The problem of being rich as Croesus present in most RPGs

[Gairnulf]

 

Was I unclear? Probably...

This isn't a mechanic more than buying buffs from shops is a mechanic. So buying a potion of master thievery just in order to complete a quest by pickpocketing instead of killing is something you wouldn't approve of in PoE as long as the potion is really expensive?

 

you weren't unclear.  we would be against the potions precisely because it were "really expensive."  if is something the critical path player is not envisioned as being able to afford, then we don't want such stuff in the game.  BUYING success is the opposite o' the goal o' a gold sink, and making the game functional easier for the player who has acquired lots of 1007 (i.e. done the side quests) is resulting in the game being made less challenging for the folks who most likely already have the best gear and more experience.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

The assumption that I mean for such a solution to be used on a critical path quest is wrong. I was thinking about any quest that can have multiple solutions. I thought it's common sense that a solution to a quest which involves the player compensating for his lacking in some skill by buying a buff should only be one of at least two solutions.

 

Something to keep in mind is that gold count is one of the ways in which players like to "keep score" in games like this. "I've depopulated countless dungeons, I stole the crown of Kurzak-Dum, avenged my cat's death and I've got over five million gold pieces. I'm the biggest badass around." etc etc

 

So it can be fun just to have all that gold even if you don't really need to spend it on anything.

Sure, there may be such players. I was thinking about gold in its most direct use though, for trade.

[Kal Adan]

The point of not drowning in gold is making gold a valuable resource. With limited coin you introduce meaningful choices across the board. Someone want to bribe you? Sure, my team could use extra money. They want me to do this? I am not sure... but the pay is good, so I might to consider this proposition. Do I buy this or that? Do I try to bribe a guard or save money and do something else? And so on, and so forth.

[Gromnir]

 

 

Was I unclear? Probably...

This isn't a mechanic more than buying buffs from shops is a mechanic. So buying a potion of master thievery just in order to complete a quest by pickpocketing instead of killing is something you wouldn't approve of in PoE as long as the potion is really expensive?

you weren't unclear.  we would be against the potions precisely because it were "really expensive."  if is something the critical path player is not envisioned as being able to afford, then we don't want such stuff in the game.  BUYING success is the opposite o' the goal o' a gold sink, and making the game functional easier for the player who has acquired lots of 1007 (i.e. done the side quests) is resulting in the game being made less challenging for the folks who most likely already have the best gear and more experience.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

The assumption that I mean for such a solution to be used on a critical path quest is wrong. I was thinking about any quest that can have multiple solutions. I thought it's common sense that a solution to a quest which involves the player compensating for his lacking in some skill by buying a buff should only be one of at least two solutions.

 

it weren't our assumption that such a thing would be available in the critical path.  such is a complete irrelevant consideration.  have an item available to a player because o' gold that is NOT available to the critical path player because o' expense or any other reason creates the disparity we noted earlier. what we said was,  "if is something the critical path player is not envisioned as being able to afford, then we don't want such stuff in the game."  doesn't matter when/where you make available. being able to pay for superior ability or increased powered is bad for all the reasons we has now repeated numerous times.

 

you wanna giving something o' value to the player for their excess gold.  that is the problem, not a solution.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gairnulf]

Sorry, but this made absolutely no sense to me. I really tried to understand.

 

Being able to pay, as a workaround to having a particular skill, is a bad option to have for completing a quest? Is that what you mean?

[Gromnir]

Sorry, but this made absolutely no sense to me. I really tried to understand.

 

Being able to pay, as a workaround to having a particular skill, is a bad option to have for completing a quest? Is that what you mean?

*sigh*

 

yes.  it is a bad option to be able to complete quests by paying.  the quests invariably provide rewards.  if the quest has no reward, the incentive to pay to complete is negligible.  you do not seem to understand the notion of a gold Sink.  am not sure how we can explain any better, but am suspecting that you understand and simply do not agree.  

 

paying gold to make your character more powerful is fraught with perils.  in a game with a large % o' optional side-quests, the problem becomes magnified because it is Inevitable that the completionist will acquire more gold and 1007 than the critical path player.  the game can be successfully completed by the critical path player.  the difficulty o' the game is such that the critical path player will be able to overcome all critical path obstacles. rewarding the completionist with gold that he can sell for power (direct or indirect) is The Problem. am sorry, but this is axiomatic and we is repeating our self.  

