When I imagine a demon dragon god killing member of an ancient sacrificial order who is chosen to end an apocalyptic invasion... I imagine some scruffy guy rummaging for "junk to sell" like an IRL hobo. Well... We technically are vagrant in DAO... Hmmm.
Inventory system
Débuté par
hangmans tree
, oct. 07 2010 07:09
Retour en haut
#152
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 08:15
SirOccam
-
- Members
- 2 645 messages
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
And I know you gave examples of how it affects gameplay. Then I explained that gameplay and the story are two entirely separate things. I agree that it affects gameplay. It doesn't affect the *story* though.[/quote]
How does blackmailing the mage or persuating Rogek not affect the story or it's outcome? How does not saving the smithy's daughter not affect the story when he commits suicide because of that choice and how does it not affect the outcome of being able to buy the best bow in the game from his replacement?[/quote]
"Blackmailing the mage" does affect the story. "Persuading Rogek" also affects the story. "Not saving the smithy's daughter" affects the story as well. "Being poor" does not.
Having the best bow in the game affects gameplay, but not the story.
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
About the Circle. There are a number of ways you can complete Rogek's quest. It's fun to figure out how to make the most money from him and the mage, to blackmail the mage or steal money from Rogek. So, if you don't want to be poor you have additional stories like this one.[/quote]
You can also do those same stories if you're filthy rich but just happen to be incredibly greedy. There's no difference there, as far as the game is concerned. You can make up whatever you want in your head, but as I've explained here and elsewhere, I am more interested in the stuff that has tangible effects in the game.[/quote]
Blackmail, stealing or persuassion are real gameplay mechanics which do have an affect on the outcome of that little story and the way that story unfolds. You are not marginalizing RPG gameplay, are you? Nah. You wouldn't do that. You love RPGSs. Grin. One if its outcomes can be a monetary reward. To me having more money for better gear to make the game easier and more effective to play is a tangible effect. My survival rate increases so that's tangible enough for me. It also means less potions before and after a fight. Hehe. If you feel you are filthy rich then don't feel pressed to do the quest. I on the other hand love the extra coin.[/quote]
Yes I do love RPGs. I love being able to make decisions and take actions and watch as they affect the world around me. Looting corpse after corpse for junk loot to haul off to a vendor doesn't do that for me. Neither does having a tunic with one more point of dexterity on it.
It's clear to see you are way more entertained by some parts of RPGs than I am. I find the story the most compelling part of RPGs, and inventory management probably the least compelling. Everything else falls somewhere in between. I don't find stat allocation all that thrilling either, nor delving into too much of the nitty-gritty details about gear upgrades and spell effects or many of the other aspects of the "mechanics" side of things. (BEFORE ANYONE FLIPS OUT: please note that I am in no way saying these things should be taken out.)
So we enjoy different parts of RPGs to different extents...there's nothing wrong with that. I never suggested looting should be done away with.
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
About the smithy. It's not about money this time. If you don't save his daughter he'll commits suicide,and he'll be replaced by another merchant which can sell you the best bow in the game which is not available otherwise. Again it does not change the main story, but does change how side stories unfold, how it affect morals and the choices you make.[/quote]
Same as above. Being poor doesn't affect any of that. And I never argued that you can't do things for money. You can choose whether or not to save his daughter whether you're rich or poor. It doesn't play out any differently if you're poor.[/quote]
Ah. So this time it doesn't matter if you are rich or poor for it to play out differently. Interesting, but where did that come from? Whatever. If so, then why bother about the whole inventory discussion in the first place. Don't collect anything would be my advice. You won't have any clutter, no weight problems to solve, no silly side quests to do to obtain more money and no merchants to visit. In this case don't save the daughter in the castle. If you later change your mind you can always buy the bow.[/quote]
What do you mean "this time?" In NONE of these examples has it mattered whether you are rich or poor. That's been my point all along. If you disagree, then please tell me how not saving the Smithy's daughter because you're poor turns out differently from not saving the Smithy's daughter because you are just a greedy bastard.
And I don't understand why your advice would be not to loot anything. Like I said, that would severely cripple my character's finances because looting is probably the main revenue stream in DAO. And here's where my point comes in: having crippled finances is a burden on me, the player, and not on my character. In other words, it's just annoying and not compelling because it doesn't offer any kind of unique experience. Anything I can do "because I'm poor" I can still do if I have tons of money.
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
No. Your suggestion results in a method to obtain more money with less effort. To me the "effort" is a large part of the gameplay which I think is fun. I don't view it as a problem that needs to be solved. If I thought it was a problem then maybe I could be convinced to give up part of the gameplay I love. I think it was very well designed by BioWare. I've said it before, they did a great job on that. Thumbs up.[/quote]
Wrong. How does my suggestion result in more money? It's simple math here, honestly.
Let's say in DAO you loot x corpses, which each have an average value (based on coin and the sale value of any loot) of y. That results in a total monetary income of xy.
In my suggestion, there would be (x/20) lootable corpses, and the value obtainable from each would be (y*20). Monetary income, then, is (x/20)(y*20). Which is the same as xy. Which is the same as it is now. (And bear in mind that the "20" is just a random example number. It could be anything, as long as the same number is applied to both numbers.)
If the "effort" is so entertaining for you, then would you be in favor of more effort? Should you now have to search out certain merchants to sell certain goods? Surely a barkeep or tavern owner shouldn't have any reason to purchase your bulk Darkspawn Daggers. How about give them a "satiation" limit, where they only have a finite amount of money for buying your stuff? Doesn't that mean more effort required, therefore making the game more fun? Do you honestly think any of those things would make the story more compelling?
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
It matters to me because I find it incredibly boring, yet I need money the same as everyone else. The fact that it doesn't affect the story is precisely why I find it so annoying. If I didn't need the money, I would gladly skip it. But buying things is part of the game.[/quote]
That's odd. I thought that a guy like you obviously doesn't need any money. Didn't you say that being rich or poor does not play out differently? Just reload if you get killed and you win in the end anyway. But this is really about more money for less effort, isn't it? But cutting that part of the game destroys the fun that others like me have with the earlier praised game mechanics that BioWare provided.[/quote]
Again you're misunderstanding my argument and conflating "gameplay" with "story." I never said money wasn't part of gameplay. When I play DAO I buy and sell things from merchants just like everyone else. This does not contradict what I said about story though. If I skipped looting, and therefore couldn't buy things from merchants, then no, it wouldn't affect the story. It WOULD affect gameplay, though, and not in a positive way. This is why I feel sort of "forced" to engage in this endless scavenging nonsense.
And again, no, it's not about "more money." It's about giving us other options for earning money so we aren't forced to be scavengers. I'm not proposing "cutting" any part of the game. Indeed I'm proposing "adding" to the game. I get that you think looting corpses is the bee's knees. I disagree, and therefore I'd like to have different options available. If there are to be no new options, then I'd at least have the existing options be less painful.
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
Note that there's a difference between having an effect on the story and having an effect on me as a player. I need to make money somewhere so I can buy things like backpacks and runes and whatever else...that's part of the game. Not being able to do that is an obstacle for ME as a player, not my character. I can complete the game with just looted gear, sure, but it's not as fun to do so. Now what I've been saying is that if playing a poor character had some kind of significant influence on the story, then it would be worth the hassle. But it doesn't, so it's not.[/quote]
You only start the game being poor. There are a lot of ways to obtain money. Some of these things require investments in skills, talents, and attributes. You don't need money to get good gear, but there is great gear that costs money. It's an extra. But an extra at a cost of some effort. Nothing is for free. I am not willing to give up the fun I have just because you are not willing to put in the effort.[/quote]
And I'm not asking you to give up the "fun" of looting corpse after corpse. And I'm not saying I don't think effort should be required. I'm not asking for an easy button. But here's the thing: I don't think "effort" is always a good thing. There is effort that is compelling, and effort that is tedious. Looting corpses is not compelling. Fighting across the bridge in the Deep Roads when you meet the Legion of the Dead is compelling. Running back and forth to vendors is not compelling. Completing quests is compelling.
