Increase the Amount of Glamour Plates and Glamour Dresser Slots

[iMastari]

Currently there are a total of 22 DoW/DoM jobs, which is including the Blue Mage.
There are a total of 8 DoH jobs and 3 DoL jobs.
That is a total of 33 jobs!

People tend to have anywhere between 2 and 5 glamours for a job due to RP and other reasons.

In a nutshell, 20 glamour plates does not even cover each job for just 1 glamour let alone 2-5 glamours, and 800 Glamour Dresser slots ain't cutting it due to how many articles of gear there are.

Please increase.

As a suggestion, how about having 20 glamour plates and separating them by pages. (eg. 20 glamour plates per page with multiple pages)?

[CNitsah]

I'm not sure about your "between 2 and 5 glam by job" thing, but yeah, one glam plate by job should be the minimum. With beastmaster, that's gonna be 34 jobs. 40 glam plate would be a nice compromise, one per job, + 6 others.

But hey that's part of the thing everyone wants and we can't because "server space". What the point of having 800 place in your glam dresser if you can't make enough glam anyway. I don't get people that wants more place in the glam dresser without tackling the glam plates first.

[Shinku_Tachi]

I'm not sure about your "between 2 and 5 glam by job" thing, but yeah, one glam plate by job should be the minimum. With beastmaster, that's gonna be 34 jobs. 40 glam plate would be a nice compromise, one per job, + 6 others.

I can totally get behind this.

I'd also like to be able to apply multiple glamours to a single set when I'm out in the field, rather than having to return to a city to do it. As it is now, I have to return to a city anytime I change my DoH job to apply the glamour to it.

[Underscore]

I'm not sure about your "between 2 and 5 glam by job" thing, but yeah, one glam plate by job should be the minimum. With beastmaster, that's gonna be 34 jobs. 40 glam plate would be a nice compromise, one per job, + 6 others.

But hey that's part of the thing everyone wants and we can't because "server space". What the point of having 800 place in your glam dresser if you can't make enough glam anyway. I don't get people that wants more place in the glam dresser without tackling the glam plates first.

Server space isn't the problem.

Glamour plates are functionally the same as gear sets, and they increased those to 100. Not to mention the housing interior size feature they announced. The more likely reason is the glamour plate UI and its non-future-proof design. Instead of an infinitely expandable list like the gearset menu, they went with horizontal rows of numbers which can only be increased to 20 before needing to make the window bigger or add some new UI element to scroll through them.

They could probably give us 100 glamour plates if they wanted to, they'd just have to redesign the glamour UI - but sadly that would require the devs to do something.

[Kaurhz]

If I am honest,

the game needs to have enough plates to cover all jobs at the very minimum. This should be the absolute bare minimum that they introduce. The fact I cannot do job specific glamours on my classes is almost comically disappointing.

800 slots I am finding to be OK, but I can understand for the hoarders.

Ideally, the storage should be scrapped and then replaced with something like log.

[Zefaistos]

They need to remove the glamour dresser and create a glamour collection system where you unlock skins once you bind an item, and can apply them to the plate at any time. This is a subscription based game with paid expansions and a cash shop, one of the biggest mmos in the market, so this idea that they can't do that because of server space is ridiculous when smaller and older games could do that. I don't know how people can accept that kind of response.

That would also help with older content queue times, since people would do all content to unlock skins and complete their collections, even if they are not intending to use it immediately.

[Maxilor]

I forget, what was the excuse for why this game doesn't just have a 'Transmog Collection System' like WoW does?

[lolnotacat]

I forget, what was the excuse for why this game doesn't just have a 'Transmog Collection System' like WoW does?

I agree. The glamour system worked "fine" when it was introduced, but it wasn't scalable. We're pretty much to the point where 800 slots isn't enough. The fact that this game's players are so heavily focused on aesthetics (to the point most people say the real endgame is glam) and we're still using such a clunky system is pretty absurd.

That said, I could've sworn that Yoshi said somewhere that they tried other systems (hinting at transmog) and it caused issues.

[ZanRyuto]

I forget, what was the excuse for why this game doesn't just have a 'Transmog Collection System' like WoW does?

As always the good old spaghetti code from 1.0...basically the go out of prison card for every new features not implemented.

[Packetdancer]

As always the good old spaghetti code from 1.0...basically the go out of prison card for every new features not implemented.

Minor correction: we know that the client contains no code from 1.x—which isn't surprising, given that A Realm Reborn's client was done atop an entirely different game engine—though I stress "client" there because I strongly suspect there are lingering undead bits of 1.x in the server ecosystem, whether in terms of actual code or just in terms of architectural choices they inherited. So, sure, some of the glamour issues could have their roots in the shambling horrors that are left of the 1.x systems somewhere in the server room. It's even likely!

But even if the client contains no 1.x code and the server isn't the underlying problem with the glam system, ARR was created on a timeline where calling it merely "batshit insane" is deeply insufficient to convey just how nuts the development timeline they were stuck with was. They rebuilt an MMO, atop an entirely different game engine, in a breathtakingly bonkers short amount of time, and did so while making sure it would stick within the constraints of the PS3. And I would wager that the cost of that was paid to some extent in corners being cut in foundational systems on both the client and server side of things.

I say "foundational" because, like the foundation of a building, many, many, many other things get built atop that... and that's where non-1.x tech debt comes in, because if you want to untangle that code after things have been built on top of it, it's sort of like trying to change the foundation of a building after the building is already finished.

So: spaghetti code, yes, almost certainly. 1.x spaghetti code... maybe? But it could also easily be 2.0 spaghetti code at fault here.