Sugar Min.5834 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 13 hours ago, Biziut.3594 said: Well, thats basicly outfits for You. An armor like slot that don't give You any stat benefits. I don't think there is a reason to create a piece of armor that don't give any stats, like what would even be the reason to do it. But I may be wierd since I don't really understand the hype of running naked in WvW to begin with. Peoples will hardly respect it since You can just as well toggle off all possible armor pieces, get invisible boots and just take off chest and leggings, accessories are not visible, so I really don't think that all this GoB camp farmers will be amazed if You kill them with Your armor off. Perhaps it takes a whole team, It's not about just dumping a new skin into game, You ask for implementing a new part of UI. And how do You know it will bring in decent revenues for ANet huh? Well You don't. So if there are two ways to accomplish the same goal, one harder and one easier. Company obviously should go for the easier one. Why it even make You such a diffrence if this underwear were to be in form of an outfit/legging skin instead of some tedious to implement new UI. It's all the same thing. No. It is not the same thing, psychologically. Period. End of discussion 🚫 PS You gave the impression that you know something about coding but that doesn't make you an expert, a pro coder and you are always right? Edited February 17 by Sugar Min.5834 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Healix.5819 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 It's unlikely they'd ever do this, but if they actually did, it would probably end up being an armor slot and play out just like backpacks did. There would of course be skins for it, which is where the swimsuits they've been holding back since S1 would finally end up; they'd basically be bringing back town clothes. It would also be an opportunity to drop the aquabreather and either move or convert the 7th rune, but they could have done that with backpacks. 10 hours ago, Danikat.8537 said: Considering the underwear can't be removed it's probably part of the character model and it's already possible for players to change the colour of all the other parts of the character model (skin, hair, skin/fur pattern and tattoos). I doubt it would be any more difficult to allow us to choose the colour of the one part of the model we can't currently change. It can be removed. It was common to see back in 2012 when you could equip cultural armor on any race via transmutation, resulting in a nude character for everyone to see. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Red Arachnid.2493 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 17 hours ago, Danikat.8537 said: Considering the underwear can't be removed it's probably part of the character model and it's already possible for players to change the colour of all the other parts of the character model (skin, hair, skin/fur pattern and tattoos). I doubt it would be any more difficult to allow us to choose the colour of the one part of the model we can't currently change. The underwear isn't part of the character model. At least, no more than any other piece of armor in the game. It is sort of an open secret in this game that there's a base model that is used in house and gets worked on to create new armor skins. Most armor pieces replace part of the base model that they cover, but others will still have the polygons and textures underneath. The base model is just the skin texture, effectively a nude model but with no genitals. EDIT: I get the feeling people are actually confused as to why I'm posting this, and not just being passive-aggressive. The point I'm making is that there's no fundamental differences between any piece of equipment that we wear, and our characters in their underwear. When we equip something in game, we're replacing that part of our body with another skin that is designed to slot in to the rest of the character model. The underwear is exactly the same, except it is the default for when no piece is equipped. We aren't truly putting something on or taking something off, model-wise. The only reason why we don't have dyable underwear is either because dye channels weren't put onto that particular skin, or they were and the channels simply aren't enabled client-side. Edited February 17 by Blood Red Arachnid.2493 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slpr.2647 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 I dont think its even possible. in order for it to be dyable, it would have to be an actual piece, which it is not. its the same layer as the skin on your character. talking about "coding" , it goes way deeper than that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Red Arachnid.2493 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 19 hours ago, vares.8457 said: I don’t understand this desire to sexualize your character in a video game. Sounds like a cry for help to me. It's not so simple, but I can explain. Human standards for aesthetics and beauty come from many sources, but in large part they come from judging the fitness of potential mates and rivals. Really, when we look at another person, we're looking for the signs of overall physical and mental health of that person. This is all done automatically and subconsciously, so we can't always put into words what we're looking at and why it's good. We just see it as "good" and/or "hot." That's the starting point. This all comes into play when designing our characters. As humans, we both want to be "good" as well as to look at "good". Well, most of us anyway. So, whether we're looking at our character or pretending to be our character, we're going to want the character to have a high social-sexual value. It isn't different from wanting our characters to be smart, or powerful, or strong, or charismatic. It is perfectly natural to do this. As we are empathetic, we extend our ideas and feelings onto other things, both animate and inanimate. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biziut.3594 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 5 hours ago, Sugar Min.5834 said: Period. End of discussion 🚫 Omegalul. But it is You whos calling. You started quoting me. Xd 5 hours ago, Sugar Min.5834 said: PS You gave the impression that you know something about coding but that doesn't make you an expert, a pro coder and you are always right? I gave my opinion, and the most logical answer to Your question that lies in my abilities, as such is my right and You asked for it by quoting me. You may disagree with me, but heed my words. Thing You are asking for, is not happening. Not in this form. If Devs wouldn't have problems tinkering with the stuff from the release, You think the game would look like it looks now? We would have tons of new classes, races, weapons ect. Becouse this would give them money. And if company do not touch something, despite the possibility of getting money from it, it means that it's not worth the hassle. And the thing with You is that You ask for a thing that wouldn't even benefit a large part of the playerbase. And a thing that can be made in a way easier way, avoiding all the hassle. So Yeah. You may belive my words, You may not, God knows I couldn't care less. But no matter how many times You say... 5 hours ago, Sugar Min.5834 said: Period. ...and... 5 hours ago, Sugar Min.5834 said: End of discussion ... it won't change a fact that company have to earn money, and therefor spend resources responsibly. So if there are two ways to implement a thing, one way being easier/cheaper than the other, and both are bearing the same resoult... 