Maintenance for the week of September 15:
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 15, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 16, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 16, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 15, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 16, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 16, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
Disguising Vampirism - It's time
-
Gandrhulf_Harbard✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Doctordarkspawn wrote: »and I ask again, who died and made you mother superior and mother nature, all at the same time,
Repeating a kindergarten non-argument a second time doesn't make it any more valid.
All The BestThose memories come back to haunt me, they haunt me like a curse.
Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, or is it something worse.1 -
Gandrhulf_Harbard✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Doctordarkspawn wrote: »And the issue is it's a glitch and therefor you are encouraging me to break the TOS. Stop trying to get us banned.
Wearing a costume is NOT a glitch.
Equipping a Skin cosmetic is NOT a glitch.
All The BestThose memories come back to haunt me, they haunt me like a curse.
Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, or is it something worse.2 -
Doctordarkspawn✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »and I ask again, who died and made you mother superior and mother nature, all at the same time,
Repeating a kindergarten non-argument a second time doesn't make it any more valid.
All The Best
It's not a non arguement. You dont have any right to tell us what we can or cant do, what we can and cant ask for, and you need to know how entitled you sound.
Also, I'll repeat. Stop encouraging people to use an exploit so you can report them and get them banned. We use the costumes as proof it can be done and is reletively easy to do. We do not want to use it not only because it's limiting, but because there's a very good chance we could be breaking TOS for it, which I'm sure you want.Edited by Doctordarkspawn on July 28, 2018 12:20PM0 -
Gandrhulf_Harbard✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Doctordarkspawn wrote: »Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »and I ask again, who died and made you mother superior and mother nature, all at the same time,
Repeating a kindergarten non-argument a second time doesn't make it any more valid.
All The Best
It's not a non arguement. You dont have any right to tell us what we can or cant do, what we can and cant ask for, and you need to know how entitled you sound.
Also, I'll repeat. Stop encouraging people to use an exploit so you can report them and get them banned.
Ah, how very predictable.
Losing the argument so trying to get it shut down by falsely claiming I am encouraging an exploit.
See my post above.
All The BestThose memories come back to haunt me, they haunt me like a curse.
Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, or is it something worse.3 -
Doctordarkspawn✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »and I ask again, who died and made you mother superior and mother nature, all at the same time,
Repeating a kindergarten non-argument a second time doesn't make it any more valid.
All The Best
It's not a non arguement. You dont have any right to tell us what we can or cant do, what we can and cant ask for, and you need to know how entitled you sound.
Also, I'll repeat. Stop encouraging people to use an exploit so you can report them and get them banned.
Ah, how very predictable.
Losing the argument so trying to get it shut down by falsely claiming I am encouraging an exploit.
See my post above.
All The Best
Falsely claiming?Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »These 'consequences' are easily circumvented allready
So what's the issue?
Circumvent them already!
All The Best
0 -
Gandrhulf_Harbard✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Doctordarkspawn wrote: »and you need to know how entitled you sound.
You are the one asking for a consequence you knew about before making a choice to not apply after you make the choice.
And I am the one who is entitled?!?!?!?
You need a basic education a whole lot more than you need a "hide Vampisim toggle".
All The BestThose memories come back to haunt me, they haunt me like a curse.
Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, or is it something worse.2 -
Gandrhulf_Harbard✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Doctordarkspawn wrote: »Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »and I ask again, who died and made you mother superior and mother nature, all at the same time,
Repeating a kindergarten non-argument a second time doesn't make it any more valid.
All The Best
It's not a non arguement. You dont have any right to tell us what we can or cant do, what we can and cant ask for, and you need to know how entitled you sound.
Also, I'll repeat. Stop encouraging people to use an exploit so you can report them and get them banned.
Ah, how very predictable.
Losing the argument so trying to get it shut down by falsely claiming I am encouraging an exploit.
See my post above.
All The Best
Falsely claiming?Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »These 'consequences' are easily circumvented allready
So what's the issue?
Circumvent them already!
All The Best
Yeah.
You circumvent the Vamp look by wearing a costume or skin that hides it.
Not an exploit.
All The BestThose memories come back to haunt me, they haunt me like a curse.
Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, or is it something worse.2 -
Doctordarkspawn✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »and I ask again, who died and made you mother superior and mother nature, all at the same time,
Repeating a kindergarten non-argument a second time doesn't make it any more valid.
All The Best
It's not a non arguement. You dont have any right to tell us what we can or cant do, what we can and cant ask for, and you need to know how entitled you sound.
Also, I'll repeat. Stop encouraging people to use an exploit so you can report them and get them banned.
Ah, how very predictable.
Losing the argument so trying to get it shut down by falsely claiming I am encouraging an exploit.
See my post above.
All The Best
Falsely claiming?Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »These 'consequences' are easily circumvented allready
So what's the issue?
Circumvent them already!
All The Best
Yeah.
You circumvent the Vamp look by wearing a costume or skin that hides it.
Not an exploit.
All The Best
It's a glitch, and could be considered so if ZOS really wants to press the issue. Other glitches which have been harmless and cosmetic have been used to punish players before.
I'll air on the side of caution and call it what it is, and call encouraging it, what it is.
ZOS has a habit of under-enforcing or over-enforcing their TOS. The imperial city XP glitch a few updates ago is a classic example of this, once people started reporting imperial city was giving insane xp ammounts there were comflicting reports that -anyone- in the vicinity when the server went down got banned. I'll air on the side of caution thanks.Edited by Doctordarkspawn on July 28, 2018 12:26PM0 -
Gandrhulf_Harbard✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Doctordarkspawn wrote: »[
It's a glitch, and could be considered so if ZOS really wants to press the issue.
Is there any evidence at all - as in an Official ZoS post - that indicates using a costume or skin that overrides the Vamp look is an exploit?
Not that I've seen, and I read these Forums every day.
NOTE: A "glitch" is NOT the same as an "exploit" and never has been.
All The BestThose memories come back to haunt me, they haunt me like a curse.
Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, or is it something worse.2 -
Kelces✭✭✭✭✭Salvas_Aren wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »Lore reasons. Gameplay reasons. Functionality allready in the game.
Your arguement is invalid and your principle is 'people should have nice things because I say so'. Who died and made you mother nature and mother superior?
Something makes me believe that in these cases sanity dies first.
It's a classic argumentation ad absurdum, if the condition is absurd, the value of the result is true anyway.
Like wanting something you don't need is sane?
Well, we have something that is optional, and yet there are still people who believe they are forced to do stuff in this game...
Yes, sanity went away a long time ago for the proponents of this idea in this thread...You reveal yourself best in how you play.
Kelces - Argonian Templar
Farel Donvu - Dark Elf Sorcerer
Navam Llervu - Dark Elf Dragonknight
Aniseth - Wood Elf Warden
Therediel - Wood Elf Templar
Nilonwy - Wood Elf Nightblade
Jurupari - Argonian Warden
Kú-Chulainn - Argonian Sorcerer
PC - EU
For the Pact!2 -
Doctordarkspawn✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »[
It's a glitch, and could be considered so if ZOS really wants to press the issue.
Is there any evidence at all - as in an Official ZoS post - that indicates using a costume or skin that overrides the Vamp look is an exploit?
Not that I've seen, and I read these Forums every day.
NOTE: A "glitch" is NOT the same as an "exploit" and never has been.
All The Best
"Promote, upload, transmit, encourage or take part in any activity involving hacking, cracking, phishing, taking advantage of exploits or cheats and/or distribution of counterfeit software and/or Virtual Currency or virtual items. In an effort to continuously improve the Services, You and other players discovering exploits, cheats, cracks or other inconsistencies are required to report them to ZeniMax;"
This is vague, and left intentionally so. ZOS generally likes to decide on it's own what is and isn't an exploit or a cheat. And 'taking advantage of exploits' could mean any and all glitches or any other abnormalities. Until I can see an official word from ZOS cited on the matter, I'll air on the side of caution, and act accordingly.
I'm going to leave it here as it is clear there's no real discussion or communication at all with you, and say the following:
1. We got the outfit system because people wanted customization. Hide vampirism is even older, and comes from the same vein. There is lore basis, evidence in gameplay to suggest it is possible, and so on.
2. I am willing to support this game by buying it as a paid feature.
3. Even if you disagree with making it a toggle, you have to acknowledge there is nothing stopping you from living up to your own principles. You can choose not to use it. That does not give you the right to demand others do the same, just like I dont have the right to demand you stop using 'all the best' in your posts.Edited by Doctordarkspawn on July 28, 2018 12:33PM1 -
Gandrhulf_Harbard✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Doctordarkspawn wrote: »Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »[
It's a glitch, and could be considered so if ZOS really wants to press the issue.
Is there any evidence at all - as in an Official ZoS post - that indicates using a costume or skin that overrides the Vamp look is an exploit?
Not that I've seen, and I read these Forums every day.
NOTE: A "glitch" is NOT the same as an "exploit" and never has been.
All The Best
"Promote, upload, transmit, encourage or take part in any activity involving hacking, cracking, phishing, taking advantage of exploits or cheats and/or distribution of counterfeit software and/or Virtual Currency or virtual items. In an effort to continuously improve the Services, You and other players discovering exploits, cheats, cracks or other inconsistencies are required to report them to ZeniMax;"
This is vague, and left intentionally so. ZOS generally likes to decide on it's own what is and isn't an exploit or a cheat. And 'taking advantage of exploits' could mean any and all glitches or any other abnormalities. Until I can see an official word from ZOS cited on the matter, I'll air on the side of caution, and act accordingly.