Let's apply it to real life for a second. Paperwork is generally not compelling. Cutting down on paperwork is efficient; it doesn't mean you're lazy. There is plenty of work that IS compelling.
Is any of this making sense?
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
And I know you gave examples of how it affects gameplay. Then I explained that gameplay and the story are two entirely separate things. I agree that it affects gameplay. It doesn't affect the *story* though.[/quote]
How does blackmailing the mage or persuating Rogek not affect the story or it's outcome? How does not saving the smithy's daughter not affect the story when he commits suicide because of that choice and how does it not affect the outcome of being able to buy the best bow in the game from his replacement?[/quote]
"Blackmailing the mage" does affect the story. "Persuading Rogek" also affects the story. "Not saving the smithy's daughter" affects the story as well. "Being poor" does not.
Having the best bow in the game affects gameplay, but not the story.
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
About the Circle. There are a number of ways you can complete Rogek's quest. It's fun to figure out how to make the most money from him and the mage, to blackmail the mage or steal money from Rogek. So, if you don't want to be poor you have additional stories like this one.[/quote]
You can also do those same stories if you're filthy rich but just happen to be incredibly greedy. There's no difference there, as far as the game is concerned. You can make up whatever you want in your head, but as I've explained here and elsewhere, I am more interested in the stuff that has tangible effects in the game.[/quote]
Blackmail, stealing or persuassion are real gameplay mechanics which do have an affect on the outcome of that little story and the way that story unfolds. You are not marginalizing RPG gameplay, are you? Nah. You wouldn't do that. You love RPGSs. Grin. One if its outcomes can be a monetary reward. To me having more money for better gear to make the game easier and more effective to play is a tangible effect. My survival rate increases so that's tangible enough for me. It also means less potions before and after a fight. Hehe. If you feel you are filthy rich then don't feel pressed to do the quest. I on the other hand love the extra coin.[/quote]
Yes I do love RPGs. I love being able to make decisions and take actions and watch as they affect the world around me. Looting corpse after corpse for junk loot to haul off to a vendor doesn't do that for me. Neither does having a tunic with one more point of dexterity on it.
It's clear to see you are way more entertained by some parts of RPGs than I am. I find the story the most compelling part of RPGs, and inventory management probably the least compelling. Everything else falls somewhere in between. I don't find stat allocation all that thrilling either, nor delving into too much of the nitty-gritty details about gear upgrades and spell effects or many of the other aspects of the "mechanics" side of things. (BEFORE ANYONE FLIPS OUT: please note that I am in no way saying these things should be taken out.)
So we enjoy different parts of RPGs to different extents...there's nothing wrong with that. I never suggested looting should be done away with.
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
About the smithy. It's not about money this time. If you don't save his daughter he'll commits suicide,and he'll be replaced by another merchant which can sell you the best bow in the game which is not available otherwise. Again it does not change the main story, but does change how side stories unfold, how it affect morals and the choices you make.[/quote]
Same as above. Being poor doesn't affect any of that. And I never argued that you can't do things for money. You can choose whether or not to save his daughter whether you're rich or poor. It doesn't play out any differently if you're poor.[/quote]
Ah. So this time it doesn't matter if you are rich or poor for it to play out differently. Interesting, but where did that come from? Whatever. If so, then why bother about the whole inventory discussion in the first place. Don't collect anything would be my advice. You won't have any clutter, no weight problems to solve, no silly side quests to do to obtain more money and no merchants to visit. In this case don't save the daughter in the castle. If you later change your mind you can always buy the bow.[/quote]
What do you mean "this time?" In NONE of these examples has it mattered whether you are rich or poor. That's been my point all along. If you disagree, then please tell me how not saving the Smithy's daughter because you're poor turns out differently from not saving the Smithy's daughter because you are just a greedy bastard.
And I don't understand why your advice would be not to loot anything. Like I said, that would severely cripple my character's finances because looting is probably the main revenue stream in DAO. And here's where my point comes in: having crippled finances is a burden on me, the player, and not on my character. In other words, it's just annoying and not compelling because it doesn't offer any kind of unique experience. Anything I can do "because I'm poor" I can still do if I have tons of money.
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
No. Your suggestion results in a method to obtain more money with less effort. To me the "effort" is a large part of the gameplay which I think is fun. I don't view it as a problem that needs to be solved. If I thought it was a problem then maybe I could be convinced to give up part of the gameplay I love. I think it was very well designed by BioWare. I've said it before, they did a great job on that. Thumbs up.[/quote]
Wrong. How does my suggestion result in more money? It's simple math here, honestly.
Let's say in DAO you loot x corpses, which each have an average value (based on coin and the sale value of any loot) of y. That results in a total monetary income of xy.
In my suggestion, there would be (x/20) lootable corpses, and the value obtainable from each would be (y*20). Monetary income, then, is (x/20)(y*20). Which is the same as xy. Which is the same as it is now. (And bear in mind that the "20" is just a random example number. It could be anything, as long as the same number is applied to both numbers.)
If the "effort" is so entertaining for you, then would you be in favor of more effort? Should you now have to search out certain merchants to sell certain goods? Surely a barkeep or tavern owner shouldn't have any reason to purchase your bulk Darkspawn Daggers. How about give them a "satiation" limit, where they only have a finite amount of money for buying your stuff? Doesn't that mean more effort required, therefore making the game more fun? Do you honestly think any of those things would make the story more compelling?
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
It matters to me because I find it incredibly boring, yet I need money the same as everyone else. The fact that it doesn't affect the story is precisely why I find it so annoying. If I didn't need the money, I would gladly skip it. But buying things is part of the game.[/quote]
That's odd. I thought that a guy like you obviously doesn't need any money. Didn't you say that being rich or poor does not play out differently? Just reload if you get killed and you win in the end anyway. But this is really about more money for less effort, isn't it? But cutting that part of the game destroys the fun that others like me have with the earlier praised game mechanics that BioWare provided.[/quote]
Again you're misunderstanding my argument and conflating "gameplay" with "story." I never said money wasn't part of gameplay. When I play DAO I buy and sell things from merchants just like everyone else. This does not contradict what I said about story though. If I skipped looting, and therefore couldn't buy things from merchants, then no, it wouldn't affect the story. It WOULD affect gameplay, though, and not in a positive way. This is why I feel sort of "forced" to engage in this endless scavenging nonsense.
And again, no, it's not about "more money." It's about giving us other options for earning money so we aren't forced to be scavengers. I'm not proposing "cutting" any part of the game. Indeed I'm proposing "adding" to the game. I get that you think looting corpses is the bee's knees. I disagree, and therefore I'd like to have different options available. If there are to be no new options, then I'd at least have the existing options be less painful.
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
Note that there's a difference between having an effect on the story and having an effect on me as a player. I need to make money somewhere so I can buy things like backpacks and runes and whatever else...that's part of the game. Not being able to do that is an obstacle for ME as a player, not my character. I can complete the game with just looted gear, sure, but it's not as fun to do so. Now what I've been saying is that if playing a poor character had some kind of significant influence on the story, then it would be worth the hassle. But it doesn't, so it's not.[/quote]
You only start the game being poor. There are a lot of ways to obtain money. Some of these things require investments in skills, talents, and attributes. You don't need money to get good gear, but there is great gear that costs money. It's an extra. But an extra at a cost of some effort. Nothing is for free. I am not willing to give up the fun I have just because you are not willing to put in the effort.[/quote]
And I'm not asking you to give up the "fun" of looting corpse after corpse. And I'm not saying I don't think effort should be required. I'm not asking for an easy button. But here's the thing: I don't think "effort" is always a good thing. There is effort that is compelling, and effort that is tedious. Looting corpses is not compelling. Fighting across the bridge in the Deep Roads when you meet the Legion of the Dead is compelling. Running back and forth to vendors is not compelling. Completing quests is compelling.
