Stash system

[lamontagne]

I'm with you OP, to be honest I think we can lug around too much as it is, I much prefer the itinerant monster hunter vibe and I think that it's far too easy to generate coin in this game - I am seriously thinking about dumping my 10k and RPing with my own constraints.

That said, if you can shut your eyes to fast travel it's not that much more of stretch to imagine that in that blink of an eye Geralt has travelled to his other container, picked up the loot and then travelled, albeit massively encumbered, back. As I have fast travelled numerous times I really can't complain about the addition, I just won't use it.

 

[KingKnee]

I'm pretty bad about that, I hate any little thing that detracts from immersion. Some examples are:

- Where is Geralt keeping that huge-ass lamp?

You don't wanna know.

 

[ColinJ89]

More or less agree with the OP. Witcher 2 had to link storage chests because you couldn't revisit the old ones. Not the case here, and for the sake of realism I hope they're not linked.

 

[tfwoods3]

More or less agree with the OP. Witcher 2 had to link storage chests because you couldn't revisit the old ones. Not the case here, and for the sake of realism I hope they're not linked.

Good point

 

[LuckyCat]

Guys,

What would happen if you have storage chests that are not linked? Think about it for a minute. What if I want to move all my stuff to the next storage chest? I would be overburdened from point A to point B walking my horse to travel, instead of traveling fast from sign post to sign post which would be easier and save time. Some of you want to be realistic by taking the long route, but being overburdened and carrying bunch of swords is not realistic. I'm not seeing a bunch of swords showing up on Garelt or on the horse, but I'm sure that's because the swords are longer than the saddlebags so they do not fit in. I'm just throwing that out there to ponder...

Spoiler

Guys, dont forget, there is magic exist in Witcher World. Storage Crest Linked = magic storage crest

 

[tfwoods3]

Guys,

What would happen if you have storage chests that are not linked? Think about it for a minute. What if I want to move all my stuff to the next storage chest? I would be overburdened from point A to point B walking my horse to travel, instead of traveling fast from sign post to sign post which would be easier and save time. Some of you want to be realistic by taking the long route, but being overburdened and carrying bunch of swords is not realistic. I'm not seeing a bunch of swords showing up on Garelt or on the horse, but I'm sure that's because the swords are longer than the saddlebags so they do not fit in. I'm just throwing that out there to ponder...

Spoiler

Guys, dont forget, there is magic exist in Witcher World. Storage Crest Linked = magic storage crest

I would never see the need to move everything. For one you are supposed to be traveling a lot, not sticking to one area. So there would be plenty of reasons to go back to an area that you stored stuff earlier. Why would you want to move everything? I would either sell off crap before it got ridiculous. Or only take things I think I will need. I also see myself going to these locations where I stashed Alchemy ingredients and crafting them there on the spot. So I don't see any need to take everything so it always remains close by.

I would store Witcher armor that needs upgrading at the nearest stash to the armor smith that will eventually craft it.

One thing I am going to love about it, linked or not, is keeping all the rare monster crafting materials at the stash locations.

 

[Amioran]

If instead of adding storage points they would have revisited the economy and loot system all this problematic between roleplaying and accessibility would not exist. But certainly it was much easier for them to just add storages and call it a day, I guess, but still it's an half-assed solution that still leaves intact many other problematics the game has concerning loot and economy (as insane amount of gold you make, making futile many gameplay mechanics aspects, making the game more easier than already is and butchering the lore).

I would have much preferred if they just waited a little and revisited the economy and loot mechanics thoroughly when they had the time to do it properly instead than going in this direction in an haste to make some users happy because now, given this addition, revisiting how the economy and loot works and fixing that glaring issue (one of the worst the game has imo) would be much less an incentive because then the storages that they spent time creating would make much less sense than before.

 

[tfwoods3]

I disagree in that, bad economy or not, having a stash/temporary base of operations, is cool either way. I feel it should have been in there at launch.

I would have preferred that enemies dropping weapons was rare, instead of every one of them dropping weapons. That alone would reduce gold intake and having a bunch of trash in my bags.

 

[Tuco]

If instead of adding storage points they would have revisited the economy and loot system all this problematic between roleplaying and accessibility would not exist. But certainly it was much easier for them to just add storages and call it a day, I guess, but still it's an half-assed solution that still leaves intact many other problematics the game has concerning loot and economy

I argued about the many problems with loot*, itemization and economy for weeks at this point, but I really don't think there are mutually exclusive solutions.
*EDIT: proof. Note: ignore the rhetoric question in the thread title, it was edited by mods. I *DO* think it's definitely "too much".

A storage system doesn't change the fact that they could EVENTUALLY address these problems (assuming they are recognizing these as problems in the first place).

 

[Amioran]

I disagree in that, bad economy or not, having a stash/temporary base of operations, is cool either way. I feel it should have been in there at launch.

That's another thing than linked storages and anyway it is just a gimmick. It can be interesting for example to look at al the things you have collected in your journey etc. (as other similar things) but it is anyway a thing in surplus, not dramatically necessary. A well done economy and loot system on the other hand...

I would have preferred that enemies dropping weapons was rare, instead of every one of them dropping weapons. That alone would reduce gold intake and having a bunch of trash in my bags.

