Aenra wrote: »

What an idea! Perfect! I wholeheartedly concur!

Not only is it aesthetically displeasing, but lore-unfriendly as well. Pale? What were they thinking? Vampires should sport ebony skin, turquoise eyes and resistance to fire!

Did no one ever read a vampire fiction?..jeesus these devs sometimes right?

What are you talking about??

Dracula is described as unusually pale only looking flush after he's fed.

You want to keep your complexion? Feed and stay in stage 1.

I got my khajiit turned yesterday. I afk-ish-ness a lot in games to chat while working on stuff, so I've seen all the stages.
I can't see any aesthetic difference between stage 4 and stage one. Both are paaaaale. Would be nice to look ok at stage 1, and look actually dead at stage 4.

/seconds what people have said about fur - why turn it really pale? O.o

Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong/the person I heard this from was trolling.
The strain of vampire's we've got at the moment is supposedly able to walk in daylight and 'blend in'? How...am I supposed to do that if I look...well, dead all the time?
"That khajiit has yucky pale skin and red eyes...So cute, fluffy and innocent!" Ignore this paragraph if I heard wrong :B

Sirmati wrote: »

Oh WOW. You chose to be Vampire. What did you expect that you will look like Edward from Twilight?? Vampire from stage 4 looking like Vampire...

End the useless threat.

Quite funny that you mention Twilight. Makes me think that the only Vampire movie you watches was a Twilight. Otherwise you wouldn't say such things.
_____

Oh and about earlier suggest to fix it by feeding. Not working. It just makes you a bit less pale, but still far not the same as you was before.

cbrown15_ESO wrote: »

Even Dracula is described as unusually pale only looking flush after he's fed.

cbrown15_ESO wrote: »

Vampires have always been pale, even when dark skinned. It's not a new phenom, and only the terrible shows like True Blood make beleives a vampire doesn't look that different from a normal person.

If you want to talk about how vampires have "always been," then you need to talk about Dracula, like the other poster I quoted. And if you're talking about Dracula...yes, he was very pale. But he was not a visible monster. In the novel he moves to London and lives there; and not in hiding, either. Part of ethos of the "Stoker Vampire" is that they can essentially blend in with people, only looking perhaps a bit sickly, which is what makes them dangerous.

That said, we need to go by the Elder Scrolls more, whatever that is for this particular strain of vampirism. I would say that they should separate the aesthetic effects of not feeding from the gameplay elements and drastically increase the amount of time before you need to feed again. At least a day or more.

Think about a year from now, when we're all going to be standing around a hub town on our maxed out characters. Going out just to feed every half an hour will be ridiculous.

Tonturri wrote: »

The strain of vampire's we've got at the moment is supposedly able to walk in daylight and 'blend in'? How...am I supposed to do that if I look...well, dead all the time?

They're only supposed to be able to blend in when they've fed regularly. It's when they get hungry that they start looking more feral and, well, vampy.

Lore book time! "Immortal Blood"

"I did as he asked, and once again, his questions taxed my knowledge. There were many tribes to cover. The Bonsamu who were indistinguishable from Bosmer except when seen by candlelight. The Keerilth who could disintegrate into mist. The Yekef who swallowed men whole. The dread Telboth who preyed on children, eventually taking their place in the family, waiting patiently for years before murdering them all in their unnatural hunger."

"There was but one tribe in Cyrodiil, a powerful clan who had ousted all other competitors, much like the Imperials themselves had done. Their true name was unknown, lost in history, but they were experts at concealment. If they kept themselves well-fed, they were indistinguishable from living persons. They were cultured, more civilized than the vampires of the provinces, preferring to feed on victims while they were asleep, unaware."

Hehe same issue here. i made a full black khajiit now I'm a vampire, white fur but black hair and beard i look like ***.
SOLUTION?
Add the "barber" so we can change hair and beard style and color.

I agree with most people's opinions about the Khajiit fur color in this thread. I was so excited to play a Khajiit nightblade vampire, but I really dislike white fur on Khajiit. I was thinking maybe they would have more pronounced fangs, bright red eyes, but kept their original fur color. I was very disappointed that their fur magically turns to white upon undeath. And to all those that are saying it's to point out that you're a vampire to other players, what happens when you hide your whole body in armor? The only vampiric features you'd may be able to spot are the red eyes. Also, for those of you that are debating the logical sense of fur turning white upon undeath, see the post above, it sums how I feel up pretty well. It's a gimmicky feature the dev's threw in because they couldn't figure out how to balance the apperance changes between the humanoid and beast races. Skin ≠ fur. Argonians look like a rotting fish that's been sitting out in the sun for a few days. Gross looking, but intended and makes perfect sense too because that's their skin. I do also like the paleness on the humanoid races. Khajiit is the only race I have a problem with as a vampire.

Zenimax, please give us an option to keep our current fur... I am rolling another race for my nightblade vampire now because I wouldn't be able to stand looking at my khajiit. This is such a bummer, I really wanted to be a khajiit and a vampire!

Ill agree with the fur to an extent. It *should* be pale but not snow white. Washed out and dingy looking yes. Snow white bleached? Too clean looking.

I think it's weird how my Breton vamp got a body wax with the bite...who knew that becoming a vamp made men hairless?