Let's apply it to real life for a second. Paperwork is generally not compelling. Cutting down on paperwork is efficient; it doesn't mean you're lazy. There is plenty of work that IS compelling.
Is any of this making sense?
Modifié par SirOccam, 09 octobre 2010 - 09:14 .
#153
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 08:29
Bamsemisbruker
-
- Members
- 49 messages
I reallt liked how oblivion did it. Hope they will do something like that.
#154
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 08:57
hangmans tree
-
- Members
- 2 207 messages
MY GODS.SirOccam wrote...
Is any of this making sense?
Last few answers to your posts just killed me. Do people actually READ your posts with understanding? I wonder...
Please, give it a rest. I think you made it perfectly clear, but for some reason those two argue not understanding (dont want to understand?) or discarding all arguments that you posted - without any contrargument to add. I stand in awe before some of the answers and argumentation. I'm not a english native speaker, I learned english myself, I wasnt tought, but I perfectly understand what you wrote. Besides I'm not sure that when you write ME as you, they read it as Mass Effect :/
Its like you say that is green and a reply flies by I dont like wood. It's hopeless!
Its pointless. Good luck with that.
Modifié par hangmans tree, 09 octobre 2010 - 08:58 .
#155
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 10:09
Vaeliorin
-
- Members
- 1 170 messages
To be fair, I (who I guess qualifies as a "purist") do actually enjoy looting stuff. It's generally one of my goals to loot everything that is lootable in game. I feel disappointment when I finish a fight and there's nothing to loot. Loot is interesting. It's one of those "Ooh, let's see what I got!" moments of excitement. Even when I know I'm not going to get something named or that I'll use, there's always the chance that I'll get something that sells well (I was always excited to find massive/heavy chest armor in DA, for example, even when I was already wearing the best stuff in the game.) That's one of the problems I have with fixed loot, because that excitement is gone on playthroughs past the first, as you already know what you're getting.SirOccam wrote...
You "purists" don't fool me; none of you actually find it amusing or entertaining. You are just saying you do because some troublemaker dared to propose some minor aspect of your precious, precious traditional RPG gameplay be tweaked. You are used to it, and you like the familiarity. And that's fine. You are welcome to your opinion.
I don't, however, like the loot-grinding games like Diablo, Borderlands, etc. Maybe if they made one with combat I enjoyed I'd like that, but I doubt it, since I'm not really big on grinding.
#156
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 10:33
AngryFrozenWater
-
- Members
- 9 081 messages
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
And I know you gave examples of how it affects gameplay. Then I explained that gameplay and the story are two entirely separate things. I agree that it affects gameplay. It doesn't affect the *story* though.[/quote]
How does blackmailing the mage or persuating Rogek not affect the story or it's outcome? How does not saving the smithy's daughter not affect the story when he commits suicide because of that choice and how does it not affect the outcome of being able to buy the best bow in the game from his replacement?[/quote]
"Blackmailing the mage" does affect the story. "Persuading Rogek" also affects the story. Not saving the smithy's daughter affects the story as well. "Being poor" does not.
Having the best bow in the game affects gameplay, but not the story.[/quote]
Who cares that being poor does not affect the story? Why is that even important? What has that to do with making money in the game to obtain items you want? To me there is absolutely no relation required between the story and making money.
And you are wrong about the bow. Not that it matters, because you have failed to make the story requirement clear anyway.
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
About the Circle. There are a number of ways you can complete Rogek's quest. It's fun to figure out how to make the most money from him and the mage, to blackmail the mage or steal money from Rogek. So, if you don't want to be poor you have additional stories like this one.[/quote]
You can also do those same stories if you're filthy rich but just happen to be incredibly greedy. There's no difference there, as far as the game is concerned. You can make up whatever you want in your head, but as I've explained here and elsewhere, I am more interested in the stuff that has tangible effects in the game.[/quote]
Blackmail, stealing or persuassion are real gameplay mechanics which do have an affect on the outcome of that little story and the way that story unfolds. You are not marginalizing RPG gameplay, are you? Nah. You wouldn't do that. You love RPGSs. Grin. One if its outcomes can be a monetary reward. To me having more money for better gear to make the game easier and more effective to play is a tangible effect. My survival rate increases so that's tangible enough for me. It also means less potions before and after a fight. Hehe. If you feel you are filthy rich then don't feel pressed to do the quest. I on the other hand love the extra coin.[/quote]
Yes I do love RPGs. I love being able to make decisions and take actions and watch as they affect the world around me. Looting corpse after corpse for junk loot to haul off to a vendor doesn't do that for me. Neither does having a tunic with one more point of dexterity on it.
It's clear to see you are way more entertained by some parts of RPGs than I am. I find the story the most compelling part of RPGs, and inventory management probably the least compelling. Everything else falls somewhere in between. I don't find stat allocation all that thrilling either, nor delving into too much of the nitty-gritty details about gear upgrades and spell effects or many of the other aspects of the "mechanics" side of things. (BEFORE ANYONE FLIPS OUT: please note that I am in no way saying these things should be taken out.)
So we enjoy different parts of RPGs to different extents...there's nothing wrong with that. I never suggested looting should be done away with.[/quote]
There is something very wrong with that. The part of the gameplay that you don't like needs to be nerfed only because you don't like that optional part of the game. If you don't like to play that part of the game then that's fine. But people who like that part of the game should not be punished becuase of your laziness.
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
About the smithy. It's not about money this time. If you don't save his daughter he'll commits suicide,and he'll be replaced by another merchant which can sell you the best bow in the game which is not available otherwise. Again it does not change the main story, but does change how side stories unfold, how it affect morals and the choices you make.[/quote]
Same as above. Being poor doesn't affect any of that. And I never argued that you can't do things for money. You can choose whether or not to save his daughter whether you're rich or poor. It doesn't play out any differently if you're poor.[/quote]
Ah. So this time it doesn't matter if you are rich or poor for it to play out differently. Interesting, but where did that come from? Whatever. If so, then why bother about the whole inventory discussion in the first place. Don't collect anything would be my advice. You won't have any clutter, no weight problems to solve, no silly side quests to do to obtain more money and no merchants to visit. In this case don't save the daughter in the castle. If you later change your mind you can always buy the bow.[/quote]
What do you mean "this time?" In NONE of these examples has it mattered whether you are rich or poor. That's been my point all along. If you disagree, then please tell me how not saving the Smithy's daughter because you're poor turns out differently from not saving the Smithy's daughter because you are just a greedy bastard.
And I don't understand why your advice would be not to loot anything. Like I said, that would severely cripple my character's finances because looting is probably the main revenue stream in DAO. And here's where my point comes in: having crippled finances is a burden on ME, the player, and not on my character. In other words, it's just annoying and not compelling because it doesn't offer any kind of unique experience. Anything I can do "because I'm poor" I can still do if I have tons of money.[/quote]
You absolutely do not make any sense. Why would being rich or being poor have to be a requirement for the outcome of said quest or even be related to the quest. The quest was not designed that way. It escapes me why this is a problem for you. And of course... You don't need to loot everything. There are alternatives to make money.
