56 minutes ago, 8_Hussars said:In general I appreciate your posts but I think you made a bit of a straw man here, suggesting players are being "apoplectic".
I was being more snarky than serious here. It was a more poke at general behavior of some min/maxers about current and past mechanics of the game that they perceive to be forcing them to play in a particular manner.
56 minutes ago, 8_Hussars said:
Player's have not played this version. Player's do not have any context on the type and number of bonuses and how they impact game play. Hence the valid discussion as no info has been released.
If players have no information then their discussions are only as valid as whatever correct assumptions they make and as invalid as whatever incorrect assumptions they make. There are some people discussing from the perspective that they don't know anything and are expressing idle worries or hopes which is good. But there are plenty who have decided their assumptions, speculations, and guesses for how it will be is gospel and argue from that perspective and they honestly have no idea if what they speculate is actually real. That's ridiculous.
56 minutes ago, 8_Hussars said:"Trust me, is not's bad" is not really defensible; within in the context of the long developmental cycle and many changes to game mechanics and balance over the years.
Like any review, you have to realize that your preferences and sensibilities may be different than the reviewers. You want to defend the arguments of people hating on the new features whom you admit have never played it and don't have any information and then say that my firsthand gameplay analysis is indefensible? Okay. Its fine to discount a review if it sounds like the reviewer doesn't match up with yourself in your preferences. I understand that so I wouldn't give my impressions under the umbrella of "Trust me". Rather I would give my impressions as "This is my take after playing it but you will have to see how you like it". If you read it the first way then I'm sorry I gave that impression.
56 minutes ago, 8_Hussars said:I don't really care about aesthetics, but If the bonuses are so small and insignificant then why have set bonuses in the first place?
The bonuses are small for brown quality and progressively get better for orange, yellow, green, blue, and purple. My point was that for the first portion of the game, players will be wearing lower quality armor and mixed pieces rather than full sets so not much compulsion to take the time to change armor for the individual and set bonuses. That feeling of needing to change before chopping trees or mining or bartering may increase as the bonuses get bigger but hopefully we will only have 5-6 months of tedious outfit changing until they add the wardrobe system and make it very simple to do.
Plus, while you may not care about aesthetics the developers do and they are the ones who have control over whether there are bonuses included large or small. They would have wanted better aesthetics even if they didn't add the bonuses anyway. They were extremely unhappy with the aesthetics of the armor layered over clothing. Whether any one individual player cares about aesthetics or not has no bearing on whether the game makers are going prioritize aesthetics.
16 minutes ago, RyanX said:Not really sure why the appearance of the armor is even up for discussion seeing as how you are in first person and don't look at yourself anyway. And so few people are going to care about multiplayer anymore.
Yeah but we all know what you mean by "multiplayer" (30+ strangers robbing and killing each other). There are plenty of people who play the kind of multiplayer that you are dismissive of (2-8 friends playing cooperatively) and they will be looking at each other and appreciate the new outfits, character models, 3rd person animations, and look feature. Plus, even in solo you see yourself every time you are driving a vehicle and there is a large portion of the game that you are driving around.