Merchant Gold

[Lephys]

It would be more accurate to say that too much wealth by the end of the game means that you can buy anything your party wants from the merchant stock. Yes, yes. Horrible design, I know, but I prefer it that way. Sue me.

Obviously, we should go with the DA2 approach, instead, wherein, if you save up every single coin in the entire game and sell everything all the time, you can choose ONE nice thing to purchase. Maybe a staff, or a helmet. Then you're broke again. WOOHOO! Choose wisely!

 

[forgottenlor]

It would be interesting, maybe refreshing to see an RPG without merchants and money.

But I guess the expectation of XP and money for mission accomplished is too deeply entrenched.

 

Too much wealth means you can buy whatever the merchants have to offer.

At that point, isn't having money in the first place something that's keeping you from adventuring?

Why not eliminate money and have everybody just give you everything you want?

Ever play Legend of Grimrock?

[Jarmo]

 A communist RPG.

 

 

 

 Ever play Legend of Grimrock?

 

 

Grimrock, oh yeah.

Tried it, didn't really get into it and abandoned the game at about 1h in.

 

Anyways. The game where hoarding wealth, hauling loot to nearest trader and upgrading equipment first started to really grate was Knights of the Old Republic.

There it flies straight against how we're thought Jedi Knights to be. Lightsaber, simple robes and that's it. No lightsabers with improved criticals, or robes +4.

 

Where it didn't make any sense at all, was Mass Effect.

You're given an eleventy billion spacebuck cruiser with a full crew and sent off to save all all of humanity.

And then you spend your time running errands for petty cash and pawning off everything not nailed down so you can afford a better scope for your rifle. =____=

 

But that's not the situation in PoE and this is more general ramblings.

[Lephys]

Where it didn't make any sense at all, was Mass Effect.

You're given an eleventy billion spacebuck cruiser with a full crew and sent off to save all all of humanity.

And then you spend your time running errands for petty cash and pawning off everything not nailed down so you can afford a better scope for your rifle. =____=

Well, how do you expect the Earth's military to have any money left after spending eleventy billion on that stealth cruiser?!

 

Or in the second game, when they spend ALL of Michael Douglas's money on project Bring One Guy Back To Life?

 

Nah, man. The budget was either stuff, or a ship/ressurection. You can't have your gear and eat it too. u_u

[rjshae]

It seems like a cap on merchant gold could be one of the options for Expert mode. Perhaps it is too late to implement that, so maybe it could be included with the expansion?

[SKull]

Well Luckmann you're gonna be dissapointed then. In your stronghold, as Josh visited it, there was only one bed where your party sleeps. And you can run around for 100 day/night cycles without traveling or resting if you so desire. And they're all easily explained as design choices.

 

Nothing like six sweaty barbarians sharing a bed to get some quality R&R between killing orcs and zombies. I always wondered how it is possible to walk around in the middle of nowhere in full plate armor for weeks and weeks without getting blisters or chafing, and not just the lack of toilet breaks and realistic sleeping arrangements. I guess realism just has to stop somewhere.

Vendors have never worked well in CRGPs  though and are just sort of wrong whichever way you do them. Either too poor, too rich, have nothing to sell which you need or too much so you don`t need combat to find upgrades etc. I like the idea of diminishing returns on vendoring myself, to reflect inflation as you offload 148 orcish short swords in the local town over the course of the game. I`ve seen this in a PC game once, but I can`t remember which one it was. That makes sense to me and might help prevent even realistically poor vendors from going broke by buying all the ridiculous trash the player drags back with him. On the reverse side you don`t want gold, or whatever the currency is, to become pointless either. As long as there`s an economy for the player to operate in vendors are fine with me though. What I don`t like is when some vendors will buy certain things while others will not. Baldur`s Gate had a lot of this, and selling arrows was a whole thing because you had to remember which people would buy them.

 

You miss a turn because there`s something in your eye!

Edited February 5, 2015 by SKull

[Stun]

I like the idea of diminishing returns on vendoring myself, to reflect inflation as you offload 148 orcish short swords in the local town over the course of the game. I`ve seen this in a PC game once, but I can`t remember which one it was.

