131 réponses à ce sujet

[Grieving Natashina]

I guess it really doesn't have to be your mount that totes all your loot back to the keep.  It could also be a squire or servant of some sort.  After all, the Inquisitor's an important person & it would stand to reason for him/her to have *people* who handle these mundane tasks.  Plus it wouldn't be too fun to have to send your mount away all the time.  "Load limit reached so had to send all my stuff home.  Oh well, guess I'm walking now."

I think that's a fair trade off.  It keeps inventory management in place, since that would come with a bit of a penalty, but without crippling the player.

 

Actually, the wait was only about a minute and a half with a five minute cool down as I recall, but I could be wrong about the cool down.

By the time I hit max level, it took about 10 minutes for them to do the run.  I don't remember the CD time, but I thought it was awhile at 50 (left before the expansion.) I like that system, only make it a pretty long cool down time.  Or the other trade off as mentioned above.

[Heimdall]

I think that's a fair trade off.  It keeps inventory management in place, since that would come with a bit of a penalty, but without crippling the player.
 

By the time I hit max level, it took about 10 minutes for them to do the run.  I don't remember the CD time, but I thought it was awhile at 50 (left before the expansion.) I like that system, only make it a pretty long cool down time.  Or the other trade off as mentioned above.

Might have been a later patch, I seem to remember that they cut down the time spent waiting for a companion to return significantly.

I like the trade off as well, though devs don't seem as willing to use cool downs as penalties in singleplayer games. Or atleast, I haven't seen any I can think of outside open world games like the Elder Scrolls or Fallout. Don't know why.

[modernfan]

I think that's a fair trade off.  It keeps inventory management in place, since that would come with a bit of a penalty, but without crippling the player.

 

By the time I hit max level, it took about 10 minutes for them to do the run.  I don't remember the CD time, but I thought it was awhile at 50 (left before the expansion.) I like that system, only make it a pretty long cool down time.  Or the other trade off as mentioned above.

True, the tradeoff isn't too bad.  Also, depending on what's planned for fast travel mechanics once all areas are unlocked, it might be possible to plan excursions to minimize the inconvenience of not having a mount.

[Realmzmaster]

I think the mount idea is fine as long as it is a mule (0r other pack animal). If the mule is sent back to the Keep, it does not return until the party retrieves it. Rarely were horses used to carry heavy loads and the rider. Also if the mount is overloaded it refuses to move. The horses that are work horses (morgans and clydesdales) are used to pull not carry inventory. Light horses are used for riding. War horses were not used to carry anything but the rider and his/her gear. 

 

If a companion is used to go sell inventory or take it back to the keep there should be the chance the companion will be attacked and have to defend himself/herself. If you send the pack animal back to the keep there is a chance it will not make and fall victim to wild beasts or bandits. 

 

 The suggestions that the OP put forth remove the fun I have managing inventory and resources. Part of the roleplaying is deciding what to keep and what not to keep. What resources are necessary versus those that are not. I find unlimited inventories to be immersion breaking.

[Nyeredzi]

I think the mount idea is fine as long as it is a mule (0r other pack animal). If the mule is sent back to the Keep, it does not return until the party retrieves it. Rarely were horses used to carry heavy loads and the rider. Also if the mount is overloaded it refuses to move. The horses that are work horses (morgans and clydesdales) are used to pull not carry inventory. Light horses are used for riding. War horses were not used to carry anything but the rider and his/her gear. 

 

If a companion is used to go sell inventory or take it back to the keep there should be the chance the companion will be attacked and have to defend himself/herself. If you send the pack animal back to the keep there is a chance it will not make and fall victim to wild beasts or bandits. 

 

 The suggestions that the OP put forth remove the fun I have managing inventory and resources. Part of the roleplaying is deciding what to keep and what not to keep. What resources are necessary versus those that are not. I find unlimited inventories to be immersion breaking.

whoever finds that horse, and kills it, will get a lot of epic loot

[MrMrPendragon]

Things that I hope are not in Inquisition

1. Junk Items: It's really frustrating when you go to a long side pathway only to find loot that's completely useless.

2. Gold cap for stores. What I meant by this is having storekeepers have a limited amount of gold, so you can't trade everything you've picked up in one go. Skyrim had this, and DAI has some things that are from Skyrim, so hopefully this is not one of them.

