Permanent Bunny Ears!* 🐇

[SneakyErvin]

On 2024-03-27 at 5:01 PM, PublikDomain said:

Their ability to express themselves is being removed from them. You don't care. They do.

They still do, the moment they equip something. Not everyone needs to observe something in order for someone to express themselves. Hence why not all of earth attends every single show, manifestation, debate or share the same religious view or how one is supposed to act within a certain group etc. Claiming that you cannot express yourself since someone doesnt observe it is insanity and an extreme even for someone entitled. Even if you might not feel like they do, just that you compare this to having something removed from everyone is so extremely ridiculous, even for you. Even worse is that you dont just bring up their idea, you also actually defend it at this point.

On 2024-03-27 at 5:01 PM, PublikDomain said:

Which is made from... drum roll...

And which part of similar is hard to understand. Fisher tribes wore similar outfits to plains tribes, there were still made from different materials. Or are you honestly saying a pair of "vegan" boots/shoes or a jacket are not similar to a authentic leather version? Since you are bordering, or past that border of reasoning right now.

On 2024-03-27 at 5:01 PM, PublikDomain said:

And the ears can't also be inspired by actual functioning animal-eared headdresses of the past?

Ancient ear warmers or what? It's two simple seperate ears, we arent talking something intricate here. Party store props, they even look like it still, even with the fancy new texture. 

[PublikDomain]

1 hour ago, MetalMechabolic said:

Woah, this hypothetical toggle removes your ability to customize your frame on your account?!  We gotta look into this function the playerbase is talking about!  On a serious note, I hate how this mindset is in other games now.  I was praying this discussion was exclusive to XIV... 😫😫😫

  🤷‍♀️ You can acknowledge something without agreeing with it. Warframe is a game where people pay money to customize their appearances. Some of those people do this to show off or express themselves to others. It shouldn't be much of a surprise that people who pay money for cosmetics want them to be seen. Those concerns can and should be considered, and not be dismissed out of hand. We all lift together, after all.

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

Not everyone needs to observe something in order for someone to express themselves.

And I agree! But others feel differently. They're valid too.

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

And which part of similar is hard to understand. Fisher tribes wore similar outfits to plains tribes, there were still made from different materials.

And the tribe that survives on Orokin wall meat wears outfits made from Orokin walls. Not fish. There are shockingly few animal-based articles used by the Ostron - just about everything are made of wall-meat and wall-meat adjacent materials, woven textiles, and materials like wood. No claws, no feathers, and only one fish hat sold to tourists that no Ostron actually wears. But if you can accept that fish are actually a "cultural homage" to the Ostron people even though none of them show this "regular behaviour", then ears should be no problem for you to accept.

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

Ancient ear warmers or what?

Like headdresses for religious ceremonies, decorations for battle, simple clothing, stuff like that? The Romans were quite into putting big silly things on their hats. So were the samurai. And knights in Europe. The Landsknecht. Native Americans. Egyptians. The Aztec and Mayans. African tribes. The Chinese. Lots of cultures throughout history and prehistory have put things on their heads, including animal ears. You can balk at this and write it off as party favors, but that's a you problem.

Edited March 28 by PublikDomain

[SneakyErvin]

31 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

🤷‍♀️ You can acknowledge something without agreeing with it. Warframe is a game where people pay money to customize their appearances. Some of those people do this to show off or express themselves to others. It shouldn't be much of a surprise that people who pay money for cosmetics want them to be seen. Those concerns can and should be considered, and not be dismissed out of hand. We all lift together, after all.

But that isnt what you are doing. You are agreeing that their idea is actually valid by wording it the way you've done. You continue doing so here. Their idea is insane, since they can still express themselves just as much even if some people can turn off cosmetics. That is how the real world work, not everyone has to see or hear you in order for you to express yourself. It should be no different in a game. We are not taking the item away from them. If we did they wouldnt be able to express themselves, since they wouldnt have access to that option. Others do not have to acknowledge you in order for you to express yourself. However you imply that people must, otherwise a person isnt able to express themselves. Dayum, alot of artists just failed to express themselves! Just looking over a bit into the distance on my TV-screen right now, I'm denying millions from expressing themselves since... oh my TV is toggled off! Aaaw poor people over there somewhere having their expression cancled and rendered dead by me and several others not interested in watching X program on the TV right now. That is the insanity of their logic, and yours since you support them.

31 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

And I agree! But others feel differently. They're valid too.

No they really arent. It is absurdity.

31 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

And the tribe that survives on Orokin wall meat wears outfits made from Orokin walls. Not fish. There are shockingly few animal-based articles used by the Ostron - just about everything are made of wall-meat and wall-meat adjacent materials, woven textiles, and materials like wood. No claws, no feathers, and only one fish hat sold to tourists that no Ostron actually wears.

And clearly you do not grasp the concept of similarity. Clothes made from living things. Really hard concept, much mindbending, such wow. Hence why I mentioned two very different tribes, where one uses sealife and the other uses wildlife and plantlife to make similar clothes and tools. I really dont know how that concept can be so hard to grasp. 

31 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Like headdresses for religious ceremonies, decorations for battle, simple clothing, stuff like that? The Romans were quite into putting big silly things on their hats. So were the samurai. And knights in Europe. The Landsknecht. Native Americans. Egyptians. The Aztec and Mayans. African tribes. The Chinese. Lots of cultures throughout history and prehistory have put things on their heads, including animal ears. You can balk at this and write it off as party favors, but that's a you problem. And if you're willing to accept and even defend silly things like fish hats, I don't see why animal ears is suddenly a step too far.

And you keep missing my point. These ears specifically look out of place. DE can make up any excuse for these, that is there right and I would accept it even if I'd consider it poor storytelling at that point. But right now, there is nothing to them that makes them fit in the game as a permanent item since they are practically a child toy. They dont even look good the way they are "attached", they look horribly cheap. Which also further increases their out of place feeling.

edit: I mean seriously, do you honestly think they look good on the Gauss Prime shown?

Edited March 28 by SneakyErvin

[PublikDomain]

9 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

You are agreeing that their idea is actually valid by wording it the way you've done.

Because it is?

It's a valid opinion.

It's not one I share, but people are allowed to feel that way.

9 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

No they really arent. It is absurdity.

This coming from you, well, I'm not really surprised. Other peoples opinions are valid. If you can't accept other people having different opinions and experiences then that's a you problem.

9 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

These ears specifically look out of place.

But the fish don't. Because those are a "cultural homage". And ears could never be a "cultural homage" like fish are. 🙄

9 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

DE can make up any excuse for these, that is there right and I would accept it even if I'd consider it poor storytelling at that point. But right now, there is nothing to them that makes them fit in the game as a permanent item

I know. And what I'm saying is that this is an incredibly flimsy hill to choose to make a stand on. DE can make the ears 100% canonical everyday Ostron clothing by typing "the Ostron wear this" and poof your objections lose all substance.

Edited March 29 by PublikDomain

[SneakyErvin]

21 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Because it is?

It's a valid opinion.

It's not one I share, but people are allowed to feel that way.

It's an opinion, it doesnt mean it is valid. There are alot of opinions in the world and there are many of those that arent valid, this being one such opinion.

21 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

This coming from you, well, I'm not really surprised. Other peoples opinions are valid. If you can't accept other people having different opinions and experiences then that's a you problem.

Coming from me? I dont exactly have absurd opinions, I might have an opinion of the other side on a thing, but it doesnt go to the extreme. The opinion you defend here isnt the opposite of something, it is the very far extreme of something. Asking for a toggle for instance isnt a "me me me" thing, since the other guys are free to use the aestethics they like. Asking for a toggle not to be added since you consider it needed to express yourself is a "me me me" thing, since it only considers "you" and no one else since "you" must be observed by everyone. That is not a part of a compromise, a compromise is adding a toggle so those that want to see something can see it if someone else is willing to show it, or if someone wants to use it and see it themselves on their frame. The toggle is the essence of the compromise, since it allows for silly items but they arent forced on anyone. The person not wanting the toggle doesnt only get access to the silly item that others dont want in the game, he also gets the ability to force it on those people. Where is the compromise in that?

21 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

But the fish don't. Because those are a "cultural homage". And ears could never be a "cultural homage" like fish are. 🙄

It looks silly but not out of place. Something can look silly and still work within the game. I for instance find several of the operator outfits silly, but they fit the quill/fortuna and tenno. Also if you wanna argue the accuracy of the Norg helmet and the similarity to other Ostron things, you might wanna read up on some of the other items tied to PoE, since it clearly states in the game that fish scales for instance are used for tailoring i.e making clothes. And it clearly doesnt refer to the tenno using it for tailoring, since we make everything in the foundry.

21 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

I know. And what I'm saying is that this is an incredibly flimsy hill to choose to make a stand on. DE can make the ears 100% canonical everyday Ostron clothing by typing "the Ostron wear this" and poof your objections lose all substance.

And no one is arguing that. I dont think I've mentioned canon even once, all I said that implied anything like that is when I said the mask atleast looks like it belongs to where it is from. The ears will look out of place no matter what since they are overall not well designed. They practically look like they dont belong, so did the old ears, but that was OK since it was just a holiday gag. So them looking like they were attached with suction cups or wonder glue or something and had wonky physics didnt really matter. These new ears dont even look as if they are actually attached, they look like they clip out through the helmet.

[PublikDomain]

18 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

It's an opinion, it doesnt mean it is valid.

Who died and made you king? Nah, maybe it's your opinions that are the invalid ones? I don't want to continue this conversation when you have such invalid opinions. 😔

20 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

And no one is arguing that.

