What we *really* want...simply put

[Kronos_EXE]

Signed +1

[Aliss7]

Does/could the LOTR two armor slot really enable a player to look like he's wearing starter rags, but actually be benefiting from full plate?

That's not cool. I disagree with that feature. Grant it, ok, this is fantasy: "Bikini Chain Mail"... nuff said... I'm against two slot armor, but if it comes, fine...

Really what I'm wanting for is some level of customizability that allows for some uniqueness. The somewhat analogous example is the face customization when you create your character. That's me, put simply. Cosmetic armors don't do that. A two armor slot option doesn't either.

[Qezuzu]

Does/could the LOTR two armor slot really enable a player to look like he's wearing starter rags, but actually be benefiting from full plate?

That's not cool. I disagree with that feature. Grant it, ok, this is fantasy: "Bikini Chain Mail"... nuff said... I'm against two slot armor, but if it comes, fine...

Could just make it so that you can't have Cloth substitute for Metal. And Light armor can only be covered by other light armor, medium by medium, etc.

[Alabore]

Does/could the LOTR two armor slot really enable a player to look like he's wearing starter rags, but actually be benefiting from full plate?
That's not cool. I disagree with that feature. Grant it, ok, this is fantasy: "Bikini Chain Mail"... nuff said... I'm against two slot armor, but if it comes, fine...

Could just make it so that you can't have Cloth substitute for Metal. And Light armor can only be covered by other light armor, medium by medium, etc.

...



...

While I see it could be an issue for some players, it has been stated before: appearance works differently in DDO, and only a few textures are exclusive to a specific armour type.
Or, in other words, only a couple skins really look like plate mail.

Most textures, models and layers get re-used throughout skins.
DDO is already doing that; what you are asking would actually BREAK some existing item's appearance.

The "starter rags" model gets reused for some chainmails and brigandines.
The "start chain" skin gets reused for some chainmails and elven chains.
The robe model gets reused for some plate types.
Even half-plate sometimes used a leather-like texture for base skin.
Not to mention being able to switch basic model for outfits would allow monks to wear the basic model/texture from Drow Hunter armour as a perfect assassin skin, among the others.

Devs could make some skins exclusive, but I genuinely feel it would be ultimately self-defeating to our purposes.
We would get LESS options - and the real problem is not stopping pranksters from wearing plate under the guise of rags, the real problem is avoiding texture/model combinations that clip badly.
Funny thing is, Vulkoorim robes are already guilty of that anyway.

If deceitful behaviour is really an issue here, devs could code PvP areas so customised appearance gets disabled when entering, and re-enabled when leaving.

...

Now I am wondering though.
Given how DDO's appearance system works, why are so many people so adamant about restricting appearance types?
It seems harmless to me, and some models/skins would look nice as either cloth, leather or metal.

[African-Grey]

Does/could the LOTR two armor slot really enable a player to look like he's wearing starter rags, but actually be benefiting from full plate?

That's not cool. I disagree with that feature.

Because... ?

If I'm wearing plate mail that a cosmetic system allows me to look like leather armor, that impacts you in what way?

As someone who has played LOTRO for a long time, I have never seen or heard any problems, complaints, group wipes, game crashes or tooth decay caused by someone displaying a cosmetic outfit instead of their equipped armor. I really would like to know what the concern is here, because in practice I've seen that it has zero negative effect on anyone.

[IronClan]

Because... ?

If I'm wearing plate mail that a cosmetic system allows me to look like leather armor, that impacts you in what way?

As someone who has played LOTRO for a long time, I have never seen or heard any problems, complaints, group wipes, game crashes or tooth decay caused by someone displaying a cosmetic outfit instead of their equipped armor. I really would like to know what the concern is here, because in practice I've seen that it has zero negative effect on anyone.

This seems to be a rare phenomenon, there are at least 3 instsances of this on this sub forum, I like to call it "but I don't like that so you shouldn't be allowed to, even though it has no effect on me" disorder.

