When are we going to be able to change our stage 4 vampirism appearance?

Matthew_Galvanus

There are so many outfits that i have to hard pass on with my vampire because he looks so damn ugly. I have never understood why you make players choose between sitting at stage 4 to have the most benefits from their passives, but look ugly as sin, or force us to remain at stage 1 or cure ourselves just so we don't look like a horribly bloated pasty sausage.

[edited title]

Matthew_Galvanus

it would be super appreciated if we could choose whether to appear as different stage of vampirism or even hide the whole pasty look altogether.

ArchMikem

Never. You made your choice and those passives aren't free.

BigBragg

ArchMikem wrote: »

Never. You made your choice and those passives aren't free.

Gameplay and cosmetic choices have been separate on almost all accounts for a long time. This is such a weak strawman argument.

ArchMikem

[snip]

The reasoning is your Curse has consequences. You want to eat your cake without getting fat?

[edited to remove quoted post]

BigBragg

ArchMikem wrote: »

Matthew_Galvanus wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

Never. You made your choice and those passives aren't free.

so your reasoning to no support is... what exactly? "no because it makes you miserable and that brings me joy."?

The reasoning is your Curse has consequences. You want to eat your cake without getting fat?

By that logic, you should also be forced to wear your monster sets and all other armor without any option for costumes to gain their effects in battle.

The vampiric skin has nothing to do with the mechanics of it skills.

Matthew_Galvanus

ArchMikem wrote: »

Matthew_Galvanus wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

Never. You made your choice and those passives aren't free.

so your reasoning to no support is... what exactly? "no because it makes you miserable and that brings me joy."?

The reasoning is your Curse has consequences. You want to eat your cake without getting fat?

lmao what the hell kind of reason is that. "you're a vampire so you have to be ugly." that is a very poor argument and it makes zero sense. what is the point of cosmetics if we can't make our characters look cool?

Glurin

Hey, it could be worse.

We could be sparkly.

Matthew_Galvanus

Glurin wrote: »

Hey, it could be worse.

We could be sparkly.

frankly i'd rather neither one was mandatory. im not asking for much ya know, just let me have the ability to choose what stage of vampirism i appear as, stage 1 is still pretty pale, but it isn't so terrible that i have to completely avoid certain outfits that i want to use.

Mattock_Romulus

Basic pro/con decision making in game play. You want +2 strength? Then the side effect is -2 charisma.

Matthew_Galvanus

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

Basic pro/con decision making in game play. You want +2 strength? Then the side effect is -2 charisma.

that isn't how this works, cosmetic changes have always been entirely separate from combat and do not affect gameplay in any way outside of changing the appearance of your character. So why should i be forced to look as terrible as i do in stage 4 vampirism when it would be incredibly easy to allow us to choose what stage we appear as? it literally changes nothing except it lets me fix my appearance, so that i am happy with how they look.

BigBragg

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

Basic pro/con decision making in game play. You want +2 strength? Then the side effect is -2 charisma.

I think you are confusing charisma, a stat mechanic, for cosmetic, things that look pretty. Understandable mistake for sure, but a mistake nontheless.

Mattock_Romulus

Matthew_Galvanus wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

Basic pro/con decision making in game play. You want +2 strength? Then the side effect is -2 charisma.

that isn't how this works, cosmetic changes have always been entirely separate from combat and do not affect gameplay in any way outside of changing the appearance of your character. So why should i be forced to look as terrible as i do in stage 4 vampirism when it would be incredibly easy to allow us to choose what stage we appear as? it literally changes nothing except it lets me fix my appearance, so that i am happy with how they look.

So you want all the reward without any drawbacks then?

Mattock_Romulus

BigBragg wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

Basic pro/con decision making in game play. You want +2 strength? Then the side effect is -2 charisma.

I think you are confusing charisma, a stat mechanic, for cosmetic, things that look pretty. Understandable mistake for sure, but a mistake nontheless.

