Limited gold for merchants

[rjshae]

 

 

The other mechanics just seem to be a method of providing verisimilitude while minimizing boredom. Walking back and forth to carry loot is dreary behavior and I'm happy to see that mostly go away. Frequent resting while inside enemy territory is dull and unrealistic.

One persons "boredom" is anothers preferred method. Whether youre bored or not was completely up to you to control. Dont want to walk back and forth? Then dont. Dont want to rest? Then dont. Dont want to...I think you see where this is going. Unfortunately, the "choices" everyone around here like to trumpet have been taken away and replaced with one and only one method of playing, Sawyers way. All to save people that cant control their actions.

 

Fair enough, but hopefully the added 'Expert' node will address your need for such... activities. We'll see...

[Gfted1]

But - and this is where I'm getting lost in this argument - why do you want the game to encourage you to "walk back and forth" or to rest after every fight?

 

What about that particular mechanic is worth keeping?

Why does a mechanics mere existance "force" someone to use it in a degenerative manner? The answer is of course a lack of self control. Who cares why a person has chosen to play their single player game in a different manner from another? The answer seems to be "everyone not playing *my* game".

[TrashMan]

 

Then don't gather and lug around all the crap.

 

It's funny how people go around trying to heal the symptoms, while avoiding the actual cause.

 

That works unless leaving the stuff cripples you financially.

Suggesting the root cause is the mechanic where hauling loot is the wealth generation mechanic.

 

Indeed.

 

Now if you have limited inventory, that partially fixes the problem. "But wait" - you say - "people just make multiple trips!"

Not if all items dissapear.

"But mah immersun!" You were gone for days bub. It's gone.

 

Well, that or some other way - like making merchants simply not buy stuff from you. but that might also make people angry when they first visit merchants.

 

 

 

Two (of the many) things I dislike.

 

Adventurers main source of income: Selling bloodied trousers in town market.

Adventurers main source of experience: Delivering inane messages and packages around the continent (Avatar mail service).

 

Yup. Altough experience is technicly experience. In this case more of a social kind, but unless you're using learn-by-doing, then the game doesn't make a distinction.

 

[TrashMan]

 

Then don't gather and lug around all the crap.

 

It's funny how people go around trying to heal the symptoms, while avoiding the actual cause.

 

 

 

Every single game mechanic released so far is "healing the symptoms". Rest too much? = Dedicated rest spots. Walk back and forth for loot? = unlimited inventory. Get sad because your level 1 toon misses sometimes? = only 5% chance to miss. Like to heal between fights? = No field healing mechanic at all. Grind for experience? = no kill experience. All of these (except missing) were controllable by the players themselves until "Dur, me cant control self" somehow became a legitimate excuse and requires programs to cater to their compulsive disorders.

 

 

Dedicated resting spots actually make sense. You don't rest in the middle of the enemy base. Unless the area is reasonably secure, no one would. Of course, players would just exist the base and rest right outside...which could be avoided if the enemy sends out patrols once you start attacking, so the sorrounding areas become far more dangerous.

Thus leaving the base to rest right outside would be stupid. You'd want to get some distance.

But leaving would also give the enemy time to regroup and fortify, makign your battle when you come back HARDER.

 

As long as you program in realistic consequences, no artificial limitations are necessary.

 

Also kill experience WAS a cause of problem. Good riddance to it.

[JFSOCC]

I dont care about your level of response or your feelings. If you cant control yourself thats your problem, not mine. Well, I guess its mine now that the game has to cater to people like you.

I think what people who use the argument "your own responsibility" in any thread are missing, (and this argument has been brandished a lot)

Is that while they may be right that you don't have to play degeneratively even if you can, it's bad design on the part of the developers for creating a situation which so easily becomes degenerative. There's a reason exploits are considered cheating, even though they work WITHIN the game's allowances.

 

personal responsibility is the argument used against gun control laws, even though they work, against anything trying to stop tobacco use, even though it's addictive.

 

I don't think its relevant at all, in a well designed game, degenerative gameplay is avoided without the need for player self-control.

