Discuss: Pre-Alpha Chargen - Make Anyone

952 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Your reasons for why we need a definition slider.

Because, let's not forget, this whole discussion was started because you stated that the CoT character generator were missing the Definition slider. Thus, it is upon you to provide reasons why.

Actually I said to split the muscle slider into two, a bulk and definition slider. The reason I said that was because one person wanted a bulky muscled female character and another wanted a lithe muscled character. You seem to be the only one who didn't get that.

Huckleberry wrote:

Now we're getting somewhere. So when you combine two or more different morphs you are actually using an additive property to combine their effects upon the base model into a sum result. Each is an independent driver. So we could actually have even more morphs, with each morph being a different and unique end product. We could have Stickman, Stocky Dwarf, and any other number of target bodies that we can apply as morph sliders.

Yes, I already said that the morphs I was talking about are not the only ones possible. I also said that the morphs I suggested will be surprisingly versatile allowing for almost any regular body type and quite a few irregular ones as well.

Huckleberry wrote:

And if I understand you correctly, we can not have just a fat slider and a muscle slider because driving towards the fat target is driving towards a target with wimpy shoulders and a saggy chest. Trying to add some "fat" to a high muscle-mass body would then necessarily reduce the appearance of some of that muscle in the chest and shoulders and it would not look like the "bulk" figure. In other words, the muscle mass slider would drive us to a +10 in shoulder size, but the fat slider would drive us to only a +4 in should size. Maxing both sliders would end up with only a +7 in shoulder size. (I am using numbers to illustrate the concept, not any actual representation of program code). So if we want a body to have both muscle mass and fat, we will need to make a third target that includes both. This way we will be able to use that slider to get the +10 shoulders we want, while at the same time providing a healthy dose of padding.

No. When the morphs are designed to work in conjunction the need for a morph that manipulate a combination of multiple end results (like a morph for increasing/ decreasing both muscle and fat at the same time) become less necessary. I showed this when I gave the long explanation. The pictures show figures that combine multiple morphs to various degrees.
This is getting more complex because it deals with dependent limits, gradient math and so on. You need to understand the basics of a single morph before you can understand how they work in conjunction. The problem is that I have simplified many things about morphs in order to give an explanation about a more complex aspect, the conflicting nature of using two morphs at the same time. For example, a full body morph is seldom a single morph, it is usually a bunch of morphs designed to work in conjunction to produce a specific end result. This is why I say you need to understand basics before you can delve to deep into this, for now it should suffice to say that you don't need a specific morph that combines multiple desired end results if the other morphs were designed to work together in the first place. Please note the use of the word slider and morph, they are not interchangeable, they are each unique from one another.

Huckleberry wrote:

I really wish you would have stayed away from all the snarky comments. But I think we got the end result I was looking for nonetheless.

My snarky comments started after you decided to try and be cute at my expense :

Huckleberry wrote:

You say that if we put definition and fat on the same slider we "can't give muscle definition to a guy with any kind of fat."
Ummm.... Duh!

Huckleberry wrote:

Your lexicon may make sense to the users of a particular software program, but the players of CoT shouldn't have to bring a Daz-to-English dictionary with them when they create a character.

I was trying to explain something difficult to you and even took time to create visual examples and was greeted by a childish donkey sound (emphasized by the increased text size) and a complete dismissal of my reasons behind my terminology which were explain clearly. It was a lack of respect for the time and effort I spent trying to explain a complex topic without knowing your level of knowledge on the subject. So my snarky comments were born of your insulting attitude.
I am going to suggest something and it's going to sound rude but know that is not my intent. When you want to learn something it is best to ask questions. You have a habit of skipping that step and going right to the conclusions step, otherwise known as making assumptions. Keep asking question about something you don't understand until you do. And just so I am clear, when I say ask questions, I don't mean ask if your assumptions are correct.

Huckleberry wrote:

So, if CoT does not have a definition slider, how do you think they will be providing all the malleability we desire? Or do you think that they really are missing something necessary?

Shadow has already said there will be a fat, bulk, muscle size and muscle definition sliders. Each independent of one another (confirmed) but able to be used in conjunction (I assume). That is already one more than I suggested. I think we are going to have enough options for body shape diversity.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Shadow has already said there
Brainbot wrote:

Shadow has already said there will be a fat, bulk, muscle size and muscle definition sliders. Each independent of one another (confirmed) but able to be used in conjunction (I assume). That is already one more than I suggested. I think we are going to have enough options for body shape diversity.

Your current tiff with Huckleberry not withstanding I'm still intrigued by your hypothetical talk of a "voluptuous" morph slider for the female body model. I wonder if the functionality of such a thing is going to be incorporated into other secondary sliders beyond the "main four" confirmed by Shadow/Tannim and/or if the Devs will comment further about accounting for those options.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Your current tiff with Huckleberry not withstanding I'm still intrigued by your hypothetical talk of a "voluptuous" morph slider for the female body model. I wonder if the functionality of such a thing is going to be incorporated into other secondary sliders beyond the "main four" confirmed by Shadow/Tannim and/or if the Devs will comment further about accounting for those options.

The voluptuous morph is mostly just a hip and breast morph combined. I have a hard time imagining a character creator without those options for women being available independent of the other options.
I seem to remember the devs talking about have a breast slider that was more diverse than the one we had in CoH so I don't think I am too far off. Though I do reserve the right to be wrong.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Brainbot]
Brainbot wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

And if I understand you correctly, we can not have just a fat slider and a muscle slider because driving towards the fat target is driving towards a target with wimpy shoulders and a saggy chest. Trying to add some "fat" to a high muscle-mass body would then necessarily reduce the appearance of some of that muscle in the chest and shoulders and it would not look like the "bulk" figure. In other words, the muscle mass slider would drive us to a +10 in shoulder size, but the fat slider would drive us to only a +4 in should size. Maxing both sliders would end up with only a +7 in shoulder size. (I am using numbers to illustrate the concept, not any actual representation of program code). So if we want a body to have both muscle mass and fat, we will need to make a third target that includes both. This way we will be able to use that slider to get the +10 shoulders we want, while at the same time providing a healthy dose of padding.

No. When the morphs are designed to work in conjunction the need for a morph that manipulate a combination of multiple end results (like a morph for increasing/ decreasing both muscle and fat at the same time) become less necessary. I showed this when I gave the long explanation. The pictures show figures that combine multiple morphs to various degrees.
This is getting more complex because it deals with dependent limits, gradient math and so on. You need to understand the basics of a single morph before you can understand how they work in conjunction. The problem is that I have simplified many things about morphs in order to give an explanation about a more complex aspect, the conflicting nature of using two morphs at the same time. For example, a full body morph is seldom a single morph, it is usually a bunch of morphs designed to work in conjunction to produce a specific end result. This is why I say you need to understand basics before you can delve to deep into this, for now it should suffice to say that you don't need a specific morph that combines multiple desired end results if the other morphs were designed to work together in the first place. Please note the use of the word slider and morph, they are not interchangeable, they are each unique from one another.

You really shouldn't assume people are as stupid or as ignorant as you think they are.

So if I had a weight/fat slider that was all defined muscle on one end and all tubby at the other. And then I also had a muscle mass slider that was near skeletal at one end and Mr. Olympia at the other, then I could create your "bulk" image if I made sure that those two sliders "were designed to work together in the first place", right?


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Your current tiff with Huckleberry not withstanding I'm still intrigued by your hypothetical talk of a "voluptuous" morph slider for the female body model. I wonder if the functionality of such a thing is going to be incorporated into other secondary sliders beyond the "main four" confirmed by Shadow/Tannim and/or if the Devs will comment further about accounting for those options.

The voluptuous morph is mostly just a hip and breast morph combined. I have a hard time imagining a character creator without those options for women being available independent of the other options.

Right... I re-quoted what you said about your voluptuous morph idea a few posts ago in a post specifically directed to Tannim.

Essentially I liked your idea about what you called the "5th main" voluptuous slider for the female body model. But perhaps since adjustments for these things are uniquely limited to a single body model the Devs might be effectively implementing the functionality of your single voluptuous slider as several female-only sub-sliders. This is basically what I'd like to hear from the Devs one way or the other.

Brainbot wrote:

I seem to remember the devs talking about have a breast slider that was more diverse than the one we had in CoH so I don't think I am too far off. Though I do reserve the right to be wrong.

Earlier in this thread I talked about what the Devs had confirmed in posts a while ago (maybe a year ago or more at this point) about allowing for a wider range of breast sizes than what CoH allowed for. Specifically letting us create more "waifishly flat-chested" characters was a major part of that confirmed info.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

You really shouldn't assume people are as stupid or as ignorant as you think they are.

I'm not assuming you are stupid or ignorant. I am reacting to the evidence you have provided as to your lack of knowledge in this area. Lack of knowledge is not stupid or ignorant.

Huckleberry wrote:

So if I had a weight/fat slider that was all defined muscle on one end and all tubby at the other. And then I also had a muscle mass slider that was near skeletal at one end and Mr. Olympia at the other, then I could create your "bulk" image if I made sure that those two sliders "were designed to work together in the first place", right?

It is the morphs that need to be designed to work in conjunction. The sliders are just an in game mechanism for applying the morph.

But I think you meant that if the morphs were designed to work together so I will go from that.

To answer you, for morphs to work in conjunction they need a common starting point. The baseline figure. It is that figure which is remodeled into a new shape (fat, muscled, ect). Then the remodeled figure is turned into a morph and applied to the original baseline figure. Again this is simplified.
To do what you want you would need to create 4 morphs, one for each end of the spectrums. So, for example, a slider would have the skeletal morph applied to -10 to -1 on the dial, baseline at 0 and the muscled morph 1 to 10 on the slider.

