SCH pet glamors?

[AmalonStar]

Why should they ? not trying to troll you or anything but the reason for SMN to have glam is the non addition of new Egi because game balance / SE not having new ideas (maybe ?)
The glam is SE's way to make it up to SMN after saying they would have new Egis but finally no.
What would be the reason for SCH ? besides fairness of course

The reason is quite simple, it's the same reason why people want to glamor their gear. With smn able to glam their egi's now, it just adds that much more into being able to glamor their fairies.

[Celef]

The reason is quite simple, it's the same reason why people want to glamor their gear. With smn able to glam their egi's now, it just adds that much more into being able to glamor their fairies.

So basically it's about look right ?
So here is my question again, what about the others glam SMN will have ? should SCH be abble to have them although it's against the lore ? (not talking about Carby but the others glam they'll add)

Altouhg i like your idea of angel and birds, i'm afraid it might make things more complicated than now, woth people wanting SCH glam and vice and versa :/

[Alberel]

There are an awful lot of uninformed people posting in this thread. For those clearly unaware, the reason we have the egi-glamours is because Yoshi outright said they will not give SMN any new egis because they couldn't be bothered to balance more than three pets (plenty of other MMOs have pet classes with more than three pets so please don't try to pretend it's a valid excuse).

With regards to SCHs, it makes no sense for them to ever call anything other than fairies. ACNs and SMNs create aetheric constructs from arcane geometries which can take any form they can imagine. SCHs literally ask their fairy friend to come help. The only glamours SCH could ever get for their pets would be new outfits for the fairy... which is missing the fact that SMN is only getting these in the first place because the devs abandoned the original plan for the SMN job to have more pets. The egi-glamours are not a 'nice extra feature' to show special favour to SMN players; they are a massive apology to SMN players because the devs decided to not give us proper pets.

[Kosmos992k]

SMN is only getting these in the first place because the devs abandoned the original plan for the SMN job to have more pets. The egi-glamours are not a 'nice extra feature' to show special favour to SMN players; they are a massive apology to SMN players because the devs decided to not give us proper pets.

Hmm.... SMN has 3 pets, SCH has 2 'pets'. SMN feels hard done by because they won't have more than 3 pets, which apparently required an apology and developer time to develop an entirely new Ei glamour system; but Sch still only has two 'pets'. SMN get all high and mighty saying that they deserve this and SCH does not, and still SCH has only 2 fairies that they can bring forth.

So you already have more flexibility and variety than SCH, but because SE decided they would not extend that, you get an apology in the form of an exclusive glamour system? And you wonder why SCHs are questioning this?

[Jandor]

And you wonder why SCHs are questioning this?

Well... yes, it's a system designed to give more summons to the Summoner job without having to balance them. That's basically its entire purpose.

I mean, more fairies is not a topic that really comes up very often, but people haven't shut up about Summoner pets and Summoner reworks for 3 years now. Scholars didn't want this, they're for the most part very happy with their chosen job. They only want it now because someone else has got it, & on top of that it doesn't even really make much sense lore wise for SCH.

[Alberel]

Hmm.... SMN has 3 pets, SCH has 2 'pets'. SMN feels hard done by because they won't have more than 3 pets, which apparently required an apology and developer time to develop an entirely new Ei glamour system; but Sch still only has two 'pets'. SMN get all high and mighty saying that they deserve this and SCH does not, and still SCH has only 2 fairies that they can bring forth.

So you already have more flexibility and variety than SCH, but because SE decided they would not extend that, you get an apology in the form of an exclusive glamour system? And you wonder why SCHs are questioning this?

SCH was never intended to have more than two fairies and the devs never promised more than that. SMNs were outright promised Leviathan, Shiva and Ramuh egis but the devs then changed their mind when they realised it would be too much work to balance. The egi glamours are to compensate SMNs for that change due to the job not feeling like the series staple that can summon all of the elemental summons.

It's that simple.

[Celef]

Hmm.... SMN has 3 pets, SCH has 2 'pets'. SMN feels hard done by because they won't have more than 3 pets, which apparently required an apology and developer time to develop an entirely new Ei glamour system; but Sch still only has two 'pets'. SMN get all high and mighty saying that they deserve this and SCH does not, and still SCH has only 2 fairies that they can bring forth.

It's like saying "I'm a bard and i want tourettes because the MCH has and I don't", the 2 classes are different, have a different gameplay, you can't compare the number of pets xD
I don't want to be rude at all but if you wanted more than 2 pets you should have chosen SMN and not SCH ^^"

[Zojha]

It's like saying "I'm a bard and i want tourettes because the MCH has and I don't" [...]

Well it worked for Gauss Barrel... >_>

[Celef]

Well it worked for Gauss Barrel... >_>

See, proof to never asked for what the others have, you might get it and regret it xD

[Kosmos992k]

It's like saying "I'm a bard and i want tourettes because the MCH has and I don't", the 2 classes are different, have a different gameplay, you can't compare the number of pets xD
I don't want to be rude at all but if you wanted more than 2 pets you should have chosen SMN and not SCH ^^"

ROTFLMAO! Bard and MCH are completely separate and different jobs. SMN and SCH both develope from Arcanist. The situation is undeniably different.

You're not being rude, though you are deliberately avoiding the obvious truth of what I said.