Edited February 28, 2013 by JFSOCC

[rjshae]

In my mind, degenerative gameplay is bad when it's the optimal solution for completing a game, and the game is therefore deliberately balanced against that play style. Because of this approach to balancing, any other path through the game may not allow the desired result of completing the ending. I'd rather have some constraints applied that allow for more flexible play styles while still permitting successful completion.

 

Does that make sense? I know I've experienced some frustrations over this factor in the past.

[Lephys]

In my mind, degenerative gameplay is bad when it's the optimal solution for completing a game, and the game is therefore deliberately balanced against that play style. Because of this approach to balancing, any other path through the game may not allow the desired result of completing the ending. I'd rather have some constraints applied that allow for more flexible play styles while still permitting successful completion.

 

Does that make sense? I know I've experienced some frustrations over this factor in the past.

 

Yes. It's like having people take all the food a city, lock it up in a single warehouse, then place armed guards all around it who don't allow anyone in. Nothing's FORCING you to attempt to break in and steal food, but not doing so results in starving. Therefore, you're encouraging people to "illegally" steal, despite the fact that you didn't invent the need to eat. THAT'S degenerate design. It's not simply a matter of "Oh, some people just randomly happen to be wanting to steal valuables from this warehouse? Hmm, we'd better just not lock them up, and instead hand out valuables for free, so that people don't have to try to control themselves."

 

 

So... about those merchants and their gold...

 

I think some combination of the following factors is best:

 

- "Infinite" gold for merchants, but with diminishing sell prices (a nice compromise in abstraction between a hard gold limit and infinite gold with absolutely no limitations whatsoever, I think.)

 

- Infinite gold for merchants, but with different pricing for different individual merchants (either static -- Alchemist always gives you 7 gold for an iron dagger, but the Blacksmith always gives you 12 gold -- OR fluctuating -- some days a given shop might give 12 gold for a dagger, and other days it might only give 5... This one seems to produce the most annoying back-and-forth caused by the "random" element of prices changing, with little gain in terms of immersion or complexity.)

 

- Less frequency in found improved-quality items, with more focus on reforging/enchanting/improving the weapons you keep for longer durations, as well as on the improving capabilities of the characters comprising in the majority of weapon effectiveness (instead of finding a slightly better weapon on every 10th dead creature.) This helps out FAR more than just the merchant system/economy, and is not meant to prevent people from having to control themselves when looting (that's simply a byproduct, really, that it simply provides less incentive for the "MUST LOOT" mentality)

 

- A greater usage of gold/small valuables (gemstones, jewelry, etc) in loot, as, if the enemies are carrying around pretty basic equipment in all but rare instances, then why would they be carrying around 7 different pieces of equipment? And non-humanoid (or... uncivilized, literally) creatures could produce hunting-style components, which, in rare instances (like a rare white-pelt on a wolf, or some other exceptional specimen) could be significantly more valuable, to mirror rare equipment and gemstone/gold drops from the civilized hostiles without prompting the "why did this puma just drop a jewel-encrusted goblet?" questions.

 

- Alternative values (barter values... directly for other goods or services, rather than sheer monetary value) for items of all kinds. Reputation, crafting salvage, imaginative side-quest content, favors, information, etc. Take your pick.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Lephys

[rjshae]

Perhaps while dealing with a merchant, your goods fall into these categories:

1. High interest (75%) -- items that are similar to those the merchant stocks, guaranteeing a quick and profitable resale. These are items that are low in stock yet match the specialty of the merchant.
2. Moderate interest (60%) -- these may stay on the shelf a while or might not bring as much profit. Typically these would be items the merchant already possesses in abundance.
3. Marginal interest (45%) -- the merchant would likely need to seek out another to buy the item, incurring additional costs. These include items that are outside the specialty of the merchant.
4. Cautious interest (30%) -- these are items that will significantly stretch the merchant's budget, requiring special handling, loans from a money lender, and perhaps hired guards.
5. Avoid -- refuses to stock items of this type.

The category determines how much the merchant is willing to spend for an item from the PC (in terms of a percentage markdown). The party inventory list could show flags corresponding to the categories above. Repeatedly selling the same type of item to a merchant can change the item from primary to moderate, then to marginal.

