Please dont make it easy to get money

Story & Setting
#10

making money easily doesn’t make it fun, it makes it boring and unchallenging. same as your star citizens example. easy ship piloting isn’t fun, it’s boring and uninteresting. a game about challenge will always be more fun than a game that rewards you for nothing.

i also agree realism isn’t always difficult. some things you can do easily in real life. but your examples, once again, are quite bad. piloting a plane is actually extremely difficult in combat situations, so it’s actually simplified in most simulators. same concept applies to star citizens i guess.

in kingdom come, combat, wounds, and such are also simplified from real medieval life. the point of realism and challenge is to limit it so the game is still interesting and immersive, not to create real life simulator. but by the same token, if you want to make a game boring and silly, easiest way to do is keep reducing realism like you are hoping.

and also, lets put things into perspective. in this game, if you are making maybe a few coins on a DAILY basis, you probably are already doing better than most medieval common people and soldiers. so again, difficulty is relative.

#11

the probelm with money in rpgs is that of a closed economy, no matter how hard or eay to get, it can be exploited and the player ends up with 50% of the countrys welth in there back pocket. a way to stop this is make gold, sliver or groats weigh some thing , remember no banks, the player can only carry so much, big sword sir ? or carry all you cash? the player could hire other to carry it, and of corse they wont run off, or bury it in stashes, become a lord build a castle hire gaurds. Also you will pay more the more you carry. so gold can be easy to get (to save endless grinding) but players are forced to plan big purchases.

1 Like
#12

How many peasants out there walk around with a pouch full of gold? My guess is none.
If they were, they are no peasants, they are noblemen or merchants.

Making gold in the game I hope will be difficult, getting some silver should be possible but my hopes are you will never cvarry around so much more than a couple of copper pennys because that sounds more reasonable. You’re a blacksmith apprentice, your father WAS the blacksmith, if I understood things right.

Gaining gold in Skyrim for example, even when playing on hardest difficulty is fairly easy, I hope this will be different.

1 Like
#13

I agree fully with @Gromon. Getting a nice sword early in the game should rely on your skill or maybe even luck, whether in combat or in sneaking around and finding one. Obtaining gold shouldn’t necessarily not be fun for the game but you should certainly have to work for it, like doing menial tasks like chopping wood or hunting. A full suit of armor shouldn’t be obtainable until you can achieve some sort of rank or fall into a ton of cash. It might be more fun for some to play a commoner with access to plate armor and a broadsword at the beginning of the game, but for those of us desiring a realistic world (which I’m pretty sure is why most of us are here), obtaining such will be more rewarding with patience and plotting.

#14

Agreed.
Money should be scarce and hard to earn.
And economy should be realistic so that silverware, jewellery, weapons and armor would cost a fortune.
I’d absolutely love that.
Then being a thief might pay out unlike in other games…

#15

There will always be players - as is obvious even in this thread - who prefer to easily sail through their game and those who prefer to fight through it tooth and claw.

The former will complain about everything remotely challenging, claiming it “hinders their progress” and “is not fun”, the latter won’t see any point in spending their time on a game that’s not supposed to be played but rather watched.

I personally hate games that throw moneyz at me left and right (looking at you Larian). I’d love KC to be as stingy as possible. But for commercial reasons I think Warhorse should put some kind of easy difficulty (better called “story mode”) option in the game, so that certain people can play their interactive movie if they wish so.

1 Like
#16

I want to have coin when I kill a rat.
NOOO just joking.
But yes definitely a system that the economy is credible
And for the sword, please no good sword loot on a poor Bandit corpse.
To loot a good sword you should have to earn it

#17

@Paawool

Maybe also a picnic basket when you kill a wolf. :slight_smile:

3 Likes
#18

Fundamentally you shouldn’t ask how the player will earn but what they will buy. We see from the video that the player gets a sword from the armory, which maybe he will keep as reward. Looting armor off corpses makes more sense that commissioning if you are worried about your next meal.

Indeed the sword is a good example of rendering the concept that the lord owned ALL and anything people did not make themselves would more likely be bartered for with goods or services than purchased. Using money would be more prevalent in a merchant than a peasant.

Gameplay wise I generally find discrete reward for discrete action to feel much better than killing rats in a field. As a blacksmith and alchemist there are services the player could render to others to get the things they need.

1 Like
#19

I’m all in for a realistic economy. That should of course be part of the vision for a game based on realism.

No way a commoner could earn enough money to buy a good sword or even horse back in these days. Looting corpses? Yeah, and where to sell looted armor? Everybody knows that you probably looted it somewhere and nobody will buy it. They will put you in prison instead for looting the dead (which wasn’t seen as the appropriate action of an honorable man to say the least. And what do you think people will think if you just appear with a lot of cash you stole somewhere? They won’t sell you much but ask a lot of questions instead. People will most likely get envy and they will denounce you at the officials. Or bandits will try to steal from you at night. So even if you have a lot of illegal money there wouldn’t be much ways to spent it, at least not for stuff like armor and swords which would arouse attention.

