Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Investing in stores in Oblivion

Nutcracker

Scholar
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
935
Solik, your so called "Finance Theory" is utter bullshit. How does giving someone a one-off payment of say $100 give them a future added income stream of $100 per day? Or to put it in real finance terms: how does giving someone a one off payment of $100 give rise to a $100 a day perpetuity?
The only way this so called investment would be acceptable is if you had to say invest 10,000 septims, and the merchant's available funds would increase by 10% of the amount invested. If you give someone 100 bucks, HOW THE FUCK are they going to be able to use that to increase their revenues by 100 a day? That would be some investment.
 

Drakron

Arcane
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
6,326
Problem GhanBuriGhan is that I read someone stealing a glass weapon they found other someone bed.

So either the prices were radicaly altered from Morrowind or we end up with the same issues as Morrowind.

And the issue is high price items left around for the player to pick up.

If glass daggers are common enough for a NPC to hide then under the bed instead of keep it in some place safe they sould not come with a price tahe 1000 times higher that a common iron dagger.
 

galsiah

Erudite
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,613
Location
Montreal
GhanBuriGhan said:
Yeah, but you have no idea if your system eally works in a game.
Sure - it'd need testing. However, Morrowind was totally unbalanced, so if we're comparing it to that, at worst it's:
Unbalanced and reasonably sensible.
rather than
Unbalanced and nonsense.

I think my system (with possibly edited constants) would provide pretty much the same balance as Oblivion's (which is hardly likely to be fine-tuned). Similar balance and more sense is good.

Well, go ahead, mod your idea in, if the CS lets you.
Perhaps I will. I never said it was ths most important thing though. Neither did I say it'd be easy to mod in.
It (or something similar) is just a significant improvement that could have been made in a day - or two if I'm generous.

It would be fixing something that doesn't need fixing, imho, but I am certainly not against added realism in principle.
Like adding physics?
I'm not saying you're pro physics, but the developers are willing to spend large amounts of time and money on that - which is a detail in RPG terms -, and unwilling to spend a day or two on a reasonable trade system.

I am just wondering if its necessary or fair to accuse developers of lazyness, idiocy, or whatnot
I'm not saying the developers are idiots / lazy. I'd say it's probably thoughtlessness. It probably didn't occur to them to come up with anything better. If they did think for a long time about the options, and came up with this, I think that's idiotic.
That doesn't make all the devs idiots, of course - perhaps some of them were passionately campaigning for a realistic economy, but someone somewhere in authority was holding a grudge over a disagreement involving pizza toppings, so chose to ignore them.

There might be many reasons why we're stuck with the painfully nonsensical system we have. I don't know what they are. I do know that at least one of our friends Thoughtlessness and Idiocy were involved at some point though.

because they chose to treat this as what it is: a pretty unimportant subfunction of the game.
Treating it as "pretty unimportant" would have meant spending a few days to get it right. There's no "pretty" in the "unimportance" this feature has been treated with. The coherence of the system has been treated as completely irrelevant.

Will it be an improvement over Morrowind? Probably, and I welcome that. I just hope that they totally ignored the feature. To think that they thought hard about it and came up with this just makes my brain hurt.

- the desire to have a realistic range of values in items, including the wow factor of finding something really valuable
How is there a "wow" factor in finding anything really valuable? Perhaps the first time, a player will be naive enough to think "Great, I'm rich". After that he'll just be really annoyed that the theoretical value is 20000, but he can sell it for 1000.
If there is any wow factor after the first time, it'll come from the properties of the item. The cost is just going to be annoying - as it was in Morrowind: find a 12000 gold sword you can't use, at level 2? Carry it around for five levels, getting more and more annoyed at the impossibility of selling it, then sell it for a tenth of the value in disgust just to be rid of the thing.

Several words spring to mind here, but "Wow" is not one of them.

- the need to avoid letting a low level character becoming too rich too quick (upsetting game balance, and eliminating interesting long term goals)
So don't give the player a load of expensive loot he has no possibility to sell. If you have to give him the loot, and it has to be highly priced, give him the option to sell it at a loss. Having a 1000 item sell for the same as a 10000 item is both ludicrous and totally unnecessary.