[Cultist]

One persons "boredom" is anothers preferred method. Whether youre bored or not was completely up to you to control. Dont want to walk back and forth? Then dont. Dont want to rest? Then dont. Dont want to...I think you see where this is going. Unfortunately, the "choices" everyone around here like to trumpet have been taken away and replaced with one and only one method of playing, Sawyers way. All to save people that cant control their actions.

And in reality, people will just say, "aw, **** it!". It's like keeping Dune mechanics in Real time strategies, where to attack, you have to click "Attack" button and then select enemy, instead of simply right-clicking. Sure, we can say that the game is being dumbed down and appeal to those, who can't microcontrol, but in reality, the game is just removing unnecessary actions and opitimizing the mechanics. I can still remember SC1 purists screaming how SC2 "dumbed everything down" and "true players" must click n+1 times to make certain same action, where now every noob can do it with one click.

RPGs is no different. In Fallout 1 after giving items to your companions you had to steal them to get them back. F2 fixed it.

[PrimeJunta]

Whoo, degenerashun again. I really don't get it: why do some people WANT breakable, exploitable mechanics? Makes no sense to me. But then some people love classic British sports cars and I'm assured a big part of the appeal is that it's a challenge to get the oil pressure, temperature, and electrical system all working, at the same time. Just seems kind of perverse to me.

 

Anyway.

I think this, like so many other things, depends on the context. If gold is very powerful in the game -- e.g., it buys the most powerful items, or buys powerful items much earlier than you could find similarly-powerful items by adventuring -- then having unlimited quantities of it available will make the game more difficult to balance, so it makes sense to limit it in some way. 

 

On the other hand, if gold is only moderately useful, limiting it will only be perceived as an annoyance.

 

And finally, you can build up entire systems around gold and trading, which can be fun and rewarding in and of themselves. Systems will inevitably mean mechanics, and mechanics mean limitations. For example, different prices at different traders and different locations, some traders only buying some goods some of the time, prices changing over time, limited inventories, loot disappearing (=being scavenged by someone else) if you don't pick it up quickly, and so on.

 

I'm against limitations and complexity for their own sake. I'm for limitations and complexity used to create systems which make for challenging and engaging gameplay. In my opinion it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to talk about a specific mechanic -- such as limited gold -- outside the context of the system in which it's supposed to operate.

[TrashMan]

Quite.

 

While can choose not to backtrack and be a pack rat, that puts me at a serious disadvantage compared to a player that does. In other words, the game itself is rewarding degenerative gameplay - or in this case, illogical behavior for an adventurer.

 

Problem is, people often see perfectly logical thing as "limitations" simply because they were allowed to do completely silly things in the past.

 

"Merchants have limited money/dont' buy everything? But it's limiting my abiltiy to sell stuff! Why doesn't he buy EVERYTHING I own! I want his moneyz!"

 

Remind me again which one of us has a problem with self-control again?

Edited March 1, 2013 by TrashMan

[Amentep]

 

But - and this is where I'm getting lost in this argument - why do you want the game to encourage you to "walk back and forth" or to rest after every fight?

 

What about that particular mechanic is worth keeping?

Why does a mechanics mere existance "force" someone to use it in a degenerative manner? The answer is of course a lack of self control. Who cares why a person has chosen to play their single player game in a different manner from another? The answer seems to be "everyone not playing *my* game".

 

No the "degenerate" gameplay is one that actively encourages an unintended consequence of the design.  The IE gamemakers didn't expect the player to rest after every fight; they didn't say "Wow, this will be fun, every fight the player will press this button! Lets go for it".  So to my mind there's no value in not looking at rest mechanics that don't create unintended - and potentially "unfun" - behavior in the players.

 

Your argument that I was responding to is that you couldn't play the game "your" way but had to play it "Sawyer's" way; but my point is you are always allowed to play the game in only the ways the game allows play; the IE was just as limited in options as PE the difference is that if you want to press the sleep button after every fight PE is going to have you travel to a rest location.  But you can still do it (from what I understand); the game just isn't built to encourage it as an optimal play style.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Amentep

[Gfted1]

 

 

But - and this is where I'm getting lost in this argument - why do you want the game to encourage you to "walk back and forth" or to rest after every fight?

 

What about that particular mechanic is worth keeping?

