No Limit to Avatar Scaling in Invite, Invite+, Friends, Friends+ Worlds
tracked
Spooky-Kitty
There really should only be a limit in public worlds.
Edit:
Just to clarify, by 'limit' here, I meant both the ability to scale (if the world has it enabled) and the upper/lower limit on scaling (0.2m to 5m). I don't see why there should be any limit on avatar size in a private world.
Log In
SpaceCowboy121
I personally don't agree that it should be removed from the creators hands. As a creator I feel like my world is my art and it should be experienced in the intended way. I don't want people looking over a wall and seeing something I'm building for example or looking ahead in a maze or finding a Easter egg.
As a compromise I think that the ability to turn scaling off completely should be removed from the world creators powers and instead we should only be able to play with the scale range.
ᴋᴀᴡᴀ
I don't agree. This might be necessary for some game worlds or small "hallway" worlds where specific scales are necessary for better experience.
Let authors decide.
Ghostt
I can think of an issue with this: In the case of a private tournament or some type of competitive game, there should be a way to control it to prevent cheating while keeping the instance type private.
The instance owner (or group owner/mod) of those private instances should be able to manually disable it in this case. Otherwise, I agree, it should be enabled by default.
GaruuSpike
Avatar scale limitations, especially stricter ones imposed by world authors, are unnecessary in private instances and detrimental to the experience for people who enjoy any kind of size play, even if it's as benign as someone wanting to "be the couch" while watching movies. Like me.
Scaling can break game worlds, but in a private instance, who cares? It's part of the fun. This is VRChat; there is no immersion to ruin because the entire appeal of this game is the people you're playing it with.
Tech E․ Coyote
Commenting here months later to say that this would be a really helpful change, my friends and I have already ran into worlds that cap scaling at values as little as 2m. It would be nice if at a minimum, Invite, Invite+ and Friends instances ignored any world imposed limits, since at that point it falls on the user to moderate who they're in a world with
TypicalZedF
I like this idea, Tho maybe game worlds should have an override of sorts. I understand that some worlds WANT to force the player to a specified size.
digitalf0x
TypicalZedF: Err, I
think
part of the point of this idea is that what the world author intends and what folks visiting the world in a private instance might not align. Having an "over-override" for the world author that prevents the instance creator from overriding it is kind of similar to how it works right now, just that the theoretical over-override is enabled by default.I've made a reply comment further down explaining more on this, but in essence from my view, as long as it's clear to anyone scaling beyond what the world author intends that things such as games may be broken (put a warning in the UI or such), sometimes that "brokenness" is either not a bother in contrast to folks being allowed to fully express themselves, or it's even part of the fun/challenge (e.g. "mini" mini golf).
This potential conflict between world authors and the folks who spend time there loosely reminds me of the conflict between web designers and folks that make personal, local changes to websites to improve usability for themselves.
Perhaps adding this over-override for world authors is the compromise VRChat would accept, and if so, well, at least it's better than the current situation in the open beta. I would still wish for VRChat to keep offering the same level of control to those in private (not Public!) instances as it has worked for the past many years.
PucTiger
This change will negatively impact my experience and that of my friends. There are already plenty of options to control the behavior of people in private (friends, invite, friends+, invite+) -- adding a restraint like this is wholly unnecessary and will make some worlds already scaled for larger or smaller sizes useless if we can't reach the world author's desired scale and it leaves no options for those of us in private worlds to do as we would like.
FaeAlchemist
It's kind of implicit from your post, so I want to explicitly add that group instances would also benefit from this.
Spooky-Kitty
FaeAlchemist: Yes, I completely forgot about groups.
Public group instances should be fine with this too if you can kick people abusing the scaling, I'm not really familiar with group instances.
Tupper - VRChat Head of Community
tracked
haolink
Tupper - VRChat Head of Community: Dear Tupper. Thanks a lot for tracking this concept.
I can completely understand why the chat in the Discord seemed very heated.. with people from the size community crying "5 metres isn't enough, 20cm isn't low enough" - and you know what. I agree in a way. In a public world it would be extremely confusing for a user who has never seen the VR abilities of size - to see such a huge or such a tiny avatar. Being overwhelmed by such a huge body - or hearing a voice and you can't see where it's coming from. Yes, I can see that.
The suggestion here however, I feel is a good compromise. There is a size community - people who love growing and shrinking fantasies. Virtual Reality has given us the ability to see giant avatars or tiny towns in front of us - for us this is amazing.