Earming money? Of course, but only enough to get you sated. And maybe some spare coins to spend on games in the tavern.

Everything “big” (like armor, weapons, horses) shouldn’t just be purchasable. That should be connected to the story and quests. There should be a realistic reason why you have valuable stuff like that. Maybe somebody equips you with that stuff to enable you to work for them. Or something else. Anyway, there should always be a comprehensible reason why you have the things you have. You should be a realistic part of the society and not someone standing outside, following his own rules. That would break a lot of the realistic immersion for me…

#20

When I think of games that are easy to get money, I think of GTA… Where every quests gives you $10,000, random citizens always carry $500. “But buying things must be expensive, right?” Wrong. Cars can be stolen for free, car parts costs about up to $5,000, prostitutes charge $20, and food is $5.

Please for the love of God, developers, read this forum and do not make it easy to get money in the game.

1 Like
#21

In case it wasn’t clear, my post above is suggesting looting corpses for personal use, not selling the armor.

Honor? He’s a peasant. It would not be below him to do such things. Still though, it could be fun to have Npcs react if they see you with looted armor, make it something they despise you for.

That being said it’d be pretty foolish to think armor was not reused historically. Given the time it takes to make something like chainmail, they sure as heck repaired and reused armor.

#23

I disagree with you, Assassin’s Creed’s financial system was laughably inadequate. With the exception of ship building (in AC4), wealth was a worthless pursuit which should never be the case in a sandbox game (unless it’s zombies or something). The original AC didn’t get into money (which worked) however, as soon as AC2 came along so did the terrible economics that they implemented. Money was as easy to obtain as walking past someone and it only could be used for two things: better gear or making more money. Seeing as you shouldn’t play the game as a hack and slash (makes the whole thing boring), buying gear doesn’t mean anything. So money is pointless in AC2.

AC: Brotherhood and Revelations had a similar problem (no worthwhile gear, money to make money) but they’re not the worst offenders of this series. AC3 had the worst economic set in AC history. Not only was upgrading gear pointless (unless you really suck at the game), the whole ship mini game was set up just so you can make more pointless money which you would then use to buy more pointless things to make more pointless money…

I like Assassin’s Creed but let’s not even pretend it has anything resembling a realistic or intuitive economic system.

And Dark Souls (1 and 2) is infallible.

#24

My post wasn’t meant as a direct answer to yours, just as a general contribution to the topic. :wink:

That’s what I’ve meant. People wouldn’t react all that good if they see with you with looted armour. And then again you’d have to change it anyway.

Yes, indeed. But you need money to “reuse” a piece of armor. Since every (better) armour was kind of made for exactly one person according to his physiology you’d have somebody to change it which would require some decent money and a lot of time.
And of course “loot” belongs to the feudal lord and not to commoners. If you steal from a battlefield you probably steal from your lord which was very much a serious crime back then…

#25

Yes, but actually Assassin’s Creed is NOT a sandbox game. At least not primarily.

Money is pretty much pointless in AC on purpose. It’s just there to let you buy additional equipment but it has no purpose beyond that. So yes, it isn’t realistic but I rather have it that way than the opposite with the player getting richer and more powerful as the king himself… :wink:

#26

Like I said, worst economics in modern gaming (slight exaggeration). I like the games (AC3 be damned to Hades though) but I would never tell a game dev to reduplicate AC’s money system in their own game. It’s easily the weakest part of AC as a whole.

#27

True, lordcrash, good points. Refitting the armor would be a rather involved process and of course if more metal were added to a set of chainmail one would need to procure the metal required. No free lunch! As they say.

As another factor to your point that if a lords man were to steal from the dead then he might steal from his own lord. A lord might be thought poor if he did not outfit his soldiers properly such that they would feel compelled to steal from the dead.

1 Like
#28

They system isn’t weak imo just because it’s unrealistic. It fulfils its purpose quite well. And you can just leave it be if you’re not interested in side games. So I think it’s even better than in many other games in which a bad economy can completely break game balance. That won’t ever happen in AC. But of course, it’s not really realistic.

But I don’t think that the system of AC is appropriate for KCD. I think the game would benefit from a more realistic and grounded economical system although that requires a lot more work and technical expertise which is perhaps not available. Let’s hope for the best though…

#29

I suppose that’s all we can do.

#30

So much so that you can throw it away to cause a distraction :laughing: and make the plebs go cash crazy

In saying that though, I do like AC games… even with their many flaws. I think they hold a certain amount of promise for me, which for the most part has yet to truly be realised. It’s why I keep going back. I think I’m just holding out for the inevitable feudal Japan period piece, where we can play as an actual ninja assassin :smiley: *sigh one day.

© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz