75 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Howdy do, BSN.

I'd like to start a conversation about Gold. You know, bits, royals, sovereigns, crowns... moolah.

We spend a HUGE part of the game in DA games picking up gold and other loot equipment to sell for gold. Indeed, a character's total Net Worth after completing DA:O and DA:A without even using cheats/glitches would be enough to purchase a nobility's title and substantial land. Our characters come across substantial amounts of wealth and we often feel cheated if we take down a particularly hard enemy, only to be stiffed with cheap loot drops.


That being said... what is the use of gold? 


You can buy potions... which extend your life in combat, so you can beat more enemies and get more gold (and advance the story). You can buy better equipment, which does primarily the same thing. In DA:O, you could use your gold to improve the Redcliffe militia's equipment when you summoned them... again, to improve your chances in combat. You could even buy gifts, which increase your companions approval of you... which advances story and also gives them combat bonuses.

It seems like gold is simply a mechanic to make life easier for us in future battles. More gold, better things. Better things, easier combat.


But is that all gold can be? SHOULD THAT be all that gold does?

Let's look at DA2. There, you are given two instances where I think the future of the game mechanic we call "gold" should move forward towards. One instance - the mines. You can invest in owning a mine which results in dealing with worker disputes, clearing out dungeons and, ultimately, killing a High Dragon (who gives you better loot). However, no matter how you deal with the workers, things work out pretty much the same. You can give them raises, or you can threaten them to go back. You see absolutely no penalty or benefit either way. And, ultimately, all this becomes is a fancy way to pour money into a scenario that gives you a dragon fight with the Champion Armor. So... aside from the initial investment, what you do with your money in this particular quest is pretty much irrelevant.

Another portion of DA2 was the ability to give money to help Ferelden Refugees. The amounts varied (considerably) with you able to give loads of sovereigns to help Fereldens, if you so choose. This, mind you, is during Act 1, where the primary point and obstacle to overcome is gathering money. To heft off a dozen sovereigns at a point in the game where it is stressing you to conserve money is very interesting. However... as in the case of the mines, there is no adverse or benefit to doing this (I believe you may get a discount at one store, but it never sells anything of worth that can't be found elsewhere).



I liked the CONCEPT of what these two instances introduced, I'd just like to see it elaborated more and introduced all the time.

Here's why - what if shelling out more coins to give the Ferelden's raises resulted in an ending where their lives were better? No in game bonus, or a war asset, or extra equipment later on... just a different ending slide/mention later on? Where you would have to balance out if you want to spend your gold on something just to be nice or have a better outcome for a group of people, or buy upgrades/equipment/supplies for your party?

This can be carried over further. Let's take ME2 and the Suicide Mission as an example. In the base game, credits weren't proliferate in ME2. You, literally, could not afford to buy everything. If you decided to upgrade your ship with kinnetic barriers and Thanix cannons, you would not be able to afford buying the absolute best weapon, armor and medigel upgrades for your Shepherd. These ship upgrades kept your crew alive and gave endings where everyone survived, or no one did.

I'd like to see that in future games. Both in terms of money scarcity in relation to the total number of things you could buy AND items which hold no intrinsic value except for story. By buying the kinettic barrier upgrade, you received nothing more than a living companion - no sweet set of armor, no extra bonus to stats... just the satisfaction that you were ready and prepared enough to save a life.

This all falls apart if there is too much money (like in DA:O and DA2) AND if there is no consequence/reason to throw your money around (like the two examples I outlined above). I'd like to see the devs experiment with gold and really use it as a part of the story-telling mechanic, instead of a separate way to "level up" your character. It would also all fall apart if EVERY upgrade you did had purpose. Buying a fish tank in ME2 didn't really give you anything (although I hear it wound up being a War Asset in ME3... smh) and, in a world of scarce credits, it may be foolish to buy such things when more important purchases/uses of money could be had.

TL;DR: Money should interact with the plot in significant ways, so that we as players would be forced to weight the decision of spending money on our own character's and their equipment, or the betterment of others/different plot outcomes. 

[Parmida]

That's not all, you can rent ****s with gold as well.

[Althix]

em... you have enough money to buy everything in ME2. Ship upgrades cost you nothing in credits.

However some economic minigame would be nice, if we about to have a keep.

[Fast Jimmy]

secretsandlies wrote...

em... you have enough money to buy everything in ME2. Ship upgrades cost you nothing in credits.

However some economic minigame would be nice, if we about to have a keep.

