75 réponses à ce sujet

[The Hierophant]

Imagine in a future DA game that you're able to start a business, expand it by eventually buying other businesses. When you've bought out most competitor, and supplementary businesses in a city/town you could intentionally collapse it's economy by declaring bankruptcy, and hide or run away with the money?

It would lead to a quest chain where you're a wanted man/woman depending on what you did with all the Sovereigns.

[Navasha]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

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.

True, I hadn't considered that players would actively attempt to get around the mechanic.     Still there should be someway to mimic a fluid economy rather than simply X item is worth Y gold to every merchant and the player somehow magically knows this value upon picking up the item. 

While it may seem like hoops and time wasting activities it at least allows a sort of trade in a real commodity, which is the players time.    Some players may enjoy picking up that silver spoon off the table and spending an hour in town trying to find the best price for it.    Others may not bother picking it up at all and would rather just pick a few select treasures that they are sure they can sell quickly or know a buyer for it.   

All of that combined would still work to reduce the overall amount of coin that players acquire unless they really work at it.   

[Swagger7]

I like the idea of having other things to spend your gold on, although with the player castle confirmed I think we'll have plenty. I also like the idea of being able to buy buildings in say every city we visit, which we can then turn into inquisitor bases to store loot, sell things, etc.

[Fast Jimmy]

The Hierophant wrote...

Imagine in a future DA game that you're able to start a business, expand it by eventually buying other businesses. When you've bought out most competitor, and supplementary businesses in a city/town you could intentionally collapse it's economy by declaring bankruptcy, and hide or run away with the money?

It would lead to a quest chain where you're a wanted man/woman depending on what you did with all the Sovereigns.

So... Dragon Age: Bank of America?

[The Hierophant]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Imagine in a future DA game that you're able to start a business, expand it by eventually buying other businesses. When you've bought out most competitor, and supplementary businesses in a city/town you could intentionally collapse it's economy by declaring bankruptcy, and hide or run away with the money?

It would lead to a quest chain where you're a wanted man/woman depending on what you did with all the Sovereigns.

So... Dragon Age: Bank of America?

The only difference is that it's an intended result, but yes.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 28 décembre 2012 - 06:00 .

[Wulfram]

(This is maybe sort of tangential to the thread, sorry)

The underlying assumption of the original post would seem to be that money should become a more prominent, or at least more real, concern for the player. I wonder if this is really right?

Is money management an important part of being an epic fantasy hero? I don't think so. If you go back to sword and sorcery then being constantly broke is part of the story, but you can't have that while also having the PC walk around with equipment worth more than their home town

So I would say that money is something that should stay in background - indeed could do with fading more into the background.

[Fast Jimmy]

Navasha wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

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.

True, I hadn't considered that players would actively attempt to get around the mechanic.     Still there should be someway to mimic a fluid economy rather than simply X item is worth Y gold to every merchant and the player somehow magically knows this value upon picking up the item. 

While it may seem like hoops and time wasting activities it at least allows a sort of trade in a real commodity, which is the players time.    Some players may enjoy picking up that silver spoon off the table and spending an hour in town trying to find the best price for it.    Others may not bother picking it up at all and would rather just pick a few select treasures that they are sure they can sell quickly or know a buyer for it.   

All of that combined would still work to reduce the overall amount of coin that players acquire unless they really work at it.   

There is a particularly brutal Flash game called Caravaneer which had a pretty interesting take. Each town had its own consumption rate every week of each resource, as well as its own production rate. A town could have a consumption for a good it didn't produce, which would spike the desired price, and it could have production for a good it doesn't really need all that much of.

For instance, one town has lots of cows. They produce WAY more leather than they consume, so you can buy it there fairly cheap. In addition, they consume way more hay than they consume (which you need as well if you character is transporting with donkeys and horses, mind you). Another town consumes leather at a fairly high rate (more than they produce) to produce shoes, which it only has a relatively low demand for. Another town has a steady demand for shoes and produces a good surplus of hay.

You can buy hay in one town, sell it to the town that has cows, buy leather there, take it to the town that consumes leather, buy shoes there and then go back to the first town to sell those shoes and begin all over again.

It is dependent on a time mechanic, however, so it wouldn't be easy to port this concept over to a game like Dragon Age, which has a very loose definition of time. That being said, a limit of demand AND consumption for a vendor could be useful. Like a merchant would only ever buy five swords, each sword for less than the last, until they would buy them for only a copper. Then at a certain rate, they would "consume" the items you sold to them. How that consumption would work or how the time progression would be handled could be something to figure out.




