Economy & Difficulty

[Osvir]

* 1st Should Economy cost more on higher difficulty?

 

In Baldur's Gate (once upon a time) I played one game with "Tactical Settings". It made Bandit Raids more rough and more difficult, but more important for this thread, it made the Iron Crisis real. Items broke more often (due to the Iron Crisis), and due to the Iron Shortage all of the "iron" items cost a ton more (and breaking way easier). I think a Short Sword cost around 100~ gold or something similar, whilst on an original vanilla game it goes for something like 10-15 gold.

 

* 2nd Adventurer's Hall also included?

 

This question is regarding the Adventurer's Hall specifically because I am curious to know what people think about companions costing gold from the Adventurer's Hall. If this is the case "Companions for Hire" that is, would they cost even more on... let's say Hardcore? Could you perhaps even be able to "Shut off" the Adventurer's Hall on Hardcore? (In essence: Not being able to hire companions for Hardcore difficulty).

 

* 3rd Adventurer's Hall "Off" on Hardcore?

 

This question is related to the Adventurer's Hall & Hardcore difficulty, or as an option regardless of difficulty. Excluding yourself from the possibility to hire "extras", making the game more difficult naturally and automatically (handicapping yourself, basically). I personally think that if you can turn it "Off" it'd be way more difficult. However, you could just not use it if you don't want to use it, but locking yourself out from it entirely also removes any thoughts of "Backup plans". Without the Adventurers Hall occupying the sub-conscious of the back of your head, it being "Closed" would and should cause even more carefulness in progression of the story.

 

* 4th Why should Economy be affected by higher difficulty?

 

In my opinion, it adds immersion and realism. At least it did for me with BG with Tactics Mods.

 

Finally, this is a lot on "Hardcore", how could it work on easier modes? Is the Adventurers Hall "Free to Hire" on Casual mode?

[cyberarmy]

I like "harder" economy idea. Higher prices, consumables have limited numbers, shops don't buy everything or they buy it for much more less.

 

About Adcenturers Hall, it is already something optional. As a fan even i don't think to use it on my first play through. If someone wants that place have limitied access they can just avoid the place for good.

[Osvir]

I agree. But being able to lock it out mechanically also removes any and all of the safety of being able to use it, you might get across half-the game on Ironman mode, lost half of your party. You could go to the Adventurers Hall to build up a new party, if it costs money it'll be difficult, but making it even more difficult for you would be to lock it out entirely (as in "impossibility" to hire more party members)

[Osvir]

^If as an "Option" on Ironman, both you and me could get the "Option" to play like we want to try and play. All I'm saying is that it'd be more difficult if it was locked out (mechanically) rather than "self-discipline". Even with "Self-Discipline" a la "I shall not use the AH for maximum difficulty!" or "Self-Induced-Difficulty", mechanically the AH would still be there.

 

In theory, both locking yourself out and the game locking you out gives the same results. Practically, locking it out "Closed for business" type of thing mechanically, makes it physically more difficult. You just don't have that option at all, if it could be turned "Off".

 

@All: Makes me a little bit curious on "How Hardcore should Hardcore be?" or "How Hardcore do you want to play Hardcore?".

[Darkpriest]

If anything the ability to lock it out should be optional, definitely not forced... On Hardcore Ironman, you will probably need that Adventurers hall to "optimize" your party. It's more of a combat skill test than RPG experience in that mode for me.

[Atreides]

I could see things costing more but that would imply I could sell them for more. It doesn't add to immersion otherwise. Maybe some other tweak to the economy would work.

 

I think people would still like to create their parties on Hardcore too.

[Osvir]

I think Dream said it best in another thread:

 

IIRC "There is Easy, Normal, Hard, Hardcore, 'sh** for real!!!'" haha.

 

I agree with you Darkpriest, but at the same time I'm kind of on the ground feeling that I don't want too much gameplay skills in Hardcore should overshadow potential "Only works in Hardcore"-Narration, such as "Mortality" where it really is a "big business" both mechanically and in the story at Ironman. Turn on Mortality mode on Casual? You're probably not going to notice it anyways, if casual/easy plays... casually. Some of the narration could matter lots more in Hardcore, that's what I'm flirting with.