And that's the major issue. If the loot system was revisited and overhauled to work well you would not need to carry all that weight. Even more you would not make so much money that all economy matters practically anything at all by end of act 1 onwards. What's even the point of haggling for witcher contracts (that's one of the iconic traits in the lore)? Geralt should be one grasping for money left and right, not a noble. By end game in Witcher 3 he could practically retire for life and become a member of the same nobility he so much despises.

---------- Updated at 08:56 PM ----------

A storage system doesn't change the fact that they could EVENTUALLY address these problems (assuming they are recognizing these as problems in the first place).

True, but a good loot and economy system definitely make a storage mechanic much less necessary than it is when the economy and loot are broken so you have so many things you don't know what to do with them and if you have to switch equipment so often that your inventory becomes full in a blink of an eye.

They aren't mutually exclusive but still linked storage points becomes much less of a paramount thing with a well working loot and economy mechanics. I have the bad feeling (and I don't know why but it's so) that if they added the storage points they have no intention whatsoever of revisiting the loot and economy. Maybe I'm a pessimist on this thing but this is my feeling on the matter.

 

[LuckyCat]

 

[Goodmongo]

Why not link them. They already dumbed the game down by including the stash. So give in completely or the hoarders might further complain that it's too hard to fast travel between their locations.

---------- Updated at 09:21 PM ----------

More or less agree with the OP. Witcher 2 had to link storage chests because you couldn't revisit the old ones. Not the case here, and for the sake of realism I hope they're not linked.

It it was realism they wouldn't even be in the game at all. Things would weigh more, there would be less loot and you would carry less.

BTW I want this. I don't even use saddle bags. I only take the best items and still have enough money. All of these types of changes are to placate the hoarders and those that have trouble making hard choices.

 

[Tuco]

Let's drop the bullshit, please. It's not just about "hoarders".

Even just trying to craft more than ONE Witcher set will lead even a player using the best saddle bags to be constantly close to its weight limits.
I don't think it's too unfair to expect that the game will let you experiment with more than a single Witcher Gear without forcing you to trash the previous one you crafted.

 

[Cronstintein]

Yeah it's costly to keep making and dismantling higher tier witcher armor, having a chest for it would be a good change.

Are you people picking up every normal sword and blackjack these jokers are dropping? No wonder you have too much gold and not enough room
Have the willpower to leave trash on the ground and it'll save you trouble and help economy balance. Also maybe don't rob every building you come across.

 

[tfwoods3]

I really like this mock-up someone here on the forums did

http://s15.postimg.org/710adkasb/wip.jpg

I know this is not related to storage, but it would be cool to see the storage window look like the left panel

 

[Goodmongo]

Let's drop the bullshit, please. It's not just about "hoarders".

Even just trying to craft more than ONE Witcher set will lead even a player using the best saddle bags to be constantly close to its weight limits.
I don't think it's too unfair to expect that the game will let you experiment with more than a single Witcher Gear without forcing you to trash the previous one you crafted.

Yes let's stop the bullshit.

1) You don't need more than one set of armor.
2) Witchers NEVER carry more than one set of armor.
3) If you really want to respec it is extremely easy to reforge the gear.
4) Selling the old gear and recreating doesn't cost you anything. Most of the time you make a small PROFIT.

There is zero logical reasons why storage is needed. Only need is to placate hoarders.

And before ANYONE tries the strawman argument that you don't have to use it let me defeat that by saying they can include tanks, planes, lightsabers etc. After all you don't have to use it.

The only thing you really should loot is a better sword and monster parts. That is the lore of a witcher.

 

[Smurfin]

There is a lore and there is a game mechanic. Storage is part of the game mechanic and not necessarily related to the lore, if the game wants to be 100% accurate to the lore there shouldn't be level in the first place, gwent, light/medium/heavy armors, etc.

 

[phreatophile]

There is zero logical reasons why storage is needed. Only need is to placate hoarders.

None that you deign to recognize does not mean there are none.

And before ANYONE tries the strawman argument that you don't have to use it let me defeat that by saying they can include tanks, planes, lightsabers etc. After all you don't have to use it.
.

Strawman: a sham argument set up to be defeated.

I point this out because you clearly don't already know what a strawman argument is.

Your notion of tanks, planes, and lightsabers in the Witcher is so patently ridiculous that it is the definition of a strawman argument.
The idea that you needn't use a feature that's not part of core game-play that you do not like is a logical argument and doesn't even resemble a strawman.

We had storage in the first two games, it's hardly an unprecedented feature in The Witcher series.

Seriously, some of you rant as if this is some crazy unheard of addition that is going to pervert your special little world. How does safe storage harm you in any way? The rest of us will fire up the other 66.6% of the franchise and wonder why they removed storage from this installment.

 

[Goodmongo]

. How does safe storage harm you in any way? The rest of us will fire up the other 66.6% of the franchise and wonder why they removed storage from this installment.

How does a light saber harm you? Both are silly questions.

But you are correct that it wasn't a strawman. I misspoke,. It is a red herring fallacy.

And if you knew the history of storage it was because the other games were linear where you couldn't go back to a zone once you completed it. It was a transfer mechanism more than a storage one. And it also came in the EE versions.

 

[phreatophile]

Wonderful, CDPR isn't waiting for the EE version this time.