Proposal: Toggle for cosmetics with individual player white / black lists

I've seen a number of posts with folks concerned about cosmetics and the ability to appear to have achieved more than you actually have in game. Would like to propose the option to turn off whether you view others' cosmetics, and then allow people to whitelist friends / guildies so you can still see their costumes.

This would allow people who buy costumes to still see their own, and everyone can make the choice of whether they want to see other's. Maybe default to showing all costumes as a nod towards the value people are paying (since they still want an incentive for people to pay for them), but this could go a long way towards alleviating the concern people have about the cash shop

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mag7spy

Concerns over a cash that that has 0 pay to win and while still having visual progression int he game, which is more than literarily any other recent mmorpg released on the market? What?

Noaani

The idea 0f a cosmetic toggle has already been rejected by Intrepid.

Their thought - and I agree - is that if you spend money to have your character look a specific way, you should be able to know other players will see your character that way.

The idea that gear is a representation of what you have achieved in a game where all gear is able to be traded - even after use - is also just outdated.

Mag7spy

Only thing i could get behind is you can pay 30$ sub to so you don't se e cosmetics, or 45$ sub fee to use any cosmetic on the shop until you cancel your sub or reduce the value.

SongRune

The more relevant consideration is not that it is a representation of what you've achieved, but that gear is a representation of what your build style is. Obviously "plate vs cloth" will still be obvious, but in games where there are certain stylistic choices (from an art perspective) based on what types of stats a gear piece focuses on, or where higher level gear pieces are visually unique enough to be recognizable, even if they're not "legendary" or otherwise special, you get a much clearer idea of what your opponent is built for, that I'm not sure the "gear type" icon promised by Ashes will be able to live up to. Transmog cosmetics break this recognisability.

Sadly, that ship has sailed. Possibly before the potential benefits were even recognized. But then again, a costume shop is a lot of revenue. It's hard to say no to in this day and age.

Taleof2Cities

The other replies are correct @Spodos … a toggle defeats the purpose of cosmetic appearance rewards (in-game or the cash shop).

Strevi

Around 8-10k concurrent users per server is projected.[2][3][4][5]
Initially there will be a limited number of registered accounts (approximately 15,000) per server to help mitigate login queues.[6]

This limit will increase over time to around 50,000 registered accounts per server.[6][7][8]

Spodos wrote: »

and then allow people to whitelist friends / guildies so you can still see their costumes.

So theoretically the server should be able to save the setting of each player in relationship to the other 50 000 registered accounts

That means 50 000 to the power of 50 000 = "Invalid input"
worse than
5000 ^ 5000 = "Overflow"

How many bytes we need to store the 50k ^ 50k "white / black" setting?

TheDarkSorcerer

We clearly need a better search function, because this has been brought up a million times

. It would be an awful decision to implement a feature that let's you disable other's cosmetics. Most people buy cosmetics either in-game or through a cash shop to simply show off (whales). By implementing such feature it defeats the purpose to "show off" cosmetics = Hurts Intrepids pockets.

Vyril

Strevi wrote: »

Around 8-10k concurrent users per server is projected.[2][3][4][5]
Initially there will be a limited number of registered accounts (approximately 15,000) per server to help mitigate login queues.[6]

This limit will increase over time to around 50,000 registered accounts per server.[6][7][8]

Spodos wrote: »

and then allow people to whitelist friends / guildies so you can still see their costumes.

So theoretically the server should be able to save the setting of each player in relationship to the other 50 000 registered accounts
That means 50 000 to the power of 50 000 = "Invalid input"
worse than
5000 ^ 5000 = "Overflow"

How many bytes we need to store the 50k ^ 50k "white / black" setting?

No? That's how ignore lists work for chat.

CROW3

No. Get over your FOMO.

SongRune

Vyril wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

Around 8-10k concurrent users per server is projected.[2][3][4][5]
Initially there will be a limited number of registered accounts (approximately 15,000) per server to help mitigate login queues.[6]

This limit will increase over time to around 50,000 registered accounts per server.[6][7][8]

Spodos wrote: »

and then allow people to whitelist friends / guildies so you can still see their costumes.

