44 réponses à ce sujet

[CELL55]

I'm fine with working for money, but if I have to grind or there are boring/mindlessly repetitive ways of getting it, then I have a problem.
Variety of ways to make money helps a lot. While Skyrim gives you frankly an embarrassingly large amount of gold (2mil without even trying so far), I really enjoyed the variety of ways to earn that gold. There was looting, dungeon crawls, several different types of crafting, big quests, medium quests, small quests, and even errands.
Of course by having so many ways to earn money the developers almost guarantee an overabundance of money, but I'm sure some kind of middle ground can be reached.

If it comes right down to it though, I'd rather have more money than necessary, as it allows for mistakes and for me to spend money trying out new things.

[Sir JK]

Personally I'd prefer abstracted wealth levels to any actual money system. One that rises based on narratively improving your living situation and increasing your disposable income. Combined with a number of sources to spend money on (either spending the disposable income and having to wait for it to "recover" or sacreficing an entire wealth level), not just equipment but also social status, living arrangements, bribes and perhaps even followers (or at least the recruitment thereof).

[Dagr88]

Selling loot and equipment in DA:O and DA2 didn't give a lot of money. That's good, that's good economic.

The thing is after Act 1, plot didn't asked almost for any money. Buying Qu**** S****s from venders, a gift for companion, giving away 5 coin to two beggar boys, 1 donation + 2-4 occasions that needed 1 sovereign (all of that is optional).

That's it! Less than 30 coins altogether. I spent 130 gold coins in DA:Awakening to build a wall and and hire "investigator". OK, Kirkwall doesn't need any more walls, but if I can't give city guard 50 sovereigns to make more patrols at night (yes, I almost wanted to pay for that) or give 20 coins to mercenaries to betray their employer and and kill him instead of me, the "whole essence" of money is missing... ( I'm not sad/angry because game didn't give me those 2 options, the problem is that game didn't give me almost any options)

Money is power that can bend peoples will, makes them lie, betray, kill. With it you can raise walls, start wars, acquire information and hire most capable people to work for you.

If PC uses his/her large sums of money only to buy things it creates an illusion that this PC was born and lived most of his/her life in supermarket and actually doesn't know what else s/he can do with it.

It's one thing when I use intimidate option on NPC to get more money to buy a new staff, while knowing that I might loot a better one in next 2 hours or just get one now from one of the premium chests. And totally different thing if I'm still missing 10 more sovereigns to hire mercenaries to help defend the city against a horde of... angry zombie bears from the Fade.

All of those decisions are obviously optional (but they might effect plot/game outcome) since no one wants to get in situation where s/he can't finish the game because s/he doesn't have enough money.


P.S ... and I only now discovered that if Warden in DA:O has stealth or stealing skill 2 chain of quests will become available in Denerim... Is DA:O bottomless?! 

Modifié par Dagr88, 11 septembre 2012 - 02:44 .

[Direwolf0294]

Unlimited. If there's a limit on a resource I just never end up using that resource, which means that if a game has a limited number of gold I end up with a ton of unspent gold sitting in my inventory by the end of the game.

@Allan, unless it's an MMO I don't think a game should include any sort of massive goldsink, and even in MMOs I think the devs tend to go overboard, and I also don't think it should be a massive grind to get gold. Earning gold and buying things in a game should be fun, not something that you sink heaps of time into and stresses you out like money in real life.

[Wulfram]

I'd love to see the game just stop tracking money at all. I don't think it adds much to my enjoyment of the game.

[TheBlackAdder13]

It depends on the economic situation of the character. For example, in Act I I'd prefer III as Hawke is very impoverished and in need of work. Afterwards, he becomes rich so I prefer II, and possibly even I as he presumably has "unlimited" pocket change. This is actually something I think DA2 managed pretty well. For the warden, I think III is better most of the time but maybe in the endgame a minor transition to II is ok (just a little more than you need) but I don't think the game actually played out like that. I think II is appropriate for the cases of most wardens in Awakening (s/he is now warden commander and possibly holds some other high ranking position at court/bann of alienage/tyern of gwaren/etc).

[AbsoluteApril]

deuce985 wrote...
I'm the same way. I loot everything I can find and sell everything I don't use. Even doing all that, I still probably only ended up with a few hundred sovereign. Some legendary items cost well over 100 sovereign and I liked that. As someone above mentioned, making it TOO hard gets boring. I think DA:O/DA2 has the perfect balance. That's something they don't need to tamper with in DA3, IMO.

I agree with this, especially in regards to DAO. I thought both were fairly well balanced, many items I could not buy until late in the game and only near the end of PTs did I usually find myself with 'too much money' (I think the highest I got was 250soverigns, also a completionist over here but I buy every potion, backpack, etc that I can get my hands on during the PTs).

Dagr88 wrote...
Money is power that can bend peoples will, makes them lie, betray, kill. With it you can raise walls, start wars, acquire information and hire most capable people to work for you.

this is a fantastic point and I would like to see more of this implemented. Bribes, blackmail, hiring assassin or guards, etc.

[Nomen Mendax]

scyphozoa wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...
Battledress of the Provocateur, and Vestments of the Seer

You raise an interesting point with these two examples. Battledress of Provocateur is from Leliana's Song and Vestments of the Seer is from Witch Hunt. 

I think many Bioware fans are people who are going to pre-order, buy the collector's edition, buy DLC and buy item packs. While these are all entirely optional, I think the advent of these promotional items basically ruins the balance of any game's economy. When you start injecting free, high value items into the start of the game, the desire or need to buy new gear vanishes. I would like to see Bioware find a way to design their pre-order and CE incentives, without compromising the game's economy. 

I agree, the DLC items need to be seriously toned down, and should be equivalent to the gear that you can get regularly.  I think the way to make people want the DLC items is to make them different models from the regular gear.

As far as the topic is concerned I would prefer to not have enough money to get everything I want.  However I would like to see the resale value of major purchases increased.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 11 septembre 2012 - 06:14 .

[Shevy]

Definitly type III. Money should be worth something. My canon warden in Origins finished Witch Hunt with ~ 900 sovereigns, Hawke near 500. There should be usefull items/upgrades/whatever which are really expensive and not affordable together.

[PsychoBlonde]

Wulfram wrote...

I'd love to see the game just stop tracking money at all. I don't think it adds much to my enjoyment of the game.

I do this in some of my pen and paper games--money is an RP thing and numerical amounts are never mentioned.  Instead I say things like "you're running short on cash after chasing across the country for 3 weeks" or "it's more than you'd have even if you sold all your equipment" or "he's offering you a LOT of money".

It works just as well as tossing out numerical values.  I'm not saying it'd necessarily be an ideal system for a computer game (one thing computers are GREAT at that humans aren't is dealing with numerical values, so why not take advantage of that), but you could do it.  I mean, it's not like economy is TRULY represented in the game with you having to eat and sleep and so forth, so why not get even more abstract about it?

For instance, what if in DA3 the merchants who sell you things for coin are replaced with chanter's-board-esque side quests, and the way you get a specific item of gear off a specific merchant is by doing the related quest(s)?  There usually aren't more than 10 or so items actually WORTH buying, so why not just get rid of the pointless vendor junk that only exists so that it looks like there's a "store" here?  And then, you can make some of the quests mutually exclusive or semi-mutually-exclusive (like, you have to solve the quests in some very specific ways to be able to pull them all off successfully).

Or, why not cut out the money middleman and make it so you can get the specific vendor items by bringing that merchant a stack of found equipment?  This could even be a cool little crafting-type mini game where in order to get a specific piece of gear you have to find items that have the bonuses on that piece of gear on them.  So you can take that +20% crit ring and the breastplate with 8% spell resist and that +100 armor piece and turn them all into a necklace with all of those bonuses.  Or, if you want to make it even MORE interesting, make it so the resultant consolidation item HAS the bonuses but they're NOT AS BIG . . . but it has ALL the bonuses and the size of the bonus DOES relate to how big it was on the original item.  This would make it really worth your while to hunt up those odd items with the really LARGE bonus on them, and you'd have significant mental debate on whether keeping that +93% fire damage was worth the fact that the rest of the staff is poo, while the one you could make would only be, say, +45% fire damage but also have 3 or 4 really nice OTHER effects on it?

No doubt all this would be a royal pain in the ass to code.  But it could also be AWESOME.

That, and it reminds me that you can't really talk about money/economy without also bringing in how crafting is supposed to work--the two are entertwined.

[stonemyst]

I just want to buy better locks to keep out people just showing up. I would like to see many unique home items. I would like to make choices on personal upgrades that have an effect. Use DAL style of upgrades to home that effect main charter and others. If i make a donation to the chantry then give a faith bonus to a follower or other ideas like this but my money having to be used to make a split decision and if not bought with gold earned then give me another way to reach the same goal. I want to see more for my money. Unique items living changes or clothes wepons.

[NKKKK]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Unlimited money would work, as long as there are sinks for it.

From a QA standpoint, an advantage of unlimited money is that I don't need to worry about whether or not there's sufficient money. From a game player standpoint, unless it's a real grind to get the money, it can remove elements of choice (unless we just code in that you can only buy one of the three amazing items).

Doesn't matter anyways with you guys' DLC armor.

[TEWR]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Unlimited money would work, as long as there are sinks for it.

I liked how FFXII did it. Money could be acquired from selling off loot, which you could acquire from enemies who were always present. How tough the enemies were, how valuable the loot was, and so on and so forth varied.

Granted, that's hardly unique to FFXII, but I think FFXII is one of the closest games to how DA plays out.

[Wolf]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I liked how FFXII did it. Money could be acquired from selling off loot, which you could acquire from enemies who were always present. How tough the enemies were, how valuable the loot was, and so on and so forth varied.

Granted, that's hardly unique to FFXII, but I think FFXII is one of the closest games to how DA plays out.

Man, you just made me remember one of my favorite games of all time. I miss FFXII

Back to the subject though, having fights be the same way they are now but with a few things differently. You get XP the first time you fight them and when you fight afterwards you just get loot without gaining XP.

Modifié par Gaiden96, 12 septembre 2012 - 01:50 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Unlimited money would work, as long as there are sinks for it.

From a QA standpoint, an advantage of unlimited money is that I don't need to worry about whether or not there's sufficient money. From a game player standpoint, unless it's a real grind to get the money, it can remove elements of choice (unless we just code in that you can only buy one of the three amazing items).

It was hard to make enough money to buy what I wanted in Origins because it's a party-based RPG. In other words, I wasn't just buying items for myself like I do in Skyrim. I had to provide for the rest of the company following me and they were all different classes. Which means I wouldn't have enough money to buy the top tier items for everyone.

One could look at it as a 'choice', but I certainly don't see it that way. I'm not usually one for cheating in games, but I feel like I have to use the money glitch in order to get the most out of the game. I see it as more of a design flaw. There's no real way to make money in Dragon Age. For doing a quest the player is usually rewarded with a weapon or set of armor, not gold.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 12 septembre 2012 - 09:27 .

[Cultist]

Money should be limited. Make them unlim and they'll lose their value. Because people will think twice on what they'll spend their hard-earned(or stolen)gold.
With unlimited option it'll be just "Nah, if anything, I'll farm later"
Unlimited money also means that there must be unlimited enemies, and thus, intence leveling.
DA:O handled money nice -you have a short supply and have to plan your spendings as you can't buy all of the most powerful items in the game.

[Huntress]

In games If my character is an adventurer then she should have tons of gold, buy every single item/house/cart and many horses in said game, why? because thats why I play an adventurer no to go around 5 levels with a lvl 1 sword.. thats purely dumb.

I like games were the enemies levels up with the player if you think keeping 5 gold and not buying the sword then you should die until you buy say sword.

I like my char to be able to loot everything from corpses in games, if is humanoid from the hat to his boots for my character to wear it or vendor it for cash, if is animal skin them and make a belt out of it. meh
I don't like to be poor and to hell if I'll allow my characters to be poor!

I'll always try to make alot of cash, if been alchemist make gold in the game , then I'll be playing for hours upon hours until i get alot of cash out of it, like in DAO, I do hate the running around getting everything but I always finish with 4k gold to 5k gold.. sadly you can't buy horses or houses in that game.. thats one of the things I like from Skyrim then again skyrim lacks Bioware party banter.. I miss so much Bioware characters when I play Skyrim is infuriating sometimes. hehe