Its time to remove job-based glamour restrictions.

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.