Guild Wars 2

I have a few cosmetic town outfits that I used to piece together to get specific looks. An example of one of these was the pirate outfit, minus the pirate hat (which I preferred not to wear as I felt it looked silly). Instead, I would use a pair of eyeglasses as my outfit head piece.

Now outfits seem to be one all-or-nothing item rather than made up of individual elements (i.e. shoes, pants, shirt, hat, etc). Am I correct in my understanding that I can no longer create the above look I described above? And that individual elements from outfits can no longer be combined together to create additional looks?

If so, why was this changed (as it seems like a huge step backwards)?

Yes, you can no longer mix-and-match. It was changed as part of the Wardrobe which allows for greater flexibility with most skins.

You can read about the changes and the decisions concerning the Wardrobe in the News blogs, and google for opinions concerning the Wardrobe and the changes that ensued.

Good luck.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Yes, you can no longer mix-and-match. It was changed as part of the Wardrobe which allows for greater flexibility with most skins.

You can read about the changes and the decisions concerning the Wardrobe in the News blogs, and google for opinions concerning the Wardrobe and the changes that ensued.

Good luck.

I have reviewed those changes already and am struggling to understand how this “allows for greater flexibility” with costume pieces (town clothing). What am I missing?

Don’t get me wrong, I like that it’s easier to see all the skins that are out there now, easier to retain access to them, etc. But all of that could have changed without turning town clothing into a single set item rather than leaving them as individual elements.

Am I not understanding something obvious here?

As I said, you can google the Dev’s explanation of the technical reasons why it was implemented in such a way.

And/or read the players opinions of the Wardrobe and/or the explanation.

Good luck.

Because town clothes don’t share the same mesh as the various armor classes. So the helms were made wearable in combat, and the outfits were made wearable in combat, and anything that didn’t fit with the combat moves was made into a tonic. There’s an extensive thread on it, as Inculpatus has said.

You can’t wear glasses with the outfit, but you can hide the hat by toggling it off in Equipment or Wardrobe.

I continue to hope the tonics conversion and current implementation of outfits are interim measures and they will give us some of our old town clothes back as outfits in useful configurations (for instance, my ex-Seraph guardian is prone to sleeveless vests over loose trousers when in RP, but the hoodie tonic insists on jodhpurs and riding boots with the hoodie, and makes it all dull brown with a 15 minute reapplication requirement. Pretty useless).

They did it so that they could do things with Outfits that they couldn’t with town clothes, but also so they could cut corners with the Outfits. Making them all in one piece + hat/head is easier for them, so they can crank them out faster. More profit for them gem store.

With Outfits, you can hide the hat by hiding the hat of your armor. But you can’t wear anything else to replace it. Also, the ones that used to be Town Clothes may allow you to hide gloves in the same way, I know the cook outfit does at least.

Guhracie.3419:

Because town clothes don’t share the same mesh as the various armor classes. So the helms were made wearable in combat, and the outfits were made wearable in combat, and anything that didn’t fit with the combat moves was made into a tonic. There’s an extensive thread on it, as Inculpatus has said.

Is that extensive thread going to basically say “couldn’t be bothered to maintain the older superior level of customization we previously provided after we added the new feature of allowing players to use outfits in combat " ..?

Because I’m not sure I need an extensive thread to reach that conclusion, and it sure sounds like that’s how things can ultimately be summarized. I’m also not even remotely convinced that being allowed to use outfits in combat is worth the loss of being able to pick and choose which outfit pieces to wear. As someone who has no plans of dressing up like a chef while fighting the undead the ability to use outfits in combat is meaningless to me. The loss of being able to cobble a unique outfit together from different town-clothing pieces, however, is a significant loss.

A few of the responses in this thread feel like they’re coming straight out of ANET’s marketing speech. “You’ve lost the features you care most about but that’s a good thing! Truly!”. I spent real money on town clothes based on how they used to work at the time I made those purchases, and I’m not at all thrilled that all that money has now apparently been wasted. I didn’t purchase town clothing to use in combat, and I didn’t purchase town clothing sets for their entire look but rather for how the individual elements in those sets could be used and combined to make different outfits.

An extensive thread isn’t going to make me feel like I got cheated any less.

While it’s been a significant amount of time since the town clothes change, back when it happened they offered gem refunds for anyone unhappy with it. As I had inventoried what alts had what garments, I was able to submit a detailed list to Support, including my two extra Rox’s quivers purchased in the sale a couple of weeks prior to the Wardrobe — it was ridiculous of them to sell those without a warning one wouldn’t need duplicates soon. I fully expected them to delete the items from my inventory, but they simply credited me with 12K gems or so (I was a whale for a long time) and I still had enormous numbers of outfits and skins and tonics.

Anyway, if you have a solid list of the clothes you’ve lost, you might be able to recover the gems for them even now.

Edge.4180:

Guhracie.3419:

Because town clothes don’t share the same mesh as the various armor classes. So the helms were made wearable in combat, and the outfits were made wearable in combat, and anything that didn’t fit with the combat moves was made into a tonic. There’s an extensive thread on it, as Inculpatus has said.

Is that extensive thread going to basically say “couldn’t be bothered to maintain the older superior level of customization we previously provided after we added the new feature of allowing players to use outfits in combat " ..?

Because I’m not sure I need an extensive thread to reach that conclusion, and it sure sounds like that’s how things can ultimately be summarized. I’m also not even remotely convinced that being allowed to use outfits in combat is worth the loss of being able to pick and choose which outfit pieces to wear. As someone who has no plans of dressing up like a chef while fighting the undead the ability to use outfits in combat is meaningless to me. The loss of being able to cobble a unique outfit together from different town-clothing pieces, however, is a significant loss.

A few of the responses in this thread feel like they’re coming straight out of ANET’s marketing speech. “You’ve lost the features you care most about but that’s a good thing! Truly!”. I spent real money on town clothes based on how they used to work at the time I made those purchases, and I’m not at all thrilled that all that money has now apparently been wasted. I didn’t purchase town clothing to use in combat, and I didn’t purchase town clothing sets for their entire look but rather for how the individual elements in those sets could be used and combined to make different outfits.

An extensive thread isn’t going to make me feel like I got cheated any less.

All we’re doing is telling you what ANET told us. So, if it sounds like marketing speech, you have the answer why. Don’t get mad at me, I’m just the messenger. It’s just that if you want to feel outraged with a group of people, that thread is the place to go. Most of us have felt the outrage/disappointment already. It’s been seven months since this was implemented. It’s exhausting to maintain that level of outrage for that long.