Options for Vampire Appearance

eNumbra · September 2014

MornaBaine wrote: »

That which harms no one, should, of course, be allowed. Does that mean ZoS HAS to do it? No. What it does mean is that there is no reason for players to oppose it.

While I would normally agree with such a libertarian stance, you're forgetting that people are still in fact, entitled to their opinion; nobody needs a reason to oppose anything- that;s the awful/awesome part of a free(ish) society.

And it is harmful, in the sense that, if they were to begin working on this now, it would delay better, more sought after changes. Perhaps not for long, but it would regardless.

WraithAzraiel · September 2014

eNumbra wrote: »

MornaBaine wrote: »

That which harms no one, should, of course, be allowed. Does that mean ZoS HAS to do it? No. What it does mean is that there is no reason for players to oppose it.

While I would normally agree with such a libertarian stance, you're forgetting that people are still in fact, entitled to their opinion; nobody needs a reason to oppose anything- that;s the awful/awesome part of a free(ish) society.

And it is harmful, in the sense that, if they were to begin working on this now, it would delay better, more sought after changes. Perhaps not for long, but it would regardless.

That's true of any player requested changes. If everyone cried for X to be made Y and there was a large enough collective whine, it'd be tossed into the next update.

Lately (and by lately I mean over the past decade or so) the thing that's b!tched about the most, get's the most attention.

Which is, in my opinion, the wrong way to go about it, due to the overwhelming numbers of the "I want it now, Gimme Gimme, I have no work ethic" generation that spend mommy and daddy (or mommy and mommy, daddy and daddy, just mommy/just daddy, weird uncle bill)'s money funding the gaming industry's paycheck.

I mean I know, the nail that sticks out gets hammered but come on. Quality Assurance teams need to be larger and better funded so balance can be made with the minimum amount of bias, as we players are wont to have.

Varicite · September 2014

MornaBaine wrote: »

That which harms no one, should, of course, be allowed. Does that mean ZoS HAS to do it? No. What it does mean is that there is no reason for players to oppose it. The burden of proof that my request WOULD harm other players IS indeed, on you and those who oppose my proposed changes. If you want to "outlaw" something and forbid it to others, it is up to you to PROVE that it is indeed harmful to others. Thus far, no one has been able to do that.

What a silly idea. There are literally millions of things that harm no one that should not be allowed in the game.

Why? Because there is a certain tone and setting that the game is trying to provide, a certain fidelity to the Elder Scrolls universe that needs to be achieved and maintained for consistency. That's why you don't have Batman riding by on a raptor chasing down a transgendered Molag Bal in a clown car.

Nobody has to prove that it's harmful to other players. People only need to prove whether or not this would fit into the game's setting and lore.

I've already provided pretty solid reasoning as to why this does not fit into the game's current time period lore-wise, as well as the fact that it takes resources away from the art department that could be spent elsewhere.

You can continue to ignore those facts for "omg, that sounds like magic, so everything is magic, and because everything is magic, I can do anything I want" which is an incredibly reaching argument at best.

You were provided w/ a perfectly valid reason for why this type of ability should not exist for vampires in ESO, as the player character vampires in ESO simply do not have this ability (it is exclusive to a strain of vampirism that you do NOT have).

You just decided to ignore it.

jelliedsoup · September 2014

MornaBaine wrote: »

jelliedsoup wrote: »

@MornaBaine‌

I honestly don't care on the history of vampire fiction. Cry as much as you want and blow it to make your emotional request feel justified to you. I can't take your request seriously as you feel its should be done simply because you requested it. That you can't understand why people oppose your request will be your problem, not theirs.

Yes, I do feel it should be done...not just because I requested it but because it is something a large amount of the players who play vampires want and would enjoy while taking nothing away from anyone else. Not one person who opposes this, especially yourself, has been able to put forth a single reason why it SHOULDN'T be done. It is not lore breaking. Nor is it altering game mechanics in any way. So really the only people who DO have a problem are those, like yourself, who keep screaming, "Just because I don't like it!" Sorry, not good enough.

Perhaps you will understand weighing up options one day. I would suspect not.

Varicite · September 2014

MornaBaine wrote: »

Not one person who opposes this, especially yourself, has been able to put forth a single reason why it SHOULDN'T be done. It is not lore breaking.

It IS lore-breaking, and I've explained exactly why. You just continue to ignore those reasons to suit your purposes. You are not Ravenwatch. You are not a pureblood vamp. You were not turned by Molag Bal. You do not have the ability to mask your appearance outside of wearing a disguise. It's really very simple.

You don't get to simply ignore valid reasons and then say "nobody's put forth any reasons". At this point, there's not even much point in discussing anything w/ you, as you will just ignore anything that doesn't benefit your "side" of the discussion.

MornaBaine wrote: »

So really the only people who DO have a problem are those, like yourself, who keep screaming, "Just because I don't like it!" Sorry, not good enough.

Just... SO much irony.

Evandus · September 2014

Varicite wrote: »

MornaBaine wrote: »

Not one person who opposes this, especially yourself, has been able to put forth a single reason why it SHOULDN'T be done. It is not lore breaking.

It IS lore-breaking, and I've explained exactly why. You just continue to ignore those reasons to suit your purposes. You are not Ravenwatch. You are not a pureblood vamp. You were not turned by Molag Bal. You do not have the ability to mask your appearance outside of wearing a disguise. It's really very simple.

You don't get to simply ignore valid reasons and then say "nobody's put forth any reasons". At this point, there's not even much point in discussing anything w/ you, as you will just ignore anything that doesn't benefit your "side" of the discussion.

MornaBaine wrote: »

So really the only people who DO have a problem are those, like yourself, who keep screaming, "Just because I don't like it!" Sorry, not good enough.

