Let's talk merchants...

[algroth]

Most RPGs have a problems with balancing what you can buy in shops with loots and drops and the overall amount of gold you get in the game. Unfortunately it's a zero sum game whether found items are or are not better than those you can just buy in a shop. In the one hand stuff in the shops is devalued and on trhe other loot and quest rewards are devalued.

 

I don't entirely agree here. I believe that a good set of purchasable items at a very high price can act as an aditional incentive to questing and adventuring, and justifier to rewards and "lesser" loot. For one, one of the usual rewards you get upon completing quests or tasks is, quite simply, gold, and if that gold isn't useful for something then it is ultimately a pointless value. If stuff in shops is devalued, then gold is devalued and so is every item that isn't up to par or better than your current equipment. A good arquebus may be useless to a team with a preference for other types of ranged weapons, but it might be useful as cash to then purchase a really great sabre: so long as it's necessary to invest gold somewhere, it and anything that is sellable will be more worthwhile. On the other hand, good loot is always worthwhile for the sheer sake of being good loot.

 

Of course, gold will eventually become redundant either because you'll get enough of it to not worry about it running out, or because you'll have exhausted every significant means of spending it, either by purchasing all you want to acquire, by running out of ways to improve your stronghold, or else. And of course, if good items can also be acquired at too low a price, it'll detract from the value of loot if only because it's too easy to equip yourself with superior gear early on... But all of this is where price balancing comes into play, to delay or diminish that situation as much as possible, and provided prices for unique and powerful items are kept reasonably high, there should be no reason why one aspect should negatively affect the other.

 

 

Another problem I believe bedevils this issue is that playing first time blind the whole question of gear looks very different to what it does on a second or third run (or if you make etensive use of Google to guide you shopping expeditions). I think it is reasonable to say it is best practice to design and balance quipment availablity for the first time blind playthrough having no idea what equipment is available where as you progress. However that almost necessarily means that the a player on their third run who bee-lines preferred specific items, as you do, will end up with a) a mountain of useless gold and b), overwhelming disappointment at the stuff offered in the shops.

 

I do agree with this largely, inasmuch as a player will handle his gold more efficiently the more experienced they become with the game... But even so, in my playthroughs of Baldur's Gate II I still find myself buying certain items and using them to the very end, the likes of the AC 3 Bracers of Defense, the Girdle of Hill Giant Strength and the Robe of Vecna (this is a ridiculous item if there ever was one). I don't think the Adventurer's Mart or even the occasional other merchant wares (the likes of the post-slaver Copper Coronet or the Underdark for example) grow any less impressive the more I play the game, though I would argue nowadays that along with the very easy-to-abuse reputation discount system, these items could all use a raise in price. But again, the issue for me was that *even in my first playthrough* the Pillars merchants seemed pretty underwhelming, which is why I would argue for closer attention to be given to them in Deadfire.

 

In terms of the overwhelming majority of items in the merchants' shops, I don't mind it being fairly ordinary or "underwhelming". I think they if nothing else help further elevate the three or four expensive items that *are* actually good.

 

I'll reply to the rest of the post later, ran out of time unfortunately.

[Ninjamestari]

 

I don't entirely agree here. I believe that a good set of purchasable items at a very high price can act as an aditional incentive to questing and adventuring, and justifier to rewards and "lesser" loot. For one, one of the usual rewards you get upon completing quests or tasks is, quite simply, gold, and if that gold isn't useful for something then it is ultimately a pointless value. If stuff in shops is devalued, then gold is devalued and so is every item that isn't up to par or better than your current equipment. A good arquebus may be useless to a team with a preference for other types of ranged weapons, but it might be useful as cash to then purchase a really great sabre: so long as it's necessary to invest gold somewhere, it and anything that is sellable will be more worthwhile. On the other hand, good loot is always worthwhile for the sheer sake of being good loot.

 

Of course, gold will eventually become redundant either because you'll get enough of it to not worry about it running out, or because you'll have exhausted every significant means of spending it, either by purchasing all you want to acquire, by running out of ways to improve your stronghold, or else. And of course, if good items can also be acquired at too low a price, it'll detract from the value of loot if only because it's too easy to equip yourself with superior gear early on... But all of this is where price balancing comes into play, to delay or diminish that situation as much as possible, and provided prices for unique and powerful items are kept reasonably high, there should be no reason why one aspect should negatively affect the other.

 

 

It's a zero sum game because if the item on the merchant isn't the relative *best* item of that type for that part of the game, it won't get bought, and if it is and gold is plentiful, it will be. Why would you buy incredibly expensive items if you can get a better one from somewhere else? This is where the limited gold comes in handy; you can't simply buy all the best stuff, you need to make choices on which items you buy and which slots you'll depend on drops to fill. So: there are only so many inventory slots to fill, and the ones you can fill with drops, you won't fill with vendor items, and the ones you fill with vendor items will prevent you from fully enjoying their weaker drop-based counterparts. Hence, a zero sum game between vendors and drops.

 

The point is, gold becoming so abundant that you'll be able to afford everything isn't something that just happens automatically. Dragon Age Origins for example had a very limited supply of gold and you would never be able to get everything you wanted, considering that there were those 'mandatory' skill and stat books and back-bag extensions that already devoured a huge chunk of your treasure. Unless you exploited that double-sell glitch of course. That glitch was way too easy to do for my liking, and I found myself struggling not to use it on every single play-through.

[rjshae]

I'd like to see a scruffy-looking individual selling a very rare banned curse. Speaking sotto voce he says, "Psst... hey buddy. I've got something here you'll want to see...!"

 

It could be, say, a particularly grotesque spell of flesh rending, or some other such gory abomination. The price for the curse spell is exorbitant, and the PC will be asked to buy it sight unseen.

 

Being witnessed casting the spell in a civilized place may mean you'll get an unexpected visit from the magi inquisition.

[FacesOfMu]

I found the biggest problem in PoE was having money to spend but not remembering WHO had WHAT and WHERE they were. I posted a suggestion in the PoE threads once suggesting a NPC for the fort who would give you access to all merchants you've visited before and for a time delay plus additional fee you could order anything from across the land. For the conditional merchants (accessed only at night, etc), then the NPC can just remind you of the condition and that you will have to go see them yourself or pay an even higher fee to their access. Frugal players will use it as a reminder of where the stuff is and will go travelling for it, less frugal players will just order in. Win/win.

Edited April 6, 2017 by FacesOfMu

[injurai]

It would be neat of there were entirely different tiers of equipment. Perhaps it doesn't make sense for PoE, but in WoW it was neat that you had PvP and PvE gear essentially being separate domains. You earned them in different manors and used them for different things. Having context sensitive stats and attributes might violate the spirit of infinity-like games. I'm not even entirely sure I'd want such a fracture of gameplay features within essentially a single player game. But I think it's a starting point in considering how equipment could be differentiated based on how one acquires it. It does seem remiss that entire classes of equipment ends up as essentially padding to make the world more believable. But you know, I'd rather have that junk padding than just a preset progression of equipment.

 

Given that Deadfire is supposed to be less linear, maybe that will naturally solve this problem. I think if some vendor gear was made a bit more affordable it could be viable to pick up a new set of armor more often, until the next fantastic dungeon gear is acquired. But as of now the investment in vendor gear often doesn't seem worth it. Especially given that the stronghold/ship is made out to be the preferred gold sink in the game.

Edited April 6, 2017 by injurai

[Heijoushin]

I found the biggest problem in PoE was having money to spend but not remembering WHO had WHAT and WHERE they were. I posted a suggestion in the PoE threads once suggesting a NPC for the fort who would give you access to all merchants you've visited before and for a time delay plus additional fee you could order anything from across the land. For the conditional merchants (accessed only at night, etc), then the NPC can just remind you of the condition and that you will have to go see them yourself or pay an even higher fee to their access. Frugal players will use it as a reminder of where the stuff is and will go travelling for it, less frugal players will just order in. Win/win.

 

This is not a bad idea. One perk of being nobility should be having someone to do your busy work for you (like running around to every merchant in every city). On the other hand, it would have to be handled tastefully, since Caed Nua already feels too much like a convenient cell phone app.

