Please, no more job restrictions for glamour.

[Nicobo]

...I still fail to realize why a mage can't wear a certain amount of heavy armor....

The point is you can only glamour what you can wear.
I didn't object they make a heavy armour to mage, they's good,
And when this mage can wear this heavy amour, existing system will allow this mage glamour with this armour.

But now OP was asking "no more job restrictions for glamour. " , by his exmaple, he wanted to glamour with gear that he can't equip.

[RiceisNice]

A: We’re gradually easing restrictions, but since FFXIV’s setting strives to be a real fantasy role-playing game,

*puts a flying tortoise that has really no precursor within the game other than for player-request or a direct homage.

Wat.

The game is being development by a large amount of people, and if we don’t have easy to understand rules in place things will likely become a mess....
//end quote

What. It's funny how these things change in the course of a year.

If they want to allow more diverse access to glmaours, it should at least be kept fair across the board. The i160 and i180 crafted piece for BRD and MCH not only do not share a model with old caster/healing gear, that said model is also an old, existing BRD gear. Within that same tier, MNK/NIN get access to a model they previously could not access, and everyone else gets a completely new model.

I'm also on the line that it shouldn't clearly be something that's meant for another job...specifically things like AF gear, eso gear, or humongous final boss shoulder pads of doom.

[Kallera]

The point is you can only glamour what you can wear.
I didn't object they make a heavy armour to mage, they's good,
And when this mage can wear this heavy amour, existing system will allow this mage glamour with this armour.

But now OP was asking "no more job restrictions for glamour. " , by his exmaple, he wanted to glamour with gear that he can't equip.

And I find that your concern is more a slippery slope than anything.

Of course weapons wont be glamoured across. But SE's reason for restricting glamour across armor is and remains bs. That cashmere bolero that just HAD to be a healer piece? You can now wear for mnk as the rainbow bolero. The foestriker gear available across DoW? Dyable version is BRD onry. Meanwhile, swinsuits and reindeer outfits for everyone! I play a drk, and I happily don't have the armored brooding look, more courtesy of 1.0's items than the "material garment of verb" that is being slapped on almost EVERYTHING not ilvl 1 since.

The restrictions often make little sense.

[myahele]

If not unlocking gear as glamour options across jobs, why not make lv 1 versions of the some of the "generic" 1-60 gear? Kinda like the lv 44 Coliseum set is available for all as a lv 1 glamour.

This way we'll be able to use some of the gear restriction-free, while the devs can still maintain the "look" they want since it'll be up to them to decide which gear to make as a glamour.

[Lolli282]

I agree with the desire for fewer glamouring restrictions on armor. If I acquire a DOW armor piece I would like the ability to glamour it on any DOW class I wish.

[Reaperking386]

And I find that your concern is more a slippery slope than anything.

Of course weapons wont be glamoured across. But SE's reason for restricting glamour across armor is and remains bs. That cashmere bolero that just HAD to be a healer piece? You can now wear for mnk as the rainbow bolero. The foestriker gear available across DoW? Dyable version is BRD onry. Meanwhile, swinsuits and reindeer outfits for everyone! I play a drk, and I happily don't have the armored brooding look, more courtesy of 1.0's items than the "material garment of verb" that is being slapped on almost EVERYTHING not ilvl 1 since.

The restrictions often make little sense.

Isn't this entire argument post a slippery slope? :/ that is what everyone is saying as for an argument at least. For example, "Since we have bikini's and flying turtles we should have unrestricted glamour." What is there now to stop players down the road saying, "not good enough, I want my staff to look like an ax!" I am sorry guys, but I am still not convinced and am very much on the Dev side atm.

[Kallera]

Isn't this entire argument post a slippery slope? :/ that is what everyone is saying as for an argument at least. For example, "Since we have bikini's and flying turtles we should have unrestricted glamour." What is there now to stop players down the road saying, "not good enough, I want my staff to look like an ax!" I am sorry guys, but I am still not convinced and am very much on the Dev side atm.

Not at all. Weapons have specific animations for their attacks that would not be available for all actions if someone were to say, use an axe but glamor a staff.

But all movements can be done regardless of the armor you wear.

The class/job restrictions of certain pieces of armor are an arbitrary one and not based on image as SE claims, as they both give and take away those rules based on whimsy than a class look. In addition, there remains gear that defies the intended look of certain classes, but can be worn by all of them anyway.

A MNK couldn't wear the rainbow bolero set because of "class image"...but suddenly MNKs can in HW?

The my DRK cannot wear the Rainbow MNK set because of "maintaining class image". But I can and do have armor to not look like an armored knight in black. There's nothing inherent to the look of a dark knight that means certain pairs of shorts and skirts are not capable to be worn, yet other shorts and skirts are.

Another case in point, the holy rainbow shirts. You can only wear the shirt assigned to you. But all classes have a shirt. I'm not going to be looking at the shirt to think "oh, that class.", im going to be looking at the weapon, or the icon in their party screen, or just examine him where it in big letters, just like any thavnairian wearing character. Yet, because this shirt is pink and not green it flies in the face of what a NIN is and you cannot wear it?

[DarkDedede]

What is there now to stop players down the road saying, "not good enough, I want my staff to look like an ax!"

I think that type of example would actually fall under the "confuse players" rule, that the devs are currently using. Granted, I wouldn't mind the option to cross glamour whm and blm staves.

[Nicobo]

...The restrictions often make little sense.

Maybe it make little sense, but still better than the "no restriction" (i.e glamour what you cannot wear) which is no sense^^;

I would suggest adding a flag indicates an item could be used for glamour or not instead of the "no more restriction" which is not concrete and it is confusing.
It is not concrete and it is confusing because obviously you think it should not cover weapon but I think it should cover weapon.
If there is no restriciton why a Warrior cannot glamour his axe to a sword?

[Nicobo]

...What. It's funny how these things change in the course of a year...

Hopefully you would save your breathe now and reply to YoshiP next time when they
"Ask Questions for Letter from the Producer LIVE" as I will not redirect your feedback about Yoshi's speaking to him ^^;

Like this one:
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...ead-Hayashi%29

add:
No offence, I just mean I hope you can feedback to the speaker directly as i read you questioned what Yoshi said.
Of course I have my own questions to what Yoshi said but they are not about this topic.