We should be able to pay to turn off other people's skins/decals - Page 11

Vancha · 2012-07-04, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Airanuva

You can't pick and choose which skins you don't want. It's a switch. Either all or none.

Say there is a ceiling light with two light bulbs. One is too bright, while the other is just right. You can't choose which bulb to turn off with a light switch, you'll just turn them both off.
If you want camo, you need all skins active. If you don't want to see the skins, you can't have camo. Simple as that.

How do you know this?

GreatMazinkaise · 2012-07-04, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Because my poor taste is going to be entirely about making it that much harder to kill me. Which is the real reason you guys want to be able to turn it off, so you don't get derped by the guy blending into the shadows.

As long as you admit that your choice of skins is in poor choice. Bright contrasting colors > "camouflage".

LostAlgorithm · 2012-07-04, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Because my poor taste is going to be entirely about making it that much harder to kill me. Which is the real reason you guys want to be able to turn it off, so you don't get derped by the guy blending into the shadows.

Really?

After the OP specifically left out camo, you people still haven't even read the first post to this thread?

Honestly, I guess I'm not that surprised considering the "quality" of your arguments.

Baneblade · 2012-07-04, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by LostAlgorithm

Really?

After the OP specifically left out camo, you people still haven't even read the first post to this thread?

Honestly, I guess I'm not that surprised considering the "quality" of your arguments.

Except every skin is `camo`. So far as we know. Or are you worried about the devs giving out wife beaters and do-rags?

GreatMazinkaise · 2012-07-04, 05:14 PM

You can't specifically leave out camo... that's the thing. This is about the milsim nuts wanting to reskin the game in a way that benefits them.

Planetside is a deadly serious silly game... everyone should feel free to put on deadly silly camo or deadly serious clown suits should they choose.

Vancha · 2012-07-04, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by GreatMazinkaise

You can't specifically leave out camo... that's the thing.

Why?

GreatMazinkaise · 2012-07-04, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Vancha

Why?

'cuz that implies that camouflage is in fact P2W... and if that's the case, it shouldn't be in game in the first place.

Crator · 2012-07-04, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by Airanuva

You can't pick and choose which skins you don't want. It's a switch. Either all or none.

Say there is a ceiling light with two light bulbs. One is too bright, while the other is just right. You can't choose which bulb to turn off with a light switch, you'll just turn them both off.
If you want camo, you need all skins active. If you don't want to see the skins, you can't have camo. Simple as that.

Simple fix, categorize the silly non-beneficial skins and beneficial skins into two separate groups. Now only allow disabling of silly skins, if such a thing exists. <shrug>

Vancha · 2012-07-04, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by GreatMazinkaise

'cuz that implies that camouflage is in fact P2W... and if that's the case, it shouldn't be in game in the first place.

I'm not sure you pay for the ones that make the biggest difference, but I agree that camo - at least that which actually camouflages you - gives an advantage. I'd personally rather non-empire-coloured camo wasn't implemented at all, but I expect that'll be the case.

Airanuva · 2012-07-04, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by Crator

Simple fix, categorize the silly non-beneficial skins and beneficial skins into two separate groups. Now only allow disabling of silly skins, if such a thing exists. <shrug>

If they are beneficial then it's pay 2 win, what they are trying to avoid.

Also, how would you classify the Zebra skin? It is a camouflage. One that only works in tall grass with a color-blind predator, but still a camouflage.
White is also a camouflage in snow, but a hinderence in forests. It'd be silly to be white in a forest, but beneficial in the snow. Would you then disable it based on what continent you're on?

Plus they would lose money on making the silly skins if people don't buy them because people are disabling them. No matter what such a feature would be incredibly stupid of SoE to include.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-07-04, 06:47 PM

I can see zebra camo being very nice in a dark forest with a snow background.

Kaos · 2012-07-04, 08:34 PM

Hi, I'm with the self entitlement committee, and I come bearing awards!

Flaropri · 2012-07-05, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by LostAlgorithm

Please, this is not censorship. Those who enjoy skins are not effected in any way. Asking for the option to opt out of something while letting everyone else continue on as if nothing changed isn't censorship.

Just because a given website still exists doesn't mean that blocking access to it isn't censorship. Likewise, just because an image exists in it's unaltered state doesn't mean that blurring part of it out or something similar isn't censorship.

If I walk around in allegedly tasteless (but otherwise legal) clothing and others "opt out" and choose to see me wearing different clothing that is still censorship (also either impressive eye-wear or psychological issues

).

I will grant though that it isn't being done by an authority, that it is an option rather than imposed. I will also grant that on the scale of things it is relatively inoffensive censorship but...

Even so, I think if people can deal with poor fashion taste (at least according to the viewer) in reality they can deal with it in games as well, and there's enough financial incentive to not discourage cosmetic sales to outweigh whatever small income the discussed option would provide.

It's like complaining that people who choose to live out in the country are censoring those who live in the city; it makes no sense.

Not at all, those are two very different things, and I'm a little confused how you got to this idea. It isn't like they don't see people who live in the city, or pretend they don't exist (or are different from what they actually are) when they run into said people. They might judge them, dislike them, not spend that much time with them etc. but...

I just don't see the parallel.

Vancha · 2012-07-05, 10:47 AM

Censorship carries far too much weight to be used for something like this, but even on technicality I don't think it would apply, since it's individuals opting-out of viewing something themselves, not stopping others from seeing it too. If someone puts a book in front of my face and I avert my eyes from reading it, it's not censorship (and neither is your clothes analogy, since how is that different from merely refusing to look at you?).

Flaropri · 2012-07-05, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Vancha

Censorship carries far too much weight to be used for something like this, but even on technicality I don't think it would apply, since it's individuals opting-out of viewing something themselves, not stopping others from seeing it too. If someone puts a book in front of my face and I avert my eyes from reading it, it's not censorship (and neither is your clothes analogy, since how is that different from merely refusing to look at you?).

Perhaps you're right, but I still think it would devalue skins too much if the option was there, at least from the business perspective.

I think though, that there is a difference between seeing something and looking away, and not seeing it entirely such that you don't even know it was there, and that it is still an important difference.