I am? Your "fish on heads look like they belong but ears don't" is based on absolutely nothing but your subjective (and clearly invalid) opinion. The only objective thing that makes them "belong" is a bit of text, and that's it.

[OneOmniverse]

I wouldn't mind it tbh

[SneakyErvin]

22 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

I am? Your "fish on heads look like they belong but ears don't" is based on absolutely nothing but your subjective (and clearly invalid) opinion. The only objective thing that makes them "belong" is a bit of text, and that's it.

Hilarious that you point fingers at the text when just a few posts back you used in-game flavor text to try and disprove similiarity between the helm and other Ostron clothing.

And you are what? I'm saying no one is arguing that DE can just add a flavor text and make it "belong". We (as in me) are arguing they look out of place.

I'd also like to ask you how you can see the other point as valid when that point (in the case of out of place items) gives that specific side all the "wins"? Let me sum it up.

Player A wants immersion

Player B doesnt care

Player C wants silly items

Player D wants silly items and a need to show it at all time cos "expression".

Played D gets something when a silly item they or C want is added. +1 for player C and D over player A. If player A then gets a toggle he gets +1 aswell, meaning both sides have obtained something. If a toggle is never added player D not only gets the silly cosmetic, but player A also loses their "expression" since their immersion is killed. So it is no longer a +1 for D, it is effectively a +3, since they get the item, can force everyone to see it for "expression" while also killing the immersion of player A in the process.

How is that on any single level any form of a compromise? A compromise would be cosmetic+toggle since that would result in

Player A +1 (toggle)

Player B 🤷‍♂️

Player C +1 (gets the item)

Player D +1 (gets the item)

 

[MetalMechabolic]

On 2024-03-29 at 1:01 PM, PublikDomain said:

Who died and made you king? Nah, maybe it's your opinions that are the invalid ones? I don't want to continue this conversation when you have such invalid opinions.

Says the guy who can't get over the fact that not everyone wants to see fashonframes.  So who made YOU king?  Can I be the court jester?  I don't mind making fun of the elephant in the room!  lol

[Kaiga]

On 2024-03-25 at 7:00 AM, Tsukinoki said:

Do you even actually pay attention to your squad mates fashion choices in any way as they are currently?  Do you spend time trying to get them to sit still so that you can look them over and try to see what they are using under all the particle effects and everything else?
Or do you just see that another frame has joined the squad without paying much attention to it outside of what the frame is (if you even care what they are playing)?

I think the answer to this is generally no, warframe at this point of it's power creep can be safely played while ignoring your squad.

But the frames themselves still have silhouettes. The wing ephemeras and most over the top cosmetics still attach in a way that makes *some* visual sense amidst the color and particle noise. The cosmetics use materials at least *somewhat* similar to the frame design.

These rabbit ears do not do any of this, and that is by design, as they're meant to be a silly seasonal cosmetic. They are the most visually-jarring, stylebreaking thing, up there with the inner tube (again, another intentionally silly thing), and even by those INCREDIBLY lax standards, they still somehow manage to stick out to that extent.
There are a lot of people in this thread who are fine with that, and don't believe the game is entitled to visual consistency while they should be entitled to wear whatever they want at whatever cost to it.

And that's also a perfectly valid opinion to hold, but they need to stop malding when it gets questioned, as opinions aren't sacred.

[PublikDomain]

On 2024-03-30 at 10:43 AM, MetalMechabolic said:

Says the guy who can't get over the fact that not everyone wants to see fashonframes.  So who made YOU king?  Can I be the court jester?  I don't mind making fun of the elephant in the room!  lol

What do you mean? I fully support an option to hide silly cosmetics. I basically wrote the book on it:

Having the option to hide these kinds of cosmetics isn't what I'm ragging on Sneaky about. I'm ragging on his repeated dismissal and minimization of other people's opinions and concerns, not just here in this thread but in general, and the hypocrisy of saying bunny ears are for porn stars and people with low IQ while simultaneously defending and making exceptions for things like fish hats. And also the hypocrisy of whining at me for pages and pages in another thread about why disruptive gameplay should be left disruptive and isn't actually a problem only to then argue the exact opposite the second it's about something disruptive he doesn't care for. I just find it incredibly lame when people poo-poo on making the game better for people other than themselves only to turn around and suddenly expect compromise when it's about them.

On 2024-03-30 at 8:19 AM, SneakyErvin said:

I'd also like to ask you how you can see the other point as valid when that point (in the case of out of place items) gives that specific side all the "wins"? Let me sum it up.

Player A wants immersion

Player B doesnt care

Player C wants silly items

Player D wants silly items and a need to show it at all time cos "expression".