But, like I said before, when you do this you are effectively locking out half of the morph option. A setting of 1 on tubby means you can have absolutely nothing on the defined side. This is important because it limits how much players can do with the character creator. Lets say the sliders worked the way you suggest. I want a highly defined hugely muscled guy. I max out your muscle slider and I think the muscles are too small. So now if I want to give my guy more mass with the weight slider I lose any and all option for definition in those muscles. What about a tall thin undefined muscled guy (look at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in Game of Death), or non-humans like ogres, orks or apes/gorillas?

In the end this is a completely hypothetical situation because we have already gotten confirmation that the morphs will each have their own dial/slider.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Right... I re-quoted what you said about your voluptuous morph idea a few posts ago in a post specifically directed to Tannim.

Essentially I liked your idea about what you called the "5th main" voluptuous slider for the female body model. But perhaps since adjustments for these things are uniquely limited to a single body model the Devs might be effectively implementing the functionality of your single voluptuous slider as several female-only sub-sliders. This is basically what I'd like to hear from the Devs one way or the other.

Well, all of the main sliders would likely be unique to the female model and male model individually simply because the baseline models are different. I know that both come from the same original model but unless MWM's morph designer is a near god of 3d modeling he likely created the morphs from each seperate baseline form.

Lothic wrote:

Earlier in this thread I talked about what the Devs had confirmed in posts a while ago (maybe a year ago or more at this point) about allowing for a wider range of breast sizes than what CoH allowed for. Specifically letting us create more "waifishly flat-chested" characters was a major part of that confirmed info.

Ok.

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 59 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
An issue that may need to be

An issue that may need to be considered is that men and women carry 'extra fat' differently, so it may be appropriate/necessary to fiddle with the weighting on that slider.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

To answer you, for morphs to work in conjunction they need a common starting point. The baseline figure. It is that figure which is remodeled into a new shape (fat, muscled, ect). Then the remodeled figure is turned into a morph and applied to the original baseline figure. Again this is simplified.
To do what you want you would need to create 4 morphs, one for each end of the spectrums. So, for example, a slider would have the skeletal morph applied to -10 to -1 on the dial, baseline at 0 and the muscled morph 1 to 10 on the slider.

But, like I said before, when you do this you are effectively locking out half of the morph option. A setting of 1 on tubby means you can have absolutely nothing on the defined side.

Not necessarily, it just means that you're only one step above baseline.

As we chart the progression from zero bodyfat to morbidly obese, the halfway point would be defined as the baseline. Remember we're starting from a base. I would expect the base for this game would be an average looking Joe all around, and that includes some muscle definition and some love handleage. Since the morphs were designed to work together, as you go farther into tubby, the definition disappears more and more and the fat starts rolling.

You're also forgetting that there is a separate muscle mass morph, and at baseline Joe Average has enough muscle mass to give body some shape if that's what you are looking for. And if you want to be more lumpy in all the right places, just add more muscle mass.

Bainbot wrote:

This is important because it limits how much players can do with the character creator. Lets say the sliders worked the way you suggest. I want a highly defined hugely muscled guy. I max out your muscle slider and I think the muscles are too small. So now if I want to give my guy more mass with the weight slider I lose any and all option for definition in those muscles.

That has nothing to do with this discussion. Once you reach the size limit, you reach the size limit. In your example, I would say that if the muscles were too small at the maxed out muscle mass, then the muscles were too small. You're using the same logic as Spinal Tap when they say their speakers go to eleven and the interviewer asks them why they don't just make 10 louder.

Or maybe they could create a completely different baseline body type for Huge characters just like CoX did.

Brainbot wrote:

What about a tall thin undefined muscled guy (look at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in Game of Death), or non-humans like ogres, orks or apes/gorillas?

Great example. Make muscle mass low so there isn't a lot of bulk, and make sure there's enough fat on his bones to obscure some of the rippling. Done. Oh, and extend the length of the body to reflect all 7'2" of him. Hopefully there will be a macro morph that can do this just by adjusting the height. This should be different than scale, because scale would make everything bigger as you made him taller, and we aren't looking for that.

Quote:

In the end this is a completely hypothetical situation because we have already gotten confirmation that the morphs will each have their own dial/slider.

Right now the only morphs we have seen are Weight and Muscle. And Age and Scale. If Shadow Elusive's post about there being four sliders called Fat, Bulk, Muscle and Muscle Definition is true, I'll believe it when I see it. And this can be put to rest.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Not necessarily, it just means that you're only one step above baseline.

You need to read what I said again.

Brainbot wrote:

But, like I said before, when you do this you are effectively locking out half of the morph option. A setting of 1 on tubby means you can have absolutely nothing on the defined side.

You can't have a dial that goes anywhere from -1 to -10 (the defined side) when it is already set to 1 (a bit of fat). When you slide that bar to 1 the entirety of the defined morph (-1 to -10) is locked from you.

Huckleberry wrote:

That has nothing to do with this discussion. Once you reach the size limit, you reach the size limit. In your example, I would say that if the muscles were too small at the maxed out muscle mass, then the muscles were too small. You're using the same logic as Spinal Tap when they say their speakers go to eleven and the interviewer asks them why they don't just make 10 louder.

This has everything to do with the discussion. I am talking about why these morphs should have separate sliders. It is to provide more options in character body types. The maxing out of a single slider does not mean the absolute max in size, just that one slider. The entire point is that multiple separate sliders let you fine tune what shape you are looking for.
I am not saying my speaker goes to 11, I am saying I produce a better sound with a bunch of different speakers, a tweeter, woofer, subwoofer and mid range, than you can with your two speaker setup. It's the difference between a professional surround sound system and a 99 dollar stereo from Walmart.

Huckleberry wrote:

Or maybe they could create a completely different baseline body type for Huge characters just like CoX did.

They could but IIRC they have already said they are not doing that because their slider options make it pointless.
But if they did then they now have the issue of a greatly increased workload. They would have to make new animations, costumes and morphs for this new baseline model.

Huckleberry wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

What about a tall thin undefined muscled guy (look at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in Game of Death), or non-humans like ogres, orks or apes/gorillas?

Great example. Make muscle mass low so there isn't a lot of bulk, and make sure there's enough fat on his bones to obscure some of the rippling. Done. Oh, and extend the length of the body to reflect all 7'2" of him. Hopefully there will be a macro morph that can do this just by adjusting the height. This should be different than scale, because scale would make everything bigger as you made him taller, and we aren't looking for that.

The morphs you described unlikely work the way you think. Even if they did it does not change the fact that you lock out character customize morph options when you put them at the opposite ends of a slider dial.

Huckleberry wrote:

Right now the only morphs we have seen are Weight and Muscle. And Age and Scale. If Shadow Elusive's post about there being four sliders called Fat, Bulk, Muscle and Muscle Definition is true, I'll believe it when I see it. And this can be put to rest.

Actually I am putting our discussion to rest.
You seem to be less interested in learning and more interested in proving that some morphs should be on the same slider. Your desire to prove you are right is causing you to leap to faulty conclusions and your lack of interest in learning is causing you to challenge everything I have to say.

If you do still want to know more about the subject you can go to 3d editing software websites and read or watch the tutorials.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Well, all of the main sliders would likely be unique to the female model and male model individually simply because the baseline models are different. I know that both come from the same original model but unless MWM's morph designer is a near god of 3d modeling he likely created the morphs from each seperate baseline form.

Yes, you already made this clear in your earlier post (which I'll requote again):

Brainbot wrote:

Now these same types of morphs can be used on female models as well (with some obvious adjustments) but female models would probably benefit from another morph as well, voluptuous which is mostly just breast and hip morphs.

It was reasonably clear to me (based on what you already said) that your hypothetical "bulk, definition, weight and height" morphs for the male model would literally be different (binary wise) than the bulk, definition, weight and height morphs for the female model. It's just that specific distinction wasn't really pertinent to what I was talking about in terms of a hypothetical "5th" voluptuous slider. Don't worry - I can typically follow your explanations regardless if I agree with you or not. I just happen to agree with you this time. ;)

Having said all this we can now generalize (with Dev confirmation) that BOTH MODELS COLLECTIVELY have their own versions of the four main sliders called Fat, Bulk, Muscle and Muscle Definition. This is why I referred to the (again) hypothetical voluptuous morph as a potential "5th main" morph for females only.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Lothic wrote:Yes, you already
Lothic wrote:

Yes, you already made this clear in your earlier post.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were asking me for further clarification on what I meant by a voluptuous slider.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Yes, you already made this clear in your earlier post.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were asking me for further clarification on what I meant by a voluptuous slider.

No, I was really hoping a Dev would comment on your idea as it might relate to CoT. Again I think the functionality of your hypothetical voluptuous slider is going to be implemented in CoT with several other types of sub-sliders (that specifically target things like breasts/hips) but I just want confirmation of that.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Mordheim13
Mordheim13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 13:22
I suspect the Devs are

I suspect the Devs are staying out of, or perhaps even ignoring altogether, the arguments on these subjects for fear of encouraging them. LOL

Shocking Blu

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Mordheim13 wrote:
Mordheim13 wrote:

I suspect the Devs are staying out of, or perhaps even ignoring altogether, the arguments on these subjects for fear of encouraging them. LOL

If nothing else the Devs of this game have a sense of patience and diplomacy that is at times awe inspiring. ;)

I think they're aware that when "heated debate" crops up in these forums it's usually because we all collectively lack the hands-on knowledge of having an actual game to play with. Frankly I suspect 99% of these verbal dust-ups would be mitigated if we all had 5 minutes (right now) to actually play with the game and/or the character creator regardless of their current build state. The inability to answer our own questions is what drives most people here to frustration.

