Investing in stores in Oblivion

[ANDS!]

Sorry, you must be reading a different thread than me. I see a bunch of people saying "Holy hell merchants with infinite money! That sucks! Here's an interesting way it FIX it." That's constructive intelligent criticism. Happens every damn day here.

Actually, alot of the alternatives, dont really offer a fix so much as "this is marginally better than. . ."

his business of getting all huffy because someone dared criticize something you hold dear, and pointing out that the -rest- of the game is perfect to you, just makes you look pathetic.

Oh please get off it. This is as fallacious a statement as "Oh you like the game so you must be a Bethesda apologist".

I'm pissed because the concept of "Storyline characters" shouldn't exist in a freeform sandbox.

I really hope youre not pissed. It is a game after all. As for storyline characters, this is the point of their game. I dont even think BETH has gone so far as to categorize OB as a sandbox - thats been the term used by p/reviewers to describe their experiences - and for them the title may be apt as they may have been able to do what they want. In essence, it is true as the game never ends, and one need not touch the main storyline if they chose not to. It exists there for the DEV's to say "Hey - here's this world, and heres the story behind it. You have no requirement to actually participate, but should you decide to - here it is".

I've also made the point several times throughout the thread, that the emergent systems that greatly benefit a sandbox style game can easily supplant the rigidity required to preserve in the integrity of a narrowly scripted storyline.

Again, this statement doesnt really jibe with what MW - and presumably OB - will offer. Save for a few items, and story lore - youre under no obligation to touch the main story. Theres more than enough content to explore and stumble in without being "forced" down the main storyline. Both co-exist in the same universe. I'm sure theres coders and programmers out there smart enough to create a system that evolves on its own and creates its own story - but really, we arent there yet. Not on THAT level. SPORE looks promising, but I cant think of a single game that does what you want it to do. Maybe I'm just missing it.

The animosity shown by the community here is a cumulative disdain, as nearly every feature that sounded promising is revealed to be over-simplified, sometimes to the point of regression.

For example? This one confuses me because I'm trying to think of what the DEV's "promised" that didnt turn out the way you folks wnanted it to turn out - or could have turned out in such a way. Some are more better equipped to explain this, but a lot of what we've got hasn't cut the mustard.

If what you want is a dynamic world that has no storyline, that adapts and perhaps creates storylines based on what you do (non-scripted), and if perhaps folks expected that form the Radiant AI writeups - well I guess you would be disappointed. I personally wasnt expecting anything on that level, just a system that made the static uninteresting characters in MW a bit more palpatable.

How hard is it to expand upon that so that NPCs can become aware of statistical shortcomings and ask the player to rectify it?

I dont know - ha. I dont know the first thing about scripting language so I couldnt say. But wouldnt - again - it boil down to a generic "If X, then Y" scenario, with an NPC coming up to you every so often and saying "Hey fetch/kill/buy Z for me". Maybe someone can make it more interesting than that certainly, but we havent seen it yet. Personally, I would much rather BETH sat down and crafted their own huge world with scripted events that seem random and large, than give us this system that IS truly free and evolving, but only genericlly so.

I was simply saying that MMOGs, recognising the need to continually give the mule a carrot to reach for, provide ample way for even the most seasoned player to spend their rewards.

But isnt that - again - an artificial system? WOW for example - has incredible rewards for higher end players. . .craftable weapons, spells and mounts - but the monetary requirement is insane (1000g for a horse for instance). This forces the player to either grind grind grind for cash, or dungeon crawl to get the materials; but then to dungeon crawl in this higher areas you need a group, so your chance of getting phat-loot to sell drops significantly - forcing the player to spend countless hours towards a goal that may well have its line changed as soon as they reach it. Yea - that was fun, for awhile.

Convenience doesn't mean there isn't truth to my dismissal. I'm sure there are legitimate reviews of games out there, but on the whole, the gaming media are boys crying wolf.

For example? Other than MW and I'm sure OB - what games have received good reviews that didnt deserve them? Even though a game reviewer may have a good relationship with a company - does that invalidate the score if its a good game? RE4, HALO2, CIVIV, etc - highly rated games across the board. Do you disagree with their assessments, even if you disagree with their business models?