Played D gets something when a silly item they or C want is added. +1 for player C and D over player A. If player A then gets a toggle he gets +1 aswell, meaning both sides have obtained something. If a toggle is never added player D not only gets the silly cosmetic, but player A also loses their "expression" since their immersion is killed. So it is no longer a +1 for D, it is effectively a +3, since they get the item, can force everyone to see it for "expression" while also killing the immersion of player A in the process.

How is that on any single level any form of a compromise? A compromise would be cosmetic+toggle since that would result in

Player A +1 (toggle)

Player B 🤷‍♂️

Player C +1 (gets the item)

Player D +1 (gets the item)

Of course the toggle is the compromise? Everyone gives up a little bit of their ability to express themselves so that they can reduce certain types of disruptive content and have more cosmetics to play with. And if Player D could get over what's been "taken" from them they could see that they benefit too, because they get to keep more of these kinds of cosmetics they wouldn't have otherwise gotten to keep. It's the compromise I've championed for over four years. But this doesn't mean that Player D is "invalid" or "absurd" like you've claimed. They're entitled to their feelings and opinions just as much as you are.

Now let me ask you something. I've rewritten your scenario a little to sum it up:

Player A is bored because other players don't leave anything for anyone else to do

Player B doesn't care

Player C is bored because there are far fewer good things to play with than there are garbage things to ignore

Player D just wants to find optimal strategies and do everything as fast as possible

A compromise would be something like everyone giving up a little bit of their ability to trivialize the game for everyone around them so that they can reduce certain types of disruptive gameplay and have more of the game to play with. And if Player D could get over what's been "taken" from them they could see that they benefit too, because now they get to have more tools to optimize and experiment with that wouldn't have otherwise been good enough to consider.

This is the same compromise you and I were "discussing" recently, but in that case your opinion was that Player D shouldn't have to give anything up? Why do you seek the same compromise here but not there? 🤔

Edited March 31 by PublikDomain

[SneakyErvin]

19 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Of course the toggle is the compromise? Everyone gives up a little bit of their ability to express themselves so that they can reduce certain types of disruptive content and have more cosmetics to play with. And if Player D could get over what's been "taken" from them they could see that they benefit too, because they get to keep more of these kinds of cosmetics they wouldn't have otherwise gotten to keep. It's the compromise I've championed for over four years. But this doesn't mean that Player D is "invalid" or "absurd" like you've claimed. They're entitled to their feelings and opinions just as much as you are.

Yes exactly it is. And at that point D is not entitled to an opinion since they already recieved what they wanted at the expense of someone else. That is why their opinion is absurd and invalid. If this was a simple case of just adding a toggle to cosmetic, those seen as "lore correct", then D would have a valid point since the cosmetic would not be "silly", at which point their "expression" would take a hit. But regarding these "silly" items, D has already gotten what they've wanted, so it is their time to give something up, so their excuse and opinion isnt valid.

19 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Now let me ask you something. I've rewritten your scenario a little to sum it up:

Player A is bored because other players don't leave anything for anyone else to do

Player B doesn't care

Player C is bored because there are far fewer good things to play with than there are garbage things to ignore

Player D just wants to find optimal strategies and do everything as fast as possible

A compromise would be something like everyone giving up a little bit of their ability to trivialize the game for everyone around them so that they can reduce certain types of disruptive gameplay and have more of the game to play with. And if Player D could get over what's been "taken" from them they could see that they benefit too, because now they get to have more tools to optimize and experiment with that wouldn't have otherwise been good enough to consider.

This is the same compromise you and I were "discussing" recently, but in that case your opinion was that Player D shouldn't have to give anything up? Why do you seek the same compromise here but not there? 🤔

But that isnt how a compromise works. You are also comparing a minority here (A), versus a majority and norm (D). In the cosmetic example two minorities within the community were compared to eachother for a compromise between the two. Both give something up. In your example here, A gives up nothing while D gives things up without anything in return. Even if you try to claim there is a benefit in more items to experiment with it isnt true, because in the end they still give up what they had, their efficiency which they maximized overtime and invested in is now gone and will not be back no matter what other items they get to experiment with. Which not only applies to when they are grouped with player A, but also when among likeminded people in a pre-made and while playing solo.

The option to avoid D is already there for A incase he doesnt like the norm of the game, since he has access to both solo and pre-mades with likeminded people or friends. So what A does is impact D everywhere, when the problem A wants "solved" is isolated to random groups that are there for ease of use in the first place. So A wants what they demand so they can keep going the "lazy" route to grouping. In the cosmetic example there is nothing A can do to avoid D and his cosmetics as it is now. If there was an option to load relays/hubs solo, then a toggle wouldnt be really needed either, since there is the choice to keep the immersion by going solo or with pals/likeminded people. Immersion that would in all honesty likely be more intact that way than any toggle can provide. Because even with a toggle, lore breaking paradoxes can occur in a public hub or group, like several umbra, revenant, skiajati, sun & moon and so on while the story only actually happens to a single tenno that would have access to that equipment in that shape and form.