Ultimately the Devs here are doing what Devs have to do... basically say as little as possible in order to avoid saying something they'll regret later on. My only "job" here has been to try to fish as much info out of them is possible and I have no shame about acting "a little crazy" sometimes in order to trick as much as I can from them. ;)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Mordheim13
Mordheim13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 13:22
I think you are right

I think you are right regarding the Devs, Lothic, but that you give the rest of us too much credit. I spent enough time listening to people ingame at CoX, and other games since, to believe that people would be anymore reasonable and able to get along together if they had the game to play with. Humans just like to argue. or, as a friend of mine used to say, "Monkeys just like to chatter and throw poo." LOL

Shocking Blu

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Mordheim13 wrote:
Mordheim13 wrote:

I think you are right regarding the Devs, Lothic, but that you give the rest of us too much credit. I spent enough time listening to people ingame at CoX, and other games since, to believe that people would be anymore reasonable and able to get along together if they had the game to play with. Humans just like to argue. or, as a friend of mine used to say, "Monkeys just like to chatter and throw poo." LOL

Well this is the "Internet" so it's true people are going to bicker regardless. Perhaps I just have the pipe-dream that if the game existed right now at least the "bickering" would be grounded a bit more on something tangible as opposed to the ether of vaporware. *shrugs*

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Mordheim13
Mordheim13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 13:22
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Mordheim13 wrote:

I think you are right regarding the Devs, Lothic, but that you give the rest of us too much credit. I spent enough time listening to people ingame at CoX, and other games since, to believe that people would be anymore reasonable and able to get along together if they had the game to play with. Humans just like to argue. or, as a friend of mine used to say, "Monkeys just like to chatter and throw poo." LOL

Well this is the "Internet" so it's true people are going to bicker regardless. Perhaps I just have the pipe-dream that if the game existed right now at least the "bickering" would be grounded a bit more on something tangible as opposed to the ether of vaporware. *shrugs*

Why, Lothic! You are an Optimist! Good for you! :D

Shocking Blu

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 52 min 52 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Mordheim13 wrote:
Mordheim13 wrote:

"Monkeys just like to chatter and throw poo."

This is very true. So very, very true.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
I find it funny how there is

I find it funny how there is usually more posts about the fact there is a disagreement than there is in the actual disagreement. You know, those people who have nothing to add so they just chirp like birds, hoping in their heart of hearts that what they disapprove of goes on so they have a reason to act righteous.

Mordheim13
Mordheim13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 13:22
Brainbot, I find it funny

Brainbot, I find it funny that you get so abusively defensive toward anyone who does not fully embrace your line of thinking... and then try to act self-righteous. Even when I agree with what you're saying at base, this tendency taints your point. But at least it's entertaining to watch, to a degree. :)

Shocking Blu

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
I'm fully aware of my own

I'm fully aware of my own arrogance. At least I wait until I am insulted before I call someone a monkey throwing shit.
Still I applaud you for admitting the motives behind your high horse attitude.
Now you can pretend that you 'didn't mean anyone specific' with your monkey comment.

IMO the real reason the devs don't comment on most of these discussions is because they feel they don't need to until it devolves into this kinda crap. Well that and they are probably busy with developing the game. I disagree with that (if it's true) wait and see type of forum moderation. I would prefer if they stepped in and said 'keep it civil' a bit more.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Not necessarily, it just means that you're only one step above baseline.

You need to read what I said again.

Brainbot wrote:

But, like I said before, when you do this you are effectively locking out half of the morph option. A setting of 1 on tubby means you can have absolutely nothing on the defined side.

You can't have a dial that goes anywhere from -1 to -10 (the defined side) when it is already set to 1 (a bit of fat). When you slide that bar to 1 the entirety of the defined morph (-1 to -10) is locked from you.

Yes, I get that. And your conviction that you are the only one in this conversation with any knowledge has blinded you to the point I am trying to make.

And that point is that muscle definition and fat are actually two ends of the same spectrum. So in my view there would not nor should not be a case where you would add muscle definition and fat. Because the definition of muscle definition is the absence of fat. Ergo they are mutually exclusive. That's why and the only reason why I suggest that if we make two morphs out of them, that we place them on opposite ends of the same slider. That assumes we want an average joe to be the baseline as you put forth in your examples. We could just as easily make zero-bodyfat-man the baseline and have only one fat morph that adds fat all the way up to morbidly obese. But I was gearing my statements working with the baseline you introduced during this discussion.

Brainbot wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

That has nothing to do with this discussion. Once you reach the size limit, you reach the size limit. In your example, I would say that if the muscles were too small at the maxed out muscle mass, then the muscles were too small. You're using the same logic as Spinal Tap when they say their speakers go to eleven and the interviewer asks them why they don't just make 10 louder.

This has everything to do with the discussion. I am talking about why these morphs should have separate sliders. It is to provide more options in character body types. The maxing out of a single slider does not mean the absolute max in size, just that one slider. The entire point is that multiple separate sliders let you fine tune what shape you are looking for.
I am not saying my speaker goes to 11, I am saying I produce a better sound with a bunch of different speakers, a tweeter, woofer, subwoofer and mid range, than you can with your two speaker setup. It's the difference between a professional surround sound system and a 99 dollar stereo from Walmart.

I understand this and will acknowledge that the CoT avatar builder should give us the ability to build the weird and unnatural. And I acknowledge if that means adding muscle definition on top of fat rolls, who am I to argue? I will certainly not object to anything that opens up more creative possibilities, no matter how much they assault my personal sensibilities.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Atama
Atama's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 47 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

IMO the real reason the devs don't comment on most of these discussions is because they feel they don't need to until it devolves into this kinda crap. Well that and they are probably busy with developing the game. I disagree with that (if it's true) wait and see type of forum moderation. I would prefer if they stepped in and said 'keep it civil' a bit more.

As someone who does not participate in the drama I find it highly entertaining and appreciate the laissez faire attitude.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Atama wrote:
Atama wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

IMO the real reason the devs don't comment on most of these discussions is because they feel they don't need to until it devolves into this kinda crap. Well that and they are probably busy with developing the game. I disagree with that (if it's true) wait and see type of forum moderation. I would prefer if they stepped in and said 'keep it civil' a bit more.

As someone who does not participate in the drama I find it highly entertaining and appreciate the laissez faire attitude.

Talk about "laissez-faire attitude" - I think I've only seen a "Redname" ever literally say anything directly to the effect of "settle down children or we're going to make you go to bed without supper" on -any- thread here maybe once or twice since this forum got started. I don't think they even bothered to warn anyone during the multi-year run of the "Thread That Shall Not Be Named" even though I personally figured that thread deserved to be ABSOLUTELY LOCKED half-a-dozen times over. As far as I know it's still just lingering out there just waiting to be necro'd again.... Boo!

So no, there's really no serious "parental control" around here thus far and I doubt that's going to change much at least until the game launches. TBH I'm not really going to judge if that's good or bad - I just know the Devs only respond here when they're personally 99.999% sure about something related to the discussion and only then at a bare minimum lest they not reveal anything they don't want revealed yet.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Yes, I get that. And your conviction that you are the only one in this conversation with any knowledge has blinded you to the point I am trying to make.

And that point is that muscle definition and fat are actually two ends of the same spectrum. So in my view there would not nor should not be a case where you would add muscle definition and fat. Because the definition of muscle definition is the absence of fat. Ergo they are mutually exclusive. That's why and the only reason why I suggest that if we make two morphs out of them, that we place them on opposite ends of the same slider. That assumes we want an average joe to be the baseline as you put forth in your examples. We could just as easily make zero-bodyfat-man the baseline and have only one fat morph that adds fat all the way up to morbidly obese. But I was gearing my statements working with the baseline you introduced during this discussion.

I already addressed why the baseline was the way it was and why the morphs don't work the way you think.
I also said that I agree in the real world fat could be considered the opposite of definition but it isn't when discussing the morphs for CoT.
Furthermore, I have said it was possible to put multiple (even opposing) morphs on the same dial and explained one way to do it .
I have tried to give you information, I acknowledged your opinion and explained a way to make things work the way you want.
Just tell me what you want from me? Because at this point I have absolutely no idea.

Mordheim13
Mordheim13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 13:22
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

I'm fully aware of my own arrogance. At least I wait until I am insulted before I call someone a monkey throwing shit.
Still I applaud you for admitting the motives behind your high horse attitude.
Now you can pretend that you 'didn't mean anyone specific' with your monkey comment.

IMO the real reason the devs don't comment on most of these discussions is because they feel they don't need to until it devolves into this kinda crap. Well that and they are probably busy with developing the game. I disagree with that (if it's true) wait and see type of forum moderation. I would prefer if they stepped in and said 'keep it civil' a bit more.

But... if they did that, how often would you be able to talk, Brain? :D

Shocking Blu

mrultimate
mrultimate's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 6 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/26/2013 - 08:18
Whats that old saying about

Whats that old saying about opinions?

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
mrultimate wrote:
mrultimate wrote:

Whats that old saying about opinions?

That everyone believes theirs is undeniable fact?