So theoretically the server should be able to save the setting of each player in relationship to the other 50 000 registered accounts
That means 50 000 to the power of 50 000 = "Invalid input"
worse than
5000 ^ 5000 = "Overflow"

How many bytes we need to store the 50k ^ 50k "white / black" setting?

No? That's how ignore lists work for chat.

It's 50,000 * 50,000. Each user has white/black tags for 50,000 other players. The server as a whole has 50,000 users.

Also, the answer is 6.25 KB per user. Which doesn't even need to ever be on the server side, but if you wanted to sync it, it'd still cost under $7/month in AWS S3 storage for the whole server.

Nonetheless, you'd never bother storing it that way, because an individual user on average isn't gonna have even 1,000 entries on their list. You don't even need the 6 KB, in that case.

Depraved

Strevi wrote: »

Around 8-10k concurrent users per server is projected.[2][3][4][5]
Initially there will be a limited number of registered accounts (approximately 15,000) per server to help mitigate login queues.[6]

This limit will increase over time to around 50,000 registered accounts per server.[6][7][8]

Spodos wrote: »

and then allow people to whitelist friends / guildies so you can still see their costumes.

So theoretically the server should be able to save the setting of each player in relationship to the other 50 000 registered accounts
That means 50 000 to the power of 50 000 = "Invalid input"
worse than
5000 ^ 5000 = "Overflow"

How many bytes we need to store the 50k ^ 50k "white / black" setting?

not how it works T__T

also, i believe steven said cosmetics will be automatically hidden during castle or node sieges

unknownsystemerror

TheDarkSorcerer wrote: »

We clearly need a better search function, because this has been brought up a million times . It would be an awful decision to implement a feature that let's you disable other's cosmetics. Most people buy cosmetics either in-game or through a cash shop to simply show off (whales). By implementing such feature it defeats the purpose to "show off" cosmetics = Hurts Intrepids pockets.

No, it wouldn't help. People are lazy and don't do the research. They need to let others know that "I want this. This is the way it should be!" You will see this topic again in a couple months, "discovered this issue...." most likely in the tagline. As interest in the game being developed increases as it does, there will be an influx of those that won't bother to see if anything they feel they are "experts" on has been addressed previously and will just sperg topic diarrhea from their infected keyboards.

Hinotori

unknownsystemerror wrote: »

TheDarkSorcerer wrote: »

We clearly need a better search function, because this has been brought up a million times . It would be an awful decision to implement a feature that let's you disable other's cosmetics. Most people buy cosmetics either in-game or through a cash shop to simply show off (whales). By implementing such feature it defeats the purpose to "show off" cosmetics = Hurts Intrepids pockets.

No, it wouldn't help. People are lazy and don't do the research. They need to let others know that "I want this. This is the way it should be!" You will see this topic again in a couple months, "discovered this issue...." most likely in the tagline. As interest in the game being developed increases as it does, there will be an influx of those that won't bother to see if anything they feel they are "experts" on has been addressed previously and will just sperg topic diarrhea from their infected keyboards.

We all eagerly await the next course of verbal sewage /s

Mag7spy

CROW3 wrote: »

No. Get over your FOMO.

I felt like i missed out on royalty set im not going to lie.

Scarbeus

Considering how part of Intrepid makes their money is people buying cosmetics, they aren't going to make them able to be switched off if you want to. Never.

Strevi

SongRune wrote: »

Vyril wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

Around 8-10k concurrent users per server is projected.[2][3][4][5]
Initially there will be a limited number of registered accounts (approximately 15,000) per server to help mitigate login queues.[6]

This limit will increase over time to around 50,000 registered accounts per server.[6][7][8]

Spodos wrote: »

and then allow people to whitelist friends / guildies so you can still see their costumes.

So theoretically the server should be able to save the setting of each player in relationship to the other 50 000 registered accounts
That means 50 000 to the power of 50 000 = "Invalid input"
worse than
5000 ^ 5000 = "Overflow"

How many bytes we need to store the 50k ^ 50k "white / black" setting?

No? That's how ignore lists work for chat.

It's 50,000 * 50,000. Each user has white/black tags for 50,000 other players. The server as a whole has 50,000 users.