As said: I can understand why you wouldn't want this in public worlds - the idea to have it in friends+ and more private instances as well as groups+ or group instances would be an amazing compromise. There are worlds like https://vrchat.com/home/world/wrld_0f0c11c9-b8de-46bd-ad61-16c2a1f5e95b which are great meet-up points for people like us. Being able to change our avatar sizes to absolutely massive or the other way around in worlds like this - is amazing for us.
So if you continue allowing us to do these things in private instances - and even allow it on all avatars - trust you: you'd gain more love by the size community than you can imagine. Even if you're not a member of it.
Thank you for reading this.
SlyFennix
haolink: I agree with this 100%
GaruuSpike
haolink: Even people outside the size community can enjoy "being the couch" when watching movies. Maybe having our friends rest on us makes us feel important.
C'mon, Tupper. Let the instance owner decide scaling limits for private instances (Invite, Invite+, Friends), not the world author. It helps everyone and hurts no one.
Even breaking game worlds is fine in a small, private group that has already collectively decided that they're OK with it.
ZenithVal
If a world has weird arbitrary scale limits you don't like and it's not a game world, don't hang out there? If the author has a drop in players or negative feedback, they'll change it. The only place it make sense to have these limits is in worlds that want a specific experience (Game worlds!) where someone being the size of an ant or a skyscraper ruins the experience for others.
Games like Terrors of nowhere and Prison Escape already actually have scale limits! They just kick you back to spawn and tell you to change avatars though. Now they can just force adjust the outliers to a reasonable range. Since this is all controllable right in the world via udon, the author can actually put a button or even a min/max config slider right in the world! I'm 110% sure there will be a prefab that'll spread across many of the game worlds within days of this reaching live.
This is kind of the same problem as player count; I personally believe there should be no limits set for player count in hangout worlds. Let us pack them full to our hearts content at 80 cap. If a author has a cap below 40 our group just skips over it for the next world that can accommodate all of us. They lose out on popularity because they decided on a weirdly arbitrary user cap but when asked they usually would bump it up because they've got nothing to lose by doing so.
digitalf0x
ZenithVal: I'd say "ruins the experience" is subjective. In private groups (see: Invite/+ or Friends), I've not run into a situation where someone being problematically large/small wasn't dealt with by.. talking to the person causing problems. It is a social problem that can be solved in closed groups without needing a technical sledgehammer.
(NOTE: Group+ and Public worlds are a totally different situation!)
Global limits
Even if world authors agree, ALL worlds will have a minimum of 0.2m and maximum of 5m, as specified on the VRChat creator docs. World authors cannot allow past that. If this doesn't impact you, that's fair! I just feel it's important to explicitly acknowledge this.
Game worlds
And sometimes the fun of game worlds can be trying to play them at the "wrong" size - e.g. the group I generally visit once did a "mini mini golf" game session, where everyone had to be under the practical height for miniature golf with the entire point being jovial laughing with each other over the troubles trying to make this work despite being smaller than the world author likely would've intended (maximum agreed-upon height was smaller than the smallest putter option).
Likewise, MMD worlds can be fun to see how things go when you have too large and/or too small avatars trying to dance alongside normal ones. In the group I'm in, folks go in KNOWING things will break in generally harmless/fixable ways if they're "incorrectly" too large or too small. (Usually just resetting size or going to a new instance.)
As long as it's made clear in VRChat when you're going beyond what the world author intends (e.g. a warning in UI like Earmuff mode), I don't see why the world author needs to be responsible for putting in extra work to specifically cater to a size audience that they might've not even heard about!
Legacy worlds
This option also addresses the legacy worlds that will never receive updates, e.g. because the creator passed away or just doesn't have time to dedicate to VRChat. Size-shifting with friends in the "Treehouse in the Shade" world can be a fun way to get different perspectives on all the shader effects without forcing everyone to take turns waiting for the one (1) jetpack that the world provides.
Spooky-Kitty
ZenithVal: The thing is, if a world has scaling turned on, I doubt many would have a limit lower than 0.2m or higher than 5m.
For most people that's more than enough of a range, but for my friend group and a few servers I'm in it's really not, so it would pretty much lock us out of most worlds except those made by people in the group.
In public game worlds, yes, huge or small scales would annoy people. But In Friends/Invite game worlds, people are mostly closer to each other than strangers, so it wouldn't affect them (and if it does, the offender would be kicked out of the group).
Plus, older worlds that won't ever be updated with scale would have scaling too, in Private instances so people can't break Public instances.
ZenithVal
Spooky-Kitty: 0.2 - 5m is the max configuration allowed according to the udon docs. IMO that's more than enough range and not the topic of this specific canny post.
Load More
→