You could have just said "No, there's no evidence ZoS thinks this is an exploit".
At least that would have been short... ...and honest.
All The BestThose memories come back to haunt me, they haunt me like a curse.
Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, or is it something worse.4 -
Vulsahdaal✭✭✭✭✭
✭
This question, or some form of it, is one I keep seeing over and over:
-What kind of friggin excuse is "if you want power you have to look ugly"? What differences does being ugly bring gameplay wise?
What differences does it make? Not many, as far as I could see. However, Im not the one in charge of such things.
ZOS is, and they decided some time ago "if you want the power, you have to look ugly" when they took away our wolf passives, basically telling us, 'if you dont look like a giant rabid dog, you dont get wolf power.'
I would imagine they feel the same way about vamps.
Personally, I would have no objections to hiding vamp looks on the day that I get my wolfie passives back without having to deal with fur and fangs.
But, I suspect what we have now is what ZOS believes to be 'balance' between the two, so I doubt either of us will see any change.
If you believe this is 'petty' or 'hateful' as some have called it, I just remind you that 'No form, no power' was ZOS idea when they crippled us wolfies, not ours.
4 -
Doctordarkspawn✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Vulsahdaal wrote: »This question, or some form of it, is one I keep seeing over and over:
-What kind of friggin excuse is "if you want power you have to look ugly"? What differences does being ugly bring gameplay wise?
What differences does it make? Not many, as far as I could see. However, Im not the one in charge of such things.
ZOS is, and they decided some time ago "if you want the power, you have to look ugly" when they took away our wolf passives, basically telling us, 'if you dont look like a giant rabid dog, you dont get wolf power.'
I would imagine they feel the same way about vamps.
Personally, I would have no objections to hiding vamp looks on the day that I get my wolfie passives back without having to deal with fur and fangs.
But, I suspect what we have now is what ZOS believes to be 'balance' between the two, so I doubt either of us will see any change.
If you believe this is 'petty' or 'hateful' as some have called it, I just remind you that 'No form, no power' was ZOS idea when they crippled us wolfies, not ours.
Werewolf is different, though. The werewolf crowd basicly wanted to run all werewolf all the time, and werewolf got a hatchet taken to it for different reasons.
It's not a great example.1 -
Kelces✭✭✭✭✭Maybe they never thought about it in the first place in the context of "looking ugly" or not. Maybe it just made sense in terms of programming above all other reasons?
Pure conjecture at this point...You reveal yourself best in how you play.
Kelces - Argonian Templar
Farel Donvu - Dark Elf Sorcerer
Navam Llervu - Dark Elf Dragonknight
Aniseth - Wood Elf Warden
Therediel - Wood Elf Templar
Nilonwy - Wood Elf Nightblade
Jurupari - Argonian Warden
Kú-Chulainn - Argonian Sorcerer
PC - EU
For the Pact!1 -
Vulsahdaal✭✭✭✭✭
✭Doctordarkspawn wrote: »Vulsahdaal wrote: »This question, or some form of it, is one I keep seeing over and over:
-What kind of friggin excuse is "if you want power you have to look ugly"? What differences does being ugly bring gameplay wise?
What differences does it make? Not many, as far as I could see. However, Im not the one in charge of such things.
ZOS is, and they decided some time ago "if you want the power, you have to look ugly" when they took away our wolf passives, basically telling us, 'if you dont look like a giant rabid dog, you dont get wolf power.'
I would imagine they feel the same way about vamps.
Personally, I would have no objections to hiding vamp looks on the day that I get my wolfie passives back without having to deal with fur and fangs.
But, I suspect what we have now is what ZOS believes to be 'balance' between the two, so I doubt either of us will see any change.
If you believe this is 'petty' or 'hateful' as some have called it, I just remind you that 'No form, no power' was ZOS idea when they crippled us wolfies, not ours.
Werewolf is different, though. The werewolf crowd basicly wanted to run all werewolf all the time, and werewolf got a hatchet taken to it for different reasons.
Werewolf all the time? No, I believe just the opposite was actually the issue.
There are about as many players who want to look like a werewolf all the time as there are those who enjoy the vamp look and wish to remain that way. They do exist, but they seem to be the minority.
Id even go so far as to believe that there are even less wolfies than vamps that feel this way. You vamps may look like a junkie on his second day of involuntary withdrawal, but at least you have full functionality. Try to wield a weapon, or harvest a node even while looking like a giant rabid dog, but thats not the point..
The way I remember it, werewolf 'got the hatchet' because too many were enjoying the passives without ever 'turning' or even making much use of the active skills.
Basically, people were becoming werewolves not because they really wanted to be a werewolf, but only for the great passives. Is this starting to seem familiar?
But still, I am curious as to your opinion why werewolves got hit, if not for this reason?
