And the Option is Bad Design. The Design is "how much of repetitive boring UI tasks are you willing to do for a small advantage". That will either make you ignore the mechanic entirely, or do boring repetitive UI tasks to the exact point of frustration. There's no good outcome, either you ignore the feature, or are annoyed by it. If you ignore it, you might as well not have implemented it.
I understand that you're hypothetically saving time (which I think is more of a compulsion or preference rather than something that is actually needed to be done). Again, the only way to know, for sure, that you're saving time, and you didn't simply mine longer than you needed to, is if you somehow knew exactly how much stone, iron, etc., that you needed, and you stopped exactly at the point you hit those specific numbers.
Ok, so removing all the bonuses from all the armor sets (thereby eliminating this problematic option) would fix the problem then, right? If not, please explain why.
Isn't that a false dichotomy? How about just swapping out a single piece of armor like I do? I don't get frustrated when I do this, and I don't ignore the mechanic.
For me, yes, sure. Would be better.
Some parts of it are worse than others. I run a barter setup (hat stored in a barter box, with candies and magnum) and the reading outfit. The barter set is mildly annoying, especially if I only have one cigar, other than that, swapping the hat is a minor part of the barter effort. The reading outfit is the worse offender, you'd basically want to swap that whenever you find a book. But you end up optimizing filling your pockets with books, or just changing the way you clear vs loot...
I'm opposed to bad mechanics; there are ways for armor bonuses to work. Gloves are decent, even if entirely uninspired and oddly balanced; you get damage towards a common target or damage type. Add a bit of a cooldown so you don't have any temptation to swap those Per Target, and they're in a pretty decent place. You'll just pick the ones you deem best against your biggest threats (or "grindiest" if no threats).
Again, like I said to TheFlu, you're missing my previous reply where I explained which group of players I consider "addicts".That's just an incredibly uninformed view of how people play video games lmao. MOST people generally look for better gear to increase their efficiency, that's the very reason why you upgrade from iron to steel. But when WE do it it's a mental illness?
In that case I wouldn't put you in the "addicts" or "mental quirk" group.
I wouldn't mind an "outfit panel" in the character sheet where you can collect and store all the various parts for each set as soon as you craft them (much like the biome gear). Then you can switch between them with just one click of a button. That would be great and probably liked by many players here.I'm opposed to bad mechanics; there are ways for armor bonuses to work. Gloves are decent, even if entirely uninspired and oddly balanced; you get damage towards a common target or damage type. Add a bit of a cooldown so you don't have any temptation to swap those Per Target, and they're in a pretty decent place. You'll just pick the ones you deem best against your biggest threats (or "grindiest" if no threats).
The bonuses could be improved, they could be removed; they can be left as they are, but I'll call them bad when I see them
I'd see that as quite pointless over just unlocking them as permanent buffs. If they're not "simulating gear" then they don't really deserve the hassle of swapping.
Forums are a nightmare to track stuff I can't find it. I'll just take your word for it though.
Not really. I go out, I mine for 30 minutes. I have some amount of ore. If I have +50% ore yields from my armour then I can go longer without having to mine again. Saving mining time.
Well it's not a 2.6 thing and they changed 2.7 to 3.0 so unless Chickens are getting the 4.0 Bandit Treatment i imagine so.
There’s another way to play that the design suggests and that is to play as a character that is strong in looting ability. You don’t just wear that armor when looting a box or ignore it completely. You wear that armor all the time and it buffs you a certain way but has opportunity costs which mean you forego other bonuses you could have. So you would be weaker at bartering, and mining, and farming but that’s what makes an interesting character to play. Strengths and weaknesses rather than trying to be strong everywhere all the time to the point you get burnt out on managing all your possible buffs for every moment you do things.
I'd consider addicts those who feel compelled to play it (or any other game) all the time to the point that it begins to interfere with their real life and ability to function as, say, a doomed-to-fail means of escape from the inescapable. I'd also consider those who do become addicted have a predisposition toward addiction in the first place that needs to be addressed, i.e. it's not necessarily the game's fault. The industry at large does prey on psychological/neurological or subconscious vulnerabilities, but so do all the rest. Perception management and "public relations" of the manipulative Edward Bernays variety is all the rage today and RNG itself is a "gambling" mechanic. So, it's definitely something to guard against the very same as propaganda, but this is different, imo.
Telling the playerbase that they should ignore the Armors full potential is a baffling choice.
Forumers try to defend bad game aspects/designs as much as possible moment
I’m not telling the player base any such thing. I’m saying there are alternative playstyles to your own that can be chosen and that the design supports. If you are baffled by any playstyle beyond your own that’s your own limitation. Even though I don’t prefer to play the game the way you do I’m not baffled by it. I’m sorry you can’t understand how playing a character with flaws and limitations is fun and that when you can vary those flaws and strengths from playthrough to playthrough it significantly increases the replay value.
Have you ever heard of asymmetrical gameplay?
He called me today and he was indeed very upset by your statement.
Maybe I wasn't clear... they SHOULD BE like gear (that's how I imagine it).
I never mentioned or criticized anyone's playstyle nor I am baffled by that, It was the "ignore it completely" "The design is good" parts of your response.
Second the move of off-topic to new post.
