Currency Type?

I was wondering what are thoughts on types of currency being used in SotA? Will we be using the classic UO "gold" design, or we will be using the WoW "gold, silver, copper" design, or maybe even another type of currency and/or design. $$$

 

I'm hoping whatever the currency is will have an actual name with a bit of lore to it and come in a few different denominations rather than default to the fantasy cliche of the gold piece.

 

Even though it was debated and ultimately found to be unfavorable I still really like the idea of regional currency ala SI. There was a gold standard and then currency of city states. Though for SotA maybe continental currency. Probably, almost certainly unlikely to happen.. I found it interesting as a sign of cultural differences.

The gold, silver, copper is more of a D&D thing.. been around decades longer than WoW has.. but I would like something a little more complex this time around than a simple standard gold coin like most Ultimas. Maybe that's part of the reason I liked multiple currencies in SI.. it was difference from the same old.. same old single coin currency you find common these days.

 

I am ok with just the simple gold currency system.

 

gooooooooooold

 

All currency will be in Skittles!

1 Red = 2 Orange
1 Orange = 5 Green
1 Green = 10 Yellow
1 Yellow = 20 Purple

Taste the rainbow!

I imagine things will be kept simple, but I would love regional currency. The key is to making a UI so us Math-deprived people don't feel sad all the time.

 

Although I'd be happy with regional currency I would be fine with a single world wide one. I would just like the currency to be tied in with the new realm lore and not use gold as a base. And maybe see an actual image of the most important coin somewhere (possibly in concept art).

But if that is just too much then at least give the coinage an actual name even if it is a case of 1 gold Garriot = 10 silver Starrs or whatever. The primary means of economic exchange in the world deserves a bit more thought and lore to it than being relegated to a "gold piece". =P

 

I agree something other than "gold" would be nice. The actual currency isn't a major point for me. The extra immersion would be cool but simplicity works well and probably not something most of the team wants to worry about. I would be very happy with a cool name if that's all they do with it.

 

I vote against pounds, shillings, and pence.

 

Im ok with just about anything that makes sense. Would prefer a copper, silver, gold, platinum, type deal - and bank drafts system, world wide. Its used a lot because its hard to top.. Rpg players (d&d, ect), can relate easy.. And managing funds doesn't become a headache when going different places. Although im ok with gold being called.. Say britarium or some such.

I like immersion but not to the point I'm going to need a currency exchange app

Id prefer a straight gold system over different currency types if a d&d style system isn't in place.

 

I think that a lore-specific currency type would be great. I'm a huge fan of lore in a game. It's why to this day I still find myself nostalgic for playing a game like Asheron's Call, and in AC the money was called Pyreals. I think it was part of the reason I felt more immersed in AC then I ever did in WoW for instance.

 

Whatever they go with, I want to see a big bag of fake coins in the SotA swag store for a few bucks, that match the in game currency

 

It would be interesting if the majority of exchanges in-game were handled with bartering! You'd have to negotiate your time and or services in exchange for the services or products of others. This might be a good way to gather quests as well.. Not saying I'm against a common currency, just saying that in small villages back then, trading goods for services, or a goat for a newly thatched roof.. would have been more common to see.. It would be in the bigger towns with more merchant trading that would have the supplies of gold, but that doesn't mean everyone would necessarily prefer gold over an item or service that they really need.. Plus it would be fun to see farmers regularly walking into town with an animal in tow, ready to trade it for some supplies for instance.

 

There's one thing about currency that I want to put out there, that might be a bit unpopular. I can already hear the cries about realism and immersion. However I want to state now that I strongly feel under no circumstances should money take up weight or bag space. One of the things I hated most about Asheron's Call was that even after they made the Pyreal weightless it still took up bag space. The coins would only stack up so high before you would have to use up another slot for more. You could buy trade notes to turn your cash into what was basically a promissory note, but those still took up storage space.