[Failedlegend]

Does/could the LOTR two armor slot really enable a player to look like he's wearing starter rags, but actually be benefiting from full plate?

That's not cool. I disagree with that feature. Grant it, ok, this is fantasy: "Bikini Chain Mail"... nuff said... I'm against two slot armor, but if it comes, fine...

Really what I'm wanting for is some level of customizability that allows for some uniqueness. The somewhat analogous example is the face customization when you create your character. That's me, put simply. Cosmetic armors don't do that. A two armor slot option doesn't either.

As far as I know you have to be able to actually meet the requirements to equip any items in your costume zone.

This seems to be a rare phenomenon, there are at least 3 instsances of this on this sub forum, I like to call it "but I don't like that so you shouldn't be allowed to, even though it has no effect on me" disorder.

Heh, yeah its the same guys who insist on screening EVERY applicant by using MyDDO (the amount of times I've been rejected on my wizard because they say they don't want a lvl 1 rogue as MyDDO says he is) for ANY quest and by the time they finish that half the members have left formed a new party AND beaten the quest already. Personally It's first come, first serve for me unless the quest has Stat pre-reqs (ie. VON5) and usually if someone has an odd build I just ask them..partly to see what their main "Role" is and partly just out of curiosity, Instead of looking up MyDDO and getting horrible outdated info...and frankly "mostly" useless info.

[Alabore]

As far as I know you have to be able to actually meet the requirements to equip any items in your costume zone.

Let us put things back into perspective.
DDO does not enforce any "forbidden-to-class" rule.
Any character can equip any item, provided they have the level and UMD to do so.

Yes, a monk could conceivably wear platemail, if so wished - and especially out of quest, it would have no impact on other players' game-play.
DDO does not enforce a dress code on characters, at least early on when most gear is randomly generated.

The issue with static gear resulting in an army of clones could be partially addressed by U8: I do honestly like some of the new store-only skins.
The spiral design on the Deneith Heavy Mail looks positively nice - I couldn't bear to use the armour before, but I could see myself spending some TP to get that one skin.
Kudos to devs for one step of the whole mission accomplished.

Among the other issues with appearance kits, one is particularly perverse.
Some of the skins adapt to the basic mesh - vest to vest, robe to robe, snug to snug and outfit to outfit.
BUT... some do NOT look right on some armour types.
Some skins look TOO light to be heavy armour, and conversely, some TOO heavy to be light armour.
Basically, the game is already giving you plate-under-the-guise-of-spandex and cloth-under-the-guise-of-mail.
What they kept fixed is basic mesh type, so vest stays vest, outfits stay outfits and so on.
See the problem?

If devs lifted the restriction with MODEL type - which is different from armour type - we could freely mix and match undermesh, overmesh and skins.
These new appearance kits are most likely aimed to veteran characters, with end game gear - gear they won't likely replace in a couple levels.
From what I could see, static gear appearance partially overrides kit overlayers, so only skins show through - which is actually ideal with some suits.

I am guessing devs will eventually code a three-part customisation option, that allows us to pick undermesh, overmesh and skins freely.
The proof of concept is there.

But, really, model type and armour type are not one and the same.
Forcing plate to look like plate is pointless: the basic "plate" model is the same for most light, medium and heavy types.
Textures re-appear on more than one weight class - and some look convincing on more than one weight class.

[Talltale-Storyteller]

/signed.

I still have a suit of +2 Adamantine Chainmail in my bank for if this is ever implemented that looks absolutely AWESOME on my Denieth marked fighter.

Not only are the current skins that are being posted ugly, most of the female ones are simply trashy and the male ones just don't look cool - especially the heavy armor.

Can we get some more European style armor? It is the original basis for DnD afterall.

[Aliss7]

...
Now I am wondering though.
Given how DDO's appearance system works, why are so many people so adamant about restricting appearance types?
It seems harmless to me, and some models/skins would look nice as either cloth, leather or metal.

Before your post I had no idea how ddo implemented appearance. Even now, I'm still not sure I fully grok how it's implemented "behind the scenes".

