The Elder Scrolls Online

Maintenance for the week of December 22:
• [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)

Game has become too flashy!

Leave a Reply
  • Ectheliontnacil
    Ectheliontnacil
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Your basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun.

    *You're

    oh, thank you. Point still stands though, despite a simple typing error. [Snip].

    @JJBoomer

    Well your reply made it sufficiently clear that you didn't pay any attention to what I said in the OP, or that you simply didn't understand it. Either way, why would I bother arguing your "point" if it can be called that.

    Just think about what you're saying. "You're basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that's 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun."

    Would not a toggle be perfectly harmless? Is it not you that seeks to impose his poor taste in fashion on others, so YOU can have more fun with your outfit?

    [Edited for quote]
    Edited by ZOS_KatP on June 1, 2018 1:05PM
  • veloSylraptor
    veloSylraptor
    ✭✭✭
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Your basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun.

    *You're

    oh, thank you. Point still stands though, despite a simple typing error. [Snip].

    @JJBoomer

    Well your reply made it sufficiently clear that you didn't pay any attention to what I said in the OP, or that you simply didn't understand it. Either way, why would I bother arguing your "point" if it can be called that.

    Just think about what you're saying. "You're basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that's 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun."

    Would not a toggle be perfectly harmless? Is it not you that seeks to impose his poor taste in fashion on others, so YOU can have more fun with your outfit?

    Would I need to repeat my arguments on how disingenuous "perfectly harmless" is when it clearly removes people's agency to dress how they like with the money they spent? how it silences and makes invisible people whose fashion choice you don't approve? Is it not you whose trying to impose your poor taste on everyone else by making them wear what you want them to wear while bypassing their consent to be presented in such a way entirely?

    You keep saying it has no effect on everyone else while failing to address the points that have been presented previously and acting as if they do not exist:

    And of course the big questions:
    • How many of the recurring spenders in this game are comfortable with being denied their expression and made invisible?
    • How many of them would change their spending patterns when they know their being veiled?
    • How comfortable is ZoS with risking and accepting the potential profit loss?

      Cause I'm pretty sure a lot of people will not take kindly to being made invisible. One player in this thread already expressed that they will no longer be spending money on cosmetics if they are just going to be veiled.

      And again, if a character is being misrepresented on your screen, then they have essentially had their identity, expression, and personhood erased; no more a person than a random minor NPC, their choices made for them by someone else.

      [Edited for quote]
    Edited by ZOS_KatP on June 1, 2018 1:05PM
  • Lysette
    Lysette
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Your basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun.

    *You're

    oh, thank you. Point still stands though, despite a simple typing error. [Snip].

    @JJBoomer

    Well your reply made it sufficiently clear that you didn't pay any attention to what I said in the OP, or that you simply didn't understand it. Either way, why would I bother arguing your "point" if it can be called that.

    Just think about what you're saying. "You're basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that's 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun."

    Would not a toggle be perfectly harmless? Is it not you that seeks to impose his poor taste in fashion on others, so YOU can have more fun with your outfit?

    Would I need to repeat my arguments on how disingenuous "perfectly harmless" is when it clearly removes people's agency to dress how they like with the money they spent? how it silences and makes invisible people whose fashion choice you don't approve? Is it not you whose trying to impose your poor taste on everyone else by making them wear what you want them to wear while bypassing their consent to be presented in such a way entirely?

    You keep saying it has no effect on everyone else while failing the points that have been presented previously and acting as if they do not exist:

    And of course the big questions:
    • How many of the recurring spenders in this game are comfortable with being denied their expression and made invisible?
    • How many of them would change their spending patterns when they know their being veiled?
    • How comfortable is ZoS with risking and accepting the potential profit loss?

      Cause I'm pretty sure a lot of people will not take kindly to being made invisible.

    Well, I would not be happy with not having any control over my appearance to others - that's for certain. But I would still buy costumes, because I want a pleasant look & feel for myself. IRL I dress up and wear day-makeup as well if I do not intend to go out at all - it's just for me, to feel good and my partner appreciates a little eye-candy as well. So I guess, my spending habits would not change, even I would be unhappy with having no control over my appearance to others, like I said.

    [Edited for quote]
    Edited by ZOS_KatP on June 1, 2018 1:05PM
  • veloSylraptor
    veloSylraptor
    ✭✭✭
    Lysette wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Your basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun.

    *You're

    oh, thank you. Point still stands though, despite a simple typing error. [Snip].

    @JJBoomer

    Well your reply made it sufficiently clear that you didn't pay any attention to what I said in the OP, or that you simply didn't understand it. Either way, why would I bother arguing your "point" if it can be called that.

    Just think about what you're saying. "You're basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that's 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun."

    Would not a toggle be perfectly harmless? Is it not you that seeks to impose his poor taste in fashion on others, so YOU can have more fun with your outfit?

    Would I need to repeat my arguments on how disingenuous "perfectly harmless" is when it clearly removes people's agency to dress how they like with the money they spent? how it silences and makes invisible people whose fashion choice you don't approve? Is it not you whose trying to impose your poor taste on everyone else by making them wear what you want them to wear while bypassing their consent to be presented in such a way entirely?

    You keep saying it has no effect on everyone else while failing the points that have been presented previously and acting as if they do not exist:

    And of course the big questions:
    • How many of the recurring spenders in this game are comfortable with being denied their expression and made invisible?
    • How many of them would change their spending patterns when they know their being veiled?
    • How comfortable is ZoS with risking and accepting the potential profit loss?

      Cause I'm pretty sure a lot of people will not take kindly to being made invisible.

    Well, I would not be happy with not having any control over my appearance to others - that's for certain. But I would still buy costumes, because I want a pleasant look & feel for myself. IRL I dress up and wear day-makeup as well if I do not intend to go out at all - it's just for me, to feel good and my partner appreciates a little eye-candy as well. So I guess, my spending habits would not change, even I would be unhappy with having no control over my appearance to others, like I said.

    Of course, I completely understand that, as I do that too. Expressing your identity isn't necessarily about being seen, it is primarily for yourself after all. I did mention in my first post that it is not about other people, they can like, dislike, or don't care all they like. Its not about being judged, accepted, or whatever by other people, its about being seen. Simply the act of existing as yourself. What is being proposed here is to virtually eliminate that identity, that people who disapprove may pretend it doesn't exist. It goes beyond a private or public expression, but to silence that identity and remove it.

    As for spending habits, well, ZoS is the final arbiter in this argument anyhow. Which is why I would emphasize the potentially lost profit they might cause should this be made to happen.

    edit: clarification

    [Edited for quote]
    Edited by ZOS_KatP on June 1, 2018 1:06PM
  • Faulgor
    Faulgor
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Well what can you do, people have no taste.

    #TeamSensibleOutfits
    Alandrol Sul: He's making another Numidium?!?
    Vivec: Worse, buddy. They're buying it.
  • Lysette
    Lysette
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ZOS will not do that - but eventually we can get them to offer more detailed normal looking stuff, than flashy but still low polygon stuff. I would appreciated better meshes -my guars could be so awesome,but they have a rather dull mesh and the texture on them is just meh - still I like guars.
  • Ectheliontnacil
    Ectheliontnacil
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Your basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun.

    *You're

    oh, thank you. Point still stands though, despite a simple typing error. [Snip].

    @JJBoomer

    Well your reply made it sufficiently clear that you didn't pay any attention to what I said in the OP, or that you simply didn't understand it. Either way, why would I bother arguing your "point" if it can be called that.

    Just think about what you're saying. "You're basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that's 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun."

    Would not a toggle be perfectly harmless? Is it not you that seeks to impose his poor taste in fashion on others, so YOU can have more fun with your outfit?

    Would I need to repeat my arguments on how disingenuous "perfectly harmless" is when it clearly removes people's agency to dress how they like with the money they spent? how it silences and makes invisible people whose fashion choice you don't approve? Is it not you whose trying to impose your poor taste on everyone else by making them wear what you want them to wear while bypassing their consent to be presented in such a way entirely?

    You keep saying it has no effect on everyone else while failing to address the points that have been presented previously and acting as if they do not exist:

    And of course the big questions:
    • How many of the recurring spenders in this game are comfortable with being denied their expression and made invisible?
    • How many of them would change their spending patterns when they know their being veiled?
    • How comfortable is ZoS with risking and accepting the potential profit loss?

      Cause I'm pretty sure a lot of people will not take kindly to being made invisible. One player in this thread already expressed that they will no longer be spending money on cosmetics if they are just going to be veiled.

      And again, if a character is being misrepresented on your screen, then they have essentially had their identity, expression, and personhood erased; no more a person than a random minor NPC, their choices made for them by someone else.
    @veloSylraptor

    Ugh, you again.

    Please think about this for a second.

    Why does the need of a certain player to be seen by another, in the full splendor of his/her outfit, outweigh the desire of the other player, to not see this outfit.

    The one whose outfit is being hidden is not invisible, he retains his custom character features and can interact with everybody. A lot of people will still see his/her outfit, IF they choose to. This player can also ask friends to turn off the toggle, if he feels the need to show off his attire.

    Point is we have a conflict of interests here. One side wants to "show off" (no offense), the other doesn't necessarily want to see this display of "unimerssiveness". The latter wishes only to control their own perception of the game, while the former wants to control others' perception of it.

    Imo you're taking a more invasive stance on this issue than I am and therefore I don't think your wishes should be prioritised.

    [Edited for quote]
    Edited by ZOS_KatP on June 1, 2018 1:06PM
  • veloSylraptor
    veloSylraptor
    ✭✭✭
    Lysette wrote: »
    ZOS will not do that - but eventually we can get them to offer more detailed normal looking stuff, than flashy but still low polygon stuff. I would appreciated better meshes -my guars could be so awesome,but they have a rather dull mesh and the texture on them is just meh - still I like guars.

    Yeah, higher detailed meshes and textures is one thing I really wish they would add in this game. Along with more options in general for fashion and cosmetics.

    And as for ZoS not doing that, well, I would rather not take that for granted. My silence could easily be taken as approval, especially with other people doing the talking. So presenting an opposing idea to a suggestion I oppose is something I do just to make sure that at the very least, no one else is doing my talking for me.
  • Karivaa
    Karivaa
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    And we wonder why there is so much lag!
  • Lysette
    Lysette
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I would not use such a toggle - sometimes I like to stand in Daggerfalls on the opposite side of the wood works and watch people having fun, enjoying their new outfits, see them turn into the light, finding the right angle for a good picture and the like. People are really enjoying this and I like to watch them enjoying it - it feels vibrant there and this is a good thing. I do not want to hinder people to express themselves, I rather want some more immersive higher quality offers from ZOS.
  • veloSylraptor
    veloSylraptor
    ✭✭✭
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Your basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun.

    *You're

    oh, thank you. Point still stands though, despite a simple typing error. [Snip].

    @JJBoomer

    Well your reply made it sufficiently clear that you didn't pay any attention to what I said in the OP, or that you simply didn't understand it. Either way, why would I bother arguing your "point" if it can be called that.

    Just think about what you're saying. "You're basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that's 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun."

    Would not a toggle be perfectly harmless? Is it not you that seeks to impose his poor taste in fashion on others, so YOU can have more fun with your outfit?

    Would I need to repeat my arguments on how disingenuous "perfectly harmless" is when it clearly removes people's agency to dress how they like with the money they spent? how it silences and makes invisible people whose fashion choice you don't approve? Is it not you whose trying to impose your poor taste on everyone else by making them wear what you want them to wear while bypassing their consent to be presented in such a way entirely?

    You keep saying it has no effect on everyone else while failing to address the points that have been presented previously and acting as if they do not exist:

    And of course the big questions:
    • How many of the recurring spenders in this game are comfortable with being denied their expression and made invisible?
    • How many of them would change their spending patterns when they know their being veiled?
    • How comfortable is ZoS with risking and accepting the potential profit loss?

      Cause I'm pretty sure a lot of people will not take kindly to being made invisible. One player in this thread already expressed that they will no longer be spending money on cosmetics if they are just going to be veiled.

      And again, if a character is being misrepresented on your screen, then they have essentially had their identity, expression, and personhood erased; no more a person than a random minor NPC, their choices made for them by someone else.
    @veloSylraptor

    Ugh, you again.

    Please think about this for a second.

    Why does the need of a certain player to be seen by another, in the full splendor of his/her outfit, outweigh the desire of the other player, to not see this outfit.

    The one whose outfit is being hidden is not invisible, he retains his custom character features and can interact with everybody. A lot of people will still see his/her outfit, IF they choose to. This player can also ask friends to turn off the toggle, if he feels the need to show off his attire.

    Point is we have a conflict of interests here. One side wants to "show off" (no offense), the other doesn't necessarily want to see this display of "unimerssiveness". The latter wishes only to control their own perception of the game, while the former wants to control others' perception of it.

    Imo you're taking a more invasive stance on this issue than I am and therefore I don't think your wishes should be prioritised.

    I would see it another way.

    Why does a player who needs to control how another player is being presented out weigh the desires of other players who simply wish to exists as entities with agency within the game?

    You are not wishing only to control your perception of the game, but how others identities and expressions are presented in it. Controlling your perception of the game in this way requires the removal of other players' agency in how they are represented. This seems to be the part you're not getting. To misrepresent people in that way is to remove them as a character, as a personality, and renders their personhood invalid. They might as well be a minor NPC given that even their own expressions are chosen for them by someone else. Also, it is at least equally immersion breaking to know that at any moment you are probably being misrepresented. That other people are seeing you not as you are, but as how they would like you to appear. To not have their own character's identity and expression being represented, but to have the identities and expressions of another stamped on them without their consent.

    So again, its not "only" wishes to control "their own perception." Its also a wish to control how other people appear. You also seem to be confused about "showing off," I'm sure quite a lot of people totally don't care if other people like them, dislike them, ignore them, or completely not notice them (and their expressions through their character design). Because its not about what other people think or not think, its about being seen. Its not about showing anything, but rather about not being made invisible and non existent.

    Is not forcing everyone to wear a uniform more invasive than simply being free to wear that you want to wear.
    That you can be free to express yourself however you like within the system, just like everyone else. The people who wish to be free to express themselves are not trying to control how you appear after all.

    [Edited for quote]
    Edited by ZOS_KatP on June 1, 2018 1:06PM
  • Eyro
    Eyro
    ✭✭✭✭
    Karivaa wrote: »
    And we wonder why there is so much lag!

    I don’t. It is all those spells/skills people want to use. If everyone was just happy being beautiful, there would be no lag.
  • dtsharples
    dtsharples
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Good luck in PVP escaping on your glowing pink horse in your neon Dro'mathra costume :P

    And TBH - I would much rather see Costumes or Outfits, however tasteless, than the hideous mix and mish-mash of textures, colours + patterns that the original item styles created.

    I'd rather be blinded by glaringly outlandish gold plate mail, than suffer the old swamp monsters in visible undaunted hats :s

  • AhPook_Is_Here
    AhPook_Is_Here
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭
    I love all the glitter in this game! I wouldn't even do a dungeon with someone who wasn't fully emerged in a glitter-storm. If people could turn off all that shine and awesome custom gear i think that would be really oppressive to their sense of expression.
    “Whatever.”
    -Unknown American
  • Marginis
    Marginis
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I think, somewhat as I previously posted, that there is a happy medium, or at least acceptable medium, between those who want to show off and those who want to be immersed. Those who make costumes and dress up for themselves, and those who don't care about immersion obviously aren't affected, so we don't really need to account for them, but we should try to please as many people as we can (so that more people play the game, more people enjoy the game, ZOS makes more money, everybody wins), so let's focus on making both the show off-ers (we'll call them group 1) and the want to be immersed-ers (we'll call them group 2) happy.

    Another thing that we should define is what counts as "immersive" and "not immersive". I'm not going to say I know what should and should not be considered a non-immersive cosmetic, but I have some ideas. For costumes we could, with the new outfit system, count anything made with the outfit system or with clothing equipment obtained in-game as immersive, and count any crown store costumes (and polymorphs for that matter) as non-immersive. Immersive mounts could just be the default horses, or it could also include the normal looking bears, wolves, guars, senches and so on. We could alternatively set "immersiveness" as determined by date, like if everything prior to 2018 is "immersive" and everything post-2018 is "non-immersive". We could also set levels of immersiveness, so something like the default horse might be immersiveness level 3, the atronoch horses could be level 2, and the glowy jello ghost horses would be level 1. I'm not sure what would be the best to pick, but these are some options, and are probably something to think about when we're considering solutions.

    So we have our core demographics, and we know what they each want, and have some ideas of how to break down the subject we're on. The question is if we can do things that both group 1 and group 2 like or don't mind. Here are some potential solutions I've thought of:

    1. The most extreme example would be to implement a toggle for players to hide those or mask those they wish, whether that's everyone, only those with what might be considered immersion breaking cosmetics, or specific people that might be added to something like the ignore list. This option is a toggle, and especially if it's off by default it probably wouldn't have a lot of negative impact on anyone, but it is by itself antithetical to what group 1 likes. So this isn't really a happy medium, but I don't think it's as terrible as some make it out to be, as they can still show off to most people, and even masked, they are still wearing their costumes, so they still have the prestige gotten from that.