 

I doubt it's final.
But if we have two or three sides fighting each other I say each side should have their own money.
If every player town is out to defend themselves then yea stay with one coin.
Or maybe if you control so much of the map then you can make your own coins.
And making coins could be using so much gold or silver or other metals.

 

Ultima => pieces of eight

 

@bcxanth: You said you hated that gold currency took up weight and space in your bags, but never explained why.

I think anytime a game tries to create an experience using simulation, they have to strike a balance that keeps the experience as fun as possible. I have faith that when designed correctly, the currency/weight/bag space dilemma could be tackled whatever is decided, in a way that is fun and engaging to play.

I support currency taking up bag space. Two reasons come to mind:

1. If there is looting and people could hold unlimited amounts of currency, they would be far more upset when it is stolen than if they regularly only carry what they've gathered on that particular outing.

2. Numerous Quest/Story opportunities, where tax collectors and successful (NPC or Player) merchants would need to hire (NPC or Player) guards to protect their wagons and mules that assist them in moving their wealth from place to place. (which could be robbed by players or NPC bandits)

Perhaps we could discuss the advantages and disadvantages presented by handling currency either way; hopefully the ideas would assist SotA developers as they work on the system.

 

I agree for your reasons, and also I want it to be work for people to gain and keep wealth. If there are piles of gold in a dungeon, and a lot of other items too, the character should be forced to decide what to take back with him. If he wants it all, he'd have to figure out a way to get it all. Pay some hirelings to split the loot with, get a horse or an ox.

Imo, anyway, when you play to the comfort of the player -- and not just general playability concerns -- you're always creating an imbalanced game. Besides, the problem of how to take all the gold you want back to the bank might open up story opportunities in itself.

 

The very fact that they take up bag space and cause encumbrance are the reasons I hate it. It's that simple. Especially in a world where apparently housing will be sparse. If people have nowhere to store their stuff, then eventually they will have to make the choice of not taking money they could otherwise have had just so they can still walk around. There's a reason why no modern video game has those mechanics anymore. People didn't like it and it adds nothing positive to the gaming experience, it only adds frustration.

Also, considering the fact that I disagree with the idea that anyone should be able to steal from me unless I opt-in to some type of PvP system the idea that I would be upset if someone stole currency from me is not an effective argument to me at this point. If Devs decide to allow unfettered stealing then you will have a point, but for now I chose to believe that won't be an issue.

When it comes down to it, looting and carrying around all the junk that generates on monster corpses is enough of a burden when it comes to pack space or encumbrance. Adding money to that list serves no real purpose in my eyes. I've played games where the money took up pack space and/or had weight, and I've played games where it didn't, and I know which game systems I preferred.

 

As I don't believe I will be getting a house, I too am very interested to see whether I'll have a 'home' to hang my hat (& loot) so to speak.

Ah, good point! I suppose even 'opting-in' individuals would ensure they've stored most of their valuable gold away, knowing they are in danger of losing it at any time if that is the case.

It's true that most games don't include currency in inventory/encumbrance, so I definitely agree that developing this 'feature' would be seen as a burden rather than a feature to new players, unless it's designed to somehow benefit gameplay more than it hinders.

I propose that the difference between frustrating and challenging is a fine line; and I think the key is to make surpassing these challenges a rewarding experience. If NPCs in the game world are facing the same challenges I am, so I can relate to them, and they to me, my experience is being rewarded. If in these situations I can either help them, they can help me, or I can take advantage of that knowledge in some way against my enemies, then the challenge becomes more fulfilling to overcome. However, when it seems only I, the player, am facing the 'challenge', it feels frustrating, like it's just there to make my life more difficult.

I truly believe that 'frustrating' aspects of gameplay can be made enjoyable given the right amount of interaction to make the challenge feel rewarding. This is why it's so important to take a good hard look at many aspects such as this one during the development stage, and make a decision. Will the interactive gameplay opportunities make this a feature worth having? Or is it too high a risk that will become frustrating for the majority of the community?