Yoshi, your reply to Q22 in the XVIII Live Letter was false and dishonest.

Alchemist outfit on bard ( can I have it? )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian74

T....think in those poor people who craft and sell the glamour prisms!.... I...I'm not speaking about myself, of course!... But... Think about them... For my money, errrr, they money, Glamour System shall prevail.

---

This is one of the reasons i prefer the glamour system to vanity slots, because it actually strengthens the value of other systems in the game, unlike typical vanity systems which just, well, let you equip schoolgirl outfits and swimsuits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tupsi

See here's where your argument goes off base...

---

Actually, it isn't. The "Try On" feature proves that it is already possible. It is nothing more than a choice the Yoshi 'n Crew have made. I can wear full BLM gear, then "Try On" ANY tank item in the game, and it will appear just fine and still allow me to pull out a weapon and show a pose.

Besides, your ideas still don't account for my second argument in the OP, even without the "Try On" feature brought into consideration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donjo

The conundrum: Players want more varied options for glamour. In specific, many would like to look like a completely different role than the one they are currently fulfilling.

The current implementation: Players can only glamour a piece of gear if their currently selected class/job can equip it. Level restrictions, other roles, grand company gear, etc. provide additional restrictions.

Possible Solutions

1. Let all classes equip all non-weapon gear that isn't specifically assigned to one job(and probably grand company). This... is bad. While it will solve the problem, it will also allow all classes to wear nearly any piece of gear. If people thought spiritbinding was a great way to ruin a party's day in the Duty Finder, just wait until you find that BLM wearing all STR gear. Completely appropriate iLvl, completely useless performance. Or, what about that Tank who, thinking it will give them more STR(it won't), wears a bunch of DRG gear to Ramuh EX and dies instantly?

2. Implement some way to perform solution one without actually allowing players to wear gear that is not assigned to their class. The feasibility of this solution is suspect, as it defies the current system of determining whether or not you can glamour something and would require more memory to be assigned to the data for every piece of equipment.

3. Implement more pure glamour gear that provides the more varied options people are asking for. ie. a set of plate armor, more magey mage robes, etc. This is a compromise solution that can be performed without altering the current systems underlying equipment.

---

Again, like I said in the OP, I understand completely the concept of wanting to preserve identity to roles. But the reality is that it currently isn't. You said it would become a mess. And how is it not already a mess? A tank showing up in a leopard banana hammock isn't already a mess? Someone showing up in a wedding dress for combat isn't already a mess? Besides, a mage is currently restricted to wearing other mage gear, a point that many people are conveniently ignoring.

In regards to your #1 point... I'm not talking about letting any class wear any item... :confused: I'm talking about glamours... I don't think anyone is arguing for the right to USE any gear.

We are all sharing this digital world, so the idea of learning to accept and tolerate one another is still a very real issue as it is in that scary place called Earth. No two people share the same opinion on what they want or don't want to see on the character standing next to them. But, from what I'm reading, we do share the same desire to wear what we want, when it comes to meaningless glamours.

EDIT: For example, I HATE running through Mor Dhona and seeing 95% of every model with stark two-tone hair and odd-eye coloring. It drives me nuts. I think it's ugly and it's clearly being used 'because we can' and not because it actually looks good. But, I have no intention to demand that feature be taken away. Sure, I don't like it, but I feel even stronger that others should have as many features as possible to them when it comes to making a character. I support choice and options, even though I might might like what someone did with that ability to chose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramath

Actually, it isn't. The "Try On" feature proves that it is already possible.

---

If you're bringing that into consideration, try on also proves the "weapon = class" system they went with is just imaginary as well. In short, it doesn't prove much because that 'wardrobe' window isn't your physical character, you seem to feel you're knowledgeable and know the inner workings of this game and engine, you should know it's a separate module altogether.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tupsi

If you're bringing that into consideration, try on also proves the "weapon = class" system they went with is just imaginary as well. In short, it doesn't prove much because that 'wardrobe' window isn't your physical character, you seem to feel you're knowledgeable and know the inner workings of this game and engine, you should know it's a separate module altogether.