I'm referring to an old D&D example of having a negative, such as -2 charisma as a consequence of buffing your strength by +2. I'm not confusing charisma with cosmetics. It appears Zos wants to have a negative as a trade off to the benefits vampirism grants to a player.

BigBragg

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

Matthew_Galvanus wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

Basic pro/con decision making in game play. You want +2 strength? Then the side effect is -2 charisma.

that isn't how this works, cosmetic changes have always been entirely separate from combat and do not affect gameplay in any way outside of changing the appearance of your character. So why should i be forced to look as terrible as i do in stage 4 vampirism when it would be incredibly easy to allow us to choose what stage we appear as? it literally changes nothing except it lets me fix my appearance, so that i am happy with how they look.

So you want all the reward without any drawbacks then?

Do you use outfits, or costumes? Do you want all the benefits from your gear, but what to look different?

Korah_Eaglecry

Matthew_Galvanus wrote: »

There are so many outfits that i have to hard pass on with my vampire because he looks so damn ugly. I have never understood why you make players choose between sitting at stage 4 to have the most benefits from their passives, but look ugly as sin, or force us to remain at stage 1 or cure ourselves just so we don't look like a horribly bloated pasty sausage.

When you cure it.

Sporvan

Looks ugly as hell. I feel like Vampires in their entirety need a rework just like Werewolves had.

BigBragg

I really don't understand why players are so against others having options that will have absolutely zero impact on their gameplay. Boggles my mind.

Mattock_Romulus

BigBragg wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

Matthew_Galvanus wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

Basic pro/con decision making in game play. You want +2 strength? Then the side effect is -2 charisma.

that isn't how this works, cosmetic changes have always been entirely separate from combat and do not affect gameplay in any way outside of changing the appearance of your character. So why should i be forced to look as terrible as i do in stage 4 vampirism when it would be incredibly easy to allow us to choose what stage we appear as? it literally changes nothing except it lets me fix my appearance, so that i am happy with how they look.

So you want all the reward without any drawbacks then?

Do you use outfits, or costumes? Do you want all the benefits from your gear, but what to look different?

Again. Since this topic has been brought up frequently over the past 4 years. It appears that the reason Zos will not allow a "normal" skin/costume/morph to hide vampirism is because they appear to want there to be a drawback to being a vampire.

This is similar to other games where they try to enforce some negative in order to gain a positive. Such as +2 constitution and -2 Intelligence...and before you say it, i am not compairing intelligence or strength or constitution to cosmetics. I am just giving an example of the reasoning Zos may be employing for the their reluctance to allow a hide vampirism option.

Also, to be clear I have a vampire he is usually in stage 4 and yeah, he's ugly as sin... it would be nice to hide vampirism. I am not disagreeing with that sentiment just giving reasons why I believe the option will not be allowed.

Mattock_Romulus

BigBragg wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

Matthew_Galvanus wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

Basic pro/con decision making in game play. You want +2 strength? Then the side effect is -2 charisma.

that isn't how this works, cosmetic changes have always been entirely separate from combat and do not affect gameplay in any way outside of changing the appearance of your character. So why should i be forced to look as terrible as i do in stage 4 vampirism when it would be incredibly easy to allow us to choose what stage we appear as? it literally changes nothing except it lets me fix my appearance, so that i am happy with how they look.

So you want all the reward without any drawbacks then?

Do you use outfits, or costumes? Do you want all the benefits from your gear, but what to look different?

Sometimes. Sometimes. Yes.

Kadoin

BigBragg wrote: »

I really don't understand why players are so against others having options that will have absolutely zero impact on their gameplay. Boggles my mind.

It will in PvP. I want to know the vampires so I can get them with Dawnbreaker or Coldharbour Ballista. If someone hiding their face and skin, I assume they are one and hope they are ready!

TheValkyn

THe oracle eyes adornment makes the vampirism just pale. it takes away the nasty black and yellow things.

