The amount of time/money put into Homesteads should make it allowed to put it where we desire. Over the self righteous selfishness, people. Some of you that have 'historical great houses' are just tools anyway
I believe this is the first time I've ever been conflicted on whether I should disagree or like a post. I want to do both.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
If I drop 8000+ credits on something, no player is getting a say in where it goes. There isn't a soul in this game I'd trust with that decision because people in this game are bitter.
If so, I demand to have a say on all your stupid laurels.
D'Cente would really have gone through IC channels to build their own house, which would then not trump RP.
Are you disagreeing or agreeing with our stance, I can't tell.
In any case I've spoken with most of Mag on this (at least important people.) We have a valid reason for ours.
@Pectus I mean actual...in game money. Myself and Arimsiia do not spend money on the game and work hard for our credits...
I'm with you on this one. Pectus's main argument is that you are throwing money at the game to get what you want. But you're not; you're hunting IG and buying credits on the market with in-game gold.
Personally I don't think other players should get an input into the homestead, that's not my issue at all. Just keep player homesteads to the outskirts of the city (and I'd be happy to see the homestead already in Mag fall under this too) and people get to make their mark and no one else gets bothered by the city being altered by people with the credits. Most org projects, interested people get to have input and work on descriptions and ideas, and the admin has ultimate say. I don't want to yay or nay anyone's project - just put them all off the highways and I'm a happy camper.
No. Why? What valid reasoning do you have besides keeping this game boring? Our numbers are dwindling by the day and what you're suggesting is practically the EXACT same thing as manses. Something that's out of the way and in noone's way. The point of the expense of homesteads is to make it something worth peeking into. I'd demand a price drop if this was the case. We need to change things up, and especially our plan for what we are building fits into Magnagora's aesthetics. We should trust the admins not to allow unfitting changes to a cities aesthetics, they know the story line, they know how places should look. That should be the end of it.
Disagreeing with you Munsia isn't the end of the world, I promise! Why would having a homestead outside the city gates be so much worse than in the city? It's only my opinion. It's not going to change the way I or anyone else plays the game. (And I really don't think they will have any difference on game numbers, wherever homesteads are put). My opinion is I'd rather player created areas were near but not -in- orgs. But it is just an opinion and not a personal attack on you making a homestead.
Disagreeing with you Munsia isn't the end of the world, I promise! Why would having a homestead outside the city gates be so much worse than in the city? It's only my opinion. It's not going to change the way I or anyone else plays the game. (And I really don't think they will have any difference on game numbers, wherever homesteads are put). My opinion is I'd rather player created areas were near but not -in- orgs. But it is just an opinion and not a personal attack on you making a homestead.
You're describing manses and taking away from the point of buying a homestead. If you want personally attacked I can gladly do that for you, but one has not been levied by the previous statement at all. If one is perceived, then that is a personal problem and not mine.
I have a 2500+ room 'player created' area planned...in a manse. That is what manses are for. If it was put outside of a city, it would lower the aesthetic 'cool' value for those purchasing it in my opinion and no longer am I paying 150c for -1- room for some crappy little side area that doesn't actually do anything which, once again, I can just do in a manse for about 8 credits a room. (Less)
Glomdoring is discussing these possible rules regarding homesteads: 1) Homesteads must be in a specific section of the forest. 2) The Glomdoring would have to approve of the publicly accessible part of the homestead; whatever is in the private part is, of course, private. 3) The Glomdoring would also contribute 250 credits towards the creation of the first homestead for any given family (just in case there is, at some point, an ability for a family to create multiple homesteads within an organization for some reason).
We've not really put this in place, it's still something in the consideration phase, but I think that it does work to address the concerns mentioned above. The organization is contributing (so it's not entirely on the family), and in return for the contribution it gets a some say in what is done within its own borders. It's a way to encourage investment in this area, while also ensuring that it remains thematically appropriate.
Glomdoring is discussing these possible rules regarding homesteads: 1) Homesteads must be in a specific section of the forest. 2) The Glomdoring would have to approve of the publicly accessible part of the homestead; whatever is in the private part is, of course, private. 3) The Glomdoring would also contribute 250 credits towards the creation of the first homestead for any given family (just in case there is, at some point, an ability for a family to create multiple homesteads within an organization for some reason).