 

As for selling at a higher cost... true. That one is difficult. Unless you are a really bad trader. Making [speech] or [Trading] an important skill to invest in, if. Thus, you buy everything at a high price, and sell it at a low price. In many games your character rarely needs to invest much thought into "How much gold do I have?".

 

Thought:

You bought a Longsword from Merchant A for 150 gold, Merchant A has 10 Longswords in the back, selling it to him would yield little gold, maybe 10-15, as he has the stock he needs and as a handy blacksmith he can probably make more. Merchant B only has 5 Longswords, he might be a little bit more interested and will buy it for a bit more (25-30 gold?), to restock and skip some blacksmith work and be able to rival Merchant A even.

 

Supply & Demand, kind of. Does Merchant C even buy Longswords or shun from it?

[JFSOCC]

Not being able to afford gear I would enjoy playing with is not how I want the game to up my difficulty.

[Osvir]

Curiosity: Then how JFSOCC?

 

It's not that you wouldn't afford the stuff, you wouldn't afford the good stuff right off the bat. Personally, I see how it adds to the difficulty (Hardcore, maybe not on Hard), enemies are more difficult, you'd also be under-geared. It'd take more time to accumulate the gold for the good stuff, and by then you'd probably have found some trinkets already as well.

 

I think, also a valid question to ask: Should the market stay unchanged through difficulty or is it affected as well?

 

I thought the whole point with a high difficulty is the challenge and mechanical restrictions. How difficult can difficult be? Why?

[Atreides]

I'd be okay if the (only?) swords on sale at 200gp are a lot better - better quality steel and smithing - than the normal swords I pick up and sell for 10gp.

 

At insane mode, logic's pretty flexible anyway so I'd get great items up front even if I had to really save up for them.

[JFSOCC]

adding more (different) enemies, better enemy AI (including item use for instance) on higher difficulty. there's plenty of ways to up the difficulty that aren't economy related. I don;t want it to be a much different game on higher difficulties, just harder.

[Osvir]

Valid opinion, and I agree, I also want it to be harder which does change the game slightly. Still the same game, but harder difficulty imply that things will be harder, combat becomes more tactical, potions comes into the question, you'll have to think about skill points more carefully.

 

I think, personally, that an oddball character has nothing to do in Hardcore as an example, but shouldn't be left out from Hard and down. Difficulty implies things being difficult. If your weapon is something that determines how difficult of a time you're going to have I think that should be accountable, otherwise I could just get that +3 Sword just like how I got it at Easy which will help me greatly on my journey. But without it, because you couldn't afford it, also implies difficulty.

 

Hopefully, a tactics mod would be created akin to the mod I had in BG ("Iron Crisis = Gear breaks easily/Not Magical gear ofc", "Bandit Raids = Rough", "Iron Shortage = Supply & Demand").

[Karkarov]

In my opinion, it adds immersion and realism. At least it did for me with BG with Tactics Mods.

Here is the problem Osvir. It costs 100 GP for a short sword? So what? I just wrecked a small army of Hobgoblins all with perfectly functional bastard swords. Or did the game forget to mod the sell price? Very "realistic" if it did. Supply and demand goes both ways and all that happens when the "Iron Crisis is REAL" is the Candlekeep PC becomes the biggest weapon dealer on the Sword Coast because he is the only guy with a steady supply. So since I can sell weapons for more the heightened price of buying weapons doesn't really make a big dent in reality because I now also have more money. Unless of course the so called "tactical" mod was totally unrealistic and actually had a broken economy where weapons cost more to buy but sold for the same.

 

In other words, no. The economy should be based on something that is somewhat realistic and makes sense. Not on a difficulty slider.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Karkarov

[Osvir]

No no, you sold the items for a very low price and bought them at a very high price. Conceptual-realism I guess. You bought a longsword from the guy for 150 gold, you think he's going to take it back at the same price? Maybe if he is an honest fellow he'll buy it back at a more reasonable price (I think I could sell the Short Sword for some 20-30 gold to Winthrop).