PS - please PM Bryce and Co. and instruct them to look at your replies on how to put together a coherent argument.

 

[ANDS!]

Which it does.

He says while peering into his crystal ball. . .

Well let me see... That would be: Yes, yes and yes.

You too! Two coders (or whatever) on one forum. What's some of your work?

By the way, how can a programmer not be a coder or vice versa? You seem confused.

Your attempt at a slight not-withstanding, I never said I knew anything about the art. Confused would denote an inability to comprehend. Theres nothing for me to comprehend as Im not particularly interested in the TITLES you folks assign to yourselves.

Your "fixes" for the economy system are. . .in a word - flargin. You're fixing a problem that BETH hasnt created. Your assumptions that if a merchant can buy 3 blades at 100 dollars, why cant he buy my axe for 200 dollars is a false understanding of the system in place - or at the least making it something it isnt. We DONT know how much gold a merchant has. All we know is how much he's willing to spend on a single item. That he has the cash to buy 300 dollars woth of blades, but cant give you 200 dollars for the axe is irrelevant; below 200 is all he can afford to give you for the axe. The same works in real life - If I have a choice to buy several low cost items versus one high cost item. . .I'm going to buy the low cost items.

Still not a perfect system, but NOT one that works/doesnt work the way you think it does.

 

[RK47]

at least we got options to turn it off. just modding every merchant to have 100k gold will get rid of this silly economy and turn it into standard old style 'merchant buys everything' rpg

simpler imo, i don't understand why must bethesda create such an unnecessary money sink in game, it isn't even MMO, so the focus shd be more on the player's interaction with the game world instead of creating these silly investment models.

O_O better yet, incorporate some crazy stuff from Space Rangers 2 for more kicks, let's do RTS where we pump out redguard barbs for rushes, problem solving quests that needs some logic, mining / lumberjack investments and trading with a horse cart around towns for kicks lol. it'll be the ultimate single player rpg ever.

Oblivion Tycoon

 

[ANDS!]

at least we got options to turn it off. just modding every merchant to have 100k gold will get rid of this silly economy and turn it into standard old style 'merchant buys everything' rpg

Not really. Unless you change how much a merchant will buy an INDIVIDUAL item - youll have the same problem.

 

[VenomByte]

Merchants do have infinite gold. We know this.

They are only limited in the amount they will spend in a single transaction.

 

[Relien]

Maybe I'm missing something, but what's wrong with the fact that some merchant simply has exactly 1000 gold, and therefore can't pay 1001 for an item that's worth 100000? It may be very simplified, since he won't borrow from anyone and he won't give you his pants to place this great contract, but that's his problem - he just has 1000 gold and that's all he can give you.

Every 24 hours he manages to sell the stuff he bought with some profit, let's say he gets 1050. He buys food and such for the 50, and again he has 1000 for more of your axes. He's able to buy them from you every day, but he's unable to buy a sword for 3000. That makes sense in this simplified case.

If you "give" him 1000 gold, he has 2000. Every 24 hours he sells his stuff for 2100 and spends 100 now, because he wants to live like a rich man since he can afford it. Let's say this desire is stronger than the reasoning to spend only 50 and therefore become even richer.

Now, the only problem is that you can't give him the 100000 gold worth artifact and let him pay you later, after he'll sell it.

Now I don't say that this system is perfectly ok, but to say that it doesn't make sense at all doesn't make sense imho.

 

[Drain]

Merchants have either infinite gold or a lot of it.

The thing that I suppose hasn't been made clear is that the amount of gold a merchant displays in the barter screen is the maximum amount they are willing to pay in one transaction. It might be 800, 1000, 1200, etc. depending on the shopkeeper. So if you have an enchanted item worth 2500 and you try to sell it to a shopkeeper whose barter gold is 1200, the most they will pay for it is 1200. If you have two of them, you can sell each of them to the merchant for 1200 each. But you can't get more than 1200 for the item. A merchant's barter gold does not get reduced when you sell something, either. So you could sell 50 of those swords for 1200 each.
Investing in a store simply raises the amount of barter gold. So if you invest 500 in that same merchant's shop, he now will pay up to 1700 for a single transaction (a transaction meaning the sale of one item or of a stack of identical items).