I say let us vampires toggle on/off our horrible appearance or, better yet, allow a slider where we can decide whether we want to look like last month's piece of cheese you left under your bed, or not.

If staying strictly within lore is the reason why vampires can't have a toggle on/off of their ridiculous and exaggerated appearance, then I propose some other changes to the game as well. To begin with, let's eliminate the toggle helmet on/off.

It is not fair, I say, that your charachter can have the benefits and stats given by head gear, if you are not actually wearing it! It affects my PvP experience since I can't correctly assess a player's overall defense if I can't tell whether they are wearing an invisible helmet or not.

And so, no one should have nice things!

Even in stage one, the complexion and the eye color change from what you designed your character to look like. It would be a good compromise to make stage one exactly how the player designed their character, and stage two the beginning of the pale complexion/red eye stages.

So it would be:
Stage 1: Exactly how you designed your toon (changed)
Stage 2: A little bit of paleness, faint red eyes (basically, what stage 1 is now)
Stage 3: More pale, eyes begin to glow a little brighter red (the same as now)
Stage 4: The full-on pale face and pale eyes with the bright red slits in the center (the same as now)

Darieltis wrote: »

I think it's weird how my Breton vamp got a body wax with the bite...who knew that becoming a vamp made men hairless?

Not to mention broad-shouldered, muscled and very attractive.

GeeYouWhy wrote: »

As long as this change were PvE only then it doesn't matter.

PvE PvP what does it matter? I am a vamp and when I PvP I use bound Armor and show helm. I am completely covered head to toes so it is nearly impossible to tell I am a vamp until I drain someone. Even if I bat swarm and others are around its hard to tell who really is the vampire. There are plenty of armor skins out there that are 100% coverage so your PvE only approach really makes no matter.

Aesthetically people are asking for an on and off switch for the very same reasons they added back in the option to hide or show helm from beta. People spend time customizing their appearance and want to show that look. Like someone said in SWTOR they changed it because people asked for it. Not because it broke lore, or you decided to be evil so live with it...but because people design their characters without knowing are they going to be an evil sith or a nice one. Its not about lore, or penalties for being undead. Its about Aesthetics.

Even if they just make it a client side option that may be good enough for many people. They see themselves as the character they created, but the rest of the world see them as the veined, bad complexion, pale undead. But trying to justify the paleness for "PVP Reasons" I already told how to defeat that...just wear armor that is 100% coverage and people will never know if you are a vamp or not until its too late.

nova.terratrb14_ESO wrote: »

I disagree, don't let them toggle it. It should be a thing you have to accept if you want to be a vampire.

I agree but I'm sympathetic. "Human" vampirism has historically carried a more predictable and therfore more widely acceptable affect. Like I'm trying to picture a vampire swan and I'm just not sure what that would look like.

Toggling is unfair because a player SHOULD be able to identify and exploit the weaknesses associated with your lot.

My suggestion is for people to research images of how it affects characters with similar affective visual traits.

Maverick827 wrote: »

cbrown15_ESO wrote: »

Even Dracula is described as unusually pale only looking flush after he's fed.

cbrown15_ESO wrote: »

Vampires have always been pale, even when dark skinned. It's not a new phenom, and only the terrible shows like True Blood make beleives a vampire doesn't look that different from a normal person.

If you want to talk about how vampires have "always been," then you need to talk about Dracula, like the other poster I quoted. And if you're talking about Dracula...yes, he was very pale. But he was not a visible monster. In the novel he moves to London and lives there; and not in hiding, either. Part of ethos of the "Stoker Vampire" is that they can essentially blend in with people, only looking perhaps a bit sickly, which is what makes them dangerous.

That said, we need to go by the Elder Scrolls more, whatever that is for this particular strain of vampirism. I would say that they should separate the aesthetic effects of not feeding from the gameplay elements and drastically increase the amount of time before you need to feed again. At least a day or more.

Think about a year from now, when we're all going to be standing around a hub town on our maxed out characters. Going out just to feed every half an hour will be ridiculous.

Yeah, but he was only really able to blend in once he had fed, prior to that he looked like an incredibly old and withered man (which to me makes sense). Unfortunately such detail doesn't really cross over into games - so we get Sithpire. Funnily enough, while Dracula had not fed his hair was white, matching his decrepit form, but once flush with blood he was indeterminable from the average man (he was also stronger than in his previous form, but lets not get into that design idea Bethseda seems set on). He did have what you could say was a "stage 4" right at the end of the movie where he looks more beast than man to. (I use the movie because it's easier to get a visual idea)

Thing is, even while he looked incredibly withered he was still quite charming, if somewhat creepy. Using that vampire persuasion and all that dark magic he learnt in Scholomance (where do you think Blizzard got their inspiration for that place).

As for Khajiit, it does seem weird their fur bleach's out, the exposed skin parts should go that pale look (around their eyes, their lips and noses - pads on their hands and feet I guess to), and maybe their coats would look a little duller but not go white like they do.



Disturbingly, that first pic looks a hell of a lot like my 92 year old grand father... disturbingly close, except for the hair style.

Khazaad wrote: »

I agree but I'm sympathetic. "Human" vampirism has historically carried a more predictable and therfore more widely acceptable affect. Like I'm trying to picture a vampire swan and I'm just not sure what that would look like.

I may not have a swan, but I do have....