 

Here is where limited inventory comes into picture. If you just can't carry too much at once, disabling the player to be able to become practically this (what you are hinting at):

 

Likewise, you have 5 Short Swords, the Blacksmith has 10 (and he can make more), selling the first Short Sword would perhaps yield some 30 gold if he's even interested in buying, the second Short Sword wouldn't sell as well as the other one either, because now the Blacksmith has 11 Short Swords, and he can make more so maybe 25 Gold. How interesting is it for him to have 20 Short Swords in his stock when no one is buying it? Why does he want to have all the crap your throwing at him and why should he pay more for it when he already has the supply himself?

 

Who buys armor and weapons and who is allowed to do it? How? Why? Where?

 

What's the supply and what is the demand? Who makes what and who wants what?

Edited December 26, 2012 by Osvir

[Dream]

As long as "realistic economy" doesn't translate into the bull**** we got in ME2/3 where Cerberus spent 2 billion credits bringing you back from the dead but then forced you to scrounge for table scraps to get any decent gear. Dragon age did this pretty badly too (hey you can afford a ****ing mansion, but apparently not a fancy pair of boots).

 

Basically by the end of the game you should be able to afford everything fairly easily.

[Rostere]

I've yet to play a RPG where you do not wound up with a lot of money you don't use for anything.

[Osvir]

That's what I am advocating for I guess, money being a big deal on Hardcore where you have to think about your economy, whilst on easier modes you'd be able to do the standard "I'm rich!". It'd also make the game more difficult.

 

I can understand that lower difficulties should be different, but Hardcore kind of implies that it'd be Hardcore, not just a challenge but more realistic. The further you go away from "realism" the more Easy, Easy gets, and the closer you get to "realism" the closer you get to Hardcore (Dark Souls & Demon Souls). I mean, I wouldn't mind it if I got taken down in one hit by the enemy, and they do too (bosses being different ofc, they go down in more hits but I still go down easily).

 

You'd still be able to survive the fight, and perhaps not so Hardcore as Dark Souls or Demon Souls but close to. That's how I'd like Hardcore to be :D

[Sacred_Path]

* 2nd Adventurer's Hall also included?

 

This question is regarding the Adventurer's Hall specifically because I am curious to know what people think about companions costing gold from the Adventurer's Hall. If this is the case "Companions for Hire" that is, would they cost even more on... let's say Hardcore? Could you perhaps even be able to "Shut off" the Adventurer's Hall on Hardcore? (In essence: Not being able to hire companions for Hardcore difficulty).

 

I hope not. I'm planning on making my own party for nearly every playthrough, with a few exceptions (if I definitely want a Barbarian in my party and there's a Barbarian companion I'll probably take him). The whole replayability hinges on the different kinds of party setups you can have.

 

]* 3rd [/b]Adventurer's Hall "Off" on Hardcore?

 

This question is related to the Adventurer's Hall & Hardcore difficulty, or as an option regardless of difficulty. Excluding yourself from the possibility to hire "extras", making the game more difficult naturally and automatically (handicapping yourself, basically). I personally think that if you can turn it "Off" it'd be way more difficult. However, you could just not use it if you don't want to use it, but locking yourself out from it entirely also removes any thoughts of "Backup plans". Without the Adventurers Hall occupying the sub-conscious of the back of your head, it being "Closed" would and should cause even more carefulness in progression of the story.

 

That would be a bad idea. All it would do is elevate the status of companions compared to those you can recruit through the AH. Which would result not in you building interesting parties but always playing with one of every class.

The AH characters WILL become more of a problem on the higher difficulties, as they will probably start on level 1. That means it might be a pain/ feat of skill to keep them alive on a higher difficulty late into the game. So there's no danger that you will sacrifice them on suicide missions.

[Osvir]

* 2nd Adventurer's Hall also included?

This question is regarding the Adventurer's Hall specifically because I am curious to know what people think about companions costing gold from the Adventurer's Hall. If this is the case "Companions for Hire" that is, would they cost even more on... let's say Hardcore? Could you perhaps even be able to "Shut off" the Adventurer's Hall on Hardcore? (In essence: Not being able to hire companions for Hardcore difficulty).