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
No. Your suggestion results in a method to obtain more money with less effort. To me the "effort" is a large part of the gameplay which I think is fun. I don't view it as a problem that needs to be solved. If I thought it was a problem then maybe I could be convinced to give up part of the gameplay I love. I think it was very well designed by BioWare. I've said it before, they did a great job on that. Thumbs up.[/quote]
Wrong. How does my suggestion result in more money? It's simple math here, honestly.
Let's say in DAO you loot x corpses, which each have an average value (based on coin and the sale value of any loot) of y. That results in a total monetary income of xy.
In my suggestion, there would be (x/20) lootable corpses, and the value obtainable from each would be (y*20). Monetary income, then, is (x/20)(y*20). Which is the same as xy. Which is the same as it is now. (And bear in mind that the "20" is just a random example number. It could be anything, as long as the same number is applied to both numbers.)
If the "effort" is so entertaining for you, then would you be in favor of more effort? Should you now have to search out certain merchants to sell certain goods? Surely a barkeep or tavern owner shouldn't have any reason to purchase your bulk Darkspawn Daggers. How about give them a "satiation" limit, where they only have a finite amount of money for buying your stuff? Doesn't that mean more effort required, therefore making the game more fun? Do you honestly think any of those things would make the story more compelling?[/quote]
Because it does not make any sense. The items you'll find would be 20 times more expensive. How about potions and poisons you'll find in loot? And arrows? Bolts? Traps? Etc. Should their price be raised as well? And what if you need to buy them? Will they be 20 times more expensive too? You would never be able to find any low tier shields, armor and weapons. Isn't that obvious?
Adding an artificial limit to merchants does not solve anything. Why collect stuff if you cannot sell it. Think, man. It does not compute.
At the start of the game finding low level gear is used to equip my henchmen. Later better gear appears and bit by bit they'll get better stuff. And most of that is found on corpses or in chests and often related to quests. Then there are those expensive ones you can buy, but you don't really need. They are a bit of an extra. For that you have to put in some effort. Nothing is for free..
There is not much "effort" required. You just loot corpses and open chests. It's a click away. If you don't want that then do the quests which will get you either free great gear or lots of money. If you think you spend too much money then create your own potions and poisons. You can steal if you like. But that's exactly what you don't want to do. For you it's too much effort. I don't see it as an effort at all.
And looting corpses is really optional. At the end of the game I usually have money left. So, I spend it on tomes, or buy stuff for my armies which will give me extra experience points, or just simply save it for when I need to buy some standard stuff when I need to switch to a DLC which rips off any DLC-items the PC and henchmen use. If the inventory "problem" is that severe as you percieve it is then don't loot. Or loot less. You can obtain lots of money by other means.
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
It matters to me because I find it incredibly boring, yet I need money the same as everyone else. The fact that it doesn't affect the story is precisely why I find it so annoying. If I didn't need the money, I would gladly skip it. But buying things is part of the game.[/quote]
That's odd. I thought that a guy like you obviously doesn't need any money. Didn't you say that being rich or poor does not play out differently? Just reload if you get killed and you win in the end anyway. But this is really about more money for less effort, isn't it? But cutting that part of the game destroys the fun that others like me have with the earlier praised game mechanics that BioWare provided.[/quote]
Again you're misunderstanding my argument and conflating "gameplay" with "story." I never said money wasn't part of gameplay. When I play DAO I buy and sell things from merchants just like everyone else. This does not contradict what I said about story though. If I skipped looting, and therefore couldn't buy things from merchants, then no, it wouldn't affect the story. It WOULD affect gameplay, though, and not in a positive way. This is why I feel sort of "forced" to engage in this endless scavenging nonsense.
And again, no, it's not about "more money." It's about giving us other options for earning money so we aren't forced to be scavengers. I'm not proposing "cutting" any part of the game. Indeed I'm proposing "adding" to the game. I get that you think looting corpses is the bee's knees. I disagree, and therefore I'd like to have different options available. If there are to be no new options, then I'd at least have the existing options be less painful.[/quote]
I wave away your irrational story requirement argument. It doesn't make any sense for reasons mentioned at the top. But maybe you can shine some light on that. About your proposal: You are not adding anything to the game, because your proposals don't make any sense either. I've written about that above.
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
Note that there's a difference between having an effect on the story and having an effect on me as a player. I need to make money somewhere so I can buy things like backpacks and runes and whatever else...that's part of the game. Not being able to do that is an obstacle for ME as a player, not my character. I can complete the game with just looted gear, sure, but it's not as fun to do so. Now what I've been saying is that if playing a poor character had some kind of significant influence on the story, then it would be worth the hassle. But it doesn't, so it's not.[/quote]
You only start the game being poor. There are a lot of ways to obtain money. Some of these things require investments in skills, talents, and attributes. You don't need money to get good gear, but there is great gear that costs money. It's an extra. But an extra at a cost of some effort. Nothing is for free. I am not willing to give up the fun I have just because you are not willing to put in the effort.[/quote]
And I'm not asking you to give up the "fun" of looting corpse after corpse. And I'm not saying I don't think effort should be required. I'm not asking for an easy button. But here's the thing: I don't think "effort" is always a good thing. There is effort that is compelling, and effort that is tedious. Looting corpses is not compelling. Fighting across the bridge in the Deep Roads when you meet the Legion of the Dead is compelling. Running back and forth to vendors is not compelling. Completing quests is compelling.
Let's apply it to real life for a second. Paperwork is generally not compelling. Cutting down on paperwork is efficient; it doesn't mean you're lazy. There is plenty of work that IS compelling.
Is any of this making sense?[/quote]
You really amaze me. I keep telling you that there are alternatives. I went into detail about that and all you can think of is looting corpses. These alternatives can be a large part of your income. The fun I have is with the combined package of methods to obtain money. How many times do I need to say that I loved the way BioWare designed those? Now, go play the game and use them. Enjoy.
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
And I know you gave examples of how it affects gameplay. Then I explained that gameplay and the story are two entirely separate things. I agree that it affects gameplay. It doesn't affect the *story* though.[/quote]
How does blackmailing the mage or persuating Rogek not affect the story or it's outcome? How does not saving the smithy's daughter not affect the story when he commits suicide because of that choice and how does it not affect the outcome of being able to buy the best bow in the game from his replacement?[/quote]
"Blackmailing the mage" does affect the story. "Persuading Rogek" also affects the story. Not saving the smithy's daughter affects the story as well. "Being poor" does not.
Having the best bow in the game affects gameplay, but not the story.[/quote]
Who cares that being poor does not affect the story? Why is that even important? What has that to do with making money in the game to obtain items you want? To me there is absolutely no relation required between the story and making money.
And you are wrong about the bow. Not that it matters, because you have failed to make the story requirement clear anyway.
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
About the Circle. There are a number of ways you can complete Rogek's quest. It's fun to figure out how to make the most money from him and the mage, to blackmail the mage or steal money from Rogek. So, if you don't want to be poor you have additional stories like this one.[/quote]
You can also do those same stories if you're filthy rich but just happen to be incredibly greedy. There's no difference there, as far as the game is concerned. You can make up whatever you want in your head, but as I've explained here and elsewhere, I am more interested in the stuff that has tangible effects in the game.[/quote]
Blackmail, stealing or persuassion are real gameplay mechanics which do have an affect on the outcome of that little story and the way that story unfolds. You are not marginalizing RPG gameplay, are you? Nah. You wouldn't do that. You love RPGSs. Grin. One if its outcomes can be a monetary reward. To me having more money for better gear to make the game easier and more effective to play is a tangible effect. My survival rate increases so that's tangible enough for me. It also means less potions before and after a fight. Hehe. If you feel you are filthy rich then don't feel pressed to do the quest. I on the other hand love the extra coin.[/quote]
Yes I do love RPGs. I love being able to make decisions and take actions and watch as they affect the world around me. Looting corpse after corpse for junk loot to haul off to a vendor doesn't do that for me. Neither does having a tunic with one more point of dexterity on it.