    2. The most boring solution is to not change anything. The status quo is what we have currently, and there's nothing inherently wrong with it, but it could always be improved. The argument to make in favor of this option is that any changes would be too much a burden for too little reward, or with too much risk, to make. It's not that bad so I'd rather keep it as is rather than make it worse, you might say. However, this is displeasing to group 2, as the problem they're having is not even being addressed, just because group 1 is afraid of change.

    3. One option might seem a more minor change, but ZOS could implement a policy of making cosmetics a bit more lore-friendly. As it stands right now, it seems (at least to me) like cosmetics are getting more and more exotic, in an escalating fashion. They've been pretty good so far, but the trend does point to getting crazier and crazier mounts and houses and so on. If the trend continues, eventually we will actually have laser motorcycle mounts and rainbow vomiting narwhal pets (and I'm sure they'll try and justify it: well, you see the Dwemer...). This is why it seems that they're always coming out with something better than before, and how they get people to keep returning to the store. Reversing this trend would annoy those who really like crazy costmetics (we'll call them group 3), and possibly lose revenue (or at least ZOS would have to start getting more creative with their crown store stuff than just reskinning the same 5 mounts to make up for not doing crazier and crazier reskins), but group 1 would stop the immersion breaking from getting any worse and group 2 would still get to show off. It seems a good solution, but ZOS is probably unlikely to do this (more than any other solution) because it makes their job harder/might lose them money, even though it's probably better for the game in the long run (player retention always ends up making more a difference than short term revenue).

    4. One could also, like I suggested, implement option 1 but with some caveats. Now, those caveats might change, but either way it's not exactly what either group 1 or group 2 wants. One caveat might be that ESO+ subscribers cannot have their cosmetics hidden, but the toggle still exists and affects non-ESO+ players. This would also give added benefit to ESO+, something to make it more valuable (although technically it's just avoiding what group 1 would consider a negative change). Another caveat might be that only the more immersion breaking cosmetics are hidden, so it would give more reason to use the not-crazy-glowing-sparkling-shiny mounts and costumes. A third caveat I can think of might be that there could be a new setting for cosmetics to use when the masking of your mounts is active - so it's another cosmetic setting. You would be able to choose what "immersive" mount to use as well as what "non-immersive" mount to use, depending on what option people pick in the toggle. This is actually a small benefit to group 1 because they get to do even more customization and personal expression with another option, and still works for group 2 because they get their toggle.

    5. We could separate players who have "immersive" cosmetics and "non-immersive" cosmetics by instance, and maybe separate those who don't care about immersiveness of costmetics into their own instance as well. Even if not outright separating these groups, there could be a setting for preference of who you're grouped with, making grouping with people who don't have the same toggle option picked still possible, if just manually. This doesn't really hurt anyone except those in group 1 who just like to troll group 2 (and we don't care about making trolls happy, obviously), but it could be a negative for other parts of the game, in that it can cause some of the issues that tend to crop up when the playerbase is fractured.

    6. Implement a single player mode to the game, where you can activate a toggle to be in your own instance. This actually would be really nice for all players, at least on the surface, but could cause a few balancing issues with things like the economy and materials farming, and would obviously have to be disabled in places like PVP, but could be something worth investigating and looking into more.

    Anyway, those are the solutions that I could come up with watching this thread. Feel free to add anything to the options I suggested, or add your own suggestions. I just think that we should approach this more from a problem solving perspective than a combative one, so hopefully this helps.
    @Marginis on PC, Senpai Fluffy on Xbox, Founder of Magicka. Also known as Kha'jiri, The Night Mother, Ma'iq, Jane Shepard, Damia, Kintyra, Zoor Do Kest, You, and a few others.
  • Marginis
    Marginis
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Your basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun.

    *You're

    oh, thank you. Point still stands though, despite a simple typing error. If YOU'RE going to try and invalidate my point, please try harder.

    @JJBoomer

    Well your reply made it sufficiently clear that you didn't pay any attention to what I said in the OP, or that you simply didn't understand it. Either way, why would I bother arguing your "point" if it can be called that.

    Just think about what you're saying. "You're basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that's 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun."

    Would not a toggle be perfectly harmless? Is it not you that seeks to impose his poor taste in fashion on others, so YOU can have more fun with your outfit?

    Would I need to repeat my arguments on how disingenuous "perfectly harmless" is when it clearly removes people's agency to dress how they like with the money they spent? how it silences and makes invisible people whose fashion choice you don't approve? Is it not you whose trying to impose your poor taste on everyone else by making them wear what you want them to wear while bypassing their consent to be presented in such a way entirely?

    You keep saying it has no effect on everyone else while failing to address the points that have been presented previously and acting as if they do not exist:

    And of course the big questions:
    • How many of the recurring spenders in this game are comfortable with being denied their expression and made invisible?
    • How many of them would change their spending patterns when they know their being veiled?
    • How comfortable is ZoS with risking and accepting the potential profit loss?

      Cause I'm pretty sure a lot of people will not take kindly to being made invisible. One player in this thread already expressed that they will no longer be spending money on cosmetics if they are just going to be veiled.

      And again, if a character is being misrepresented on your screen, then they have essentially had their identity, expression, and personhood erased; no more a person than a random minor NPC, their choices made for them by someone else.
    @veloSylraptor

    Ugh, you again.

    Please think about this for a second.

    Why does the need of a certain player to be seen by another, in the full splendor of his/her outfit, outweigh the desire of the other player, to not see this outfit.

    The one whose outfit is being hidden is not invisible, he retains his custom character features and can interact with everybody. A lot of people will still see his/her outfit, IF they choose to. This player can also ask friends to turn off the toggle, if he feels the need to show off his attire.

    Point is we have a conflict of interests here. One side wants to "show off" (no offense), the other doesn't necessarily want to see this display of "unimerssiveness". The latter wishes only to control their own perception of the game, while the former wants to control others' perception of it.

    Imo you're taking a more invasive stance on this issue than I am and therefore I don't think your wishes should be prioritised.

    I would see it another way.

    Why does a player who needs to control how another player is being presented out weigh the desires of other players who simply wish to exists as entities with agency within the game?

    You are not wishing only to control your perception of the game, but how others identities and expressions are presented in it. Controlling your perception of the game in this way requires the removal of other players' agency in how they are represented. This seems to be the part you're not getting. To misrepresent people in that way is to remove them as a character, as a personality, and renders their personhood invalid. They might as well be a minor NPC given that even their own expressions are chosen for them by someone else. Also, it is at least equally immersion breaking to know that at any moment you are probably being misrepresented. That other people are seeing you not as you are, but as how they would like you to appear. To not have their own character's identity and expression being represented, but to have the identities and expressions of another stamped on them without their consent.

    So again, its not "only" wishes to control "their own perception." Its also a wish to control how other people appear. You also seem to be confused about "showing off," I'm sure quite a lot of people totally don't care if other people like them, dislike them, ignore them, or completely not notice them (and their expressions through their character design). Because its not about what other people think or not think, its about being seen. Its not about showing anything, but rather about not being made invisible and non existent.

    Is not forcing everyone to wear a uniform more invasive than simply being free to wear that you want to wear.
    That you can be free to express yourself however you like within the system, just like everyone else. The people who wish to be free to express themselves are not trying to control how you appear after all.

    Do try and be mindful, both of your guys' perspectives are valid. It is perfectly normal to not want your freedom of expression to be infringed upon, but it is also perfectly normal to not want to have things forced on you. Just like you might want to be able to practice your religion in peace, you also don't want to have someone else's religion forced upon you, right?

    0517-maffly-kipp_mormon-missionaries-550x358.jpg
    "How'd you like to hear about the book of the crown store? We'd like to introduce to you the nightmare ice ghost imperial wolf senche charger mount!"

    *slowly shuts door on them*
    @Marginis on PC, Senpai Fluffy on Xbox, Founder of Magicka. Also known as Kha'jiri, The Night Mother, Ma'iq, Jane Shepard, Damia, Kintyra, Zoor Do Kest, You, and a few others.
  • veloSylraptor
    veloSylraptor
    ✭✭✭
    Marginis wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Your basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun.

    *You're

    oh, thank you. Point still stands though, despite a simple typing error. If YOU'RE going to try and invalidate my point, please try harder.

    @JJBoomer

    Well your reply made it sufficiently clear that you didn't pay any attention to what I said in the OP, or that you simply didn't understand it. Either way, why would I bother arguing your "point" if it can be called that.

    Just think about what you're saying. "You're basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that's 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun."

    Would not a toggle be perfectly harmless? Is it not you that seeks to impose his poor taste in fashion on others, so YOU can have more fun with your outfit?

    Would I need to repeat my arguments on how disingenuous "perfectly harmless" is when it clearly removes people's agency to dress how they like with the money they spent? how it silences and makes invisible people whose fashion choice you don't approve? Is it not you whose trying to impose your poor taste on everyone else by making them wear what you want them to wear while bypassing their consent to be presented in such a way entirely?

    You keep saying it has no effect on everyone else while failing to address the points that have been presented previously and acting as if they do not exist:

    And of course the big questions:
    • How many of the recurring spenders in this game are comfortable with being denied their expression and made invisible?
    • How many of them would change their spending patterns when they know their being veiled?
    • How comfortable is ZoS with risking and accepting the potential profit loss?

      Cause I'm pretty sure a lot of people will not take kindly to being made invisible. One player in this thread already expressed that they will no longer be spending money on cosmetics if they are just going to be veiled.

      And again, if a character is being misrepresented on your screen, then they have essentially had their identity, expression, and personhood erased; no more a person than a random minor NPC, their choices made for them by someone else.
    @veloSylraptor

    Ugh, you again.

    Please think about this for a second.

    Why does the need of a certain player to be seen by another, in the full splendor of his/her outfit, outweigh the desire of the other player, to not see this outfit.

    The one whose outfit is being hidden is not invisible, he retains his custom character features and can interact with everybody. A lot of people will still see his/her outfit, IF they choose to. This player can also ask friends to turn off the toggle, if he feels the need to show off his attire.

    Point is we have a conflict of interests here. One side wants to "show off" (no offense), the other doesn't necessarily want to see this display of "unimerssiveness". The latter wishes only to control their own perception of the game, while the former wants to control others' perception of it.

    Imo you're taking a more invasive stance on this issue than I am and therefore I don't think your wishes should be prioritised.

    I would see it another way.

    Why does a player who needs to control how another player is being presented out weigh the desires of other players who simply wish to exists as entities with agency within the game?

    You are not wishing only to control your perception of the game, but how others identities and expressions are presented in it. Controlling your perception of the game in this way requires the removal of other players' agency in how they are represented. This seems to be the part you're not getting. To misrepresent people in that way is to remove them as a character, as a personality, and renders their personhood invalid. They might as well be a minor NPC given that even their own expressions are chosen for them by someone else. Also, it is at least equally immersion breaking to know that at any moment you are probably being misrepresented. That other people are seeing you not as you are, but as how they would like you to appear. To not have their own character's identity and expression being represented, but to have the identities and expressions of another stamped on them without their consent.

    So again, its not "only" wishes to control "their own perception." Its also a wish to control how other people appear. You also seem to be confused about "showing off," I'm sure quite a lot of people totally don't care if other people like them, dislike them, ignore them, or completely not notice them (and their expressions through their character design). Because its not about what other people think or not think, its about being seen. Its not about showing anything, but rather about not being made invisible and non existent.

    Is not forcing everyone to wear a uniform more invasive than simply being free to wear that you want to wear.
    That you can be free to express yourself however you like within the system, just like everyone else. The people who wish to be free to express themselves are not trying to control how you appear after all.

    Do try and be mindful, both of your guys' perspectives are valid. It is perfectly normal to not want your freedom of expression to be infringed upon, but it is also perfectly normal to not want to have things forced on you. Just like you might want to be able to practice your religion in peace, you also don't want to have someone else's religion forced upon you, right?

    0517-maffly-kipp_mormon-missionaries-550x358.jpg
    "How'd you like to hear about the book of the crown store? We'd like to introduce to you the nightmare ice ghost imperial wolf senche charger mount!"

    *slowly shuts door on them*

    I am, I already acknowledged their perspective in my earlier posts. I presented them solutions based on that perspective. What I'm doing with the last post you quoted was simply showing what the argument would look like from the other side when we conveniently ignore the other's perspective. After trying to make that point for awhile, I thought I'd just simply demonstrate it.
  • Marginis
    Marginis
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Marginis wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Your basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun.

    *You're

    oh, thank you. Point still stands though, despite a simple typing error. [Snip].

    @JJBoomer

    Well your reply made it sufficiently clear that you didn't pay any attention to what I said in the OP, or that you simply didn't understand it. Either way, why would I bother arguing your "point" if it can be called that.

    Just think about what you're saying. "You're basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that's 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun."

    Would not a toggle be perfectly harmless? Is it not you that seeks to impose his poor taste in fashion on others, so YOU can have more fun with your outfit?

    Would I need to repeat my arguments on how disingenuous "perfectly harmless" is when it clearly removes people's agency to dress how they like with the money they spent? how it silences and makes invisible people whose fashion choice you don't approve? Is it not you whose trying to impose your poor taste on everyone else by making them wear what you want them to wear while bypassing their consent to be presented in such a way entirely?

    You keep saying it has no effect on everyone else while failing to address the points that have been presented previously and acting as if they do not exist:

    And of course the big questions:
    • How many of the recurring spenders in this game are comfortable with being denied their expression and made invisible?
    • How many of them would change their spending patterns when they know their being veiled?
    • How comfortable is ZoS with risking and accepting the potential profit loss?

      Cause I'm pretty sure a lot of people will not take kindly to being made invisible. One player in this thread already expressed that they will no longer be spending money on cosmetics if they are just going to be veiled.

      And again, if a character is being misrepresented on your screen, then they have essentially had their identity, expression, and personhood erased; no more a person than a random minor NPC, their choices made for them by someone else.
    @veloSylraptor

    Ugh, you again.

    Please think about this for a second.

    Why does the need of a certain player to be seen by another, in the full splendor of his/her outfit, outweigh the desire of the other player, to not see this outfit.

    The one whose outfit is being hidden is not invisible, he retains his custom character features and can interact with everybody. A lot of people will still see his/her outfit, IF they choose to. This player can also ask friends to turn off the toggle, if he feels the need to show off his attire.

    Point is we have a conflict of interests here. One side wants to "show off" (no offense), the other doesn't necessarily want to see this display of "unimerssiveness". The latter wishes only to control their own perception of the game, while the former wants to control others' perception of it.

    Imo you're taking a more invasive stance on this issue than I am and therefore I don't think your wishes should be prioritised.

    I would see it another way.

    Why does a player who needs to control how another player is being presented out weigh the desires of other players who simply wish to exists as entities with agency within the game?

    You are not wishing only to control your perception of the game, but how others identities and expressions are presented in it. Controlling your perception of the game in this way requires the removal of other players' agency in how they are represented. This seems to be the part you're not getting. To misrepresent people in that way is to remove them as a character, as a personality, and renders their personhood invalid. They might as well be a minor NPC given that even their own expressions are chosen for them by someone else. Also, it is at least equally immersion breaking to know that at any moment you are probably being misrepresented. That other people are seeing you not as you are, but as how they would like you to appear. To not have their own character's identity and expression being represented, but to have the identities and expressions of another stamped on them without their consent.

    So again, its not "only" wishes to control "their own perception." Its also a wish to control how other people appear. You also seem to be confused about "showing off," I'm sure quite a lot of people totally don't care if other people like them, dislike them, ignore them, or completely not notice them (and their expressions through their character design). Because its not about what other people think or not think, its about being seen. Its not about showing anything, but rather about not being made invisible and non existent.

    Is not forcing everyone to wear a uniform more invasive than simply being free to wear that you want to wear.
    That you can be free to express yourself however you like within the system, just like everyone else. The people who wish to be free to express themselves are not trying to control how you appear after all.

    Do try and be mindful, both of your guys' perspectives are valid. It is perfectly normal to not want your freedom of expression to be infringed upon, but it is also perfectly normal to not want to have things forced on you. Just like you might want to be able to practice your religion in peace, you also don't want to have someone else's religion forced upon you, right?

    0517-maffly-kipp_mormon-missionaries-550x358.jpg
    "How'd you like to hear about the book of the crown store? We'd like to introduce to you the nightmare ice ghost imperial wolf senche charger mount!"

    *slowly shuts door on them*

    I am, I already acknowledged their perspective in my earlier posts. I presented them solutions based on that perspective. What I'm doing with the last post you quoted was simply showing what the argument would look like from the other side when we conveniently ignore the other's perspective. After trying to make that point for awhile, I thought I'd just simply demonstrate it.