The Icewind dales, and Planescape Torment. Both had diminishing returns on like items. In IWD1 it's rather easy to demonstrate. Go to kuldahar. Kill a bunch of Yetis, then go back and sell those pelts one by one. The first few will sell for about 50gp each. after that 35gp each, then 20gp each from then on.

 

Of course, those games still didn't get it right since a smart player can simply hoard all the like items then sell them all at once to bypass the diminishing returns mechanic.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Stun

[Jarmo]

 

I like the idea of diminishing returns on vendoring myself, to reflect inflation as you offload 148 orcish short swords in the local town over the course of the game. I`ve seen this in a PC game once, but I can`t remember which one it was.

The Icewind dales, and Planescape Torment. Both had diminishing returns on like items. In IWD1 it's rather easy to demonstrate. Go to kuldahar. Kill a bunch of Yetis, then go back and sell those pelts one by one. The first few will sell for about 50gp each. after that 35gp each, then 20gp each from then on.

 

Of course, those games still didn't get it right since a smart player can simply hoard all the like items then sell them all at once to bypass the diminishing returns mechanic.

 

Fable had a real neat economy system based on supply and demand. (And with neat, I mean brain damaged).

 

You'd sell stuff, let's say yeti pelts. As you sell a bunch, the trader decides there's oversupply and lowers the price.

Then you buy them all back in one big bunch for less than you sold them.

Now the trader realizes there's a huge demand for yeti pelts and maxes the price. You sell them all back and make a killing.

[Stun]

LOL! That's awesome.

[Yonjuro]

...

Fable had a real neat economy system based on supply and demand. (And with neat, I mean brain damaged).

 

You'd sell stuff, let's say yeti pelts. As you sell a bunch, the trader decides there's oversupply and lowers the price.

Then you buy them all back in one big bunch for less than you sold them.

Now the trader realizes there's a huge demand for yeti pelts and maxes the price. You sell them all back and make a killing.

 

 

 Heh. The Sahuagin priestess in BG2 (on the City of Caverns map) was similarly economically challenged. If your charisma and reputation were high enough, she would happily sell you items for less than she would buy them and would do so for as long as you liked.

[Lephys]

Fable had a real neat economy system based on supply and demand. (And with neat, I mean brain damaged).

 

You'd sell stuff, let's say yeti pelts. As you sell a bunch, the trader decides there's oversupply and lowers the price.

Then you buy them all back in one big bunch for less than you sold them.

Now the trader realizes there's a huge demand for yeti pelts and maxes the price. You sell them all back and make a killing.

Realism FTW!

 

Fable also had fantastic treasure design. "Hey, I know you're 3/4ths of the way through the game, in an area that was closed off until you made it this far, and even some piddly food costs like 100 gold, but check out what's in that super-ultra-secret chest you just dug up! Yeah! 173 gold!!!!!!! YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

Haha... Ohhhh Fable.

[Hassat Hunter]

Adjusting the amount of gold that vendors have available to buy stuff from you is functionally equivalent to simply adjusting the value that your items sell for, except that the latter is less annoying from a gameplay perspective.

Also functionally equivalent:

- adjusting the price of things the player pays for

- adjusting the amount of available loot

- etc.

 

There are so many knobs you can tweak to affect player wealth and scarcity that it seems silly to choose the only one that introduces annoying busywork.

I rather have a limit on gold on vendors than having to gather every little arrow or plant or whatever and then sell them off per piece to scrape enough gold to buy an item. Call me insane.

Yes, there are several ways to 'solve' the issue, but just lowering prices is the worst option IMO. Also see the TES example mentioned before. Just lowering prices also shifts the price you need to pay for items unless you add 2 pricings to items ingame, say buy 3000 sell 50 or something similarly insane.

And I'm pretty sure people will complain loads about that too, if not more.

 

Adjusting the loot seems a good option. That was the BG way. As I stated many times. But since PoE went with INFINITE STASH, and also the STR-limit to carry capacity gone, *and* with "what they wear is what drops" obviously we need to think of other sollutions here.