3. Accessories having the same name, but having different properties. This is from DA2. If say, two rings, have the same bonuses, they should have the same name. Plus, some accessories have higher levels but have the exact same bonus as its lower-level counterpart.

------------
I'm good with everything else. I don't mind buying backpacks. Yes I find it weird that spiders and bears drop gold (maybe they ate a couple of silvers and a few bits?) but I don't mind. More gold for me. It's something that can easily be ignored, if this does show up in Inquisition.

I agree with OP though, about the loot dropping. It makes it easier for the player to find an item. Say a player wants gold, he or she can focus on targeting humanoid enemies and not worry about a bear dropping more gold than a mercenary.

[In Exile]

I think the mount idea is fine as long as it is a mule (0r other pack animal). If the mule is sent back to the Keep, it does not return until the party retrieves it. Rarely were horses used to carry heavy loads and the rider. Also if the mount is overloaded it refuses to move. The horses that are work horses (morgans and clydesdales) are used to pull not carry inventory. Light horses are used for riding. War horses were not used to carry anything but the rider and his/her gear. 

 

If a companion is used to go sell inventory or take it back to the keep there should be the chance the companion will be attacked and have to defend himself/herself. If you send the pack animal back to the keep there is a chance it will not make and fall victim to wild beasts or bandits. 

 

 The suggestions that the OP put forth remove the fun I have managing inventory and resources. Part of the roleplaying is deciding what to keep and what not to keep. What resources are necessary versus those that are not. I find unlimited inventories to be immersion breaking.

 

This gets into bigger realism related issues, accepting that the Inquisition is a legitimate military force as opposed to a random warrior band of 4, related to why exactly the Inquisitor doesn't have a larger body of troops to protect what is effectively a supply train of swag. 

[Realmzmaster]

This gets into bigger realism related issues, accepting that the Inquisition is a legitimate military force as opposed to a random warrior band of 4, related to why exactly the Inquisitor doesn't have a larger body of troops to protect what is effectively a supply train of swag. 

True. Which means if the party is sending items back to sell or to the keep the Inquisitor can have some troops escort the pack animals. That way they can defend the loot but at the same time make the troops and pack animals a more prized target to attack.

[Grieving Natashina]

You know, I've always wondered something.  Why is there vendor trash in games anyhow?  The only thing I can figure is to give the player something else to loot other than gear or just gold.  Is there a reason out there for this that I missed?

[In Exile]

You know, I've always wondered something.  Why is there vendor trash in games anyhow?  The only thing I can figure is to give the player something else to loot other than gear or just gold.  Is there a reason out there for this that I missed?

 

Kleptomania. When you're robbing graves and stealing the boots of the people you just killed, finding their wedding ring to sell for 3 coppers is just that extra bit of realism. Or something. 

[Deflagratio]

You know, I've always wondered something.  Why is there vendor trash in games anyhow?  The only thing I can figure is to give the player something else to loot other than gear or just gold.  Is there a reason out there for this that I missed?

 

Kleptomania. When you're robbing graves and stealing the boots of the people you just killed, finding their wedding ring to sell for 3 coppers is just that extra bit of realism. Or something. 

 

 

Context and flavor. If you don't understand the importance of those two principles in a game, you don't understand world-building and what makes a believable world.

[AlanC9]

The grave robbing and stealing boots makes the world more believable?

[Darth Krytie]

The grave robbing and stealing boots makes the world more believable?

 

Someone's got to keep the torn-trouser hobbyists well supplied.

[Deflagratio]

The grave robbing and stealing boots makes the world more believable?

 

 

Is this a serious comment? The answer is quite obvious isn't it? If you were to dig up a corpse and take the shoes, would they immediately transmute into gold upon entering your pocket? Or let's take a step further to what is actually being implied, would the coffin just be full of money and a skeleton? Which, I ask, is the ridiculous answer? Also, wouldn't boots be equipment anyway? Digressing.

 

You seem to be missing the point entirely, I'll use the example provided, the grave robbing. You can tell a lot about who this body is just by the theoretical "Vendor Trash" on him. Maybe he had some books on him, suddenly the dead man is more than a skeleton, he's a scholar. Maybe he's buried with the broken hilt of a sword (Inb4 crafting materials maybe?), what story does that tell?