    When trying to bring the extremes to the middle, I find that going to extremes yourself doesn't typically accomplish your goal.

    We should also take note that online communities are also a bit different in who they tend to prioritize, like how ignore lists and banning is a common thing online, whereas offline priority is given to freedom of expression. I'm not saying this means much, but it does at least say that the perspective counter to yours is fairly typical and acceptable for online communities. While it's good to present a counterpoint to their perspective to offer insight, it's probably not the best to say or imply that their perspective is bad, particularly when we are talking about an online community.

    [Edited for quote]
    Edited by ZOS_KatP on June 1, 2018 1:07PM
    @Marginis on PC, Senpai Fluffy on Xbox, Founder of Magicka. Also known as Kha'jiri, The Night Mother, Ma'iq, Jane Shepard, Damia, Kintyra, Zoor Do Kest, You, and a few others.
  • veloSylraptor
    veloSylraptor
    ✭✭✭
    Marginis wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Marginis wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Your basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun.

    *You're

    oh, thank you. Point still stands though, despite a simple typing error. If YOU'RE going to try and invalidate my point, please try harder.

    @JJBoomer

    Well your reply made it sufficiently clear that you didn't pay any attention to what I said in the OP, or that you simply didn't understand it. Either way, why would I bother arguing your "point" if it can be called that.

    Just think about what you're saying. "You're basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that's 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun."

    Would not a toggle be perfectly harmless? Is it not you that seeks to impose his poor taste in fashion on others, so YOU can have more fun with your outfit?

    Would I need to repeat my arguments on how disingenuous "perfectly harmless" is when it clearly removes people's agency to dress how they like with the money they spent? how it silences and makes invisible people whose fashion choice you don't approve? Is it not you whose trying to impose your poor taste on everyone else by making them wear what you want them to wear while bypassing their consent to be presented in such a way entirely?

    You keep saying it has no effect on everyone else while failing to address the points that have been presented previously and acting as if they do not exist:

    And of course the big questions:
    • How many of the recurring spenders in this game are comfortable with being denied their expression and made invisible?
    • How many of them would change their spending patterns when they know their being veiled?
    • How comfortable is ZoS with risking and accepting the potential profit loss?

      Cause I'm pretty sure a lot of people will not take kindly to being made invisible. One player in this thread already expressed that they will no longer be spending money on cosmetics if they are just going to be veiled.

      And again, if a character is being misrepresented on your screen, then they have essentially had their identity, expression, and personhood erased; no more a person than a random minor NPC, their choices made for them by someone else.
    @veloSylraptor

    Ugh, you again.

    Please think about this for a second.

    Why does the need of a certain player to be seen by another, in the full splendor of his/her outfit, outweigh the desire of the other player, to not see this outfit.

    The one whose outfit is being hidden is not invisible, he retains his custom character features and can interact with everybody. A lot of people will still see his/her outfit, IF they choose to. This player can also ask friends to turn off the toggle, if he feels the need to show off his attire.

    Point is we have a conflict of interests here. One side wants to "show off" (no offense), the other doesn't necessarily want to see this display of "unimerssiveness". The latter wishes only to control their own perception of the game, while the former wants to control others' perception of it.

    Imo you're taking a more invasive stance on this issue than I am and therefore I don't think your wishes should be prioritised.

    I would see it another way.

    Why does a player who needs to control how another player is being presented out weigh the desires of other players who simply wish to exists as entities with agency within the game?

    You are not wishing only to control your perception of the game, but how others identities and expressions are presented in it. Controlling your perception of the game in this way requires the removal of other players' agency in how they are represented. This seems to be the part you're not getting. To misrepresent people in that way is to remove them as a character, as a personality, and renders their personhood invalid. They might as well be a minor NPC given that even their own expressions are chosen for them by someone else. Also, it is at least equally immersion breaking to know that at any moment you are probably being misrepresented. That other people are seeing you not as you are, but as how they would like you to appear. To not have their own character's identity and expression being represented, but to have the identities and expressions of another stamped on them without their consent.

    So again, its not "only" wishes to control "their own perception." Its also a wish to control how other people appear. You also seem to be confused about "showing off," I'm sure quite a lot of people totally don't care if other people like them, dislike them, ignore them, or completely not notice them (and their expressions through their character design). Because its not about what other people think or not think, its about being seen. Its not about showing anything, but rather about not being made invisible and non existent.

    Is not forcing everyone to wear a uniform more invasive than simply being free to wear that you want to wear.
    That you can be free to express yourself however you like within the system, just like everyone else. The people who wish to be free to express themselves are not trying to control how you appear after all.

    Do try and be mindful, both of your guys' perspectives are valid. It is perfectly normal to not want your freedom of expression to be infringed upon, but it is also perfectly normal to not want to have things forced on you. Just like you might want to be able to practice your religion in peace, you also don't want to have someone else's religion forced upon you, right?

    0517-maffly-kipp_mormon-missionaries-550x358.jpg
    "How'd you like to hear about the book of the crown store? We'd like to introduce to you the nightmare ice ghost imperial wolf senche charger mount!"

    *slowly shuts door on them*

    I am, I already acknowledged their perspective in my earlier posts. I presented them solutions based on that perspective. What I'm doing with the last post you quoted was simply showing what the argument would look like from the other side when we conveniently ignore the other's perspective. After trying to make that point for awhile, I thought I'd just simply demonstrate it.

    When trying to bring the extremes to the middle, I find that going to extremes yourself doesn't typically accomplish your goal.

    We should also take note that online communities are also a bit different in who they tend to prioritize, like how ignore lists and banning is a common thing online, whereas offline priority is given to freedom of expression. I'm not saying this means much, but it does at least say that the perspective counter to yours is fairly typical and acceptable for online communities. While it's good to present a counterpoint to their perspective to offer insight, it's probably not the best to say or imply that their perspective is bad, particularly when we are talking about an online community.

    Bringing extremes to the middle is nice and all, but it tends to be a fruitless endeavor. The main point of my arguments are simply to show the opposing perspectives, lay the potential risks and damages, and make it clear that for whoever this pleases, there are others who will be antagonized. I continued clarifying my arguments simply because attempts to dismiss it without addressing them. The purpose for which remains the same, to show the potential dislikes from players and by extension potential loss for ZoS. In the end, its ZoS' (and their parent company, shareholders, etc) perspectives that matter.

    Lastly, I don't see how ignore lists and banning relate to this at all. They are given for either infringing on company policy, or as a stopgap measure to stop someone from continually causing you harm if you need to wait or otherwise cannot get them banned.

    Cosmetics and fashion items, on the other hand, are one of the primary monetization items for the game. It is indeed the choice for many MMOs (and unfortunately single player games) to monetize these items. Considering the popularity and profitability of this monetization model would suggest that indeed this is what a lot of players like. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm sure there are people who would like to have their purchases respected and would be antagonized by giving other players ability to make them invisible because of how they spend money.

    In the end, this is the way the business works. The only question that remains is how much of that recurring spender population they are willing to antagonize, and how much? How much risk and potentially lost profit are they willing to accept?
  • Marginis
    Marginis
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Marginis wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Marginis wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Your basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun.

    *You're

    oh, thank you. Point still stands though, despite a simple typing error. [Snip].

    @JJBoomer

    Well your reply made it sufficiently clear that you didn't pay any attention to what I said in the OP, or that you simply didn't understand it. Either way, why would I bother arguing your "point" if it can be called that.

    Just think about what you're saying. "You're basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that's 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun."

    Would not a toggle be perfectly harmless? Is it not you that seeks to impose his poor taste in fashion on others, so YOU can have more fun with your outfit?

    Would I need to repeat my arguments on how disingenuous "perfectly harmless" is when it clearly removes people's agency to dress how they like with the money they spent? how it silences and makes invisible people whose fashion choice you don't approve? Is it not you whose trying to impose your poor taste on everyone else by making them wear what you want them to wear while bypassing their consent to be presented in such a way entirely?

    You keep saying it has no effect on everyone else while failing to address the points that have been presented previously and acting as if they do not exist:

    And of course the big questions:
    • How many of the recurring spenders in this game are comfortable with being denied their expression and made invisible?
    • How many of them would change their spending patterns when they know their being veiled?
    • How comfortable is ZoS with risking and accepting the potential profit loss?

      Cause I'm pretty sure a lot of people will not take kindly to being made invisible. One player in this thread already expressed that they will no longer be spending money on cosmetics if they are just going to be veiled.