 

It would be neat of there were entirely different tiers of equipment. Perhaps it doesn't make sense for PoE, but in WoW it was neat that you had PvP and PvE gear essentially being separate domains. You earned them in different manors and used them for different things. Having context sensitive stats and attributes might violate the spirit of infinity-like games. I'm not even entirely sure I'd want such a fracture of gameplay features within essentially a single player game. But I think it's a starting point in considering how equipment could be differentiated based on how one acquires it. It does seem remiss that entire classes of equipment ends up as essentially padding to make the world more believable. But you know, I'd rather have that junk padding than just a preset progression of equipment.

 

Given that Deadfire is supposed to be less linear, maybe that will naturally solve this problem. I think if some vendor gear was made a bit more affordable it could be viable to pick up a new set of armor more often, until the next fantastic dungeon gear is acquired. But as of now the investment in vendor gear often doesn't seem worth it. Especially given that the stronghold/ship is made out to be the preferred gold sink in the game.

 

Some people complain about having too much money and nothing to spend it on. I regularly upgraded my equipment, so I didn't have that problem. The trick is to convince players to stop being gold hoarding packrats, but I'm not sure how. We already have equipment divisions in the form of fine/superior etc. Perhaps there should be a more distinct difference between those levels? (in terms of effect and price tags)

[Regggler]

I have a question about this NPC giving access to all merchants: Would this be an Amazon Warrior? (sorry, sorry, couldn't stop myself)

 

I like the idea of an Adventurer's Mart style gold sink - being able to afford a pricey and powerful item after a longish period of saving up is quite satisfying.

[FacesOfMu]

I have a question about this NPC giving access to all merchants: Would this be an Amazon Warrior? (sorry, sorry, couldn't stop myself)

 

An Amazon Amazon! Stretchgoooooooooooal!

[algroth]

 

 

I don't entirely agree here. I believe that a good set of purchasable items at a very high price can act as an aditional incentive to questing and adventuring, and justifier to rewards and "lesser" loot. For one, one of the usual rewards you get upon completing quests or tasks is, quite simply, gold, and if that gold isn't useful for something then it is ultimately a pointless value. If stuff in shops is devalued, then gold is devalued and so is every item that isn't up to par or better than your current equipment. A good arquebus may be useless to a team with a preference for other types of ranged weapons, but it might be useful as cash to then purchase a really great sabre: so long as it's necessary to invest gold somewhere, it and anything that is sellable will be more worthwhile. On the other hand, good loot is always worthwhile for the sheer sake of being good loot.

 

Of course, gold will eventually become redundant either because you'll get enough of it to not worry about it running out, or because you'll have exhausted every significant means of spending it, either by purchasing all you want to acquire, by running out of ways to improve your stronghold, or else. And of course, if good items can also be acquired at too low a price, it'll detract from the value of loot if only because it's too easy to equip yourself with superior gear early on... But all of this is where price balancing comes into play, to delay or diminish that situation as much as possible, and provided prices for unique and powerful items are kept reasonably high, there should be no reason why one aspect should negatively affect the other.

 

 

It's a zero sum game because if the item on the merchant isn't the relative *best* item of that type for that part of the game, it won't get bought, and if it is and gold is plentiful, it will be. Why would you buy incredibly expensive items if you can get a better one from somewhere else? This is where the limited gold comes in handy; you can't simply buy all the best stuff, you need to make choices on which items you buy and which slots you'll depend on drops to fill. So: there are only so many inventory slots to fill, and the ones you can fill with drops, you won't fill with vendor items, and the ones you fill with vendor items will prevent you from fully enjoying their weaker drop-based counterparts. Hence, a zero sum game between vendors and drops.

 

The point is, gold becoming so abundant that you'll be able to afford everything isn't something that just happens automatically. Dragon Age Origins for example had a very limited supply of gold and you would never be able to get everything you wanted, considering that there were those 'mandatory' skill and stat books and back-bag extensions that already devoured a huge chunk of your treasure. Unless you exploited that double-sell glitch of course. That glitch was way too easy to do for my liking, and I found myself struggling not to use it on every single play-through.