However, all of that said, as much as I love video game economies, my original post was to find ways for us to use money that tie directly to the plot rather than just have ways to buy more equipment. While being able to buy an entire city, house-by-house, Fable-style is fun, it doesn't really contribute much to the story, other than giving you a way to have unlimited gold. Which defeats the idea I was putting forth originally.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 décembre 2012 - 06:24 .

[daft inquisitor]

Odd example, but Recetear did a somewhat similar thing. Every couple of days in-game, the prices on certain items would fluctuate. Ex, usually at least once a week, you would get a message saying, "Prices of armors has skyrocketed!" meaning you can sell them for a LOT of money, but they were equally expensive to buy. Generally it was a category of item (Weapons, armor, food, books, furniture, etc.), but I could see this system working for DA if it's tweaked a bit.

EDIT: Wow, this was meant in reply for something posted a page ago. Guess I waited too long to submit it...

Wulfram wrote...

(This is maybe sort of tangential to the thread, sorry)

The underlying assumption of the original post would seem to be that money should become a more prominent, or at least more real, concern for the player. I wonder if this is really right? 

Is money management an important part of being an epic fantasy hero? I don't think so. If you go back to sword and sorcery then being constantly broke is part of the story, but you can't have that while also having the PC walk around with equipment worth more than their home town

So I would say that money is something that should stay in background - indeed could do with fading more into the background.

Epic fantasy heroes have to be mindful of their money too, or else they don't have enough to buy food...

I think this is kind of a callback to D&D. In most campaigns, money management was a pretty big deal. Buying food and supplies, a room for the night, etc. was all fairly tangental when compared to the massive amounts you were dropping on magical items and more frivilous things (ships, keeps), but it was still a part of the game.

I, for one, would love to recapture that, especially if the setting for DA3 is going the way a lot of people think. If you're going to be managing your own castle/fortress, that includes managing the financial resources of said property. 

Modifié par ShadowDragoonFTW, 28 décembre 2012 - 06:40 .

[In Exile]

Navasha wrote...
While it may seem like hoops and time wasting activities it at least allows a sort of trade in a real commodity, which is the players time.    Some players may enjoy picking up that silver spoon off the table and spending an hour in town trying to find the best price for it.    Others may not bother picking it up at all and would rather just pick a few select treasures that they are sure they can sell quickly or know a buyer for it.   

All of that combined would still work to reduce the overall amount of coin that players acquire unless they really work at it.   

Human nature would make players want to sell the spoon and loathe doing so, which will lead to a lot of complaints about the game. 

[Wulfram]

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...

Epic fantasy heroes have to be mindful of their money too, or else they don't have enough to buy food...

Yes, but when the Bard is telling their story, are they going to spend many words on that sort of thing?  I mean, Epic Heroes go to the loo...

[In Exile]

Wulfram wrote...
Yes, but when the Bard is telling their story, are they going to spend many words on that sort of thing?  I mean, Epic Heroes go to the loo...

And then our hero carefully studied the market in the sorrounding area and found that there was an iron ore shortage; as she scrounged for months to find sufficient labour and a backer to finance her enterprise, what with her having absolutely no relevant experience or ties to the community, the blight overran Ferelden ... 

[daft inquisitor]

Wulfram wrote...

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...

Epic fantasy heroes have to be mindful of their money too, or else they don't have enough to buy food...

Yes, but when the Bard is telling their story, are they going to spend many words on that sort of thing?  I mean, Epic Heroes go to the loo...

And that's how we got Dragon Age 2. 

In all seriousness, though, that form of narrative worked for DA2, because it was a lot more action-packed and had less ... relaxing sidequests.

Frankly, I want that way of story framing to go out the window. It was great for DA2, but I don't want DA:I to just be another narration by a thrill-crazed storyteller. I want to have the freedom to do the "boring" stuff, if I so choose. I get a lot of fun out of RPGs from having all of the mild, dialog-not-action-driven content.

Money management like some of the suggestions here would be that kind of thing. I want to be able to do relaxing missions in the game without every SINGLE interaction boiling down to another fight. 

EDIT: I may be mixing threads here...

Modifié par ShadowDragoonFTW, 28 décembre 2012 - 07:05 .

[modernfan]

I enjoy accumulating gold and find it a relaxing break from combat. I get a kick out of having large sums of gold in game and would like to see a wider variety of items available to buy. Luxury items would be nice - beautiful noncombat clothes & jewels for my female character, an impressive homestead, tasteful furnishings & wall art.

[XX-Pyro]

If you want gold sinks make it so we can get more bloody gold than Dragon Age 2. Or intentionally leave an exploit I can use. Don't flame me please, I just love being a rich bloody bastard (especially if I'm playing an Origin in which I come from a rich family.)