Edited by Vulsahdaal on July 28, 2018 1:09PM5 -
Doctordarkspawn✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Vulsahdaal wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »Vulsahdaal wrote: »This question, or some form of it, is one I keep seeing over and over:
-What kind of friggin excuse is "if you want power you have to look ugly"? What differences does being ugly bring gameplay wise?
What differences does it make? Not many, as far as I could see. However, Im not the one in charge of such things.
ZOS is, and they decided some time ago "if you want the power, you have to look ugly" when they took away our wolf passives, basically telling us, 'if you dont look like a giant rabid dog, you dont get wolf power.'
I would imagine they feel the same way about vamps.
Personally, I would have no objections to hiding vamp looks on the day that I get my wolfie passives back without having to deal with fur and fangs.
But, I suspect what we have now is what ZOS believes to be 'balance' between the two, so I doubt either of us will see any change.
If you believe this is 'petty' or 'hateful' as some have called it, I just remind you that 'No form, no power' was ZOS idea when they crippled us wolfies, not ours.
Werewolf is different, though. The werewolf crowd basicly wanted to run all werewolf all the time, and werewolf got a hatchet taken to it for different reasons.
Werewolf all the time? No, I believe just the opposite was actually the issue.
There are about as many players who want to look like a werewolf all the time as there are those who enjoy the vamp look and wish to remain that way. They do exist, but they seem to be the minority.
Id even go so far as to believe that there are even less wolfies than vamps that feel this way. You vamps may look like a junkie on his second day of involuntary withdrawal, but at least you have full functionality. Try to wield a weapon, or harvest a node even while looking like a giant rabid dog, but thats not the point..
The way I remember it, werewolf 'got the hatchet' because to many were enjoying the passives without ever 'turning' or even making much use of the active skills.
Basically, people were becoming werewolves not because they really wanted to be a werewolf, but only for the great passives. Is this starting to seem familiar?
But still, I am curious as to your opinion why werewolves got hit, if not for this reason?
Werewolf has a fundementally different audience, which is what you dont seem to understand.
Yes. Werewolf got a massive stamina buff for just being werewolf back in the day. Not even sure how much the buff was, to recovery. It was about what it was now, when werewolf is slotted, but it applied all the time reguardless of slot. The main problem was that werewolf costed a woping 1K ultimate back then, and the skills were not all that great. Werewolf was nowhere near as fleshed out as it'll be next update which is why that was so vital. The game was very different back then.
Back then, it was almost universally understood that you -basicly- couldn't run a fully functional DPS with full werewolf back then. And when the stamina buff was removed from werewolf, the only real point of running it aside from some extreme power in PVP (Which got nerfed later) was gone.
The game was a very different back then. This was waaaaay before stats even got unlocked, this was back when -softcaps- were still instituted. Using this as an example isn't all that great considering that.Edited by Doctordarkspawn on July 28, 2018 1:13PM0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭MLGProPlayer wrote: »Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »So following that logic we need to get rid of costumes and skins. You choose to wear an ugly monster set then you should suffer the consequences and have those ugly pieces show to the rest of the world. You want people to see your characters face or tattoos don't equip armor.
IIRC Costumes and Skins have been in since day one. It makes no sense to take them out just to assuage the petulant children that don't like how their Vampire looks.
Speaking of things that have been in since day one - Ugly Vampires.
Now, if they had made Vampires uglier over the years I'd agree with you about a hide/toggle for the cosmentic effect.
But EVERY ONE who is playing a Vampire KNEW they would get ugly BEFORE they became one; so there's no justification at all for all this dolly-throwing and hair-pulling.
You made a choice, man up and accept that consequences of that choice.
It's called being a grown up, and it is a very, very valuable and essential life-lesson.
All The Best
The choice is made for you if you min-max. You have to be a vampire if you want to have the strongest character possible. That doesn't sound like much of a choice to me.
Again, not really. Someone can min/max and leave out the vampire part and be in a great place.
Further, most of us have much work to do in our actual gameplay before min/maxing will really make much difference.
I do vMA on two characters of the same class and one is not a vamp. Only difference I really see is in the 8th arena and that is from damage taken. What you keep saying is mandatory is that small.3 -
DuskMarine✭✭✭✭✭
✭Doctordarkspawn wrote: »Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »[
It's a glitch, and could be considered so if ZOS really wants to press the issue.
Is there any evidence at all - as in an Official ZoS post - that indicates using a costume or skin that overrides the Vamp look is an exploit?
Not that I've seen, and I read these Forums every day.
NOTE: A "glitch" is NOT the same as an "exploit" and never has been.
