In game funds.
Author
I''ve noticed that in most games there is a trend to give the player more money then they can ever spend. Thus making money meangless and providing making it so the player can the maxium amount of all the best stuff. But is this a good thing? I personally feel it isn''t. So my question is how would players feel about being forced to but in an effort to earn money in game? This combinded with the player faced with recuring cost such as lodging, supplies, item and part maintence.
-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project: Ambitions Slave
Equipment loss on death always makes for low amounts of funds. A reagants system for spells, where you have to actually buy supplies to cast, also dips deep into funds.
Not to harp on and on about my fave game in every thread... okay, maybe I will. ;-)
Darklands managed money fairly well, up until you reached the point where you could afford the best armour around. At that point, you started accruing wealth faster than you could spend it, but it was usually well past the middle of the game. If you were playing for a "quick win", you usually didn''t have a huge stockpile of money. I would assume that anyone playing any game just for the enjoyment would tend to stockpile money anyway, much as someone who enjoys economics and trading would do well in a capitalistic society.
There were fees to enter cities, bribes for the night watch, road tolls, etc, that were based on how much money you were carrying. That helped level it a bit, even if it felt arbitrary (how does that friar know I have 18 florins, and not 1?).
It also used the aforementioned reagent system for spells. You could make money (if you knew the potions) by buying components and selling potions, but it required a lot of travelling. Knowledge (of alchemical formulae and saints) also cost, both money and time, but made the game so much easier to play -- thus ensuring that the player would travel all over the map.
There were also places where you could voluntarily spend money to increase skills (or the like). Donations to churches would increase your diving favour (mana), and occasionally increased virtue (casting skill) -- but it was pricy. Still, it was a good way to spend of excess money in the midgame. This was probably the best non-intrusive balancing system.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
Darklands managed money fairly well, up until you reached the point where you could afford the best armour around. At that point, you started accruing wealth faster than you could spend it, but it was usually well past the middle of the game. If you were playing for a "quick win", you usually didn''t have a huge stockpile of money. I would assume that anyone playing any game just for the enjoyment would tend to stockpile money anyway, much as someone who enjoys economics and trading would do well in a capitalistic society.
There were fees to enter cities, bribes for the night watch, road tolls, etc, that were based on how much money you were carrying. That helped level it a bit, even if it felt arbitrary (how does that friar know I have 18 florins, and not 1?).
It also used the aforementioned reagent system for spells. You could make money (if you knew the potions) by buying components and selling potions, but it required a lot of travelling. Knowledge (of alchemical formulae and saints) also cost, both money and time, but made the game so much easier to play -- thus ensuring that the player would travel all over the map.
There were also places where you could voluntarily spend money to increase skills (or the like). Donations to churches would increase your diving favour (mana), and occasionally increased virtue (casting skill) -- but it was pricy. Still, it was a good way to spend of excess money in the midgame. This was probably the best non-intrusive balancing system.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
I think it depends on the type of game. In many RPGs money is useful at first for beginning equipment and weapons but by the midpoint of the game, you''re just not excited about finding a chest full of cash because there''s nothing to spend it on. This is mostly because the best items are only available through special quests or random rewards from defeating a hard enemy. If the best weapons could be bought, it would encourage people to mindlessly slaughter over and over again until they had the cash to get the best weapons in the game and just fly through the rest of the game.
I think that the best model for in game funds handling is to follow the typical RPG style where money is helpful at first and then you get a little overflow, but give the player something worthwhile to sink money into. Like in Diablo II you could "gamble" and pay rediculously large amounts of money for an item, but there was a chance the item would be really good. Usually you just got junk though.
I think that the best model for in game funds handling is to follow the typical RPG style where money is helpful at first and then you get a little overflow, but give the player something worthwhile to sink money into. Like in Diablo II you could "gamble" and pay rediculously large amounts of money for an item, but there was a chance the item would be really good. Usually you just got junk though.
quote:Original post by GroZZleR
Equipment loss on death always makes for low amounts of funds. A reagants system for spells, where you have to actually buy supplies to cast, also dips deep into funds.
Yes, but like some people, I hated knowing in the back of my head that I was using these reagants everytime I casted my spell. Therefore if there was the same spell worth a rediculous amount but offers reagant free casting, I''d buy it.
You could also feature the absolute greatest equipment to be crafted by nonplayer characters that are given quested items, along with cash for the service.