P.S. Just trying to steer things away from the anally-oriented monkey poo-flinging references. ;)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

AxerJ
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 19:10
I applaud Brainbot for

I applaud Brainbot for relatively superheroic patience! It takes real effort and good will to give complete, understandable, and nonthreatening explanations. Especially about systems most dont know a lot about. And especially when the dialogue partner has a relatively strong reactive habit.
Youre doing awesomely, Brain! =)! I dont see many who are willing to explain themselves so thoroughly and honestly, and I really appreciate that - especially on the anonymous internet.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
AxerJ wrote:
AxerJ wrote:

I applaud Brainbot for relatively superheroic patience! It takes real effort and good will to give complete, understandable, and nonthreatening explanations. Especially about systems most dont know a lot about. And especially when the dialogue partner has a relatively strong reactive habit.
Youre doing awesomely, Brain! =)! I dont see many who are willing to explain themselves so thoroughly and honestly, and I really appreciate that - especially on the anonymous internet.

I will be honest. I am not sure how to take this, especially after the previous discussions I have been involved in. Very few people attribute patience as one of my virtues. And sometimes it is hard to discern sarcasm in the printed word.
But I would really like to believe this was posted in earnest so I will do so and thank you for your kind words.

AxerJ, if you have been following the discussion of morphs and sliders, I would like to emphasize that the explanation I gave is a very abridge version and only relates to their 'most likely' use in the character creator. If you have any questions about the topic feel free to ask either here or in PM and I will do my best to answer them.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Yes, I get that. And your conviction that you are the only one in this conversation with any knowledge has blinded you to the point I am trying to make.

And that point is that muscle definition and fat are actually two ends of the same spectrum. So in my view there would not nor should not be a case where you would add muscle definition and fat. Because the definition of muscle definition is the absence of fat. Ergo they are mutually exclusive. That's why and the only reason why I suggest that if we make two morphs out of them, that we place them on opposite ends of the same slider. That assumes we want an average joe to be the baseline as you put forth in your examples. We could just as easily make zero-bodyfat-man the baseline and have only one fat morph that adds fat all the way up to morbidly obese. But I was gearing my statements working with the baseline you introduced during this discussion.

I already addressed why the baseline was the way it was and why the morphs don't work the way you think.
I also said that I agree in the real world fat could be considered the opposite of definition but it isn't when discussing the morphs for CoT.
Furthermore, I have said it was possible to put multiple (even opposing) morphs on the same dial and explained one way to do it .
I have tried to give you information, I acknowledged your opinion and explained a way to make things work the way you want.
Just tell me what you want from me? Because at this point I have absolutely no idea.

When MWM puts the final touches on their customization sliders I hope they give it more thought. Like you admit, in the real world fat would be considered the opposite of definition, so I hope they don't use labels like fat and muscle and definition simultaneously for three different sliders like your tool did. That would just end up confusing people. And yes, I used the word slider there intentionally because the developer's name for a morph and the UI name on a slider don't have to be the same thing.

I think this discussion of body morphs actually ended up confusing things more than anything else, despite all the examples.

One of the best public examples I have found for the the combination of morphs can actually be found on the tool being used by Hero Forge, of all places. Here's a link. I want to bring your (the collective you, not necessarily the specific Brainbot you) attention to the facial expression window. It is under the HEAD>EXPRESSION menu.

In other words, in the facial expressions window, we are able to combine the effects of several morphs, each theoretically exclusive of the others, and yet by doing so, we can create something specific. For those reading this who can't follow the link. Hero Forge allows users to customize the expression of a 3D rendered person using the following sliders: Smile, Cocky, Snarl, Confused, and AAAARRRGGGGHH!!. (The fact that we get to see our changes rendered in realtime with WebGL is groundbereaking!) With the baseline zero on all the sliders being an expressionless face.

I think that is why you were proposing a bulk slider and a muscle slider and a definition slider and a fat slider. I always understood the concept of applying different morphs. I just didn't think that fat and definition needed to be separate to accomplish anything in between because I thought they belong on the same scale. Which then began a rather lengthy back and forth as you attempted to prove why they should be separate, and I kept being skeptical. And while I understand what you are saying, I am not deterred from my opinion.

To put my opinion in terms of facial expression: I equate the relationship between fat and definition to the relationship of happy to sad. The corresponding facial expression slider would be labelled Happiness and would have the sad morph at one end and the happy morph on the other, with the expressionless baseline in between. If I understand you correctly, you are proposing two sliders instead; one for the happy morph and the second for the sad morph. And I will admit that we could probably get a result by doing it your way that we couldn't get by doing it mine. And if that's all this discussion was about, I'm good with that.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 59 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Didn't the Devs repeatedly

Didn't the Devs repeatedly say they were giving us Four sliders, each one controlling a different aspect of character shape? I don't understand why there was any need to discuss this, after that. It's like the argument became more important than the reality.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Didn't the Devs repeatedly say they were giving us Four sliders, each one controlling a different aspect of character shape? I don't understand why there was any need to discuss this, after that. It's like the argument became more important than the reality.

Yeah. But as a complex subject, it takes a lot of explaining to get ideas across. All that explaining suffers from the forum medium. It's like trying to teach 3D graphic arts via text messages. It's hard enough in a computer lab.

So there were inevitable misunderstandings. I know I asked a few very simple and ignorant sounding questions in an effort just to understand where Brainbot was coming from. Like that whole shoulder size example after it looked like he said he used an additive algorithm. By his answer he made it clear he was not, and then we moved on.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

When MWM puts the final touches on their customization sliders I hope they give it more thought. Like you admit, in the real world fat would be considered the opposite of definition, so I hope they don't use labels like fat and muscle and definition simultaneously for three different sliders like your tool did. That would just end up confusing people. And yes, I used the word slider there intentionally because the developer's name for a morph and the UI name on a slider don't have to be the same thing.

Huckleberry wrote:

I just didn't think that fat and definition needed to be separate to accomplish anything in between because I thought they belong on the same scale. Which then began a rather lengthy back and forth as you attempted to prove why they should be separate, and I kept being skeptical. And while I understand what you are saying, I am not deterred from my opinion.

So in the end your problem was my terminology(despite denying it earlier) and that I suggested each morph should have its own slider?
I'm not even going to try and correct all the bull in your response because this whole thing is already a colossal waste of time.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

So in the end your problem was my terminology [...]

It's like I said dozens of posts ago in this thread: I ultimately couldn't care less what CoT calls/labels anything in this game. As long as they provide a group of sliders that provide a wide range of functionality we'll eventually figure out how it all works and have fun with it regardless.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 54 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Challenge for the Devs...can

Challenge for the Devs...can I make someone as good looking as this?
this face and hair is to die for!

https://black-falcon01.deviantart.com/art/Red-Lantern-Supergirl-II-Remake-Series-697610380

Kassandros
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 1 week ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 20:15
It's amazing how much

It's amazing how much attention there is the physical appearance of female characters on this forum and almost none to male ones. It's fucking disgusting how objectifying many people here are being and I'm regretting contributing to the Kickstarter cause it seems the playerbase will be full of annoying, sexist assholes.

TitansCity
TitansCity's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 55 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 02:09
Her boobs are as big as her

Her boobs are as big as her face !! That's not natural at all... :s

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 59 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Look at how they each defy

Look at how they each defy gravity and she is so... excited that her costume can barely contain their power. Also, her costume fits so well, that it perfectly conforms to her skin and she's had organ reduction surgery and had a few ribs removed so that she can have such a slender waist.

Hair's pretty good, though.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Mordheim13
Mordheim13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 13:22
Kassandros wrote:
Kassandros wrote:

It's amazing how much attention there is the physical appearance of female characters on this forum and almost none to male ones. It's fucking disgusting how objectifying many people here are being and I'm regretting contributing to the Kickstarter cause it seems the playerbase will be full of annoying, sexist assholes.

Or annoying, judgmental whiners. But people are people, good or bad, and you're going to find them, at all extremes, in any game. So don't regret contributing on that basis-- or prepare your spaceship, to leave the planet. We can't insulate ourselves with only people who exhibit our own style of fanaticism. :)

Shocking Blu

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 hours 36 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Look at how they each defy gravity and she is so... excited that her costume can barely contain their power. Also, her costume fits so well, that it perfectly conforms to her skin and she's had organ reduction surgery and had a few ribs removed so that she can have such a slender waist.

Hair's pretty good, though.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Or, it could all be because she's an alien :o That is Supergirl as a Red Latern and who says Kryptonian's can't have a more slender waist?

That said, the artist has a good style. Don't want realistic, normal looking people and quite frankly I doubt anyone really does, even when they whine that they do. :p

Airhead
Airhead's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 14 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 23:38
Lady with spray-on moth

Lady with electroplated-on moth symbol stares at light bulb right in front of her face.

"I am the Moth-er!" she cries. "Ooh, shiny."

"The illusion which exalts us is dearer to us than ten thousand truths." - Pushkin
"One piece of flair is all I need." - Sister Silicon

desviper
desviper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 6 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/10/2014 - 00:55
yeah im getting much too

yeah im getting much too plastic a feel outta her...

"A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad"

Please have Scaling decals!

Avatar by MikeNovember

Cinnder
Cinnder's picture
Online
Last seen: 5 min 15 sec ago
Gunterkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/26/2013 - 16:24
Kassandros wrote:
Kassandros wrote:

It's amazing how much attention there is the physical appearance of female characters on this forum and almost none to male ones. It's fucking disgusting how objectifying many people here are being and I'm regretting contributing to the Kickstarter cause it seems the playerbase will be full of annoying, sexist assholes.