Also, the answer is 6.25 KB per user. Which doesn't even need to ever be on the server side, but if you wanted to sync it, it'd still cost under $7/month in AWS S3 storage for the whole server.

Nonetheless, you'd never bother storing it that way, because an individual user on average isn't gonna have even 1,000 entries on their list. You don't even need the 6 KB, in that case.

Dang, it could have been such a good argument

Oh well...

Spodos

Yeah I just figure if you default the option to off, the vast majority of players will never change it, so most people will still see others' costumes. But then it would allow those who have a specific issue with it to have the option to disable, which would have minimal (if any) impact on people who buy costumes.

Taleof2Cities

Spodos wrote: »

But then it would allow those who have a specific issue with it to have the option to disable, which would have minimal (if any) impact on people who buy costumes.

That’s not the key takeaway, here, @Spodos … are you sure you’ve read other threads on this topic?

Players buy cosmetics so that they can be “seen” by other players … and “show off” what they earned in-game through achievements or bought in the cash shop.

Allowing other players to toggle that minimizes those achievements and reduces the cash shop value.

The impact is big.

Atama

Visual progression isn't really a thing anymore. That's real old school thinking. Modern games don't generally work that way.

But for people who really care, just know that there will be a distinction between store-purchased cosmetics and items earned in-game. So, people will know that the fancy-looking purple robe with sparkles that you buy in the store is just something they plunked down cash for. But the fancy green robes with glowing hem is something you can only get from a long and difficult quest chain, and those green robes will carry a prestige that the purple robes never will. Also, Steven has said that the "best" cosmetics will only be found in-game (I think they were called "epic cosmetics") and can't be bought from the store. (As always, tastes will be different, and what Intrepid considers to be "epic" might appear tacky or boring or ugly to you.)

For a real-life example, one of Blizzard's first cash shop items they offered was the Celestial Steed. That was a flying mount only available by buying it from the store.

Players mocked it, calling it the "sparkle pony" and insulting players who rode them. They knew that it was something that was only bought from the store, and not only did they not respect it, they actively disrespected people who bought it. Part of it was a cultural thing; it was a game where everything your character had was earned somehow, and suddenly there was this mount that anyone could have by dropping cash.

Most likely you won't have anything that extreme in AoC. I'm sure that store-bought cosmetics will be common enough that people will be used to them. However, experienced players will certainly recognize what is a purchased cosmetic versus something you earn. And I am also sure that the most prestigious items will be those that require a great deal of effort and/or exceptional skill to earn, and will be rare as a result. Players aren't dumb. They'll be able to tell them apart. In that sense, there will be visual progression, for people who care.

Vyril

SongRune wrote: »

Vyril wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

Around 8-10k concurrent users per server is projected.[2][3][4][5]
Initially there will be a limited number of registered accounts (approximately 15,000) per server to help mitigate login queues.[6]

This limit will increase over time to around 50,000 registered accounts per server.[6][7][8]

Spodos wrote: »

and then allow people to whitelist friends / guildies so you can still see their costumes.

So theoretically the server should be able to save the setting of each player in relationship to the other 50 000 registered accounts
That means 50 000 to the power of 50 000 = "Invalid input"
worse than
5000 ^ 5000 = "Overflow"

How many bytes we need to store the 50k ^ 50k "white / black" setting?

No? That's how ignore lists work for chat.

It's 50,000 * 50,000. Each user has white/black tags for 50,000 other players. The server as a whole has 50,000 users.

Also, the answer is 6.25 KB per user. Which doesn't even need to ever be on the server side, but if you wanted to sync it, it'd still cost under $7/month in AWS S3 storage for the whole server.

Nonetheless, you'd never bother storing it that way, because an individual user on average isn't gonna have even 1,000 entries on their list. You don't even need the 6 KB, in that case.

Still not how that works. They use relational databases. Which you only write a record for off. In which case is only 1byte per entry. Because at the worst case scenario only be turning off a few thousands players.

Additionally you could just have a flag to turn all players off which also is just 1byte.

I dont know what type of data plans you're expecting to use but I work with petabytes worth of data and 6kb is like .01 cents.

Child Item