Author
First off its an rpg I''m working, secondly there isn''t the typical random encounters system, and currently the plan is for enemies to carry little or no money.
GroZZleR: There is no comming back after death so that wouldn''t work. Also I''ve already included regent into the incantation system, as well as other in game consumables.
Subconscious:
The vast majority of equipment in the game must be purchased or made. Rare "named items" can be found but they are few in number and the player normally has to seek them out to aquire them. Also the player is responsible for more then just 1 charcter they have an entire band of npcs to maintain.
still no one has reponded to my original question. Which is how they feel about having to put in an effort to aquire wealth in the game?
-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project: Ambitions Slave
GroZZleR: There is no comming back after death so that wouldn''t work. Also I''ve already included regent into the incantation system, as well as other in game consumables.
Subconscious:
The vast majority of equipment in the game must be purchased or made. Rare "named items" can be found but they are few in number and the player normally has to seek them out to aquire them. Also the player is responsible for more then just 1 charcter they have an entire band of npcs to maintain.
still no one has reponded to my original question. Which is how they feel about having to put in an effort to aquire wealth in the game?
-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project: Ambitions Slave
it depends on what you mean by "putting effort into"... as long as it isn''t ridiculously hard to do, or take a long long time, it sounds good. but, if the player can''t do anything because they can''t afford 6gp to heal at the inn and they are afraid to walk out of the town without resting, it could ruin the game.
I rather liked the Zelda idea where you could only hold so much cash before your wallet was full.
Oh, and then theres Exponential costs, where say it costs only 6GP to stay at the inn, but a newbie sword costs 200GP, and the next tier weapon class is in the thousands. Absolutely rediculous costs, but it surely makes the player work for it.
Oh, and then theres one more idea where you don''t give the player money at all. They have to trade at a local pawn shop for the local town''s currency and then use that to buy a room at the inn.
Oh, and then theres Exponential costs, where say it costs only 6GP to stay at the inn, but a newbie sword costs 200GP, and the next tier weapon class is in the thousands. Absolutely rediculous costs, but it surely makes the player work for it.
Oh, and then theres one more idea where you don''t give the player money at all. They have to trade at a local pawn shop for the local town''s currency and then use that to buy a room at the inn.
The problem is that players get money for killing wild animals. They''re out there massacring beasts to farm XP anyway, and the money just sort of happens. I found a section in FFX where you could fight tough enemies with really obvious weak spots, and get a boatful of Xp for it, so I spent an hour or two farming XP there, and next time I found a shop, I cleaned it out because those robots were apparently on their way to Vegas when they picked a fight with me.
If you make it like Fallout, so you have to either kill people (rich people, preferably) to make money or else loot corpses and sell the gear, then money is harder to come by. Even in Fallout, though, you eventually reach a point where every time you kill a Super Mutant Patrol you get to haul 18 miniguns and a flamethrower back to town, and nobody in the game can afford to buy that from you. My locker at the Brotherhood of Steel was packed with at least 200,000 scripts'' worth of gear and drugs, but I couldn''t convert it into currency to pay for surgery because there weren''t enough bottle caps in the world to trade for. I never got the endurance boost.
So make money-making separate from XP-farming, and this problem will be reduced. You can be a level 97 Paladin who can''t be touched by man or beast, but that''s not the same as having a job. Make players work for merchants or steal/find the fancy gear they want. You killed a thousand trolls? Neat. That and a silver coin will get you a flagon of wine.
If you make it like Fallout, so you have to either kill people (rich people, preferably) to make money or else loot corpses and sell the gear, then money is harder to come by. Even in Fallout, though, you eventually reach a point where every time you kill a Super Mutant Patrol you get to haul 18 miniguns and a flamethrower back to town, and nobody in the game can afford to buy that from you. My locker at the Brotherhood of Steel was packed with at least 200,000 scripts'' worth of gear and drugs, but I couldn''t convert it into currency to pay for surgery because there weren''t enough bottle caps in the world to trade for. I never got the endurance boost.
So make money-making separate from XP-farming, and this problem will be reduced. You can be a level 97 Paladin who can''t be touched by man or beast, but that''s not the same as having a job. Make players work for merchants or steal/find the fancy gear they want. You killed a thousand trolls? Neat. That and a silver coin will get you a flagon of wine.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