Just... SO much irony.

Back on page two I made very similar points. OP just simply didn't respond to them. I think they were too busy attempting to insult anyone that disagreed with them to address reasonable arguments.

Frankly I'm surprised this thread has gone 8 pages when it was done by page 3. T

WraithAzraiel · September 2014

Varicite wrote: »

That's why you don't have Batman riding by on a raptor chasing down a transgendered Molag Bal in a clown car.

Oh, you didn't hear?

That's what the ENTIRETY of 2.0 is centered around. That, and MoMo dodging his child support obligations.

MercyKilling · September 2014

MornaBaine wrote: »

I also really don't think ZoS gave too much thought to what they were doing when they set up the physical characteristics of vampires. I simply don't think it occurred to them to think, "Hey a lot of roleplayers are really going to hate this. And it doesn't make any sense that we give an NPC vampire the ability to hide his condition but deny that option to roleplayers." I really believe this was just an oversight on the part of the Devs and, fortunately, it's one that's easy to fix and could actually be done in a lot of different ways, nearly all of whihc cwould be totally acceptable.

You ARE aware that originally, Zenimax intended vampires to be an ultimate skill and it's because of people like you whinging long enough that this craptacular thing is in the game now, right?
Oh, and yes, I'm a roleplayer too. I am downright sick of seeing virtually every other character that RP's as a vampire wanting to lord it over other people and have everything their way or no way at all. This has been my experience in the past decade with MMORPG's and the RP'ers I come across in them:

Champions Online: Vampire catgirl demon futanari? Check.
Star Trek Online: Vampire catgirl demon futanari? Check.
Neverwinter? Vampire demon catgirl futanari? Check.
RIFT? Vampire demon catgirl futanari? Check.
The Secret World? Vampire demon catgirl futanari? Check.
Star Wars? Vamprie demon catgirl twi'lek futanari? Check.
I'm so sure that Wildstar and Archeage has them going strong in those games as well, but I'm not touching either of those games with a thirty foot pole that's held by someone else.

So you see....my hatred stems from the overuse of a badly portrayed trope, and here you are wanting to further propagate said trope. I need no other reason to oppose this suggestion, and my reason is perfectly valid, whether or not YOU choose to acknowledge it as such.
I will oppose anything to do with vampires until the very last breath exhales from my body, such is the devotion I feel towards this issue.

I wish to stress this vehemence isn't directed at you, per se....it's the vampire trope that I'm railing against. You are quite likely a very decent person and I do not assert otherwise. Your tastes and your reasons for wanting this are your own, and the same can be said for me and mine.
However...the point you seem unable or unwilling to comprehend is that my opinions and desires are equal to yours. Neither of us is superior to the other, nor are our suggestions or desires and yet you spout off that your ideas and desires are indeed just that. More important and completely immune to refutation by dint of not affecting anyone else. I'm calling shenanigans on that idea and will until these forums get shut down.

MornaBaine · September 2014

eNumbra wrote: »

MornaBaine wrote: »

That which harms no one, should, of course, be allowed. Does that mean ZoS HAS to do it? No. What it does mean is that there is no reason for players to oppose it.

While I would normally agree with such a libertarian stance, you're forgetting that people are still in fact, entitled to their opinion; nobody needs a reason to oppose anything- that;s the awful/awesome part of a free(ish) society.

And it is harmful, in the sense that, if they were to begin working on this now, it would delay better, more sought after changes. Perhaps not for long, but it would regardless.

THAT can be said about every single solitary thing ANYONE requests for this game. If I were to request that they ought to fix auto-stacking in guild banks most people would agree that this would be a good thing to have done, however those who think [insert game mechanics item x here] is more important than that will complain that it's less important and takes time away from their pet hobbyhorse and therefore should not be done until AFTER their pet hobbyhorse is fed and brushed and made all shiny. ARE there more important things they could be working on than vampire appearance fluff? Absolutely! However, you will notice that nowhere in my original post did I state a timeline for this. I did not rage and whine and say if it isn't in the very next update I'm unsubbing. Nope. All I've done is state that it would be a nice thing to have and supported that notion with game lore. Again, harm to none.

And while people are, of course, entitled to their opinion, they are not entitled to be jerks about it. If they really believe too many players play vampires they can start their own threads lobbying for some sort of population cap and/or put forth all their own reasons for wanting to nerf vampires. But what has happened here, for the most part, is a bunch of people throwing temper tantrums because they hate vampires and the people who play them. To which I can only respond; Too bad.

MornaBaine · September 2014

MercyKilling wrote: »

MornaBaine wrote: »

I also really don't think ZoS gave too much thought to what they were doing when they set up the physical characteristics of vampires. I simply don't think it occurred to them to think, "Hey a lot of roleplayers are really going to hate this. And it doesn't make any sense that we give an NPC vampire the ability to hide his condition but deny that option to roleplayers." I really believe this was just an oversight on the part of the Devs and, fortunately, it's one that's easy to fix and could actually be done in a lot of different ways, nearly all of whihc cwould be totally acceptable.

You ARE aware that originally, Zenimax intended vampires to be an ultimate skill and it's because of people like you whinging long enough that this craptacular thing is in the game now, right?
Oh, and yes, I'm a roleplayer too. I am downright sick of seeing virtually every other character that RP's as a vampire wanting to lord it over other people and have everything their way or no way at all. This has been my experience in the past decade with MMORPG's and the RP'ers I come across in them:

Champions Online: Vampire catgirl demon futanari? Check.
Star Trek Online: Vampire catgirl demon futanari? Check.
Neverwinter? Vampire demon catgirl futanari? Check.
RIFT? Vampire demon catgirl futanari? Check.
The Secret World? Vampire demon catgirl futanari? Check.
Star Wars? Vamprie demon catgirl twi'lek futanari? Check.
I'm so sure that Wildstar and Archeage has them going strong in those games as well, but I'm not touching either of those games with a thirty foot pole that's held by someone else.