---

You are arguing a completely separate point, here. You are talking about mechanics, rules of what a class should and shouldn't be allowed to USE when applying statistics. You are assuming that my character is incapable of displaying a weapon/armor item unless I'm currently the matching class. That is simply not the case. I'm talking about what a model should and shouldn't be allowed to DISPLAY. Yes, despite your arrogant assumption to the contrary, I do know my way around the software. The wardrobe window IS your character model. It's accessing the exact same file locations. Yes, my character model is already capable of displaying any weapon/armor item in the game.

My argument, one you seem to be missing completely, is that we should be allowed to display more armor options than we currently have; a point that the game itself has proven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramath

snip

---

Not to burst your bubble but Tupsi is right. Glamour just makes a copy of something you can equip and projects the image. But you have to be able to actually equip it (lvl class etc) using the armoury before you can do that. After the game makes the copy it then "equips it" using the normal means but only uses the model.

Try on is just trying something on and isn't even a similar system, just because something looks one way doesn't mean it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tupsi

Because it's an event item. As it was said, you would likely complain if they made event items class specific and you happened to not have that class leveled or unlocked - This is why it's tagged 'all classes', so people won't get left out on event items. It doesn't match up with what Yoshida stated because it's not armor designed for anything other than to fit with the event. Technically, it's to make you look like a Witch, not so much a mage perse unless you play the semantics card.

---

If they are gonna say "We don't want casters looking like tanks, or tanks like casters" then there shouldn't be an all/all robe. There should be items you can get on any job, but there should be 1 caster version and one disciple of war. Cause it's absolutely dumb to say they don't want tanks looking like casters when they can wear robes too. It doesn't matter if it's an event robe or not, it allows disciples of war to look like a caster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jinrya-Geki

If they are gonna say "We don't want casters looking like tanks, or tanks like casters" then there shouldn't be an all/all robe. There should be items you can get on any job, but there should be 1 caster version and one disciple of war. Cause it's absolutely dumb to say they don't want tanks looking like casters when they can wear robes too. It doesn't matter if it's an event robe or not, it allows disciples of war to look like a caster.

---

Personally, I don't see how long robes are at all logical on the battlefield. Wouldn't they limit mobility and get caught on things? Plus, wouldn't metal or hard leather be more protective against enemy attacks and projectiles?
Armor for Mages in 2015, please!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramath

Again, like I said in the OP, I understand completely the concept of wanting to preserve identity to roles. But the reality is that it currently isn't. You said it would become a mess. And how is it not already a mess? A tank showing up in a leopard banana hammock isn't already a mess? Someone showing up in a wedding dress for combat isn't already a mess? Besides, a mage is currently restricted to wearing other mage gear, a point that many people are conveniently ignoring.

---

I felt bad for people who played mages when I realized that I as a PLD could glamour anything under the sun, but mages and melee DPS were restricted in certain areas.

To toss in my fixes, I'd either a) open up more gear to more classes, b) separate glamour and equip tags so that a class may glamour an item but not be able to actually equip it, or c) open up glamour options on everything but coil/tomestone/AF gear (this is what I would have implemented in the first place).

Thing is, I understand that people wouldn't want to see mages in heavy armour or even leather, but I'd love to have like just a single piece of gear from DoW for my scholar. Like shoes. Whenever I try to make an outfit for my healers, it usually stumbles on the shoes. It gets sort of boring to wear the Maelstrom private's boots in every outfit just because there's no other options for roegadyn (we have silly sandals instead of knee/thigh high boots like most other races). And those acolyte (don't recall how it's spelt) shoes don't quite cut it with those flingy fringes and strange shaped shoe soles.

So far my healers and casters are stuck with the Maelstrom private boots. .__.; Monk wears them, too, but at least I have other options for monk.