Its time to remove job-based glamour restrictions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Isondre

Anyone who wants to try to hide their class in PvP can already do so (insofar as that actually works) by wearing any seasonal gear, cash shop gear, sub rewards, etc. This would be such a huge improvement!

---

Hell, you can just go naked.

You mean role based glamour right?

To the bit of "we dont want tanks in cloth gear" well mates, it already can be done though - most pre-50 "caster gear" has no role limitation. Just adding another inconsistency to the list.

I had this Lala PLD that I believed for the longest time to be a yellow-dyed red mage that used the lost allagan saber (looked like a rapier to me) with invisible shield as glamour until I actually checked his gear only to realize all the tank equipment.

Tanks can already pull off mage glamour, why shouldnt others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fredco191

You mean role based glamour right?

---

It's not really role based though. Melee DPS have three different sets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixxe

It's not really role based though. Melee DPS have three different sets.

---

You’re right. But that was kind of my way of saying “Don’t unlock AF gear.”

Don't they already have the crafting/ gathering set already officially unlocked on other servers that's not region locked?

https://i.imgur.com/dAcFBUm_d.jpg?ma...idelity=medium

https://i.imgur.com/MJPFU1O_d.jpg?ma...idelity=medium

https://i.imgur.com/hUTqbsl_d.jpg?ma...idelity=medium

https://i.imgur.com/whShTZm_d.jpg?ma...idelity=medium


I'm ready SE into make this officially happen. Let me go to battle as a CUL

IF what your saying, and i think I'm reading it right, is that the Glamour system shouldn't be restricted by JOb or Class when applying a purely superficial look, then I Agree. It has no bearing on the stats of an avatar and whos to say a Summoner has to be limited to wear only summoner gear if the persona playing summoner likes the look of say a Conjurer. Its just clothing. People should be allowed to mix match and build their own Look as they like. My Husband loves his Monk and he glamours himself to look like hes wearing Armor dubbing himself a MUSCLE MONK. LMAO. And its fun. I agree with you hun. Freedom to express ones own aesthetic shouldn't be limited. It doesn't effect stats so where is the problem.

I've been saying for years the limitations on styles in this game are unneeded. Locking the gear to classes is fine, the actual gear, but allowing the glam of said gear should not be locked. Just because the gear looks like another job's doesn't mean it is. I'd love to have some of the basic gear unlocked so all could use or that top the Ninja has for all to use for glam (since we don't have a Japanese tunic all classes can use)

While I mostly agree with OP, an interesting idea came from some of the counter arguments.

All gear can be glamoured, under these possible conditions;

(1) Either AF gear is the exception, or it is only excluded until you have the job leveled to the point it could wear the armor too, and the corresponding job quests done up till that point.

(2) All current tier gear is excluded until the iLv cap raises in the next tier. (Example, we have i350-i375 gear in this item level tier. All gear here is glamour locked till next iLv raise)

(3) We simply have a quest/NPC who turns any gear into the Lv1 all class version. (This kind of seems a bit pointless, but maybe the "easier" fix for SE)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixxe

It's not really role based though. Melee DPS have three different sets.

---

They are all subsets of the DPS role. DPS jobs are not like healers and tanks because they can be categorized into caster/melee/ranged etc. All healers are casters, and all tanks are melee fighters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claire_Pendragon

(1) Either AF gear is the exception, or it is only excluded until you have the job leveled to the point it could wear the armor too, and the corresponding job quests done up till that point.

---

Personal opinion, but I think AF gear should remain locked to the jobs. That gear often references iconic designs for the job from previous FF entries, it would feel wrong somehow to see a NIN slashing things in a BLM's robe and hat.

Quote:

---

(2) All current tier gear is excluded until the iLv cap raises in the next tier. (Example, we have i350-i375 gear in this item level tier. All gear here is glamour locked till next iLv raise)

---

Not sure why a restriction like this would be necessary. We already have restrictions based on character level and gear ilvl. Unless it's to prevent people from accidentally destroying stuff they should be using? Or is it just a restriction just to add road blocks?

Quote:

---

(3) We simply have a quest/NPC who turns any gear into the Lv1 all class version. (This kind of seems a bit pointless, but maybe the "easier" fix for SE)

---

I could see this being a thing, as annoying as it would be to have yet another single-purpose NPC hanging around in the hub cities. If it lets me turn some of that DoW leveling gear into level 1 glamour that would be fine. What about end-game gear though? The glamour dresser proved that people don't like to destroy their stuff. Say I want to convert the 370 tomestone chest into all-class glamour... would I have to wait until I upgraded it in the next tier/switched with the Savage peice or would the process create a duplicate level 1 version?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hestzhyen

Personal opinion, but I think AF gear should remain locked to the jobs. That gear often references iconic designs for the job from previous FF entries, it would feel wrong somehow to see a NIN slashing things in a BLM's robe and hat.

---

Personally I agree, just threw out a sort of middle ground idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hestzhyen

Not sure why a restriction like this would be necessary. We already have restrictions based on character level and gear ilvl. Unless it's to prevent people from accidentally destroying stuff they should be using? Or is it just a restriction just to add road blocks?

---

This is in response to those who mentioned being excited to see what was the new armor they could unlock/receive for having leveled up their job, and doing the content as.
Some of it is restricted by the fatc u need gear for ur main job anyways, so such an implementation isnt really that different from what we have now, but still enforces the idea of getting what you want more now, and or class identity for a short period of time.

I'd rather be able to glamour all non AF armor period, but again, this seems like a semi middle ground idea.

OP, first off I want to say that I am not in total disagreement. However, if I was a dev on the fence about lifting the restrictions and I was wanting the community the convince me to do so, here is where the problem is...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apl_Juice

I've wanted this ever since Glamours were released, but 4.0, alongside recent event rewards and mog station items, have really begun to deteriorate the argument against letting anyone glamour any piece of gear.

So the biggest issue against this is being able to identify other players by what they wear. Yet, we have event reward, mog station, and even base game equipment that 1.) anyone can wear and/or 2.) don't suit every jobs' aesthetic. So already we have issues with identifiability. The easy example is bikini tanks or goofy full-body outfits like chocobo and pig outfits

---

As soon as I see this, the rest of your post goes right out the window and I stop reading. Almost always this is the first argument I see, and it is by far the weakest. First off, I don't recall SE making any official statement saying that identifiability is the reason why they won't lift the restrictions. Of course, anyone can correct me, but will have to link said statement. Either way, SE is not obligated to disclose their reasoning behind anything. If they do, honestly the best you can do is take it with a grain of salt unless it is something truly game changing such as a patch or expansion.

Second, cash shop and event items that can be worn by all classes is far different than gear that is restricted to certain jobs/roles. You ignore the intention behind these items entirely. Just because SE says it's ok to look like a ghost, chocobo, or run around in a bikini doesn't mean they are willing to go back and use up the resources required to change the criteria on existing gear, which there are tons of. 2.0 had so many designs. Maybe even more than HW and SB combined. Hell, I am still coming across pieces I've never seen.

FTR, I did read your whole post. It is unfortunate though that I would have stopped there had I been on the dev team because the strongest argument comes right after it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apl_Juice

but looking recently, we now have the Shisui sets which are all skimpy recolors. and the Gubal sets, which are all the same but different colors. I'm certainly not saying anything is wrong with these items, but they break the 'rule' that equipment is going to have some sort of aesthetic pattern based on role. If the base game is going to break that rule (in addition to event gear and mog station gear), why have the rule at all?

