Its time to remove job-based glamour restrictions.

[Niwashi]

Has Yoshi ever given an actual statement on why he and the team are so gungho about not removing the restrictions?

Well, whenever it comes up, he either talks about job identity — which only applies to the AF gear that most of us want to remain restricted when everything else is opened up, or else he asks which specific pieces people are interested in getting. Neither fits the (main) request, which is to change the system so that everything except AF can be glamoured by any job regardless of who can equip it. It's not certain specific pieces we want opened up, but certain specific pieces that should be the only ones not opened up.

It's hard to tell sometimes if he doesn't understand what it is that people are asking for, or if he's just deliberately pretending not to understand so that he can avoid saying they don't want to do it. (If the later, I regard it as horribly rude and unprofessional of him. But the guy would have to be dense as a rock or completely out of touch for it to still be the former.) If they can't do it, or don't want to do it, or just have no current plans to do it, then say so rather than changing the subject and talking about a related change that's not the actual request.

(He's done the same thing on other widely requested features, too, just changing the subject when asked about them and pretending that that was what was asked.)

[Alucard135]

...

From the interviews I read, they always ask him about job gears (e.g. PLD wearing WHM armor), which he gave a definite no about and we're OK with that. I don't recall anyone asking him about class/role armor.

[Renato]

From the interviews I read, they always ask him about job gears (e.g. PLD wearing WHM armor), which he gave a definite no about and we're OK with that. I don't recall anyone asking him about class/role armor.

Maybe that's why he keeps flat out saying no. But man, do we really have to be THAT specific though? I mean come on...

[Alien_Gamer]

Maybe we do? Yoshi is a smart guy but there is a language and cultural barrier that needs to be overcome, sometimes you need to be specific to avoid misunderstandings.

[Laphael]

Personal taste is going to vary, but considering that male Auri "traditional dress" - as the lorebook describes the starter gear - involves a skirt and midriff-baring top... well, canonically they're not exactly adhering to (modern Western) masculine dress in the first place.

...

As much as the glamour restrictions are annoying, I think I do enjoy the challenge of working around them. Up until there's that one thing I really really want to equip, anyway....

Yes, of course there are those options, my healer wears a cowboy-like outfit at the moment and thats possible.
But thats the reason i dont understand why the restrictions are still there, if i can equip many "non-healer-like" glamors anyways.
Tbh i just want to wear the pyros tank/dragoon set on all of my jobs in different colours XD.

Edit: spelling

[Raikai]

Totally agree. The limitations nowadays are so inconsistent... why have them anyway?

Perhaps the only limitation we should have are job specific glamours, since they are iconic job gear.

[Iscah]

Yes, of course there are those options, my healer wears a cowboy-like outfit at the moment and thats possible.
But thats the reason i dont understand why the restrictions are still there, if i can equip many "non-healer-like" glamors anyways.

That's why I suspect it's more of a deep technical issue than the official answer of "job identity!" - obviously there's no good design reason why casters might be able to equip boots with gold decorations and healers can equip the exact same boots with silver decorations, but heavens forbid you ever try to wear the gold ones as a healer!

So, as I wrote before, I think it's likely that to keep the relic gear "safe", they may have to keep all glamours locked down to prevent it - and the gear does need to have designated classes that can equip it. The arbitrary restrictions on what else can be equipped are a side effect, not a deliberate rule - and possibly even exaggerated as they try to work around it and include some armoured pieces into the mage designs and non-armour for tanks, so people can access them if they want.


I also think there may be a cultural issue. From something I remember reading a while ago, I think it might be a big deal for them (in Japanese culture) to actually admit they won't be able to do this thing that everyone is requesting, so they give a polite non-answer and make it sound like they're not doing it rather than they can't.

Does anyone know if the Japanese fandom keeps requesting things like this after they've been told it's not happening?

[Bigmoose85]

Eh, I'd like for the AF sets to at least stay job restricted, but give us set-specific glamours and that shouldn't be an issue. It just would be weird for a dark knight to be running around in the white mage set, yanno?

I agree, its not a final fantasy game without job identity.

[Rongway]

That's why I suspect it's more of a deep technical issue than the official answer of "job identity!" - obviously there's no good design reason why casters might be able to equip boots with gold decorations and healers can equip the exact same boots with silver decorations, but heavens forbid you ever try to wear the gold ones as a healer!

I struggle to think of how it could be at all a technical issue. If I had coded the current system as it functions today, the glamour validation check would involve, among other things, if item.EquipableBy.contains(currentJob). All that would be needed to allow all non-AF gear to be universally glamourable would be to change that one check to if (item.EquipableBy.size >= 2 or item.EquipableBy.contains(currentJob)).

In layperson's terms, this checks if the item is AF by checking how many jobs/classes can equip it. If it's exactly one, then the gear is AF, and it needs to check if current job matches. If it's equipable by more than one, it's not AF and glamourable by anybody. Of course, this only works so long as we have classes, since the defining feature for DRG AF and NIN AF currently is that they cannot be equipped by LNC and ROG respectively. Were we to eliminate classes, an AF flag would have to be added to all AF gear because you wouldn't be able to tell DRG general gear from DRG AF, or NIN general gear from NIN AF, just by looking at the list of equipable jobs. So in that case the check would be if (not item.IsAF or item.EquipableBy.Contains(currentJob)).

But it should really be as simple as this.

[Rymm]

It's hard to tell sometimes if he doesn't understand what it is that people are asking for, or if he's just deliberately pretending not to understand so that he can avoid saying they don't want to do it.

The last time I saw this question come up with him, in his Aetherflow interview, he gave a hard, point-blank no to the job-specific gear, but was open to changing the role-specific gear. If he's fine saying "no" to the AF gear, I don't see why he would have any reason to dodge the same question about role gear if it was a "no" as well. The wording made it sound like it's an ongoing process, rather than changing it all at once, which is why he keeps asking people to voice their opinions on what they want prioritized.