We've not really put this in place, it's still something in the consideration phase, but I think that it does work to address the concerns mentioned above. The organization is contributing (so it's not entirely on the family), and in return for the contribution it gets a some say in what is done within its own borders. It's a way to encourage investment in this area, while also ensuring that it remains thematically appropriate.
I'd actually rail at your 'rules' considering I've spoken with the admin on this subject already and I've been told that players do not have to approve of this. What is glomdoring going to do? Kick out the member who refuses to abide by it? Not only that, there is no such thing as 'publically' accessible part of a homestead. No reinforced doors are allowed, thus all doors are breakable, thus all areas are public
As long as you don't build D'Cente in the already-designated noble estates sprinkled around Magnagora (like y'Bolgari and whatever), I really don't see the issue in putting it wherever you want. If Magnagora didn't want D'Cente as a House pledged to it and its Homestead within its borders, it shouldn't have accepted your pledge.
A big part of Lusternia is about creating your own history. D'Murani and n'Lochli can have their Homesteads...but by the players' own admission of D'Cente as "Great Houses pledged to Magnagora", they need to deal with a new House in its territory that really has -legitimately- risen beyond the y'Bolgari and the i'Xiia and other Magnagoran noble houses.
tl;dr you can't have D'Cente as a Great House of Magnagora and then tell it to build its Homestead outside the borders or near the edge where nobody can see it. D'Cente isn't a little Bannerhouse that can be ordered around anymore. Unless you really feel the need to stretch out the drama.
EDIT: -Maybe- this authority of the government over homesteads would fly in a place like Hallifax or Glomdoring, where the Collective will is put above the individual, but definitely not in a place of personal empowerment like Magnagora. One of the reasons I really hate the cog motif in Magnagora.
Glomdoring is discussing these possible rules regarding homesteads: 1) Homesteads must be in a specific section of the forest. 2) The Glomdoring would have to approve of the publicly accessible part of the homestead; whatever is in the private part is, of course, private. 3) The Glomdoring would also contribute 250 credits towards the creation of the first homestead for any given family (just in case there is, at some point, an ability for a family to create multiple homesteads within an organization for some reason).
We've not really put this in place, it's still something in the consideration phase, but I think that it does work to address the concerns mentioned above. The organization is contributing (so it's not entirely on the family), and in return for the contribution it gets a some say in what is done within its own borders. It's a way to encourage investment in this area, while also ensuring that it remains thematically appropriate.
I'd actually rail at your 'rules' considering I've spoken with the admin on this subject already and I've been told that players do not have to approve of this. What is glomdoring going to do? Kick out the member who refuses to abide by it? Not only that, there is no such thing as 'publically' accessible part of a homestead. No reinforced doors are allowed, thus all doors are breakable, thus all areas are public
I'm not sure if there is currently a command to do it, but I imagine if it became a big enough deal organizations would be able to disassociate a family from itself (which would cause the loss of family->org related benefits, such as the honour gains, Council seat, etc). It would also be entirely in-character to do so, if a family doesn't care at all about working with the organization it is building in, there may (or may not, depending on org!) be repercussions.
To me, it seems better to have a framework in place to ensure that everyone can be happy.
PS: My understanding of homesteads is that they could be somewhat like the Wyrden Isle (which is actually already a homestead), with an inner / outer portion and where you can add a teleportation-like-item to move from one section to another. If that isn't possible, then that part would definitely need some adjustments!
Also, using a multi-alias to, for instance, outr and eat an herb wouldn't really work as a stratagem...
Well, at least not efficiently. It'd kinda suck in a combat system.
I disagree. Performing multiple free eq actions via stratagem can be very valuable in combat. For example I've been in situations where I out decked a card and with lag the target was out the room before I could toss. Or my beast attack hitting but mine has no target. You could even out rift a sparkleberry but try to eat it when you are dead.
Entering a single command that will play out a series of actions that will all hit at once regardless of lag or client meltdown is awesomesauce.
I really don't get what you're saying here... First you say you disagree, then you say that entering a command that plays out a series of actions is awesomesauce, which is exactly what I was describing earlier. All I want is a way to do so without using stratagems (which, needless to say, isn't really the most efficient way of doing so in a lot of cases).
