The various additions/improvements to the PVE survival mechanics over the last 5 years or so have considerably enhanced the game across the board, but I'd like to point out an issue about the way raincoats work that has gradually become more noticeable over time. I also have a possible way to address that issue for your consideration, that surprisingly enough, is a solution that not not only appears to have little to no obvious risks of causing unintended side effects, it also doesn't appear to require more time/effort than it's worth to implement.

The Issue With Raincoats

The issue with raincoats is that over time, those added survival mechanics have drastically reduced the usefulness of raincoats in general. In most situations, the water resistance benefits that the raincoats offer is entirely cancelled out by their low insulation values. They may be worth picking up if a character has only the t-shirt they spawned with, or if their current jacket/shirt is damaged/ruined/etc. But usually you're better off keeping a coat that may easily get wet but has better insulation and more inventory slots, than swapping it for a raincoat that may keep you more dry, but doesn't do much at all to keep you warm. Given that our primary concern is to avoid the effects of becoming cold, far more than just keeping our characters dry. If I'm already wearing a coat that is can easily get wet but is better insulated than a raincoat, there's no benefit in swapping my wet coat for a raincoat. I wont be as wet, but I'll still be cold, and staying warm will be more of a constant concern with a raincoat, whether it's raining or not. If I wear almost any other jacket that's warmer, I just need to make sure I warm up and get dry when I get eventually het wet and cold.

One Possible Way to Make Raincoats As Useful/Valuable As The Were Years Ago

The suggestion I have that would give raincoats the kind of value and usefulness they once had involves adding feature that has been suggested many times over the years - layered clothing - but in a way that bypasses nearly all of the usual concerns/issues that are often raised with the topic arises, and an approach requiring the least possible amount of dev time. Concerns like how it could make it too easy to increase the amount of inventory space (especially in the early stages of the game), potential bugs involving anything from nested inventory to damage handling, the significant amount of dev work needed to do custom model creation and address any potential rendering/clipping issues for certain shirt/coat combinations, etc.

The suggestion is this: Add an attachment slot to the raincoats that lets you attach one shirt/sweaters/tops/etc, but not allow heavier/bulkier clothing items like jackets/coats/etc.

No extra inventory slots to balance out, no added protection/damage complications, no need to bother with rendering it or dealing with clipping issues. It's only adding a bit more insulation to the raincoat, that would vary depending on the type of clothing item you put in that slot. That's it. If the raincoat is less than pristine, any wetness that slowly builds up over time also gets applied to the attached clothing as well, just like everything else would in the raincoat's inventory. This adds a bit of balance to it as well, as eventually the heat loss modifiers from both layers becoming increasingly wet would stack up over time, so drying them both out will still need to be done.

I think this is a practical, straightforward solution that addresses this one specific problem in a way that would appear to minimize the chances of complications or unexpected bugs/side effects, no graphics/models to make, no obvious reasons I can see that it would interfere with existing game mechanics, or appear that it would create any potential balancing issues. If there's any aspect of this idea I've missed or not considered that could cause any potential issues or require significantly more dev time to implement than it appears to be, please let me know. Almost all feature requests, big or small, have at least one bit of it that makes implementing it far more complex/time consuming than the person suggesting it expected it to be. I really can't seem to find any unexpected potential problem areas with this idea, which makes me suspect I've missed something.