Glamours

[AngelyLowell]

This would be amazing!

I have that kind of conflict with my DRK and PLD. With DRK I love to use glamour with black color, something more dark. With PLD I want to use something more white or with more bright colors.

[Astyrah]

yes this is very much needed! it's annoying when you want to go with a different theme with each job that shares a gear set but can't since the glamours are tied to the item itself. i hope someone from the community team reads this thread and passes it to the higher ups

[ZhaneX]

I'd like it if it were somehow possible to bind multiple glamours to a single piece of gear, then be able to select and set an appearance for a Gear Set. For instance right now I've got the Yafemi Turban of Aiming which I hate the look of. I glamour on the Aoidos Turban for my Bard. But that doesn't help my Machinist.

"Since these jobs all share equipment, each piece of gear would need to store the glamour data for each job. Each piece of gear would have three glamour slots, rather than just one. Maybe more, if we want to account for new jobs in the future who might also share that gear. This would greatly increase the amount of data associated with each piece of gear, which would require more storage space, impact latency, etc. So we are reluctant to do this."

Pretty much that. Still, he said "Reluctant". They're planning a system overhaul for 4.0, maybe if we keep asking for a more versatile glamour system, they'll work to include it then too?

[Niwashi]

They could make it possible (albeit difficult in some cases) simply by removing the "UNIQUE" tag from gear. Want a robe that has one look when wearing it as a White Mage, another when you wear it as a Scholar, and a third look when wearing it as an Astrologian? Just collect three of the same robe and glamour them differently. That version wouldn't require any change to how glamours work, would still allow gear sharing (by players who don't care about the different appearances), and would allow different appearances by players who are willing to get multiple pieces. The only thing holding it back is pieces that we're not allowed to get multiple versions of.

[LineageRazor]

I'm curious why they can't allow us to set a glamour to our job crystal.

Job crystal glamour set? Use that and ignore individual slot glamours.

No job crystal glamour? Use individual slot glamours.

The job crystal idea is a good one, as it provides a good, predictable amount of required data storage. You only need to keep track of thirteen pieces of data on each job crystal, and never more than that, no matter how many new jobs they add. That's FAR less data storage to keep track of than even the current system, which tracks one piece of glamour on every single piece of equipment in the game (except belts). Of course, putting it on the job crystal means that you can't glamour CLASSES. Which isn't a terrible loss, really, since folks generally switch from classes to jobs at the earliest possible opportunity.

Another possibility would be to put the glamour info onto your equipment sets. The best part of this idea is that the equipment sets ALREADY keep track of glamour info (as well as material info), so we wouldn't be adding any new data storage to the game. However, I think that equipment sets are stored client-side rather than server-side; that puts a damper on the idea. Since the data is client-side, if we used that to track glamour it would be beyond easy for folks to use third-party tools to modify that data to whatever they want. Obviously, SE wouldn't want that - and really, neither should players, if they want the option to be able to show off their trophies.

They could make it possible (albeit difficult in some cases) simply by removing the "UNIQUE" tag from gear. Want a robe that has one look when wearing it as a White Mage, another when you wear it as a Scholar, and a third look when wearing it as an Astrologian? Just collect three of the same robe and glamour them differently. That version wouldn't require any change to how glamours work, would still allow gear sharing (by players who don't care about the different appearances), and would allow different appearances by players who are willing to get multiple pieces. The only thing holding it back is pieces that we're not allowed to get multiple versions of.

My inventory space weeps at the notion. Additionally, I'm pretty sure this was a deliberate design decision, to prevent folks from lotting multiples of difficult-to-obtain items that could be useful to other party members.

[Niwashi]

Of course, putting it on the job crystal means that you can't glamour CLASSES. Which isn't a terrible loss, really, since folks generally switch from classes to jobs at the earliest possible opportunity.

DoH/DoL classes don't switch to jobs, though. I wouldn't want to lose the ability to glamour them.

My inventory space weeps at the notion. Additionally, I'm pretty sure this was a deliberate design decision, to prevent folks from lotting multiples of difficult-to-obtain items that could be useful to other party members.

I might believe the UNIQUE tag being for keeping people from lotting multiple times if it were limited to rare dungeon drops that people would keep once they got them. But when even tome gear and gear we can turn in for GC seals has the UNIQUE tag, it's clearly not serving that purpose. (Which in turn means I don't actually see any useful purpose for it.)

You're right about inventory (or more specifically armoury chest) space, though. My jobs are scattered enough in levels that I'm not sharing much gear for them anyway (except DoH/DoL and it wasn't too long ago that those were scattered across levels as well), and it makes gear storage a real pain. I think the Armoury chest should be sized to suit our gear sets. Someone with all classes/jobs unlocked can have up to 40 gear sets, so I think we should have 40 armory chest slots per type rather than the current 25. (There's been some vague talk of getting more inventory space with the next expansion. I'm hoping the armoury chest gets a good chunk of that improvement.)

[FrankSeraph]

And how about a Dressphere system on our gear sets that let us save glamours there instead on each piece of gear. And it may also let us save hairstyles and hair colours so we can have diferent styles for each of our clases.

[LineageRazor]

I might believe the UNIQUE tag being for keeping people from lotting multiple times if it were limited to rare dungeon drops that people would keep once they got them. But when even tome gear and gear we can turn in for GC seals has the UNIQUE tag, it's clearly not serving that purpose. (Which in turn means I don't actually see any useful purpose for it.)

I'm not sure I buy this logic.
1. The Unique tag makes sense for certain pieces of gear.
2. However, I have found some gear for which it does not make sense.
3. Therefore, I say it makes no sense for any gear!

I don't know if you raid or not, but if a piece of top-of-the-line gear that you've been waiting for forever drops, and another player wins it - not because they need it for the stats, but because they want to be able to glamour a second job - I'd say you have justifiable cause to be salty.

No, let's stay away from solutions that increase competition for items that are already extremely limited in the number doled out per week, even if there happen to be common items under the same umbrella.

[Kosmos992k]

This exact thing has been suggested before - and actually got a dev response. While I have no link to the actual article, the response was along the lines of, "Since these jobs all share equipment, each piece of gear would need to store the glamour data for each job. Each piece of gear would have three glamour slots, rather than just one. Maybe more, if we want to account for new jobs in the future who might also share that gear. This would greatly increase the amount of data associated with each piece of gear, which would require more storage space, impact latency, etc, etc. So we are reluctant to do this." In short: No.

Not the response we wanted to hear, obviously. But this is just one of many problems with the current glamour system. The whole thing needs an overhaul, frankly - and one of the things that I'm hoping for for 4.0 is that it gets that much-needed overhaul.

Edit : I see in a later post you suggest the exact same thing I was suggesting below. I'll leave my explanation in place, but recognize your suggestion here.

A fix that does require a bit more data, but not much, would be to greate a glamour set for each Gear set. Each gear set you create would have two item slots for every position, the first is the actual piece of armor/whatever that you are wearing for Stats, the second (if filled) is the glamor piece you are using. You still need prisms to apply that glamor piece to that set, but it's tied to the gear set, not the gear piece. So for every set you have the gear set and the glamor set. When a piece of gear is changed in a set, the corresponding glamour is lost - for that set only.

So, for example, Kos could have some utterly unflattering lump of metal armor in slot one as the actual gear, and then use a prism to put the Thavnarian Bustier in that slot for glamour. If I remove the actual piece of armor from that set, the glamor slot is emptied. But if I have all 3 tanks and want to do different glamors for each despite wearing the same armor piece, I can.

P.S. I'm pretty sure that glamour data is stored server side so that the server can send appropriate information to your client for other players glamours as soon as they appear in view.

[Niwashi]

I'm not sure I buy this logic.
1. The Unique tag makes sense for certain pieces of gear.
2. However, I have found some gear for which it does not make sense.
3. Therefore, I say it makes no sense for any gear!

I don't know if you raid or not, but if a piece of top-of-the-line gear that you've been waiting for forever drops, and another player wins it - not because they need it for the stats, but because they want to be able to glamour a second job - I'd say you have justifiable cause to be salty.

But that's the only place it makes sense. I'd have no problem with them keeping the UNIQUE on the 1% of items where it actually makes sense, if they'd remove it from the other 99% where it doesn't make sense. But since they haven't done that, I have to assume that's not the reason for it.