Personally I don't think other players should get an input into the homestead, that's not my issue at all. Just keep player homesteads to the outskirts of the city (and I'd be happy to see the homestead already in Mag fall under this too) and people get to make their mark and no one else gets bothered by the city being altered by people with the credits. Most org projects, interested people get to have input and work on descriptions and ideas, and the admin has ultimate say. I don't want to yay or nay anyone's project - just put them all off the highways and I'm a happy camper.
The problem with throwing the homstead outside of mag is then there is no protection, we cannot go hang out there and RP with our family without running the risk of people coming in and raiding us. We cannot have closed off areas because everyone and their mother is going to break down the door to explore the area just because they can. Having them in the city at least offers the protection of the city and our enemies have to enter territory in order to go there which has risks involved.
Not only this, the homestead does not end up belonging to the city/commune in any right, it is deeded to the family that paid for it. Then, once it is established, we can add onto at any time, are you also proposing we have to go back to the city again when we want to make changes/add onto?
@Xenthos's proposal at least offers to pay part of the fee in order to have some say in what is going on but for me, I still have this irksome thing, I do not want other people's fingers in my project especially after we've had to deal likely months with it hammering it out and going over it with my family until we could all agree on it.
The soft, hollow voice of Nocht, the Silent resounds within your mind as His words echo through the aether, "Congratulations, Arimisia. Your mastery of vermin cannot be disputed."
@Ssaliss I am physically unable to acknowledge that I am wrong or that I didn't read your post very carefully or even admit that I'm not entirely sure where I am at the moment (I've successfully ruled out Antarctica).
Unfortunately, once I've torpedoed a suggestion it is both insta and perma sunkteded. It is sad but true. Fret not though, in a few weeks I will re-introduce your suggestion and claim credit for it. It is very nearly the least I can do.
My personal opinion on homesteads is that first and foremost, and pretty much only, the player making a homestead needs to have admin approval to put it in. This is not negotiable, obviously. Other player should have zero say on the homestead at all. The admin have final say, and the and pretty much the only say, to all decisions, including nuking your character if they so wish. Yes, they could turn you into a shrub for any reason they specify, no matter how "fair" or "unfair" you seem to think it is.
However, admin decisions are not all made on whim. In fact, very few are. Most, if not all, of these decisions are made on pre-determined criteria, or made with sufficient considerations of all parties involved. A shrubbing of a cheater is justified not because "it's the admin who say so", but because cheating negatively affects the experience of all other players. The admin don't go around making surveys for every character they shrub, asking "Did this person's cheating make things bad for you?" and then shrub him (or not) based on that. It's still a pretty one-sided decision by the admin, who decide whether or not the exploit or cheat is serious enough to warrant such a punishment, but the consideration is certainly there.
Similarly for homesteads. I highly doubt the admin are going to go to the leaders of an org to ask, "Here's a homestead someone wants in your org. What do you think?" before making a decision, and they certainly are not obliged, nor do they actually need to do such a thing. However, they will very certainly take into consideration whether or not the homestead in question is also in-line with player expectations. All players, after all, create and define the gameworld alongside the admin. The ultimate right to decide what the gameworld will look like always belongs to the admin, but that doesn't mean they will decide everything on their own, and only based on their judgement, and neither does it mean that any one player should be able to run roughshod over all other players' opinions. This will be especially true if all of the homestead is forced to be public. I actually am not sure if this is the policy for homesteads, but if other people cannot be locked out of accessing it (like a private area in a MUSH), then it has to conform to the RP standards of the world it resides in, and every player in this game contributes to this standard that the admin enforces.
It is a mistake to assume that the admin, of all the people in this game, puts in changes without considering the players that play in it. And it will be similarly a mistake to think that you, as a player, can do such a thing too. The ultimate arbiter and judge of what falls under "acceptable" and "unacceptable" is the admin. But in no way does that imply any player has more of a right to decide how to modify the game world than another player.
