Assume you visit the trader with 20k dukes and find two seldom weapon parts available, each costing 17k. You buy one, then find a weapon where just the part you didn't buy is absolutely bad. That would sting too. Should the trader be changed so that the other weapon part is never removed and you can always return and buy the other part? Just so it doesn't sting and your inital choice becomes meaningless, something you don't need to think about because you always can go back?It depends really on the drop rate really. Getting that awesome magazine extender and putting it on a 2 quality gun will really sting when you then loot a 4 quality gun.
Sugar-coating the player may seem like a good idea from the players point of view, but a game that makes too many choices arbitrary could lead to boredom. In the end many players want their choices to matter, just look at the ♥♥♥♥storms some RPGs get when the choices of the player ultimately all lead to the same end. Which is why I'm a bit surprised that the vote is so one-sided, I would have expected a more balanced result.
Sounds like a good compromise to me.I think that the predominant opinion has been that some mods should be easily swappable out in the field and others might require a workbench and still others are probably irreversible and should be permanent. That is what I am going to communicate to the developers.
I don't think this part is important enough to get an option (but who am I to read the developers mind?). And even though I'm one of the 18% who favour a fully restricted system, I probably would not use that toggle. The vanilla game will be balanced around the default settings and that is ok.Fair enough. However, your last part sounds like wanting to tell other people how to play their game to me, which I've been assured is not a thing here. There is no reason to not include a toggle option no matter what the final call TFP makes is; letting players and server owners decide is the one method that pleases everybody. Even though 82% of responses were in favor of an open system, I see no reason why that should mean the 18% that want a restricted system shouldn't have the option to play with a restricted system.