This has been statistically calculated. If you beat every side quest, find every bit of scratch in the game (without any DLC, including Zaeed's) you cannot afford to buy every weapon/armor and other type of upgrade in the game. It's a different story if you hav played with the DLC. 

Also, the ship upgrades don't cost you credits, no. But using fuel and sending out probes to get the other tesources these upgrades require does, so it all ties back into your total credit amount. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 décembre 2012 - 02:13 .

[Herr Uhl]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Let's look at DA2. There, you are given two instances where I think the future of the game mechanic we call "gold" should move forward towards. One instance - the mines. You can invest in owning a mine which results in dealing with worker disputes, clearing out dungeons and, ultimately, killing a High Dragon (who gives you better loot). However, no matter how you deal with the workers, things work out pretty much the same. You can give them raises, or you can threaten them to go back. You see absolutely no penalty or benefit either way. And, ultimately, all this becomes is a fancy way to pour money into a scenario that gives you a dragon fight with the Champion Armor. So... aside from the initial investment, what you do with your money in this particular quest is pretty much irrelevant.

Would have been nice to see some difference there, but as to the next point.

Another portion of DA2 was the ability to give money to help Ferelden Refugees. The amounts varied (considerably) with you able to give loads of sovereigns to help Fereldens, if you so choose. This, mind you, is during Act 1, where the primary point and obstacle to overcome is gathering money. To heft off a dozen sovereigns at a point in the game where it is stressing you to conserve money is very interesting. However... as in the case of the mines, there is no adverse or benefit to doing this (I believe you may get a discount at one store, but it never sells anything of worth that can't be found elsewhere).

The obvious adverse and benefit here is roleplay related. The adverse being that you "waste" your money and the benefit being that you help people out. Rather than the discount, some difference in the situation of Fereldan refugees would have been more poignant. An encounter being dependent on it, like you being mugged by Fereldan refugees at a later date if they don't get anything.

[Wulfram]

Increasing the story relevance of money and making money tighter risks creating a massive incentive to never spend money on your gear until the very end of the game. Since once an item is replaced that's all money down the drain.

Reducing the price disparity between purchases and sales might help with that.

I don't think DA:O or DA2 were all that overloaded with money. There were usually end game items you'd want but couldn't buy.

Personally it doesn't really make a huge sense to me if the equipment budget and the castle building budget really come under the same thing. They should really be operating on totally different scales.

[Fast Jimmy]

A bank would be cool. And, of course, a corresponding quest to ROB the bank!

Quest for Glory 5 did pretty much exactly what you outlined, with pickpockets, banks (no investment opportunities, though).

[DarthLaxian]

i agree - partly that is - with the OP in that there should be more you can do with money (gold) then buy stuff, you should be able to bribe people, help people, invest into the future (like with the mine) so that you have something to get you out if you fall on hard times etc.

what i do not want though is:

not enough gold to get everything (hell, if i "work" my ass of (as in: i am doing all the side quests and spend my gold wisely) then i should be able to get almost everything, even more, if i am the head of a pretty powerfull organisation (the inquisition is - or at least was - one of the powers that be along with the chantry itself and the various (great) nations (orlais, tevinter, nevarra, the anderfels and maybe the qunari) and they should have pretty large cofters of their own (vaults full of treasure/gold) with which they can change the world, even if it means paying off people, hiring mercenaries etc.)

greetings LAX
ps: i always hate it in games where you are "the greatest hero ever" and then you could not even afford proper clothing (read: armor) and equipment (weapons etc.) it just gets on my wits, that is why i often (not on the first play through) cheat myself some money, because everything else is IMHO so ridiculous!

[Fast Jimmy]

Wulfram wrote...

Personally it doesn't really make a huge sense to me if the equipment budget and the castle building budget really come under the same thing. They should really be operating on totally different scales.

I'd politely disagree with you. In DA:O, we saw base level equipment of sword, shield and armor cost a few copper bits. Higher tiered equipment, with no magic or special perks, would cost a few silver. On the other hand, The Rose's Thorn, a magic dagger from DA:O, cost over 100 gold sovereigns. To put that in perspective, the Deep Roads expedition in DA2 cost 50 sovereigns for all supplies, men and equipment. Similarly, to max out your Redcliffe guards would only take around 60-80 sovereigns donated. Hawke is able to buy back his nobility title for a few hundred sovereigns, with a deluxe mansion included. 

Über elite equipment is uber elite. It is worth a king's ransom. It also makes combat easy as all get out.