---

Indeed. It started in HW, and is now even more present in SB. It was the first thing I noticed when getting to SB, being a huge glamour chaser myself. Here's the thing though; most players seem to not acknowledge that SE gave you guys what you're asking for by doing this, and you gave them the perfect opportunity to be lazy with gear. Instead of creating unique sets of gear in greater number, they are now just reusing old sets and reskinning them, and doing the same with newly implemented gear. The only difference being the color and the name associated with it (striking, maiming, casting, etc.) And in doing so, it has counter productively made glamours less diverse than ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apl_Juice

I think its fair to say that at least some Samurai players want to wear the traditional samurai-themed armor that Tanks have (Genta and Arhat for example). Naturally, that doesn't fit well aesthetically for Monk, so instead Samurai are stuck with whatever fits with Monks.

---

Here is the last thing I am going to point out before wrapping things up. For you SAMs wanting to glam heavier armor to appear more tank-like, I would avoid using words like "traditional". The fending gear is this game, is anything but traditional heavy samurai armor, which is the more modern Tosei-gusoku style iirc. SAMs sharing gear with MNKs shouldn't be stopping SE from creating such gear; they simply need to make it SAM specific. Or we can go by your desire, and make this available to anyone (even the snowiest of a snowflake healer) because, why not? Let's lift these silly restrictions. Right?

The reason why I am not in total disagreement, because from a view of practicality, there is so much gear in this game that makes no sense to have a restriction on it. As an example, I am sitting on this gorgeous body piece named Arachne Shirt of Scouting, and I can't wear or glamour it because I don't have a 50+ NIN. This is a good thing as it forces me to play another job, which is not a bad thing when chasing glamour. What sucks though is that after meeting this requirement, I can still only wear or glamour it as a NIN, even though the design of it clearly shows anyone could wear it.

There is nothing SE can do here that will make everyone happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemina

They are all subsets of the DPS role. DPS jobs are not like healers and tanks because they can be categorized into caster/melee/ranged etc. All healers are casters, and all tanks are melee fighters.

---

I don't really care how you think they should be counted or classified. It doesn't change the fact that the gear isn't role based.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixxe

I don't really care how you think they should be counted or classified. It doesn't change the fact that the gear isn't role based.

---

It's not how I think though, it's just a fact. You can choose to accept it or not. DPS is the ONLY role with the jobs therein are further broken down. Pull up your character screen and it's right in your face. If you're implying that DPS gear is actually more job restrictive because of this categorization of the jobs, then I get it. But all of them except NIN share gear with a least one other job. To a certain extent, DRG as well, but a lot of their gear can also be used/glamoured by tanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemina

It's not how I think though, it's just a fact. You can choose to accept it or not. DPS is the ONLY role with the jobs therein are further broken down. Pull up your character screen and it's right in your face. If you're implying that DPS gear is actually more job restrictive because of this categorization of the jobs, then I get it. But all of them except NIN share gear with a least one other job. To a certain extent, DRG as well, but a lot of their gear can also be used/glamoured by tanks.

---

Speaking of facts, it is a fact that the gear is not role locked. That is the beginning and end of my point. If you choose to over complicate things, that's your own problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemina

It's not how I think though, it's just a fact. You can choose to accept it or not. DPS is the ONLY role with the jobs therein are further broken down. Pull up your character screen and it's right in your face. If you're implying that DPS gear is actually more job restrictive because of this categorization of the jobs, then I get it. But all of them except NIN share gear with a least one other job. To a certain extent, DRG as well, but a lot of their gear can also be used/glamoured by tanks.

---

Im not quite following what you're saying btw.

There's gear thats tanks and DRGs
There's gear thats healer and casters.

So I can only assume u mean gear within a group, such as within tanks? but then id say there's gear thats DRK only, WAR only, and PLD only.
The rings in Brayflox are examples of this as well. (excluding AFs, and the most obvious, weapons)

Unrelated.
I should also mention all Dated gear from 1.0, wasnt class/job locked then, and after the update remained unlocked, and could be glamoured by anyone who still owns the gear. I have chainmail that can be glamoured to any class, and leather armor.
(Sadly didnt get enough gil to buy the platemail in time, before the update, was 500k short)
Wish I could make/buy that stuff again, just for glamour as well.