All The Best
"Promote, upload, transmit, encourage or take part in any activity involving hacking, cracking, phishing, taking advantage of exploits or cheats and/or distribution of counterfeit software and/or Virtual Currency or virtual items. In an effort to continuously improve the Services, You and other players discovering exploits, cheats, cracks or other inconsistencies are required to report them to ZeniMax;"
This is vague, and left intentionally so. ZOS generally likes to decide on it's own what is and isn't an exploit or a cheat. And 'taking advantage of exploits' could mean any and all glitches or any other abnormalities. Until I can see an official word from ZOS cited on the matter, I'll air on the side of caution, and act accordingly.
I'm going to leave it here as it is clear there's no real discussion or communication at all with you, and say the following:
1. We got the outfit system because people wanted customization. Hide vampirism is even older, and comes from the same vein. There is lore basis, evidence in gameplay to suggest it is possible, and so on.
2. I am willing to support this game by buying it as a paid feature.
3. Even if you disagree with making it a toggle, you have to acknowledge there is nothing stopping you from living up to your own principles. You can choose not to use it. That does not give you the right to demand others do the same, just like I dont have the right to demand you stop using 'all the best' in your posts.
dark spawn your kindve outta your mind here as the necromancer skin litterally was made by zos to hide the vamp skin. and even alcast posted about the thing months ago so clearly its not a offense >_>2 -
Vulsahdaal✭✭✭✭✭
✭Doctordarkspawn wrote: »Vulsahdaal wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »Vulsahdaal wrote: »This question, or some form of it, is one I keep seeing over and over:
-What kind of friggin excuse is "if you want power you have to look ugly"? What differences does being ugly bring gameplay wise?
What differences does it make? Not many, as far as I could see. However, Im not the one in charge of such things.
ZOS is, and they decided some time ago "if you want the power, you have to look ugly" when they took away our wolf passives, basically telling us, 'if you dont look like a giant rabid dog, you dont get wolf power.'
I would imagine they feel the same way about vamps.
Personally, I would have no objections to hiding vamp looks on the day that I get my wolfie passives back without having to deal with fur and fangs.
But, I suspect what we have now is what ZOS believes to be 'balance' between the two, so I doubt either of us will see any change.
If you believe this is 'petty' or 'hateful' as some have called it, I just remind you that 'No form, no power' was ZOS idea when they crippled us wolfies, not ours.
Werewolf is different, though. The werewolf crowd basicly wanted to run all werewolf all the time, and werewolf got a hatchet taken to it for different reasons.
Werewolf all the time? No, I believe just the opposite was actually the issue.
There are about as many players who want to look like a werewolf all the time as there are those who enjoy the vamp look and wish to remain that way. They do exist, but they seem to be the minority.
Id even go so far as to believe that there are even less wolfies than vamps that feel this way. You vamps may look like a junkie on his second day of involuntary withdrawal, but at least you have full functionality. Try to wield a weapon, or harvest a node even while looking like a giant rabid dog, but thats not the point..
The way I remember it, werewolf 'got the hatchet' because to many were enjoying the passives without ever 'turning' or even making much use of the active skills.
Basically, people were becoming werewolves not because they really wanted to be a werewolf, but only for the great passives. Is this starting to seem familiar?
But still, I am curious as to your opinion why werewolves got hit, if not for this reason?
Werewolf has a fundementally different audience, which is what you dont seem to understand.
I guess not, because Im not sure what you mean by 'different audience'?
To me, vamps usually attract magicka types, while werewolves tend to attract stamina types. But here, magicka and stamina seem to be yin yang to each other, just two opposite ends of the same string if you will. This is why I believe balance between the two should be considered.Doctordarkspawn wrote: »Yes. Werewolf got a massive stamina buff for just being werewolf back in the day. Not even sure how much the buff was, to recovery. It was about what it was now, when werewolf is slotted, but it applied all the time reguardless of slot. The main problem was that werewolf costed a woping 1K ultimate back then, and the skills were not all that great. Werewolf was nowhere near as fleshed out as it'll be next update which is why that was so vital. The game was very different back then.
Yes, you have covered some of the main reasons why people didnt bother to 'turn'. It wasnt worth the bother, as long as the stam buff remained there really was no point in bringing out the fur and fangs. I believe ZOS caught on to this, and that was my point.Doctordarkspawn wrote: »Back then, it was almost universally understood that you -basicly- couldn't run a fully functional DPS with full werewolf back then. And when the stamina buff was removed from werewolf, the only real point of running it aside from some extreme power in PVP (Which got nerfed later) was gone.
But the stamina buff is still there, albeit smaller. The difference is, now it doesnt go into effect until one takes the wolfie form.
But I am looking at things as they are now, and I will happily deal with the poison vulnerability as long as I also get my sprint speed, 50% HA stam restore, and even more desirable to me, the 9% weapon damage buff full time without actually 'turning'.
For this reason, is why I can understand why you vamps want the same. However, as I also mentioned above, I remain of the opinion that there should be balance between the two.
