Please update the base game motifs, and further to that the first 50 or so motifs

Enemoriana · March 2

aspergalas4 wrote: »

Hexos is a funny one because detail wise its very close to the original style. But the way it dyes is worse, granted (dyes dont apply to the same details they did on the original). And for whatever reason they dropped the ball on the shoulder pieces. But other than that it does accomplish providing an upscaled version of the original style.

On the topic of shoulder pieces, I've long advocated for a size slider for pauldrons. The issue with the Hexos pauldrons vs base game Imperial Pauldrons being a good example of why its needed.

If this is "close", hands off old armor, count me among those who are against any "upgrades".

aspergalas4 · March 7

Enemoriana wrote: »

aspergalas4 wrote: »

Hexos is a funny one because detail wise its very close to the original style. But the way it dyes is worse, granted (dyes dont apply to the same details they did on the original). And for whatever reason they dropped the ball on the shoulder pieces. But other than that it does accomplish providing an upscaled version of the original style.

On the topic of shoulder pieces, I've long advocated for a size slider for pauldrons. The issue with the Hexos pauldrons vs base game Imperial Pauldrons being a good example of why its needed.

If this is "close", hands off old armor, count me among those who are against any "upgrades".

Aside from certain components being the wrong proportions/size the missing flap the new Hexos armour is a graphical update of the original imperial and stays true to the design cues (just not when it comes to dye channels). Thankfully you are in the minority in being against improving the most dated parts of the game. The new Hexos style would be a perfect example if it was reproportioned to the original proportions and the dye channels were the same. Being a unique style we are lucky that ZOS can still update the original imperial and have another go at getting it right.

heaven13 · March 7

aspergalas4 wrote: »

Enemoriana wrote: »

aspergalas4 wrote: »

Hexos is a funny one because detail wise its very close to the original style. But the way it dyes is worse, granted (dyes dont apply to the same details they did on the original). And for whatever reason they dropped the ball on the shoulder pieces. But other than that it does accomplish providing an upscaled version of the original style.

On the topic of shoulder pieces, I've long advocated for a size slider for pauldrons. The issue with the Hexos pauldrons vs base game Imperial Pauldrons being a good example of why its needed.

If this is "close", hands off old armor, count me among those who are against any "upgrades".

Aside from certain components being the wrong proportions/size the missing flap the new Hexos armour is a graphical update of the original imperial and stays true to the design cues (just not when it comes to dye channels). Thankfully you are in the minority in being against improving the most dated parts of the game. The new Hexos style would be a perfect example if it was reproportioned to the original proportions and the dye channels were the same. Being a unique style we are lucky that ZOS can still update the original imperial and have another go at getting it right.

I agree with them though. The original Imperial is much better looking in terms of scale/size/shape and even design. And, unfortunately, what you ask for with this team is not usually what you get. So asking for better textures would probably not just be better resolution textures and that's a problem for a lot of people.

aspergalas4 · March 7

heaven13 wrote: »

aspergalas4 wrote: »

Enemoriana wrote: »

aspergalas4 wrote: »

Hexos is a funny one because detail wise its very close to the original style. But the way it dyes is worse, granted (dyes dont apply to the same details they did on the original). And for whatever reason they dropped the ball on the shoulder pieces. But other than that it does accomplish providing an upscaled version of the original style.

On the topic of shoulder pieces, I've long advocated for a size slider for pauldrons. The issue with the Hexos pauldrons vs base game Imperial Pauldrons being a good example of why its needed.

If this is "close", hands off old armor, count me among those who are against any "upgrades".

Aside from certain components being the wrong proportions/size the missing flap the new Hexos armour is a graphical update of the original imperial and stays true to the design cues (just not when it comes to dye channels). Thankfully you are in the minority in being against improving the most dated parts of the game. The new Hexos style would be a perfect example if it was reproportioned to the original proportions and the dye channels were the same. Being a unique style we are lucky that ZOS can still update the original imperial and have another go at getting it right.

I agree with them though. The original Imperial is much better looking in terms of scale/size/shape and even design. And, unfortunately, what you ask for with this team is not usually what you get. So asking for better textures would probably not just be better resolution textures and that's a problem for a lot of people.