I think that the reasoning they don't allow people to glamour other gears from one job onto another is because the glamour system is tied to the actual stat systems that they use for the gear for the jobs themselves. In order to unlock a WAR gear for BRD, they'd have to allow it so that BRD's could equip said gear in the first place, even for glamour purposes. Think about it, the only reason why AST, WHM, and SCH can wear what they want on shared glamour gear for their jobs is because they all carry the same main stats and sub stats usually. The same could be said for the casters even if RDM really doesn't benefit that much from spellspeed as much as BLM or SMN (they screwed up there too). I think it's too late to change that now because then it would make the entire main and sub stat system pointless and we'd get BRD's wearing STR gear accidentally when they should be stacking DEX if they didn't use a glamour prism properly and figured that they could just wear the gear without any consequences.

They already dug themselves that hole, it's too late to change that system now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claire_Pendragon

Im not quite following what you're saying btw.

There's gear thats tanks and DRGs
There's gear thats healer and casters.

So I can only assume u mean gear within a group, such as within tanks?

---

It started about a page back where a poster attempted to correct the OP by saying they meant "role" based gear in reference to the header. Most people are in agreement that Job based gear should not be shared such as our AF. It was then commented that they are not role based as melee DPS have three different sets. All I said, was they all still fall under the DPS 'role'. They most certainly don't belong to tank or healer, which are the other two of three roles. So whether process of elimination or deductive reasoning, the logic can't be disputed, but it was anyway.

I posted a more complex breakdown of the DPS role when it was further disputed that gear isn't role based, when nearly all of it is. Tanks have their own gear. Healers have their own gear, and DPS have their own gear. I am sorry if there is any confusion, but I am not sure why there is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemina

I am sorry if there is any confusion, but I am not sure why there is?

---

There's no confusion. You're just wrong and haven't figured it out yet. Role locked gear would be shared within a role, but monks can't share with bards can't share with black mages. That's because the gear isn't locked based on role, rather on primary stat and some vague notion of armor class. The groupings that are common in endgame gear aren't the only ones either, and presumably not the only ones the OP wants removed. There are also Disciple of War/Magic restrictions, as well as shared DRG/tank armor. Again, this is because the armor in this game isn't role locked.

Also, even if you had used deductive reasoning (you used inductive), deductive reasoning absolutely can be disputed as either invalid or unsound. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise if you had any idea what it actually means and weren't just invoking it to try to give your argument an air of authority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemina

It started about a page back where a poster attempted to correct the OP by saying they meant "role" based gear in reference to the header. Most people are in agreement that Job based gear should not be shared such as our AF. It was then commented that they are not role based as melee DPS have three different sets. All I said, was they all still fall under the DPS 'role'. They most certainly don't belong to tank or healer, which are the other two of three roles. So whether process of elimination or deductive reasoning, the logic can't be disputed, but it was anyway.

I posted a more complex breakdown of the DPS role when it was further disputed that gear isn't role based, when nearly all of it is. Tanks have their own gear. Healers have their own gear, and DPS have their own gear. I am sorry if there is any confusion, but I am not sure why there is?

---

Sorry for having you clarify, I was just taking what you said in either direction, and wasn't really sure what the argument was.
But I get what you're saying now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixxe

There's no confusion. You're just wrong and haven't figured it out yet.

---

Incorrect. I can't be at fault if your bigotry clouds your comprehension.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixxe

Role locked gear would be shared within a role, but monks can't share with bards can't share with black mages. That's because the gear isn't locked based on role, rather on primary stat and some vague notion of armor class.

---

Though I doubt anything else I say will allow you to see the picture since you just seem to like to argue, I will still try to spell it out...

Gear restricted by role DOES exist. Fact. Don't believe me, grab your tank or DPS job of choice, and glam a healing set to it. The DPS role however is different. This is because within the DPS role, they are further segregated based on how the job operates (caster, melee, ranged). This is not the case for the other two roles in the game (healer and tank). Within those two particular roles, all the gear is shared.