And its simply a case of I believe that vamps keeping their passives full time, without actually having to take a vamp form, would break that balance.
5 -
Doctordarkspawn✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Vulsahdaal wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »Vulsahdaal wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »Vulsahdaal wrote: »This question, or some form of it, is one I keep seeing over and over:
-What kind of friggin excuse is "if you want power you have to look ugly"? What differences does being ugly bring gameplay wise?
What differences does it make? Not many, as far as I could see. However, Im not the one in charge of such things.
ZOS is, and they decided some time ago "if you want the power, you have to look ugly" when they took away our wolf passives, basically telling us, 'if you dont look like a giant rabid dog, you dont get wolf power.'
I would imagine they feel the same way about vamps.
Personally, I would have no objections to hiding vamp looks on the day that I get my wolfie passives back without having to deal with fur and fangs.
But, I suspect what we have now is what ZOS believes to be 'balance' between the two, so I doubt either of us will see any change.
If you believe this is 'petty' or 'hateful' as some have called it, I just remind you that 'No form, no power' was ZOS idea when they crippled us wolfies, not ours.
Werewolf is different, though. The werewolf crowd basicly wanted to run all werewolf all the time, and werewolf got a hatchet taken to it for different reasons.
Werewolf all the time? No, I believe just the opposite was actually the issue.
There are about as many players who want to look like a werewolf all the time as there are those who enjoy the vamp look and wish to remain that way. They do exist, but they seem to be the minority.
Id even go so far as to believe that there are even less wolfies than vamps that feel this way. You vamps may look like a junkie on his second day of involuntary withdrawal, but at least you have full functionality. Try to wield a weapon, or harvest a node even while looking like a giant rabid dog, but thats not the point..
The way I remember it, werewolf 'got the hatchet' because to many were enjoying the passives without ever 'turning' or even making much use of the active skills.
Basically, people were becoming werewolves not because they really wanted to be a werewolf, but only for the great passives. Is this starting to seem familiar?
But still, I am curious as to your opinion why werewolves got hit, if not for this reason?
Werewolf has a fundementally different audience, which is what you dont seem to understand.
I guess not, because Im not sure what you mean by 'different audience'?
To me, vamps usually attract magicka types, while werewolves tend to attract stamina types. But here, magicka and stamina seem to be yin yang to each other, just two opposite ends of the same string if you will. This is why I believe balance between the two should be considered.Doctordarkspawn wrote: »Yes. Werewolf got a massive stamina buff for just being werewolf back in the day. Not even sure how much the buff was, to recovery. It was about what it was now, when werewolf is slotted, but it applied all the time reguardless of slot. The main problem was that werewolf costed a woping 1K ultimate back then, and the skills were not all that great. Werewolf was nowhere near as fleshed out as it'll be next update which is why that was so vital. The game was very different back then.
Yes, you have covered some of the main reasons why people didnt bother to 'turn'. It wasnt worth the bother, as long as the stam buff remained there really was no point in bringing out the fur and fangs. I believe ZOS caught on to this, and that was my point.Doctordarkspawn wrote: »Back then, it was almost universally understood that you -basicly- couldn't run a fully functional DPS with full werewolf back then. And when the stamina buff was removed from werewolf, the only real point of running it aside from some extreme power in PVP (Which got nerfed later) was gone.
But the stamina buff is still there, albeit smaller. The difference is, now it doesnt go into effect until one takes the wolfie form.
But I am looking at things as they are now, and I will happily deal with the poison vulnerability as long as I also get my sprint speed, 50% HA stam restore, and even more desirable to me, the 9% weapon damage buff full time without actually 'turning'.
For this reason, is why I can understand why you vamps want the same. However, as I also mentioned above, I remain of the opinion that there should be balance between the two.
And its simply a case of I believe that vamps keeping their passives full time, without actually having to take a vamp form, would break that balance.
I'ma just. Break this down and leave this here. You're making an apples to oranges conversion here. And the reason you dont seem to understand clearly is because you dont -want- to understand, so lemme go over it a final time.
With werewolf: The entire mythos is man turning into monster and geting crazy jacked. Most werewolf players I know of today would love to be able to run full werewolf all day all the time. And none of them particularly want the bonuses all the time. The reason we did back in the day was because sustain was much more valuable, now, not so much. Even back then people would have rather had bonuses to werewolf as a whole and to have that be the main focus, revolving around werewolf itself with 100% or near uptime.
With vampire: Being an undead creature is the cool part and being starved to get the bonuses is the tradeoff people are forced to make both in the single player games and in this one. That's the main focus.
Also: Vampires have not been able to keep their passives full time for a while now. You clearly missed more then a few patches. Vampires who want the regen or undeath now have to remain starved, meaning they take full fire damage. Also, the werewolf buff, as far as I am aware, applies when the ultimate is slotted, not in werewolf form. The rest of the passives do however.