So you see....my hatred stems from the overuse of a badly portrayed trope, and here you are wanting to further propagate said trope. I need no other reason to oppose this suggestion, and my reason is perfectly valid, whether or not YOU choose to acknowledge it as such.
I will oppose anything to do with vampires until the very last breath exhales from my body, such is the devotion I feel towards this issue.

I wish to stress this vehemence isn't directed at you, per se....it's the vampire trope that I'm railing against. You are quite likely a very decent person and I do not assert otherwise. Your tastes and your reasons for wanting this are your own, and the same can be said for me and mine.
However...the point you seem unable or unwilling to comprehend is that my opinions and desires are equal to yours. Neither of us is superior to the other, nor are our suggestions or desires and yet you spout off that your ideas and desires are indeed just that. More important and completely immune to refutation by dint of not affecting anyone else. I'm calling shenanigans on that idea and will until these forums get shut down.

I'm sorry you are so deeply and emotionally upset by bad roleplaying. I, too, an an RP snob and I cringe at the Twilight kiddies in Wayrest. Thank goodness for /ignore. All their bad RP just goes away and they are just some more NPC bodies milling about. There is no end of badly done vampire writing, movies, etc. out there. I personally hate it all. But the good stuff is amazing. And if gobbling up Twilight eventually brings kids to Thirteen and Let The Right One In, well then I suppose it has served a purpose after all. But the fact remains that pop culture is crass and banal and it infiltrates darn near everything. I wish that it weren't so. But the fact that I cannot stop people from keeping up with the Kardashians in no way means I shouldn't be able to use my television to watch The Hollow Crown. The fact that so many people play vampires badly in no way means I should be kept from playing my vampire well, let alone at all.

MornaBaine · September 2014

Varicite wrote: »

MornaBaine wrote: »

Not one person who opposes this, especially yourself, has been able to put forth a single reason why it SHOULDN'T be done. It is not lore breaking.

It IS lore-breaking, and I've explained exactly why. You just continue to ignore those reasons to suit your purposes. You are not Ravenwatch. You are not a pureblood vamp. You were not turned by Molag Bal. You do not have the ability to mask your appearance outside of wearing a disguise. It's really very simple.

You don't get to simply ignore valid reasons and then say "nobody's put forth any reasons". At this point, there's not even much point in discussing anything w/ you, as you will just ignore anything that doesn't benefit your "side" of the discussion.

MornaBaine wrote: »

So really the only people who DO have a problem are those, like yourself, who keep screaming, "Just because I don't like it!" Sorry, not good enough.

Just... SO much irony.

Alright my dear, I'm finally getting around to you. Sorry I've made you feel so left out. Ultimately, my refutation of your reasons comes down to, "Because roleplay." Roleplay, by necessity, requires us to either ignore or alter MANY things presented by the game as game mechanics. It would be ludicrous in the extreme for every single roleplayer to have every single one of their characters go about proclaiming that Manimarco stole their soul and they woke up in Coldharbor and met Lyris, etc, etc, etc, until they ultimately defeated Molag Bal with the legendary Companions. Face it, that would just be stupid from any kind of stroytelling perspective. But according to the game itself, that's EXACTLY what happens and the impossibility of every single person you meet (with the exception of NPCs) is "the Chosen One." ONE. So we ignore and/or alter the vast majority of it. Because to do anything else would simply be ridiculous. It's the same thing when it comes to vampires. According to the game mechanics you are either mauled by bloodfiends and infected, or taken to the shrine and infected by another player and then, either way, you must undergo a quest wherein you meet Lamae who, for whatever reasons, fails to give you the ability of concealment she herself has and has passed on to the Cyrodillic vampires that you, despite being made at least in part, by her, are NOT part of. The very richness of the existing lore surrounding vampires in ESO is going to cause the vast majority of vampire roleplayers to ignore this unfortunate game mechanic in favor of a story that is more appealing to them. Sadly, a lot of these stories will be ridiculous and some of them will even have no connection to ESO at all. And just like all the cookie-cutter builds you see dominating PvP in Cyrodil are boring and unimaginative, I wish it weren't so. So, because of roleplay, and because due to it we are not actually locked into the narrative presented by the game mechanics, it is a GOOD thing to give roleplayers options that let them pay the way they wish and enhance their enjoyment of the game so that... we keep paying that monthly sub. Things that EXPAND roleplay, rather than diminish it (as the current mechanics of vampires do) are good things. And, as cosmetics do nothing to affect game mechanics and do nothing to diminish the enjoyment of other players, it is logical to include them as the game matures.

Now, there are many players who hate roleplayers and wish we wouldn't even play these games. The idiocy of that stance is not something I will discuss here. I will instead confine myself to pointing out that roleplayers are good for ZoS for a whole host of reasons. We tend to be loyal subscribers who remain engaged with the game FAR longer than regular players. As long as our characters are engaged in interesting storylines and we're having fun with other players we'll stick around. We generally are not clamoring for new content because, since we take time out to roleplay, we actually explore the game itself at a far slower and more leisurely pace. Ergo, we don't get bored as quickly and drop our subs to go off in pursuit of the next shiny. We tend to be a lot more patient about fixing issues as well. Lag making PvP impossible at the moment? Well that sucks, true, but hey, we can go roleplay until they fix it. Nor are we constantly clamoring for the next new big update, new zones, new classes, etc. Sure, we like those things. But our requests tend to be a WHOLE LOT EASIER for the Devs to pull off. Like, some new hairstyles and make-up options. New emotes which are, in fact, already existing animations in the game that they simply make available to players. Or, gosh, simply making some simple alterations to the already existing cosmetics of vampires and adding the already existing cosmetic of a "normal" appearance.