You're trying to beat into my head what I am already well aware of. All I am saying is despite the fact that further restrictions are placed on jobs belonging to the DPS role, they all still fall under the DPS category. Furthermore, main stat alone doesn't separate the jobs. Have you noticed that NINs, MCHs, and BRDs share accessories despite one being melee and the others ranged?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixxe

The groupings that are common in endgame gear aren't the only ones either, and presumably not the only ones the OP wants removed. There are also Disciple of War/Magic restrictions, as well as shared DRG/tank armor. Again, this is because the armor in this game isn't role locked.

---

Pretty sure OP wants all restrictions removed. It is typical from a player who uses bikini tanks and chocobo suit glams as the base of their arguments. Again though, gear in this game IS ROLE LOCKED. If it wasn't, I would be able to put that lovely Arachne Short of Scouting on one or all of my healers. But I can't. Because it's ROLE LOCKED.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixxe

Also, even if you had used deductive reasoning (you used inductive), deductive reasoning absolutely can be disputed as either invalid or unsound. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise if you had any idea what it actually means and weren't just invoking it to try to give your argument an air of authority.

---

I am aware of how the two forms of logic work. Just because you attempt to dispute my statements doesn't make them disputable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemina

I am aware of how the two forms of logic work. Just because you attempt to dispute my statements doesn't make them disputable.

---

This was an excellent finale to a thoroughly ridiculous post. Enjoy your idiosyncratic idea of role locking, I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixxe

This was an excellent finale to a thoroughly ridiculous post.

---

Finale? I'm just getting warmed up. If you want to continue, by all means show something different other than intellectual bankruptcy for me to shred. Have you noticed that you're the only one being offensive, especially after you cannot back up your claims? I'm actually on the fence on whether you're a troll or not just trying to get a rise out of me. You're on a legacy server, but with less than half of my total posts. Deductive logic tells me that you contribute less to these forums than I do, despite having more time and experience with the game. So, Ms. Nixxe. Enlighten me to what I am so naïve to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemina

Finale? I'm just getting warmed up. If you want to continue, by all means show something different other than intellectual bankruptcy for me to shred. Have you noticed that you're the only one being offensive, especially after you cannot back up your claims? I'm actually on the fence on whether you're a troll or not just trying to get a rise out of me. You're on a legacy server, but with less than half of my total posts. Deductive logic tells me that you contribute less to these forums than I do, despite having more time and experience with the game. So, Ms. Nixxe. Enlighten me to what I am so naïve to see.

---

Your "deductive" argument is probabilistic and thus obviously not deductive at all, which is something anyone who actually understands the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning would immediately recognize.

You can interpret my refusal to make a serious response as an inability to do so if you wish. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

At the very least I want crafter and gatherer gear unlocked.

I do take every occasion to say, if my Paladin can tank with a T-shirt, why my healer cannot showcase a robe?

Then, lore-wise, glamouring is just a magik that alters your real armor appearance so there is NO reason to lock appearances.

the idea of the glamor chest changing gears to just uniclass glamor would be good
but i would ignore The af gear as glamor sinces its class gear it should be only for that class

i don't see it as such a big deal when casters can already where types of armor and a lot of robes are already general all class gear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixxe

Your "deductive" argument is probabilistic and thus obviously not deductive at all, which is something anyone who actually understands the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning would immediately recognize.

You can interpret my refusal to make a serious response as an inability to do so if you wish. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

---

I still feel a bit lost in your two's argument.

I feel confused because the Devs have stated there's the DPS role, and within it, the sub section of Melee, Casters, and Physical Ranged. (As the LBs also fit into, and how they build content around.)
So, is the argument that roles dont break down into sub divisions?
Or is the argument that sub divisions are the "real" roles?

Or something else?

(On a side note, you said they are using inductive reasoning, but thats a bit hard to say, given you don't know if they actually started with a conclusion or not. Maybe they are showing you their conclusion 1st, after they already tried to figure it out, and in order to speed things up, they explain it in reverse order, breaking down how they got there after stating the conclusion. Which from the outside can appear as if they had a conclusion prior to all of this, in which they tried to prove.)