There. M'not going over it again. Both revolve around being monsters, but one has a known ability to blend into society across multiple bloodlines that is well doccumented.Edited by Doctordarkspawn on July 28, 2018 2:19PM0 -
Ri_Khan✭✭✭✭✭
✭The only thing this dumpster fire of a thread has convinced me of is that there's some very delusional folks playing this game. Maybe it's just immaturity? I can't even tell at this point. Half of you come off like toddlers throwing a tantrum. Thanks for the laughs I guess
I'm going to leave on a constructive note though and suggest that maybe you can kindly petition ZOS to add an armor or jewelry set where the bonus negates how they've decided to balance the passives. Something like that might help your "cause". Good luck!0 -
Doctordarkspawn✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭The only thing this dumpster fire of a thread has convinced me of is that there's some very delusional folks playing this game. Maybe it's just immaturity? I can't even tell at this point. Half of you come off like toddlers throwing a tantrum. Thanks for the laughs I guess
I'm going to leave on a constructive note though and suggest that maybe you can kindly petition ZOS to add an armor or jewelry set where the bonus negates how they've decided to balance the passives. Something like that might help your "cause". Good luck!
...But we dont care about the passive mechanics. Being starved is an even trade off and nobody desputes that. We just want the ability to hide the visual effect of vampirism like NPC's can.0 -
AhPook_Is_Here✭✭✭✭✭
✭Vulsahdaal wrote: »Its my own opinion that you vamps are going about this all wrong.
You most likely are causing some to resist your requests because some of you make it seem like you are asking to look normal and retain your passives, a sort of 'best of both worlds' situation.
Which is great of course, but not very fair now is it?
As youre aware, us wolfies can disguise ourselves very well amongst the general public. Which I assume is your goal as well? But the issue is, we dont get our passives unless in wolf form.
If you truly want to be like us wolfies, and be able to hide your umm.. 'blessing' while out and about, what you should be requesting is for vamp form to be an ultimate. A few of your own have actually suggested such, though in the form of a 'toggle' switch. Your ultimate can be the toggle, just as it is with werewolf. And of course, as with the wolfies, your passives will only be active when in form.
This seems like a fair compromise for all, except maybe to those who wish to look like a vampire all the time. Perhaps a skin could be supplied to them to achieve this.
Anyway, I think it would be pretty cool to be in a pvp or dueling situation with another player, when suddenly at some point in the battle he unexpectedly 'vamps out' on you. Talk about a cool 'oh ****' moment
This said, the only thing I will agree with vamps about, is I too dont get why their skin markings and tattoos dont show properly. This to me makes little sense, and I wouldnt mind seeing this corrected.
I like your idea, I think it's a sound approach. It will also keep 100% of the magicka population becoming vampSure, let's hide werewolves too.
I'm guessing if you asked the players with werewolves most of them would given the option rather look like a werewolf all the time than never look like a werewolf. The few exceptions would be the ones that think it would provide a benefit in PvP. Then again seeing a Redguard bounding around on his hands and feet would be a give-away and would also look a bit silly. Nope I'm guessing werewolves want to keep their form, not hide it. If some do what to hide then more power to them.
Actually i think it would be fun to play a human who was just a SPAZZ who thought he was a werewolf but really wasn't yet still was special-ed strong when he imagined himself as one. I would really like that option, but I doubt I can expect to get it when I can't even get solidarity from the disguise vampire crowd.“Whatever.”
-Unknown American0 -
Didaco✭✭✭✭Vulsahdaal wrote: »This question, or some form of it, is one I keep seeing over and over:
-What kind of friggin excuse is "if you want power you have to look ugly"? What differences does being ugly bring gameplay wise?
What differences does it make? Not many, as far as I could see. However, Im not the one in charge of such things.
ZOS is, and they decided some time ago "if you want the power, you have to look ugly" when they took away our wolf passives, basically telling us, 'if you dont look like a giant rabid dog, you dont get wolf power.'
I would imagine they feel the same way about vamps.
Personally, I would have no objections to hiding vamp looks on the day that I get my wolfie passives back without having to deal with fur and fangs.
But, I suspect what we have now is what ZOS believes to be 'balance' between the two, so I doubt either of us will see any change.
If you believe this is 'petty' or 'hateful' as some have called it, I just remind you that 'No form, no power' was ZOS idea when they crippled us wolfies, not ours.
Zos changed the way passive worked (I guess you're referring to the 10% stamina rec if werewolf) i human form because it was a no brainer BiS choice. 100% bonus, 0% malus, NO drawbacks at all.
Vamps have their passive, either bonus/malus, always active.
Aesthetics have nothing to do with all this.
Besides, I want to see where the official statement fron Zos telling us that if we want to be vampire we have to look ugly.
