lower playing times.