 

Like anything in a game, it's a balancing act. Understate, and you've got an experience that feels artificial and unconvincing. Overwhelm the player and, aside from the practical consequence of inventory clutter, nothing is left to the imagination, and this level of shared creation is what creates truly powerful connection, that moment where you jump into your characters mind and transcend the control. Truly immersive experiences. A quality shared by (and originating in) only one other artistic medium, and that's literature.

[SomberXIII]

So.....should you not loot from the dead because it hurts your morale?

How about those weapons and gears in high price tag? In cases which you could not buy any of them even if you looted stuffs.

[Zazzerka]

I didn't have that problem... then again I made alot of trips back to my house just to stash things that could come in handy but I didn't need right now... had lot of potions and ingredients around my house, and some of the nicer weapon I didn't need/like.

 

I dumped everything into a single room until the physics engine crashed. Good times.

[DragonAgeLegend]

This.  So much.  Or just have a "send to stash" command or similar.  It has the downside that you can't access it without going back to your stash, but it isn't filling up your inventory slots.  I hate running out of inventory space 3 rooms before the end of a dungeon.  (Granted, some of that is caused by my insistence on picking up moldy boots and similar.)

Moth-eaten scarf anyone?

[In Exile]

Context and flavor. If you don't understand the importance of those two principles in a game, you don't understand world-building and what makes a believable world.

 

Don't confuse the fact that  I poke fun at the absurdity of looting in RPGs with the idea that I'm opposed to verisimilitude.  There, going to your response to AlanC9, a difference between characterization (e.g. even of the dead if you're robbing their corpses, or tombs if you're robbing graves) that could be achieved without looting a grandmother's quilt to sell for 3 coppers. Having such personalizing items as part of the world and visible to the player does not mean allowing the player to loot everything not nailed to the floor. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Kleptomania. When you're robbing graves and stealing the boots of the people you just killed, finding their wedding ring to sell for 3 coppers is just that extra bit of realism. Or something. 

It's not so you can sell it.  It's just so that it is there.  And if you do take it, it's worth something, but you don't have to take it.  Why would you?

[Amirit]

I think one or at most two of these options might work:

1. Increase inventory size (base limit of 100 items instead of 70, backpacks increase inventory size by 50 instead of 10).

2. Horses act as mobile stashes (possibly networked to your main stash).

3. All identical items take up only one slot, including weapons and armor.

4. Crafting supplies and quest items don't occupy slots.

5. No junk items, just copper/silver/gold.

6. Boxes found throughout the game world that are networked to your main stash.

 

Love all the options from 2 to 6. Can add number 7 from SWTOR - you are able to send your inactive (not currently with you) companion to "sell the junk". Add to this ability to assign the junk - and we are having the perfect loot solution.

[In Exile]

It's not so you can sell it.  It's just so that it is there.  And if you do take it, it's worth something, but you don't have to take it.  Why would you?

 

Because it's valuable. So long as a thing is valuable there is a prima facie reason to take it; other principles (like moral ones, e.g. respecting the dead) are all grounds for deciding that the value is not worth acquiring. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Because it's valuable. So long as a thing is valuable there is a prima facie reason to take it; other principles (like moral ones, e.g. respecting the dead) are all grounds for deciding that the value is not worth acquiring. 

You said it was 3 coppers.  If that 3 coppers of value doesn't outweigh the inconvenience of having to carry and sell it, it's irrational to pick the thing up.

[In Exile]

You said it was 3 coppers.  If that 3 coppers of value doesn't outweigh the inconvenience of having to carry and sell it, it's irrational to pick the thing up.

IRL, sure, but in-game, that's a 0 cost. 

[Deflagratio]

Don't confuse the fact that  I poke fun at the absurdity of looting in RPGs with the idea that I'm opposed to verisimilitude.  There, going to your response to AlanC9, a difference between characterization (e.g. even of the dead if you're robbing their corpses, or tombs if you're robbing graves) that could be achieved without looting a grandmother's quilt to sell for 3 coppers. Having such personalizing items as part of the world and visible to the player does not mean allowing the player to loot everything not nailed to the floor. 

 

 

My response wasn't so much an attack on your comment, as it was just framing the scenario with an already used example. I took some pains to point out that it can be overdone.

 

My stance is that it does serve a purpose, but the purpose also has to serve the game. The old "Tool in the toolbox" trope.