Don't get too discouraged; I don't think it's the majority of players. Many of us just roll our eyes at this sort of thing and move on, because publicly objecting usually brings a tirade from the usual suspects. I don't think this forum (or any forum) can be taken as an accurate depiction of the entire player base.

Spurn all ye kindle.

BiotopeZ
BiotopeZ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 5 days ago
Joined: 03/04/2016 - 10:29
...or maybe because they

...or maybe because they posted a video on the male body sliders, and not yet female ones, people are asking questions about the one they don't already have the answers to.

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 54 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Kassandros wrote:
Kassandros wrote:

It's amazing how much attention there is the physical appearance of female characters on this forum and almost none to male ones. It's fucking disgusting how objectifying many people here are being and I'm regretting contributing to the Kickstarter cause it seems the playerbase will be full of annoying, sexist assholes.

What a bizarre overreaction. All I asked for was a deception of female beauty, my comments were about her face and hair. The very first comment was a Social Justice Warrior rant about sexism. -- grow up dude --

this is what was possible with the old COH game:

The Devs have already stated they will allow such things, There WILL be a boob slider, I saw a Power Girl style boob window in a twitch. It will be an option available at launch. Flesh Forge, a Dev artist said there would be cleavage options available. ALL of these things are normal in comics. ALL of these things will be in the game.

I suggest you calm down and embrace diversity - allow other people to be different than you.

(shakes head) some people's kids...

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

Challenge for the Devs...can I make someone as good looking as this?
this face and hair is to die for!

https://black-falcon01.deviantart.com/art/Red-Lantern-Supergirl-II-Remake-Series-697610380

I could be wrong but that hair looks to be added in post editing. (Edit- upon closer inspection this appears to in fact be flat plane hair so it may be possible, but I still could be wrong)

I would absolutely love to get strand hair that mimics this but it is very cpu intensive. Even one character with strand hair effects can make a computer cry for mercy.
I think forge talked about plane hair which is the next best thing.

Here is a nice tutorial that can shed some light on new ways to make 3d modeled hair and may be of some use to the devs in the future:
https://humanalloy.com/create-amazing-digital-hair/

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 min 37 sec ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
I was going to comment that

I was going to comment that the pic looked like Red Lantern Barbie.

On a thread related note I did find an image on Twitter for a bunch of different strong female body types. I'll see if I can find it.

Edit: fixed the site (originally put tumblr not twitter). It's too early for me -.-

Edit 2: Found it! Howard Schatz pictures of athletes, has male and female body types. Hopefully we can make all of these body types. Here's just the female ones.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 54 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
The sliders in the Chargen

The sliders in the Chargen already allow for all body types in men. it will be the same for the gals.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Kassandros wrote:
Kassandros wrote:

It's amazing how much attention there is the physical appearance of female characters on this forum and almost none to male ones. It's fucking disgusting how objectifying many people here are being and I'm regretting contributing to the Kickstarter cause it seems the playerbase will be full of annoying, sexist assholes.

I've seen the subject of "male packages" come up multiple times in this forum over the years. The subtopics of "will their 'packages' be obvious on the character model" and "will there be a slider to control the size of the package" often come up as well. Now I'll grant you that talk about the female character model probably does happen maybe 10x as much as any talk about the male model so there is an imbalance in how much "objectifying" is going on here. But to try to imply that the "annoying sexist assholes" that exist on this website focus 100% on the females is a tiny bit disingenuous.

I'm all for talking about any kind of "objectifying" you'd like about the male character model. Instead of complaining about the lack of "equal coverage" of the issue why don't you contribute with some of your own objectification of the male character model so that it doesn't feel neglected...

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 18 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
Cinnder wrote:
Cinnder wrote:
Kassandros wrote:

It's amazing how much attention there is the physical appearance of female characters on this forum and almost none to male ones. It's fucking disgusting how objectifying many people here are being and I'm regretting contributing to the Kickstarter cause it seems the playerbase will be full of annoying, sexist assholes.

Don't get too discouraged; I don't think it's the majority of players. Many of us just roll our eyes at this sort of thing and move on, because publicly objecting usually brings a tirade from the usual suspects. I don't think this forum (or any forum) can be taken as an accurate depiction of the entire player base.

+1 Cinnder

Forums are almost never an accurate representation of overall playerbase, and frequent posters are not usually an accurate representation of an overall forum community. The Devs know this, and they have and are sticking to a vision that is not based or focused on supporting "mature" content, ERP, fan service, or sexual objectification--though of course those things will always happen to some extent in a any MMORPG.

FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Empyrean wrote:
Empyrean wrote:
Cinnder wrote:
Kassandros wrote:

It's amazing how much attention there is the physical appearance of female characters on this forum and almost none to male ones. It's fucking disgusting how objectifying many people here are being and I'm regretting contributing to the Kickstarter cause it seems the playerbase will be full of annoying, sexist assholes.

Don't get too discouraged; I don't think it's the majority of players. Many of us just roll our eyes at this sort of thing and move on, because publicly objecting usually brings a tirade from the usual suspects. I don't think this forum (or any forum) can be taken as an accurate depiction of the entire player base.

+1 Cinnder

Forums are almost never an accurate representation of overall playerbase, and frequent posters are not usually an accurate representation of an overall forum community. The Devs know this, and they have and are sticking to a vision that is not based or focused on supporting "mature" content, ERP, fan service, or sexual objectification--though of course those things will always happen to some extent in a any MMORPG.

I wonder if it's really fair to single out and highlight a few supposed "bad apples" on a superhero game forum when the entire genre this game is going to be based on has been mired in the "objectification" of women for the better part of 100 years now. I mean as long as the foundational material this game is built on includes an assortment of "Power Girls" then can you really be surprised when things like that are talked about here?

Now I'll totally grant you that there's no reason to tolerate "overtly excessive" amounts of that material/talk here and I'm perfectly willing to let the "Rednames" of this forum regulate that as they see fit to maintain their "T for Teen" ratings and/or expectations. But unless the non-Redname people here are willing to admit that the game is going to be based more on "Red Lantern Supergirls" as opposed to "Burka girls" then all people like Kassandros are doing is practicing in a uniquely peculiar form of hypocrisy.

P.S. For what it's worth it turns out that roughly 95% of the characters I create in computer games are female. Consequently whenever I talk about anything related to "character models" in such a game I'm personally likely always going to be more interested in talking about the female character models. Now if someone like Kassandros is going to reflexively assume that means I'm always aiming to "objectify" females because I must by default be an "annoying sexist asshole" for dwelling on the topics I find interesting about the given game he/she can go piss up a rope and take his/her SJW'ing somewhere else.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Mordheim13
Mordheim13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 13:22
Well said, Lothic.

Well said, Lothic.

Shocking Blu

Baalumbral
Baalumbral's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:50
Personally I don't buy into a

Personally I don't buy into a false narrative that wanting attractive characters (male or female) equates to sexism and misogyny.

I want a character creator that gives me as much freedom as possible to explore my own design space. I want to be able to craft supermodel olympians. I want to be able to craft ordinary/typical humans. I want to be able to craft a bowl-full-of-jelly Santa Claus. For that matter, I want to be able to craft most of the typical fantasy races, I want anthropomorphic animals, suits of power armor, demons, cyborgs, aliens, robots, angels, and anything else my weird imagination can conceive.

desviper
desviper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 6 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/10/2014 - 00:55
*Glares in strained socio

*Glares in strained socio-political rage*

"A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad"

Please have Scaling decals!

Avatar by MikeNovember

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 18 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
FWIW, my intent was to point

FWIW, my intent was to point out that equating the attitudes of vocal forumites with the overall player community is probably not accurate, and that the devs clearly aren't planning to go overboard with innate sexualization in the game. And that of course some highly sexualized gameplay will happen anyway. I can see how in context my post could sound like it was pointing to "bad apples," but that wasn't my intent.

I basically think everything's going to be alright in the end with this aspect of the game. I think people on both ends of the spectrum will have something they can live with as long as they can handle playing with each other on the same game.

FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)

Mordheim13
Mordheim13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 13:22
Empyrean wrote:
Empyrean wrote:

FWIW, my intent was to point out that equating the attitudes of vocal forumites with the overall player community is probably not accurate, and that the devs clearly aren't planning to go overboard with innate sexualization in the game. And that of course some highly sexualized gameplay will happen anyway. I can see how in context my post could sound like it was pointing to "bad apples," but that wasn't my intent.

I basically think everything's going to be alright in the end with this aspect of the game. I think people on both ends of the spectrum will have something they can live with as long as they can handle playing with each other on the same game.

I don't think anyone had any issue with what you were saying, Sir. Others were less coherent and tolerant in their comments. :)

Shocking Blu

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Empyrean wrote:
Empyrean wrote:

FWIW, my intent was to point out that equating the attitudes of vocal forumites with the overall player community is probably not accurate, and that the devs clearly aren't planning to go overboard with innate sexualization in the game. And that of course some highly sexualized gameplay will happen anyway. I can see how in context my post could sound like it was pointing to "bad apples," but that wasn't my intent.

I would accept that we must periodically remind ourselves that pretty much anyone fanatical enough to be posting on a game forum for a game that's still almost a year or more away from even launching can only represent the most extreme "zealots of opinion" one way or the other. We few dozens/hundreds collectively registered on this website right now will likely only represent 1% (or less) of the overall eventual playerbase of this game.