In light of that, would you rather give 20 sovereign to feed the hungry refugees, spend 50 gold outfitting your guards with something better than the cheapest gear, or buy a dagger that makes you near-impossible to kill on the battlefield?

Basically, if I want to make the game harder by forgoing elite equipment in order to do other things with my money, it would be nice to do all. 

[Navasha]

economics is probably the biggest downfall of all games. Introducing real economic systems into games has been tried and the end result is people complain about them. Most people complain when they can't haul their backpacks full of loot to a single store and just sell it all. That is the problem with the overabundance of coin really.

If you picked up 20 swords in some cave and took them to town to sell, then there should be some real world restrictions. The local baker and clothing merchant shouldn't want them at all. A blacksmith or weapon merchant should be the only ones to buy them and THEN only if the merchant thinks they could sell them.

"Look Buddy, I still have 40 swords from the LAST time you were here, I can't move that kind of product, go somewhere else"

Again, players have resoundingly said this is "not fun" for them and so games don't do it. However, that is the reason you end up with a glut of coin in most games. I personally, find those types of systems a lot of fun. I should have to pick through what loot I think is valuable enough to a merchant not just because it has some arbitrary stamp of "value" on the bottom.

A real economic system where the value of "loot" is based on your ability to get someone to give you something for it rather than some set value would be wonderful for me. Coin always comes to players a bit too easily.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I agree. Some of my favorite games from back in the day were the Uncharted Waters games, where you could explore, attack other ships and trade goods. It was a real lesson in how economics and supply and demand work.

[Sir George Parr]

The mine in DA 2 came over as under developed. That after the deep roads here was the one asset that would keep Hawke in the style to which she had become accustomed.But instead it generates no income for Hawke, What could have happened is your profits from the mine could have being waiting for your collection at the estate or from Hubert over the course of the story.
It would have allowed the purchase of some of the ridiculously expensive items from the market traders. So i found that in DA 2 i actually had too little money and would put more thought into any purchase made and would manage the money carefully, So for example with Orana i was horrified with the amount of gold Hawke gives her to start a new life, I would think maker Hawke's not a registered charity, i loaded up an earlier save and replayed it so that Hawke would give her a job instead or just tell her to scram. When i consider that Hawke gets paid a pittance for some of the Jobs, 1 gold for risking life and limb and yet could donate 10 gold to an elf girl . Its being awhile since i played DA O, iirc it felt like i had more money than i knew what to do with it.

Modifié par XM-417, 28 décembre 2012 - 02:58 .

[Volus Warlord]

So it'll be like Skyrim, where I have upwards of 20k of salable goods in my house because I bankrupted every merchant in town?

[Doctoglethorpe]

Fable 3 tried to make such a use for gold.  Having to spend all your hard earned money on the people of your country to make their lives easier, at the risk of not having the funds to defend them later, or hogging your money and letting them rot cause hey you gotta defend their asses right?

Well, no.  Because all you had to do was turn the kingdom into a communist state by buying up every hosue and shop in in the game.  It was easy to do and completely broke the end-game, giving you enough gold to make everyone happy and be fully funded for the end war and still have enough left over to buy yourself a death star.



If they do something to make money matter, make budgeting matter too.  The game can't have any system to manipulate that make you retardedly wealthy thus making any choice in how you spend your money irrelevant.  Seems to be a mistake made far more often then it should by now.  In most games where spending matters to any degree, its too easy to wind up filthy rich by end game. 

[Wulfram]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'd politely disagree with you. In DA:O, we saw base level equipment of sword, shield and armor cost a few copper bits. Higher tiered equipment, with no magic or special perks, would cost a few silver. On the other hand, The Rose's Thorn, a magic dagger from DA:O, cost over 100 gold sovereigns. To put that in perspective, the Deep Roads expedition in DA2 cost 50 sovereigns for all supplies, men and equipment. Similarly, to max out your Redcliffe guards would only take around 60-80 sovereigns donated. Hawke is able to buy back his nobility title for a few hundred sovereigns, with a deluxe mansion included.

That's all true - though I don't think we know how much Hawke got out of the Deep Roads - and also ridiculous.  You shouldn't be financing your castle and army with the proceeds of random looting.

(Finding a Dragon horde, and using it to build your castle is different.  But that's a one off, a mythic event, not a standard policy)

Basically, if I want to make the game harder by forgoing elite equipment in order to do other things with my money, it would be nice to do all. 

But it practice, spending money on soon to be obsolete items is a waste of money.  So everyone would just skip the items, get the stuff with actual story consequences and have to reload the game every now and again, while all the non-end game items in the shop are pointless.