It's a little bit abstract, but it ends up working out well.

 

[Relien]

Merchants have either infinite gold or a lot of it.

The thing that I suppose hasn't been made clear is that the amount of gold a merchant displays in the barter screen is the maximum amount they are willing to pay in one transaction. It might be 800, 1000, 1200, etc. depending on the shopkeeper. So if you have an enchanted item worth 2500 and you try to sell it to a shopkeeper whose barter gold is 1200, the most they will pay for it is 1200. If you have two of them, you can sell each of them to the merchant for 1200 each. But you can't get more than 1200 for the item. A merchant's barter gold does not get reduced when you sell something, either. So you could sell 50 of those swords for 1200 each.
Investing in a store simply raises the amount of barter gold. So if you invest 500 in that same merchant's shop, he now will pay up to 1700 for a single transaction (a transaction meaning the sale of one item or of a stack of identical items).

It's a little bit abstract, but it ends up working out well.

So you don't have to wait for his gold to replenish, he's just not willing to pay more...

Well, sorry then, this indeed makes no sense at all...

 

[galsiah]

Which it does.

He says while peering into his crystal ball. . .

No - by looking at a developer's description of the system. You can see how it works. Playing the game won't tell you any more.
As far as balance goes, we'll see.
As far as coherence / good sense goes, it sucks.

You too! Two coders (or whatever) on one forum.

Say programmers. Saying "Coders" just smacks of - "I know a new word that's more technical than programmer, so I'm going to use it even if it isn't appropriate."

Coding is writing code. Programming is designing software, designing code, and writing code. Programmers are coders in the sense that ice-hockey players are puck hitters.

What's some of your work?

Nothing special. I'm not even employed right now - I'm studying. I've never worked in the games industry, but I aim to (though sometimes I ask myself why). So far I've just got a few unfinished demos, a half finished simple physics engine, a load of code lying around, and a couple of mods.

Does that qualify me to know everything Bethesda did to construct Oblivion? Of course not. It does qualify me to say that a clearly simple, isolated part of the code could be improved though.

We DONT know how much gold a merchant has. All we know is how much he's willing to spend on a single item.

We do know it's infinite:

A merchant's barter gold does not get reduced when you sell something, either. So you could sell 50 of those swords for 1200 each.

You almost have a point (but you don't, in fact), since you could argue that the player has no way of knowing there's an infinite supply of gold - he just knows what the merchant will pay.

However, you're still wrong, since the following situation can arrise:
Player offers item worth 20000.
Merchant offers 1000 for it.
Player doesn't sell.
Player offers the same merchant an item worth 1000.
Merchant offers 1000.
Player sells.
Player sells 50 more items at 1000.
Player now knows the merchant had at least 51000 to start with.
Player knows the merchant would not pay even 1500 for an item worth 20000.
Player knows the merchant is insane.
...
Player knows all merchants are insane.
Player loses all sense that he's living in a cohesive world.
Player wonders why such pathetic design gets into otherwise impressive games.

 

[Drain]

You're fixing a problem that BETH hasnt created.

Honestly, do you think that the system they have is better than the system where merchants have unlimited gold, but the values, quest rewards and loot are balanced? We don't know how balanced or broken are the values in oblivion. We do know, however, that there will be items that cost more than merchants are willing to pay for them and that the problem is severe enough to have the whole mercantile perk devoted to it.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Player knows all merchants are insane.
Player loses all sense that he's living in a cohesive world.
Player wonders why such pathetic design gets into otherwise impressive games

... or he might just shrug it off and get on with the game.

The main thin that creates the oddity though is that they removed the limited barter gold / merchant / 24 hours but kept the barter gold limit.