Consequently to make predictions about the overall playerbase based on anything any of us say in these forums right now is foolhardy at best - it'd be like guessing at what the total population of America thinks by asking a few dozen random people about it. Thus having hyperbolic fears that the playerbase will be full of "annoying, sexist assholes" based just on the current content of these forums is premature at the very least.

I don't think any reasonable person wants this game to become too "hyper sexualized" or go out of it's way to pander to ERP, fan service, objectification, etc. But by the same token (as Baalumbral said) we want a character creator that'll give us as much freedom as possible to explore our own design space even if that means being able to craft supermodel Olympians who by their very definition embody physical perfection in all ways including sexual appeal.

Empyrean wrote:

I basically think everything's going to be alright in the end with this aspect of the game. I think people on both ends of the spectrum will have something they can live with as long as they can handle playing with each other on the same game.

As with practically everything else in life when we accept a little moderation and compromise people will likely be able to get most of everything they want from this game.

P.S. Just to be clear I generally like the pic Cyclops posted of Red Lantern Supergirl:

TBH, I do think the body proportions in this pic are a bit too "unrealistically Barbie Doll-ish" and if I were cloning this into CoT I'd probably make her a tad bit more reasonable (i.e. slightly smaller breasts and slightly wider waist). But regardless of that I do like the outfit and the textures used on it. I'm hoping we'll be able to make outfits like this one in CoT. So I wonder if saying this about this pic makes me an "objectifying sexist asshole"?

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Mordheim13
Mordheim13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 13:22
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Empyrean wrote:

FWIW, my intent was to point out that equating the attitudes of vocal forumites with the overall player community is probably not accurate, and that the devs clearly aren't planning to go overboard with innate sexualization in the game. And that of course some highly sexualized gameplay will happen anyway. I can see how in context my post could sound like it was pointing to "bad apples," but that wasn't my intent.

I would accept that we must periodically remind ourselves that pretty much anyone fanatical enough to be posting on a game forum for a game that's still almost a year or more away from even launching can only represent the most extreme "zealots of opinion" one way or the other. We few dozens/hundreds collectively registered on this website right now will likely only represent 1% (or less) of the overall eventual playerbase of this game.

Consequently to make predictions about the overall playerbase based on anything any of us say in these forums right now is foolhardy at best - it'd be like guessing at what the total population of America thinks by asking a few dozen random people about it. Thus having hyperbolic fears that the playerbase will be full of "annoying, sexist assholes" based just on the current content of these forums is premature at the very least.

I don't think any reasonable person wants this game to become too "hyper sexualized" or go out of it's way to pander to ERP, fan service, objectification, etc. But by the same token (as Baalumbral said) we want a character creator that'll gives us as much freedom as possible to explore our own design space even if that means being able to craft supermodel Olympians who by their very definition embody physical perfection in all ways including sexual appeal.

Empyrean wrote:

I basically think everything's going to be alright in the end with this aspect of the game. I think people on both ends of the spectrum will have something they can live with as long as they can handle playing with each other on the same game.

As with practically everything else in life when we accept a little moderation and compromise people will likely be able to get most of everything they want from this game.

Again, amazingly, I must say: "Well said, Lothic!" On another note...
I AM THE 1% AT LAST! :D

Shocking Blu

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 52 min 52 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Baalumbral wrote:
Baalumbral wrote:

Personally I don't buy into a false narrative that wanting attractive characters (male or female) equates to sexism and misogyny.

I want a character creator that gives me as much freedom as possible to explore my own design space. I want to be able to craft supermodel olympians. I want to be able to craft ordinary/typical humans. I want to be able to craft a bowl-full-of-jelly Santa Claus. For that matter, I want to be able to craft most of the typical fantasy races, I want anthropomorphic animals, suits of power armor, demons, cyborgs, aliens, robots, angels, and anything else my weird imagination can conceive.

This sums it up for me. Thank you, Baal.

Halae
Halae's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 min 34 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/17/2014 - 09:37
Baalumbral wrote:
Baalumbral wrote:

Personally I don't buy into a false narrative that wanting attractive characters (male or female) equates to sexism and misogyny.

I want a character creator that gives me as much freedom as possible to explore my own design space. I want to be able to craft supermodel olympians. I want to be able to craft ordinary/typical humans. I want to be able to craft a bowl-full-of-jelly Santa Claus. For that matter, I want to be able to craft most of the typical fantasy races, I want anthropomorphic animals, suits of power armor, demons, cyborgs, aliens, robots, angels, and anything else my weird imagination can conceive.

This is basically my stance on this too. One thing that strikes me about the current topic as well is how often people who aren't even attracted to a given gender of character like to make them look attractive. The best examples are when you've got guys that go out of their way to make their characters look cool - Conan style barbarians, perfectly feathered hair, or being a shining, knightly beacon. Stuff like that. Women do a lot of the same thing too - the number of women I know that like to design characters in writing and video games as highly attractive is quite high; an old friend of mine loved putting any game caracters she played in miniskirts because the characters in question almost always had great legs.

People are hard-wired to want to look good, and to look at good looking things, people included. It's why hair gets styled, why there's a fashion industry, and why makeup is a thing at all. Destroying people's ability to look good for fear of setting off a group that's decided to be antagonistic anyways is just grasping for failure. Beauty is a big part of peoples' mentality.

An infinite number of tries doesn't mean that any one of those tries will succeed. I could flip an infinite number of pennies an infinite number of times and, barring genuine randomness, they will never come up "Waffles".

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Halae wrote:
Halae wrote:

This is basically my stance on this too. One thing that strikes me about the current topic as well is how often people who aren't even attracted to a given gender of character like to make them look attractive. The best examples are when you've got guys that go out of their way to make their characters look cool - Conan style barbarians, perfectly feathered hair, or being a shining, knightly beacon. Stuff like that. Women do a lot of the same thing too - the number of women I know that like to design characters in writing and video games as highly attractive is quite high; an old friend of mine loved putting any game caracters she played in miniskirts because the characters in question almost always had great legs.

People are hard-wired to want to look good, and to look at good looking things, people included. It's why hair gets styled, why there's a fashion industry, and why makeup is a thing at all. Destroying people's ability to look good for fear of setting off a group that's decided to be antagonistic anyways is just grasping for failure. Beauty is a big part of peoples' mentality.

In my years I've created chracters who've embodied the full gamut of physical beauty - all the way from Aphrodites to Smeagols. But I think since most people IRL are "average" they naturally aspire to create alter-egos in games that are in various ways cooler, stronger, braver, smarter, etc. than they are in real life. This of course also includes being more physically/sexually attractive.

As you say people are hard-wired to want to look good and consequently be with other people that look good. Obviously everyone's going to have their own various definitions of what that means to them and clearly people will prioritize the importance of this in various ways.

Ironically I think the kind of people that Kassandros could legitimately be upset with for "objectifying women" in games like this are usually the classic adolescent boys who create "maxed breasted characters with minimal/no clothing" just as a joke to run around and annoy/shock people and we all know there will always be a few of those regardless. We also can generally accept that 99.9% of everyone else will be far more "reasonable" with their characters' appearances and really don't deserve to be lumped in with the handful of immature "sexist assholes" who generally simply don't know any better because they are merely young and precocious.

I simply do NOT believe there will be an overtly noticeable problem with this kind of thing in this game and I expect that the few exceptions to that rule that do pop up will be policed accordingly.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Comics, like any form of

Comics, like any form of visual entertainment medium, have always sought to present an idealized version of the human form. Both male and female. From the visible through clothing abs on men to the far too narrow waist on women.
The choice to make a superhero (or their girlfriend in the case of Mary Jane) an 'unrealistic to the point of being a caricature' image is to invoke a specific reaction. It's to make us more attracted to the character.
It is no different than giving the villains features we generally see as undesirable or have a natural revulsion to. This can be as obvious as the monster image of the Green Goblin or the more subtle evil grin of the Joker.

There is nothing wrong with wanting the ability to create a character with your version of beauty, sex appeal or an idealized figure in the game. The problems only come when the game and its players treat the idealized men and women as simple window dressing or worse yet as prizes to be won (looking at you Mass Effect/Witcher/God of War/ect).
Beauty, just like ugly, is not a crime. Especially in a fantastical comic book setting like CoT promises to be.

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 54 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Comics, like any form of visual entertainment medium, have always sought to present an idealized version of the human form. Both male and female.

There is nothing wrong with wanting the ability to create a character with your version of beauty, sex appeal or an idealized figure in the game.

I believe only a very few will choose to play a dumpy hero

Mordheim13
Mordheim13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 13:22
Halae wrote:
Halae wrote:
Baalumbral wrote:

Personally I don't buy into a false narrative that wanting attractive characters (male or female) equates to sexism and misogyny.

I want a character creator that gives me as much freedom as possible to explore my own design space. I want to be able to craft supermodel olympians. I want to be able to craft ordinary/typical humans. I want to be able to craft a bowl-full-of-jelly Santa Claus. For that matter, I want to be able to craft most of the typical fantasy races, I want anthropomorphic animals, suits of power armor, demons, cyborgs, aliens, robots, angels, and anything else my weird imagination can conceive.

This is basically my stance on this too. One thing that strikes me about the current topic as well is how often people who aren't even attracted to a given gender of character like to make them look attractive. The best examples are when you've got guys that go out of their way to make their characters look cool - Conan style barbarians, perfectly feathered hair, or being a shining, knightly beacon. Stuff like that. Women do a lot of the same thing too - the number of women I know that like to design characters in writing and video games as highly attractive is quite high; an old friend of mine loved putting any game caracters she played in miniskirts because the characters in question almost always had great legs.

