Funcom, let me give you money

I have not bought any of the DLC, and I have no plans to do so.

If you release a DLC that has building materials and armor (light, medium, heavy) with a temperature variant of each (cold light, hot light, cold medium, ect) with the same visual theme as the Hyborian Slaver armor (tattered cloth, metal skulls, etc), and we can put out work station thralls in the armor too, I will buy it day 1.


What I want is they allow us to manually modify the temperature resistance of clothing


We all want that, but it seems to be getting pretty clear they are never going to let that happen.

Let’s keep harassing them then until they do it ;p

I’d have more faith in the devs if they only wanted to be transparent here. The “mumbo jumbo” answer isn’t accurate enough nor pleasing. We can’t make a creative enough conversation about the issue if we don’t know how exactly the issue behaves or at least what segment, close enough, it is located at. Would be of tremendous help to keep the community undivided as well. The more abstract the given answers about the product are, the more annoyed the community tends to become in the long run.


Pretty much the only significant variable I can take from this is that the issue is closer to the root of the behaviour tree than it is any of its branches.

You forgot to mention that they said the DLC armor will stay as they are because there is no plan about modiffy them at all.

Its enough. And its pleasing. They dont owe you a detailed run-down of how the coding works. Its more than enough to understand that it conflicts in some way or that they done fkd up in some aspect that doesnt allow them to add it now and they are figuring out a way around it. It could literally mean 100 things. Yes. And? Are you the one to fix it? What does it matter were the “problem/restriction” resides?
What matters is that there is some issue that prevents it, and that they really want to work on it. That is all we need to know. Its more than enough.

My opinion is that the best way around this all is also the most obvious way but also the most time consuming. Variants of armours in looks. Adding a “padding option” is non-immersive and looks ridiculous for some armours.

On Yamatai for example, its ok. They already are made for a warm climate yet their look can easily imply they are for cold as well. Aquilonian on the other hand has some visuals that clearly do not work in the cold.

Not that it matters to them anyway, since Vanir light and medium are practically naked as well.

With armour variants though (not the same armour with just different stats, except for the ones it could work) we could get say an Aquilonian armour with a lion pelt cape, etc. For armours that look like they are too hot, a variant with some open areas to it to look like it can be cooler as well. Like the Vanir heavy, the normal one we have now could be the variant that is for hotter climate, and they can design another variant that is for cold.

Again whatever armours can get away with both, we can have a selection for both with the same model (Turan and Yamatai come to mind, since desert clothing for example can be seemingly a lot to protect from the sun, yet the same model can pass as an insulated version for the north.)

This clearly will be the longer and more time consuming route to take to fix all this, but ultimately the only one that would make sense in terms of immersion compared to “oh, I just added a padding to my Hyberborean slaver armour and magically my butcheeks now are warm” :rofl:

Worst comes to worse though, I guess just an added modifier can be enough. It would really seem odd though imo. Sure it gives players options, but idk, seeing again a Hyperborean or the non-DLC Aquilonian armour stroll the north with no problem is silly.

You might be pleased how “enough” the answer is to you and you are right to have so, but as I am rather educated to the matter (against my own will somewhat even), I find the given answer quite unsatisfactory. This type of an answer worries me every time one is given due its nature. None on any level should find this enough, let alone quote it as a firm reason to both challenge or defend an opinion no matter what one is. It is a shallow, weak enough answer (one may say that it isn’t an answer at all) that shouldn’t be utilised by either side of the conversation and above everything shouldn’t be spread around like a spark in a forest. Given enough of a mistake’s gravity and the whole forest suffers of a wildfire; figuratively, that is.

They don’t have to give me an answer, surely, just like I am not obligated to help you all here either (I’m here because I like to be here and I care), but wouldn’t you agree how beneficial of being punctual in their wording would be to themselves and their clients? You see, we don’t build bridges with blueprints that convey “something that might hold”, but those that are precise to hold their purpose. You don’t go onboard of a jumbo jet that has a pilot saying “let’s try land this time with both wings attached”. I’d even be satisfied if I knew they didn’t have blueprints for specific things. I’d still be around, but without the gnawing uncertainty.

What comes to the fixer, why wouldn’t it be me? Is it that odd and far off to find even a single case in which the solution actually came from outside a company in trouble? Sometimes the troubled are too close to the issue to recognise it. Be at peace tho. No need to get jumpy. I know I am not one that HAS to be the fixer (nor would I actually want that), but I know that there is a fixer (multiple ones actually) for it and it’s only a matter of time when a solution is delivered. My question is whether it’s reasonable at that moment in time any longer.

Ultimately the issue I have here (and everywhere else) is transparency. The issue isn’t the real issue, but how the issue is spoken of (described). Both belittling and exaggerating tells much more about the competence (values and policies) of the provider than the issue they have. I’m worried and this is why. No, the answer isn’t enough.

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.