      And again, if a character is being misrepresented on your screen, then they have essentially had their identity, expression, and personhood erased; no more a person than a random minor NPC, their choices made for them by someone else.
    @veloSylraptor

    Ugh, you again.

    Please think about this for a second.

    Why does the need of a certain player to be seen by another, in the full splendor of his/her outfit, outweigh the desire of the other player, to not see this outfit.

    The one whose outfit is being hidden is not invisible, he retains his custom character features and can interact with everybody. A lot of people will still see his/her outfit, IF they choose to. This player can also ask friends to turn off the toggle, if he feels the need to show off his attire.

    Point is we have a conflict of interests here. One side wants to "show off" (no offense), the other doesn't necessarily want to see this display of "unimerssiveness". The latter wishes only to control their own perception of the game, while the former wants to control others' perception of it.

    Imo you're taking a more invasive stance on this issue than I am and therefore I don't think your wishes should be prioritised.

    I would see it another way.

    Why does a player who needs to control how another player is being presented out weigh the desires of other players who simply wish to exists as entities with agency within the game?

    You are not wishing only to control your perception of the game, but how others identities and expressions are presented in it. Controlling your perception of the game in this way requires the removal of other players' agency in how they are represented. This seems to be the part you're not getting. To misrepresent people in that way is to remove them as a character, as a personality, and renders their personhood invalid. They might as well be a minor NPC given that even their own expressions are chosen for them by someone else. Also, it is at least equally immersion breaking to know that at any moment you are probably being misrepresented. That other people are seeing you not as you are, but as how they would like you to appear. To not have their own character's identity and expression being represented, but to have the identities and expressions of another stamped on them without their consent.

    So again, its not "only" wishes to control "their own perception." Its also a wish to control how other people appear. You also seem to be confused about "showing off," I'm sure quite a lot of people totally don't care if other people like them, dislike them, ignore them, or completely not notice them (and their expressions through their character design). Because its not about what other people think or not think, its about being seen. Its not about showing anything, but rather about not being made invisible and non existent.

    Is not forcing everyone to wear a uniform more invasive than simply being free to wear that you want to wear.
    That you can be free to express yourself however you like within the system, just like everyone else. The people who wish to be free to express themselves are not trying to control how you appear after all.

    Do try and be mindful, both of your guys' perspectives are valid. It is perfectly normal to not want your freedom of expression to be infringed upon, but it is also perfectly normal to not want to have things forced on you. Just like you might want to be able to practice your religion in peace, you also don't want to have someone else's religion forced upon you, right?

    0517-maffly-kipp_mormon-missionaries-550x358.jpg
    "How'd you like to hear about the book of the crown store? We'd like to introduce to you the nightmare ice ghost imperial wolf senche charger mount!"

    *slowly shuts door on them*

    I am, I already acknowledged their perspective in my earlier posts. I presented them solutions based on that perspective. What I'm doing with the last post you quoted was simply showing what the argument would look like from the other side when we conveniently ignore the other's perspective. After trying to make that point for awhile, I thought I'd just simply demonstrate it.

    When trying to bring the extremes to the middle, I find that going to extremes yourself doesn't typically accomplish your goal.

    We should also take note that online communities are also a bit different in who they tend to prioritize, like how ignore lists and banning is a common thing online, whereas offline priority is given to freedom of expression. I'm not saying this means much, but it does at least say that the perspective counter to yours is fairly typical and acceptable for online communities. While it's good to present a counterpoint to their perspective to offer insight, it's probably not the best to say or imply that their perspective is bad, particularly when we are talking about an online community.

    Bringing extremes to the middle is nice and all, but it tends to be a fruitless endeavor. The main point of my arguments are simply to show the opposing perspectives, lay the potential risks and damages, and make it clear that for whoever this pleases, there are others who will be antagonized. I continued clarifying my arguments simply because attempts to dismiss it without addressing them. The purpose for which remains the same, to show the potential dislikes from players and by extension potential loss for ZoS. In the end, its ZoS' (and their parent company, shareholders, etc) perspectives that matter.

    Lastly, I don't see how ignore lists and banning relate to this at all. They are given for either infringing on company policy, or as a stopgap measure to stop someone from continually causing you harm if you need to wait or otherwise cannot get them banned.

    Cosmetics and fashion items, on the other hand, are one of the primary monetization items for the game. It is indeed the choice for many MMOs (and unfortunately single player games) to monetize these items. Considering the popularity and profitability of this monetization model would suggest that indeed this is what a lot of players like. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm sure there are people who would like to have their purchases respected and would be antagonized by giving other players ability to make them invisible because of how they spend money.

    In the end, this is the way the business works. The only question that remains is how much of that recurring spender population they are willing to antagonize, and how much? How much risk and potentially lost profit are they willing to accept?

    Banning and ignore lists are tools for members of communities to use against other members of the community, as in banning players from guilds or blocking people on twitter. You are afforded in this way the ability to take away the freedom of others to be visible to you. Isn't that exactly what we're talking about here?

    I'm not disagreeing really with anything else you say, but I mean, isn't it still better to be constructive rather than just critical?

    [Edited for quote]
    Edited by ZOS_KatP on June 1, 2018 1:07PM
    @Marginis on PC, Senpai Fluffy on Xbox, Founder of Magicka. Also known as Kha'jiri, The Night Mother, Ma'iq, Jane Shepard, Damia, Kintyra, Zoor Do Kest, You, and a few others.
  • Rawkan
    Rawkan
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I do agree that the flashy color characters are an eyesore. It reminds me of 12 year old me on myspace, making everything into harsh contrasted colors. I guess some of these people are pretty young.
    Edited by Rawkan on May 31, 2018 4:08PM
  • veloSylraptor
    veloSylraptor
    ✭✭✭
    Marginis wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Marginis wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Marginis wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Your basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun.

    *You're

    oh, thank you. Point still stands though, despite a simple typing error. If YOU'RE going to try and invalidate my point, please try harder.

    @JJBoomer

    Well your reply made it sufficiently clear that you didn't pay any attention to what I said in the OP, or that you simply didn't understand it. Either way, why would I bother arguing your "point" if it can be called that.

    Just think about what you're saying. "You're basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that's 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun."

    Would not a toggle be perfectly harmless? Is it not you that seeks to impose his poor taste in fashion on others, so YOU can have more fun with your outfit?

    Would I need to repeat my arguments on how disingenuous "perfectly harmless" is when it clearly removes people's agency to dress how they like with the money they spent? how it silences and makes invisible people whose fashion choice you don't approve? Is it not you whose trying to impose your poor taste on everyone else by making them wear what you want them to wear while bypassing their consent to be presented in such a way entirely?

    You keep saying it has no effect on everyone else while failing to address the points that have been presented previously and acting as if they do not exist:

    And of course the big questions:
    • How many of the recurring spenders in this game are comfortable with being denied their expression and made invisible?
    • How many of them would change their spending patterns when they know their being veiled?
    • How comfortable is ZoS with risking and accepting the potential profit loss?

      Cause I'm pretty sure a lot of people will not take kindly to being made invisible. One player in this thread already expressed that they will no longer be spending money on cosmetics if they are just going to be veiled.

      And again, if a character is being misrepresented on your screen, then they have essentially had their identity, expression, and personhood erased; no more a person than a random minor NPC, their choices made for them by someone else.
    @veloSylraptor

    Ugh, you again.

    Please think about this for a second.

    Why does the need of a certain player to be seen by another, in the full splendor of his/her outfit, outweigh the desire of the other player, to not see this outfit.

    The one whose outfit is being hidden is not invisible, he retains his custom character features and can interact with everybody. A lot of people will still see his/her outfit, IF they choose to. This player can also ask friends to turn off the toggle, if he feels the need to show off his attire.

    Point is we have a conflict of interests here. One side wants to "show off" (no offense), the other doesn't necessarily want to see this display of "unimerssiveness". The latter wishes only to control their own perception of the game, while the former wants to control others' perception of it.

    Imo you're taking a more invasive stance on this issue than I am and therefore I don't think your wishes should be prioritised.

    I would see it another way.

    Why does a player who needs to control how another player is being presented out weigh the desires of other players who simply wish to exists as entities with agency within the game?

    You are not wishing only to control your perception of the game, but how others identities and expressions are presented in it. Controlling your perception of the game in this way requires the removal of other players' agency in how they are represented. This seems to be the part you're not getting. To misrepresent people in that way is to remove them as a character, as a personality, and renders their personhood invalid. They might as well be a minor NPC given that even their own expressions are chosen for them by someone else. Also, it is at least equally immersion breaking to know that at any moment you are probably being misrepresented. That other people are seeing you not as you are, but as how they would like you to appear. To not have their own character's identity and expression being represented, but to have the identities and expressions of another stamped on them without their consent.

