Please reconsider removing job restrictions on glamour armor

[Alucard135]

It might have been the no headgear on the mage piece, it would have seen the headpiece had more VIT than the mage body.

You're actually right. I just checked with a Cotton robe level 24 with a DEF/VIT of 15/3 against a bronze cuirass level 15 with a DEF/VIT of 32/2 and it chose the robe. I guess it's still borked lol.

[Lihtleita]

No, I don't want this.
Only black mages should have black mage gear.
Only dark knight should have dark knight armor.
I don't want to see dancers wearing DRK armor.

have you not read the rest of the thread or is that too much effort

[MsQi]

Why should any of this be locked? None of it is iconic to any Job. Sets that support multiple jobs usually favor one: The healer sets will usually be the "whitest" but only one healer is known for wearing white. It's all dyeable anyway. Why can't I have the turban on my healer?

[Lihtleita]

Why should any of this be locked? None of it is iconic to any Job. Sets that support multiple jobs usually favor one: The healer sets will usually be the "whitest" but only one healer is known for wearing white. It's all dyeable anyway. Why can't I have the turban on my healer?

whats that red mage? you want to look like your job? shut up and wear the purple wizard robes

[Iscah]

Why should any of this be locked? None of it is iconic to any Job.

Because it's a side effect of the current system of rules over equipment and glamouring. The equipment is not role-specific which is exactly why they give us a version of it for each role so everyone can use it.

Like it or not, right now it's how they "unlock" gear that they consider to be not iconic to roles.

Meanwhile we're now onto, for example, our third iteration of the Demon / Chromite/Indigo / Forgiven gearsets and they haven't rearranged them at all. The mage robes have only ever gone to mages, the tank armour only ever goes to tanks.

[MsQi]

Because it's a side effect of the current system of rules over equipment and glamouring. The equipment is not role-specific which is exactly why they give us a version of it for each role so everyone can use it.

Like it or not, right now it's how they "unlock" gear that they consider to be not iconic to roles.

Meanwhile we're now onto, for example, our third iteration of the Demon / Chromite/Indigo / Forgiven gearsets and they haven't rearranged them at all. The mage robes have only ever gone to mages, the tank armour only ever goes to tanks.

Changing how glamour works is exactly what many here want. Yoshi's argument is that they want to maintain job identity and that is why these limitations are in place. These are similar but they are not all the same. Their concept of Job identity is random. The 4 tanks, 3 healers, 4 casters, and 3 ranged are forced into these weird boxes that make no sense using a psuedo-role limitation.

Let rolls and auto gear be based on stats alone. Let everything be equip-able and glamour-able once you have it. Keep a few iconic sets limited if they must, but really doesn't make much sense when you can be any class or job.

There are 4 pairs of shorts that look exactly like this. (Healers, Casters, Ranges and Monk/Sam)


If you want to have them available to all Jobs that can use them you need to use 4 slots in your dresser and there are still several Jobs that can't use them. There is no logical reason they shouldn't be available to every job or class.

[Duelle]

Let rolls and auto gear be based on stats alone. Let everything be equip-able and glamour-able once you have it. Keep a few iconic sets limited if they must, but really doesn't make much sense when you can be any class or job.

I still posit that there needs to be some requirement or trade-off for being able to glamour stuff that can't be equipped by your current class. Since someone earlier in the thread mentioned FFXI, their Style Lock system checks for your character having the leveled the job corresponding to a piece of gear. For example, if you wanted to Style Lock the lv99 Thurandaut Boots you need to have leveled either MNK, DNC, BLU, Thief, Ranger, Corsair, Puppetmaster or Rune Fencer to lv99 so that they could equip the boots. Once you do that you can Style Lock it on any job.

Since I didn't address this earlier:

I would accept mix and match for random stuff, but now you even want artifact gear to be mixable?

That's not what the OP said. The OP said artifact gear would be excluded from the changes he/she is asking for.

Everything else? Whatever, but this "mix and match" is rather.. I don't know, I don't like it.

Since you're fond of pictures, here's something to chew on:


Out of the visible pieces of gear seen above, only 3 are native to RDM. The hat, the gloves, and the pants. The chest is the lv72 Deepgold Surcoat of Maiming (DRG), and the feet are the lv60 Sky Pirate's Boots of Striking (MNK). They look damn good on RDM, but I can't glamour them because of the current system.

If SE did what the OP is asking for, I'd be able to glamour the chest and feet on to my RDM. Now throw in other pieces that suit RDM's aesthetic but were given to other jobs; someone mentioned Amon's Hat, and I'll add the Orthodox and Dravanian Tricornes of Striking/Scouting and their crafted counterparts, the Red Thief set from the 3.1 Heavensward dungeons, and the Sharlayan Custodian's Coat of Fending, to name a few.

Moving beyond RDM, there's things like the Yamashi Dogi that is currently limited to DoL classes but am sure MNK, NIN and SAM players would love to be able to glamour. To say nothing of NPCs that tease players with mixed equipment (which dates as far back as ARR with Yda and Papalymo).

If you're worried about specific class aesthetics or immersion, that ship sailed when people were allowed to glamour reindeer suits and beach wear (to say nothing of the flood of 2B outfits we're seeing). The OP's request is a lot more immersive by comparison.

[Lihtleita]

I still posit that there needs to be some requirement or trade-off for being able to glamour stuff that can't be equipped by your current class. Since someone earlier in the thread mentioned FFXI, their Style Lock system checks for your character having the leveled the job corresponding to a piece of gear. For example, if you wanted to Style Lock the lv99 Thurandaut Boots you need to have leveled either MNK, DNC, BLU, Thief, Ranger, Corsair, Puppetmaster or Rune Fencer to lv99 so that they could equip the boots. Once you do that you can Style Lock it on any job.

thats not a bad idea, another incentive to level a different job.

[Bright-Flower]

I get job identity when it comes to weapons and artifact sets.

But where is the 'job identity' in most of the sets? Other than fending armor usually having a bit more armor on it than the other sets in a group, there really isn't any. Take the Nier sets that just released. Or Sky Rat or Shisui sets. Or the new pvp sets? Why is the aiming set just as armored as the fending set? Where is the job identity when paladins and gunbreakers have the same gear? Red mages have a very different aesthetic to them than black mages as well.

I'm fine with say having to be able to equip the gear to glamour it. IE if you want to glamour that striking piece over your aiming piece, you need to have monk or samurai leveled to apply it. But I think opening up glamours (with the exceptions for job specific gear and weapons) would be a tremendous boon to customization.

That said, with their 1.0 spaghetti code idk if this is even feasible.

[Moonlite]

Why don't they just go the PvP route with all sets that aren't class iconic. Yes I know they are still locking PvP sets, but they started in the right direction. Make a level 1 version all classes and put it on a vendor or a craft. With an ilvl of 1 it will never get mixed into other things. The PvP sets when you try to turn them in for GC seals the ilvl of 1 gives almost no GC seals even though the desynth item level was extremely high. They could even have them in new recipe books tied to some horrible content no one wants to do. No fixing on the back end needed, just reusing old assets to make something new.