5 hours ago, Sugar Min.5834 said: No. It is not the same thing, psychologically. ...(and this is not an argument, physically xd) than company will go for the easier way. And all of that judging that they will decide the idea to be good to begin with. You speaking about underwear and linking it to psychological aspect is unsettling to say the least, so it makes me feel even less about this idea, plus I'd like to remind You that this game is rated 13, Sugar... Edited February 17 by Biziut.3594 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebulous.2934 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 Pfft. Anet proved that they can deal with flesh-tone dye. The leggings of the Elegant Canthan outfit nearly have their own dye channel. People did indeed dye the leggings in flesh-tones, on female models at least. Two weeks after the outfit released, the devs altered the female leggings by painting panties on them, sort of. That region of the outfit reacts to dyes differently. Some colors appear darker in the panty region, I did notice that beiges, peachy colors, and browns tend to make that area turn light grey. We are still quite able to make the legs of the leggings match our skin tones. The developers have the tools, naughty dye possibilities are not what is holding back swimsuits and such. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gehenna.3625 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 21 hours ago, Biziut.3594 said: Well, thats basicly outfits for You. An armor like slot that don't give You any stat benefits. I don't think there is a reason to create a piece of armor that don't give any stats, like what would even be the reason to do it. But I may be wierd since I don't really understand the hype of running naked in WvW to begin with. Peoples will hardly respect it since You can just as well toggle off all possible armor pieces, get invisible boots and just take off chest and leggings, accessories are not visible, so I really don't think that all this GoB camp farmers will be amazed if You kill them with Your armor off. Yeah but you're thinking too narrowly imo. My solution also allows you to mix and match rather than just one option, which is what outfits are. You have to think broader so you can sell it to more people. What if someone else wants to wear boots combined with undies? You can't do that with an outfit. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omega.6801 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said: Yeah but you're thinking too narrowly imo. My solution also allows you to mix and match rather than just one option, which is what outfits are. You have to think broader so you can sell it to more people. What if someone else wants to wear boots combined with undies? You can't do that with an outfit. We get it. You need to be a dominatrix. It's where all these threads end. Nothing new. Edited February 17 by Omega.6801 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gehenna.3625 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 3 minutes ago, Omega.6801 said: We get it. You need to be a dominatrix. It's where all these threads end. Nothing new. A Dominatrix is better served by Profane Armor which is already in the game. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biziut.3594 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 1 minute ago, Gehenna.3625 said: Yeah but you're thinking too narrowly imo. My solution also allows you to mix and match rather than just one option, which is what outfits are. You have to think broader so you can sell it to more people. What if someone else wants to wear boots combined with undies? You can't do that with an outfit. ... it is not narrow thinking. I gave idea based on what op wants. And what op wants is dyeable underwear that "Do not give You statistics". There is NOTHING in the opening post that suggests that main poster want to mix and match it. He wants to be naked (as wierd as it sounds, but no judging). Since I doubt Devs will want to delve into labrynth of spagetti coding, I think the outfit is the only solution. Creating armor pieces that do not give You any statistics is pointless since outfit slot is already here, I am all for adding armor skins instead of outfits, but it just won't match the op wish to run without any stat ups. I am perfectly aware that it would work better as seperate piece for me, and if this post would be about my wish/suggestion (If I would even want to play only in my undies, that is), I would have told Author to just wear reskinned lvl1 gear. But it isn't my post, it's Authors idea, so my suggestions aim to fit His expectations, not mine, and most certainly not Yours. So please do think twice before You call someone for "Narrow Thinking" when it is You who try force change OP's idea and call it His. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omega.6801 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 9 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said: A Dominatrix is better served by Profane Armor which is already in the game. Yeah but you're thinking too narrowly. Just think of the many permutations of different dominatrixes you could dress up. Also Profane Armor has so much fabric, it almost looks like a quaker outfit doesn't it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doggie.3184 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) Need to be able to be like "Let Me Solo Her" from "Elden Ring" and viably go into battle in underwear, otherwise what's the point Edited February 17 by Doggie.3184 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gehenna.3625 Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 On 2/17/2024 at 12:06 PM, Omega.6801 said: Yeah but you're thinking too narrowly. Just think of the many permutations of different dominatrixes you could dress up. Also Profane Armor has so much fabric, it almost looks like a quaker outfit doesn't it. Yeah yeah, you're hilarious, I get it. Keep your dayjob though. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omega.6801 Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 18 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said: Yeah yeah, you're hilarious, I get it. Keep your dayjob though. Much obliged, always glad to entertain. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farohna.6247 Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 The longer this thread goes, the less I support the idea. 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts