Can we have more light steel outfits for glamour?

[myahele]

We already have light steel Galerus and Subligar and it would be nice to be able to get something

It doesn't need to be fancy, just make the low level Cuirass, Sabatons and Gauntlets into the glamourable light steel variety. This way all jobs will have a basic armor available for glamour

It doesn't (or should) have to be the heavy armor type tank have.

In other words, make a light steel variety of this:

[Nektulos-Tuor]

Also make them for all classes.

[Gilraen]

Also make them for all classes.

That's kind of what the Light Steel set is. But mind, this will likely never happen as this would effectively make Dated gear craftable again and Square has pretty much declared the original 1.0 armor will never be craftable again when they smacked it with the Dated title and removed it's recipes... back in 1.0.

[myahele]

The devs have gone back on their words plenty of times: they mentioned that the awards from 1.0 won't be in 2.0, yet we're getting most of them. Even the star spangled subligar (a reward for fishers) ended up available for everyone now.

I don't know about dated gear, but from what I know they look slightly different from gear in 2.0 + they can't be dyed.

By having light steel variety of the low level tank set, people will have a basic tank look plus it'll be dyeable

[Slappah]

So basically you want non tanks to look like tanks?

[Zojha]

So basically you want non tanks to look like tanks?

Tanks get to look like bunny waiters or courtesans.

So...what's the issue?

[Slappah]

Tanks get to look like bunny waiters or courtesans.

So...what's the issue?

Tanks can't look like a ninja, or a caster or a healer though

[Tilgung]

Tanks can't look like a ninja, or a caster or a healer though

Sure they can. There's plenty of low level equipment various classes can use to look like others. Patch notes had an example, actually. There's a low level Cowl that any class can equip. Foestriker is a light armor set that tanks can wear, etc.

[Gilraen]

The issue is what defines a role. Square wants the roles clearly defined. A swimsuit or ineffectual dress doesn't define a role. Plate armor defines a role. A better argument would be to say 'tanks can wear robes so...' A tank could run around looking like a caster until they draw their weapon. But this only applies to robes prior to level 50 where, without glamour, a tank wearing a robe would be a pretty poor tank. The roles are clearly defined and this is how Square wants it.

[Canadane]

The issue is what defines a role. Square wants the roles clearly defined. A swimsuit or ineffectual dress doesn't define a role. Plate armor defines a role. A better argument would be to say 'tanks can wear robes so...' A tank could run around looking like a caster until they draw their weapon. But this only applies to robes prior to level 50 where, without glamour, a tank wearing a robe would be a pretty poor tank. The roles are clearly defined and this is how Square wants it.

When they first gave this explanation I was a little lost in thought about it.
But as time went on, and I noticed I can clearly pick out peoples current classes at a glance, I realized they had the right idea. Swimsuits and other glamour gear aside, people wearing gear of level, even if glamoured with different gear of level, can generally be looked at and said "Oh, that's a tank." or "There goes a healer!"
And this is, in a way, very nice.