[Navasha]

Volus Warlord wrote...

So it'll be like Skyrim, where I have upwards of 20k of salable goods in my house because I bankrupted every merchant in town?

But you see that is part of the problem.   Elder Scrolls games have at least tried to add a bit of realism in that shops aren't bottomless pits of money, but still has an arbitrary value stamped on each item.   The value of something is what someone is willing to pay for it, not some artificial price tag.   

A merchant should only buy something from you, if they believe they can then sell it to someone else at a higher price.    So when you show up with that full set of ebony armor at a little village of farmers and try to sell it at the local shopkeeper, he should look at you and say, I will give you a 100 gold for it.    Not because that is all the gold he has... but that is all the gold he is willing to risk based on how often someone comes to him looking for a full set of ebony armor.  

If you find something of real value, then you should have to go searching for a REAL buyer to sell it.    If you found a second painting of the Mona Lisa stashed in your attic, would you take it down to your local grocery store to sell it?   If you wanted the full value of it... you would have to find someone that not only has enough money to give you for it, but also values it enough to pay it.  

[Herr Uhl]

Navasha wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

So it'll be like Skyrim, where I have upwards of 20k of salable goods in my house because I bankrupted every merchant in town?

But you see that is part of the problem.   Elder Scrolls games have at least tried to add a bit of realism in that shops aren't bottomless pits of money, but still has an arbitrary value stamped on each item.   The value of something is what someone is willing to pay for it, not some artificial price tag.   

A merchant should only buy something from you, if they believe they can then sell it to someone else at a higher price.    So when you show up with that full set of ebony armor at a little village of farmers and try to sell it at the local shopkeeper, he should look at you and say, I will give you a 100 gold for it.    Not because that is all the gold he has... but that is all the gold he is willing to risk based on how often someone comes to him looking for a full set of ebony armor.  

If you find something of real value, then you should have to go searching for a REAL buyer to sell it.    If you found a second painting of the Mona Lisa stashed in your attic, would you take it down to your local grocery store to sell it?   If you wanted the full value of it... you would have to find someone that not only has enough money to give you for it, but also values it enough to pay it.  

The trading system in Mount and Blade is the one I abused the most out of any game. They tended to pay chump change for anything that wasn't trading goods (wool, silks, dates etc.) and then an amount of money for the trading goods depending on the surplus or shortage of the city, paying you less for every unit you sold them or charging more for every unit you bought. Then you could start your own industry and either let it buy and sell to local merchants for a stable income, or buy the raw materials (like hides) and sell the finished product (leather in this case) yourself. It requires a lot of micromanaging, but you can make good profits without it feeling overly fake.

Sadly it didn't really translate well to weapons, armour or horses though. Granted, I'm not sure how a system like this could be implemented in a non-sandbox game without being broken.

[Navasha]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Granted, I'm not sure how a system like this could be implemented in a non-sandbox game without being broken.

Well, in the DA games it wouldn't unless they also implemented the passing of time.   However, they could simulate it with some behind the scenes random number generators and a bargaining system. 

Say a hidden "dice" roll says that the merchant has a lucrative buyer for weapons already lined up and when the player enters the shop on this visit the merchant is willing to pay a bit more for weapons this time and take all weapons you are willing to sell.  
On the next visit, the hidden "dice" roll says that the merchant just bought a dozen weapons from another adventurer the day before and can't move them.    The merchant might offer a discount to the player on those weapons if the player wants to buy, but not be willing to buy any new weapons from the player.  

These hidden "dice" rolls on a large table of random events could easily make it at least feel like the merchant has a living business and not just standing there waiting to offer the same amount of coin as every other merchant every time you walk into the shop.  

In this case, it may make the player shop around for different merchants to get the best price for his loot, or may result in the player not actually picking up that 35th dirty shawl, because its not worth the effort of finding a merchant to buy it. 

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I'm not against random dice rolls to set demand, but it often results in players leaving/entering the shop/town or whatever resets that dice roll until the player has a good deal. Which doesn't prevent spamming, doesn't make things seem realistic and ultimately takes a good sounding mechanic and reduces it to a time-wasting activity.

[Fast Jimmy]

Edit: Double post, please delete 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 décembre 2012 - 04:56 .

[David7204]

I completely agree. I hated how in Skyrim I could mix potions from ingredients worth 2 coins and available from every shop and turn them into potions worth 250 coins and immediately sell them back, even with a very low alchemy skill. Money very quickly became worthless. I think a stricter economy would go a long way to making loot and money feel valuable.