There. I hope you don't feel so left out now.

FreedomDude · September 2014

So I suppose the majority of Vampire players here want to be like Serana from Skyrim's Dawnguard DLC? XD

eNumbra · September 2014

MornaBaine wrote: »

THAT can be said about every single solitary thing ANYONE requests for this game. If I were to request that they ought to fix auto-stacking in guild banks most people would agree that this would be a good thing to have done, however those who think [insert game mechanics item x here] is more important than that will complain that it's less important and takes time away from their pet hobbyhorse and therefore should not be done until AFTER their pet hobbyhorse is fed and brushed and made all shiny.

Hardly; fixing auto stacking in the bank helps everybody
Your suggestion helps a small percentage of a small percentage of players, namely. Roleplayers who want to be vampires but want to be pretty vampires because ugly vampires are yucky and mean and nasty I don't want to deal with the consequences of my decision I just want to play4fun.

ARE there more important things they could be working on than vampire appearance fluff? Absolutely! However, you will notice that nowhere in my original post did I state a timeline for this. I did not rage and whine and say if it isn't in the very next update I'm unsubbing. Nope. All I've done is state that it would be a nice thing to have and supported that notion with game lore. Again, harm to none.

You have however, pretty vehemently, fought tooth and nail, everyone who would debate the issue.

And while people are, of course, entitled to their opinion, they are not entitled to be jerks about it.

They are actually.
I can be a jerk if I want to be, as long as I'm not breaking any forum rules, I'm entitled to do whatever I wish.

To which I can only respond; Too bad.

Well, now who's being the jerk?

Now, there are many players who hate roleplayers and wish we wouldn't even play these games. The idiocy of that stance is not something I will discuss here. I will instead confine myself to pointing out that roleplayers are good for ZoS for a whole host of reasons. We tend to be loyal subscribers who remain engaged with the game FAR longer than regular players. As long as our characters are engaged in interesting storylines and we're having fun with other players we'll stick around. We generally are not clamoring for new content because, since we take time out to roleplay, we actually explore the game itself at a far slower and more leisurely pace. Ergo, we don't get bored as quickly and drop our subs to go off in pursuit of the next shiny.

Though this wasn't addressed to me, I feel the need to respond to it.

This very same logic, is the reason role-players are absolutely TERRIBLE for games. Gameplay is incredibly important for GAMES, if designers can't make something that is engaging based on the gameplay, all of the story in the world is meaningless. Subscribing, just so you have a world to chat with other people in, in such a case is promoting bad game design. Sure, there are writers who cry tears of joy that someone noticed his use of subtlety in dialogue in a single backwater side quest, but your minority of players will not keep the servers running.

Take World of Tanks as an example: A Free 2 Play - Pay for Convenience game
The North American server spends more per capita at about $5 per player while the Russian server spends only about $2.50 per player, but the Russian server's player base comprises about tenfold the North American player base. So who do you think the devs cater to?

Actual players of ESO- those doing end game PvE and PvP, regardless of how quickly they rushed to get there are the primary player demographic; that's why there is an end game at launch, if "Role-players" weren't tertiary, or even and after-thought, the game could have been released 60% finished(compared to release) and cobbled together along the way.

JamilaRaj · September 2014

MornaBaine wrote: »

I actually DON'T have a problem with modding per se. My objection to it, if you want to call it that, is from a mechanics standpoint. IF I were to mod my character then only those who use the same mod would see her as I redesigned her. This then becomes a problem in roleplay because people without the mod will see her and thus respond to her differently than those who do have the mod. Now, if my using a mod caused my modded character to look as I intended to EVERYONE, regardless of whether or not they themselves had or used the mod, then I would be perfectly fine with the mod. But, to my knowledge, that's not how it works and that's why mods remain problematical in MMOs. When the technology catches up so that they can be used effectively and safely in MMOs then I hope we WILL be able to use them.

The point is you do not allow for multiple looks, you want one look to be forced to all, which is however contrary to principle in your gay marriage should-be-but-is-not parallel.
Besides, I do not think bloodsucker seeing herself as pretty with others seeing her reprehensible would be necessarily disruptive for roleplay. Acually, it could be hilarious session.

MornaBaine wrote: »

As to your contention that, "It's at least as good your own reasons, because in the end it's all about you just not liking bloodsuckers' ugly looks." you are wrong. It's not even remotely the same and I'm struggling to see how you can fail to understand that. My character should look the way I intend it to, especially when having the ability to do so does not affect those NOT PLAYING MY CHARACTER. In the absence of demonstrable harm to others, anything should be allowable. Which is why I also advocate for the legalization of cannibis even though I don't smoke myself. If it's not hurting ME, I have no right to disallow its use to others. This is, in essence, the exact same thing.

It is not, because as said above, you do not allow for multiple looks.
I do not think the devs are here to accommodate everyones whims unless demonstrably harmful (which is anyway vague), even if they had infinite time, even if they could, which is big if taking into account mutually exclusive demands.