While its not a logical sytem it does have advantages: It makes it easier to sell items, no more camping required, and at the same time maintains the logic that not every village smith can afford to trade in daedric swords. Thirdly it opens a way for the player to still sell such items, that becomes worthwhile when he has a lot of them AND lots of cash (meaning late in the game). I concur that it could be solved better, but as a game mechanic, and not an element of world simulation it still sounds ok to me.

 

[bryce777]

I think a lot of the root of this problem is the 'live' world.

In a game like darklands, a city is very abstract, and there are obviously thousands or tens of thousands of people there. It would not seem odd for a merchant to be able to get funding for a big sale - not that this is a common thing in that game because there are not really any magical armors or weapons.

When a town has 30 people in it, it seems ridiculous to have that kind of money lying around.

 

[Relien]

...not every village smith can afford to trade in daedric swords.

But he can, as long as the player has enough equivalents of Dwemer coins, ebony darts, soul gems or other items of low weight and high value to do the intermediate trades.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

...not every village smith can afford to trade in daedric swords.

But he can, as long as the player has enough equivalents of Dwemer coins, ebony darts, soul gems or other items of low weight and high value to do the intermediate trades.

Which makes sense, because he has a maket for those.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I think a lot of the root of this problem is the 'live' world.

In a game like darklands, a city is very abstract, and there are obviously thousands or tens of thousands of people there. It would not seem odd for a merchant to be able to get funding for a big sale - not that this is a common thing in that game because there are not really any magical armors or weapons.

When a town has 30 people in it, it seems ridiculous to have that kind of money lying around.

Thats a good point. The decreased level of abstraction makes many relatively small things stand out (horse reins!). In my experience the intial balking at unrealistic elements in a realistic game environment goes away after playing a game for some time.

 

[VenomByte]

...not every village smith can afford to trade in daedric swords.

But he can, as long as the player has enough equivalents of Dwemer coins, ebony darts, soul gems or other items of low weight and high value to do the intermediate trades.

Which makes sense, because he has a maket for those.

No, because in the end the merchant will still end up with the daedric item and the player will end up with 50,000 gold. All you've done in the end is have about a hundred trade transactions, with the last one being the merchant offering 49 ebony darts and 1k for your 50k daedric sword.

He is not ending up with items he has a market for, *unless* he refuses on all occasions to do part exchanges of his own items for yours. Which I think is unlikely.

 

[Drain]

While I can think of an explanation for unlimited gold (e.g. merchants pay with promissory notes that can be used as a means of payment elsewhere), I can't rationalize strange "investment" system and strange willingness to pay(1000 for 1000gp item and 1000 for 50000gp item).

 

[VenomByte]

I also preferred the rest 24 hours system. At least that made more sense - you could roleplay the idea that the merchant would make up the cash later from further trading.

Knowing it replenishes *instantly* and there is an infinite amount of it, is a nonsensical change which is a huge step backwards.

 

[Solik]

At least that made more sense - you could roleplay the idea that the merchant would make up the cash later from further trading.

But it wasn't very fun. In fact, it was annoying.

 

[Relien]

No, because in the end the merchant will still end up with the daedric item and the player will end up with 50,000 gold. All you've done in the end is have about a hundred trade transactions, with the last one being the merchant offering 49 ebony darts and 1k for your 50k daedric sword.

Exactly. It could go like this:

pc: Hey, look at this sword, it can be yours for 50k.
m: No way, I'll only pay you 1k.
pc: *shuffling ebony darts*
pc: See? I won.
m: What!? How did you...?

 

[Chefe]

I also preferred the rest 24 hours system. At least that made more sense - you could roleplay the idea that the merchant would make up the cash later from further trading.

That's just as stupid as being instantaneous. You could just hit "rest for 24 hours" and everything would be back to normal instantly.

No, it'd work better if the total amount of his money changed over time. On weekends it could possibly be higher, while during the week it might drop down a little. Also, if you deal with other merchants in the city instead his cash amount might not change much from the last time you met with him, or something.

Just base it on a bunch of different variables.

 

[VenomByte]

At least that made more sense - you could roleplay the idea that the merchant would make up the cash later from further trading.

