Should Coins Have Weight Associated With It?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Blake Blackstone, Apr 16, 2015.

?

Should Coins

  1. Yes

    49.3%
  2. No

    50.7%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gix

    Gix Avatar

    Messages:
    2,204
    Likes Received:
    4,017
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Regardless of context, a game should never allow a situation like that to happen. Ever.

    I will, however, give you a basic (common) scenario:
    A pack-rat managed to go through a dungeon and is on his/her way home but gets interrupted along the way by a random encounter. That player just fought for his/her life. All that player wants to do is get home so why shouldn't that player get a reward for the trouble? So the pack-rat loots the corpse of the assailant but he/she has a choice to make: "Do I loot the long-sword or the gold?"

    The long-sword is probably more interesting but it weights too much. What about the gold?

    If you were to design a game, why would you want to punish them? Wasn't it you, the designer, who over-rewarded them with items in the first place? They went through just as much trouble to get these rewards but now you'd be asking the player to not receive anything (or worse, discard something)... because gold has weight.

    What? You're supposed to skip on the loot? What a terrible "reward" system.

    That's not a cool feeling to have. You're talking about "planning ahead" but I'm talking about expecting something from your troubles. The risk is the possibility of death on your way back home, where's that reward?

    There's a very important distinction between hand-holding and rewarding the player for something they've done. People in these forums need to understand that before throwing the cliche WoW "insults" at anyone who disagrees with them.
     
  2. SmokerKGB

    SmokerKGB Avatar

    Messages:
    2,223
    Likes Received:
    2,798
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pittsburg, CA
    So, you're changing your stance to removing "encumbrances" altogether now after 17 pages?

    I vote NO to removing encumbrances...

    I vote NO to giving coins weight...
     
    Budner likes this.
  3. Blake Blackstone

    Blake Blackstone Avatar

    Messages:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    3,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Interweb

    Would you consider loot on monsters and mobs a negative?
     
  4. Xi_

    Xi_ Avatar

    Messages:
    1,797
    Likes Received:
    3,774
    Trophy Points:
    125
    Location:
    Jade Valley




    thats an issue with random encounters, not weighted coins, but i will play along anyway, if i'm carrying a log back to town and get jumped by a bandit carrying a sack a gold and I can't carry both I'm going to dump the log on the side of the road and take my sack of gold to the nearest tavern and get hammered!
     
  5. Blake Blackstone

    Blake Blackstone Avatar

    Messages:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    3,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Interweb
    No Im just trying to hear them out.
     
  6. Sir Frank

    Sir Frank Master of the Mint

    Messages:
    4,065
    Likes Received:
    10,919
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Kansas City

    I'm saying gold works fine for me the way it is.

    Encumbrance for the rest of the things mentioned is another matter entirely.
    If you give things encumbrance, then the question becomes how real you want that.
    I don't particularly care if things have encumbrance. If I'm carrying 20 different weapons and three sets of armor so I'll be prepared for whatever fight I get into, that's not very realistic. If the game allows it, I'll still probably just settle on one set of armor and weapon I like. But I know other people will carry 20 different weapons and 3 or 4 suits of armor and build decks for every situation. I really don't care if they can do that.
    If there is anything near real encumbrance, nobody will be dragging home golden thrones and fountains and fireplaces. Unless they take them home in pieces and assemble them later. All of that would add complications to the game, and make it less fun for me.

    I don't need realism.

    But if the point is to fight gold farmers and bots, surely there is another way, and Chris Spears has probably thought about it.
    If the point is to control the MMO economy, we need to remember there are solo players, and this isn't really an MMO.
    If the point is to make the game more complicated for people who like complicated games, you're working against people who want a more relaxed game.

    I don't have answers for all of that. I'm just saying gold is fine the way it is. In Asheron's Call, when money became worthless, people traded items. Prices were stated in Small Shards and sometimes stacks of large denomination notes. I once bought a house with a coconut. People will find a way.
     
    cartodude likes this.
  7. Satan Himself

    Satan Himself Avatar

    Messages:
    2,709
    Likes Received:
    12,845
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Of course not.