Homesteads cost so much credits because you are given the right to modify the game world in a way you want, in customized to your specifics. However, customization to your specifics does not mean customization without regard for other players. Homesteads cost so much more credits than manses precisely because a homestead MUST take into consideration other players' opinions. Make no mistake, it is not the other way around! Such a consideration must, by definition, take up a great deal of admin oversight. Much more than any manse ever will. You are paying for the admin to take into consideration other players' opinions and deliver a balanced judgement on what should or should not be allowed, and then subsequently, permanently and indelibly stamp your customization into the gameworld in a way that goes far, far, far beyond crafting.
Glomdoring's proposal for rules will be, ultimately, voluntary unless the admin turns it into a mechanic. Ultimately, however, if a homestead proposal is going to meet so much opposition from the leaders as to not pass the rules of the Glomdoring proposal, then you can safely bet your second-born that the admin will not let it through either. Glomdoring's leadership, at the very least, is easy-going enough that only the most egregrious of proposals will meet with opposition. The admin will be likely to be far stricter than the Glomdoring leadership when accessing whether a homestead proposal should be allowed. Of course, the potential for drama exists (let's say, Xenthos one day feels edgy because he could not eat his mother's curry, and decides to veto a proposal for no reason), which is probably why the admin are the ones who will officially decide whether a homestead is accepable or not, but if you believe in goodwill and decency, there's no reason not to take up Glomdoring's proposal - after all, it amounts to nothing more than an org-provided discount and an RP opportunity to explain homesteads ICly.
I think all of this could be solved by just allowing homesteads to be unconnected to an org. Would save a lot of drama and there're plenty of wilderness areas where it can work.
At no point should any player beyond (Munsia/Arimisia/Whoever else they choose) have any input in what is allowable or not allowable in their homestead. Period. If the admin doesn't think it's acceptable, they'll turn it down. If you as a player don't feel that the admin are able to make such a choice, I suggest you email support and voice your opinion to them.
I'm sort of on the fence about whether other players should have a say in where it goes. I do think the Iron Council should have a say in the places where it could be, suggesting a handful of acceptable spots that Munsia and Crew could pick from. While Munsia and I have butted heads pretty often, I don't doubt her intelligence, and I don't doubt she'll pick a reasonable spot. But when it comes down to it, this is a permanent addition to the city regardless of how much she's paying to have it done, and what happens if she's kicked out of the city or enemied? There's a lot of variables here, and I think Iron Council input is important.
On a slight tangent, I wonder if the admin have any plans on doing some sort of RP event when homesteads are released into an org.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
D'Cente would really have gone through IC channels to build their own house, which would then not trump RP.
Are you disagreeing or agreeing with our stance, I can't tell.
In any case I've spoken with most of Mag on this (at least important people.) We have a valid reason for ours.
@Pectus I mean actual...in game money. Myself and Arimsiia do not spend money on the game and work hard for our credits...
I'm with you on this one. Pectus's main argument is that you are throwing money at the game to get what you want. But you're not; you're hunting IG and buying credits on the market with in-game gold.
My main argument was not that they were throwing money at the game. I know Ari and Munsia have worked hard for the credits they plan on putting into their homestead. Why the heck has the entire thing about homesteads become solely about their homestead? O.o Others are planning then. Others plan on throwing $2500+ amounts of money at them. Whereas Arimisia and Munsia did not and worked for theirs.
I'm..Gonna withdraw from this now, since people are getting a bit, uh.. Fired up? Yeah. HTat'll do.
Wear (number) (thing). Some people wear the full 10 rings, some wear a bazillion and one brooches. And having to put that many brooches on is a pain in the as-...Bottom.
Wear (number) (thing). Some people wear the full 10 rings, some wear a bazillion and one brooches. And having to put that many brooches on is a pain in the as-...Bottom.
Along with that, can we get a command which allows us to remove everything we're wearing back into our inventory? And also to able to wear everything in our inventory (Priority not important, can be sorted out when it's all done).
Worked really well on another mud, and when Haezon has to switch between 'tramp' and 'superstar' clothing it would help.
As an addendum to the above - WEAR ALL [jewellery|clothes|armour|all|etc] and REMOVE ALL [stuff]
Would be awesome for people who care about these things (like someone setting up a Glamrock ensemble...which I traded in after the first outfit faded in what felt like a week. It was a pain in the butt to remove then rewear everything to set it up, then it was gone!)