I am not adamant about restricting appearance. Heck, if someone wants to run around naked it's fine with me. Obviously we _are_ and will _always_ be restricted. My viewpoint is slightly right of liberal, say a "role players" viewpoint... I like to run around the marketplace and see appearances that reflect "reality". Ultimately, all of us is just spouting hot air, I'm sure economics (vis a vis: how much tp can we get out of this) is more the deciding factor than anything. As a said, if it comes, so be it..... but...

Because... ?

If I'm wearing plate mail that a cosmetic system allows me to look like leather armor, that impacts you in what way?

As someone who has played LOTRO for a long time, I have never seen or heard any problems, complaints, group wipes, game crashes or tooth decay caused by someone displaying a cosmetic outfit instead of their equipped armor. I really would like to know what the concern is here, because in practice I've seen that it has zero negative effect on anyone.

This seems to be a rare phenomenon, there are at least 3 instsances of this on this sub forum, I like to call it "but I don't like that so you shouldn't be allowed to, even though it has no effect on me" disorder.

... I hope you understand where I'm coming from. It is not some "disorder", or that something that is actually _metal_ looks like _leather_ is not supposed to impact me in any way what so ever.

[whysper]

Really, I would be happy if the random appearance generator was exposed. It already exists to create the current random combos, just needs a button to reroll it. All the textures are stored on client-side so it does not tax the server if I generate a gazillion suits before one looks good. That is actually the simplest option. To profit from it (and avoid constant server requests), tokens could be sold in packs of 20 or something.

The double slot idea is neat, too, even if I would settle for just the above. The world is too ludicrously off-balance already to really care about whether someone looks like they are wearing jammies or a tank.

[Alabore]

Before your post I had no idea how ddo implemented appearance.
...
I am not adamant about restricting appearance. Heck, if someone wants to run around naked it's fine with me. Obviously we _are_ and will _always_ be restricted. My viewpoint is slightly right of liberal, say a "role players" viewpoint...
I like to run around the marketplace and see appearances that reflect "reality".
I'm sure economics (vis a vis: how much tp can we get out of this) is more the deciding factor than anything.
...
I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

I earnestly apologise if I came off as standoffish.
We sometimes take for granted other users have been through older posts before commenting.



Appearance mechanisms work in patterns.
Few textures are hard-coded to a specific armour type or weight class.
Some models are actually reused throughout classes.

While outfits are specific to cloth armour, it could be because monks were a later implementation, and maybe devs wanted monk gear to look unique enough.
But the novelty has since worn off.

Again, the point is not asking for cloth-under-the-guise-of-metal.
The point is customising appearance so it reflects a character's role and personality.
A monk/paladin's outfit should look more martial than, say, a monk/wizard's or monk/cleric's one.
Under the current system, they are all stuck with the same looks.

[Bloodhaven]

I thing the OP's idea is the best way to go.

Turbine can sell special skins to people if they want to make money at it but the OP's idea seems like the best way to go.

[IronClan]

... I hope you understand where I'm coming from. It is not some "disorder", or that something that is actually _metal_ looks like _leather_ is not supposed to impact me in any way what so ever.

Well disorder was far too strong a word and for that I apologize, it's just that sometimes people who want to restrict other peoples options due only to their own personal sense of what should and shouldn't (be regardless of the fact that the option doesn't hurt them in the slightest) seem well... well you know contrarian.
[edited unintended harshness]

[yawumpus]

While the claim is that having metal armor look like cloth seems a little odd (one forum suggested that one of DDO's strengths was that you could play a greataxe wielding heavy armor wearing rogue, I didn't want to know if he meant trapsmith, rogue icon, or pure rogue), making robes and outfits appear to be heavy armor would make a lot of sense.

In fact I put this suggestion on the "fix AC" thread. Armor in DDO (and to some extent 3.5 D&D) is pretty weird and usually ends up with mighty warriors wearing pajamas. The problems with the AC system are deep, and it doesn't look like there is an obvious straightforward fix. The "armor appearance problem" is another story and could easily be fixed by almost any appearance modification that allowed cross-armor-type appearance.