    *waits nervously for the next salvo*
     
    majoria70 likes this.
  8. Sold and gone

    Sold and gone Avatar

    Messages:
    4,690
    Likes Received:
    11,037
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere underground waiting to get you!
    You make some good points. But I would say there is a third option to what do you take. I would say you might be forced to leave some things. You simply would not be able to carry everything. Maybe give some stuff to an unburdoned friend. Plenty of options really. You guys make it sound so bad, but everything needs a balance. I simply cannot understand the difference in gold from any other commodity. If you where overburdoned and there was no gold on the corpse you just killed, just a halbord, or a great axe. Would you leave the loot then?
     
    Hraw likes this.
  9. Gix

    Gix Avatar

    Messages:
    2,204
    Likes Received:
    4,017
    Trophy Points:
    153
    A trick is to look at it from the eyes of a game designer; or a Dungeon Master. You are not a player. What would you do?

    Being forced to leave things behind is never a good player experience unless there's a tradeoff. If gold is weightless then at least you get something. You can even free up some space as well. "I'm practically over-burdened but there's gold here so I'm going to drop these swords for the gold" and it's win/win; you made more space available and you still gained something.

    You read right; just the concept of looting something sends "good" signals into the player's mind. On paper, it isn't much of a gain but in practice, the psychological impact is tremendous. Why would your game NOT allow this?


    Would you leave the loot if there was no gold? Pretty much. The difference is that there's a chance to get something. It's that kinder surprise moment that's oh so important in a game when loot is involved. Gold doesn't need to always drop, but it needs to always be accessible if it does drop. Otherwise it's just a frustrating experience.

    The moment people would reach a inventory cap they wouldn't bother looting any corpses. Why would they? You could make it so that gold would weight significantly less than it's worth but then, why do it in the first place? You're asking for players to maximize a 0.01 of a pound (or whatever fraction of a unit you want to have) and it just becomes an unwieldy mess. It's counter intuitive to what the designer is supposedly trying to achieve: giving the player a good experience by rewarding them. It's supposed to be easy since you already did the hard part (hopefully the combat and the puzzles, etc).

    A booster pack of 15 Magic the Gathering cards, doesn't always yield good (or wanted) cards; but you buy more of it in the off chance that you'll get something you want or something totally unexpectedly good. The anticipation is just as important as the result.

    So that's one of the things about weightless gold. Now, lets look at the drawbacks:
    - It's unrealistic.

    Can you really name me another drawback? And, as a game designer (remember, this is the exercise), what drawback would directly impact the psychological responses of a player in a negative way? We're talking about the concept of looting, or holding gold. Not the supposed consequences 5 months later. Something being unrealistic doesn't count because it's all fiction; the concept of suspension of one's disbelief applies to video games too. If you write good fiction, no one thinks twice about it.

    If you can name me one negative psychological response from weightless gold. Then, yes, it would be time to reconsider the whole weighted currency "issue". You know, at that point it would be about choosing the lesser evils or coming up with a solution to overcome those problems.

    As for the "you guys make it sound so bad" comment, I could say the same about the opposing arguments. You know, doomed economy, mass botting and whatnot.

    P.S.- giving items to your buddy assumes that 1) they're trustworthy (some people enjoy playing with strangers) and 2) you're playing in online multiplayer mode. A work-around a best... but just as much hassle (if not more).
     
    SmokerKGB likes this.
  10. Sold and gone

    Sold and gone Avatar

    Messages:
    4,690
    Likes Received:
    11,037
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere underground waiting to get you!
    ok in your own words can you do something for me, to make it easier for me to understand. Could you make a list of the bullet points for your argument. Also, then, could you in your eyes make a list of my argument in bullet points. I'm interested on how you view my argument in a bullet point presentation. Basically list what you see as the pro's and cons of weighted gold vs unweighted gold. Thanks.
     
    Lord Blake Blackstone likes this.
  11. Blake Blackstone

    Blake Blackstone Avatar

    Messages:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    3,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Interweb
    I really do understand the arguments on the other side of the coin(see what I did there ;)). You make some good points but to truly engage a player you have to go beyond, kill monster=receive a reward. This gets played out rather quickly.

    My main argument is the amount of ulterior game play options that arise when you add weight to coins. Many of which are scattered through this thread, and probably a lot more that aren't mentioned here. I also, don't view traveling to and from town as a negative as I like to interact with other players and shop around to see what the world has to offer. I understand that there is a single player mode but I'm not here for that, just as others' aren't here for multi player. But I hope we are all here for the success of SotA.