More on topic: I think Assassin's Creed III (and Brotherhood & Revelations to an extent) do a god job of this. Let us invest in shops we'll be around a lot for future discounts, as well as allow us at our (unconfirmed) castle to send trade caravans (and furnish it) with the gold we make. The caravans should be profiting (but have a risk of failure which you can in some way diminish) and you should be able to use gold to buy things for your castle to pretty it up.

[katamuro]

I also wish there was more to do with gold than we had before. After all if a character spends a few in game years going around the place then shouldnt we have an option to have a better use for gold than simply bying stuff we dont really need?

[PsychoBlonde]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

Really?  I haven't seen prices given for noble titles or land, but I suspect they're pretty high given that you were quoted a value of 100 sovereigns a HEAD for slaves (and not even broken-in or skilled slaves, just random yahoos picked up off the streets), and I rarely had 100 sovereigns sitting around on one of my "legit" playthroughs in either game.  If I did, it was because I was saving for a particular high-cost item.  Oh, and I loot EVERYTHING and sell EVERYTHING that I'm not using, and rarely voluntarily buy anything except for THE best, most high-powered items.  Money is tight in these games compared to most other RPG's like, say, Baldur's Gate, where I was constantly buying things I didn't even use because they looked cool, I refused to sell things I had no real use for because they were cool, and I still had 50,000+ gold left at the end of the game.  Oh, and I got bored so I didn't bother to loot EVERYTHING in that game, I could probably have doubled or tripled my money just by opening all the boxes.

Keep in mind that the 50 sovereigns you gather up as Hawke wasn't the amount of money you used to get the Amell title back, it was the amount you had to INVEST in order to go on this horribly dangerous and also insanely lucrative expedition, and you spent the vast bulk of your money gained from that expedition just on getting the title/house back, with only as much left over as you started with.  Aveline remarks that the amount of cash you brought back was enough to derange Kirkwall's economy, but it was ONLY enough to purchase a title and tiny "estate" which was more like a townhouse to my eyes--a title you already had a semi-legitimate claim to, and an ABANDONED estate that was occupied by slavers until you chucked them out!

Of course, these prices may not make any kind of sense whatsoever in an actual economic context (which is probably why they don't mention prices except for that one slip up with Hayder and the slaves), but I doubt The Warden or Hawke were any more *wealthy* in real terms than your average commander of a small mercenary crew.

That being said, I would like it if there were many more uses for money than just the occasional big purchase, like a real and interesting upgrade/customization/crafting system, raw materials, potions, scrolls, poisons, stat/skill/xp tomes, recipes, adding rune slots to items, special training that upgrades skills slightly  (HEY, DEVS, LET US ADD RUNE SOCKETS TO ITEMS AND TRAIN TO GET SPECIAL UPGRADES PLZ THX!!!!)  I'd also like there to be more items (other than that one DLC mace from Origins) that are worth enough money to make you think twice about "keep this or sell it?", particularly if the stats are incredigood.  When you buy things for 97 sovereigns and sell a similar item for . . . 2, something is screwy.  I think even a complete idiot would have the sense to complain about a 4800% markup.  No *wonder* their economy is borked.

[DarthLaxian]

Navasha wrote...

   All of that combined would still work to reduce the overall amount of coin that players acquire unless they really work at it.

and that is were your system would get me to cheat (on my first play through - i do it on secondary ones anyway) because i want to be told a story when i play an RPG, i do not want to play FedEX - without a "deliver to"-adress (looking for a buyer for loot would take much time (and an offline RPG should not have time-sink stuff!) - except: if it's special items like say a chantry relic, a magical book or something like that which might open another quest chain upon delivery back to whoever lost it/had it stolen or wants to buy it) or need to "work" for it

i am PLAYING A GAME for heavens sake, i am not at work/at school/at university or something like that, i want FUN - NOT MORE WORK -.- *shakes his head and sighs*

greetings LAX
ps: i still would want more options what to do with my coin though from upgrading your castle and arming your troops to providing for charity to buying stuff and bribing people

Modifié par DarthLaxian, 28 décembre 2012 - 10:23 .

[gneisenau556]

I don't mind having to earn money, but I definately think there should be an potential to earn unlimited gold.

[PsychoBlonde]

DarthLaxian wrote...

Navasha wrote...