 

I hope not. I'm planning on making my own party for nearly every playthrough, with a few exceptions (if I definitely want a Barbarian in my party and there's a Barbarian companion I'll probably take him). The whole replayability hinges on the different kinds of party setups you can have.

 

If Difficulty handled the scaling, it wouldn't mean that you wouldn't be able to hire more companions, it'd just mean that companions would cost more on higher difficulties (See my next answer on your other paragraph). Likewise, on a simpler difficulty it would just mean that the Companion costs closer to nothing the lower in difficulty you go.

 

Why should Companions from the Adventurer's Hall be "free"?

 

* 3rd Adventurer's Hall "Off" on Hardcore?

 

This question is related to the Adventurer's Hall & Hardcore difficulty, or as an option regardless of difficulty. Excluding yourself from the possibility to hire "extras", making the game more difficult naturally and automatically (handicapping yourself, basically). I personally think that if you can turn it "Off" it'd be way more difficult. However, you could just not use it if you don't want to use it, but locking yourself out from it entirely also removes any thoughts of "Backup plans". Without the Adventurers Hall occupying the sub-conscious of the back of your head, it being "Closed" would and should cause even more carefulness in progression of the story.

 

That would be a bad idea. All it would do is elevate the status of companions compared to those you can recruit through the AH. Which would result not in you building interesting parties but always playing with one of every class.

The AH characters WILL become more of a problem on the higher difficulties, as they will probably start on level 1. That means it might be a pain/ feat of skill to keep them alive on a higher difficulty late into the game. So there's no danger that you will sacrifice them on suicide missions.

 

How and why is it a bad idea? (As an "Option") On Ironman Hardcore mode, Forton+Edair died, I can simply go and restock. Does that add to the difficulty? I think I voted "Yes" but I'd prefer it as an optional thing. It is also a question of making "Hiring" from the Adventurer's Hall a "limited" amount that you can do (on higher difficulty). Basically on Hardcore you can only hire 5 companions in total or something.

[Sacred_Path]

Why should Companions from the Adventurer's Hall be "free"?

 

Because companions will be free (I guess).

 

Anything that further gimps adventurers from the AH isn't a good idea. It already seems that you will miss out on some things if you don't take companions, so you're already at a disadvantage.

 

How and why is it a bad idea? (As an "Option") On Ironman Hardcore mode, Forton+Edair died, I can simply go and restock. Does that add to the difficulty? I think I voted "Yes" but I'd prefer it as an optional thing. It is also a question of making "Hiring" from the Adventurer's Hall a "limited" amount that you can do (on higher difficulty). Basically on Hardcore you can only hire 5 companions in total or something.

 

Uhm, I already told you. What the AH does is add diversity to parties because you can create any party makeup you wish, rather than choosing always the same companions because there will be (max.) 1 of every class.

You're talking from the perspective of someone who wants to play with companions and only uses the AH for restocking, but realize that this is not everyone's play style.

 

I'm also repeating my point that it's not going to be easy to restock your party from the AH because they'll start at level 1. Imagine being halfway through the game and losing 3-4 of your characters in a battle that went horribly wrong. It's good that you can restock at the AH, but it's only a slim chance because half of your party will be very weak until they gain more XP.

 

I've said on numerous occasions that I want to be able to play skilfully, that means replacing characters if there's perma-death in the game. I don't want free candy, only a chance to continue if you play the game well.

[Osvir]

Why should Companions from the Adventurer's Hall be "free"?

 

Because companions will be free (I guess).

 

Ye your guess is as good as mine. I hope they aren't free, but more of "Hired Guns" ("Hire" implies paying) that I can narratively insert into my story as I see fit.

 

How and why is it a bad idea? (As an "Option") On Ironman Hardcore mode, Forton+Edair died, I can simply go and restock. Does that add to the difficulty? I think I voted "Yes" but I'd prefer it as an optional thing. It is also a question of making "Hiring" from the Adventurer's Hall a "limited" amount that you can do (on higher difficulty). Basically on Hardcore you can only hire 5 companions in total or something.

 

Uhm, I already told you. What the AH does is add diversity to parties because you can create any party makeup you wish, rather than choosing always the same companions because there will be (max.) 1 of every class.

