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

George_Black

This suggestion isnt new and it wont work.

People pay $$ to show off. Why would the developers hurt the value of their cosmetics? People wouldnt buy them if they knew that they wont be able to show off.

I dont like cosmetics but it's 2022 and they contribute to the production and profits of video games. Be realistic..

SongRune

Vyril wrote: »

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.

My first calculation was based on 1 bit per player, assuming unique server-relative player IDs could be sent at runtime. This is the smallest possible uncompressed non-sparse representation, which is what Strevi's "calculation" seemed to be "asking for".

As you note, nobody would use a non-sparse representation for this sort of thing. I therefore adjusted my calculation to a sparse storage of 32bit unique account IDs, which is a reasonable basis for player identification. You can get a list of 1500 of those for just 6 KB.

You could use a relational database, but the OVERHEAD involved would be higher, since you'd need rows of, at a minimum "(your_player, target_whitelisted_player)". There's efficient ways to represent this, but a file per player only needs "your_player" once. Now, obviously you'd probably still do this. But if Strevi was making an argument based on "this is an unimaginable amount of data", there's absolutely methods that make that not even matter a little.

Depraved

btw a player cant befriend himself. so each player will only be able to have 49,999 friends, not 50,000

ariatras

No thanks, to a toggle. I fall on both sides of the extreme.

Personally, I'd prefer no cosmetics at all, at least not cash shop related. I'll just happily pay a higher sub instead. Let me work for, and achieve those things in game, and inspire, or be inspired by. I am rather visually orientated. If I take PvP for example I can usually tell at a glance what class I am up against. Which influences my approach to the situation. Cosmetic items muddy these waters making it harder, which can give advantages, be it very minor. There are ways to do it though, if you look at Overwatch for example, they sell skins, but you'll always be able to recognise a Genji from a Reinhardt for example. There's also the fact that developers tend to focus and channel more creativity into the cash shop and make in-game items/sets recolours, or just colours they know aren't popular. (Any game with Dye. Black and white dye are always the most sought after for example)

Now, I realise, this battle is long lost, sadly. People don't agree, or actually buy into the narrative of cosmetics being needed, because subs just aren't enough anymore. So if I must suffer cosmetic cash shops, then I want to go all in, and have no on and off toggle. It doesn't offend me that people wear cash shop items, and whilst against it, if it's the will of the people, so to speak. Then let everyone show off their purchased cosmetics in all their glory.

Fushicho

Noaani wrote: »

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.

For me (and I don't just speak for myself regarding this), the game genre and style set the tone.

If Ashes of Creation <<IS>> a 'High Fantasy' MMO, where characters are progressing in a feudal-like system, battling each other, and monsters, while using weapons/spells/projectiles that can, in all reasonability, decapitate, sever, pierce, slash, burn, mutilate ... ... (even if the game doesn't graphically show most of these effects, which I'd prefer it does).. THEN, IMO, there is no place for items, trinkets, clothing et.cetera that goes counter towards the theme of the game.

So, for example. While ArcheAge can have players customize their boat sails and housing canvases with all manner of representations, then NO. I don't want to see dckpics on someone's sails, or Real Life BTM characters on canvases, littered around homesteads. Nor do I think cute little items like GW2's Quaggan backpacks are going with the High Fantasy MMO theme.

The idea of seeing all of the above-type items detracts from the fantasy theme of the game and belittles the 'seriousness' of character life vs. death encounters with other players and monsters, especially epic mobs.

Going into battle with some epic boss mob, with a costume where your character is dressed like a school-girl in image, is really not a sight I want to see.

So, I'd prefer that I have an option to turn off all those detracting above-type items, so I can see a player's equipped armor, not their schoolgirl miniskirts. I can see that character's rugged and fitting to the environment backpack, and not some plushie backpack that you could buy at Toys R Us. And no, I don't need to see BTM boys with no chest hair littered along homesteads in this game.

So if they're (Intrepid) going to allow such fluff in their game that contributes to going against the theme of the game, just for the sake of the almighty dollar, and or to appease to a crowd that really doesn't understand such games, then YES, I want a switch to turn off that crp.

Liniker

JustVine

Would I prefer a toggle? Yes. I'm very pro-cosmetic, but cosmetic griefing is something Intrepid is literally willing to fashion police and disrupting the ability to have certain forms of customization on. Steven has been very heavy handed about it. And the reason he has been heavy handed about it is because there is no toggle and he wants to limit griefing. I therefore think that it's reasonable to say that if the cosmetic is in the game Intrepid has put it's stamp of 'this isn't griefing' on it and excluding stufferton most players will agree with this.