Please do elaborate on what A would give up in your "compromise" of power.

[rahetalius4.2.0CE]

On 2024-03-28 at 2:37 PM, SneakyErvin said:

Their idea is insane, since they can still express themselves just as much even if some people can turn off cosmetics. That is how the real world work, not everyone has to see or hear you in order for you to express yourself. It should be no different in a game. We are not taking the item away from them. If we did they wouldnt be able to express themselves, since they wouldnt have access to that option. Others do not have to acknowledge you in order for you to express yourself. However you imply that people must, otherwise a person isnt able to express themselves. Dayum, alot of artists just failed to express themselves! Just looking over a bit into the distance on my TV-screen right now, I'm denying millions from expressing themselves since... oh my TV is toggled off! Aaaw poor people over there somewhere having their expression cancled and rendered dead by me and several others not interested in watching X program on the TV right now. That is the insanity of their logic, and yours since you support them.

I'd argue there's a difference from looking away from someone's work, and altering their work, even if only you view it, and I feel equating these two as the same thing isn't something you should do. It's like the difference between not looking at artwork that has people who have hair, or demanding and making that you have the option to see their artwork without hair in it. Other examples can be applied but y'know.


 

On 2024-03-30 at 1:43 PM, MetalMechabolic said:

Says the guy who can't get over the fact that not everyone wants to see fashonframes.  So who made YOU king?  Can I be the court jester?  I don't mind making fun of the elephant in the room!  lol

I mean, no one is forcing you to stand and look at their frame, I'm pretty sure the only complaints about 'fashion' that was actually a problem for people who didn't stop and stare at the dude with bunny ears, were ones about "hey this dude's pure white energy weapon blinds me completely".

Also, it does seem kinda counterproductive to include anyways, no? I mean, DE gets money from people paying for cosmetics, how does DE get people to want to buy cosmetics besides people looking at something nice when they play themselves? They get it from people who want to express themselves to other players, even if all they are are a blur because they're moving as fast as possible, or are a titania, or are a link look in chat, (some people also trade for their platnum, but somewhere down the road, that plat had to come from someone's credit card information.)

[rahetalius4.2.0CE]

Hello @PublikDomain! I know this isn't exactly the right place to comment on this, but the forum post you linked is closed to replies, but I'd like to add a comment about one of the items you had on there, that I don't agree with,

The "Protokol skins", I know, I know, "real weapons in warframe! we shouldn't have solid snake pistol (MK23 which the tenka in DS and WF is based off of)" However, the descriptions of them worked to fit them in, even at the time, and with the direction the game is going in, (the 1999 stuff) I think they added it at the right time (they were announced like, waaayy back, like, nearly a decade ago, I think the warframe darksector clan battles were still happening)

Edited April 1 by rahetalius4.2.0CE
Mistyped one word.

[rahetalius4.2.0CE]

4 minutes ago, rahetalius4.2.0CE said:

Hello @PublikDomain! I know this isn't exactly the right place to comment on this, but the forum post you linked is closed to replies, but I'd like to add a comment about one of the items you had on there, that I don't agree with,

The "Protokol skins", I know, I know, "real weapons in warframe! we shouldn't have solid snake pistol (MK23 which the tenka in DS and WF is based off of)" However, the descriptions of them worked to fit them in, even at the time, and with the direction the game is going in, (the 1999 stuff) I think they added it at the right time (they were announced like, waaayy back, like, nearly a decade ago, I think the warframe darksector clan battles were still happening)

ooh adding extra context here's old picture of devstream where they showed off the proto skins, and also video of "MK24" that was found in the game (yes originally it was intended to be darksector reference, but still, even then they had it where the description mentions old earth, and that I feel fits in, especially since they've stuck with that, as they've now established that yes, the 90's did exist.)

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[SneakyErvin]

6 minutes ago, rahetalius4.2.0CE said:

I'd argue there's a difference from looking away from someone's work, and altering their work, even if only you view it, and I feel equating these two as the same thing isn't something you should do. It's like the difference between not looking at artwork that has people who have hair, or demanding and making that you have the option to see their artwork without hair in it. Other examples can be applied but y'know.

This would be in order for us to not have to look at it, since we are "forced" to see it naturally, we cant simply chose not to go to an installation or show, since everything is that installation or show in public no matter if we want to or not. IRL there would instead be rules depending on where we go which deems what it appropriate and not for the situation. Here each player needs to determine that on their own really and a tool to help with that would be good.

Also consider how something like say a painting doesnt reduce the expression made by the artist even if hung in the wrong lighting or similar. It is still there on the canvas, we just dont see it due to "filters".

[rahetalius4.2.0CE]

4 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

IRL there would instead be rules depending on where we go which deems what it appropriate and not for the situation.

I mean, not in the way you're suggesting, lets say it like this, right, you're in NYC or whatever, and someone is dressed up all funny and weird, they're acting like an everyday person, but they're wearing weird stuff. sure they'll get looked at, maybe mocked a bit, but besides some hurtful words, there's no law saying they cant dress funny. Now lets take that same person, and put them in an area that's public, but has the right to refuse service if they look silly, in that case, yes, you can refuse them for being dressed silly, if it is your property.

This is unlike someone who is running around haphazardly naked, they are participating in indecent exposure, which is an offense to the law according to the public, so no matter where they are, they're being indecent, especially if they're running about being as disruptive as possible. this even counts for owned places that can use the right to refuse service.

I look at it like this: Warframe is a City, the 'laws' of the place disallow certain things to be said and shown, such as several things I cannot type out due to me not wanting to end up in forever jail. However, if Warframe is a City, then that means it has places in it! places likkkeee your lobby, or your clan! you have the right to refuse to play with people, you can kick them out of your clan if you own your clan, I mean, I don't think it's fair to kick them myself, but hey, it's your clan, and if you're needing to really go in and cement that you refuse service to players with fashion you don't like, you're always free to make a friends only, or invite only lobby and curate your experiences.

[SneakyErvin]

11 minutes ago, rahetalius4.2.0CE said:

I mean, not in the way you're suggesting, lets say it like this, right, you're in NYC or whatever, and someone is dressed up all funny and weird, they're acting like an everyday person, but they're wearing weird stuff. sure they'll get looked at, maybe mocked a bit, but besides some hurtful words, there's no law saying they cant dress funny. Now lets take that same person, and put them in an area that's public, but has the right to refuse service if they look silly, in that case, yes, you can refuse them for being dressed silly, if it is your property.

Yes but in real life silly is common and normal out of the perspective of immersion and peoples view on things. Here we look at it from the immersion of the tenno individual, what that specific player holds as canon in an RP sense of immersion. At that point the tenno of that player is the tenno, so what he sees as standard is what goes. So if he does not accept non-name tenno pleb 123 to wear X equipment he will not have him as part of his potential "crew". I'll describe this further in reply to your last segement of the post.

18 minutes ago, rahetalius4.2.0CE said:

This is unlike someone who is running around haphazardly naked, they are participating in indecent exposure, which is an offense to the law according to the public, so no matter where they are, they're being indecent, especially if they're running about being as disruptive as possible. this even counts for owned places that can use the right to refuse service.

Sure, that is in real life. I mean, if we had the option to run nekkid in the game it would be approapriate since the game allows it, but it might still not be appropriate out of a gameplay perspective where immersion is the focus. And that is the whole point of it, that the player concerned with immersion sees the story and world as his, since he bases it on that he is the protagonist that lives the story or the world. And we kinda have the running naked thing in the game which would be nice if we could set rules against on our own, here it is simply called flashy energy colors.

20 minutes ago, rahetalius4.2.0CE said:

I look at it like this: Warframe is a City, the 'laws' of the place disallow certain things to be said and shown, such as several things I cannot type out due to me not wanting to end up in forever jail. However, if Warframe is a City, then that means it has places in it! places likkkeee your lobby, or your clan! you have the right to refuse to play with people, you can kick them out of your clan if you own your clan, I mean, I don't think it's fair to kick them myself, but hey, it's your clan, and if you're needing to really go in and cement that you refuse service to players with fashion you don't like, you're always free to make a friends only, or invite only lobby and curate your experiences.

It only goes so far though if we go back to what I said in the first segment. It is about the single tenno, he/she is the hero. And since we cannot avoid public interaction completely a toggle would be suited for that part, since that tenno decides whom he/she surrounds himself/herself with when going to those relays etc. that throw all players together. Like I said to Publik, if everything could be experienced fully solo or only in pre-mades a toggle wouldnt be needed, since then there would be an option for your specific preferences already, since you would be able to hit up relays and hubs completely solo or with likeminded people and friends.

Which is why I said we need to set the rules ourselves, whatever fits our own narritive if we have one at all. We are the "law" since we make the story for our own specific tenno that is the tenno out of all, if we are into that thing. So while DE gives us access to alot of things it doesnt mean there shouldnt be ways to hide or avoid it, since even though the things are abiding by real life laws and are acceptable in that sense, it doesnt mean they are acceptable to every player out of a RP or immersive point of view. And those players that require full attention are forced upon us for starters and they wouldnt be any wiser if someone can or cannot see their cosmetics as they toot around in the first place. So their attention-whoring would still be intact asfar as they know.

[rahetalius4.2.0CE]

5 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

We are the "law" since we make the story for our own specific tenno that is the tenno out of all,

I don't feel looking at it that way is the correct way to look at it, this game has been built on the community coming together, including the players coming together to help newer people out with DE's intro, I mean, they make good games, but they can't start people off, is one con they have.
 

9 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

So while DE gives us access to alot of things it doesnt mean there shouldnt be ways to hide or avoid it, since even though the things are abiding by real life laws and are acceptable in that sense, it doesnt mean they are acceptable to every player out of a RP or immersive point of view.

And in a public space, I don't think it's really good to try and push your personal roleplaying onto others, the law of the land, set by digital extremes is what we should judge acceptable standards for public interactions by, obviously what is behind closed doors is for you to choose and curate as you wish.
 

11 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

It is about the single tenno, he/she is the hero.

The game itself isn't really about a single tenno either, that's just self roleplaying, getting into it, I mean, the new quests don't help it, but there's been several instances of them mentioning "the tenno" plural, or stories of tenno, and tenno sympathizers, you can't really sympathize with a group, especially one on a mass scale if the group consists of one person.
 

13 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

And those players that require full attention are forced upon us for starters and they wouldnt be any wiser if someone can or cannot see their cosmetics as they toot around in the first place. So their attention-whoring would still be intact asfar as they know.

And I don't believe it's attention whoring either, infact, I think it's rude to say that people who are dressed up how they want, hell they could even have their own "roleplay" reasons, that you might not agree with, for why their frame looks like that, other people just like to express themselves, and it's not like they're running up to you and saying "HEY DUDE, DUDE LOOK AT ME I NEEEEEED YOU TO SEE ME BRO" while constantly jumping around you in circles, they're just there, existing.

 

15 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Like I said to Publik, if everything could be experienced fully solo or only in pre-mades a toggle wouldnt be needed, since then there would be an option for your specific preferences already, since you would be able to hit up relays and hubs completely solo or with likeminded people and friends.

I mean, is the unfortunate nature of any online game that eventually claims to be an MMO (I don't personally think warframe is an MMO, but you get the point) you're going to get to the one public area, you can minimize your time as much as possible in it, infact, 90% of your time can be spent in menus completely ignoring every existing person, unless you want to walk from place to place, even then, they're not trying to grab your attention, they're just wearing items they like.

 

17 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

So if he does not accept non-name tenno pleb 123 to wear X equipment he will not have him as part of his potential "crew". I'll describe this further in reply to your last segement of the post.

so I personally think that in areas that are not just publicly in the open, for anyone to join, actions like this are fine, like making your own lobby and saying you don't want people like that, same with your clan, but in public? No.




 

 

18 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

I mean, if we had the option to run nekkid in the game it would be approapriate since the game allows it,

And unironically, I agree with this, I think if they let people run around like that, and had warnings on the game label that it was a possibility, yeah. Actually, funny you should mention games letting you run around naked, inside of soulframe, actually, they have the ability to strip to just undies, and I find that perfectly valid, since that's an option that DE gave, that they have too of supported for it to be added anyways.

[OneOmniverse]

5 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

I mean, if we had the option to run nekkid in the game it would be approapriate since the game allows it

🫣😂 nekkid heh heh

[PublikDomain]

10 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

And at that point D is not entitled to an opinion

They're still entitled to their opinion, you little tyrant. Jesus.

10 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

You are also comparing a minority here (A), versus a majority and norm (D).

And you can prove that opinion D is the majority? Please, do. Please also prove that opinion D is the minority opinion when it comes to these kinds of cosmetics. Can you?

[SneakyErvin]

21 hours ago, rahetalius4.2.0CE said:

I don't feel looking at it that way is the correct way to look at it, this game has been built on the community coming together, including the players coming together to help newer people out with DE's intro, I mean, they make good games, but they can't start people off, is one con they have.

That isnt the point. The point is we talk immersion, you are talking whatever happens outside the 4th wall regarding the game. There is only 1 protagonist when you look at it from the immersive viewpoint, which is what the people we talk about here do. 

21 hours ago, rahetalius4.2.0CE said:

And in a public space, I don't think it's really good to try and push your personal roleplaying onto others, the law of the land, set by digital extremes is what we should judge acceptable standards for public interactions by, obviously what is behind closed doors is for you to choose and curate as you wish.

But they wouldnt be... since no one would know if this toggle is used or not. So it has no impact on those that show their cosmetics in the first place, it only impact the player that makes us of the toggle because they want to. It isnt like it will strip the player using the cosmetics.

21 hours ago, rahetalius4.2.0CE said:

And I don't believe it's attention whoring either, infact, I think it's rude to say that people who are dressed up how they want, hell they could even have their own "roleplay" reasons, that you might not agree with, for why their frame looks like that, other people just like to express themselves, and it's not like they're running up to you and saying "HEY DUDE, DUDE LOOK AT ME I NEEEEEED YOU TO SEE ME BRO" while constantly jumping around you in circles, they're just there, existing.