 

I just *strongly* prefer gold vendor limit than making everything 1GP and then you have to go to vendors to sell the 5000 items you picked up, shift-selling each stack of meaningless rubbish you picked up for 10 minutes just to gather your gold in the game.

Is this so hard to understand?

Solution to what, exactly? Being wealthy?

Because more properties than just the goldsink (stronghold) cost cash? If you just design the cashflow on the stronghold, and then suddenly find out Armors of Invernability +10 are easily within reach as result, would that be good. Or maybe they need to make them as expensive as the entire stronghold? But then you must choose between the two and the stronghold part, which is intended to be invested in, get's avoided.

 

That problem... which just adding a sink doesn't adress. It usually is a patch to a bleeding wound (economy not designed properly). Better to fix that wound instead, no?

[Stun]

Because more properties than just the goldsink (stronghold) cost cash? If you just design the cashflow on the stronghold, and then suddenly find out Armors of Invernability +10 are easily within reach as result, would that be good. Or maybe they need to make them as expensive as the entire stronghold? But then you must choose between the two and the stronghold part, which is intended to be invested in, get's avoided.

Or...here's a crazy thought... maybe they shouldn't put such powerful gear in a shop that the player can just walk in and buy? Edited February 7, 2015 by Stun

[Ineth]

Some are just fiiiiiine with diplomacy giving 500XP while murdering a village gives 50.000XP, and that apparently is *not a problem*.

 

This was never the case in the IE games. Killing innocents was a pretty non-lucrativbe business, except for BG2 where it would lead to many waves of City Guards and Mages that could be harvested for XP and scrolls.

 

And when there was a violent and a non-violent solution to a quest, the non-violent one usually gave more XP.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Ineth

[Ineth]

Or...here's a crazy thought... maybe they shouldn't put such powerful gear in a shop that the player can just walk in and buy?

 

I could get behind a system where you would have to gain a trading guild's favour and trust before being shown their non-mundane items.

 

If competing guilds / trading rosters were mutually exclusive in who they like, there would even be an interesting roleplaying element to it...

[Elerond]

 

Some are just fiiiiiine with diplomacy giving 500XP while murdering a village gives 50.000XP, and that apparently is *not a problem*.

 

This was never the case in the IE games.

 

Then there was a violent solution and a non-violent one, the non-violent one usually gave more total XP.

 

 

In IE games there was usually option to do non-violent option and then do violent option and get all the xp, which is behavior that they wanted to not reward in PoE.

[Hassat Hunter]

@ Stun; So basically make stores useless... and gold just good for the stronghold and ONLY the stronghold?

Nooo, that doesn't sound good to me either.

 

Getting gold and then a good piece of gear amongst the found one in the wild shouldn't be easy, no... but also not impossible or non-existant. Cause then you might aswell get rid of stores all-together.

 

So, *another* sollution which is worse than the problem... keep it going... I'm sure hoarding 5000 items to a vendor just to update the required stronghold and nothing else is a gamemechanic that's much more fun than keeping gold balanced and actually have an ingame use (that's not a force-fed sink)... [NOT]

[Stun]

@ Stun; So basically make stores useless...

  <gag> Can we please display a modicum of honest debating and dispense with the worthless straw man arguments? Your scenario featured Armor of invulnerability +10, ie. a theoretical absolute top-of-the-line, artifact level piece of gear.

 

My argument is that such powerful items should never be for sale in a friggin shop in the first place. This is precisely the type of magic loot that a party should have to quest, bleed, or even die for. The purpose of shops should always be:

 

1) To buy a party's loot

2) To sell consumables and standard class-build based gear (spells; grimoires, crafting recipes/schematics etc.)

3) To sell magic items of moderate to rare power.

 

 

So, *another* sollution which is worse than the problem

I'll ask again. What problem? The catastrophic scourge of a high level party managing to have enough gold to buy what they wish to buy in the game? Nope. I don't see that as a problem. Because I don't care if I become so filthy rich that I don't have to worry about insipid, contrived, gamey 'choices' like "should I upgrade my garden, or buy a ring of protection +3!?". If I want a money-management mini-game, I'll go buy Turbo Tax deluxe or something, and then play it.