Aliyavana

People against hiding vamparism shouldn't hide their gear behind outfits and costumes nor hide their vamparism behind Skins. Gear like arena weapons and armor weight effect gameplay more than vamparism ever did

Facefister

"I want to be and roleplay but ... without all that roleplay!"
Drink a Bloody Mara, weakling.

Aliyavana

Facefister wrote: »

"I want to be and roleplay but ... without all that roleplay!"
Drink a Bloody Mara, weakling.

Aliyavana wrote: »

People against hiding vamparism shouldn't hide their gear behind outfits and costumes nor hide their vamparism behind Skins

max_only

BigBragg wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

Matthew_Galvanus wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

Basic pro/con decision making in game play. You want +2 strength? Then the side effect is -2 charisma.

that isn't how this works, cosmetic changes have always been entirely separate from combat and do not affect gameplay in any way outside of changing the appearance of your character. So why should i be forced to look as terrible as i do in stage 4 vampirism when it would be incredibly easy to allow us to choose what stage we appear as? it literally changes nothing except it lets me fix my appearance, so that i am happy with how they look.

So you want all the reward without any drawbacks then?

Do you use outfits, or costumes? Do you want all the benefits from your gear, but what to look different?

But if you wear a full costume your vampirism is hidden too, just like my heavy armor.

Facefister

Aliyavana wrote: »

Facefister wrote: »

"I want to be and roleplay but ... without all that roleplay!"
Drink a Bloody Mara, weakling.

Aliyavana wrote: »

People against hiding vamparism shouldn't hide their gear behind outfits and costumes nor hide their vamparism behind Skins

I can't take people seriously who spell vampirism as "vamparism". Second, being a vampire isn't a cosmetic choice. You want the benefits? You'll get the skin.

Kelces

It's illogical for someone who can't see their mirror image to even care...

max_only

How about, instead of changing your skin Vampirism has a sickly pee green cloud surrounding the player at all times.

Personally I think vampires and werewolves need to look a whole lot scarier. Go full Nosferatu and unhinge your jaws!

kargen27

There is no reason for vampires to be ugly. ESO simply decided to make them so. In vampire lore we find the following descriptions of vampires.

"Young, seductive, sexual and alluring" The Vampyer 1819

"Female Vampires: Beautiful to the point of hypnotic" Dracula 1897

"Ordinary, but often somewhat above average" Blade

"All are beautiful. The transformation enhances their beauty. The older and stronger they get, the less human they look but still remain beautiful." Vampire Diaries

"Cartoon duck" Count Duckula

So the you have to be ugly to gain a bit of power thing doesn't fly.

The other argument that claims it is somehow unfair to hide the abilities holds no water because I can make my sword look like a dagger. I can make my heavy armor look like a chefs outfit. My helmet is invisible. All that is much more deceptive than hiding the fact that you are a vampire.

Only reason left to be against being able to hide vampirism is spite. I don't mind the reason being spite. I am against mount skills being account wide mostly (mostly) out of spite. Just fess up, be honest and tell us you don't think people should be able to hide vampirism because sometimes it's fun to be spiteful. No need to make up excuses about lore and hiding abilities.

BigBragg

max_only wrote: »

BigBragg wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

Matthew_Galvanus wrote: »

Mattock_Romulus wrote: »

Basic pro/con decision making in game play. You want +2 strength? Then the side effect is -2 charisma.

that isn't how this works, cosmetic changes have always been entirely separate from combat and do not affect gameplay in any way outside of changing the appearance of your character. So why should i be forced to look as terrible as i do in stage 4 vampirism when it would be incredibly easy to allow us to choose what stage we appear as? it literally changes nothing except it lets me fix my appearance, so that i am happy with how they look.

So you want all the reward without any drawbacks then?

Do you use outfits, or costumes? Do you want all the benefits from your gear, but what to look different?

But if you wear a full costume your vampirism is hidden too, just like my heavy armor.

Tell me more about how this full costume that is hiding my heavy armor is also hiding my vampirism. I'll take notes.