 

the aim is to find a way to give an attractive Nothing to the player for their gold.  find a way to make the player happy that  they received  a pet rock or a canister o' peppermint scented air after they drop their gold down the sink.  the excess gold, the gold that a critical path player could not hope to acquire, should not result in meaningful gains for the completionist.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[R.Alexander]

I'm going to have to disagree with Gromnir. If i understand what you are saying, it is that a crit-path player should be able to complete the game with moderate challenge. Completionists, however, should not gain any significant advantage from having done all the sidequests.

 

People who do all the side quests want to be richer/more powerful/at an advantage compared to a crit-path player. The idea that a completionist should not be more powerful than a crit-path player seems silly. Completionists want meaningful reward for doing all the side quests. I am not a completionist myself, but if I played straight through the crit-path, then replayed the game doing all the side quests and exploring everything and the game didn't play any differently, and I didn't feel I gained anything for having done all that extra stuff, I would be disappointed.

[CaptainMace]

 

in a game with a large % o' optional side-quests, the problem becomes magnified because it is Inevitable that the completionist will acquire more gold and 1007 than the critical path player.

 

 

Indeed. Throwing a system of money-overcoming-characterlimits in a game like this would greatly advantage an already advantaged completionist. For this one will not only have acquired more power during side quests, he'd also have more money to overcome the fewer limits of his character, making him quite powerful.

 

Though the idea is not bad imo, it'd require a particular game design, probably awfully complicated to balance properly. Or some bald choices.

[Gairnulf]

yes. it is a bad option to be able to complete quests by paying. the quests invariably provide rewards. if the quest has no reward, the incentive to pay to complete is negligible. you do not seem to understand the notion of a gold Sink. am not sure how we can explain any better, but am suspecting that you understand and simply do not agree.

Then at least I know I've understood your point. I don't agree though, or rather, I think some discretion can be used - allowing the player to buy himself a quest's outcome (could be just one of many outcomes) isn't the same as allowing him to buy a temporary boost (like in the potion of thievery example) in order to pass a check which will give him a completed quest. It can be an inappropriate approach, or could be one of many options, depends on the quest's specifics. I can imagine cases where it would look out of place, and places where it would be fine.

[Gromnir]

I'm going to have to disagree with Gromnir. If i understand what you are saying, it is that a crit-path player should be able to complete the game with moderate challenge. Completionists, however, should not gain any significant advantage from having done all the sidequests.

 

People who do all the side quests want to be richer/more powerful/at an advantage compared to a crit-path player. The idea that a completionist should not be more powerful than a crit-path player seems silly. Completionists want meaningful reward for doing all the side quests. I am not a completionist myself, but if I played straight through the crit-path, then replayed the game doing all the side quests and exploring everything and the game didn't play any differently, and I didn't feel I gained anything for having done all that extra stuff, I would be disappointed.

you are already being rewarded as a completionist w/o gairnulf's poorly considered gold fixes.  as a completionist you are getting more xp and more gear.  you are getting more gold too.  gair wants useful stuff on which to spend the extra gold.  

 

we know that the completionist needs to feel like he is being rewarded-- that has always been a problem.  the completionist is more likely to be the guy who complained that the game were so darn easy.  well, gosh, as a completionist you were able to hit the level cap 2/3 o' the way through the game and you had the bestest gear possible.  the game is gonna be easier for the completionist.  so why make the problem worse by allowing the player to overcome quests by paying for success.  why make the problem worse by making special stores available that only the completionist could possibly afford?  Gromnir is fully aware that you need to feel like your efforts is being rewarded, and they is.  you is getting 1007 and xp.  sure, you also got a big ol' pile o' gold you can't use, but so what?  finding Useful stuff to buy is making an unavoidable problem worse.

 

for your excess gold, the developers need ways to make you happy with pet rocks and canisters o' peppermint scented air. gold SINK.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gairnulf]

So, the problem comes down to what type of player should the game's difficulty be balanced around - a completionist or a crit path-only player.

