Glamour Question

[Jojoya]

It’s nice to see gear on a player and have a good idea of their job. I like having job identities and would prefer to not see a BLM wearing WHM gear.

We have enough no job/class glamour items out there. Having job/role identity is a good thing.

I suspect most players would support leaving job Artifact gear unique to the job.

But there's very little job gear in the game. Most of the gear is role gear and that is still locked.

Here's a quiz for you if you're so insistent that role gear should be limited to roles because they help to define the role appearance. Without looking at the image address, tell us what role is allowed to wear this piece of gear:

[Unholychinchilla]

I do wonder whether they are actually happy with bikini tanks or if it's just something they can't block from being an option, given the way the glamour system works. They can't really make seasonal gear anything other than level 1 all-class gear, or it would make it more difficult to wear the outfit at the event – but that means you can also wear it anywhere else.

If that were the case they'd probably be less eager to throw in new casual glamour pieces every major patch. They seem quite happy to throw in more and more such options. The sweater and jeans clad characters are no more displaying a class identity than the bikini ones.

Also as I see it, regarding aesthetics rather than practical defence, a healer in bikini and tank in bikini are both equally "not wearing proper battle outfits" for their role.

This is true but the main argument Yoshi-P has used against easing job restrictions is being able to look at a character and see their job which as stated is out the window already with bikini's, casual glams and costume glams.

To my mind that purpose is adequately filled by weapons and battle animations/stances. I don't think anybody is advocating glamouring Chakrams onto axes and guns on katana, as that would mess up animations.

[Lihtleita]

like having job identities and would prefer to not see a BLM wearing WHM gear.

I have unfortunate news about the majority of casting and healing gear models

[DevonEllwood]

I really thought it was a coding issue, can only glamour the same thing you can equip or whatever. I no longer think that's the case and I feel each piece is coded separately as glamour, mostly because of a bug that ended up happening in shadowbringers. Certain jewelry items (ones I saw were High Allagan and GARO earrings) could not be glamoured to certain classes despite them being equipable by ALL classes. They were a part of my glamour plates for a long time and were suddenly un glamourable for some reason, yet I could take them out and equip them directly. This isn't proof that glamour is coded separately, but it seems it might be the case? I still have the images from when I was going to make the bug report.

Has the red X there for something that can't be glamoured to the current class.

[Gemina]

Nothing says job identity like a warrior wearing a bikini.

What an original argument.

Have you ever told a player they "look the part", or receive likewise? Are you at least aware players get such compliments? What that is, is job/role identity, and the admiration of it.

Bikini tanks don't desire to look the part. There is nothing wrong with that, but they also don't look like a tank. The reason we are able to make that distinction is because of job/role identity. What players like the one you quoted are pointing out, is that they would prefer for those lines to not be blurred further. Can you comprehend that?

[Gemina]

I suspect most players would support leaving job Artifact gear unique to the job.

But there's very little job gear in the game. Most of the gear is role gear and that is still locked.

Here's a quiz for you if you're so insistent that role gear should be limited to roles because they help to define the role appearance. Without looking at the image address, tell us what role is allowed to wear this piece of gear:

A lot of gear remains locked to save time. It has nothing to do with retaining identity, and that shouldn't need to be spelled out. Unfortunately, it enters the echo chamber, and when it gets repeated enough, people just go with it.

They place restrictions on the gear so they don't have to program the numbers for every role, for every piece of gear in the game. That would be a freakin nightmare. However, they also don't ever release the restrictions on the gear. And because of the limitations of the glamour system, you still can't wear restricted gear on a job or class that does not meet the requirements long after its release.

Just releasing the restrictions isn't a switch that can be flipped. It is actually way easier for them to release a new set without the restrictions than it is to remove the restrictions on an existing set. The new gear in the Aglaia raids is a perfect example of restricted gear that drives players just completely batty. They REALLY want to mix and match pieces like these.