Why does a mechanics mere existance "force" someone to use it in a degenerative manner? The answer is of course a lack of self control. Who cares why a person has chosen to play their single player game in a different manner from another? The answer seems to be "everyone not playing *my* game".

 

 

No the "degenerate" gameplay is one that actively encourages an unintended consequence of the design.  The IE gamemakers didn't expect the player to rest after every fight; they didn't say "Wow, this will be fun, every fight the player will press this button! Lets go for it".  So to my mind there's no value in not looking at rest mechanics that don't create unintended - and potentially "unfun" - behavior in the players.

 

Your argument that I was responding to is that you couldn't play the game "your" way but had to play it "Sawyer's" way; but my point is you are always allowed to play the game in only the ways the game allows play; the IE was just as limited in options as PE the difference is that if you want to press the sleep button after every fight PE is going to have you travel to a rest location.  But you can still do it (from what I understand); the game just isn't built to encourage it as an optimal play style.

"Actively encourages" is just another excuse for players that cant control themselves from pressing a button. From what I gather from your posts, you feel that if one method is "better" than another everyone will use that method. That opinion seems to run directly counter to everyones claims that they truely want to RP a character since all builds will vary in efficiency and capabilities. Perhaps they should create one lone build made from the best of every class and race so that way people wont have to "choose"? *nods sagely*

 

And you cannot play the game "your" way. "Your" way would indicate that there is a choice in how you choose to work with the mechanics. The reality is there are almost zero choices available. I could choose to heal in the field after every fight or "rp" being a tough guy who only heals infrequently. Gone. I could choose to "earn" gold by walking back and forth to loot the continent bare. Now handed to you consequence free (unlimited inventory lol). I could choose to grind up a level to help me defeat that boss that just handed me my ass. Gone. And these are just the first few mechanics they have revealed. I shudder for what the future brings. Whether or not these changes jive with how *you* want to play is irrelevant, the end result is the removal of choices due to the fact that some infintesimally small percentage of players literally cannot control themselves from pressing a button on their UI. I can only imagine how debilitating that must be for their everyday lives. How does that not sound ridiculous to you?

[Amentep]

"Actively encourages" is just another excuse for players that cant control themselves from pressing a button.

 

No it isn't; "actively encourages" means that the game is designed in away in which there is a logically superior way to do things. It is logically superior in terms of benefit/cost to rest after every battle as there is very little penalty assigned to resting (and the penalty that is there can be mitigated by...resting).

 

In an idealized system (and I put that intentionally because I don't think the Ideal system will ever exist) the game would balance the benefit/cost of an action so that what choice the player makes (not resting vs resting in this case) isn't different in terms of worse-bad-good-better (or at least the difference is negligible).

 

From what I gather from your posts, you feel that if one method is "better" than another everyone will use that method. That opinion seems to run directly counter to everyones claims that they truely want to RP a character since all builds will vary in efficiency and capabilities. Perhaps

they should create one lone build made from the best of every class and race so that way people wont have to "choose"? *nods sagely*

 

There are always Monty Haulers and min-maxers; the point - I'd think - is to not create a system that gives so much benefit to those play styles that other play styles are actively discouraged.

 

And you cannot play the game "your" way. "Your" way would indicate that there is a choice in how you choose to work with the mechanics. The reality is there are almost zero choices available. I could choose to heal in the field after every fight or "rp" being a tough guy who only heals infrequently. Gone. I could choose to "earn" gold by walking back and forth to loot the continent bare. Now handed to you consequence free (unlimited inventory lol).

 

I actually disagree with unlimited inventory myself. But if they can balance the penalty for using it (which seems to be access related) it could still be balanced in its own way.  I'm willing to wait and see how that is going to work.

 

Anyhow, you can always play the game "your" way provided that your way conforms to the system created for the game. In the IE games I can't use cover to hide my archers for ambushes but it doesn't keep me from playing an archer or even using them effectively in combat; it just means the system is designed in a way that doesn't support logical cover systems. This doesn't make the IE games bad, I still have a way to play an archer within the confines of what the game is designed to do.

 

In your example you can still play the careful party who heals after every fight - you just accept that you have to travel to camp locations to do it. You can still play the tough guy who doesn't heal by not traveling to camp locations, using a minimum amount of healing/stamina potions etc. As above your style will always be adapted to the system as no system can allow you to do anything you want to do.