   All of that combined would still work to reduce the overall amount of coin that players acquire unless they really work at it.

and that is were your system would get me to cheat (on my first play through - i do it on secondary ones anyway) because i want to be told a story when i play an RPG, i do not want to play FedEX (looking for a buyer for loot - except: if it's special items like say a chantry relic, a magical book or something like that which might open another quest chain upon delivery back to whoever lost it/had it stolen or wants to buy it) or need to "work" for it

i am PLAYING A GAME for heavens sake, i am not at work/at school/at university or something like that, i want FUN - NOT MORE WORK -.- *shakes his head and sighs*

greetings LAX
ps: i still would want more options what to do with my coin though from upgrading your castle and arming your troops to providing for charity to buying stuff and bribing people

I think it's fine to have the option to do the Extreme Looting if that's what floats your boat, but only in games where money isn't especially tight so you don't really feel CONSTRAINED without it.  I don't do this in Skyrim, for instance, but I don't have problems with funds in that game, either.  If they put a system like this in DA3 with the money constraints operating in the series thus far, it'll be DREADFUL.  If instead they relax the money constraints and put in lots of near-worthless crap for the seriously OCD to obsess over, it'll work fine.  It'll also work just dandy if they keep the tight money system without increasing the amount of crap loot that needs to be picked up.

But demanding that people should have to "work" for their fun is asinine.  Allow them to work if they want to?  SURE, go for it.  Force them to work because you for some reason resent other people having fun in their own way?  No.  Also, bite me.

[gneisenau556]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

I think it's fine to have the option to do the Extreme Looting if that's what floats your boat, but only in games where money isn't especially tight so you don't really feel CONSTRAINED without it.  I don't do this in Skyrim, for instance, but I don't have problems with funds in that game, either.  If they put a system like this in DA3 with the money constraints operating in the series thus far, it'll be DREADFUL.  If instead they relax the money constraints and put in lots of near-worthless crap for the seriously OCD to obsess over, it'll work fine.  It'll also work just dandy if they keep the tight money system without increasing the amount of crap loot that needs to be picked up.

But demanding that people should have to "work" for their fun is asinine.  Allow them to work if they want to?  SURE, go for it.  Force them to work because you for some reason resent other people having fun in their own way?  No.  Also, bite me.

Thank Bioware for the money glitch in DA:O

[Dagr88]

Treasurer is another way to operate with money. By finding a pile of gold coins under recently dead dragon, finishing quest for queen or some nobleman, robbing a bank, getting a donation for saving a town and so on, we can get 4-5 digit sums of gold, which later we could use to upgrade castle/army, bribe a politician, recruit mercenaries, buy supplies, help rebuild some other town or make small investment which will lead to some side quests with other bonuses, ask/demand a small sum for yourself to buy some glowing/fashionable sword or maybe give a small donation from your own purse.

NO infinite income a.k.a. FABLE3. And like in ME2, you can't get all upgrades in 1 playthrough. Morally grey/dark decisions might provide opportunities to get/for more gold.

In other words Redcliff/Vigil Keep it all. Reward is perfectionism in some aspect of the game (castle defense, unanimous voting - no side changing among allies), your deeds recognition, small bending of the plot (maybe something like Landsmeet), effect on epilogue (if there will be one).

Modifié par Dagr88, 28 décembre 2012 - 10:30 .

[Big I]

You know what I like spending money on in RPGs? Upgrading bases and customizing weaponry. I liked investing in  Vigil's Keep to the extent that it became impregnable. I liked giving Wade the max gold to make the best dragonscale armor. I loved the Hearthfire add on for Skyrim. Imagine if in DA2 we could have upgraded the estate, or bought the Hanged Man and decided what sort of bar it would be in the future? That's the sort of gold sink DA3 needs.

[PsychoBlonde]

gneisenau556 wrote...

Thank Bioware for the money glitch in DA:O

Eh I just used the console commands when I decided I wanted to buy ALL TEH THINGS and pit them against each other in some kind of loot deathmatch!  LOSER GETS SOLD!!!!

[Fast Jimmy]

Really?  I haven't seen prices given for noble titles or land, but I suspect they're pretty high given that you were quoted a value of 100 sovereigns a HEAD for slaves (and not even broken-in or skilled slaves, just random yahoos picked up off the streets

Where exactly was this price quote given? I'm not pleading disbelief, just curious as its source or context.

The sliding scale of how much money is worth in Thedas is hard to pin down. As I stated, arming a small army with nothing more than leather armor and low grade swords could be done for less than two dozen sovereigns. But weapons in both DA:O and DA2 cost over 100 for one item. And funding the Deep Roads expedition is only 50 sovs for Hawke's cut, including equipment, manpower and supplies.

Anyway, just because we had previously been given inconsistent economies of scale, it doesn't negate or diminish the opportunity to have gold and wealth play a bigger role in the story. Although I, personally, would abhor all of these cheats and glitches to make mountains of gold and just make any gold option available, the fact that others would feel penalized for being forced to make such decisions is something to consider.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 décembre 2012 - 11:12 .

[Wulfram]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Where exactly was this price quote given? I'm not pleading disbelief, just curious as its source or context.

Hayder in the Chantry, giving the prices on the slaves Isabela freed.

(It's totally nuts, I'd assume he meant 100 silvers and forget about it)