 

I understand your point, but in my experience - you don't even need to be much of a completionist in order to have more money than you know what to do with by the middle of the crit path. It's only a question of when money will become irrelevant, regardless of your playing style.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Gairnulf

[Gromnir]

So, the problem comes down to what type of player should the game's difficulty be balanced around - a completionist or a crit path-only player.

you pose an imaginary dilemma.  the "critical path" is not only a fixed and known quantity (unlike the considerable degrees and variations o' completionists) but it is likely to require less powha than alternatives.  the crit path is, by definition, the minimum.  am certain that if you think about it, you will see why the critical path o' the game needs be balanced for the crit path player.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gairnulf]

You are wrong here, the crit path doesn't need to be balanced for the crit path player at all

 

The crit path being a known quantity is also not necessarily true for every game. You can easily make the crit path require the completion of a certain amount of side content. For example, when you put a condition that progresses the crit path only if you've collected 20 000 gold, this is indirectly requiring the player to pass a certain amount of side content.

 

This makes the "crit path" intertwine with the "side content" and it becomes impossible to tell how much and which part of the content is "crit path".

 

I actually really like it that way, it adds replayability for the sake of exploring more quests, unless the player really aims to complete every sidequest there is. And even if he does, there's no problem locking certain quests to be available only for certain classes of player character, or for certain character builds, or for certain party composition, etc.

 

am certain that if you think about it, you will see why the critical path o' the game needs be balanced for the crit path player.

IMO, in a good RPG it should be impossible to describe a "crit path player" in terms of the quests he has taken and completed, because of C&C with which the player has been presented.

 

You can describe him in terms of XP and in terms of approximated character build, but you don't have to, or need to balance the crit path around the player who plays as little of the content as he can manage.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Gairnulf

[Gromnir]

*shrug*

 

regardless o' the way you want things to be, the game will be balanced for the critical path player.  the side-quests are Side-Quests precisely because they is optional and not part of The Critical Path.  the side-quests is described by obsidian folks as being optional. "side-quests" that need be completed is, by definition, part o' the critical path and whatever balancing calculus that entails.  am not certain how to make this more clear.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[R.Alexander]

You could make side quests more difficult than critical quests, but it doesn't really fix the problem of the main questline becoming too easy. Though I would not care if it was if I got significant challenge from side quests.

 

I like the idea of being able to roleplay a rich guy who can buy his way out of problems through bribery, hiring assassins/mercenaries, or paying for insanely expensive goods/services. This could only work if making that kind of money was difficult and required use of certain skills.

[lightblade75]

I would like to start poor as a rat and then get rich as hell. BUT I hope that this gold can be spent for upgrading the stronghold with a lot of usefull things. Or for hiring an army to protect my stronhold while I am abscent.

[Kal Adan]

There are ways to solve "critical path versus additional content" issue. You can make it so that unlocking additional content costs you a lot of money and you need to brave the dangers in order to get loot of that area. By loot I mean mostly unique items, not mountains gold. Or you have no "critical path" but a lot of alternate paths instead. Or use difficulty scalling so that all encounters are challenging. But there is only one way to not make you overly rich: gold needs to be spent. Maintenance is usually the best way to do it. Only problem is running out of gold, preventing you from gaining gold. Being able to take a loan could help here, with enemies attacking you in your journey to "encourage" you to give money back to not let you forget about paying off that debt.

[Gairnulf]

Funny thing is that one of the Stronghold minigames I saw on the PAX stream yesterday was exactly the "expensive shop" option, where the player gets an expensive item he can buy or skip, but it's only going to be available for one day.

[ISC]

There are ways to solve "critical path versus additional content" issue. You can make it so that unlocking additional content costs you a lot of money and you need to brave the dangers in order to get loot of that area. By loot I mean mostly unique items, not mountains gold. Or you have no "critical path" but a lot of alternate paths instead. Or use difficulty scalling so that all encounters are challenging. But there is only one way to not make you overly rich: gold needs to be spent. Maintenance is usually the best way to do it. Only problem is running out of gold, preventing you from gaining gold. Being able to take a loan could help here, with enemies attacking you in your journey to "encourage" you to give money back to not let you forget about paying off that debt.