That'd be an idiotic move for Zos to do since they are already implementing tons of skins in the game.2 -
AhPook_Is_Here✭✭✭✭✭
✭I think the one take-away you can get from this thread and its companion surveys and parallel threads is that many people choose to be a vampire for statistical advantage, not for being a vampire nor the vampire mini-games of shuffling your "tier" of hunger, and those people don't like the aesthetic zos has designed for vampire appearance, which is expressed in various hyperbolic ways.
If all aesthetics were mutable, I can't see why this would be a problem, but not all are; and @Vulsahdaal has made some very compelling points as to why if such a change were made it would have to be universal. I had forgotten how all of my sta characters used to be werewolves and never actually changed into one just for the passives, back in the steel tornado pvp zerg days. If vampires could turn off their skin and keep their passives, werewolves should also get their passives back in human form and also be able to transform into something of their choice that was aesthetically pleasing to them, maybe a bear or maybe a unicorn or badger or whatever furry they identified with most or a human who was just mad strong in berserk mode (maybe with the old quad damage sound from quake 1, i love that sound, it was the sound of win in house of chiton).
Vampires aren't the only example of aesthetics that are immutable, you can't play any race and have another races passives as a further example. After all, as the vestige, you aren't even in your original body, its just whatever body you entered off the corpse pile in oblivion, so why couldn't you have your original races' passives? Another valid question and another demand to make I suppose based on "lore", I may look like a wood elf but my spirit is still altmer.
Honestly, instead of arguing against the werewolf crowd shouldn't you be embracing their requests to get their passives back in human form as it would give the community's voices solidarity, instead of that all to familiar sound of civilization, "I got mine, now flip-off and earn yours."
Maybe its time for a more inclusive approach, "any aesthetic, stat, look the way you want, get the buffs you want".Edited by AhPook_Is_Here on July 28, 2018 3:05PM“Whatever.”
-Unknown American3 -
Leogon✭✭✭✭✭
✭
It doesn't make sense to hide it but you can hide it with skins. You're kinda contradicting yourself here. If there are skins to hide vampirism then why not have one that makes you look human as well? You're saying that looking like a volcano is ok but human is not?the simple solution is to either use a skin or wear armour that covers you, i know thats not what you want but it doesnt make sense to hide vampirism, again, because you made the choice.
Edited by Leogon on July 28, 2018 3:23PM2 -
SugaComa✭✭✭✭✭quadraxis666 wrote: »A lot of people ask for this, personally I'm just meh about it, but with the release of these monster style outfits effectively letting you wear one monster set while looking like you have a different one on, zos is rapidly running out of excuses to not allow vampires to hide their veiny grossness.
How about when they redesign vampires like they did werewolves they make appearances part of the passives ...
So stages of vampirism don't show when your a Max level vampire if you take the passive
0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭quadraxis666 wrote: »A lot of people ask for this, personally I'm just meh about it, but with the release of these monster style outfits effectively letting you wear one monster set while looking like you have a different one on, zos is rapidly running out of excuses to not allow vampires to hide their veiny grossness.
How about when they redesign vampires like they did werewolves they make appearances part of the passives ...
So stages of vampirism don't show when your a Max level vampire if you take the passive
Appearance is already build in. Vampire 1 is barely shows. To do the opposite, as you suggest, would not make sense, Look very much like a vampire when you are hardly one and look human when at full vampire power is not logical from the perspective of designing the line itself.3 -
Salvas_Aren✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »Salvas_Aren wrote: »You make me believe that you are RL-anti-everything, and RL PC forces you to mess with digital vampires because you cannot bash against gays, communists, immigrants aso any longer.
Well I have no interest in bashing members of those groups, or any other groups.
However, if I CHOSE to bash against them there's not a damn thing anyone can do to stop me AS LONG AS I am prepared to live with the CONSEQUENCES of such a CHOICE.
How I am here is HOW I AM. I 100% believe in a) freedom of choice, and b) living with the consequences of those choices.
And if you CHOOSE to do something knowing BEFOREHAND it has consequences then you have no reasonable grounds to complain about those consequences once you've made that CHOICE.
If Vampirism was something that could just happen to you without your consent than I'd agree entirely with OP's sentiments. But it isn't, so I don't.
All The Best
Little vampire boy Salvas hears the bell of the iceman. Heads there to buy one scoop of ice cream.
The iceman called Old Zeni got no strawberry, so Salvas asks whether he would provide it in the future.
Some random vampire hater, maybe Gandrhulf, stands there and points out: Boy, you have to make a decision, take vanilla or chocolate, you can't have both, and you have to cope with your choice.
Salvas looks at the display and gets confused, because Old Zeni sells 8 sorts of ice cream. Salvas thinks the vampire hater is insane.2
This discussion has been closed.