It might seem a small thing, but it is annoying. And the fix could easily be wrapped up with the upgrade (well maybe not the present code, you would probably have to replace the armor mesh before reskinning).

[African-Grey]

I am not adamant about restricting appearance. Heck, if someone wants to run around naked it's fine with me. Obviously we _are_ and will _always_ be restricted. My viewpoint is slightly right of liberal, say a "role players" viewpoint... I like to run around the marketplace and see appearances that reflect "reality".
...
I hope you understand where I'm coming from. It is not some "disorder", or that something that is actually _metal_ looks like _leather_ is not supposed to impact me in any way what so ever.

With the understanding that this is all academic since it seems we're getting what we're getting...

If I understand correctly, you'd be put out by other characters having an appearance that does not match their actual equipment.

Hmm.

I'm curious as to how you'd know the difference. Without getting class information (and making assumptions that may or may not hold up), or using something like MyDDO to tell what is actually equipped, nobody but the person controlling the character would know the difference between stat gear and visual gear. All the casual observer would know is they saw a dwarf in nice-looking leather armor. I'm still not seeing how this has a negative effect on anyone. It seems like it offends your sense of how things should be, but I honestly don't understand why since, unless you do a lot of undue delving on everyone you pass in town, any discrepancy between equipment and appearance is unknown.

Let me tell you about my Paladin. The armor he wears for stats is among the ugliest armor I've seen in this game, which says something. It's hideous. When I'm in town I put on a different set of armor because it's simply embarassing to be seen in public with it on. Without a cosmetic slot, I am negatively impacted because of my choice to take it off in public; I effectively lose an inventory spot, and I have extra weight to carry around. I also have to look at it all the time when in dungeons. With a cosmetic slot, those negative impacts go away but a very small percentage of players gain the potential negative impact of possibly worrying that what I look like might not be how I'm equipped if they happen to see me in town and go poking into what my equipped gear is.

Even disregarding my choice (and it is my choice, I'm not forced into it except by having some taste) to swap armor in town, I certainly think that my displeasure with the appearance of my character, which I get to look at full-time, outweighs the potential offense a casual passerby might take at the thought that my appearance may be altered.

While I understand that you have a problem with other people wanting to look how they want to look, I don't fully understand why. I also don't understand why your opinion of how my character "should" look is more important than mine.

[Alabore]

Without a cosmetic slot, I am negatively impacted because of my choice to take it off in public; I effectively lose an inventory spot, and I have extra weight to carry around. I also have to look at it all the time when in dungeons.

And we all know imagery plays a big role in psychology and warfare.
If you feel cool, and love the way you look, you'll feel a stronger urge to prove your worth and fight harder, longer and tougher.

Even in a videogame, we develop a stronger psychological tie with characters we like - and looks do play a fundamental role in creating such ties.
A weaker character might pull off an almost impossible stunt because we want to believe it to be unbeatable.
A supposedly stronger character might fall short of expectations, if we, as players, fail to grow attached to it, and squeeze out every single drop of "win".

Basically, looks and appearance are closely tied to morale.
With everything else equal, the cooler looking army wins.
Besides, in DnD dice love a well-dressed adventurer, anyway...

[Aliss7]

hey guys, no apologies necessary. Just friendly arguing.

I really appreciate the details of how such things are implemented in the game engine. I did read this thread fully before, and now I've browsed some of the other cosmetic armor threads and there is comment on another thread that says the LOTR two armor slots do _restrict_ the armor to the same "type" (chain to chain, leather to leather, etc). it seems though, if that system is brought over, this will not give what people want because of how ddo implements AC...

Again, the point is not asking for cloth-under-the-guise-of-metal.
The point is customising appearance so it reflects a character's role and personality.
A monk/paladin's outfit should look more martial than, say, a monk/wizard's or monk/cleric's one.
Under the current system, they are all stuck with the same looks.

...ok. I definitely missed this subtle distinction (i realize, maybe not so subtle to others). I can empathize.

It seems like it offends your sense of how things should be, but I honestly don't understand why since, unless you do a lot of undue delving on everyone you pass in town, any discrepancy between equipment and appearance is unknown.

The problem may be more philosophical or abstract. As purely as an example, to try to put it simply, when someone equips a longsword of pure good, I see those "flames". With an appearance slot, that longsword can look like a dagger. I understand that doesn't rub you the wrong way... it does to me. it's that actual knowledge of what's actually happening in the game engine itself. You know, do you want to take the red pill or the blue pill. (fyi, i don't delve into everyone's detail... i have limited time myself!)

[Alabore]

it seems though, if that system is brought over, this will not give what people want because of how ddo implements AC...

Many RPGs tend to discriminate between armour types in subtler ways: at the very least, heavier armour provides greater damage absorption, while lighter armour affords higher dodge rate.
Some PnP RPGs go into extensive detail, to the point of requiring players to cross-reference specific source of harm vs specific source of defence - eg. scimitar vs plate mail, dagger vs boiled leather and so on.

DnD does not. AC is pure abstraction - and DR wasn't really part of AD&D.
This is likely a left-over from Chainmail, a tactical table-top game, D&D descended from, where you had to deal with several units at the same time.
Compare it with GW's Warhammer hit/wound/save system - a single roll in Chainmail would rule if you defeated a unit's defences, resulting in its removal from game.

For various reasons, DnD never really abandoned the AC system - they did simplify the Thac0 mechanism, but the underlying system is still there: the better you are at avoiding slings, blades and arrows, the better your AC is.
This does not translate well into a computer game, even more so DDO: first, CPUs could easily handle more realistic physics engines.
Second, armour type is NOT relevant in determining actual AC - so a fully armoured knight could actually be MORE vulnerable to harm than a barely dressed monk.

It has been suggested before, and Unearthed Arcana already outlines a couple optional systems for assessing armour and defence.
But, to make a long story short, it does not really matter what you wear, since it has little bearing on your actual AC, especially past lvl 12 - and damage reduction is NOT tied to armour type anyway.

AC 20 used to be top of the line in most low-level, low-magic campaigns.
Incidentally, if you were dexterous enough, you could reach 20 by wearing LIGHTER armour - whereas "slower" folks usually got there by using plate and shield.
In DDO AC 20 is more or less pointless, once you start meeting guys whose attack modifiers break +20.
One of those guys could be in your own party...

The problem may be more philosophical or abstract. As purely as an example, to try to put it simply, when someone equips a longsword of pure good, I see those "flames".
With an appearance slot, that longsword can look like a dagger.

This is true to a point.

First of all, weapon effects are usually turned off when culling crowd detail.
You are never sure of what people wield, even those light flames could be holy, or good, but you can't say much about actual modifier or side effects such as vorpal, weakening or bodyfeeder.
Devs could make weapon auras purely client-side, or part of the whole cosmetic package, and players wouldn't be the wiser.

Second, a dagger is deeply different from a longsword, let alone a khopesh.
Basic damage, crit profile, reach.
AC 20 is still AC 20, no matter the source.
Armour types in DDO only reflect dexterity/evasion cap - so you know people in cloth likely splashed monk or hit Dex 30.
The lack of variety in outfits on one side, and the sheer number of unused textures/models from "useless" armours on the other one really clash, and annoy players who care about appearance but still want their characters to stay viable.

...

Again, players are NOT asking for devs to let them wear robes and show a platemail model.
It would be harmless, given how AC works in DDO, but that is not the point.

The point is, some players have to gimp their chars so they look nice.
Some will play ugly chars, so they stay viable.
Either way, that is not the recipe for fun.

[Lorien077]

/signed

And if they need to make money super badly off of it you could buy the slot/ pay turbine points for it even.

I'm glad to see turbine implementing something, but I prefer the look of the default gear. Was honestly pretty disappointed with the stripperiffic look, no offense meant guys.