 

I could choose to grind up a level to help me defeat that boss that just handed me my ass. Gone.

 

You can still grind quests for XP. You want to beat the boss - fine you go travel and do good/bad in the world.

 

What you can't do is camp in front of the kobold den and whack the kobolds as they come home from the fields for xp - unless someone gives you a quest or it becomes an "encountered" objective/quest.

 

And these are just the first few mechanics they have revealed. I shudder for what the future brings. Whether or not these changes jive with how *you* want to play is irrelevant, the end result is the removal of choices due to the fact that some infintesimally small percentage of players literally cannot control themselves from pressing a button on their UI. I can only imagine how debilitating that must be for their everyday lives. How does that not sound ridiculous to you?

 

There are no removal of choices - your choices are always defined by what the game allows you to be. When I played KoTOR my first inclination was to not play a force user. But your character *has* to become one. Does the game remove my choice to not be a force user? No because that choice was never there.

 

All games systematically define your actions; my understanding of the whole point of these overhauls is to design a system that doesn't make certain actions logically superior because the benefit/cost ratio is largely stacked towards "benefit" due to unintended consequences in the design that don't balance choice "A" vs choice "B".

Edited March 1, 2013 by Amentep

[Lephys]

"Actively encourages" is just another excuse for players that cant control themselves from pressing a button. From what I gather from your posts, you feel that if one method is "better" than another everyone will use that method. That opinion seems to run directly counter to everyones claims that they truely want to RP a character since all builds will vary in efficiency and capabilities. Perhaps they should create one lone build made from the best of every class and race so that way people wont have to "choose"? *nods sagely*

 

And you cannot play the game "your" way. "Your" way would indicate that there is a choice in how you choose to work with the mechanics. The reality is there are almost zero choices available. I could choose to heal in the field after every fight or "rp" being a tough guy who only heals infrequently. Gone. I could choose to "earn" gold by walking back and forth to loot the continent bare. Now handed to you consequence free (unlimited inventory lol). I could choose to grind up a level to help me defeat that boss that just handed me my ass. Gone. And these are just the first few mechanics they have revealed. I shudder for what the future brings. Whether or not these changes jive with how *you* want to play is irrelevant, the end result is the removal of choices due to the fact that some infintesimally small percentage of players literally cannot control themselves from pressing a button on their UI. I can only imagine how debilitating that must be for their everyday lives. How does that not sound ridiculous to you?

Gifted... you're using a double standard. You're applying your own meanings for things to our words, but then preventing ours from ever applying to your own (as convenience dictates). Your argument actually only applies to the 2 extremes - unlimited options, and no options (only 1 "option"). Your "I used to have the option of making 15 trips to a place and getting all the loot and selling it for maximum money, and now I don't" notion is completely boundless. You might as well be arguing that the cave should allow INFINITE trips for INFINITE loot to sell for INFINITE money, and since it doesn't... CHOICE: REMOVED! Yes. A choice is, quite literally, removed. But, that's no different from not-having that choice in the first place, and that choice isn't of very much importance. And, if we're clearly not going to have infinitesimal choices in the game, then we've got to determine the best choices to put in, right? We have to evaluate which choices are better or more significant than others, based on some criteria. Or we could not do so, and just stick them in at random, and still only have limited choices. Those are the only 2 options in handling choices in the game's design.

 

Obviously, when we say things like "actively encourages," and "one way is superior to another," we don't mean "you get something you wouldn't have gotten if you hadn't done something" and "selling a ruby gets you more gold than selling a poop statue," respectively. We're not suggesting "ALL THINGS MUST BE EQUAL! NOTHING MUST EVER PROVIDE ANY BENEFIT OVER ANYTHING ELSE!"

 

You can spin it however you'd like, and say that we actually just hate people, and that "degenerate design" (which you keep calling degenerate gameplay) is just some made up thing, as if reason has no bearing on game design. But that remains untrue.