    Im not going to state all the reasons that I have previously in this thread but I do think the reasons for having weighted currency outweigh simple inconvenience. I will always lean toward making the game more dynamic and intricate to play because that is what increases the longevity of a player.
     
  12. Gix

    Gix Avatar

    Messages:
    2,204
    Likes Received:
    4,017
    Trophy Points:
    153
    My last post was supposed to be the last of the day so I'll get back to you on that tomorrow. Just remember that what I'm talking about isn't merely "pros and cons"; it's the negative phycological responses that translate into bad experiences. The moment there's a possibility of one, then whatever feature you thought of (in this case weighed currency) should be casted asside.

    It's not necessarily about staying on the kill-reward cycle and while I understand the thirst for something more elaborate, no game feature should EVER have the potential of giving the player a bad experience.
     
  13. Hraw

    Hraw Avatar

    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    361
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    If you neglect to go back to town before you are so over-encumbered that you can't pick up loot from a random encounter along the way, that's your own poor planning rather than the dev's fault or the game's fault.

    Dying is a bad experience ... so no game should EVER allow that? Having a debuff after dying is a bad experience that lasts too long for some people. Losing consumables if you get killed in a PVP fight is a bad experience. Some people think having to walk everywhere without mounts or fast travel teleporters in every town is a bad experience. Going through an instance with a group and everyone but you getting a good piece of loot from the final big chest is a bad experience. I could go on and on and on - saying no game should EVER have the potential of giving the player a bad experience ... we're not living in a fantasy world here ... oh wait ok we are, but not that kind :)

    The point is, having options gives the potential for a good experience pretty much always. While you are fighting, you have the OPTION to head back to town before you are overly encumbered, then you have the potential for a good experience and you made the call. If you risk it and fill up your bags before you leave the zone, you still have the potential, but it was your call if it doesn't work out in the optimum - if you happen to kill something along the way and can't pick up all the loot, well that was a consequence of your own decision to over fill your pack - it's not up to the devs to bail you out. These issues have nothing to do with whether gold has weight like all other physical items in the game.

    If they boost encumbrance soft-cap by 10% and make gold weigh .001 per piece, then pretty much all players who aren't "trying very hard" to hoard gold are going to be fine. Using that math, an Avatar with decent strength would have to be running around with like 15k-20k gold before they would be worse off with this change. And low level players will even be better off under that system. Only when you start amassing great sums would it even affect you. And it has the potential for so many cool things. To me, even just encouraging players to spend gold rather than hoard it just by itself is a good thing. It's more like how things worked in the olden days when economies were based on a weighty purse hanging from the belt.
     
  14. SmokerKGB

    SmokerKGB Avatar

    Messages:
    2,223
    Likes Received:
    2,798
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pittsburg, CA
    Watch out for what you wish for...

    I Love this ratio thing of 1 to 1000, why don't you just cater it to what ever you want... You make it sound like your chr is the only place gold is stored or carried, if gold has weight, you will be limiting the amount your bank can hold... I'm a crafter, so I reached the weight limit far before my item count was used up... If gold has weight, my crafting life is dead... Where am I going to put any profits? I guess the ratio should be more like 1 to 10,000 or maybe 1 to 100,000... Ooops, I guess my chr can hold more than what was anticipated (so why have weight again)?

    Let's not stop there, each type of bag should have a weight limit, wooden chests couldn't possibly hold 100,000 gold without splitting open... My house would collapse with so much weight, fall right through my basement, floor by floor... Yes, that's a great idea, lets limit how much stuff weights for our houses sake, it's realistic... Right... For immersion, right...

    There're so many other things to take into consideration when you start talking about Gold having weight, why stop at just your chr?

    All the reasons the OPer stated are MMO reasons, and really don't work because they've been tried before... Even early Ultima games had gold weight, so why doesn't Richard start out with gold weight? Because he's "been there, done that" and know's all the headaches involved, so he came up with a new idea, One that I myself are willing to try...

    This game is doing fine without gold weight, I don't think the Dev's are going to re-code a good portion of the game to bring in gold weight...
     
  15. Sold and gone

    Sold and gone Avatar

    Messages:
    4,690
    Likes Received:
    11,037
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere underground waiting to get you!
    If you trying to get in touch with every single players inner feelings, your probably going to have a bad experience. psychological responses can vary greatly from individual to individual.
     
    Hraw likes this.
  16. Gix

    Gix Avatar

    Messages:
    2,204
    Likes Received:
    4,017
    Trophy Points:
    153
    You completely missed the point.