I don't disagree, I'm talking strictly graphic fidelity. The Hexos style is a graphical upgrade. You can see its an updated version of the imperial style by just looking at it, because its close. The design has been tweaked in a way that is inferior to the original design wise granted but graphically it looks better. And that's what I am advocating for.

Enemoriana · March 7

aspergalas4 wrote: »

I don't disagree, I'm talking strictly graphic fidelity. The Hexos style is a graphical upgrade. You can see its an updated version of the imperial style by just looking at it, because its close. The design has been tweaked in a way that is inferior to the original design wise granted but graphically it looks better. And that's what I am advocating for.

It is not "close". Textures are ok, and it is some imperial armor, but it is different imperial armor, not upgraded. Because it drastically changes shape of armor where it is not needed for upgrade. Not only proportions! "Close" for you, "never to wear" for me. Cuirass doesn't look better, it looks absolutely another. All that "aside" absolutely ruins look for me. I have all parts of Hexos learned. I never used any outside from master writs and still wear my old imperial armor.

That's why many are against upgrades, it never is real upgrade, it is always redesign, that will ruin that style for many players because things they liked in that armor will be lost. And that's why adding new styles is much more safe than changing old.

aspergalas4 · March 7

Enemoriana wrote: »

aspergalas4 wrote: »

I don't disagree, I'm talking strictly graphic fidelity. The Hexos style is a graphical upgrade. You can see its an updated version of the imperial style by just looking at it, because its close. The design has been tweaked in a way that is inferior to the original design wise granted but graphically it looks better. And that's what I am advocating for.

It is not "close". Textures are ok, and it is some imperial armor, but it is different imperial armor, not upgraded. Because it drastically changes shape of armor where it is not needed for upgrade. Not only proportions! "Close" for you, "never to wear" for me. Cuirass doesn't look better, it looks absolutely another. All that "aside" absolutely ruins look for me. I have all parts of Hexos learned. I never used any outside from master writs and still wear my old imperial armor.

That's why many are against upgrades, it never is real upgrade, it is always redesign, that will ruin that style for many players because things they liked in that armor will be lost. And that's why adding new styles is much more safe than changing old.

I just want the quality gap closed between base game armours and the newer styles, like many others. Like it or not Hexos is close to the original armour, but I do agree its not as good "Design wise" because of the changes they made to it you've mentioned. Hexos quality meshes/textures but applied to the original imperial design (and across all base game motifs with a few more on top of that) is what I am advocating for. I do not care that Hexos is "never wear" for you. All the vanilla styles are "never wear" for me, and I would go as far as to suggest that's the case for the majority of players. You are derailing the point of my post by nit picking one style you don't have to use. Which is its own style to boot.

Radiate77 · March 7

Enemoriana wrote: »

aspergalas4 wrote: »

Hexos is a funny one because detail wise its very close to the original style. But the way it dyes is worse, granted (dyes dont apply to the same details they did on the original). And for whatever reason they dropped the ball on the shoulder pieces. But other than that it does accomplish providing an upscaled version of the original style.

On the topic of shoulder pieces, I've long advocated for a size slider for pauldrons. The issue with the Hexos pauldrons vs base game Imperial Pauldrons being a good example of why its needed.

If this is "close", hands off old armor, count me among those who are against any "upgrades".

Wow, thank you for pointing this out.

When I suggested an overhaul of base game visuals, my first thought was to simply take the Ancestral motifs and use those, but it is apparent someone needs to go through and do an adjustment of those first.

aspergalas4 · March 7

Radiate77 wrote: »

Enemoriana wrote: »

aspergalas4 wrote: »

Hexos is a funny one because detail wise its very close to the original style. But the way it dyes is worse, granted (dyes dont apply to the same details they did on the original). And for whatever reason they dropped the ball on the shoulder pieces. But other than that it does accomplish providing an upscaled version of the original style.

On the topic of shoulder pieces, I've long advocated for a size slider for pauldrons. The issue with the Hexos pauldrons vs base game Imperial Pauldrons being a good example of why its needed.

If this is "close", hands off old armor, count me among those who are against any "upgrades".

Wow, thank you for pointing this out.

When I suggested an overhaul of base game visuals, my first thought was to simply take the Ancestral motifs and use those, but it is apparent someone needs to go through and do an adjustment of those first.

