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

[Duelle]

Isn't the real reason simply mechanical? It would just take way too much more programming to make glamours work the way people want them to because of how they interact with the gear system.

I certainly wouldn't mind being able to put my Alchemists' Boots onto some of my other outfits.

Outside of opening the system for everything that's not AF (I'd also throw in tomestone gear and drops from coil, because those are also designed around the jobs that use them), the only other thing I can think of would be allowing crafters to sort of..."devalue" gear. For example, you have the standard Iron Sabatons with its stats that only GLA/PLD and MRD/WAR can equip. A blacksmith would do something to it to turn it into lv1 gear with no stats and 0 defense but thus removing all class restrictions. It'd massively increase the amount of database space requiredf for gear, but I can't think of anything that wouldn't involve overhauling glamours.

[Cutie_McSnuggles]

Outside of opening the system for everything that's not AF (I'd also throw in tomestone gear and drops from coil, because those are also designed around the jobs that use them), the only other thing I can think of would be allowing crafters to sort of..."devalue" gear. For example, you have the standard Iron Sabatons with its stats that only GLA/PLD and MRD/WAR can equip. A blacksmith would do something to it to turn it into lv1 gear with no stats and 0 defense but thus removing all class restrictions. It'd massively increase the amount of database space requiredf for gear, but I can't think of anything that wouldn't involve overhauling glamours.

That's not a terrible idea because it would give me what I want and continue to stimulate crafters. But I don't want to think about how much gil I would need to wear what I want. I'm not a crafter.

[TheRogueX]

PS3/character data limitations. Not kidding. Go read the Q&A under the question for why they won't add tackle boxes. If they won't add a separate box for the relatively small number (compared to the number of armor pieces) of different kinds of bait, i doubt they'll add vanity slots that would basically tax the system even more than that.

...but it wouldn't tax the system any more than the glamour system already does. Take Lord of the Rings Online, for instance; you don't keep the gear in your inventory. You equip it to your vanity slots and you put it away. If I remember correctly, you don't even have to keep it. This would, in fact, take up LESS data than the current system, because in the current system it has to keep track of every classes' equipment AND the glamours for each bit of equipment, where for this you'd just have a single vanity 'set' that takes precedence over any equipped gear. You could then have multiple vanity sets that you could switch back and forth between. You wouldn't have to re-glamour every time you got new gear, either.

Ultimately, their excuses are thin and not very good.

The only thing I want them to do right now is fix freaking Odin's armor so that I can glamour it to useful armor.

[Riepah]

First person to guess what job that person I just met in Snowcloak is on gets a like.

So yeah. Don't want to confuse the new players with tanks in mage gear, right?

[Cutie_McSnuggles]

I'm gonna guess Bard.

[Riepah]

I'm gonna guess Bard.

Wrong. Keep trying!

[Pyretta_Blaze]

Thats gross.... White mage?

[Eardstapa]

First person to guess what job that person I just met in Snowcloak is on gets a like.

So yeah. Don't want to confuse the new players with tanks in mage gear, right?

Ninja. Everyone and their mother is playing it still.

[Cutie_McSnuggles]

It's a Black Mage!!

[Holy-chan]

Y'know, this topic is tempting me to glamour the Hempen Hat (basically a "witch hat" - all classes can use it) on my monk.