Hiyas everyone. I made this suggestion sort of peripherally within the big thread about appearance gear and weapons, but I just wanted to post it in its own thread for more visibility for the devs, and maybe get a bit of a discusion going on! So let me know what you guys think!
So we now know that there is going to be a toggle so that the user gets to decide client-side if they wish to see vanity items or not. That's super awesome. I think it's going to appease as many people as we could hope for.
So here's my suggestion: When it comes to glamouring the appearance of one item over the appearance of another item, I would like to see an additional category of armor called "clothing".
Though we haven't been given explicit confirmation of how the glamour system will work, I wanted to discuss a potential idea IF the system works such that you'll only be able to glamour items of the same type over another item, so only plate appearances on plate gear, only leather appearances on leather gear. That's great, and I'm glad they're taking that stance. But I'm asking for an additional category called clothing. This would encompass the town wear items like swim gear, sleeping clothes, casual clothes, ornamental armor, and ballroom dresses.
In most games I've played, these types of items weren't given a category, they were just "no restriction" items. I'm not saying we should change that. I think anyone should be able to wear any of the items I just listed. But by giving them a category instead of leaving them without, it prevents you from glamouring these "clothing items" over non-clothing items. It would prevent from putting the appearance of a sleeping gown over plate armor.
I admit that this suggestion comes directly from a gripe with the glamour system in Final Fantasy XIV. They have a system much like what we may see in Pantheon, where you can only glamour cloth over cloth, and leather over leather, etc. However, these items with no restrictions can be glamoured over anything. As the game has progressed, they've added ornamental armors and bikinis and sleeping gowns, and since these items have no requirements to wear, they wind up glamoured over something completely different.
Temmi said:I'm pretty sure we've been told that you'll only be able to glamour items of the same type over another item, so only plate appearances on plate gear, only leather appearances on leather gear.
Do you have a source on this? I know a few people were championing the idea, but I never saw any confirmation from devs.
kellindil said:Temmi said:I'm pretty sure we've been told that you'll only be able to glamour items of the same type over another item, so only plate appearances on plate gear, only leather appearances on leather gear.
Do you have a source on this? I know a few people were championing the idea, but I never saw any confirmation from devs.
I don't believe this has been stated. People have argued for this restriction. Others, including myself, have argued against the restriction.
I have not seen and official decision.
Yea I am against it as well. I don't see the harm in letting someone equip something that doesn't match their currently equiped armor. I would like to see normal armor that is used for cosmetics to be restricted to what you could actually equip.
Like a caster can only wear cloth/leather, but a Ranger could wear cloth/leather/chain, and a Warrior could wear it all.
Then I wouldn't mind pure cosmetic stuff to be "classless". Though I would absolutely hate to see things like bikinis and real world clothing in the game, but I highly doubt that they would introduce that sort of thing into the game.
Larr said: Section 4.8 of the new FAQ. There is cosmetic gear. And you can toggle adventuring gear and cosmetic gear.
Right, he wasn't asking if there would be cosmetics. He wants pure cosmetics to be locked by armor type equiped so people can't put a T-Shirt and Shorts with flip flops as cosmetics over full plate.
Yep, they never said anything about being restricted to only using plate appearance items if your adventure gear is also plate. In fact I'd wonder what the point of even putting a cosmetic tab/option in the game would be if that were the case.
The real question in my mind is, can you equip things to the appearance tab that you otherwise wouldn't be able to. A caster in plate for instance. I'd personally still like things to be limited to what you can wear with your class.
You're right. I browsed back through the huge appearance armor thread and didn't see any actual confirmation. I know Kilsin and Aradune posted on their personal preferences, and some of their design thoughts, but no actual confirmation.
On that note, let's treat this conversation as a hypothetical if the glamour system ends up working in the way I described.
Please don't post saying you don't think it should work that way, because that's off topic and will just get the thread locked.
IF the glamour system ends up being such that you can only put appearance armor over a matching armor type, THEN I would like to see a category for clothing so as to avoid the casters in plate, or tanks in bikinis situation.
I will edit the OP to reflect this as well.
Well, first, they said they are not putting in non-lore friendly things. So I don't think we will ever see bikinis in game period.
Second, if all cosmetics are locked to same type armor, then this would be unneeded. If a tank wanted to ware some cloth type cosmetic he could just equip some low lvl generic cloth armor and go prancing his merry way through town. What would be the need for "clothing" armor just to equip a "clothing" cosmetic. Just set those items as being "cloth" and be done with it. Then everyone in game could wear the cosmetic, just not over their battle gear.
I can hear you say it now, "But then casters could wear cosmetics on their battle cloth armor!"
To which I say... so? They wear cloth anyway, why wouldn't a caster be able to wear some fancy dublet and pantaloons into a fight? It give no more or less protection than a robe.
Any plate cosmetic that isn't actual armor would just be locked as a "Plate" piece. Then no Wizards in Plate. There really isn't a need for a new catagory for no real reason. All it would do is mean that now everyone would need to carry around not only their actual armor and the cosmetic they would like to use for that, but also a "clothing" set to use for EVERYTHING else, and cosmetics that aren't actual armor that look like plate couldn't be equiped over actual plate gear.
All it really does is complicate things. Just tag all cosmetic items by their appearance and be done with it.
I'm not sure why you think swim wear isn't lore-friendly. But there isn't much point in me responding to you at all since you can hear me say everything before I say it.
I personally think that "town clothes/clothing" is different than magical robes. I imagine robes or more adventurous caster gear would have pockets for their spell components, maybe a belt satchel, maybe a scroll tucked into a pocket. Cloth armor would be more functional, whereas clothing would be purely for casual times and relaxation.
Tagging a ball gown as simple cloth armor would allow casters to enter combat with formal dress attire.
A ball gown can be enchanted. It could be magical. Maybe that caster is an aristacrat. There are many role play reasons why this SHOULD be allowed and still falls within the lore and class identities.
A Warrior would NOT wear a ball gown to battle because it would provide no protection. An enchanted robe in battle would provide no more or less protection than any other enchanted cloth.
This is another example of people trying to control other people's play. If someone wants to wear a dress to a dragon fight, let them. If you don't want to see it, turn off your cosmetic view.
I would not want to see armor and "clothing" seperated out like this. I think its too restrictive and adds no benefit what so ever.
One thing I recall the devs saying is that you can choose to fight in whatever gear you want, but depending on what you choose, can greatly effect your abiities in combat. Sounds like you will be able to run around in whatever cosmetic gear you want though but it won't necessarily effect others. Other players will have the ability to set their settings in how they see your gear, so cosmetically, it really only effects your visuals as a player. In combat, most likely you will see intended combat gear, appropriate to the class, as it will be needed to win battles.
As far as additional cosmetic abilities to enhance individuality, I am all about that and think it would be cool, whatever system they come up with...
I know Elder Scrolls games have clothing armor which is decently useful for rogues and casters, if not the best.
I think it's a cool idea and support it but remember the serious immersion players might complain if the enchanted lacey ball room gown is so strong you take it on raids into crypts between roleplays.
Of course if its mediocre or less armor than it still works great for most roleplay and everyone should be happy.