MornaBaine · September 2014

JamilaRaj wrote: »

MornaBaine wrote: »

I actually DON'T have a problem with modding per se. My objection to it, if you want to call it that, is from a mechanics standpoint. IF I were to mod my character then only those who use the same mod would see her as I redesigned her. This then becomes a problem in roleplay because people without the mod will see her and thus respond to her differently than those who do have the mod. Now, if my using a mod caused my modded character to look as I intended to EVERYONE, regardless of whether or not they themselves had or used the mod, then I would be perfectly fine with the mod. But, to my knowledge, that's not how it works and that's why mods remain problematical in MMOs. When the technology catches up so that they can be used effectively and safely in MMOs then I hope we WILL be able to use them.

The point is you do not allow for multiple looks, you want one look to be forced to all, which is however contrary to principle in your gay marriage should-be-but-is-not parallel.
Besides, I do not think bloodsucker seeing herself as pretty with others seeing her reprehensible would be necessarily disruptive for roleplay. Acually, it could be hilarious session.

MornaBaine wrote: »

As to your contention that, "It's at least as good your own reasons, because in the end it's all about you just not liking bloodsuckers' ugly looks." you are wrong. It's not even remotely the same and I'm struggling to see how you can fail to understand that. My character should look the way I intend it to, especially when having the ability to do so does not affect those NOT PLAYING MY CHARACTER. In the absence of demonstrable harm to others, anything should be allowable. Which is why I also advocate for the legalization of cannibis even though I don't smoke myself. If it's not hurting ME, I have no right to disallow its use to others. This is, in essence, the exact same thing.

It is not, because as said above, you do not allow for multiple looks.
I do not think the devs are here to accommodate everyones whims unless demonstrably harmful (which is anyway vague), even if they had infinite time, even if they could, which is big if taking into account mutually exclusive demands.

DID YOU READ THE OP?????? Because I know I've stated numerous times that ANY of the potential methods of altering a vampire's looks WOULD BE OPTIONAL! So those who LIKE the bestial and monstrous looks are at perfect liberty to KEEP THEM. I just... wow... /facepalm. That's all I got.

MornaBaine · September 2014

eNumbra wrote: »

MornaBaine wrote: »

THAT can be said about every single solitary thing ANYONE requests for this game. If I were to request that they ought to fix auto-stacking in guild banks most people would agree that this would be a good thing to have done, however those who think [insert game mechanics item x here] is more important than that will complain that it's less important and takes time away from their pet hobbyhorse and therefore should not be done until AFTER their pet hobbyhorse is fed and brushed and made all shiny.

Hardly; fixing auto stacking in the bank helps everybody
Your suggestion helps a small percentage of a small percentage of players, namely. Roleplayers who want to be vampires but want to be pretty vampires because ugly vampires are yucky and mean and nasty I don't want to deal with the consequences of my decision I just want to play4fun.

ARE there more important things they could be working on than vampire appearance fluff? Absolutely! However, you will notice that nowhere in my original post did I state a timeline for this. I did not rage and whine and say if it isn't in the very next update I'm unsubbing. Nope. All I've done is state that it would be a nice thing to have and supported that notion with game lore. Again, harm to none.

You have however, pretty vehemently, fought tooth and nail, everyone who would debate the issue.

And while people are, of course, entitled to their opinion, they are not entitled to be jerks about it.

They are actually.
I can be a jerk if I want to be, as long as I'm not breaking any forum rules, I'm entitled to do whatever I wish.

To which I can only respond; Too bad.

Well, now who's being the jerk?

Now, there are many players who hate roleplayers and wish we wouldn't even play these games. The idiocy of that stance is not something I will discuss here. I will instead confine myself to pointing out that roleplayers are good for ZoS for a whole host of reasons. We tend to be loyal subscribers who remain engaged with the game FAR longer than regular players. As long as our characters are engaged in interesting storylines and we're having fun with other players we'll stick around. We generally are not clamoring for new content because, since we take time out to roleplay, we actually explore the game itself at a far slower and more leisurely pace. Ergo, we don't get bored as quickly and drop our subs to go off in pursuit of the next shiny.

Though this wasn't addressed to me, I feel the need to respond to it.

This very same logic, is the reason role-players are absolutely TERRIBLE for games. Gameplay is incredibly important for GAMES, if designers can't make something that is engaging based on the gameplay, all of the story in the world is meaningless. Subscribing, just so you have a world to chat with other people in, in such a case is promoting bad game design. Sure, there are writers who cry tears of joy that someone noticed his use of subtlety in dialogue in a single backwater side quest, but your minority of players will not keep the servers running.

Take World of Tanks as an example: A Free 2 Play - Pay for Convenience game
The North American server spends more per capita at about $5 per player while the Russian server spends only about $2.50 per player, but the Russian server's player base comprises about tenfold the North American player base. So who do you think the devs cater to?

Actual players of ESO- those doing end game PvE and PvP, regardless of how quickly they rushed to get there are the primary player demographic; that's why there is an end game at launch, if "Role-players" weren't tertiary, or even and after-thought, the game could have been released 60% finished(compared to release) and cobbled together along the way.

And you're still wrong. Because you, like many others, make the incorrect assumption that roleplayers aren't interested in the content and don't play it and want it to work properly. The major difference is that we aren't shrieking at the devs to rush things...which is exactly what results in half-baked content going live before it should.

waswar · September 2014

Why are people so zealous about the way other characters look?
If someone wants their Vampire to have a non-Vampiric appearance out of combat while meeting certain conditions, how does that affect anyone else?
Elves should look this way, Vampires should look this way! No! A person's character should look the way the player wants them to!

FreedomDude · September 2014

waswar wrote: »

Why are people so zealous about the way other characters look?
If someone wants their Vampire to have a non-Vampiric appearance out of combat while meeting certain conditions, how does that affect anyone else?
Elves should look this way, Vampires should look this way! No! A person's character should look the way the player wants them to!

If I'm a Dunmer I should look like a Dunmer...