 

 

The thing is that item quality isn't necessarily a linear scale, more so than a pyramid of tiers: many items offer different abilities which may or may not seem better to the player according to the use and strategy they give to these weapons, as well as their own preferences. Yes, there may be the occasional Carsomyr or Celestial Fury that is simply better than any other weapon of its kind available, but then which is a better set of armour, Shuruppak's Plate, Red Dragon Plate, or maybe just the Firecam Full-Plate Armour? Those are some Baldur's Gate II comparisons, but Pillars of Eternity has also made it so that it is easier and more convenient to carry several different types of weapon as primary, secondary or terciary sets, since not only do weapon use bonuses apply to a gamma of weapons instead of a certain specific kind, but with weapon-type resistances (which, granted, were a thing in both games) it is also strategically convenient that you should keep sets of different weapons that are of similar quality as well. In the end, it's true that there are so many slots to fill, but this doesn't imply a zero-sum game if nothing else because how to fill them up may differ wildly from player to player. What's more, if one side or the other is entirely underwhelming, then there is definitely a loss: why explore, why sell things at all or accept to do things for money?

 

Items sold by merchants are only easy to acquire inasmuch as the gold necessary to purchase them is easy to gather, but it doesn't need to be. You put forward the example of Dragon Age: Origins - that right there is an example on how both aspects can be strong and rewarding all of their own. If these unique and really good items are truly expensive, then they will be a challenge all of their own to acquire. Maybe they can be a little cheaper than Dragon Age, but all the same they would require work to purchase, and act therefore as another incentive for questing. I see both aspects as being enhanced here, not one or the other.

[Ninjamestari]

I have a question about this NPC giving access to all merchants: Would this be an Amazon Warrior? (sorry, sorry, couldn't stop myself.

 

I feel like I'm missing some sort of reference here? :D

[Ninjamestari]

I think that the main feature that causes money to play wonky is the income curve through loot. There are too many tiers of stuff to account for, and with unlimited inventory and stash access, it's way too easy to collect every single piece of loot. Enforcing carry limits might help with that, and could also lead to interesting new designs that could potentially add immersion, such as loot mules with saddlebags you can keep with you while adventuring and the like. And seriously, who didn't like finding a Bag of Holding back in the day ^^

 

That, and reducing the tiers of magic items. The more 'rare' magic is, the more meaningful is the economy you can create. Reducing the loot-income-curve would leave room for other kinds of methods in getting wealthy; this being a renaissance setting, I don't see why there couldn't be private companies you could by shares of, and perhaps even collect dividends. Investing your gold gives the currency a whole another layer of meaning, and it is also engaging as hell. If you can invest the gold of your character in the hopes of generating revenue, I guarantee that it will increase your engagement with that character and the game. So, primitive company shares, real estate, and now that we're going to get a ship, active trading and perhaps even smuggling could be added to play a role in the accumulation of wealth for our characters.

 

Then add in super-expensive by desirable items, such as a lmited number of tomes or potions that grant permanent stat-increases but also cost an arm and a leg (you could hide some of the merchants that have these behind quests or some obscure locations to also give neat rewards for exploration), super-powerful super-expensive equipment, etcetera etcetera. That would give the money value, and as a whole coupled with the versatile ways of player income, would turn currency and economy into an exciting little extra layer of game-play.

[Regggler]

Oh good lord, please no limited stash accessibility - I hate the "sword tetris" inventory minigame, it's just not fun.

There's more user friendly ways of balancing an economy, lots of which have already been mentioned, e.g. give diminishing returns on xaurip spears as the market gets flooded, and add interesting gold sinks.

 

[Ninjamestari]

The "sword tetris" isn't that bad unless the inventory is ridiculously limited, like in the old infinity engine games. Overall, I think this current system is kinda silly, and if this is the way they want to go, I'd remove the stash and the individual inventories completely and just have a single unlimited universal inventory; we already have that in essence, the individual "inventories" don't really do anything in PoE besides adding needless hassle, as combat access to items is already limited to quick-item slots. I have no strong feelings on this particular subject, since while the limited inventory does add to the economic side of the game, I also do hate the hassle, especially if the volume of items you collect is so vast.