EDIT: Honestly after rereading your two's post more, I'm still confused, because it seems you two are aruing that same thing, thinking the other isnt saying it.
I really cant make heads or tails of the argument lol. (Less so Nixxie, since you technically didn't start the 1st response in disagreement.)
I'm thinking the OP misunderstood that you're in agreement with them, and because they are saying you're wrong, you're also assuming they are against your points, despite having the same points/views. Mostly because u played devils advocate.)

EDIT#2 Ok it does seem like Gemina is the one misunderstanding the most, and misrepresenting your argument, but it also seems like you're kind of going along with it, ignoring the misrepresentation, to argue your point further, that neither of you really disagree with.

Good entertainment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claire_Pendragon

I still feel a bit lost in your two's argument.

I feel confused because the Devs have stated there's the DPS role, and within it, the sub section of Melee, Casters, and Physical Ranged. (As the LBs also fit into, and how they build content around.)
So, is the argument that roles dont break down into sub divisions?
Or is the argument that sub divisions are the "real" roles?

---

Don't worry about it. It's asinine quibbling over a definition that I shouldn't have even acknowledged in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixxe

Don't worry about it. It's asinine quibbling over a definition that I shouldn't have even acknowledged in the first place.

---

Well, we finally agree on something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apl_Juice

Its time to remove job-based glamour restrictions.

---

No. Dark knights should not look like they're wearing orison robes. With more generic sets, you're ignoring the lore behind the sets entirely. For example, Sharlayans were academics first and combatants second, so it makes sense their only heavy armor is helms for tanks and lancers/dragoons.

I never understood the whole "outfits are restricted, because they can confuse players" argument. I mean if you have a WHM and BLM in an bikini, you wont know the difference, because of the outfit, you will know the difference, because of their:

- Animation
- Stance
- Skills

Its simple realy, if SE was worried about a WHM wearing a BLM outfit, because this could confuse someone, why havent they made it so WHM and BLM (this counts for the other classes aswell) can never wear the same style outfits? The whole outfit can confuse players is a PvP issue, in PvE the glamour should not matter, because we the players look at different things. I mean we already have Melee DPS and Casters share the same glamour (Pagos outfit), so the whole confusing angle seems very odd.

I think they need to remove the restriction, give the players the option to mix and match the outfits, this also means for the gender lock. Give the players the choice to decide how their characters wants to dress as.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duskane

the idea of the glamor chest changing gears to just uniclass glamor would be good

---

It would be nice, but it’s just not what the glamour dresser is built to do.

In the original system, you use a prism, an instruction for “glamour as X” gets added to the item, then when you equip it the system checks if you are currently allowed to wear X to determine whether it’s visible or not.

The glamour dresser is just an alternate way of adding the “glamour as X” instruction. It can’t prevent the second check from happening.

But why would they unlock it when they can recycle the style and release it as Eureka or other dungeon glamour? Saving development time one recycled asset at a time... >:^)

Op's idea is exactly what we need for glamour. It's a pain in the ass finding a nice piece of gear that would look perfect with another piece of gear you have for glamour only for it to be restricted by job class titles. It would be a miracle if they did away with this

There are tanks in sparkling bikinis running around the place, so this is a moot point and has been for a while. I especially hate how certain DoH equipment is locked. It's like, what am I supposed to do with this thing, look good while engaging in a crafting minigame?

So long as AF gear stays locked, I'm in favor of all other job restrictions being removed from glamour. If an outfit is deliberately designed to exemplify the look of a specific class or job, then it should be able to remain restricted to just that class or job. Otherwise, let it be wearable by anyone (visually, anyway).

(The exception needs be true for all AF gear, though. It's at least as important for crafting classes as combat jobs. In fact probably more so, since their AF gear is one of the most significant distinctions between them.)