It's clear to see you are way more entertained by some parts of RPGs than I am. I find the story the most compelling part of RPGs, and inventory management probably the least compelling. Everything else falls somewhere in between. I don't find stat allocation all that thrilling either, nor delving into too much of the nitty-gritty details about gear upgrades and spell effects or many of the other aspects of the "mechanics" side of things. (BEFORE ANYONE FLIPS OUT: please note that I am in no way saying these things should be taken out.)
So we enjoy different parts of RPGs to different extents...there's nothing wrong with that. I never suggested looting should be done away with.[/quote]
There is something very wrong with that. The part of the gameplay that you don't like needs to be nerfed only because you don't like that optional part of the game. If you don't like to play that part of the game then that's fine. But people who like that part of the game should not be punished becuase of your laziness.
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
About the smithy. It's not about money this time. If you don't save his daughter he'll commits suicide,and he'll be replaced by another merchant which can sell you the best bow in the game which is not available otherwise. Again it does not change the main story, but does change how side stories unfold, how it affect morals and the choices you make.[/quote]
Same as above. Being poor doesn't affect any of that. And I never argued that you can't do things for money. You can choose whether or not to save his daughter whether you're rich or poor. It doesn't play out any differently if you're poor.[/quote]
Ah. So this time it doesn't matter if you are rich or poor for it to play out differently. Interesting, but where did that come from? Whatever. If so, then why bother about the whole inventory discussion in the first place. Don't collect anything would be my advice. You won't have any clutter, no weight problems to solve, no silly side quests to do to obtain more money and no merchants to visit. In this case don't save the daughter in the castle. If you later change your mind you can always buy the bow.[/quote]
What do you mean "this time?" In NONE of these examples has it mattered whether you are rich or poor. That's been my point all along. If you disagree, then please tell me how not saving the Smithy's daughter because you're poor turns out differently from not saving the Smithy's daughter because you are just a greedy bastard.
And I don't understand why your advice would be not to loot anything. Like I said, that would severely cripple my character's finances because looting is probably the main revenue stream in DAO. And here's where my point comes in: having crippled finances is a burden on ME, the player, and not on my character. In other words, it's just annoying and not compelling because it doesn't offer any kind of unique experience. Anything I can do "because I'm poor" I can still do if I have tons of money.[/quote]
You absolutely do not make any sense. Why would being rich or being poor have to be a requirement for the outcome of said quest or even be related to the quest. The quest was not designed that way. It escapes me why this is a problem for you. And of course... You don't need to loot everything. There are alternatives to make money.
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
No. Your suggestion results in a method to obtain more money with less effort. To me the "effort" is a large part of the gameplay which I think is fun. I don't view it as a problem that needs to be solved. If I thought it was a problem then maybe I could be convinced to give up part of the gameplay I love. I think it was very well designed by BioWare. I've said it before, they did a great job on that. Thumbs up.[/quote]
Wrong. How does my suggestion result in more money? It's simple math here, honestly.
Let's say in DAO you loot x corpses, which each have an average value (based on coin and the sale value of any loot) of y. That results in a total monetary income of xy.
In my suggestion, there would be (x/20) lootable corpses, and the value obtainable from each would be (y*20). Monetary income, then, is (x/20)(y*20). Which is the same as xy. Which is the same as it is now. (And bear in mind that the "20" is just a random example number. It could be anything, as long as the same number is applied to both numbers.)
If the "effort" is so entertaining for you, then would you be in favor of more effort? Should you now have to search out certain merchants to sell certain goods? Surely a barkeep or tavern owner shouldn't have any reason to purchase your bulk Darkspawn Daggers. How about give them a "satiation" limit, where they only have a finite amount of money for buying your stuff? Doesn't that mean more effort required, therefore making the game more fun? Do you honestly think any of those things would make the story more compelling?[/quote]
Because it does not make any sense. The items you'll find would be 20 times more expensive. How about potions and poisons you'll find in loot? And arrows? Bolts? Traps? Etc. Should their price be raised as well? And what if you need to buy them? Will they be 20 times more expensive too? You would never be able to find any low tier shields, armor and weapons. Isn't that obvious?
Adding an artificial limit to merchants does not solve anything. Why collect stuff if you cannot sell it. Think, man. It does not compute.
At the start of the game finding low level gear is used to equip my henchmen. Later better gear appears and bit by bit they'll get better stuff. And most of that is found on corpses or in chests and often related to quests. Then there are those expensive ones you can buy, but you don't really need. They are a bit of an extra. For that you have to put in some effort. Nothing is for free..
There is not much "effort" required. You just loot corpses and open chests. It's a click away. If you don't want that then do the quests which will get you either free great gear or lots of money. If you think you spend too much money then create your own potions and poisons. You can steal if you like. But that's exactly what you don't want to do. For you it's too much effort. I don't see it as an effort at all.
And looting corpses is really optional. At the end of the game I usually have money left. So, I spend it on tomes, or buy stuff for my armies which will give me extra experience points, or just simply save it for when I need to buy some standard stuff when I need to switch to a DLC which rips off any DLC-items the PC and henchmen use. If the inventory "problem" is that severe as you percieve it is then don't loot. Or loot less. You can obtain lots of money by other means.
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
It matters to me because I find it incredibly boring, yet I need money the same as everyone else. The fact that it doesn't affect the story is precisely why I find it so annoying. If I didn't need the money, I would gladly skip it. But buying things is part of the game.[/quote]
That's odd. I thought that a guy like you obviously doesn't need any money. Didn't you say that being rich or poor does not play out differently? Just reload if you get killed and you win in the end anyway. But this is really about more money for less effort, isn't it? But cutting that part of the game destroys the fun that others like me have with the earlier praised game mechanics that BioWare provided.[/quote]
Again you're misunderstanding my argument and conflating "gameplay" with "story." I never said money wasn't part of gameplay. When I play DAO I buy and sell things from merchants just like everyone else. This does not contradict what I said about story though. If I skipped looting, and therefore couldn't buy things from merchants, then no, it wouldn't affect the story. It WOULD affect gameplay, though, and not in a positive way. This is why I feel sort of "forced" to engage in this endless scavenging nonsense.
And again, no, it's not about "more money." It's about giving us other options for earning money so we aren't forced to be scavengers. I'm not proposing "cutting" any part of the game. Indeed I'm proposing "adding" to the game. I get that you think looting corpses is the bee's knees. I disagree, and therefore I'd like to have different options available. If there are to be no new options, then I'd at least have the existing options be less painful.[/quote]
I wave away your irrational story requirement argument. It doesn't make any sense for reasons mentioned at the top. But maybe you can shine some light on that. About your proposal: You are not adding anything to the game, because your proposals don't make any sense either. I've written about that above.
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
Note that there's a difference between having an effect on the story and having an effect on me as a player. I need to make money somewhere so I can buy things like backpacks and runes and whatever else...that's part of the game. Not being able to do that is an obstacle for ME as a player, not my character. I can complete the game with just looted gear, sure, but it's not as fun to do so. Now what I've been saying is that if playing a poor character had some kind of significant influence on the story, then it would be worth the hassle. But it doesn't, so it's not.[/quote]
You only start the game being poor. There are a lot of ways to obtain money. Some of these things require investments in skills, talents, and attributes. You don't need money to get good gear, but there is great gear that costs money. It's an extra. But an extra at a cost of some effort. Nothing is for free. I am not willing to give up the fun I have just because you are not willing to put in the effort.[/quote]
And I'm not asking you to give up the "fun" of looting corpse after corpse. And I'm not saying I don't think effort should be required. I'm not asking for an easy button. But here's the thing: I don't think "effort" is always a good thing. There is effort that is compelling, and effort that is tedious. Looting corpses is not compelling. Fighting across the bridge in the Deep Roads when you meet the Legion of the Dead is compelling. Running back and forth to vendors is not compelling. Completing quests is compelling.