MornaBaine · September 2014

FreedomDude wrote: »

waswar wrote: »

Why are people so zealous about the way other characters look?
If someone wants their Vampire to have a non-Vampiric appearance out of combat while meeting certain conditions, how does that affect anyone else?
Elves should look this way, Vampires should look this way! No! A person's character should look the way the player wants them to!

If I'm a Dunmer I should look like a Dunmer...

And at Stage 4 a vampire should look like a vampire because they are in the worst stage of their "disease" by then. But simply being able to extend the appearance of Stage 1 is really not a big deal and can easily be "explained" as your character being somewhat resistant in the earlier stages. They look look like a vampire at that point. The ability to look human should be more of a disguise or an illusion ability.

eNumbra · September 2014

MornaBaine wrote: »

And you're still wrong. Because you, like many others, make the incorrect assumption that roleplayers aren't interested in the content and don't play it and want it to work properly. The major difference is that we aren't shrieking at the devs to rush things...which is exactly what results in half-baked content going live before it should.

And once again you're miles from the point.

Role-players like you are not a substantial piece of market share.

Evandus · September 2014

MornaBaine wrote: »

FreedomDude wrote: »

waswar wrote: »

Why are people so zealous about the way other characters look?
If someone wants their Vampire to have a non-Vampiric appearance out of combat while meeting certain conditions, how does that affect anyone else?
Elves should look this way, Vampires should look this way! No! A person's character should look the way the player wants them to!

If I'm a Dunmer I should look like a Dunmer...

And at Stage 4 a vampire should look like a vampire because they are in the worst stage of their "disease" by then. But simply being able to extend the appearance of Stage 1 is really not a big deal and can easily be "explained" as your character being somewhat resistant in the earlier stages. They look look like a vampire at that point. The ability to look human should be more of a disguise or an illusion ability.

According to the lore, that would be impossible save being a member of The Order. Stage 1 vampirism begets the appearance of a sickly humanoid for all others.

jelliedsoup · September 2014

FreedomDude wrote: »

waswar wrote: »

Why are people so zealous about the way other characters look?
If someone wants their Vampire to have a non-Vampiric appearance out of combat while meeting certain conditions, how does that affect anyone else?
Elves should look this way, Vampires should look this way! No! A person's character should look the way the player wants them to!

If I'm a Dunmer I should look like a Dunmer...

You mean there's a price to pay for the extra skills vamps get? Inconceivable.

If you take their skills away I would have no issue with it.

MornaBaine · September 2014

jelliedsoup wrote: »

FreedomDude wrote: »

waswar wrote: »

Why are people so zealous about the way other characters look?
If someone wants their Vampire to have a non-Vampiric appearance out of combat while meeting certain conditions, how does that affect anyone else?
Elves should look this way, Vampires should look this way! No! A person's character should look the way the player wants them to!

If I'm a Dunmer I should look like a Dunmer...

You mean there's a price to pay for the extra skills vamps get? Inconceivable.

If you take their skills away I would have no issue with it.

The point is that there IS NO price being paid by the appearance vampires have. It affects mechanics not at all. It is strictly a matter of personal player preference. It doesn't have any affect on what vampires can and cannot do. It's strictly cosmetic. Not many people liked the dull armor colors that were prevalent and were very happy to get the Dyes even if they didn't roleplay. It's the exact same thing here.

MornaBaine · September 2014

Evandus wrote: »

MornaBaine wrote: »

FreedomDude wrote: »

waswar wrote: »

Why are people so zealous about the way other characters look?
If someone wants their Vampire to have a non-Vampiric appearance out of combat while meeting certain conditions, how does that affect anyone else?
Elves should look this way, Vampires should look this way! No! A person's character should look the way the player wants them to!

If I'm a Dunmer I should look like a Dunmer...

And at Stage 4 a vampire should look like a vampire because they are in the worst stage of their "disease" by then. But simply being able to extend the appearance of Stage 1 is really not a big deal and can easily be "explained" as your character being somewhat resistant in the earlier stages. They look look like a vampire at that point. The ability to look human should be more of a disguise or an illusion ability.

According to the lore, that would be impossible save being a member of The Order. Stage 1 vampirism begets the appearance of a sickly humanoid for all others.

And Stage 1 is completely fine by me.

jelliedsoup · September 2014

MornaBaine wrote: »

jelliedsoup wrote: »

FreedomDude wrote: »

waswar wrote: »

Why are people so zealous about the way other characters look?
If someone wants their Vampire to have a non-Vampiric appearance out of combat while meeting certain conditions, how does that affect anyone else?
Elves should look this way, Vampires should look this way! No! A person's character should look the way the player wants them to!

If I'm a Dunmer I should look like a Dunmer...

You mean there's a price to pay for the extra skills vamps get? Inconceivable.

If you take their skills away I would have no issue with it.

The point is that there IS NO price being paid by the appearance vampires have. It affects mechanics not at all. It is strictly a matter of personal player preference. It doesn't have any affect on what vampires can and cannot do. It's strictly cosmetic. Not many people liked the dull armor colors that were prevalent and were very happy to get the Dyes even if they didn't roleplay. It's the exact same thing here.

If there's no price to pay, why are we having this conversation?

MornaBaine · September 2014

eNumbra wrote: »

MornaBaine wrote: »

And you're still wrong. Because you, like many others, make the incorrect assumption that roleplayers aren't interested in the content and don't play it and want it to work properly. The major difference is that we aren't shrieking at the devs to rush things...which is exactly what results in half-baked content going live before it should.

And once again you're miles from the point.

Role-players like you are not a substantial piece of market share.

