Just like FFXI, make all Artifact armor wearable by all classes

[Atelier-Bagur]

I... don't think this is quite the gotcha you think it is. In fact, it seems like you missed the point the person you replied to was making, considering that poster was arguing for the job identity of artifact gear and you're arguing for job identity of... job-less gear? If anything, your argument works for unlocking all non-artifact gear for glams for all jobs, which IMO they absolutely should, but leave artifact gear alone.

What kind of cherry picking is this? Have all armor glam unlocked minus artifact gear? No, especially artifact gear, Ive already stated this multiple times but many of the artifact gear pieces can also go well with other jobs, just like every other gear piece in this game. You do realize the whole point for glam unlock is actually more in favor for people to fully customize their fantasy lore friendly glams more so than meme glams which are nothing but filled with modern, goofy gear pieces that already exist in this game?

[Zebraoracle]

What kind of cherry picking is this? Have all armor glam unlocked minus artifact gear? No, especially artifact gear, Ive already stated this multiple times but many of the artifact gear pieces can also go well with other jobs, just like every other gear piece in this game. You do realize the whole point for glam unlock is actually more in favor for people to fully customize their fantasy lore friendly glams more so than meme glams which are nothing but filled with modern, goofy gear pieces that already exist in this game?

I don't even know where I cherry picked, as you said. I have no issue whatsoever with any non-AF gear being available for whatever job to create whatever look, I personally view the AF gear as special, like the job's weapons, and I personally would prefer them to be left job restricted. If this irritates you so much, which it apparently does judging by how aggro you got over it, I'd suggest you take a step back from the forum for a minute.

[Atelier-Bagur]

I don't even know where I cherry picked, as you said. I have no issue whatsoever with any non-AF gear being available for whatever job to create whatever look, I personally view the AF gear as special, like the job's weapons, and I personally would prefer them to be left job restricted. If this irritates you so much, which it apparently does judging by how aggro you got over it, I'd suggest you take a step back from the forum for a minute.

Im not irritated, I just dont necessarily agree with your stance because you allow almost everything....cept this one thing? Even though the whole argument is that unique class fantasy has already thrown out the window with a lot of in-game armors anyway. Your point makes no sense really.

[Midareyukki]

Im not irritated, I just dont necessarily agree with your stance because you allow almost everything....cept this one thing? Even though the whole argument is that unique class fantasy has already thrown out the window with a lot of in-game armors anyway. Your point makes no sense really.

You do realize starting out with "You're cherrypicking" and "what kind of argument is this? it makes no sense!" makes you look aggressive, yes?

You could have just asked "Wait, why do you support removing the lock if job identity isn't an issue, but you keep the lock on the AF gear?"

And he just told you as much. It's not that complicated when you actually stop and read:

I personally view the AF gear as special, like the job's weapons, and I personally would prefer them to be left job restricted

As in, the other gear has no meaning to the class or role, it doesn't HAVE to be locked.

AF gear, on the other hand, is there to specifically represent that class or role, and thus he prefers it locked.

It's not cherrypicking. He stated why on the post you just quoted. His point only doesn't make sense to you. Whether you agree with it or not though? That's entirely up to you, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. Just means you disagree, have different opinions on the matter and different outlooks.

[Zebraoracle]

Im not irritated, I just dont necessarily agree with your stance because you allow almost everything....cept this one thing? Even though the whole argument is that unique class fantasy has already thrown out the window with a lot of in-game armors anyway. Your point makes no sense really.

If you're not irritated then okay, but boy howdy you came across pretty aggro and I was completely caught by surprise because I didn't think I said anything that warranted such a response. ANYWAYS

I understand what y'all are arguing for. My point is, like I said, I view the AF gear as a very small set of special gear that I personally like being job restricted because it literally carries the look and essence of a specific job. There being other options in the vast sea of options that "throw class fantasy out the window" doesn't suddenly make the AF pieces not carry job identity. In fact, I'm ALL FOR these other armor sets for people that want other sort of themes (ie I like going for a more traditional cleric look for my white mage glam, which the white mage AF gear does NOT bring, but I'm able to enact with the radiant healing chestpiece). I'm ALL FOR options for everyone, EXCEPT in this one very niche, specialized circumstance.

[ZephyrMenodora]

I... don't think this is quite the gotcha you think it is. In fact, it seems like you missed the point the person you replied to was making, considering that poster was arguing for the job identity of artifact gear and you're arguing for job identity of... job-less gear? If anything, your argument works for unlocking all non-artifact gear for glams for all jobs, which IMO they absolutely should, but leave artifact gear alone.

It wasn't indeed, but the mindless upvote brigade for people who want no restrictions on gear showed up without any critical thinking whatsoever lol.

Fortunately the devs seem to appreciate the sanctity of Artifact gear, so I have little fear that fingers typing into the wind will change much here.

[Atelier-Bagur]

You do realize starting out with "You're cherrypicking" and "what kind of argument is this? it makes no sense!" makes you look aggressive, yes?

You could have just asked "Wait, why do you support removing the lock if job identity isn't an issue, but you keep the lock on the AF gear?"

And he just told you as much. It's not that complicated when you actually stop and read:


As in, the other gear has no meaning to the class or role, it doesn't HAVE to be locked.

AF gear, on the other hand, is there to specifically represent that class or role, and thus he prefers it locked.

It's not cherrypicking. He stated why on the post you just quoted. His point only doesn't make sense to you. Whether you agree with it or not though? That's entirely up to you, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. Just means you disagree, have different opinions on the matter and different outlooks.

You do realize we're all talking in text and its never fully known the context and tone behind somebody's post without hearing it right? Its not my fault if you somehow mistake somebody's post into something else. Heck Ive even made a joke post about this sort of thing with another poster on another thread highlighting this issue.

Anyway Ive already read what was said but that still doesnt necessarily make his points good. AF indeed is based on the specific role but if we're trying to cement the argument for lifting glamour restriction we cant just decide to lock these specific sets away from it, since the whole basis of the debate is that many glamour pieces can work well with building your own specific job glamours. Its just being annoying at this point if they do it like that, and I know I'm not the only one who feels this is the case with some pieces in AF armors that could work well with other jobs. This argument is an all or nothing deal, so we're treating it as such. So yes, indeed he is cherry picking and in my opinion, I feel its the wrong mindset to have in a MMO where people always strive for allowing more options for people available.

This argument can be turned against Hroths like yourselves too. How do you feel when people start saying things like "Oh Hroths should have all these hairstyles.....except these ones because they're tied to that race somehow". Same thing here

[Midareyukki]

You do realize we're all talking in text and its never fully known the context and tone behind somebody's post without hearing it right? Its not my fault if you somehow mistake somebody's post into something else. Heck Ive even made a joke post about this sort of thing with another poster on another thread highlighting this issue.

Anyway Ive already read what was said but that still doesnt necessarily make his points good. AF indeed is based on the specific role but if we're trying to cement the argument for lifting glamour restriction we cant just decide to lock these specific sets away from it, since the whole basis of the debate is that many glamour pieces can work well with building your own specific job glamours. Its just being annoying at this point if they do it like that, and I know I'm not the only one who feels this is the case with some pieces in AF armors that could work well with other jobs. This argument is an all or nothing deal, so we're treating it as such. So yes, indeed he is cherry picking and in my opinion, I feel its the wrong mindset to have in a MMO where people always strive for allowing more options for people available.

This argument can be turned against Hroths like yourselves too. How do you feel when people start saying things like "Oh Hroths should have all these hairstyles.....except these ones because they're tied to that race somehow". Same thing here

...so uh... 2 things off the bat

1 - Why are you this salty that someone called you out that you're willing to pick on a completely different subject just to provoke them? ...are you serious? Literally what's the stick that's jammed up your behind, because I'd call a proctologist by this point... I refuse to engage in your silly comparison. Please grow up. Sure, that topic may be childish to you and all that, but you're right now acting even worse.

2 - If you can acknowledge that this is text, then I reiterate:

You do realize starting out with "You're cherrypicking" and "what kind of argument is this? it makes no sense!" makes you look aggressive, yes?
You could have just asked "Wait, why do you support removing the lock if job identity isn't an issue, but you keep the lock on the AF gear?"

You cannot now pikachu-face people and be like "I wasn't irritated", when it's coming across as you being irritated. Make up your mind and take your own advice, please.
I'm simply telling you "Hey, this is why people are thinking you're irritated, consider another avenue". But no, you decide to be so salty and bring up that topic...

Look at yourself for a minute here. No one was against you. I certainly wasn't, I was just saying "Ok, calm down, the point is this thing he said, and this is what he meant. Also if you don't realize you're coming across as agitated, then here is where you're getting people to think you are". You are proving to me that no, you are very much irritated. One can tell from how needlessly caustic you're being.

As for the actual topic...

No one ever said his points had to be good. You disagree? Well, say you disagree. And so far you have stated it, rather plainly. But you're the one throwing accusations and not letting people speak. If you're going to disagree, at least be rational about it and try to understand where they're coming from. Without being caustic. Yes?

[Midareyukki]

I'll just see myself out before I make a Roegadyn turn Hellsguard for saying his writing is coming across as aggressive again...

[Hoehenflug]

I'll just see myself out before I make a Roegadyn turn Hellsguard for saying his writing is coming across as aggressive again...

And what makes you the moral arbitor jumping in a 1 vs 3? Let me guess, your cute discord group you guys got going? Lmao. Better see yourself off.

Roe doesn't come across as aggressive one bit, especially considering he's trying to explain his position against multiple naysayers that are not even trying to argue beyond 'lawl na, SE will never do this'.

Let's derail this topic as well, like you guys usually do. Whatever.