Arelith

I don't want to get too negative because a lot of work went into the change and I can imagine there being use cases that benefit a lot from how things work now. But the new system is almost nothing but inconvenient to me as someone who has a lot of item swaps and sets that weren't designed with unifying aesthetics. I know that there's the -a parameter but a toggle would still be nice (or even a toggle turned on/off via -a) given that there's almost never a time I'm not going to type the -a now.

I completely missed this update, and I have to say as a disguiser I agree with the toggle, I'd go even as far as split is from -outfit in a full -gear branch.

Agreed.

Can you describe the use cases that relied on exclusively old functionality and why the -a doesn't work?

Silvard wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 22, 2022 4:20 pm

Can you describe the use cases that relied on exclusively old functionality and why the -a doesn't work?

Its not about not working, its two things used for different playstyles cramped togetter with a -a

We merely as for those who prever the old merely a toggle to disable the new, or split it.

Silvard wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 22, 2022 4:20 pm

Can you describe the use cases that relied on exclusively old functionality and why the -a doesn't work?

Cases where I have skillsuits with modular configurations for example, or multiple weapons that I match to the current outfit based on situational context. It's less that the new system doesn't work with the "-a" and more that the change is an outright downgrade for my use case because there is no context for me personally that I will ever not use the "-a"

HeyLadyOfDecay wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 22, 2022 6:35 pm

Silvard wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 22, 2022 4:20 pm

Can you describe the use cases that relied on exclusively old functionality and why the -a doesn't work?

Its not about not working, its two things used for different playstyles cramped togetter with a -a

We merely as for those who prever the old merely a toggle to disable the new, or split it.

I ask because I'd like to know if this is just a convenience matter about typing -a, or whether there's a use case that's not covered for by current functionality. -loadoutfit -a [outfitname] should work exactly the same (better, actually, but same result) as the command used to before, and for previously saved outfits it doesn't make difference. I understand you believe the two should be separated, but I'd like to know the root of the issue before deciding on an appropriate solution (if necessary). Is the issue that you need to prepend the outfit name with -a now?

As an aside, it might not be the use case you and others in the thread are referring to (which is why ask), but just in case I want to add that only items the character has equipped are saved in the outfit when the outfit is saved, just like before, and only those will be loaded or changed when that particular outfit is loaded. And that you can save any number of appearances to any number of items, and it will adjust the appearance of those items when you load them, and if you already have them equipped it will change their appearance as before.

You should only really need appearance only (-a) when you want to transfer an appearance to a similar piece of gear that you haven't/won't save to an outfit (e.g. copying an uniform appearance to someone, or you got an upgrade of the same type and want to copy the appearance for a new outfit) or when you have a big matrix of similar types of item and appearances and it's impractical to save outfits for the resulting combinations. Is this your use case?

perseid wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:20 pm

Silvard wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 22, 2022 4:20 pm

Can you describe the use cases that relied on exclusively old functionality and why the -a doesn't work?

Cases where I have skillsuits with modular configurations for example, or multiple weapons that I match to the current outfit based on situational context. It's less that the new system doesn't work with the "-a" and more that the change is an outright downgrade for my use case because there is no context for me personally that I will ever not use the "-a"

Just in case, you don't need to use -a with legacy outfits. That said, have you tried applying the new functionality to your use case? Skillsuits with modular configurations (including weapons) sounds exactly like what it was designed around, but of course I can't know the intricacies of your setup. If the downgrade is because you want to keep doing everything the same way as you're used to and you need to type -a for every loadoutfit, then I might be able to do something about it.

Silvard wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:21 pm

HeyLadyOfDecay wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 22, 2022 6:35 pm

Silvard wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 22, 2022 4:20 pm

Can you describe the use cases that relied on exclusively old functionality and why the -a doesn't work?

Its not about not working, its two things used for different playstyles cramped togetter with a -a

We merely as for those who prever the old merely a toggle to disable the new, or split it.