But we are a consistent and loyal part of it. Which is why MMOs always at least pay lip service to us and throw us the occasional bone. The company that is smart enough to design a game FOR us is going to be sitting on a gold mine.

Morduil · September 2014

MornaBaine wrote: »

jelliedsoup wrote: »

FreedomDude wrote: »

waswar wrote: »

Why are people so zealous about the way other characters look?
If someone wants their Vampire to have a non-Vampiric appearance out of combat while meeting certain conditions, how does that affect anyone else?
Elves should look this way, Vampires should look this way! No! A person's character should look the way the player wants them to!

If I'm a Dunmer I should look like a Dunmer...

You mean there's a price to pay for the extra skills vamps get? Inconceivable.

If you take their skills away I would have no issue with it.

The point is that there IS NO price being paid by the appearance vampires have. It affects mechanics not at all. It is strictly a matter of personal player preference. It doesn't have any affect on what vampires can and cannot do. It's strictly cosmetic. Not many people liked the dull armor colors that were prevalent and were very happy to get the Dyes even if they didn't roleplay. It's the exact same thing here.

It seems to me that the same argument - that it is only cosmetic - could be applied were one to ask for a High Elf that looked like a Tolkien High Elf. They might, to some people's eyes, look much nicer, and it wouldn't affect the game mechanics at all. I'd be very sympathetic towards your desire. Unfortunately if I were a developer I nonetheless wouldn't allow it as it goes contrary to this context or setting.

It seems to me that one faces a choice: either stick to the setting and maintain continuity, or say, what the heck, it's only appearances, anything goes. In which case, bring on dwemer (just one managed to survive), snow elves (ditto) or space goats...

eNumbra · September 2014

MornaBaine wrote: »

The company that is smart enough to design a game FOR us is going to be sitting on a gold mine.

You mean Second Life?

Vizier · September 2014

WraithAzraiel wrote: »

MercyKilling wrote: »

MornaBaine wrote: »

Wrong again. My arguments are based upon reasonable customer service requests of a company I pay a decent amount of money to in order that they entertain me.

So your 14.99 a month is worth more than mine or anyone else who is against this preference of yours? I think not.

How the hell did you get THAT out of the quoted statement? Anyone has the right to make a request. The fact that they HAVE made said request, in no way, shape, or form, denotes their payment to be superior to your own.

BUT just for the sake of argument and to make sense of your wildly unnecessary accusation.

If they happen to pay their subscriptions in 3 to 6 month increments, then no, they actually pay less per month than you do.

Stop picking fights, for the sake of arguing on the internet. It's unnecessary.

He gets that from the poster's assertion people here have no right to lobby against what "she" wants ZoS to do since she is a paying customer. The notion that their preferences and arguments supersede theirs because in her mind there is no logical reason to oppose her demands...THAT's HOW.

Really..who's picking fights? The poster made an absolutely valid and logical observation based on the OP's posts.

MornaBaine wrote: »

That which harms no one, should, of course, be allowed. Does that mean ZoS HAS to do it? No. What it does mean is that there is no reason for players to oppose it. The burden of proof that my request WOULD harm other players IS indeed, on you and those who oppose my proposed changes. If you want to "outlaw" something and forbid it to others, it is up to you to PROVE that it is indeed harmful to others. Thus far, no one has been able to do that.

Their reasons are their own. Your assertion that these things you ask for "should" be allowed is a moral judgement that has no place in the discussion. In "your" opinion they "should" be allowed. In other's opinions they "should not" be allowed. You want to define the rules and parameters of what is acceptable, valid and reasonable based on your view of the way things work. You site rules of engagement and reason after the fact as if that's the way the world works. I have news for you. It doesn't work that way except in very limited microcosms of human existence such as courts of law and academia. In the rest of the world there is a place for arbitrary preferences and appeals to emotion.

Your logic is self centered. You state I must PROVE your desire is harmful to others and if your desires are found to be innocuous I and others must leave you and your ideas alone. Furthermore you've stated that ZoS having no good reason for denying you should grant your desires because you are a paying customer and have the right to play how you want. Furthermore you assert other paying customers can't oppose you in an open forum of thoughts and ideas because "you" don't accept their reasoning.

The things is, in order for anyone to be compelled to do such a thing whether it is myself, the community or ZoS, You must prove the current status quo is harmful to you and or others. (may not even be a reason for change. They could chose not to do anything and then what?) This is all a matter of preferences and yours in no way trumps others AND as the status quo is apparently harmless and an established precedent the community is absolved from the responsibility to prove anything. You can say how stupid it is for it to be this way, you can tell us why you think it should be changed, you can appeal to logic, you can appeal to emotion, but you have no "right" to discount, dismiss and judge other's preferences merely on the basis they don't fit into your box of reason.

Once again, you are asking for the status quo to be changed for you and as such it is incumbent upon you to convince others to do so and accept it, whether that argument is a logical one or an emotional appeal. It is NOT for you to place "shoulds" on things arbitrary and outside of the realms of human rights, moral uprightness and societal needs, eg. Children "should" be fed nutritious food. War "should" be a last resort. Drivers "should" follow the rules of the road. In as much as is possible people "should" be good to one another. The assertion your desire harms no one and therefor "should" be allowed is beyond presumptuous. Your argument for change so far consists of asserting your wants harm nobody. THAT is not a compelling argument for change In my opinion. End of Story.

Varicite · September 2014

MornaBaine wrote: »

Varicite wrote: »

MornaBaine wrote: »

Not one person who opposes this, especially yourself, has been able to put forth a single reason why it SHOULDN'T be done. It is not lore breaking.