    So again, its not "only" wishes to control "their own perception." Its also a wish to control how other people appear. You also seem to be confused about "showing off," I'm sure quite a lot of people totally don't care if other people like them, dislike them, ignore them, or completely not notice them (and their expressions through their character design). Because its not about what other people think or not think, its about being seen. Its not about showing anything, but rather about not being made invisible and non existent.

    Is not forcing everyone to wear a uniform more invasive than simply being free to wear that you want to wear.
    That you can be free to express yourself however you like within the system, just like everyone else. The people who wish to be free to express themselves are not trying to control how you appear after all.

    Do try and be mindful, both of your guys' perspectives are valid. It is perfectly normal to not want your freedom of expression to be infringed upon, but it is also perfectly normal to not want to have things forced on you. Just like you might want to be able to practice your religion in peace, you also don't want to have someone else's religion forced upon you, right?

    0517-maffly-kipp_mormon-missionaries-550x358.jpg
    "How'd you like to hear about the book of the crown store? We'd like to introduce to you the nightmare ice ghost imperial wolf senche charger mount!"

    *slowly shuts door on them*

    I am, I already acknowledged their perspective in my earlier posts. I presented them solutions based on that perspective. What I'm doing with the last post you quoted was simply showing what the argument would look like from the other side when we conveniently ignore the other's perspective. After trying to make that point for awhile, I thought I'd just simply demonstrate it.

    When trying to bring the extremes to the middle, I find that going to extremes yourself doesn't typically accomplish your goal.

    We should also take note that online communities are also a bit different in who they tend to prioritize, like how ignore lists and banning is a common thing online, whereas offline priority is given to freedom of expression. I'm not saying this means much, but it does at least say that the perspective counter to yours is fairly typical and acceptable for online communities. While it's good to present a counterpoint to their perspective to offer insight, it's probably not the best to say or imply that their perspective is bad, particularly when we are talking about an online community.

    Bringing extremes to the middle is nice and all, but it tends to be a fruitless endeavor. The main point of my arguments are simply to show the opposing perspectives, lay the potential risks and damages, and make it clear that for whoever this pleases, there are others who will be antagonized. I continued clarifying my arguments simply because attempts to dismiss it without addressing them. The purpose for which remains the same, to show the potential dislikes from players and by extension potential loss for ZoS. In the end, its ZoS' (and their parent company, shareholders, etc) perspectives that matter.

    Lastly, I don't see how ignore lists and banning relate to this at all. They are given for either infringing on company policy, or as a stopgap measure to stop someone from continually causing you harm if you need to wait or otherwise cannot get them banned.

    Cosmetics and fashion items, on the other hand, are one of the primary monetization items for the game. It is indeed the choice for many MMOs (and unfortunately single player games) to monetize these items. Considering the popularity and profitability of this monetization model would suggest that indeed this is what a lot of players like. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm sure there are people who would like to have their purchases respected and would be antagonized by giving other players ability to make them invisible because of how they spend money.

    In the end, this is the way the business works. The only question that remains is how much of that recurring spender population they are willing to antagonize, and how much? How much risk and potentially lost profit are they willing to accept?

    Banning and ignore lists are tools for members of communities to use against other members of the community, as in banning players from guilds or blocking people on twitter. You are afforded in this way the ability to take away the freedom of others to be visible to you. Isn't that exactly what we're talking about here?

    I'm not disagreeing really with anything else you say, but I mean, isn't it still better to be constructive rather than just critical?

    The main difference would be that you are not silencing people simply because they exist, or because they spent money on the crown store. How many people has ever been banned or ignored because of how they appear? Is this the purpose of ban and ignore lists? to remove people who don't have a look you approve? This is what you are suggesting after all, a toggle that would remove people for looking in an unapproved way, and potentially getting that look by spending money in one of the most popular monetization models of MMOs.

    Also, constructive to what here? I simply would not want to be made invisible for simply using the cosmetic options in the game or bought in the crown store.

    Lets also not forget that I have attempted that, you could see that in the previous posts if you would indulge. However, the opposing arguments I was given continuously ignored, dismissed, and trivialized any concerns being brought up without ever addressing them. So I have to ask, why the one sided criticism about being constructive?
    Edited by veloSylraptor on May 31, 2018 4:14PM
  • AhPook_Is_Here
    AhPook_Is_Here
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭
    I can't really buy this premise that there is such a thing as "non-immersive" cosmetics, as ZOS has said on many occasions that what they sell in the crown store is always created with a strong sensitivity to lore. I understand that due to the subjective nature of perception and values some people might not consider every costume, social pet or cosmetic consistent with their concept of what lore is, but it is consistent with what ZOS thinks is lore appropriate and therefore objectively consistent with lore in the game.

    Furthermore, lore is a moving target, stories are added, myths are busted and mores change. Maybe in a few hundred years when skyrim hits tamriel will be going through a prudish phase again, but right now that's not where culture is at.
    “Whatever.”
    -Unknown American
  • Marginis
    Marginis
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Marginis wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Marginis wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Marginis wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    JJBoomer wrote: »
    Your basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun.

    *You're

    oh, thank you. Point still stands though, despite a simple typing error. [Snip].

    @JJBoomer

    Well your reply made it sufficiently clear that you didn't pay any attention to what I said in the OP, or that you simply didn't understand it. Either way, why would I bother arguing your "point" if it can be called that.

    Just think about what you're saying. "You're basically just trying to prevent other players from doing something that's 100% harmless, just so YOU can have more fun."

    Would not a toggle be perfectly harmless? Is it not you that seeks to impose his poor taste in fashion on others, so YOU can have more fun with your outfit?

    Would I need to repeat my arguments on how disingenuous "perfectly harmless" is when it clearly removes people's agency to dress how they like with the money they spent? how it silences and makes invisible people whose fashion choice you don't approve? Is it not you whose trying to impose your poor taste on everyone else by making them wear what you want them to wear while bypassing their consent to be presented in such a way entirely?

    You keep saying it has no effect on everyone else while failing to address the points that have been presented previously and acting as if they do not exist:

    And of course the big questions:
    • How many of the recurring spenders in this game are comfortable with being denied their expression and made invisible?
    • How many of them would change their spending patterns when they know their being veiled?
    • How comfortable is ZoS with risking and accepting the potential profit loss?

      Cause I'm pretty sure a lot of people will not take kindly to being made invisible. One player in this thread already expressed that they will no longer be spending money on cosmetics if they are just going to be veiled.

      And again, if a character is being misrepresented on your screen, then they have essentially had their identity, expression, and personhood erased; no more a person than a random minor NPC, their choices made for them by someone else.
    @veloSylraptor

    Ugh, you again.

    Please think about this for a second.

    Why does the need of a certain player to be seen by another, in the full splendor of his/her outfit, outweigh the desire of the other player, to not see this outfit.

    The one whose outfit is being hidden is not invisible, he retains his custom character features and can interact with everybody. A lot of people will still see his/her outfit, IF they choose to. This player can also ask friends to turn off the toggle, if he feels the need to show off his attire.

    Point is we have a conflict of interests here. One side wants to "show off" (no offense), the other doesn't necessarily want to see this display of "unimerssiveness". The latter wishes only to control their own perception of the game, while the former wants to control others' perception of it.

    Imo you're taking a more invasive stance on this issue than I am and therefore I don't think your wishes should be prioritised.

    I would see it another way.

    Why does a player who needs to control how another player is being presented out weigh the desires of other players who simply wish to exists as entities with agency within the game?

    You are not wishing only to control your perception of the game, but how others identities and expressions are presented in it. Controlling your perception of the game in this way requires the removal of other players' agency in how they are represented. This seems to be the part you're not getting. To misrepresent people in that way is to remove them as a character, as a personality, and renders their personhood invalid. They might as well be a minor NPC given that even their own expressions are chosen for them by someone else. Also, it is at least equally immersion breaking to know that at any moment you are probably being misrepresented. That other people are seeing you not as you are, but as how they would like you to appear. To not have their own character's identity and expression being represented, but to have the identities and expressions of another stamped on them without their consent.

    So again, its not "only" wishes to control "their own perception." Its also a wish to control how other people appear. You also seem to be confused about "showing off," I'm sure quite a lot of people totally don't care if other people like them, dislike them, ignore them, or completely not notice them (and their expressions through their character design). Because its not about what other people think or not think, its about being seen. Its not about showing anything, but rather about not being made invisible and non existent.