This would give people the ability to strip others nude in a single forced command. Maybe a wear all function and then make a client side alias to remove all your clothes would be easier.
This would give people the ability to strip others nude in a single forced command. Maybe a wear all function and then make a client side alias to remove all your clothes would be easier.
yeah, but the admin could make it non-forceable. People already dominate to remove robes pretty often.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
This would give people the ability to strip others nude in a single forced command. Maybe a wear all function and then make a client side alias to remove all your clothes would be easier.
yeah, but the admin could make it non-forceable. People already dominate to remove robes pretty often.
It would be easy enough to do, wouldn't it? A lot of things are already non-forceable through dominate and hypnotism.
On another topic, can we PLEASE make it so ministers of culture can rate the plays they watch? It's not like the org always rates plays 5 stars, so there wouldn't be any damage if a Minister did it to every one.
Comments
Signature!
1) Homesteads must be in a specific section of the forest.
2) The Glomdoring would have to approve of the publicly accessible part of the homestead; whatever is in the private part is, of course, private.
3) The Glomdoring would also contribute 250 credits towards the creation of the first homestead for any given family (just in case there is, at some point, an ability for a family to create multiple homesteads within an organization for some reason).
We've not really put this in place, it's still something in the consideration phase, but I think that it does work to address the concerns mentioned above. The organization is contributing (so it's not entirely on the family), and in return for the contribution it gets a some say in what is done within its own borders. It's a way to encourage investment in this area, while also ensuring that it remains thematically appropriate.
A big part of Lusternia is about creating your own history. D'Murani and n'Lochli can have their Homesteads...but by the players' own admission of D'Cente as "Great Houses pledged to Magnagora", they need to deal with a new House in its territory that really has -legitimately- risen beyond the y'Bolgari and the i'Xiia and other Magnagoran noble houses.
tl;dr you can't have D'Cente as a Great House of Magnagora and then tell it to build its Homestead outside the borders or near the edge where nobody can see it. D'Cente isn't a little Bannerhouse that can be ordered around anymore. Unless you really feel the need to stretch out the drama.
EDIT: -Maybe- this authority of the government over homesteads would fly in a place like Hallifax or Glomdoring, where the Collective will is put above the individual, but definitely not in a place of personal empowerment like Magnagora. One of the reasons I really hate the cog motif in Magnagora.
To me, it seems better to have a framework in place to ensure that everyone can be happy.
PS: My understanding of homesteads is that they could be somewhat like the Wyrden Isle (which is actually already a homestead), with an inner / outer portion and where you can add a teleportation-like-item to move from one section to another. If that isn't possible, then that part would definitely need some adjustments!
The problem with throwing the homstead outside of mag is then there is no protection, we cannot go hang out there and RP with our family without running the risk of people coming in and raiding us. We cannot have closed off areas because everyone and their mother is going to break down the door to explore the area just because they can. Having them in the city at least offers the protection of the city and our enemies have to enter territory in order to go there which has risks involved.
Not only this, the homestead does not end up belonging to the city/commune in any right, it is deeded to the family that paid for it. Then, once it is established, we can add onto at any time, are you also proposing we have to go back to the city again when we want to make changes/add onto?
@Xenthos's proposal at least offers to pay part of the fee in order to have some say in what is going on but for me, I still have this irksome thing, I do not want other people's fingers in my project especially after we've had to deal likely months with it hammering it out and going over it with my family until we could all agree on it.
However, admin decisions are not all made on whim. In fact, very few are. Most, if not all, of these decisions are made on pre-determined criteria, or made with sufficient considerations of all parties involved. A shrubbing of a cheater is justified not because "it's the admin who say so", but because cheating negatively affects the experience of all other players. The admin don't go around making surveys for every character they shrub, asking "Did this person's cheating make things bad for you?" and then shrub him (or not) based on that. It's still a pretty one-sided decision by the admin, who decide whether or not the exploit or cheat is serious enough to warrant such a punishment, but the consideration is certainly there.
