Its time to remove job-based glamour restrictions.

[NotOliverB]

Good entertainment.

[Nixxe]

I still feel a bit lost in your two's argument.

I feel confused because the Devs have stated there's the DPS role, and within it, the sub section of Melee, Casters, and Physical Ranged. (As the LBs also fit into, and how they build content around.)
So, is the argument that roles dont break down into sub divisions?
Or is the argument that sub divisions are the "real" roles?

Don't worry about it. It's asinine quibbling over a definition that I shouldn't have even acknowledged in the first place.

[Gemina]

Don't worry about it. It's asinine quibbling over a definition that I shouldn't have even acknowledged in the first place.

Well, we finally agree on something.

[Ceallach]

Its time to remove job-based glamour restrictions.

No. Dark knights should not look like they're wearing orison robes. With more generic sets, you're ignoring the lore behind the sets entirely. For example, Sharlayans were academics first and combatants second, so it makes sense their only heavy armor is helms for tanks and lancers/dragoons.

[Laerune]

I never understood the whole "outfits are restricted, because they can confuse players" argument. I mean if you have a WHM and BLM in an bikini, you wont know the difference, because of the outfit, you will know the difference, because of their:

- Animation
- Stance
- Skills

Its simple realy, if SE was worried about a WHM wearing a BLM outfit, because this could confuse someone, why havent they made it so WHM and BLM (this counts for the other classes aswell) can never wear the same style outfits? The whole outfit can confuse players is a PvP issue, in PvE the glamour should not matter, because we the players look at different things. I mean we already have Melee DPS and Casters share the same glamour (Pagos outfit), so the whole confusing angle seems very odd.

I think they need to remove the restriction, give the players the option to mix and match the outfits, this also means for the gender lock. Give the players the choice to decide how their characters wants to dress as.

[Iscah]

the idea of the glamor chest changing gears to just uniclass glamor would be good

It would be nice, but it’s just not what the glamour dresser is built to do.

In the original system, you use a prism, an instruction for “glamour as X” gets added to the item, then when you equip it the system checks if you are currently allowed to wear X to determine whether it’s visible or not.

The glamour dresser is just an alternate way of adding the “glamour as X” instruction. It can’t prevent the second check from happening.

[Zephanoa]

But why would they unlock it when they can recycle the style and release it as Eureka or other dungeon glamour? Saving development time one recycled asset at a time... >:^)

[Soge01]

Op's idea is exactly what we need for glamour. It's a pain in the ass finding a nice piece of gear that would look perfect with another piece of gear you have for glamour only for it to be restricted by job class titles. It would be a miracle if they did away with this

[sexythaumaturge]

There are tanks in sparkling bikinis running around the place, so this is a moot point and has been for a while. I especially hate how certain DoH equipment is locked. It's like, what am I supposed to do with this thing, look good while engaging in a crafting minigame?

[Niwashi]

So long as AF gear stays locked, I'm in favor of all other job restrictions being removed from glamour. If an outfit is deliberately designed to exemplify the look of a specific class or job, then it should be able to remain restricted to just that class or job. Otherwise, let it be wearable by anyone (visually, anyway).

(The exception needs be true for all AF gear, though. It's at least as important for crafting classes as combat jobs. In fact probably more so, since their AF gear is one of the most significant distinctions between them.)