People are hard-wired to want to look good, and to look at good looking things, people included. It's why hair gets styled, why there's a fashion industry, and why makeup is a thing at all. Destroying people's ability to look good for fear of setting off a group that's decided to be antagonistic anyways is just grasping for failure. Beauty is a big part of peoples' mentality.

Perfectly reasoned. No matter how much the PC crowd stomp and cry, their version of "sexism" is hard-wired into the human psyche, and there are good biological reasons for it. While I will never allow myself to be pigeonholed into a category due to my gender, at the same time I will NOT give up my right to drool over Orlando Bloom, Johnny Depp, or any of the Hemsworths (or Kiera Knightley, Emma Watson or Jennifer Lawrence, for that matter), and I refuse to ask anyone else to do so, either. I do, however, appreciate Kassandros for their ill-thought tirade, simply for the fact of seeing Lothic and Brainbot agree on something, and both be so reasonable in their expressions. :)

Shocking Blu

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 min 37 sec ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Sexism in the comics industry

Sexism in the comics industry is a pretty big thing, I mean you get comic artists that draw women bent over when they don't need to be only to show off their breasts and/or butts. Which is a kind of sexualization you don't get with other characters (except for Nightwing).

I'm sure if male characters in comics were drawn in a way to make them appeal most to women there'd be a lot of men who would be unhappy with it.

But in regards to the game, well, if there are sliders for it people will make it. But hopefully there'll be a way to not even have to look at another character if you don't wish to, which would make everyone happy.

And I'd rather have the sliders allow for as much as possible rather than the opposite. That way more folks can be happy. Want to make a realisticly proportioned butt kicking lady? Go for it, all the power to you. Want to make what is essentially a barbie with powers? All the power to you.

It's not like anyone will be forcing you to interact.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

I believe only a very few will choose to play a dumpy hero

I have a working idea for one or two at this point - kind of depends on exactly how it'll all work/look once we we're allowed to start making characters. But in keeping with the point you're trying to make I suspect a vast majority of my characters in this game will end up being of the "non-dumpy" variety.

In fact I was specifically planning to have several characters who will "transform" (probably with whatever Costume Change Emotes are available) from their plain, average, perhaps even pudgy secret IDs into super-hot, super-ripped physical specimens when they go out to fight crime. This would be an obvious expression of the fantasy of being able to exchange being "normal" in favor of becoming "super" that I think several posters here have been describing.

Mordheim13 wrote:

I do, however, appreciate Kassandros for their ill-thought tirade, simply for the fact of seeing Lothic and Brainbot agree on something, and both be so reasonable in their expressions. :)

Oh I wouldn't be surprised if Brainbot and I likely agree on far more than would be initially apparent. As I've often said I believe most of these forum based "head-buttings" are happening simply because we don't have the game to play yet and we've got nothing better to do here. ;)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Sexism in the comics industry is a pretty big thing, I mean you get comic artists that draw women bent over when they don't need to be only to show off their breasts and/or butts. Which is a kind of sexualization you don't get with other characters (except for Nightwing).

Just because the comics industry has been overtly sexist against women for decades certainly doesn't make it right for it to remain that way forever. Most of it stems from the fact that even today something like 90% of the people who work in the industry are male. Real change in this area isn't likely going to happen until more women become involved in the process.

Ultimately I have no problem with "sexualized superhero" content existing in the world but I think the key point here is that over the years the lines have blurred and that kind of "pseduo-porn" has become pervasive in most comic books sold to people of ALL ages. If the industry was simply more strict about keeping the overtly "sexualized" content quarantined from the titles that are sold to kids then things would probably be better. Of course the flip side of that coin is that "sex sells" so I can see the motivation for comic book creators to want to constantly push the edge as to what's "acceptable" in this arena.

It's all a vicious cycle that'll hopefully get better with time.

Project_Hero wrote:

I'm sure if male characters in comics were drawn in a way to make them appeal most to women there'd be a lot of men who would be unhappy with it.

I'm not entirely sure this is the case. Sure some women like the classic over-the-top "Fabio-equse romance cover" pics:

But beyond that the idea of seeing, say Spidy, in similar contorted poses as we've seen them draw superheroines in simply isn't -that- appealing and/or sexually stimulating:

I think the simple answer is to treat both super men and women equally in the artwork - either draw them all in vaguely sexual poses or draw -none- of them in vaguely sexual poses. It's the one-sidedness against women that's the current problem.

Project_Hero wrote:

But hopefully there'll be a way to not even have to look at another character if you don't wish to, which would make everyone happy.

Are you literally suggesting some kind of "in-game filter" that would replace the PCs you see on your screen with some kind of generically neutral appearance? I suppose that would be possible but would that work on a case-by-case basis (kind of like an alternative to putting a player on your ignore list) or would you have to set it so that every PC you see is automatically displayed as an inoffensive grey blob of some kind?

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 min 37 sec ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
I'm all for the comics

I'm all for the comics industry leaving their more sexist roots. It seems for the most part we're in agreement here, Lothic.

As for the blocking the visuals of a player, yeah, that's pretty much the suggestion. Either have them.show up to you as generic, or completely invisible. That way any characters a player sees that are offensive to them they don't need to look at. Or if a walking mess of a character is impacting your immersion.

Generic'd would probably be better than invisible for the sake of PvP. But in essence it's not much different than putting someone on ignore so you don't need to listen to them.

Edit: if unclear, it'd be a case by case basis. Though those with lower end PCs might benefit from an all but the player style.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Mordheim13
Mordheim13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 07/17/2014 - 13:22
Not sure I like the idea of

Not sure I like the idea of the "not have to look at" your fellow PCs. The world already does too much of "I don't like this, so I shouldn't ever have to encounter it, and if I do I'm gonna SUE somebody!" Should you have to have something you don't like constantly shoved in your face? Of course not. Should the entire rest of the world have to conform to YOUR aesthetic, in appearance, audio, and opinions? That SHOULD be a no-brainer to answer... sadly, these days, it is not.

Shocking Blu

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 min 37 sec ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Mordheim13 wrote:
Mordheim13 wrote:

Not sure I like the idea of the "not have to look at" your fellow PCs. The world already does too much of "I don't like this, so I shouldn't ever have to encounter it, and if I do I'm gonna SUE somebody!" Should you have to have something you don't like constantly shoved in your face? Of course not. Should the entire rest of the world have to conform to YOUR aesthetic, in appearance, audio, and opinions? That SHOULD be a no-brainer to answer... sadly, these days, it is not.

Question. Why does it matter what I see vs. what you do? I'm not asking for the rest of the game world to conform to my vision, only that I be able to remove parts I find troublesome. And note that this would only be for the specific player who did it.

It's really no different than putting someone on ignore. If someone is spamming text you ignore them. If someone's being offensive to you you ignore them.

It fixes having to leave when others are being annoying. You get that in MMOs especially when people see others RPing. They'll run over and stand between the characters, or start saying dumb stuff, or generally be annoying.

Ignoring a player, and subsequently not having to see their character has zero impact on that player (other than it makes it harder for them to annoy someone), while allowing that player to continue to annoy has a negative impact on another.

Again. Not asking for anything to conform to my vision, just that I'm able to not see things I don't care to see. Like ignore, but for visuals.

Player A finds Player B offensive, Player C does not. Player A makes ignores the visuals of Player B, to Player A Player B is now either generic or invisible. Player C can still see Player B as they were designed. The actions of Player A have no effect on anyone but themselves.

I hope this clears it up.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

As for the blocking the visuals of a player, yeah, that's pretty much the suggestion. Either have them.show up to you as generic, or completely invisible. That way any characters a player sees that are offensive to them they don't need to look at. Or if a walking mess of a character is impacting your immersion.

Generic'd would probably be better than invisible for the sake of PvP. But in essence it's not much different than putting someone on ignore so you don't need to listen to them.

Edit: if unclear, it'd be a case by case basis. Though those with lower end PCs might benefit from an all but the player style.

I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to have a function that would switch the appearance of a specific PC on your screen to look more like this generic example:

This would let people who have some extreme "disagreement" with what they see to fix it for themselves. And I suppose there could be a way to make this an automatic thing for ALL PCs as an option to help low-end computers run the game better but if your computer seriously -needs- that to run the game better you likely have some other more pressing problems to deal with.

Frankly I would be against making this an "affects all PCs automatically" thing because a huge part of this game is seeing all the cool costumes and it would be a shame to miss seeing the vast majority that are not problematic. I'd also be against this feature making other PCs completely "invisible" because that would probably cause far more trouble than it's worth.

Mordheim13 wrote:

Not sure I like the idea of the "not have to look at" your fellow PCs.

While I'm not against Project_Hero's general idea here I'm likely the kind of person who would never use this feature.

Basically, for me, it's probably not not even possible for a player to do something costume-wise that's so hyper-extreme that I would not want look at it. Also (full disclosure) I can't even remember if I've ever put anyone on ignore while playing a MMO. Frankly nothing like that bothers me enough to bother... *shrugs*

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Baalumbral
Baalumbral's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:50
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

I believe only a very few will choose to play a dumpy hero

I'd agree with that, and maybe expound into the notion of alts where the majority of alts will likely be of athletic build with a minority of edgecase builds. The same way that, say, I made a goblin character. I made *one* goblin, I probably would not have made another ever again, but I did use the option out of 50+ alts. I might not make a statistically significant number of dumpy alts but I'd be shocked if I didn't make at least one. Got a coupla ideas percolating but awaiting more info on the avatar creator.

ivanhedgehog
Offline
Last seen: 18 hours 8 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 11/04/2013 - 12:46
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Sexism in the comics industry is a pretty big thing, I mean you get comic artists that draw women bent over when they don't need to be only to show off their breasts and/or butts. Which is a kind of sexualization you don't get with other characters (except for Nightwing).