 

In essence, if not going for the hardcore inventory management, I'd remove trash loot completely, as it really doesn't add anything to a game where you can never lose your gear. If your character could lose their equipment via them breaking, getting stolen, being imprisoned or whatever, then the WYSIWYG approach to loot would be awesome, but that would require a completely different approach. I like how ME2 handled loot; they realized that the ME1 loot didn't really add anything to the game besides the hassle of managing a limited inventory of useless stuff, so they got rid of the inventory management completely. I don't think that approach would fit for PoE, but there is a certain philosophy there that should be adopted, and that is not being afraid to get rid of mechanics that don't really add to the game just because you've been used to these mechanics in past games that may or may not have had completely different contexts for them.

 

Removing trash-loot completely would also help to manage the games loot-economy, as then you could have a lot more control on how much stuff the player gets from a dungeon. I think the removal of WYSIWYG is still in the context of this game the right thing to do, but whether or not it'll be enough remains to be seen. I'd rather not have trash loot at all though.

[algroth]

 

I have a question about this NPC giving access to all merchants: Would this be an Amazon Warrior? (sorry, sorry, couldn't stop myself.

 

I feel like I'm missing some sort of reference here? :D

 

What website gives you access to many many stores and shops?

[Regggler]

... that's gotta be the first time I saw ME 2 mentioned in an RPG discussion as a positive example :D

 

I actually like the WYSIWYG approach to loot - I agree it is too "clicky" though. I found that Tyranny had a very elegant solution to this: Bent unusable armor, broken swords, all sellable for their bronze, all with flavor text. This helps immersion a lot in my opinion, and with a "sell broken items" at merchants, it's user friendly as well. And as I said, economy can be balanced in several ways.

[Baltic]

... that's gotta be the first time I saw ME 2 mentioned in an RPG discussion as a positive example :D

 

I actually like the WYSIWYG approach to loot - I agree it is too "clicky" though. I found that Tyranny had a very elegant solution to this: Bent unusable armor, broken swords, all sellable for their bronze, all with flavor text. This helps immersion a lot in my opinion, and with a "sell broken items" at merchants, it's user friendly as well. And as I said, economy can be balanced in several ways.

It does also break immersion in a way though. If I can pick up broken items there's no explanation for unlootable bodies is there?

[algroth]

I think that the main feature that causes money to play wonky is the income curve through loot. There are too many tiers of stuff to account for, and with unlimited inventory and stash access, it's way too easy to collect every single piece of loot. Enforcing carry limits might help with that, and could also lead to interesting new designs that could potentially add immersion, such as loot mules with saddlebags you can keep with you while adventuring and the like. And seriously, who didn't like finding a Bag of Holding back in the day ^^

 

The Bags of Holding were awesome back in the day because they helped reduce the incredibly frustrating mechanic of inventory management. I think making the inventory unlimited was a good move, and it doesn't really break my immersion since I can always accept it as a gameplay convention. The reason to why is because I imagine a lot of us are the obsessive types who would have likely picked up EVERY LAST PIECE OF EQUIPMENT until their bags were full, and proceeded then to sell everything at the nearest merchant before venturing into the dungeon once again: in the end it's less a challenge than a grievance that is tediously but easily bypassed by backtracking. I think the best solution to the above, which is already being applied into Deadfire, is to not have every xaurip drop a spear when killed. In a way, randomized enemy drops makes it harder to properly gauge how much money one could make by the end of the game, but it also keeps that final number more in check opposite to having *every* creature of a kind drop the same loot.

 

 

That, and reducing the tiers of magic items. The more 'rare' magic is, the more meaningful is the economy you can create. Reducing the loot-income-curve would leave room for other kinds of methods in getting wealthy; this being a renaissance setting, I don't see why there couldn't be private companies you could by shares of, and perhaps even collect dividends. Investing your gold gives the currency a whole another layer of meaning, and it is also engaging as hell. If you can invest the gold of your character in the hopes of generating revenue, I guarantee that it will increase your engagement with that character and the game. So, primitive company shares, real estate, and now that we're going to get a ship, active trading and perhaps even smuggling could be added to play a role in the accumulation of wealth for our characters.