 

Question: If Hassat Hunter is the only one who hates such a design, does that mean it's a "problem"?

Edited February 7, 2015 by Stun

[Hassat Hunter]

I have to disagree.

The best store-items in BG where the DLC ones (before DLC items were ruined by being OP and put in your inventory at start), which were expensive (a good use of gold), generally other vendors had less useful stuff.

Another good example is KOTOR1, where many endgame items are in the Korriban shop, and the Yavin Station. All good uses of your gained credits/gold, and thus beneficial to the game.

 

Now look at KOTOR2, which has what you have. You don't need to SELL anything since credits are worthless. Standard gear is dropped, consumables are in heavy supply anyway. And the moderate/rare items suck more than the drops. Result; Shops are utterly and entirely fluff and useless.

I rather have more of the first mentioned than the second mentioned.

 

But do feel free to find all people who think the KOTOR2 vendor system is "fine"...

[Stun]

I have to disagree.

The best store-items in BG where the DLC ones (before DLC items were ruined by being OP and put in your inventory at start), which were expensive (a good use of gold), generally other vendors had less useful stuff.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. BG had DLC? And what Items got put in your inventory at the start, exactly?

[Hassat Hunter]

2 vendors, yes.

And item in inventory is the common current way to add DLC itemry (sad example: DA:O. I think FN:V is also guilty)

[Hiro Protagonist II]

2 vendors, yes.

And item in inventory is the common current way to add DLC itemry (sad example: DA:O. I think FN:V is also guilty)

 

What two vendors in BG? And you started with a Quarterstaff at the start of the game. Not even any armour. And BG had no DLC. There was only one expansion with TotSC.

[Hassat Hunter]

BG2... SE vendors.

They added one later on with a patch for all to use, but the second is only unlocked using the community patch (which isn't hauled with lawsuits as it probably would be nowadays with how DLC is dealt with).

[Stun]

but the second is only unlocked using the community patch

You mean a mod. Please tell me you're not actually judging BG2's mechanics based on fan mods.

 

Enough of this banal prattle. Here is the actual history of Baldur's Gate 2, if anyone's interested.

 

In the fall of 2000, BG2 was released. There was the standard version and the Collectors edition. The collector's edition featured those two bonus merchants. Roughly 6 months later, Throne of Bhaal was released. It added those two merchants to the main game for everyone. One month after that, the Final patch for BG2 was released. It added those two merchants for everyone who didn't buy Throne of Bhaal and didn't have the collectors edition.

 

And that's it. There was never any 'automatic inventory placement' or 'starter gear' or any other modern day Dragon Age nonsense with BG2.

 

But this is all meaningless. What exactly is your point in citing those merchants anyway? Is it your argument that they somehow ruin BG2 because they add "God Items" to the game that you can buy? LOL Give me a break. Between both merchants and their massive stocks, there are only 2 items (count'em, 2) that can even compete with the vanilla game's better loot. they are:

 

1) the robe of vecna

2) The shield of balduran.

 

One is a class specific Robe, and the other is a shield with mundane stats (a cursed property, actually) and which is only useful against one type of enemy in the entire game.

 

If this is your case against BG2's merchant system then you've got nothing. No vender in BG2 sells anything even remotely as powerful as the Ring of Gaxx, or the Amulet of Power, or Carsomyr, or Crom Faeyr, or Celestial Fury, or the Staff of the magi or even the Gesen Bow. And that is because BG2 did it right. The best gear has to be fought for. The shops are just there to assist you on that mission.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Stun

[Luckmann]

I'm completely with Stun, but I want to raise the point of Vhailor's Helmet, capable of casting Simulacrum, which is currently allowing my Assassin to clone himself, apply Improved Haste, Stealth, and pull off double-sextuple backstabs.

That is all.

 

 

and the crowd goes wiiiild, woooooooo

 

 

Anyway, yeah, the CE/SE vendor(s) in BG2 were certainly not DLC. I hate them with the same vehemence I dislike all other in-game pre-order exclusivist fare, but they were in there from the beginning and easily unlocked, if memory serves.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Luckmann