I know they call it that in-game. But does it really fit the definition for you personally? I know it doesn’t for me. Not in the traditional use of the term “set” based on the vast majority of the games history. When one thinks of a set, I’d wager most people would think of a set consisting of at least 6 pieces of armour.
Thoughts?
Edit: this is about the trading post “sets”.
no 3 pieces is not a “class set”.
it’s quite lazy and i would never purchase them
I’ve posted on this one before… not a set. It’s lazy.
2 out of the 3 pieces of this “set” are unlikely to be transmog’d too.
the best part is that the “matching” weapon set isn’t even the same color as the “set”
For sure - like two artists when off and did their thing and when they shipped the results it’s like they never bothered to talk to each other and just said well… that’s it! Gotta go work on the next class “set”.
It comes off as if they needed to put something out, and all they could finish were 3 pieces per class. Not enough time nor resources, basically.
like there were datamined colorations of the paladin weapons that matched the set they released…so there are red/gold/black weapons but, for some reason, blizzard decided to give us purple instead?
If they say it is , it must be true
That’s a complicated question. Because I want to say, “no, a full set is a full set,” but at the same time, we have “full sets” that don’t include helms or bracers or capes at times. And then there’s the current pirate set, which is only chest, waist, legs and boots. So how do we define “set?”
For me, I guess it’s, “Can I use this entire ‘set’ they gave me as a full mog?” The pirate set? Yes, that’s a full mog. I don’t have to find chest or legs to go with that. It’s a full set that I could just mog and walk away wearing clothes.
But a helm, shoulders and belt? I can’t mog just those and walk away.
It’s not a set in my opinion in the traditional sense of the word.
I think it’s done to accommodate dracthyr perhaps, who knows… feels rather lazy to me. Like they had these pieces laying around and thought ‘‘let’s just dust these off and put them on the trading post’’ ‘‘but it’s missing a…’’ ''put them on there anyway!"
It’s a set of items, yes. There are many set appearances in this game missing slots.
No.
They do match, but it from the set you can buy in the shop. It’s just ironic that they make weapons that don’t match the trade set, but look perfect with a 25$ item.
huh? what set in the shop?
In my opinion yes 3 pieces can count as a set.
But only if those 3 pieces make up a whole outfit.
Like if its a chest, legs, and helm.
But its meant to be done without shoulders, hands, and feet.
Then thats a set.
But helm, shoulders, and waist?
No thats not a set as you clearly need to wear other clothing with it.
The staff was designed to be part of the mog set. High Scholar set and High Scholar Grand Staff.
There’s a new cloth set in the shop that’s matches the colors of the staff. Also you get 500 trader tokens too, which just happens to be the price of the staff.
Theres been plenty of 2pc sets so i dont see why a 3pc wouldnt count.
As a “Transmog Set”… no.
But getting items that would have either been tossed into the trash or left in the un-used bin is still nice.
For Marketing purposes, it should have been:
New Class Theme Cosmetic Bundle
Generally I’d say it depends. Sendryn put it pretty well.
Do the components constitute what looks like a complete outfit ?(some chests have automatic bottom half). Then yep 3 pieces could be a set.
That is however because that’s what I’ve come to expect in WoW.
Technically a set if it’s anything like real life then it just needs to be any number of matching items. matching teapot to teacup and saucer is a ‘set’.