But it wasn't very fun. In fact, it was annoying.

True, a lot of people found it annoying. And you're the reason Beth have changed it.

But really though, will you find doing the 'ebony dart shuffle' to sell all your expensive items instantly to be satisfying, or will it feel like you're abusing the system?

Except now you're going to be abusing a system that blatantly makes no sense whatsoever, instead of one that was almost believable.

I on the other hand, won't be abusing the system (as I didn't with Morrowind), but I'm instead going to be even more painfully aware of the highly exploitable and nonsensical mechanics of such an absurd system.

That's not an improvement, in my opinion. The only way you could see it as one at all is if you simply don't care about the behaviour of the people in the world around you, and you're just on a power trip for your character.

 

[ANDS!]

Say programmers. Saying "Coders" just smacks of - "I know a new word that's more technical than programmer, so I'm going to use it even if it isn't appropriate."

Or - "Im going to say a word I've heard in association with creating video games and will use it".

However, you're still wrong, since the following situation can arrise:

Again - you're describing a system that simply isnt there. The game does NOT operate on a Zero-Sum basis. How difficult is that? Just because you the merchant has X amount of money doesnt mean he's going to purchase an item valued at X. It doesnt work that way, and thank god it doesnt. If it did, it would resemble every other RPG where merchants have infinite amounts of gold - and yet operate and live in shithole locations. As it is, BETH has created a system where the player wont have to exploit the game (purchase enough small items so the merchant buys the bigger item) in order to sell wares - but WILL have to work if they want to sell of those high end items that will no doubt be there in the end. These suggestions about scripting NPC's to shop at merchants, and letting random dice rolls determine what money they have the next day only shifts the "problems" (if you feel it is a problem - again, I in no way am purchasing this game to have a great merchant-selling experience) to the side instead of fixing it.

Honestly, do you think that the system they have is better than the system where merchants have unlimited gold, but the values, quest rewards and loot are balanced?

There has to be a compromise between what you can deliver and what you should deliver. BETH isnt full of dumb people no matter what some of the vocal critics on this forum seem to think. At some point they decided that this merchant system worked best with the game world as a whole; it was probably implemented in this way because - like me - selling items wasnt a huge part of the experience. A system was found that not only addressed some of the issues that MW had, but also didnt put a burden on the player. Barring a FULL FLEDGED economy system, this is one of the valid alternatives to have that doesnt immediately break the system from the get-go (as the Mudskipper and Creeper did).

When a town has 30 people in it, it seems ridiculous to have that kind of money lying around.

Anymore ridiculous than resting in the middle of a dungeon for a day to regain health? Or killing an NPC, and not a single person ask - "Hey, what happened to FARGOTH"? Its the same type of complaint with Online FPS's - do we really think someone can take 5 shots to the chest and NOT go down? Of course not - however SOME liberties must be taken, to ensure that GAMEPLAY is smooth and enjoyable.

 

[VenomByte]

I also preferred the rest 24 hours system. At least that made more sense - you could roleplay the idea that the merchant would make up the cash later from further trading.

That's just as stupid as being instantaneous. You could just hit "rest for 24 hours" and everything would be back to normal instantly.

No, it'd work better if the total amount of his money changed over time. On weekends it could possibly be higher, while during the week it might drop down a little. Also, if you deal with other merchants in the city instead his cash amount might not change much from the last time you met with him, or something.

Just base it on a bunch of different variables.

Stilll stupid and exploitable, but much better because you could at least fine SOME justification for it. Personally I'd like to see the merchants gold increase over time in proportion to his/her mercantile skill, or something similar.

 

[Nog Robbin]

Absolutely - they have left the mercantile skill in... but why? The system that uses it sounds pretty crap. How useful is it actually going to be? It's a skill that many won't use simply because the mechanics around it makes it not seem to be in any way part of the world. Who reckons that by TES V that mercantile (and probably speech craft) are dropped simply because they do a poll and find they are not used? Again, because the mechanics behind them suck.

Then let people tell me it's still a frigging RPG.