It IS lore-breaking, and I've explained exactly why. You just continue to ignore those reasons to suit your purposes. You are not Ravenwatch. You are not a pureblood vamp. You were not turned by Molag Bal. You do not have the ability to mask your appearance outside of wearing a disguise. It's really very simple.

You don't get to simply ignore valid reasons and then say "nobody's put forth any reasons". At this point, there's not even much point in discussing anything w/ you, as you will just ignore anything that doesn't benefit your "side" of the discussion.

MornaBaine wrote: »

So really the only people who DO have a problem are those, like yourself, who keep screaming, "Just because I don't like it!" Sorry, not good enough.

Just... SO much irony.

Alright my dear, I'm finally getting around to you. Sorry I've made you feel so left out. Ultimately, my refutation of your reasons comes down to, "Because roleplay." Roleplay, by necessity, requires us to either ignore or alter MANY things presented by the game as game mechanics. It would be ludicrous in the extreme for every single roleplayer to have every single one of their characters go about proclaiming that Manimarco stole their soul and they woke up in Coldharbor and met Lyris, etc, etc, etc, until they ultimately defeated Molag Bal with the legendary Companions. Face it, that would just be stupid from any kind of stroytelling perspective. But according to the game itself, that's EXACTLY what happens and the impossibility of every single person you meet (with the exception of NPCs) is "the Chosen One." ONE. So we ignore and/or alter the vast majority of it. Because to do anything else would simply be ridiculous. It's the same thing when it comes to vampires. According to the game mechanics you are either mauled by bloodfiends and infected, or taken to the shrine and infected by another player and then, either way, you must undergo a quest wherein you meet Lamae who, for whatever reasons, fails to give you the ability of concealment she herself has and has passed on to the Cyrodillic vampires that you, despite being made at least in part, by her, are NOT part of. The very richness of the existing lore surrounding vampires in ESO is going to cause the vast majority of vampire roleplayers to ignore this unfortunate game mechanic in favor of a story that is more appealing to them. Sadly, a lot of these stories will be ridiculous and some of them will even have no connection to ESO at all. And just like all the cookie-cutter builds you see dominating PvP in Cyrodil are boring and unimaginative, I wish it weren't so. So, because of roleplay, and because due to it we are not actually locked into the narrative presented by the game mechanics, it is a GOOD thing to give roleplayers options that let them pay the way they wish and enhance their enjoyment of the game so that... we keep paying that monthly sub. Things that EXPAND roleplay, rather than diminish it (as the current mechanics of vampires do) are good things. And, as cosmetics do nothing to affect game mechanics and do nothing to diminish the enjoyment of other players, it is logical to include them as the game matures.

Now, there are many players who hate roleplayers and wish we wouldn't even play these games. The idiocy of that stance is not something I will discuss here. I will instead confine myself to pointing out that roleplayers are good for ZoS for a whole host of reasons. We tend to be loyal subscribers who remain engaged with the game FAR longer than regular players. As long as our characters are engaged in interesting storylines and we're having fun with other players we'll stick around. We generally are not clamoring for new content because, since we take time out to roleplay, we actually explore the game itself at a far slower and more leisurely pace. Ergo, we don't get bored as quickly and drop our subs to go off in pursuit of the next shiny. We tend to be a lot more patient about fixing issues as well. Lag making PvP impossible at the moment? Well that sucks, true, but hey, we can go roleplay until they fix it. Nor are we constantly clamoring for the next new big update, new zones, new classes, etc. Sure, we like those things. But our requests tend to be a WHOLE LOT EASIER for the Devs to pull off. Like, some new hairstyles and make-up options. New emotes which are, in fact, already existing animations in the game that they simply make available to players. Or, gosh, simply making some simple alterations to the already existing cosmetics of vampires and adding the already existing cosmetic of a "normal" appearance.

There. I hope you don't feel so left out now.

Darlin, I am almost certain I've been roleplaying for far longer than you. I understand where you're coming from, and I honestly don't need you to try to explain to me the RP mentality.

However, I've already addressed your "Because roleplay" reasoning. You can roleplay whatever you like, but that doesn't mean that devs should add lorebreaking changes to the game just to suit your roleplay.

Lamae isn't the one who turns you into a vamp, a random Blood Fiend did. Lamae only initiates you into your new life as a vamp, and completes the ritual. That's why she "fails to give you the ritual of concealment", because it's not a ritual, it's a part of her bloodline, of which you are obviously NOT a part of, or you would have it.

This is very clear in-game because you have a completely different strain of vampirism than the one that she is the progenitor of.

Cosmetics such as this do effect the game's atmosphere, because it goes against established lore and discredits the fidelity of the ES universe.

I'm not sure if you just aren't understanding that what you're asking for goes against the lore of the ES universe, or you simply don't care. I'm leaning toward the latter, since I don't know how much more clearly I can show you that the entire OP is based on a complete fallacy.

Ravenwatch = Pureblood vamp = can mask appearance, presumably.

You = Noxiphilic Sanguivoria = disease-made vamp = no masking appearance

There is only ONE (1) strain of vampiric disease that allows for vamps to change their appearance, and that is NOT the type of vamp that player characters get to be.

Ask for something that is actually possible w/in the realm of lore, and I would be more inclined to agree w/ you. As it is, I've made it perfectly clear that what you're asking for is not.

At this point, you are just asking for it because you want it, not because it makes a lick of sense in the ES universe. When devs start caving to requests that don't make any sense whatsoever in lore, then people stop caring about the established lore altogether, and THAT hurts RP moreso than not being able to be a pretty vamp.

Might as well just say that you are vampire Talos the Dragonborn who shapeshifts into a Ferrari Testarosa to fight off the neighboring clan of Rivenspire Godzillas. It has just as much basis in lore as what you're asking for right now.

/shrug