It would be the perfect world where you could have 'total freedom without all the restrictions on how you dye your gear and what color in some sort of white list that just automatically includes your guildies (but can be black listed if they so choose) and no one else and everyone else gets 'the 'public' version with all the proposed restrictions in place. It'd be a great feature, but I don't think it will happen.

I like freedom in my cosmetics. I like the ability to make all sorts of choices that others may find immersion breaking. And I respect those people. So I would rather them not to have to encounter cosmetic griefing if we can find a balance between style guidelines that allow for freedom while still minimizing immersion.

I personally don't buy cosmetics to 'feel more important than others' or to 'show off'. Showing off to my friends/people I'll party with? Absolutely. But you random jerks and laggards? I couldn't care less. Exclusivity is in almost all digital cases artificial and therefore has no meaning to me.

STEVEN on the other hand. DEFINITELY does. He's been VERY vocal about caring about such issues such as 'two people wearing the same outfit at an event' and preaching that 'exclusivity is the whole point and should be honored' which only really can have value if other people can see this 'exclusive cosmetic'.

It's not going to change because Steven is that person. He is the fashion queen (fashion king I guess?) that will want to show off his 'exclusive' set of cosmetics. It's his game. He has every right to design the game that way. And enough people here AGREE WITH STEVEN. The only way this ever had a snowballs chance in hell of being implemented if there was solidarity. There is not.

So it's not going to happen and I've made my peace with that. But hey if IS really wants to please all audiences.... Maybe consider my suggestion if you are reading. It keeps exclusivity and freedom intact even if it's extra work. I know it would certainly boost your cosmetic sales from me and I doubt it'd compromise your values.

Welcome to Ashes forum new person.

Craiken

In this fantasy world, we all have the power to look however we want. Will it be weird when your tank charges a dragon looking like this? Yes, it will. But it's just some weird fantasy power we have.

Fushicho

Craiken wrote: »

In this fantasy world, we all have the power to look however we want. Will it be weird when your tank charges a dragon looking like this? Yes, it will. But it's just some weird fantasy power we have.

Then the game should allow me then to run in 100% naked on my character fighting an Epic boss mob, with no equipment whatsoever. "It's just some weird fantasy power we have."

ClintHardwood

I agree with the OP for many reasons, but clearly Intrepid needs that cosmetics money. Since there's a no-cosmetics functionality in the game already, during large PvP events and such, we'll just have to wait till a 3rd party add-on allows us to toggle cosmetics in all other scenarios.

Hinotori

ClintHardwood wrote: »

I agree with the OP for many reasons, but clearly Intrepid needs that cosmetics money. Since there's a no-cosmetics functionality in the game already, during large PvP events and such, we'll just have to wait till a 3rd party add-on allows us to toggle cosmetics in all other scenarios.

Imagine getting banned turning off cosmetics.

ClintHardwood

Natasha wrote: »

ClintHardwood wrote: »

I agree with the OP for many reasons, but clearly Intrepid needs that cosmetics money. Since there's a no-cosmetics functionality in the game already, during large PvP events and such, we'll just have to wait till a 3rd party add-on allows us to toggle cosmetics in all other scenarios.

Imagine getting banned turning off cosmetics.

Clientside modifications are undetectable. I'd rather see the actual gear someone I'm PvPing against is wearing than the clown suit he bought from the store.

SongRune

ClintHardwood wrote: »

Natasha wrote: »

ClintHardwood wrote: »

I agree with the OP for many reasons, but clearly Intrepid needs that cosmetics money. Since there's a no-cosmetics functionality in the game already, during large PvP events and such, we'll just have to wait till a 3rd party add-on allows us to toggle cosmetics in all other scenarios.

Imagine getting banned turning off cosmetics.

Clientside modifications are undetectable. I'd rather see the actual gear someone I'm PvPing against is wearing than the clown suit he bought from the store.

You... really think so? How do most games ban aimbotters and wallhackers, then? Those are pure client side modifications, too.

I'll be very slightly disappointed if we can't datmod to customize our look a little on our own clients, but it's not even a little hard to detect and prevent "asset corruption" of that sort. If you hook the client directly to bypass that type of check, you'll look exactly like a cheat mod, and they've definitely got ways to ban those.

In a PvP game, protection against this sort of thing is natural and practically an automatic decision for developers. The same techniques that replace cash shop cosmetics with blander stuff are also used to replace obstacles you can hide behind with mostly-transparent versions.

Child Item