    Is not forcing everyone to wear a uniform more invasive than simply being free to wear that you want to wear.
    That you can be free to express yourself however you like within the system, just like everyone else. The people who wish to be free to express themselves are not trying to control how you appear after all.

    Do try and be mindful, both of your guys' perspectives are valid. It is perfectly normal to not want your freedom of expression to be infringed upon, but it is also perfectly normal to not want to have things forced on you. Just like you might want to be able to practice your religion in peace, you also don't want to have someone else's religion forced upon you, right?

    0517-maffly-kipp_mormon-missionaries-550x358.jpg
    "How'd you like to hear about the book of the crown store? We'd like to introduce to you the nightmare ice ghost imperial wolf senche charger mount!"

    *slowly shuts door on them*

    I am, I already acknowledged their perspective in my earlier posts. I presented them solutions based on that perspective. What I'm doing with the last post you quoted was simply showing what the argument would look like from the other side when we conveniently ignore the other's perspective. After trying to make that point for awhile, I thought I'd just simply demonstrate it.

    When trying to bring the extremes to the middle, I find that going to extremes yourself doesn't typically accomplish your goal.

    We should also take note that online communities are also a bit different in who they tend to prioritize, like how ignore lists and banning is a common thing online, whereas offline priority is given to freedom of expression. I'm not saying this means much, but it does at least say that the perspective counter to yours is fairly typical and acceptable for online communities. While it's good to present a counterpoint to their perspective to offer insight, it's probably not the best to say or imply that their perspective is bad, particularly when we are talking about an online community.

    Bringing extremes to the middle is nice and all, but it tends to be a fruitless endeavor. The main point of my arguments are simply to show the opposing perspectives, lay the potential risks and damages, and make it clear that for whoever this pleases, there are others who will be antagonized. I continued clarifying my arguments simply because attempts to dismiss it without addressing them. The purpose for which remains the same, to show the potential dislikes from players and by extension potential loss for ZoS. In the end, its ZoS' (and their parent company, shareholders, etc) perspectives that matter.

    Lastly, I don't see how ignore lists and banning relate to this at all. They are given for either infringing on company policy, or as a stopgap measure to stop someone from continually causing you harm if you need to wait or otherwise cannot get them banned.

    Cosmetics and fashion items, on the other hand, are one of the primary monetization items for the game. It is indeed the choice for many MMOs (and unfortunately single player games) to monetize these items. Considering the popularity and profitability of this monetization model would suggest that indeed this is what a lot of players like. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm sure there are people who would like to have their purchases respected and would be antagonized by giving other players ability to make them invisible because of how they spend money.

    In the end, this is the way the business works. The only question that remains is how much of that recurring spender population they are willing to antagonize, and how much? How much risk and potentially lost profit are they willing to accept?

    Banning and ignore lists are tools for members of communities to use against other members of the community, as in banning players from guilds or blocking people on twitter. You are afforded in this way the ability to take away the freedom of others to be visible to you. Isn't that exactly what we're talking about here?

    I'm not disagreeing really with anything else you say, but I mean, isn't it still better to be constructive rather than just critical?

    The main difference would be that you are not silencing people simply because they exist, or because they spent money on the crown store. How many people has ever been banned or ignored because of how they appear? Is this the purpose of ban and ignore lists? to remove people who don't have a look you approve? This is what you are suggesting after all, a toggle that would remove people for looking in an unapproved way, and potentially getting that look by spending money in one of the most popular monetization models of MMOs.

    Also, constructive to what here? I simply would not want to be made invisible for simply using the cosmetic options in the game or bought in the crown store.

    Lets also not forget that I have attempted that, you could see that in the previous posts if you would indulge. However, the opposing arguments I was given continuously ignored, dismissed, and trivialized any concerns being brought up without ever addressing them. So I have to ask, why the one sided criticism about being constructive?
    • People can use ignore lists and bans however they want. That's just the thing - whatever they consider offensive is reason enough for banning/ignoring. I'm not condoning or condemning it, I'm just explaining how things are, and why that makes the perspective counter to yours more than reasonable.
    • If you read my post about possible solutions you'll see that I address the adverse effects to monetization strategy as a possible concern.
    • Be constructive to finding a solution for the OP's problem, don't come in here saying, "No! I'm more important! Your problem doesn't matter because it will negatively affect me!" You have concerns for your own enjoyment of the game, so express those, but don't just try to say that OP isn't allowed to have their concerns as well. Try to find a middle ground, or an alternative fix, maybe.
    • Sorry, but I don't see how any of your posts in this block of quotes say anything that might help solve the OP's problem.
    • I'm only addressing you because you're the only one responding directly to me. If I feel the urge to comment on someone else's words I will, and if someone addresses me I'd be happy to respond to them. ...Is that weird? I don't think so, but if it is, please let me know.
    • I'm not trying to be combative - I'm just trying to explain what our goals here should be. We should be trying to help each other, not just saying "no".

    [Edited for quote]
    Edited by ZOS_KatP on June 1, 2018 1:08PM
    @Marginis on PC, Senpai Fluffy on Xbox, Founder of Magicka. Also known as Kha'jiri, The Night Mother, Ma'iq, Jane Shepard, Damia, Kintyra, Zoor Do Kest, You, and a few others.
  • Marginis
    Marginis
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »
    I can't really buy this premise that there is such a thing as "non-immersive" cosmetics, as ZOS has said on many occasions that what they sell in the crown store is always created with a strong sensitivity to lore. I understand that due to the subjective nature of perception and values some people might not consider every costume, social pet or cosmetic consistent with their concept of what lore is, but it is consistent with what ZOS thinks is lore appropriate and therefore objectively consistent with lore in the game.

    Furthermore, lore is a moving target, stories are added, myths are busted and mores change. Maybe in a few hundred years when skyrim hits tamriel will be going through a prudish phase again, but right now that's not where culture is at.

    You get an insightful for that. +1
    @Marginis on PC, Senpai Fluffy on Xbox, Founder of Magicka. Also known as Kha'jiri, The Night Mother, Ma'iq, Jane Shepard, Damia, Kintyra, Zoor Do Kest, You, and a few others.
  • zyk
    zyk
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Unfortunately, this is what MMOs have become. All fluff, little gameplay substance. For the same reasons mainstream music, tv and film turned out the way they did.
    Edited by zyk on May 31, 2018 4:49PM
  • cyclonus11
    cyclonus11
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    People will complain about anything. I like the individuality the game provides.
  • TelvanniWizard
    TelvanniWizard
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    [img][/img]2bd1k8.jpgvia Imgflip Meme Generator

    Edited by TelvanniWizard on May 31, 2018 5:28PM
  • zyk
    zyk
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    cyclonus11 wrote: »
    People will complain about anything. I like the individuality the game provides.

    Actually, I don't see a lot of individuality. Most players are gaudy in pretty much the same way.
  • D0PAMINE
    D0PAMINE
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    veloSylraptor wrote: »
    Ectheliontnacil wrote: »
    Ratzkifal wrote: »
    What do you guys think of a toggle option that disables flashy things - aka replace all special mounts with horses, make pets disappear and maybe even the floating balls of certain sets. The more customizable the options, the better.

    Ye that sounds good. And people who like vanity pets and glittering costumes are completely unaffected by this :smile: .

    Except they are effected, their ability to express themselves has been greatly reduced.

    @veloSylraptor

    Where is this mad scramble for identity and self expression coming from? I suppose it's human nature, but I still find it disturbing. Are you really defined by the clothes we wear? Is flashy armour and cheapish crown store jewellery who you are?

    And that's not even the worst part! Somehow you people feel entitled to subject everyone to your appearance. You have the right to look how you like, but I don't have the right to look away?

    If someone isn't into clowns swaggering across the Grahtwood city centre, what good does it do anyone to force him to see those clowns. That person's fun and immersion will be ruined and the clown clown's outfit will not be appreciated, which is what would have made the clown happy.

    With TES games always opting for rather conservative and toned down graphics and TESO starting out the same way, I think it's a very reasonable demand that ZOS cater to an audience that would prefer less over the top character customisation as well as to an audience that loves this feature.

    I just don't get people who think they should always be allowed to have their fun, even if it comes at the expense of other people's fun. :/

    Because this is how MMO's are. You're free to play a single player game that is about you. If YOU don't like how my character looks, then that's YOUR problem.
    Edited by D0PAMINE on May 31, 2018 10:14PM
Sign In or Register to comment.