    Giving gold to a player is designed to be a reward. It's supposed to be a good thing. If your reward (in any conceivable situation) gives any negative reaction, then you're doing it wrong.

    Death is designed to present a potential risk to the player. The bad experience associated with it tends to be more due to the cause of death than the state of death itself. Were you ganked? Is getting ganked supposed to be part of the experience? Was the fight unfair? Did you die in a single hit? Was the monster bugged? Was his action telegraphed? Did it give you enough time to react?
    Those are the things that a game designer needs to fine-tune or else, yeah, it'll give a negative response from the player.

    You have to ask yourself: What is the feature supposed to accomplish and what is it actually doing?

    The key word here is "doing". The game is not forcing you to walk instead of riding mounts; there are simply no mounts at all. What is it doing? Nothing. While it can be bad, this is only due to expectations from customs/conventions; not from the design itself.

    That's why play-testing is an integral part of the design process. That's also why some ideas get scrapped during production.
     
  17. Sold and gone

    Sold and gone Avatar

    Messages:
    4,690
    Likes Received:
    11,037
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere underground waiting to get you!
    You do much talking but emotional arguments fall flat in my opinion. Your reward theory is flawed also. If the gold is loot on a corpse is a reward and should have no weight, then is a sword not loot and a reward as well? Should it not have weight also? What makes one reward different than another?
     
    Hraw likes this.
  18. Hraw

    Hraw Avatar

    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    361
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    The reward is not digital gold. It is having fun. I don't think I'm the one missing points. Some games treat looted gold after a kill like "the" reward and players that have that kind of fun do so for hours, days, years, ... (Diablo anyone?). Eventually we get tired of that cycle. SotA is a different kind of fun. I could start listing "conceivable situations" that "gives any negative reaction" ... but then I'd have to hear how I missed your point again - I'm not twisting your words nor taking them out of context. The whole premise is just wrong (for SotA anyway) if it is built around the game doing everything for you as the player.
     
  19. Sir Frank

    Sir Frank Master of the Mint

    Messages:
    4,065
    Likes Received:
    10,919
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Unless this is an issue Portalarium has asked for our help with, we need not beat ourselves up.
     
    cartodude likes this.
  20. Gix

    Gix Avatar

    Messages:
    2,204
    Likes Received:
    4,017
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Then why should SotA have loot in the first place? The fun you're most likely referring to transcends game mechanics.

    They're both rewards, yes.
    Combat items like swords are binary rewards; it's either useful to you or it's not. If it's not useful to you when you still have a chance to gain something out of it by hauling it back to town to sell it for a fraction of it's worth (aka: do more work to salvage). That is also countered by the idea that if the sword if useful then it's an amazing reward and the fact that you can immediately make use of it.

    However, gold doesn't have that "omg amazing" property to it. In fact, it's a pretty boring reward (and is traditionally only used in towns) but it acts as a fallback "you at least have a chance to get gold" regardless of any other factor. You're in a raid and a helmet drops for someone else in your group, not a problem "at least there's gold". A sword drops, it's useless to you and you don't want to haul it back to town? "at least there's gold". No gold dropped? That's okay, maybe gold will drop on the next mob.

    Putting weight to gold means that you suddenly put a condition to it; it's only a reward so long as you not over-encumbered. It's constant reminder to the player that he's getting progressively more and more encumbered; preventing him from more rewards. The player will never think that "maybe gold will drop". It doesn't matter if you, personally, don't think that. Now, NO ONE will ever think that.

    Whenever you agree with design practices or not is unimportant (in fact, I'd be surprised if everyone agrees with everything that game designers do) so long as you realize that it's something that is always considered.

    You can also "simulate" weight encumbrance by simply establishing a limit to the amount of gold a player can carry. This is a much better (although far from perfect) solution that many game devs implement instead because, at least then, you alleviate the problem by having two separate pools for your rewards: gold and combat items. You're over-encumbered? Get the gold. You're max out in gold? Get the sword (you can even convert it into gold later). You're maxed out in both during a dungeon expedition? The designer did something wrong.

    The difference? Looting more gold doesn't worsen your encumbrance and vice-versa. I still believe that it's bad but at least it's done in a more elegant way.

    You guys want players to willingly put gold into wagons for transportation and all that jazz? Still possible.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.