Let's apply it to real life for a second. Paperwork is generally not compelling. Cutting down on paperwork is efficient; it doesn't mean you're lazy. There is plenty of work that IS compelling.
Is any of this making sense?[/quote]
You really amaze me. I keep telling you that there are alternatives. I went into detail about that and all you can think of is looting corpses. These alternatives can be a large part of your income. The fun I have is with the combined package of methods to obtain money. How many times do I need to say that I loved the way BioWare designed those? Now, go play the game and use them. Enjoy.
Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 09 octobre 2010 - 10:39 .
#157
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 10:58
Sir JK
-
- Members
- 1 523 messages
AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Who cares that being poor does not affect the story? Why is that even important? What has that to do with making money in the game to obtain items you want? To me there is absolutely no relation required between the story and making money.
I believe this here is what SirOccam objects to, and I agree with him (or what I think his point is, as it were). The moneymaking, looting and gear-upgrading part of the game has nothing to do with the story (as in plot, the progression of events). It affects nothing, has no impact, doesn't factor into any choices (beyond I cannot afford x) and means nothing beyond how easily you can counter the combat challanges so you can progress the story.
So if you're interested in the story and the roleplaying choices therein but not picking stuff up, hauling them off to a vendor and selling it for better gear, then the latter becomes a chore. Something you feel you have to do (since not doing it will affect your ability to progress the story negatively) but doesn't enjoy at all.
#158
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 11:53
AllThatJazz
-
- Members
- 2 758 messages
Sir JK wrote...
AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Who cares that being poor does not affect the story? Why is that even important? What has that to do with making money in the game to obtain items you want? To me there is absolutely no relation required between the story and making money.
I believe this here is what SirOccam objects to, and I agree with him (or what I think his point is, as it were). The moneymaking, looting and gear-upgrading part of the game has nothing to do with the story (as in plot, the progression of events). It affects nothing, has no impact, doesn't factor into any choices (beyond I cannot afford x) and means nothing beyond how easily you can counter the combat challanges so you can progress the story.
So if you're interested in the story and the roleplaying choices therein but not picking stuff up, hauling them off to a vendor and selling it for better gear, then the latter becomes a chore. Something you feel you have to do (since not doing it will affect your ability to progress the story negatively) but doesn't enjoy at all.
But lots of people do enjoy it. I'd consider myself a person who believes that 'story is king' and all that, but I'm actually very fond of looting the corpses of slain enemies and shuffling around in my inventory. And if you don't want to do it that much, then don't. It's perfectly possible to find really decent equipment throughout the game, you don't have to buy it - just sell enough stuff to keep you going and destroy/don't pick up the rest. It doesn't have to be that much of a grind. I really don't like buying nice swords and things from merchants - I'd rather find them as part of a quest or on the body of a slain foe, that way the item somehow means a lot more to my character. But I really don't object to other players doing it if that's their playstyle. Takes all sorts, right?
Plus, why does everything have to 'progress events' or be about the story? Can't some things just ... be? I mean, a vast majority of NPCs in the world have nothing to do with quests, or the plot or anything - they're just there for a bit of flavour and atmosphere. To extend that - romances, sidequests, party banter, the ability to choose the PC's hairstyle - none of this stuff progresses the main story, and yet the game would be the lesser without these things. 'Tis similar, for me (though admittedly to a lesser extent), with looting and inventory. Part of the charm of a game like Origins is that just occasionally, an enemy might drop something interesting etc.
#159
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 12:03
Sir JK
-
- Members
- 1 523 messages
AllThatJazz wrote...
But lots of people do enjoy it. I'd consider myself a person who believes that 'story is king' and all that, but I'm actually very fond of looting the corpses of slain enemies and shuffling around in my inventory. And if you don't want to do it that much, then don't. It's perfectly possible to find really decent equipment throughout the game, you don't have to buy it - just sell enough stuff to keep you going and destroy/don't pick up the rest. It doesn't have to be that much of a grind. I really don't like buying nice swords and things from merchants - I'd rather find them as part of a quest or on the body of a slain foe, that way the item somehow means a lot more to my character. But I really don't object to other players doing it if that's their playstyle. Takes all sorts, right?
I believe the suggested idea was to lessen the importance of looting, either by reducing the number of bodies that need to be rifled and simultaneously increase the value looted in every instance. Or by providing alternative sources of income, so that a player less interested in it can aquire money by alternate means (and that looters that also takes the alternatives would be fitlhy rich). A compromise of sorts.
With story I meant the polar opposite of gameplay mechanics. All the abstract things numbers cannot show. Not necessarily the main plotline. I could have used roleplaying as well, but I suspected some people would latch on to that since they think statting and upgrading gear is part of it. All the things you suggested above are things I include in the story part of the game.Plus, why does everything have to 'progress events' or be about the story? Can't some things just ... be? I mean, a vast majority of NPCs in the world have nothing to do with quests, or the plot or anything - they're just there for a bit of flavour and atmosphere. To extend that - romances, sidequests, party banter, the ability to choose the PC's hairstyle - none of this stuff progresses the main story, and yet the game would be the lesser without these things. 'Tis similar, for me (though admittedly to a lesser extent), with looting and inventory. Part of the charm of a game like Origins is that just occasionally, an enemy might drop something interesting etc.
And of course on the ocassion an enemy drops something interesting, even those of us who dislike looting will be happy. It's not the special stuff that's a problem, it's the junk.
#160
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 12:13
AllThatJazz
-
- Members
- 2 758 messages
Sir JK wrote...
AllThatJazz wrote...
But lots of people do enjoy it. I'd consider myself a person who believes that 'story is king' and all that, but I'm actually very fond of looting the corpses of slain enemies and shuffling around in my inventory. And if you don't want to do it that much, then don't. It's perfectly possible to find really decent equipment throughout the game, you don't have to buy it - just sell enough stuff to keep you going and destroy/don't pick up the rest. It doesn't have to be that much of a grind. I really don't like buying nice swords and things from merchants - I'd rather find them as part of a quest or on the body of a slain foe, that way the item somehow means a lot more to my character. But I really don't object to other players doing it if that's their playstyle. Takes all sorts, right?
I believe the suggested idea was to lessen the importance of looting, either by reducing the number of bodies that need to be rifled and simultaneously increase the value looted in every instance. Or by providing alternative sources of income, so that a player less interested in it can aquire money by alternate means (and that looters that also takes the alternatives would be fitlhy rich). A compromise of sorts.
Does this not kind of already exist, though? There are plenty of merc quests that one can undertake which do nothing more than provide gold. Like the Chantry stuff - it's just hack n'slash for money.With story I meant the polar opposite of gameplay mechanics. All the abstract things numbers cannot show. Not necessarily the main plotline. I could have used roleplaying as well, but I suspected some people would latch on to that since they think statting and upgrading gear is part of it. All the things you suggested above are things I include in the story part of the game.Plus, why does everything have to 'progress events' or be about the story? Can't some things just ... be? I mean, a vast majority of NPCs in the world have nothing to do with quests, or the plot or anything - they're just there for a bit of flavour and atmosphere. To extend that - romances, sidequests, party banter, the ability to choose the PC's hairstyle - none of this stuff progresses the main story, and yet the game would be the lesser without these things. 'Tis similar, for me (though admittedly to a lesser extent), with looting and inventory. Part of the charm of a game like Origins is that just occasionally, an enemy might drop something interesting etc.
Eh, I don't necessarily think that statting and upgrading are parts of roleplaying - but I do think that looting can be. I often play 'survivalist' types. I don't buy anything, I just use what I find and manage my resources (doing a Fallout 3 run as just that at the moment).
And of course on the ocassion an enemy drops something interesting, even those of us who dislike looting will be happy. It's not the special stuff that's a problem, it's the junk.
Then what about making the 'junk' more useful, rather than simply doing away with it or lessening the amount of it? Fallout 3 is by no means an example of how I'd wish Bio to be, but it is good that a lot of the stuff you can find can be used in different ways (as ammo, or to repair or craft).
#161
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 12:16
AngryFrozenWater
-
- Members
- 9 081 messages
The suggested idea does not work. It is one way. You cannot decrease the number of drops by 20 and increase the value of the items by 20. It does not work when you need to buy stuff. It will be 20 times more expensive too. It will not work at low levels, because raising the value requires the quality to go up and that means no low tier or cheap stuff will be dropped. If you want cheap items to be dropped as well then the high end stuff dropped has to be even more expensive to keep the average factor of 20. It does not make sense.Sir JK wrote...
I believe the suggested idea was to lessen the importance of looting, either by reducing the number of bodies that need to be rifled and simultaneously increase the value looted in every instance.
Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 09 octobre 2010 - 12:20 .
#162
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 12:20
Sir JK
-
- Members
- 1 523 messages
raising the value of the "junk" dropped, not that which is sold in stores. So you turn in stuff for the same total amount as you would with lots of loot but pay the same prices for stuff you buy.
Sorry if that wasn't clear
Sorry if that wasn't clear
#163
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 12:24
AngryFrozenWater
-
- Members
- 9 081 messages
That still does not work, because at low levels low tier gear or cheap items cannot be dropped (because their value has to match the quality of the item), unless you increase the value of the dropped high end stuff above factor 20 to keep the average of a factor 20. It's simple math.Sir JK wrote...
raising the value of the "junk" dropped, not that which is sold in stores. So you turn in stuff for the same total amount as you would with lots of loot but pay the same prices for stuff you buy.
Sorry if that wasn't clear
Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 09 octobre 2010 - 12:29 .
#164
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 12:31
Sir JK
-
- Members
- 1 523 messages
AngryFrozenWater wrote...
That still does not work, because at low levels low tier gear or cheap items cannot be dropped (because their value has to match the quality of the item), unless you increase the value of the high end stuff to be dropped above 20 to keep the average of a fator 20. It's simple math.
I think there's a bit of thinking in different wavelengths here. The suggested idea is that instead of hypothetically speaking 15 "darkspawn bits of sharpened metal" there's say 5 "bits of cloth" worth the same as the 15 "darkspawn bits of sharpened metal". The net amount turned in is the same, the amount looted is less.
That said, it's probably a very imperfect solution to those who like looting, alternative sources of income would probably be better. So that you can afford many things if you loot, many things if you do the alternatives and everything+more if you do both.
#165
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 12:38
AngryFrozenWater
-
- Members
- 9 081 messages
Let me put it another way... If you replace items by other more expensive ones then the math as you suggest makes sense, but in that case there is a problem with the disappearing cheap items from drops.Sir JK wrote...
AngryFrozenWater wrote...
That still does not work, because at low levels low tier gear or cheap items cannot be dropped (because their value has to match the quality of the item), unless you increase the value of the high end stuff to be dropped above 20 to keep the average of a fator 20. It's simple math.
I think there's a bit of thinking in different wavelengths here. The suggested idea is that instead of hypothetically speaking 15 "darkspawn bits of sharpened metal" there's say 5 "bits of cloth" worth the same as the 15 "darkspawn bits of sharpened metal". The net amount turned in is the same, the amount looted is less.
That said, it's probably a very imperfect solution to those who like looting, alternative sources of income would probably be better. So that you can afford many things if you loot, many things if you do the alternatives and everything+more if you do both.
Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 09 octobre 2010 - 12:39 .
#166
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 12:50
hangmans tree
-
- Members
- 2 207 messages
Thank you. Finally someone who grasp the point of Occams ideology.Sir JK wrote...
AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Who cares that being poor does not affect the story? Why is that even important? What has that to do with making money in the game to obtain items you want? To me there is absolutely no relation required between the story and making money.
I believe this here is what SirOccam objects to, and I agree with him (or what I think his point is, as it were). The moneymaking, looting and gear-upgrading part of the game has nothing to do with the story (as in plot, the progression of events). It affects nothing, has no impact, doesn't factor into any choices (beyond I cannot afford x) and means nothing beyond how easily you can counter the combat challanges so you can progress the story.
So if you're interested in the story and the roleplaying choices therein but not picking stuff up, hauling them off to a vendor and selling it for better gear, then the latter becomes a chore. Something you feel you have to do (since not doing it will affect your ability to progress the story negatively) but doesn't enjoy at all.
Whether one agrees with his point or not, it is good to uderstand the interlocutor first.
There is lots of truth in what you say ma'am. I concur. Mostly. I love looting, don proper I guess. I had no problem with KOTOR or other significant (generally fantasy) games I played. BW in particular. But as I did not opose to the idea and do it with excitement, especially when it comes to bossess, I find DAO looting boring and broken as hell. Why is that? Why I of all people, who loves rpg far better than any other genre, feel that way? I was surprised as well. But I do think that its badly implemented. That is my opinion. If it didnt affect my gameplay I wouldnt rise the notion.AllThatJazz wrote...
But lots of people do enjoy it. I'd
consider myself a person who believes that 'story is king' and all that,
but I'm actually very fond of looting the corpses of slain enemies and
shuffling around in my inventory. And if you don't want to do it that
much, then don't. It's perfectly possible to find really decent
equipment throughout the game, you don't have to buy it - just sell
enough stuff to keep you going and destroy/don't pick up the rest. It
doesn't have to be that much of a grind. I really don't like buying nice
swords and things from merchants - I'd rather find them as part of a
quest or on the body of a slain foe, that way the item somehow means a
lot more to my character. But I really don't object to other players
doing it if that's their playstyle. Takes all sorts, right?
Plus,
why does everything have to 'progress events' or be about the story?
Can't some things just ... be? I mean, a vast majority of NPCs in the
world have nothing to do with quests, or the plot or anything - they're
just there for a bit of flavour and atmosphere. To extend that -
romances, sidequests, party banter, the ability to choose the PC's
hairstyle - none of this stuff progresses the main story, and yet the
game would be the lesser without these things. 'Tis similar, for me
(though admittedly to a lesser extent), with looting and inventory. Part
of the charm of a game like Origins is that just occasionally, an enemy
might drop something interesting etc.
[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie]
But other means of raising money was insufficient to equip my party - that was a disadventage when I played. And most of the time the things I foung was utter rubbish (one set of medium armour that I was really interested in, elven armour, was incomplete as a set thanks to a bug which was fixed too late for me). If there was an alternative way to solve my financial problems I'd be content to follow that path. But there wasn't. If they arrived with game ver. 1.3-1.4 I wouldnt know. I was done by the time with DAO.
Well, there might be some cool quest loot in the dlcs but I wouldnt know...
My problem was the chore of looting and boring treks like Fade (not so much, but still...) and Orzamarr (sp?). Thats what ultimately prevented me from playing again. I did 1 playthrough, I almost drag myself to the end, I was so exhausted by it I stopped looting altogether somewher past 60-70 % of the game (sidequests included).
Did only other origins up to Ostegar afterwards.