You're talking from the perspective of someone who wants to play with companions and only uses the AH for restocking, but realize that this is not everyone's play style.

 

I'm also repeating my point that it's not going to be easy to restock your party from the AH because they'll start at level 1. Imagine being halfway through the game and losing 3-4 of your characters in a battle that went horribly wrong. It's good that you can restock at the AH, but it's only a slim chance because half of your party will be very weak until they gain more XP.

 

I've said on numerous occasions that I want to be able to play skilfully, that means replacing characters if there's perma-death in the game. I don't want free candy, only a chance to continue if you play the game well.

 

I'm with you. But likewise I would bi-polarly want to see options where everything is gimped and it is a real challenge. "I want a Challenge but I don't want to lose" is all fine, I kind of want the opposite, a Challenge that makes me lose or makes it way more difficult for me to "win"*. I want to make characters at the AH, that's where I'll be spending lots of time.

 

It still adds more physical tangible difficulty if you are locked out from the AH. Like I said in another post, I could just not use the AH and when someone dies they perma-die (with no replacements) but that is more abstract lock-out.

 

By the way, I intend to play Hardcore Ironman Mode All Hardcore options On and make a Let's Play series on my first playthrough

 

* I guess that's partially the point as well, higher difficulty implies that it should be harder to win.

[Osvir]

^Oh, on this:

It still adds more physical tangible difficulty if you are locked out from the AH. Like I said in another post, I could just not use the AH and when someone dies they perma-die (with no replacements) but that is more abstract vague lock-out.

 

As a choice of course. Either you press the "X" button making the AH "Off" or you don't and keep it "On".

 

"X" can be a Mod or in-designed. Likewise, Economic Difficulty could also be possibly modded in.

[.Leif.]

* 1st Should Economy cost more on higher difficulty?

 

All in all, yes. I think the change from easy to difficult should effect the economics on a scale of magnitude. The harder the game-setting the more volatile the game's economy (during appropriate periods) should be. On realism mode you'll simply be nickeled and dimed for a lot of things that other RPGs don't make you economize, such as Wizard spell components, food and fortress logistics.

 

* 2nd Adventurer's Hall also included?

 

While I don't think it should have any more of a drastic effect on the Adventurer's hall, it should also be apart of the economy/difficulty scale.

 

* 3rd Adventurer's Hall "Off" on Hardcore?

 

No. In a game without resurrection I may find myself running out of valiant young fools willing to die for some baubles and delusions of honor. Make me pay for everyone in my party and charge me a significantly larger amount at higher levels.

 

* 4th Why should Economy be affected by higher difficulty?

 

For me it's a matter of depth of challenges. In far too many games difficulty is narrowed down to the attack damage, Armor Class and Hit points of an enemy. Making my party think about feeding themselves in addition to building the keep and saving the kingdom/prince/princess/world adds immersion to the role-playing experience. Jsawyer's mod for FONV improves gameplay significantly.

Edited December 29, 2012 by .Leif.

[Osvir]

That pretty much sums up where I stand too. Great post .Leif.

[SGray]

On my perception - changing shops economy based on difficulty is not a good thing.

At first - it would be either rudimentary (like scaling down sell prices, say from 30% to 10%) or tough to balance if attuned individually. Could outcome in something interesting like higher prices for buying consumables and little to no cost when selling, but still - tough to balance.

Second, and the most important thing: are you really sure that shops are so crucial in equipping your party? Especially on second and further playthroughs? By crippling economy you simply forcing player to be equipped solely in loot, and that's all. Quite a little increase in difficulty instead of narrowing tactical possibilities. Doubt that it worth it.

 

* 1st Should Economy cost more on higher difficulty?

 

All in all, yes. I think the change from easy to difficult should effect the economics on a scale of magnitude. The harder the game-setting the more volatile the game's economy (during appropriate periods) should be. On realism mode you'll simply be nickeled and dimed for a lot of things that other RPGs don't make you economize, such as Wizard spell components, food and fortress logistics.

Now, that is good and fun.

Edited January 11, 2013 by SGray