Multi-Currency to the game. Yes please,CD project
It occured to me that orens maybe out of the picture anyway because Temeria is pretty much wiped out of the map, so I think it affects little bit to the value of their coins with late king Foltest´s face in them.
I personally think that Novigraadian Growns vs Nilgaardian money would be intresting in witcher 3 because I am under the impression that they are north´s and south´s strongest currencies.
If done right, it could certainly put some intresting story elements like Aaden said.
It occured to me that orens maybe out of the picture anyway because Temeria is pretty much wiped out of the map, so I think it affects little bit to the value of their coins with late king Foltest´s face in them.
I personally think that Novigraadian Growns vs Nilgaardian money would be intresting in witcher 3 because I am under the impression that they are north´s and south´s strongest currencies.
If done right, it could certainly put some intresting story elements like Aaden said.
Feature requests made well into development need to have the equivalent of Occam's Razor applied to them.
It has to serve the plot, serve the atmosphere, serve characterization or themes, or the only right thing to do is cut it off and throw it in the bit bucket.
Having to deal with moneychangers is a possibility. Moneychangers make obscene profits, cheat you mercilessly, make life miserable for everybody around them, and are deservedly hated. That makes them worth having to deal with.
But any lesser implementation, forget it, it doesn't add anything beyond a game mechanic and is not worth the complication. Fixed exchange rate, or different money accepted in all territories, has no purpose other than complication and no place in the game.
It has to serve the plot, serve the atmosphere, serve characterization or themes, or the only right thing to do is cut it off and throw it in the bit bucket.
Having to deal with moneychangers is a possibility. Moneychangers make obscene profits, cheat you mercilessly, make life miserable for everybody around them, and are deservedly hated. That makes them worth having to deal with.
But any lesser implementation, forget it, it doesn't add anything beyond a game mechanic and is not worth the complication. Fixed exchange rate, or different money accepted in all territories, has no purpose other than complication and no place in the game.
BlackLeopard said:
BlackLeopard said:
I agree with these fine gentlemen. Mixed currency sounds like a truly amazing idea.BlackLeopard said:Get used to florens, folks./>
Update the poll, please. Add multi-currency as an option.
About investing and gems: Geralt was never a businessman, and he never wasted his time on such crap. If in TW3 he is on a personal urgent mission, he sure as hell won't bother with accumulating wealth. TW3 may be an open world, but it is not a sand-box, to have this economy system. Personally, every player is free to buy any junk he wants and keep it in his chest, but I am against any in-game economic system.
FoggyFishburne said:
Err, what, exactly, would be «amazing» about it?
In what ways would it impact gameplay?
The existence of mixed currency per se is a trivial matter. Unless you have something specific in mind, it's pretty petty.
So do share.
First of all, having a single currency while dealing with different factions is silly. Why a hell would Nilfs in NML pay Geralt with Novigrad crowns, for example? Or where do Temerian peasants in NML (some of them have to be alive) get crowns or florens? The same goes for Novigrad.
To have a single currency - orens - does not make sense in Novigrad. To have only crowns does not make sense in NML. And none of these will make sense with Nilfs. Sure, it can be simplified for gaming purposes, and won't be a deal breaker, but it will be a deficiency.
Second, it may be integrated into a story, and make the world and people's behavior more believable.
Everything that makes the world of the game more believable is amazing. Everything that enforces some extra-suspension of disbelief (like a single currency for warring factions, all across a huge map) is not desirable, and should be changed if time and resources allow.
If it is still possible to have three different types in the game, I am all for it.
To have a single currency - orens - does not make sense in Novigrad. To have only crowns does not make sense in NML. And none of these will make sense with Nilfs. Sure, it can be simplified for gaming purposes, and won't be a deal breaker, but it will be a deficiency.
Second, it may be integrated into a story, and make the world and people's behavior more believable.
Everything that makes the world of the game more believable is amazing.
Everything that enforces some extra-suspension of disbelief (like a single currency for warring factions, all across a huge map) is not desirable, and should be changed if time and resources allow.If it is still possible to have three different types in the game, I am all for it.
I'm of the keep it simple group myself. While I realize this wouldn't make it realistic, I really don't want to have to sit here and figure out exchange rates while trying to play the game. While I would prefer to keep the Oren for sentimental reasons, I'm fine with whatever, as long as it's just that one thing.
vivaxardas said:
I'm not disputing it makes sense. Geralt not having to eat, drink, sleep or urinate makes no sense either, so, which criteria should we resort to in order to evaluate the merits of a particular feature?
It seems to me there are far more meaningful and impactful ways to increase plausibility. Off the top of my head, a realistic inventory ranks rather high.
The fact you were somewhat unsuccessful in establishing the virtuous consequences of having mixed currency might indicate that, although desirable, it should be relegated further down the to-do list.