It gets messy real quick though. You take the tank set, and also make it work for healing, scouting, striking, maiming, aiming, casting. Now you grab the healing set, and make it work for tanking, scouting, striking, maiming, aiming, casting. Then you grab the scouting set.....

See where I am going with that? You're increasing the workload seven fold, with the same amount of resources. No go my friend. No go.

[Knot_D]

It’s nice to see gear on a player and have a good idea of their job. I like having job identities and would prefer to not see a BLM wearing WHM gear.

We have enough no job/class glamour items out there. Having job/role identity is a good thing.

Meanwhile on FFXI you can put BLM gear on WHM with just /lockstyle on

I just want to use BSM/ARM AF for all crafter man... Why only CN/KR can do it??

[Rongway]

The biggest problem every time we have this argument is that somebody says the word "job" instead of "role", e.g., "We should be able to glamour any job's gear". No. That is the wrong word to use and if you use that word, whoever is relaying things to Yoshi-P will use the word "job" and he will say no. Literally every time. We have never had this discussion without people using the word "job" to say what they want. He's always going to say no because he doesn't want jobs running around in other jobs' weapons and AF gear. The only way we're going to get role restrictions lifted on glamours is for someone to tell him specifically that people want to be able to glamour gear from any role, which would be far easier to argue, without removing the restrictions from weapons and AF gear.

[Haruka_R]

The biggest problem every time we have this argument is that somebody says the word "job" instead of "role", e.g., "We should be able to glamour any job's gear". No. That is the wrong word to use and if you use that word, whoever is relaying things to Yoshi-P will use the word "job" and he will say no. Literally every time. We have never had this discussion without people using the word "job" to say what they want. He's always going to say no because he doesn't want jobs running around in other jobs' weapons and AF gear. The only way we're going to get role restrictions lifted on glamours is for someone to tell him specifically that people want to be able to glamour gear from any role, which would be far easier to argue, without removing the restrictions from weapons and AF gear.

He will find a way to tell us no whether we use the correct wording or not / regardless of mistranslation.

[Punslinger]

What players like the one you quoted are pointing out, is that they would prefer for those lines to not be blurred further. Can you comprehend that?

Can you comprehend that existing gear design picks up those lines and plays jump-rope with them? (Have you ever not automatically defended the status quo in any discussion in this game?)

Not just glamour gear, either. Caster and healer gear are usually just recolors of each other in any given dungeon/raid/tome set. Fending/Maiming is another frequent pairing, as is Striking/Scouting. And for Crystarium gear, Striking and Healing shared a gear model. "Job Identity" doesn't mean much when gear models are routinely shared across roles.

How does it hurt your enjoyment of the game if somebody else is able to glam armor onto their caster/healer? How, when it comes to cosmetics, can more options ever be a bad thing?

A lot of gear remains locked to save time. It has nothing to do with retaining identity, and that shouldn't need to be spelled out. Unfortunately, it enters the echo chamber, and when it gets repeated enough, people just go with it.

They place restrictions on the gear so they don't have to program the numbers for every role, for every piece of gear in the game. That would be a freakin nightmare.

First, YoshiderP is on the record explicitly saying that "job identity" is the reason he doesn't want to ease glamour restrictions.

As for the rest...tell me you aren't a programmer without saying, "I'm not a programmer."

Adding restrictions is what requires additional code. It would be simpler to just have the glamour process not bother to check equippability at all. Enforcing the existing restrictions means the game has to check your job and level against the gear requirements.

Removing most restrictions would not require "programming the numbers" for every role and piece of gear. (Even if it somehow did, it would take literally one line of SQL to remove restrictions on all gear.) It would require having one developer spend an hour wrapping the equippability check inside an if() block that checks if the gear is equippable by only one job. That catches weapons and AF gear (because all AF gear is equippable by only one job), and passes everything else through. (The actual coding would take 5-10 minutes. The rest of the hour is for dev testing and code reviews.)