I ask because I'd like to know if this is just a convenience matter about typing -a, or whether there's a use case that's not covered for by current functionality. -loadoutfit -a [outfitname] should work exactly the same (better, actually, but same result) as the command used to before, and for previously saved outfits it doesn't make difference. I understand you believe the two should be separated, but I'd like to know the root of the issue before deciding on an appropriate solution (if necessary). Is the issue that you need to prepend the outfit name with -a now?

I imagine leaving old outfits solves the issue for a large number of players and thus it's a convenience complaint. But as an example, in the last day I've made two new outfits both of which I'd preferred maintained to previous behavior. For characters who use a lot of disguises it's not uncommon to have a new outfit every week or even every few days. I also have different weapons that I'll use based on things like if I'm sailing, optimizing bluff vs. combat ready exile busting bluff, or optimizing for something like lockpicking, and in all of these scenarios I'll swap around gearpieces based on the current situation at hand. Hence where there's not ever a situation the -a doesn't represent an increase in work over the old system.

I edited in my reply to your previous post to my previous post. I've got to ask though, does being able to save subsets of gear with their own appearance not help your particular use case? For clarity I'm trying to understand why every single loadoutfit you use would need -a as you say. I understand you've set up things in a way that's obviously compatible with how things were by default, but you're saying you have see no use (i.e. no circumstances where you wouldn't use -a) for the new functionality despite having multiple sets of gear you use regularly?

Silvard wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:40 pm

I edited in my reply to your previous post to my previous post. I've got to ask though, does being able to save subsets of gear with their own appearance not help your particular use case? For clarity I'm trying to understand why every single loadoutfit you use would need -a as you say. I understand you've set up things in a way that's obviously compatible with how things were by default, but you're saying you have see no use (i.e. no circumstances where you wouldn't use -a) for the new functionality despite having multiple sets of gear you use regularly?

I think I understand the confusion that's happening here. The modular configurations would be convenient for my use case in that I have lots of subsets and so I could have BluffA, BluffB, BuffC, etc, each saved and ready. I think going forward for a lot of people that might make sense if they plan their naming schemes around it. But I have 50+ outfits where the design paradigm was around the outfit as an aesthetic only and in a way the aesthetic-only approach is simpler because otherwise I'm going to have to have naming schemes for each subset that accompanies each new outfit.

Silvard wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:21 pm

I ask because I'd like to know if this is just a convenience matter about typing -a, or whether there's a use case that's not covered for by current functionality.

Strictly convenience in my case. I just know I'm going to forget the -a one of these days, and do something I didn't mean to, because I'm so accustomed to the old way.

Gotcha. Thanks for elaborating, I will make adjustment to make sure the recent changes doesn't result in a hit to QoL for these use cases.

What does the new system actually add? It seems like there's a lot more effort and it's less clear what is going on as a result.

Dreams wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 23, 2022 10:54 am

What does the new system actually add? It seems like there's a lot more effort and it's less clear what is going on as a result.

quick-switching for dealing with chests

Or sailing, or appraise, or climb, or bluff, or steal/stealth detection, etc. If you use/have gear sets for any of these things then the new system allows you to switch between them far more conveniently than before, without needing to manually drag and drop the items in place or use up quick bar slots for each individual piece.

If you don't manage different sets of gear and use the same equipment all the time, and only use outfits for appearances then the new system is functionally the same as the old, except with improved appearance changes (not losing quick bar buttons bound to equipment, needing less space, not letting you drop your gear on the floor, etc).

And of course it should make anything in between easier.

If it can be used during combat (can it?) then it'll be a serious game changer in pvp.

Where are the details about this system please? I missed this update entirely as well.

Mattamue wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 23, 2022 5:50 pm

search.php?keywords=outfit&t=25&sf=msgonly

I scrolled too far back and missed it. Didnt realize it's that recent.

It sounds really game changing and a big deal to me idk how it went in so quietly. Cool tho.