- having a wide open sandbox game with random loot.
And credibility? How is it that every tenth low level bandit is walking around with / guarding equipment worth thousands? Randomise loot all you like, but if there are really valuable items, don't have them just lying around / on very low level opposition. It really isn't hard to restrict the player to finding low / medium valued items to start with, and having to work hard to get anything really expensive.

Perhaps Oblivion will handle this better than Morrowind. We'll see. I'm actually confident it might, since the infinite gold of merchants could imbalance things very quickly. Therefore it seems they'll have had to address things from the item acquisition side. I'd be very happy to see that.

Morrowind's method of giving the player highly valuable items, then not allowing them to be sold was stupid and frustrating. I really did find the "Sword of white woe" on my first playthrough of Morrowind at about level 3, not having looked at any tutorials / walkthroughs etc. This sword was worth 12000, guarded by no-one, and placed on top of a bookcase in the middle of a safe town.
Hopefully such absurdity doesn't exist in Oblivion.
Their system may not be elegant or realistic, but if it achieves that balance, than I have no problem with it.
Would an elegant and realistic system not at least be a bit better then?
 

Blahblah Talks

Arbiter
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
1,994
Location
the noodly appendage.
galsiah said:
as it was in Morrowind: find a 12000 gold sword you can't use, at level 2? Carry it around for five levels, getting more and more annoyed at the impossibility of selling it, then sell it for a tenth of the value in disgust just to be rid of the thing.
Carry? You didn't have to carry that crap in MW, you just had to remember where you dropped it. It wasn't like someone would actually take it. You should see the pile of crap I have stacked on the Mudcrabs island simply because I'm now too rich to care to sell him anything else.
 

galsiah

Erudite
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,613
Location
Montreal
Blahblah Talks said:
Carry? You didn't have to carry that crap in MW, you just had to remember where you dropped it. It wasn't like someone would actually take it. You should see the pile of crap I have stacked on the Mudcrabs island simply because I'm now too rich to care to sell him anything else.
Ah, but naive as I was, I thought to myself:
"This is worth a load of cash. The merchants around here don't seem to have enough to buy it, but there's bound to be one who has just around the next corner. After all, no-one's going to put a sword worth 12000 in a game if it's impossible to sell for anything close to that value. I mean that would be absurd, wouldn't it."

This was before I'd worked out that any value item can be sold by trading it for 1000 gold + items worth 11000, waiting a day, repeating, waiting a day, repeating...
Now that's gameplay.

Now I know this probably wasn't the best thing to do, enjoyment-wise - so why the hell price the sword at 12000???
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
Fallout had a bit of the same problem. I remember selling really expensive shit to the weapons guy in the Hub for all of his money and and a bunch of ammo, then selling the ammo back to him piecemeal because then he would have enough money to buy them from me.
 

dongle

Scholar
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
838
Zomg said:
Also keep in mind that after the first price drop or so, the game's profit-per-unit changes quite severely, to the point that developers on this forum and others have said that the only sales that really matter in terms of developer profit are made in the first few weeks after release
I guess all this countdown-to-release mega-hype makes sense in that context then.
 

GhanBuriGhan

Erudite
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
1,170
kingcomrade said:
Fallout had a bit of the same problem. I remember selling really expensive shit to the weapons guy in the Hub for all of his money and and a bunch of ammo, then selling the ammo back to him piecemeal because then he would have enough money to buy them from me.

So Fallout sucked?
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
GhanBuriGhan said:
kingcomrade said:
Fallout had a bit of the same problem. I remember selling really expensive shit to the weapons guy in the Hub for all of his money and and a bunch of ammo, then selling the ammo back to him piecemeal because then he would have enough money to buy them from me.

So Fallout sucked?
How did you come to that conclusion?
 

GhanBuriGhan

Erudite
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
1,170
kingcomrade said:
GhanBuriGhan said:
kingcomrade said:
Fallout had a bit of the same problem. I remember selling really expensive shit to the weapons guy in the Hub for all of his money and and a bunch of ammo, then selling the ammo back to him piecemeal because then he would have enough money to buy them from me.

