Balancing the market in TW3

[cmdr_silverbolt]

I thought I made it pretty clear that I don't care about the nitty-gritty of this type of realism.

Dealing with merchants (buying/selling things) is the most boring part of any game, so I'm not looking for ways to increase that interaction.

Mostly, I like the idea of being able to acquire my improved equipment via fights, quests etc, and maybe buying a pair of gloves or getting it made here or there.

If I just want to use the market to make a pair of gloves, then I'm not going to be enthused about the game making it silly for me to get that last few bits of materials; at that point, I'll just say fuck the gloves, and take my chances. So really, I don't think someone like me would even get affected by this, but here's a potential problem for everyone:

I feel that if the game focuses too much on creating an ultra-realistic economic system, then it will reduce the possibilities to acquire treasures via other means. The stress in TW3 should be on enabling player questing, not making the player grind and scrounge for money to get equipment.

If there are still ways to get equipment without having to grind and scrounge for money in an ultra-realistic economic setting, then I couldn't care less about the economics of the gameworld.

 

[Agent_Blue]

I thought I made it pretty clear that I don't care about the nitty-gritty of this type of realism.

You did. And it doesn't thrill me either.

I just think it's unreasonable not to expect the bare minimum. If you go to the trouble of having at least some resemblance of a working economy, then it's going to get affected by something monumental as a war. Certain items will be cheaper and more readily available in peaceful rather than war-ridden areas. Otherwise, better scrape the whole thing off and have set prices throughout the world.

 

[Garrison72]

You did. And it doesn't thrill me either.

I just think it's unreasonable not to expect the bare minimum. If you go to the trouble of having at least some resemblance of a working economy, then it's going to get affected by something monumental as a war. Certain items will be cheaper and more readily available in peaceful rather than in war-ridden areas. Otherwise, better scrape the whole thing off and have set prices throughout the world.

Which is fine, so long as they can implement the nuances of an economy in a way that:

-prevents the player from exploiting it, as DB mentioned.

-prevents this particular game mechanic from becoming too important. As both I and CMDR have said, Geralt is not a fish monger, or a merchant, and he should be encouraged to engage in activities that remind us what it's like to be a Witcher in Sapkowski's world. We can do all of the other ultra realistic fiddly stuff in other RPG's.

So to be clear, I'm not advocating for pruning features, I just want features relevant to the lore.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

@ Agent: Actually, NML is the only region most affected by the war, and it's unlikely to see a lot of markets there, but perhaps some traders might still exist.

As for Skellige Islands and Novigrad, these regions are perhaps as yet insulated from the immediate effects of war because of geography, but I guess some trade might have suffered.

I still question the affects of war on Skell Islands, though- I believe that community is likely to be self-sustaining because of its nature.

Moreover, Novigrad seems like a trading hub which would have other potential partners to replace any lost from the lands in NML.

Honestly, I don't care for the specifics of this system because I would prefer getting most of items and equipment via unconventional means, i.e. not having to deal with merchants.

If the game can handle both aspects, items and equipment via unconventional means and realistic economics, then great, but if it has to pick one, then I prefer the former aspect.

 

[dragonbird]

You did. And it doesn't thrill me either.

I just think it's unreasonable not to expect the bare minimum. If you go to the trouble of having at least some resemblance of a working economy, then it's going to get affected by something monumental as a war. Certain items will be cheaper and more readily available in peaceful rather than in war-ridden areas. Otherwise, better scrape the whole thing off and have set prices throughout the world.

I'd prefer option 2 - scrap the whole thing and have set prices throughout the world.

This is the kind of scenario that justifies the concerns that people were expressing in the Fast Travel thread, that having Fast Travel turns it into a particular kind of game, one that a lot of the posters didn't like.

I really don't want to see quests like this:
"I want to make this cool sword, but the ingredients are available from merchants scattered across five different places, and according to the wiki I can get this ingredient for 2 orens less if I go back to that little village I visited last week and would otherwise have no reason to return to but hey, fast travel."

 

[wichat]

I'd prefer option 2 - scrap the whole thing and have set prices throughout the world.

This is the kind of scenario that justifies the concerns that people were expressing in the Fast Travel thread, that having Fast Travel turns it into a particular kind of game, one that a lot of the posters didn't like.

I really don't want to see quests like this:
"I want to make this cool sword, but the ingredients are available from merchants scattered across five different places, and according to the wiki I can get this ingredient for 2 orens less if I go back to that little village I visited last week and would otherwise have no reason to return to but hey, fast travel."

organized people know how to balance their needs with their duties. A good trip is always planned in advance and use this circumstance to make timely business and thus avoid double displacements. And when CDPR appeal the player's intelligence is not for this issue.

But you're right, it's too complex for a simple RPG game.

 

[Senteria]

You're forgetting something. When it comes to food, it decays, rots and is not useable anymore after a few days. Especially in a world without conservatives or places to keep it fresh. (okay in cold places you can store things longer) but Geralt is on the road. He needs to eat and sleep. Which means you would need enough stuff with you to make the trip, wether you do it by fast travelling or not. If I would go on a trip on a bike or on foot to another place and travel all day, I will need to stop at places to refresh, drink, eat and sleep if it will take me more than a day.

The downside for this system is that players will feel that they don't have the freedom to explore whenever they want. It might be a bother to constantly think of your water/food supply. I know for example in Dark Cloud 1, they had this thirst meter in the dungeons and it got pretty annoying having to drink water all the time. On the other hand it discourages people from fast travelling and (generic rpg) players will probably go 'booo' on that.

I mean if the world is going to be huge, make it more realistic as well. I'm not saying: "Geralt got hit by this monster/soldier and now needs to see a doctor and stay in bed for 2 weeks"

Just some food for thought.