Similarly for homesteads. I highly doubt the admin are going to go to the leaders of an org to ask, "Here's a homestead someone wants in your org. What do you think?" before making a decision, and they certainly are not obliged, nor do they actually need to do such a thing. However, they will very certainly take into consideration whether or not the homestead in question is also in-line with player expectations. All players, after all, create and define the gameworld alongside the admin. The ultimate right to decide what the gameworld will look like always belongs to the admin, but that doesn't mean they will decide everything on their own, and only based on their judgement, and neither does it mean that any one player should be able to run roughshod over all other players' opinions. This will be especially true if all of the homestead is forced to be public. I actually am not sure if this is the policy for homesteads, but if other people cannot be locked out of accessing it (like a private area in a MUSH), then it has to conform to the RP standards of the world it resides in, and every player in this game contributes to this standard that the admin enforces.
It is a mistake to assume that the admin, of all the people in this game, puts in changes without considering the players that play in it. And it will be similarly a mistake to think that you, as a player, can do such a thing too. The ultimate arbiter and judge of what falls under "acceptable" and "unacceptable" is the admin. But in no way does that imply any player has more of a right to decide how to modify the game world than another player.
Homesteads cost so much credits because you are given the right to modify the game world in a way you want, in customized to your specifics. However, customization to your specifics does not mean customization without regard for other players. Homesteads cost so much more credits than manses precisely because a homestead MUST take into consideration other players' opinions. Make no mistake, it is not the other way around! Such a consideration must, by definition, take up a great deal of admin oversight. Much more than any manse ever will. You are paying for the admin to take into consideration other players' opinions and deliver a balanced judgement on what should or should not be allowed, and then subsequently, permanently and indelibly stamp your customization into the gameworld in a way that goes far, far, far beyond crafting.
Glomdoring's proposal for rules will be, ultimately, voluntary unless the admin turns it into a mechanic. Ultimately, however, if a homestead proposal is going to meet so much opposition from the leaders as to not pass the rules of the Glomdoring proposal, then you can safely bet your second-born that the admin will not let it through either. Glomdoring's leadership, at the very least, is easy-going enough that only the most egregrious of proposals will meet with opposition. The admin will be likely to be far stricter than the Glomdoring leadership when accessing whether a homestead proposal should be allowed. Of course, the potential for drama exists (let's say, Xenthos one day feels edgy because he could not eat his mother's curry, and decides to veto a proposal for no reason), which is probably why the admin are the ones who will officially decide whether a homestead is accepable or not, but if you believe in goodwill and decency, there's no reason not to take up Glomdoring's proposal - after all, it amounts to nothing more than an org-provided discount and an RP opportunity to explain homesteads ICly.
At no point should any player beyond (Munsia/Arimisia/Whoever else they choose) have any input in what is allowable or not allowable in their homestead. Period. If the admin doesn't think it's acceptable, they'll turn it down. If you as a player don't feel that the admin are able to make such a choice, I suggest you email support and voice your opinion to them.
I'm sort of on the fence about whether other players should have a say in where it goes. I do think the Iron Council should have a say in the places where it could be, suggesting a handful of acceptable spots that Munsia and Crew could pick from. While Munsia and I have butted heads pretty often, I don't doubt her intelligence, and I don't doubt she'll pick a reasonable spot. But when it comes down to it, this is a permanent addition to the city regardless of how much she's paying to have it done, and what happens if she's kicked out of the city or enemied? There's a lot of variables here, and I think Iron Council input is important.
On a slight tangent, I wonder if the admin have any plans on doing some sort of RP event when homesteads are released into an org.
I'm..Gonna withdraw from this now, since people are getting a bit, uh.. Fired up? Yeah. HTat'll do.
Have a kitten!
Wear (number) (thing). Some people wear the full 10 rings, some wear a bazillion and one brooches. And having to put that many brooches on is a pain in the as-...Bottom.
WEAR ALL [jewellery|clothes|armour|all|etc] and
REMOVE ALL [stuff]
Would be awesome for people who care about these things (like someone setting up a Glamrock ensemble...which I traded in after the first outfit faded in what felt like a week. It was a pain in the butt to remove then rewear everything to set it up, then it was gone!)
It would be easy enough to do, wouldn't it? A lot of things are already non-forceable through dominate and hypnotism.