 

If you set up a soccer field, and you say "this is going to be an even challenge between two teams," and you lay down rules to make it so, then you just allow people to run around drop-kicking people's heads off and scoring goals, and say "Oh look, you won!", that's a failed design for a sports competition. It inherently defeats itself. So, if people in the world want to go around drop-kicking other people in the head, then that action, itself, isn't necessarily a problem (which is the only manner your degenerate-rights activism makes sense). BUT, once you say, "they're supposed to be playing a prolonged sports match, with even teams and all the whole time, etc.", NOW, in this context, allowing people to kick other people's heads to death results in a problem. It's not anyone's opinion of a problem. It is the universe's absolute declaration of a problem based on the very fabric of reality.

 

The same goes with the looting system in typical RPGs. "You can only carry so much at a time, and this is all supposed to take days and days, and represent realistic fundamentals, at the very least, of an economy. But, also, you can just take as much as you want, then run back and load up some more, and do that over and over, 17 times, and just get all the money in the world, because nothing in the system is ever going to stop you from making money off of every single thing that ever exists within miles of you." That's inherently silly.

 

Where you're wrong is in saying "That's perfectly fine, and the only factor here is player choice, and other people should just control themselves." BUT, where you're not wrong is in saying that there's probably a better way of fixing this than simply making the inventory unlimited. However, arguing that there's no such thing as degenerate designs, and that we're all just a bunch of self-control-less silly people is not only wrong, but also pointless. Arguing how better to handle the problem is quite the opposite of pointless. Just because there is a problem doesn't mean anyone who talks about the problem is correct in everything they say and can't be debated. Just as someone having a flawed idea about the problem doesn't mean the problem must not exist.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Lephys

[AGX-17]

Mind-twisting idea: craftsmen want to sell their own goods, and have no use for the stinky rags you pulled of that dead bandit, even a pawnshop may only promise you a 2% discount for your next purchase in exchange for that crap. Don't base player income on selling loot, and we need no street peddlers with a bottomless purse, and we also don't need to go back to the dungeon to fetch the rest of the junk that was to heavy to carry. Two problems solved with one simple solution.

Well, the point of a pawn shop is to get a quick loan in exchange for some object/s of equal or usually greater value than the loan itself, with the pawnbroker/shop getting to keep the object/s if you fail to repay the debt on time (which is usually a short-term.) You don't get a discount on anything for pawning things, and items of little/no value are flat-out rejected.

 

That aside, no problems have been solved because you haven't provided an alternative source of income for players. It's trade that generates income. Even high lords typically made money by selling off surplus produce farmed by their slav-err serfs. They could levy taxes, but who is the player going to tax? Are we going to be operating "protection" rackets in the Big Cities?

You can still grind quests for XP. You want to beat the boss - fine you go travel and do good/bad in the world.

There's no guarantee thus far that there will always be quests available, or that those quests that are available are completable with your current party, current build, or current level. Edited March 2, 2013 by AGX-17

[rjshae]

 

Mind-twisting idea: craftsmen want to sell their own goods, and have no use for the stinky rags you pulled of that dead bandit, even a pawnshop may only promise you a 2% discount for your next purchase in exchange for that crap. Don't base player income on selling loot, and we need no street peddlers with a bottomless purse, and we also don't need to go back to the dungeon to fetch the rest of the junk that was to heavy to carry. Two problems solved with one simple solution.

Well, the point of a pawn shop is to get a quick loan in exchange for some object/s of equal or usually greater value than the loan itself, with the pawnbroker/shop getting to keep the object/s if you fail to repay the debt on time (which is usually a short-term.) You don't get a discount on anything for pawning things, and items of little/no value are flat-out rejected.

 

That aside, no problems have been solved because you haven't provided an alternative source of income for players. It's trade that generates income. Even high lords typically made money by selling off surplus produce farmed by their slav-err serfs. They could levy taxes, but who is the player going to tax? Are we going to be operating "protection" rackets in the Big Cities?

 

I kind of like the idea though. Having a class of medieval peddlers or solicitors that buy goods for later sale would be an interesting change of pace. Money lenders that take items as collateral may likewise be willing to perform straight-up trades of goods for gold.

[TrashMan]

"Actively encourages" is just another excuse for players that cant control themselves from pressing a button. From what I gather from your posts, you feel that if one method is "better" than another everyone will use that method. That opinion seems to run directly counter to everyones claims that they truely want to RP a character since all builds will vary in efficiency and capabilities. Perhaps they should create one lone build made from the best of every class and race so that way people wont have to "choose"? *nods sagely*

 

That only works to a point.