 

I like the idea of being able to invest on certain companies and the likes, but my one issue here is how it is applied: I think that the more "automatic" gold collection becomes, the less meaningful it is, and by this I mean, if all you have to do to see a steady trickle of gold is to buy some stock here or there, then you'll get to the point eventually where just buying time will get you the gold you need, and don't need. Now, if these are tied to a more meaningful and complete game mechanic, by say, being able to have a say on how the business is run in each company you invest in, then maybe the income can become meaningful once more, and you may even experience losses if you handle the businesses poorly.

[Ninjamestari]

 

 

I have a question about this NPC giving access to all merchants: Would this be an Amazon Warrior? (sorry, sorry, couldn't stop myself.

 

I feel like I'm missing some sort of reference here? :D

 

What website gives you access to many many stores and shops?

 

 

Goddammit, now I feel stupid xD

[Aleh1811]

Can we not own a shop and charge outrageous prices to other unfortunate adventures?

 

A man can dream...

[Ninjamestari]

... that's gotta be the first time I saw ME 2 mentioned in an RPG discussion as a positive example :D

 

I actually like the WYSIWYG approach to loot - I agree it is too "clicky" though. I found that Tyranny had a very elegant solution to this: Bent unusable armor, broken swords, all sellable for their bronze, all with flavor text. This helps immersion a lot in my opinion, and with a "sell broken items" at merchants, it's user friendly as well. And as I said, economy can be balanced in several ways.

 

It's one of those situations where one really likes the idea, but its implementations often end up being more trouble than they're worth. There are structural requirements for a game before WYSIWYG can be implemented in a way that actually adds value to the experience. In PoE for example, I don't really see many situations where the WYSIWYG approach really improves the experience, where as in a more roguelike game I'd go so far as to claim that WYSIWYG is paramount. WYSIWYG does have serious implications, and unless the game is built to handle those implications, WYSIWYG loot is going to cause problems.

 

And really? ME2 is that hated? ME2 did so many things right, it achieved a meaningful power curve, a meaningful economy (as long as you ignore the damn achievement bonuses), and an overall amazing ride. ME2 is the pinnacle of what a streamlined adventure RPG has been able to achieve so far. PoE obviously isn't going for the same direction, nor should it, but I still think ME2 holds many important lessons that if learned, could seriously benefit Deadfire as a game. Admittedly though, many of those lessons are of the "how not to do it" - variety, such as the achievements I think.

[Regggler]

For me, ME2 crosses the line from "RPG-light" to 3rd person shooter. And I just don't like shooters. So as polished as ME and ME2 are, they are just not for me. "streamlined" for me just means that many things I find interesting got axed.

 

What Tyranny and PoE do isn't WYSIWYG anyway - as with everything, balance is key. I'm not interested in being able to loot every hairpin, belt buckle, and undergarment. I do like seeing loot fitting an enemy, though.

 

 

... that's gotta be the first time I saw ME 2 mentioned in an RPG discussion as a positive example :D
 
I actually like the WYSIWYG approach to loot - I agree it is too "clicky" though. I found that Tyranny had a very elegant solution to this: Bent unusable armor, broken swords, all sellable for their bronze, all with flavor text. This helps immersion a lot in my opinion, and with a "sell broken items" at merchants, it's user friendly as well. And as I said, economy can be balanced in several ways.

It does also break immersion in a way though. If I can pick up broken items there's no explanation for unlootable bodies is there?

 

You are right, but those are not mutually exclusive. Unlootable bodies and fitting loot for enemies don't really influence each other.

[Baltic]

 

 

... that's gotta be the first time I saw ME 2 mentioned in an RPG discussion as a positive example :D

 

I actually like the WYSIWYG approach to loot - I agree it is too "clicky" though. I found that Tyranny had a very elegant solution to this: Bent unusable armor, broken swords, all sellable for their bronze, all with flavor text. This helps immersion a lot in my opinion, and with a "sell broken items" at merchants, it's user friendly as well. And as I said, economy can be balanced in several ways.