So Fallout sucked?
How did you come to that conclusion?

Just pointing out that it obviously didn't, and certainly not for that reason. Likewise, wether Oblivon will suck or not will have other reasons, I believe.

Drakron, fair enough. But I do think the mere fact that there are things to do with the money (wether you get it by exploits or not) makes the economic aspect of the game much more enjoyable. The sale mechanics are absolutely secondary to this.
 

dongle

Scholar
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
838
kingcomrade said:
How did you come to that conclusion?
Ghan is pointing out the well-known fact that one can either be entirely critical of a game, or love it unquestioningly. No middle ground. None of this taking a game you love, and pointing out a single small flaw. Anyone who has any criticism at all for any aspect of a game must hate it as a whole with every fiber of their being.
 

GhanBuriGhan

Erudite
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
1,170
dongle said:
kingcomrade said:
How did you come to that conclusion?
Ghan is pointing out the well-known fact that one can either be entirely critical of a game, or love it unquestioningly. No middle ground. None of this taking a game you love, and pointing out a single small flaw. Anyone who has any criticism at all for any aspect of a game must hate it as a whole with every fiber of their being.

Oh, there is a middle ground. At least thats where I like to think I am. But the Codex makes it hard for me...
 

WouldBeCreator

Scholar
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
936
dongle said:
kingcomrade said:
How did you come to that conclusion?
Ghan is pointing out the well-known fact that one can either be entirely critical of a game, or love it unquestioningly. No middle ground. None of this taking a game you love, and pointing out a single small flaw. Anyone who has any criticism at all for any aspect of a game must hate it as a whole with every fiber of their being.

In fairness, that does seem to be the rule on the Codex. Say the least complaint about Fallout or about PS:T (other than its lack of turnbased combat) and you have two dozen moonbats claiming that you just hate the game and are too stupid to get it. (See, also, Space Rangers threads.)
 

dongle

Scholar
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
838
GhanBuriGhan said:
Oh, there is a middle ground. At least thats where I like to think I am.
Then stop making sweeping statements like that when someone brings up a single small flaw. Someone points out that the lack of horse reins looks silly, you go to town on them for being single-minded Oblivion bashers. It's getting a bit old.
 

galsiah

Erudite
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,613
Location
Montreal
GhanBuriGhan said:
Oh, there is a middle ground. At least thats where I like to think I am.
Don't we all.

As regards the trading system, I agree that it's not one of the most important features, but I do think it could easily have been done better - and indeed that it should have been.

If you want to occupy the middle ground, you should stick with:
It doesn't matter much - it's not important to me.

The "it makes sense / can be explained" argument knocks you off the middle ground and straight into Unquestioning Fanboy Anonymous. The economy / trading in Oblivion is clearly flawed. No game is perfect though, so you can quite easily admit it as a flaw and still maintain it'll be a great game - since the flaw is unimportant to you. Not admitting obvious flaws is rather fanboyic.
 

Zomg

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
6,984
dongle said:
Zomg said:
Also keep in mind that after the first price drop or so, the game's profit-per-unit changes quite severely, to the point that developers on this forum and others have said that the only sales that really matter in terms of developer profit are made in the first few weeks after release
I guess all this countdown-to-release mega-hype makes sense in that context then.

I think it makes a whole lot of things make (unpleasant) sense. I think it's one of the reasons there's no money in "cult of art" games like Ico or PS:T (games that people like to tell other people are good), because in the current environment games have to flash some tit so you'll snap them up right off, rather than develop a critical mass of good reputation over time.
 

GhanBuriGhan

Erudite
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
1,170
dongle said:
GhanBuriGhan said:
Oh, there is a middle ground. At least thats where I like to think I am.
Then stop making sweeping statements like that when someone brings up a single small flaw. Someone points out that the lack of horse reins looks silly, you go to town on them for being single-minded Oblivion bashers. It's getting a bit old.
Old but true for quite a few of them. And you are getting there, congratulations! To accuse ME of single mindedness is pretty rich, dongle.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom