Results -9 to 0 of 121

Threaded View

  1. #10
    Player
    Iscah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,065
    Character
    Aurelie Moonsong
    World
    Bismarck
    Main Class
    Summoner Lv 90
    Quote Originally Posted by Duskane View Post
    yep 9 female exclusive sets
    and 3 male exclusive sets
    will have no gender restrictions
    The imbalance is because a lot of the sets being unlocked are the "female-exclusive male-unisex" counterparts like the Thavnairian sets and best man / bridesmaid. That imbalance of female-exclusive outfits gets complained about a lot, so they're unlocking it. (Personally I'd prefer them to get adapted counterparts than the exact same dress, but then again I tend to complain bitterly about how I want the male version of outfits when they make a single item look different according to character gender. So I don't think I get a say here.)

    I'm mostly happy about the Expeditioner sets, particularly getting the nice tabard for male characters and not just the raggedy coat, and to a lesser extent the Oasis sets - if only they'd make the green bit on the front of the male coat dyeable while they're at it... it makes an otherwise-very-nice outfit hard to use, and it comes in other colours for NPCs already.



    Quote Originally Posted by AnimaAnimus View Post
    That's fine and dandy but for those of us who don't want to run around in drag we should have the option not too. I was cringing at the thought of not being able to wear the Yorha gear without glaming over it because they were going to put my giant masculine Hrothgar frame into a little dress designed for a petite woman.
    What are you thinking adding these outfits is going to do?

    People who wanted to put dresses on their male characters could already do so - this just gives them a few more choices of what to wear.

    You keep wearing whatever gear appeals to you, via glamour.

    Nothing has changed at all.

    Just because it's there doesn't mean you're expected to wear it - and has been established earlier, the unisex 2B dress IS a glamour. The male dungeon gear might not suit your Hrothgar either, but that is indeed what glamour is for.

    I honestly don't understand the mindset - by various people, not just you - that having to glamour over the current design of battle gear is somehow a failure on the gear designers' part. Gear should not always be in a style that looks good on your character, because it would be impossible (or very bland) to have every item suit everyone, and it's expected that you'll glamour over it with something you do like.

    PS. Edit to add: I just tried on the Striking top from the raid with my male Miqo'te, and it looks like a modern-style leather jacket. The Aiming top is the same but as a long coat.



    Quote Originally Posted by Anarnee View Post
    I'm willing to bet females will be getting more unlocked like the High house and the butler outfit. This isn't yet released in game because they're not done.
    The High House sets are an excellent target for this - the coats are so similar already, all they really need is to add/remove the skirt and alter the colour scheme.

    It seems odd that the female version isn't listed, but maybe it just didn't get leaked. Surely it's coming.



    Quote Originally Posted by Kobalos View Post
    The spring skirt would be good for a samurai glam - Its just a wrap around lower tunic - Blokes been wearing things like that for thousands of years.
    Actually you already have that one accessible - not technically the Spring Skirt, but the Plain Long Skirt has the same base model (mirrored left-right and without the bow) and is unisex.

    I think the skirt is just locked because the rest of the set is.



    Quote Originally Posted by zylo1010 View Post
    I would much rather them finish viera and hrothgar before doing anymore of this. It's nice yes. But if like to be able to wear artifact headgear....
    They're not regarded as "unfinished" though, at least to the designers. It was - whether you agree with it or not - a design decision to not make them visible, apparently for technical reasons. They weren't intending to have anything visible at all.
    (6)
    Last edited by Iscah; 11-04-2019 at 10:30 PM.