[Suggestion] Remove class/job requirements to turn in relic upgrade quests

[Ravenblade1979]

But as I said, putting it in the inventory just means you fill your inventory with the same trash, except now it's taking up space that could be occupied by other types of items, and you're likely to miss out on noticing equipment that you can and will use – or would have used if you noticed you had it five levels ago.

The GC filter also lets you block out gear that is currently part of a gearset while leaving unused armoury chest items visible.

the people who you fighting for have poor inventory management. please realize this.the fact you singled that out is amusing because so many of us use this feature.

honestly. this thread is about a player who wants a basegame plus 4 expansions worth of coding changed when it comes to job specific stuff like relics. the whole gripe is nonsense...yeah its a 90 relic..so why should a lower level class be able to get it. this whole game with EVERY RELIC its always been job specific and you had to switch to the class to get it done. you have always had relic steps you had to turn in the relic with a catalyst. this stuff is nothing new. theres no need to change a whole games system because one person would rather be lazy then take the couple extra seconds to switch a class to needed, equip a trash weapon then trade in relic with catalyst.

[TaleraRistain]

I wouldn't be surprised if they don't allow something equipped to be updated because your class is determined by your equipped weapon and they have some referential integrity in a database so they don't have a situation where someone has a class but no weapon.

And it could be that you need to be the job so the system can use that as a reference for which weapon to award you.

Just something for the future, you can get the artifact weapons from Sharlayan and then safety discard them after you do swap until the next step because you can always get them again easily.

[Rongway]

And it could be that you need to be the job so the system can use that as a reference for which weapon to award you.

The system knows which job you're doing the quest on without you being on that job. How can you tell without seeing the code behind everything? The quest won't let you turn anything in unless you're on the right job. Therefore, the system does not need you to be on the right job for the system to know which weapon to give you.

[Ravenblade1979]

end of it all: this change only is suggested to suit the ops needs of being lazy. this job specific system has been around since the start of this game. relics always required you to be on the proper class and at the proper level to get or advance it. op needs to take some serious time to clean up inventory and take those few extra seconds to equip the right job. its quicker and more efficient then logging into the forums and make a suggestion like this.

[TaleraRistain]

How can you tell without seeing the code behind everything?

Where did I ever say anything was an absolute?

"And it could be" is simply a guess at the way they may have something set up in their code or their database. There was nothing in what I said that said that *had* to be the way to do it.

[Rongway]

Where did I ever say anything was an absolute?

"And it could be" is simply a guess at the way they may have something set up in their code or their database. There was nothing in what I said that said that *had* to be the way to do it.

You misunderstood my post. I said:

[1] The system knows which job you're doing the quest on without you being on that job. [2] How can you tell without seeing the code behind everything? [3] The quest won't let you turn anything in unless you're on the right job. [4] Therefore, the system does not need you to be on the right job for the system to know which weapon to give you.

I made a statement 1.
I asked question 2 in reference to statement 1 to imply that I was about to tell you why I am certain that statement 1 is true.
I gave evidence for statement 1 in statement 3, self-answering question 2 in reference to statement 1.
Having given evidence that statement 1 is true, I then iterated the logical conclusion 4 which can be drawn when statement 1 is true.

Question 2 which you quote back at me has nothing to do with anything you said, though statement 1 and conclusion 4 do.

[RobynDaBank]

People defend THIS jank? Bonkers.

[TaleraRistain]

You misunderstood my post. I said:

I made a statement 1.
I asked question 2 in reference to statement 1 to imply that I was about to tell you why I am certain that statement 1 is true.
I gave evidence for statement 1 in statement 3, self-answering question 2 in reference to statement 1.
Having given evidence that statement 1 is true, I then iterated the logical conclusion 4 which can be drawn when statement 1 is true.

Question 2 which you quote back at me has nothing to do with anything you said, though statement 1 and conclusion 4 do.

Okay I see the where you were going with that statement. It's absolutely wrong. You can't tell what code is doing without seeing it yourself and having understanding of that flavor of language. Even if you think you understand from how something is behaving. Management at my work especially thinks they understand what's in the code from application behavior to the user (and get snotty when I have to point out it doesn't work like that) and they're always dead wrong.

A lot of people on these very forums criticized SE over the housing lottery bug thinking they understood what it was doing and they were wrong.

Not saying your take may not be correct. Just that we're all surmising since we can't see the code, the databases, the interactions with other systems, etc.