But it isnt about people dressing up as they want or not, it is about people being against a toggle since they feel it reduces how they can express themselves (a fraction out of those that love to fashionframe overall), which isnt true, since it doesnt remove the item from their frame, so they still look exactly the same. So yes, it would be attention whoring, since they are most focused on the attention part. I for instance love to customize frames, weapons, operator, pet etc. but I would have no problem if someone else has a filter on that shows it differently, since I couldnt possibly know and I change cosmetics for my own enjoyment, and if someone happens to like it incase the see thats nice... I guess. Your caps part is exactly why this discussion about those players started. It doesnt matter if they run up to me either specifically, it is enough they cover everyone else with their wings or something else.

21 hours ago, rahetalius4.2.0CE said:

I mean, is the unfortunate nature of any online game that eventually claims to be an MMO (I don't personally think warframe is an MMO, but you get the point) you're going to get to the one public area, you can minimize your time as much as possible in it, infact, 90% of your time can be spent in menus completely ignoring every existing person, unless you want to walk from place to place, even then, they're not trying to grab your attention, they're just wearing items they like.

So we should avoid everyone because a few are intrusive? If I could turn of wings for instance I could much more enjoy a hub, since I could actually see other people standing around without being covered up by a single person. You seem to be under the assumption that we dont wanna observe anyone, when it is in the end about extreme cases that look like a paint shop and a scrap yard threw up on their frame, or those that use energy colors that makes it look like a unicorn ejaculating any time they fire their weapon or use an ability in the group. Aswell as being able to turn of specific visuals that just dont belong. And again, no one would be aware if we did so.

21 hours ago, rahetalius4.2.0CE said:

so I personally think that in areas that are not just publicly in the open, for anyone to join, actions like this are fine, like making your own lobby and saying you don't want people like that, same with your clan, but in public? No.

But we arent talking about actually excluding people. We are talking about a personal toggle that only affects the player using it. It's more like someone showing their "hot" girlfriend or "beatiful" and "cute" toddler and you internally go "yikes! oh help me gods, make me unsee it!" but say "you so lucky!" instead. The people arent aware of your thoughts and no one actually gets hurt. So the people running around looking like a Captain Planet reject or a cherub Rhino can keep imagining everyone soaking in their amazeballs fashion while people have the ability to unsee it if they like. 

21 hours ago, rahetalius4.2.0CE said:

And unironically, I agree with this, I think if they let people run around like that, and had warnings on the game label that it was a possibility, yeah. Actually, funny you should mention games letting you run around naked, inside of soulframe, actually, they have the ability to strip to just undies, and I find that perfectly valid, since that's an option that DE gave, that they have too of supported for it to be added anyways.

It would really only make sense and be real world legal for the Drifter. Frames are frames, they are already "naked" and operators are... well... kids, and we dont wanna endorse people attracted to the playground and give them potential for happy fun time through pixels in a game. For Soulframe it makes perfect sense and is more common than not in most similar games. I have a hard time recalling a fantasy game where I couldnt run around in undies or hide certain armor pieces to show skin instead.

Also, regarding this toggle and the people against it. Most are the type of person that things they are original and funny, when in reality they end up following some meme mainstream that quickly kills whatever little novelty there might have been to a "silly" look. So that they are against it because they want to "express" themselves is hypocritical at best, since they dont actually express themselves, they just follow some random neon-god fotm person from some corner of the interwebz.

[SneakyErvin]

13 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

They're still entitled to their opinion, you little tyrant. Jesus.

And you can prove that opinion D is the majority? Please, do. Please also prove that opinion D is the minority opinion when it comes to these kinds of cosmetics. Can you?

In a compromise no, since they've already recived their part of the negotiation, so should at that point be open for others to recieve a part aswell. If it went further with more compromises needed their opinion could be looked at again. We are talking a specific item here already coming to the game, so their opinion is invalid at this point because it is really their time to give.

That it is the majority is uhm quite clear. Even you prove it by claiming there is an issue keeping up in groups for instance, so efficiency is quite obviously a big priority and most common. If it wasnt the most common type you wouldnt end up in groups with the problems you claim frequently enough for them to be a problem that according to you needs solving.

[PublikDomain]

11 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

We are talking a specific item here already coming to the game, so their opinion is invalid at this point because it is really their time to give.

Is your opinion about this item invalid at this point too? It's your time to give, Sneaky.

11 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

That it is the majority is uhm quite clear.

Source: uhm trust me bro 😉

Edited April 3 by PublikDomain

[SneakyErvin]

13 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Is your opinion about this item invalid at this point too? It's your time to give, Sneaky.

Source: uhm trust me bro 😉

No since we arent talking about compromising our opinions. We are talking about them that specific group of a minority that has already gotten what they wanted.

You are the source by bringing up your "issues" in groups. As I said, if the people seeking efficiency wasnt the larger part you wouldnt end up in groups with such players often enough for it to be a problem for you with your desire of a different and slower playstyle.