Yeah the ancestral styles are all a little off the mark when looked at more in detail (some more than others) and should remain as is. They don't account for the original tiers as its just one style so wouldn't serve well as base game replacements. The base game motifs all need upscaling to that quality without redesigning the look and original feel of them. Else you get the sort of dissatisfaction Enemoriana has expressed (which I understand in their particular example).

JemadarofCaerSalis · March 7

aspergalas4 wrote: »

Enemoriana wrote: »

aspergalas4 wrote: »

I don't disagree, I'm talking strictly graphic fidelity. The Hexos style is a graphical upgrade. You can see its an updated version of the imperial style by just looking at it, because its close. The design has been tweaked in a way that is inferior to the original design wise granted but graphically it looks better. And that's what I am advocating for.

It is not "close". Textures are ok, and it is some imperial armor, but it is different imperial armor, not upgraded. Because it drastically changes shape of armor where it is not needed for upgrade. Not only proportions! "Close" for you, "never to wear" for me. Cuirass doesn't look better, it looks absolutely another. All that "aside" absolutely ruins look for me. I have all parts of Hexos learned. I never used any outside from master writs and still wear my old imperial armor.

That's why many are against upgrades, it never is real upgrade, it is always redesign, that will ruin that style for many players because things they liked in that armor will be lost. And that's why adding new styles is much more safe than changing old.

I just want the quality gap closed between base game armours and the newer styles, like many others. Like it or not Hexos is close to the original armour, but I do agree its not as good "Design wise" because of the changes they made to it you've mentioned. Hexos quality meshes/textures but applied to the original imperial design (and across all base game motifs with a few more on top of that) is what I am advocating for. I do not care that Hexos is "never wear" for you. All the vanilla styles are "never wear" for me, and I would go as far as to suggest that's the case for the majority of players. You are derailing the point of my post by nit picking one style you don't have to use. Which is its own style to boot.

The thing is, many players like the vanilla styles. They might like strictly upgraded textures, where the mesh isn't touched at all and where the dye channels aren't touched etc.., but that is rarely what is given in cases like this.

You don't like the vanilla styles, which is fair, but why should all the people who DO like them, whether with the textures they have now, or maybe wishing for the base game armor to be graphically updated a bit, have to now put them in the category of 'never use' because they were changed too drastically for their tastes?

Just because it isn't the 'majority' of players who use them, doesn't mean that those players don't count. Nor does it mean that they should feel punished for liking the original styles, because someone else doesn't.

That is the beauty of variety. Having a variety of styles that people can use means that just because one variety (or even several) isn't as popular, it doesn't mean that the variety needs to be updated to please the majority, who likely would never use that style anyway, as they have found others they like better.

Using your logic, I would say that I don't care that all base games styles are 'Never wear' for you, because for others, they are 'I love them'.

I advocate for 'don't touch them if you are going to make them 'inferior design wise' even if you make them look 'graphically better''. At that point, just create new styles. Make them use the same materials as the old styles.

Radiate77 · March 7

The old styles need to be visually updated, it’s not a matter of whether they should.

Those styles were made and designed back when that quality was ALREADY outdated. It has been another ten years, and the difference between modern styles and legacy ones is nothing short of jarring.

Redesigning the classes to look more visually appealing shows that ZOS understands this, and by the design of newer styles, they also know that we will not settle for pre-2014 quality. For people without nostalgia, pretty much everyone left at this point as we haven’t had a new TES game in over almost 15 years… 😬 they won’t settle either, and our player numbers show that.

spartaxoxo · March 7

House Hexos looks different BECAUSE it's a new and different style. It should have changed to justify its existence as something new.

If they were to update the textures to be less muddy while maintaining their policy of forbidding design changes, the result would be different.

aspergalas4 · March 7

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

aspergalas4 wrote: »

Enemoriana wrote: »

aspergalas4 wrote: »

I don't disagree, I'm talking strictly graphic fidelity. The Hexos style is a graphical upgrade. You can see its an updated version of the imperial style by just looking at it, because its close. The design has been tweaked in a way that is inferior to the original design wise granted but graphically it looks better. And that's what I am advocating for.

