You could have just left the invisible undersuit in until [StarWear] was ready. Why do you hate fun?
TL;DRSean Tracy says the invisible undersuit was removed because it gave a false picture of what StarWear can do, and StarWear's separated assets will later enable procedural NPC outfit markup.
Well, I hate fun because it would give a false representation of what you could do. And if something that they could do with the invisible undersuit as a bug doesn't work in StarWear, they're going to then want that back within StarWear, whatever that may be. And that might be a design-breaking thing. So I don't want to give a false representation, I guess, towards it. I think we've talked about it. Armando had gone over it a little bit. So it does really go quite a long way in the customization of the thing. And one other quick little mention about it that's going to be really nice for players as well as for developers is once we get those assets all separated in the StarWear fashion, and a lot of this has to do with that DataForge record alignment and structure, once we get all that, we can mark up those assets or set information on those assets so that our procedural systems can start using it properly. So for example, if I know a t-shirt makes sense in a warm environment, I know sunglasses make sense in a warm environment, I know shorts make sense in a warm environment, if I'm spawning NPCs procedurally, they should probably have t-shirts or shorts or sunglasses or whatever. Or if it's sunny out, then I can just do something. It's these kind of pieces of markup that'll get really interesting.
Every NPC has a manual loadout.
Kind of. It's a set of manual. It's not truly. It's like we could have an NPC that has 10 different, they're called loadout bundles. It has 10 different outfits within the loadout bundles and they will all kind of work together. But yeah, somebody's got to make those, which is crazy. We don't have to do that [with this markup].