Just because the comics industry has been overtly sexist against women for decades certainly doesn't make it right for it to remain that way forever. Most of it stems from the fact that even today something like 90% of the people who work in the industry are male. Real change in this area isn't likely going to happen until more women become involved in the process.

Ultimately I have no problem with "sexualized superhero" content existing in the world but I think the key point here is that over the years the lines have blurred and that kind of "pseduo-porn" has become pervasive in most comic books sold to people of ALL ages. If the industry was simply more strict about keeping the overtly "sexualized" content quarantined from the titles that are sold to kids then things would probably be better. Of course the flip side of that coin is that "sex sells" so I can see the motivation for comic book creators to want to constantly push the edge as to what's "acceptable" in this arena.

It's all a vicious cycle that'll hopefully get better with time.

Project_Hero wrote:

I'm sure if male characters in comics were drawn in a way to make them appeal most to women there'd be a lot of men who would be unhappy with it.

I'm not entirely sure this is the case. Sure some women like the classic over-the-top "Fabio-equse romance cover" pics:

But beyond that the idea of seeing, say Spidy, in similar contorted poses as we've seen them draw superheroines in simply isn't -that- appealing and/or sexually stimulating:

I think the simple answer is to treat both super men and women equally in the artwork - either draw them all in vaguely sexual poses or draw -none- of them in vaguely sexual poses. It's the one-sidedness against women that's the current problem.

Project_Hero wrote:

But hopefully there'll be a way to not even have to look at another character if you don't wish to, which would make everyone happy.

Are you literally suggesting some kind of "in-game filter" that would replace the PCs you see on your screen with some kind of generically neutral appearance? I suppose that would be possible but would that work on a case-by-case basis (kind of like an alternative to putting a player on your ignore list) or would you have to set it so that every PC you see is automatically displayed as an inoffensive grey blob of some kind?

The answer is for the comic industry to remember it is a business and cater to their customers. Which still happens to have a lot of young men among them. If the market wants "burkha girl", then make that comic and reap the rewards. The movie industry is providing the aquamans and thors to appeal to the market that likes them, yet still appeal to the young male market. Comics can do the same.

Having us see eachother as a nonoffensive greyman would pretty much kill costume contests.

other games have made a character on ignore be a grey cloud. that would at least stop them from spamming offensive emotes.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
ivanhedgehog wrote:
ivanhedgehog wrote:

Having us see eachother as a nonoffensive greyman would pretty much kill costume contests.

If CoT gave us some kind of "ignore costume" feature it would have to be something you could toggle on and off. Clearly costume judges would need to be able to see a contestant's costume even if they "ignored" them in the past.

ivanhedgehog wrote:

other games have made a character on ignore be a grey cloud. that would at least stop them from spamming offensive emotes.

Yeah this might be the way CoT could handle it too. Of course if someone's actively griefing people with annoying emotes I'd likely just report them to a GM. Why should I fill up an "ignore list" when the GMs could handle it for good with a ban-stick?

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 min 56 sec ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Yeah I’m thinking a simple

Yeah I’m thinking a simple toggle costume off would more than suffice. I see no reason for further censoring short of gross misconduct which any sensible person would report anyways.

Seems like I remember hearing tell already of a feature to let different people see different parts of the environment differently depending on their progress indifferent arcs or something of that nature. I should think it wouldn’t be too hard to display a generic graphic through a toggle switch for a character.

"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle

BiotopeZ
BiotopeZ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 5 days ago
Joined: 03/04/2016 - 10:29
My personal opinion is just

My personal opinion is just to let everyone make their own appearance, don't try to control them or censor them. I don't own other players, and they don't own me. So I'd be against any sort of toggle. There should be an ignore feature, of course, but that's usually sufficient. If someone finds pretty quickly that they can't do any group content because everyone has them on ignore, the problem usually solves itself.

This actually reminds me of a Black Mirror episode where everyone had electronic retinas and could "block" people (making them appear blurry with distorted voices) in person. The implications were highly disturbing.

desviper
desviper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 6 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/10/2014 - 00:55
It's almost like they're both

It's almost like they're both mimicking................SPIDERS.........!!

But don't act like her butt isn't a little accentuated.

"A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad"

Please have Scaling decals!

Avatar by MikeNovember

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
rookslide wrote:
rookslide wrote:

Yeah I’m thinking a simple toggle costume off would more than suffice. I see no reason for further censoring short of gross misconduct which any sensible person would report anyways.

Seems like I remember hearing tell already of a feature to let different people see different parts of the environment differently depending on their progress indifferent arcs or something of that nature. I should think it wouldn’t be too hard to display a generic graphic through a toggle switch for a character.

In fact doing this should almost technically be easier than the "default" situation.

Under normal circumstances the game is having to send costume information to your client that lets it know what everyone else around you is wearing. But in the case where you want to "ignore" another person's costume the game no long needs the specific information about that person's costume from the game server and can instead "substitute" its own generic "greyman/cloud" graphics that's sourced directly from your own local client.

Ironically playing the game in this "mode" (where everyone around you is represented by a generic body model without specific costuming info) is probably one of the way the Devs are currently testing this game. Giving us the ability to ignore costumes could almost be as easy as leaving in a "testing tool" once the game finally launches.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
BiotopeZ wrote:
BiotopeZ wrote:

My personal opinion is just to let everyone make their own appearance, don't try to control them or censor them. I don't own other players, and they don't own me. So I'd be against any sort of toggle. There should be an ignore feature, of course, but that's usually sufficient. If someone finds pretty quickly that they can't do any group content because everyone has them on ignore, the problem usually solves itself.

To be clear if there was an "ignore costume" toggle in the game it could in no way ever affect what YOU see on your screen unless you wanted it to. So for instance if I decided to toggle off your costume it would not affect you at all - all it would do is make you look like something generic TO ME.

BiotopeZ wrote:

This actually reminds me of a Black Mirror episode where everyone had electronic retinas and could "block" people (making them appear blurry with distorted voices) in person. The implications were highly disturbing.

Again I would probably never use this feature against anyone else's costumes pretty much for these various reasons. But I see no major reason why it couldn't/shouldn't be be an option for those who'd want it.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
desviper wrote:
desviper wrote:

But don't act like her butt isn't a little accentuated.

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 18 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
desviper wrote:

But don't act like her butt isn't a little accentuated.

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

...they also say "I know it when I see it."

FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Empyrean wrote:
Empyrean wrote:
Lothic wrote:
desviper wrote:

But don't act like her butt isn't a little accentuated.

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

...they also say "I know it when I see it."

Well it's not like I invented the "trick" that all you need to do to avoid having an image be judged as outright pornography in a comic book is to paint the "naked body" in question with a color that's not a typical human skin color IRL in order to cast "reasonable doubt" that you're looking at a clothed individual.

Although it is clear that combining that aforementioned "spray-on" costume with a pose that would likely be hard for an accomplished Cirque du Soleil performer to achieve is indeed a special twist on the standard cliché. ;)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 52 min 52 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
BiotopeZ wrote:
BiotopeZ wrote:

My personal opinion is just to let everyone make their own appearance, don't try to control them or censor them. I don't own other players, and they don't own me. So I'd be against any sort of toggle. There should be an ignore feature, of course, but that's usually sufficient. If someone finds pretty quickly that they can't do any group content because everyone has them on ignore, the problem usually solves itself.

Same. Fashion police be damned.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
BiotopeZ wrote:

My personal opinion is just to let everyone make their own appearance, don't try to control them or censor them. I don't own other players, and they don't own me. So I'd be against any sort of toggle. There should be an ignore feature, of course, but that's usually sufficient. If someone finds pretty quickly that they can't do any group content because everyone has them on ignore, the problem usually solves itself.

Same. Fashion police be damned.

Except no one's talking about instituting Fashion Police for CoT. At worst an "ignore costume" option would let you be your own personal Fashion Cop that couldn't affect anyone else in the slightest.

I really don't know where BiotopeZ got this idea that anyone here was talking about anything that one player could DO to another player. *shrugs*

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 min 37 sec ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
desviper wrote:

But don't act like her butt isn't a little accentuated.

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

You know what else is in the eye of the beholder?

Freeking laser beams! And anti-magic!

So beautiful...

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Women are drawn one way in

Women are drawn one way in comics to accentuate their appeal and men are drawn another to accentuate their appeal. There isn't parity because the features we find attractive are different in men and women or in some cases what we find attractive about them are different (butt, chest, legs, ect). The (IMO misguided) efforts of The Hawkeye Initiative can show you that men drawn in the same poses (and most times in the same clothing) as their female counterparts is almost always unappealing.
While an argument can be made that women drawn in the poses that men are drawn in can still present an attractive woman I feel that when you focus on the visual representation of women and men you are doing a disservice to the very real issues.
The problem of gender inequality in comics comes from the roles that women play vs those that men play in those comics and the fact that the industry itself is still very male dominated.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 min 37 sec ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Not to mention women in

Not to mention women in comics are drawn to appeal to men, and men in comics are drawn to appeal to men.

With few exceptions.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Not to mention women in comics are drawn to appeal to men, and men in comics are drawn to appeal to men.

With few exceptions.

That's part of the 'male dominated industry' I spoke of.

Pages