It is not "close". Textures are ok, and it is some imperial armor, but it is different imperial armor, not upgraded. Because it drastically changes shape of armor where it is not needed for upgrade. Not only proportions! "Close" for you, "never to wear" for me. Cuirass doesn't look better, it looks absolutely another. All that "aside" absolutely ruins look for me. I have all parts of Hexos learned. I never used any outside from master writs and still wear my old imperial armor.

That's why many are against upgrades, it never is real upgrade, it is always redesign, that will ruin that style for many players because things they liked in that armor will be lost. And that's why adding new styles is much more safe than changing old.

I just want the quality gap closed between base game armours and the newer styles, like many others. Like it or not Hexos is close to the original armour, but I do agree its not as good "Design wise" because of the changes they made to it you've mentioned. Hexos quality meshes/textures but applied to the original imperial design (and across all base game motifs with a few more on top of that) is what I am advocating for. I do not care that Hexos is "never wear" for you. All the vanilla styles are "never wear" for me, and I would go as far as to suggest that's the case for the majority of players. You are derailing the point of my post by nit picking one style you don't have to use. Which is its own style to boot.

The thing is, many players like the vanilla styles. They might like strictly upgraded textures, where the mesh isn't touched at all and where the dye channels aren't touched etc.., but that is rarely what is given in cases like this.

You don't like the vanilla styles, which is fair, but why should all the people who DO like them, whether with the textures they have now, or maybe wishing for the base game armor to be graphically updated a bit, have to now put them in the category of 'never use' because they were changed too drastically for their tastes?

Just because it isn't the 'majority' of players who use them, doesn't mean that those players don't count. Nor does it mean that they should feel punished for liking the original styles, because someone else doesn't.

That is the beauty of variety. Having a variety of styles that people can use means that just because one variety (or even several) isn't as popular, it doesn't mean that the variety needs to be updated to please the majority, who likely would never use that style anyway, as they have found others they like better.

Using your logic, I would say that I don't care that all base games styles are 'Never wear' for you, because for others, they are 'I love them'.

I advocate for 'don't touch them if you are going to make them 'inferior design wise' even if you make them look 'graphically better''. At that point, just create new styles. Make them use the same materials as the old styles.

They need updating, not redesigning. We can't have progress held up by a tiny minority of less than 0.1% of the player base who like the muddy low resolution look of the vanilla styles. Update them to 2026 graphical quality and I think you'd be hard pressed to find dissent amongst players. There's having a variety of styles but you can't have a variety of quality. Which is the crux of the issue.

Enemoriana · March 9

spartaxoxo wrote: »

House Hexos looks different BECAUSE it's a new and different style. It should have changed to justify its existence as something new.

If they were to update the textures to be less muddy while maintaining their policy of forbidding design changes, the result would be different.

I'm not saying Hexos should look same. I'm only opposing to calling it close looking and good example of update. It isn't close, it isn't update, just another armor in same theme.
As separate style it can, of course, have any amount of differences.

aspergalas4 wrote: »

We can't have progress held up by a tiny minority of less than 0.1% of the player base who like the muddy low resolution look of the vanilla styles. Update them to 2026 graphical quality and I think you'd be hard pressed to find dissent amongst players. There's having a variety of styles but you can't have a variety of quality. Which is the crux of the issue.

Do you have any real statistics of how many players like and dislike them or just writing random small number and appeal to it as a fact?
I see, actually, quite a lot of players wearing first 50 motifs. Even basic 10.
While doing today crafting writs, I counted at least 15 players with full or partial old styles. Plus some with old costumes (like seducer). Only 3 were below 1000 cp, so that's not newbies having nothing else. Saw 3600cp in basic racial style.

Why your dislike of how old styles looks is more important than their likes?
There are 136 crafing styles and a lot of outfit parts. There are 789 chest pieces shown in my collection tab - and some unobtained pieces doesn't show there.
So anybody not liking old styles can find something else, a lot of alternative. If updated will be bad and changing too much - as they usually are - players who likes old styles will have no alternative.

Or maybe that's last old textures, only thing dragging game back? Absolutely no, look, for example, on wooden tables of crafting stations... Updating world textures would benefit a lot more players without ruining anyone's look.

So, again, new styles are good, but safer not to touch old. If they were so bad, nobody would use it and you never see them, right?