As long as one class/method isn't VASTLY superior/inferior.

 

At the end of the day, we play with the intention to win. And if looting everything that isn't nailed down means you end up 10 timesricher than a player who doesn't do that, and thus breeze trough encounters, the nthere is a problem. A big one.

Even worse if the game is balanced so that NOT looting causes frustration down the road.

[SunBroSolaire]

I actually like limited gold. Especially because the game has unlimited inventory space, I think it's important that the designers have some tools to control the economy. Here is what I would like to see from the game economy:

 

I would like to see restocking work something like Fallout: New Vegas. All items in stores are limited and can be bought out, and you can also 'sell out' the shopkeeper (yes limited gold). After a day or two, the merchants have money again and restock items. Using a system like this prevents the player from becoming ridiculously wealthy very fast.

 

Market flooding should make vendor trash worthless eventually. They did this in Icewind Dale at least, can't remember if it was the case in the other IE games. Basically, every time you sell a specific item to a merchant, the sell value is decreased a little. This gives diminishing returns on farming. It's still possible to farm item drops if you really need the money, but it's a discouraged, especially brainless farming where you just collect the same item over and over again.

 

All store items should be available to steal from chests in the store. It shouldn't necessarily be possible to do so without getting caught, but the option should be there to kill the shopkeeper and take that magical sword / enchanted plate mail / whatever.

 

They should bring back the traveling merchants from New Vegas. It was cool to pass caravans on your between towns.

 

Reputation should affect prices. I'm not sure if this was the case in NV, but I feel like it might have been. Anyway, midieval shops should not be like Walmart where everyone pays the same regardless of nationality, race, sex, or class. If you're a friend of the village, you should pay a little less; if you've been murdering the village's cows, you should pay more. If your PC is from Dyrwood, he should pay less in Dyrwood and maybe more in the coastal region.

 

Fallout: New Vegas did a pretty good job with keeping the game economy meaningful throughout the whole game. I would like to see a system like that in P:E. Except if there are different currencies, actually let me use them

Edited March 2, 2013 by SunBroSolaire

[Ffordesoon]

I wouldn't want it for P:E, but I actually really liked Dark Souls' idea of having a single currency for leveling up and buying items.

 

And yes, SunBroSolaire, your handle reminded me of that system. Also: PRAISE THE SUN!

[AGX-17]

 

 

 

 

Mind-twisting idea: craftsmen want to sell their own goods, and have no use for the stinky rags you pulled of that dead bandit, even a pawnshop may only promise you a 2% discount for your next purchase in exchange for that crap. Don't base player income on selling loot, and we need no street peddlers with a bottomless purse, and we also don't need to go back to the dungeon to fetch the rest of the junk that was to heavy to carry. Two problems solved with one simple solution.

Well, the point of a pawn shop is to get a quick loan in exchange for some object/s of equal or usually greater value than the loan itself, with the pawnbroker/shop getting to keep the object/s if you fail to repay the debt on time (which is usually a short-term.) You don't get a discount on anything for pawning things, and items of little/no value are flat-out rejected.

 

That aside, no problems have been solved because you haven't provided an alternative source of income for players. It's trade that generates income. Even high lords typically made money by selling off surplus produce farmed by their slav-err serfs. They could levy taxes, but who is the player going to tax? Are we going to be operating "protection" rackets in the Big Cities?

 

 

 

I kind of like the idea though. Having a class of medieval peddlers or solicitors that buy goods for later sale would be an interesting change of pace. Money lenders that take items as collateral may likewise be willing to perform straight-up trades of goods for gold.

 

 

How is that different from the standard? Every other RPG already has medieval peddlers that buy goods for later sale. If it doesn't show up in their sale inventory they're obviously sitting on it (in their infinitely-deep pockets) long-term or already sold it, right? Every merchant buys goods for later sale.

[Karkarov]

No kidding, right on OP!  If you don't want me to have huge amounts of money do the smart thing and don't give me items or loot I can turn into huge amounts of money . 