1. No scaling plz

 

2. I think that one way to make side content meaningful yet limit its impact on the crit path is to have unique/magical items that are just slightly better than whatever you had before. A bit like the situation in BG1 where a +3 weapon would be incredibly rare and worth a lot more than a +2. Of course it should be in an interesting way, but I presume that the side content is interesting enough itself anyway. I dont think the marginal effect is a problem in terms of reward weight either, because for someone who is only doing some side content, the difference between items will be greater, and for completionists its probably worthwhile to get slightly better stuff (I know I would go for it, as a min/maxer). Yes, the crit path would be somewhat easier with that +3 weapon, or +10% burn damage or whatever, but your party will still not be walking Gods. And the crit path actually has to get at least slightly easier by doing side quests for the rewards of those to be meaningful, so thats kind of unavoidable anyhow.

[ISC]

Funny thing is that one of the Stronghold minigames I saw on the PAX stream yesterday was exactly the "expensive shop" option, where the player gets an expensive item he can buy or skip, but it's only going to be available for one day.

 

About this, I understood is as if the items offered were truly one-time-unique-offers, so that the item would be entirely removed from the game for all future if you missed a purchase. That slightly bothers me in itself, but I was wondering how many items the merchant actually has to potentially offer. I mean, there is a limited number of unique items in the game, and most of them are probably (hopefully) spread out in the game world, so I presume that the list is rather short? It might even be scripted and not randomized? If so, it sounds like an underwhelming mechanism that could have been more interesting (some excitement about what wondrous trinket the merchant will bring next time, some unpredictability).

[Lephys]

Wouldn't it be fantastic if you could purchase gilded sinks for your stronghold, for exorbitant amounts of money?

[Gairnulf]

I saw an interview today, where Josh actually mentions this whole problem and that he has put some efforts into solving it:

 

[Gromnir]

...

 

we watched the video. no mention of the problem.  josh, whom we still ain't gotten acclimated to the seeing with hair,  said he is trying to keep loot items appropriate tiered.  is not the same issue.  sure, josh wants folks to get better gear at an appropriate rate and as necessary to deal with new challenges, but that is a different issue.

 

however, we will note that optional side-quests, which allow a clever, determined and resourceful player to gain 1007 disproportionate powerful to their level, is a problem worth addressing.  is not excess gold though.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[yaggaz]

Yeah I'd like to see an RPG where you start off with a nice little bit of cash, and then things get expensive and tougher to save up for in the mid to end game.

 

I loved saving up all that money for the special weapons from Planescape and Icewind Dale in Baldur's Gate 2.

 

It's why I don't like crafting in single player RPGs, I wanna save up and buy that sword in the window, not mysteriously have the skill to forge a god killing blade for no cost.  And I'd rather resources that went into crafting go into more single player content.  Save crafting for MMOs.

 

The exception to that is one off, plot rich crafts, like in Baldurs Gate 2, where you'd find pieces of epic weapons and assemble them by paying a greedy dwarf. They are great AND should gold sink you.

[Madscientist]

I said that having tons of money is not a big problem in RPGs. Maybe I was wrong. I have finished NWN2 OC and now I play MotB. In MotB the game trows gold and items at you like crazy. There is a rotten barrel next to an old barn and inside it you find: several thousend gold and a magic weapon! There are shops with good and expensive equipment, but I had no problems with buying everything I need after a short time of playing.

 

Don´t get me wrong. Regarding story, setting and characters MotB is one of the best games ever made (together with PST). But epic equipment does not feel epic when every pile of dirt has tons of gold and a magic item.

 

I said before that the best magic items in BG2 were completely overpowered, and I still think so. But the way HOW you get them was correct. You need to kill a dragon for a sword or you need to clear several dungeons to get money to buy one item. In BG and IWD, getting a magic item felt importand to your char. And thats it. The absolute amount of money you have is not importand. It is importand that an artefact you find feels significant for you. You got to have some effort to get it, like killing a big monster, finding a secret room in a dungeon or spending some time to get enough money for it.

[phimseto]

I still have very fond memories of Wild ARMS which allowed me to invest much of my money in first rebuilding and then expanding and improving a town that had been destroyed early in the game. Kind of like all those "rebuild Kvatch" modes for Oblivion. I definitely enjoy the idea of having there be a macro-economy to invest your money in when you reach a certain point of influence and power.