Oh, poor twisted me
#167
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 12:53
Sir JK
-
- Members
- 1 523 messages
Yes, that is the logical conclusion and an acceptable tradeoff to those that have little or no interest in the accumulation of loot (meaning that it's still there, but not as much of it). Probably not the best compromise though as I imagine some people actually want the cheap junk and enjoy the process. Making all loot potentionally useful and/or providing alternate sources of wealth (that have the same capacity of awarding the items sought after) would perhaps be better?
#168
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 12:59
AngryFrozenWater
-
- Members
- 9 081 messages
Maybe. But look at this: Dropped cheap items are usually junk. However, these include ingredients for potions and poisons, or arrows, bolts, etc. Obviously losing them is no option. Say that you aren't into herbalism then elfroot plants will be junk to you. But if you are then those worthless plants will be valuable to make cheap health poultices. Making my own potions saves me lots of money which I can use to buy other stuff.Sir JK wrote...
Yes, that is the logical conclusion and an acceptable tradeoff to those that have little or no interest in the accumulation of loot (meaning that it's still there, but not as much of it). Probably not the best compromise though as I imagine some people actually want the cheap junk and enjoy the process. Making all loot potentionally useful and/or providing alternate sources of wealth (that have the same capacity of awarding the items sought after) would perhaps be better?
#169
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 01:05
hangmans tree
-
- Members
- 2 207 messages
As was posted somewhere before; I'm eager to complete really hard quests to be awarded with exceptional gear, do some jobs, extensive muscle work to obtain equal amout of coin as looting. Or do a little bit of both. That way the game would be balanced. I'd be happy. The other solution is to explain why do I have to scavenge every little nail to equip my party - as someone said in the argument, almost every npc (even minor) have a sword! So why me, a hero, have to look for roots and coal for finances? Does the lore/game-world realism explain this?
#170
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 01:09
hangmans tree
-
- Members
- 2 207 messages
Unless someone did not invest in herbalism. Is it a crime? Maybe invested in more aggressive skills/talents? If a game is designed to lean in one favorable side its imbalanced. And that is bad design.AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Maybe. But look at this: Dropped cheap items are usually junk. However, these include ingredients for potions and poisons, or arrows, bolts, etc. Obviously losing them is no option. Say that you aren't into herbalism then elfroot plants will be junk to you. But if you are then those worthless plants will be valuable to make cheap health poultices. Making my own potions saves me lots of money which I can use to buy other stuff.Sir JK wrote...
Yes, that is the logical conclusion and an acceptable tradeoff to those that have little or no interest in the accumulation of loot (meaning that it's still there, but not as much of it). Probably not the best compromise though as I imagine some people actually want the cheap junk and enjoy the process. Making all loot potentionally useful and/or providing alternate sources of wealth (that have the same capacity of awarding the items sought after) would perhaps be better?
#171
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 01:15
CoS Sarah Jinstar
-
- Members
- 2 169 messages
hangmans tree wrote...
Unless someone did not invest in herbalism. Is it a crime? Maybe invested in more aggressive skills/talents? If a game is designed to lean in one favorable side its imbalanced. And that is bad design.AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Maybe. But look at this: Dropped cheap items are usually junk. However, these include ingredients for potions and poisons, or arrows, bolts, etc. Obviously losing them is no option. Say that you aren't into herbalism then elfroot plants will be junk to you. But if you are then those worthless plants will be valuable to make cheap health poultices. Making my own potions saves me lots of money which I can use to buy other stuff.Sir JK wrote...
Yes, that is the logical conclusion and an acceptable tradeoff to those that have little or no interest in the accumulation of loot (meaning that it's still there, but not as much of it). Probably not the best compromise though as I imagine some people actually want the cheap junk and enjoy the process. Making all loot potentionally useful and/or providing alternate sources of wealth (that have the same capacity of awarding the items sought after) would perhaps be better?
Its not a crime at all, its an option. Theres quite a few quest rewards in the game that give some of the best equipment, you're certainly not at all forced to buy everything, nor are you forced to loot every drop in the game to survive. Even if you're not into herbalism you can sell all those elf roots to make money if you wish as well.
At the end of the day though you have options, quite a few of them. What you decide to do with said options is up to you.
#172
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 01:16
hangmans tree
-
- Members
- 2 207 messages
Tell me how many elfroots do I have to sell to obtain, lets say 10 gp?
#173
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 01:21
CoS Sarah Jinstar
-
- Members
- 2 169 messages
hangmans tree wrote...
Tell me how many elfroots do I have to sell to obtain, lets say 10 gp?
Honestly I couldn't tell you, but you're asking for ways to obtain money, thats one of them. Post 1.02 I think, or maybe 1.03? (haven't read patch notes for quite a while) a majority of drops actually are silver, and the further into the game you are often actual gold. I'd suggest playing through on the current version and then still see if you feel the same way.
#174
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 01:37
AngryFrozenWater
-
- Members
- 9 081 messages
No. It is not a crime. It was a random example. Where does all that negative thinking of you come from? I could have taken the example of bolts. I don't use crossbows. So bolts to me are junk. Is that better?hangmans tree wrote...
Unless someone did not invest in herbalism. Is it a crime? Maybe invested in more aggressive skills/talents? If a game is designed to lean in one favorable side its imbalanced. And that is bad design.AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Maybe. But look at this: Dropped cheap items are usually junk. However, these include ingredients for potions and poisons, or arrows, bolts, etc. Obviously losing them is no option. Say that you aren't into herbalism then elfroot plants will be junk to you. But if you are then those worthless plants will be valuable to make cheap health poultices. Making my own potions saves me lots of money which I can use to buy other stuff.Sir JK wrote...
Yes, that is the logical conclusion and an acceptable tradeoff to those that have little or no interest in the accumulation of loot (meaning that it's still there, but not as much of it). Probably not the best compromise though as I imagine some people actually want the cheap junk and enjoy the process. Making all loot potentionally useful and/or providing alternate sources of wealth (that have the same capacity of awarding the items sought after) would perhaps be better?
#175
Posté 09 octobre 2010 - 01:46
AllThatJazz
-
- Members
- 2 758 messages
CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
hangmans tree wrote...
Unless someone did not invest in herbalism. Is it a crime? Maybe invested in more aggressive skills/talents? If a game is designed to lean in one favorable side its imbalanced. And that is bad design.AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Maybe. But look at this: Dropped cheap items are usually junk. However, these include ingredients for potions and poisons, or arrows, bolts, etc. Obviously losing them is no option. Say that you aren't into herbalism then elfroot plants will be junk to you. But if you are then those worthless plants will be valuable to make cheap health poultices. Making my own potions saves me lots of money which I can use to buy other stuff.Sir JK wrote...
Yes, that is the logical conclusion and an acceptable tradeoff to those that have little or no interest in the accumulation of loot (meaning that it's still there, but not as much of it). Probably not the best compromise though as I imagine some people actually want the cheap junk and enjoy the process. Making all loot potentionally useful and/or providing alternate sources of wealth (that have the same capacity of awarding the items sought after) would perhaps be better?
Its not a crime at all, its an option. Theres quite a few quest rewards in the game that give some of the best equipment, you're certainly not at all forced to buy everything, nor are you forced to loot every drop in the game to survive. Even if you're not into herbalism you can sell all those elf roots to make money if you wish as well.
At the end of the day though you have options, quite a few of them. What you decide to do with said options is up to you.
And also, the opposite may well apply. Those who put points into herbalism, poisons etc are more likely to be rogues and mages who have less use for some of the other stuff that gets dropped, especially early in the game. It tends to even itself out.
Edit: Oops, same point made by AFW. Sorry! x
Modifié par AllThatJazz, 09 octobre 2010 - 01:46 .