[TheSadDragon]

I think this is part of a bigger systemic problem with RPGs that started out small but also made for a great study in how the Skinner-box can be applied accedentally.

As people have already stated, there is an optimal way of playing through the games -- looking at the cost/benefit graph. For the cost of some minor inconvinience for the player (not the PC) you can gain a huge benefit for the player character.

 

We also know that most players don't play through a game more than one time. I would venture a guess that most people who are planning to make the odd characters tends to wait for a second playthrough and have the first playthrough be a normal one.

 

If we were to put these two together you will end up with people going for an optimal playthrough first before playing a concept character -- like an all out social one with no combat skills.

 

I want to be clear and state that I do not have any statistics to back this up, but im sure Obsidian would know more from what telematry they collect from the games. I am also sure that some people will just follow the story path and not stray form that path cause in the end that's what they are there for. Basically what I am saying is that without getting a look at the data i can never be sure how previvalent any specific gameplay style is. Though I would guess that the standard path and the optimal path are the two most previvalent paths taken.

 

Anectodally i can even say that those i know that play a style far removed from min-maxing tend to be bitten by both LGD (Looting Gathering Disorder) as well the DED (Dungeon Exploration Disorder). We have all been told that money is good to have and most games have some really expensive stuff you can buy that will give you a nice edge. So why not try and get that edge if you know it will have no penalties? Who knows, maybe that dagger you picked up can be the difference between getting that item you want or having to wait for another 4-5 hours to get the cash to do it -- by which time it is already undesireable as you are now higher level and have found another shiny you want instead.

 

DED as I jokingly call it is even worse. We have been shown by the developers that every dungeon has some secret treasure and it is normally a really attractive one for the level we are currently at. This has trained us into scavanging ever corner of the dungeon just to make sure we dont miss out on that sweet treasure -- or even worse, every path of a maze.

 

And even those who I know to be more layed back in their gaming suffer from both LGD and DED. Maybe to a more minor degree than I do -- being more of a powergamer myself I suffer from both of these to a higher degree than my more layed back friends.

 

There are also more benifitial sides to this than mearly the monitary one. To get said loot you have to kill things to loot and grinding for xp and gold tends to also give you advantages in how you are allowed to roleplay your character in the system as you tend to level faster and get more points to spend -- which trantlates to more options of how to play depending on how you spend them.

 

I mentioned the Skinner-box earlier in the post because it's how I personally see that this problem has evolved. We did something and got rewared for it to the point that we dont really think about why we are doing it now it's just what you do. Isn't it normal to go through every section of a maze to maybe find a strange chest with a broken glass vase it it? Isn't that how the real world works?

 

Personally i think that this is something that needs to change, not nessecarally go away, just change. As games evolve and game designers get more examples to look at they can see better what works and what didnt work -- not to mention things that worked but not as intended. If you give the characters an infinite inventory and have no limits to the gold on merchants you might just be making loot hording easier instead of looking at why loot hording happens and if its a good thing.

 

Now personally i tend to agree that any mechanic that you can easally workaround is a bad one as all it adds is anoyance. Is the merchant out of gold but will restock in 2 days? I guess its time for me to rest for 2 days -- it's not like 2 days mean anything ingame anyway, there never seems to be any time limit on anything. In these situations the mechanic simply adds anoyance without adding any enjoyment to the game. But perhapps the problem isn't that the merchants are out of gold, maybe its the fact that we are selling so many items that's the problem. Maybe the reward of having a lot of gold should be looked over as well?

 

Anywho I fear i am not rambeling so i shall stop before i start going in circles.

 

 

Hopefully some of what I have typed out will make sense and be some food for thought in the overlying discussion.

 

-TSD

[TrashMan]

TheSadDragon tells it like it is.

 

Games have conditioned (and are conditioning us) us to play and think a specific way.

Skinners Box method. Read upon it.

 

http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted.html

 

Mind you, it's just the tip of the iceberg.

It's time to break that stupid mold.

 

I find it horrible that RPG games are CONDITIONING players to not roleplay. Yes, they do that because players make decisions that sensible people in the shoes of the PC wouldn't do.

[mcmanusaur]

Limited gold pools are only excusable if the in-game economy is more interactive than TES's sorry attempt at "investments".