 

It does also break immersion in a way though. If I can pick up broken items there's no explanation for unlootable bodies is there?

You are right, but those are not mutually exclusive. Unlootable bodies and fitting loot for enemies don't really influence each other.

It's probably better this way true. I, personally, used to justify unlootable bodies or bodies you can't loot all the weapons or armor they should have off, as having broken their armor or weapons in the fight. It's not a big deal, it just seems that if you can use broken or whole weapons you should always be able to loot them.

[JFSOCC]

If you have more money than god by the time you reach act II, money has no value, if you compensate by making things in act II so expensive as to nullify the effort people put into getting rich, they will feel it as a betrayal.

 

So money needs to have a value outside of purchasing power. Just for having it.

 

In PoE I suggested they do this by linking it to prestige, or as a quest gate (you need to be this rich in order to proceed)

Another method might be to have multiple currencies, and moneychangers charge stiff fees.

The benefits of this are that while you can be rich enough for a section of the game to buy everything, once you reach another place, your money is worth a lot less. Still more than if you never bothered to loot a single corpse or container, of course.

Lastly I think I would limit rewards more significantly, and make it so players never could buy everything they want. Not being able to buy every toy in the game will force the player to make choices, and those choices will feel meaningful precisely because they can't get AND/AND.

 

 

so in summary:

1. money only useful locally

2.wealth gating of content

3. linking wealth to prestige as a means to give value to stacking it.

4. limit rewards so that gold sinks feel hefty instead of insignificant.

 

my 0.02$

[Ninjamestari]

If you have more money than god by the time you reach act II, money has no value, if you compensate by making things in act II so expensive as to nullify the effort people put into getting rich, they will feel it as a betrayal.

 

So money needs to have a value outside of purchasing power. Just for having it.

 

In PoE I suggested they do this by linking it to prestige, or as a quest gate (you need to be this rich in order to proceed)

Another method might be to have multiple currencies, and moneychangers charge stiff fees.

The benefits of this are that while you can be rich enough for a section of the game to buy everything, once you reach another place, your money is worth a lot less. Still more than if you never bothered to loot a single corpse or container, of course.

Lastly I think I would limit rewards more significantly, and make it so players never could buy everything they want. Not being able to buy every toy in the game will force the player to make choices, and those choices will feel meaningful precisely because they can't get AND/AND.

 

 

so in summary:

1. money only useful locally

2.wealth gating of content

3. linking wealth to prestige as a means to give value to stacking it.

4. limit rewards so that gold sinks feel hefty instead of insignificant.

 

my 0.02$

 

Have you played Dragon Age: Origins? That game messed up a lot of things, but game economy was actually pretty well balanced. You could never truly become rich, no matter the effort you put into because the gold that was available to you was limited. Scarcity is what gives anything value, not mere purchasing power. In fact, in reality, purchasing power is the result of scarcity; If everyone had a billion dollars, then there wouldn't be any real incentive for someone to sell you a taco for a couple of bucks now would there? This is more difficult to measure in a single player game, but the general idea is that you never want your player to be able to afford everything, this will force them to make choices and as we all know, meaningful choices are what make a game interesting.

[MortyTheGobbo]

I can get behind removing vendor trash altogether, but let's be honest - that's not going to happen. The only games I can think of to take this step are... Mass Effect 2, Mass Effect 3, and Witcher 1. They're all much better for it - ME3, particularly, has the best inventory I've ever seen. Witcher 2 and 3, of course, turn Witcher 1's beautiful inventory into something horrid.

 

I feel like my ideal form of gear acquisition would be to move all the unique items into easily-found shops, and let players use crafting to fiddle with them and tune them to their needs if they feel like it. Crafting is also a solution to a problem where an item has traits you want, but falls behind in terms of pure damage/defence/DR. Pillars has a problem similar to Baldur's Gate right now, in that you're at the mercy of item placement, since all the best ones are spread around as loot or in merchant inventories.