It wouldn't be probably so difficult to put three (four,..) columns into player's item list (budget part) and always pay with corresponding currency. And there should be some exchange on the way, of course.. (some bank system could be also fine)
But please, it should be as easy as possible.
But please, it should be as easy as possible.
Sometimes I think we read past each other's posts. I presented a way in which exchange rates would work for 3 different types of currency and went on to suggest (since I didn't prove it but it can be inferred from the reasoning used) that any extra currency type increases complexity polynomially with respect to the amount of currency types involved. What we're calculating is the number of k-permutations of n types of currency, which becomes n*(n-1) with k = 2. In principle we might think exchange rates and handling a few dozen states is not too much, but ideally there would be other features associated to these coins.
Guy N'wah pointed out that feature requests must offer something worthwhile to be considered for implementation. So unless we can think of something relevant beyond "multiple types would be cool", the complexity doesn't justify the implementation.
Guy N'wah pointed out that feature requests must offer something worthwhile to be considered for implementation. So unless we can think of something relevant beyond "multiple types would be cool", the complexity doesn't justify the implementation.
AgentBlue said:
Concerning any protagonist, not eating, sleeping, drinking or urinating, and no perma-death is not something that affects perception of the world. We as players need these things in RL, and as long as we identify ourselves with a hero, it seems to be enough. But if you remove such features from the world, it is a deficiency. That's why we all want realistic daily routines, and nobody likes when NPCs just stand on the same spot day and night. I don't see any virtue of such in-game behavior except providing immersion.
The major virtuous consequence of mixed currency is an approximation of realism. The same as having NPCs going to sleep into their houses at night, for example.
If we have a single currency, then whatever the devs choose call it, it may be called anything, because from the perspective of TW world any in-world currency wouldn't make sense as a means of exchange for every faction. They may call it bit-coins, for all I care, makes as much sense as to call it orens or crowns.
Not a deal breaker, but for a new gen RPG that may redefine the genre, and set an example, such things should be implemented if time allows. If not, well, I can live with a single currency.
Having multiple currencies could add to the game's strategizing. Suppose Geralt is in a village that is part of Temeria, but Nilfgaard's army headed for it and will seize it. He has to spend the last of his orens before that point in time. If the villagers find out, hyperinflation sets in and everything gets more expensive. I wouldn't mind seeing this.
gregski said:
This. There's no need for multiple currencies, it annoyed the hell out of me in DA:O and was completely pointless.
slimgrin said:
In DA:O it was pointless, you're right. Especially since 100 copper became 1 silver and 100 silver became 1 gold automatically, so there was no reason to have more than one type of coin.
I'll say it again: I think either we have an elaborate economy with different currencies and all the implications, which sounds relatively complicated and it is probably already too late to include it in the game, or we ignore the currency issue altogether like we have blissfully ignored the fact that Geralt doesn't ever take a leak and that a dwarven merchant all the way in Upper Aedirn gladly received our Orens.
However, maybe we could change the one currency to Crowns, afterall we're not going anywhere near Temeria and I don't think Orens would be worth much considering previous events.
Csszr said:
What's left of Temeria, anyway. RL medieval coin (usually silver; gold was scarce until the 14th C.) had value for its metal content, not on the accounts of a bank or a government, so orens should still be worth something (but goods you could buy in no man's land would be scarce and expensive).
slimgrin said:
It never occurred to me that someone could interpret DA:O's system as multiple currencies. I always thought it was more like dollars and cents. 100 cents = 1 dollar, just like 100 coppers is 1 silver and 100 silvers = 1 gold.
GuyN said:
I was thinking that earlier when I was reading the thread - the impression I've always got from novels is that in those times traders pretty well took any coin, that the value of the coin was just how much "good" metal was in it, and the stamp on the face of the coin just an indication of that. Didn't the concept of trading in currencies only come later, when it stopped being made of precious metals?
(And I agree with Thosthistox about DA:O - there was no complexity, just a way of depicting the value in a decimal notation.)
dragonbird said:
You're right; I think it started when the Florentines invented money of account. Florence as early as the mid 14th C. had such a high rate of literacy and advanced understanding of capital that even rural tradesmen and farmers could trade on account. And of course money of account became inflated and opened opportunities to make money on the difference. See Goldthwaite, The Economy of Renaissance Florence, and many others.
Currency has been made of precious metals, not because they are scarce, but because they are abundant and hold up in use. Silver became abundant in the Middle Ages, especially after the huge silver strike at the Rammelsberg (modern Goslar), and silver pennies were everywhere. The association of dwarfs with mining and stubborn independence also goes back to this time, as the Saxon miners demanded -- and got -- shares in the mines, special privileges to brew beer and trade untaxed in the markets, rights to strike and emigrate, and all sorts of perks unheard of among commoners in those days.