The problem with looting and the value of money

I've been replaying Fallout2:

Using my modthat spares me from the annoying setting problems, and I've tested merging the PATCH000 data with the mod data and some of the bugs have gone away.

I am playing through the game without taking people's stuff (no taking from occupied houses), I can only trade and take abandoned items. I also refrain from reloading to do better in combat, so I use more ammo and healing supplies; and I don't rest for monthes at a time and actually use hotels.

I also haven't hit raider encounters. My money is pretty important now (even with tagged barter), a job for $100 is important, I also have to buy ammo when I start running low, stimpacks and food are scarce and valueable. I mite have good armor progression with actually using leather armor mk. II, and BOS combat armor (helped with my mod taking out free adv. PA). I have to save up to buy a better weapon, and paying to free Vic is a tough call. Playing through Arcanum and other RPGs like this would make things more interesting.

I've also been playing privateer remake, and like most space sims money is valuable and there is something to save for.

I think the problem is looting. In a game like privateer going against a tough ship means you pay a higher repair bill, in CRPGs using heavy saving and reloading (which privateer doesn't have) or getting lucky lets you equip the best stuff or get rich selling it all. Going through dungeons gives you all the healing potions, weapons, and armor you need.

Spacesims don't have looting and require money to reload ammo, repair armor, and refuel in some cases. RPGs don't come close to this.

I usually end RPGs with tons of unused potions and lots of money (not having bought any ammo, or supplies), and not needing to use any potions.

With lots of money rewards from quests become unimportant, a king offering me 5000 (with dialog about how great of a reward it is) isn't that great when I am carrying around 30k.

How important is reasonable progression and keeping money important? Space sims are based on this.

Very important I'd say. There's nothing worse than that feeling in the pit
of your stomach when you know you've broken the game's economy,
having more money than you could possibly spend on anything.

It's much more fun to work hard to afford shop equipment/upgrades
since this adds to the player's sense of progression. To do this you
could make the drops rarer for both money and equipment, adjusting
for circumstance (e.g. a ' boss' drop might contain specific items).

It's especially odd in those games where even animals like rats drop money
(did some passing pervert violate them with handfuls of loose change?).

Drops and items need to be more rare and have values adjusted in RPGs in general, I think.

Angband had this problem you're talking about, but an Angband variant I played did what I just said. Less drops and adjusted values, so gold and items arnt exactly flowing.

I think people should just use their head sometimes too, why do bandits need to drop healing potions? etc.

Good Link

LlamaGod said:

Drops and items need to be more rare and have values adjusted in RPGs in general, I think.

Click to expand...

As I said.

Angband had this problem you're talking about, but an Angband variant I played did what I just said.

Click to expand...

As did I.

I think people should just use their head sometimes too, why do bandits need to drop healing potions? etc.

Click to expand...

Then again, it's a good idea to have an occasional drop of a healing kit/potion in
humanoid encounters that are very difficult. For non-humanoid encounters you
could place a container nearby. It may be better with 'boss' drops to have specific
items with perhaps a few random lower value items. Another method of keeping
a strong game economy is to increase shop markup.

I don't think that the problem is the looting, I think that it's the value of the adventurer's tools of the trade combined with the fact that the adventurer can't use their ill gotten gains for anything more than buying such tools. It would be more reasonable if the tools weren't expensive enough to bother looting, and if the money that the adventurer accumulates could then be used for plenty of other things than buying better equipment, such as funding causes or enterprises.

Also, Frontier and First Encounters had crazy economies where trading with a large ship could bring in enough money to buy space stations. If they had been for sale, that is. Talk about making looting pointless. I always felt that it would be more reasonable if trading had been done as paid missions rather than as a "buy cheap, sell expensive"-deal. Everything except trading became pointless, at least from an economic perspective, and it happened much earlier than when a big ship was bought.

RGE said:

I don't think that the problem is the looting, I think that it's the value of the adventurer's tools of the trade combined with the fact that the adventurer can't use their ill gotten gains for anything more than buying such tools. It would be more reasonable if the tools weren't expensive enough to bother looting, and if the money that the adventurer accumulates could then be used for plenty of other things than buying better equipment, such as funding causes or enterprises.

Click to expand...

Then again, it's annoying when the playing field is strewn with crap (especially if
the game has a 'get all' key).

Also, Frontier and First Encounters had crazy economies where trading with a large ship could bring in enough money to buy space stations. If they had been for sale, that is. Talk about making looting pointless. I always felt that it would be more reasonable if trading had been done as paid missions rather than as a "buy cheap, sell expensive"-deal. Everything except trading became pointless, at least from an economic perspective, and it happened much earlier than when a big ship was bought.

Click to expand...

There were assassination missions, though the courier missions were broken and not
included in the game. I agree that the pay for missions could have been increased,
although the cargo trading element was in there since Elite and many would have
objected taking it out.

The unbalancing profit of cargo trading could have been cured by lowering profit
per unit goods drastically the more you offloaded onto the station. That way,
you could trade to begin with to get a decent ship, but getting ships with bigger
cargo-bays would have diminishing returns.

Also, that exploit where you could save on entering a system with a hull full
of contraband should have been taken out - the random variable as to whether
you get caught could be decided the minute you bought the contraband; the
variable would determine the result of a cargo scan in any restricted system.

Fallout had such problem, yes.

Trade skill was virtually useless.
And actually the most useful skill, loot-wise, was Steal. I mean, damn it's one of the most cookie-cutter skills in the game. You can get almost EVERYTHING!
Like, I remember how I robbed the NCR guards and got meself some brand new shiny Bozars right in the start!
Of course, save-load is required.

Then i got sick of this cookiecutting fest, and decided to play it *hardcore* ^_^
Kinda like you did, HumanShield, but maybe a lil more extreme:
I did not save at all. Well, only between game sessions, of course.
That is, if my lvl 5 character was critically hit for 500 hp, that's it - i'm dead, game over. No reload.
And it really solved ALL the issues with easy economy, because it almost nullified Steal skill efficiency, at least in the stages of the game.
And it was real fun too. I mean, you actually was fucking THINKING more about tactics, tricks etc.
I remember how I grieved when Sulik was killed by a bunch of bandits....

Metallix: You'd probably enjoy the 'Heart of Iron' mode in Icewind Dale I/II.
It unlocked more items, but the creatures were tougher and you couldn't save.

I usually dont play in such a way I need to save and reload. If you do, then in about any game, yes you can break it.

Not enough games have real challenge to need that these days....

Metallix: You'd probably enjoy the 'Heart of Iron' mode in Icewind Dale I/II.
It unlocked more items, but the creatures were tougher and you couldn't save.

Click to expand...

I played it in IWD2. But it wasnt' real challenge. It's just the mobs got thicker and took *longer* to kil, but noit real hard.

Sandelfron said:

Very important I'd say. There's nothing worse than that feeling in the pit
of your stomach when you know you've broken the game's economy,
having more money than you could possibly spend on anything.

It's especially odd in those games where even animals like rats drop money
(did some passing pervert violate them with handfuls of loose change?).

Click to expand...

Game economies are not representative of real economies in any way. You both taken away the danger of aquiring money and many of the costs that a character/group should have. Many "quests/missions/loot" are aquired with what can be anything from 1/100 to 2/3 chance of daying, but with reloading dying is not a issue. How many of the fallout missions would you have taken on if you got them IRL?

I bet it also would help if your valiant ranger wasn't able to drag around with three plate armors in his backpack. :D

Animals that drop money? That's nothing. What about the the birds that drop chainmail armor? Bees that drop hammer of justice? Or for the perverts of you, the bear that drops a 2-h sword? ouch.

bryce777 said:

I usually dont play in such a way I need to save and reload. If you do, then in about any game, yes you can break it.

Click to expand...

Anyone complaining about a game being easy and reloading to succed is a moron.

The reason why economy is broken is because devs try to mix realism and action gameplay. On one side they want enemies to drop their belongings, and on the other side they create games where the main/major element is lethal combat against numerous foes. You end up with tons of loot dropped by the hordes of ennemies they throw at you. Obviously economy will be broken if it tries to loosly mimic a real life one.

Devs should choose: or a gameplay-driven economy, or a minimaly realistic gameplay to permit a realistic economy. Then you'd get an artificial economy subordinated to the gameplay without regards to realism (like Diablo, and I'm not discussing if the system was good/balanced or not), or a game where fights don't happen all the time, and more less so lethal ones, making loot not a problem for the economy.

You basically elaborated on what I said Ismaul. If I had been a medieval knight that killed 100 other knights and dragged back and sold their armor (and other belongings) then you can bet I would be a rich knight. I would most likely earn much more than you would for the same in a game. Problem, in game I kill the equivavlent of 500 knights instead. :D

Hey HS, have you found any way to reduce the importance of looting in Fallout 2? I'm making a setting mod where everything technological is rare, pre-war functioning guns are worshipped and a single round of good ammo costs what some people make in a year (about 500 at the game's default prices).

I'd prefer not to have to LARP. I was thinking of reducing the value of items you sell to 10% or so of buy price instead of the 30% which I think you usually get. Is that even moddable?

A privateer remake! Thank you! Freelancer disappointed me so much, it was supposed to be the next privateer. Space Rangers 2 wasn't that great, either.

I think one of the problems is the fact that you get to kill at least 5 other guys per day. Of course you'll be filthy rich if you get to take their stuff, which is as valuable as your own.
If combat was a rare encounter, money would have to be got from someplace else.

I have to agree with Kris. You can better balance an economy if the character can't lug around three power armours, two bozars and a partridge in a pear tree. Instead what the player does is pick up the stuff that would give the most money per KG/cubic centimetre and move on with all the other crap he left behind being looted or taken by passerbyers.

Problem is this:

I want there to be a progression in weapon lethality as you progress in the plot. You start off with a knife, spear, improvised club or whatever. Shortly after you can find/buy the first improvized guns, shitty pipe rifle type guns which are barely better than melee weapons (since reloading takes a whole round, and most shots miss) and only by very late in the game will you have a fully functioning pre-war desert eagle and not have to worry about ammo. There's a gradual but clear pattern of improvement, each stage you trade one penalty for an improvement (on the whole gaining each time).

Trouble is that as soon as you find your first enemy equipped with the higher level weapons and win you've advanced. On top of that the higher level weapons have been made extremely expensive to keep them out of reach of starting/low level character, but once you've reached that level and can kill/loot enemies of your level or lower you become a billionaire and can do anything.

What I want is a game where high level guns are a big advantage but have their own costs and where you could slip back down by using your ammo stupidly/carelessly. And where at the same time you don't have to choose between scavenging all the time or be a masochistic LARPer. I want the player to have to think about how they fight and each weapon to have it's uses in different situations all along the game - instead of the usual generic sword -> +1 sword -> +2 sword ... sword of ultimate slaying typical of CRPGs.

I could just make a half-assed mod (like so many) which is maybe what I'll end up doing, but want to at least attempt something better first.

I don't really have a problem with grabbing a couple turbo plasma rifles and a few suits of Advanced Power Armor off the Enclave patrol I just wasted. A little awkward, but I can live with it. The problem I've got with "game world economies" is that they just don't make sense.

See, why does Joe Shopkeeper want to buy all this swag I bring back? I never see him sell it or use it. Why is he laying down a mighty sum for this power armor? How can this guy afford to do that? Maybe the local loaded-as-all-hell man might be interested in a little protection though. He would have the demand and the funds to meet said demand.

Maybe more games could take a cue from Morrowind. It had some good ideas as far as handling swag and overabundance of it.

-It had something pretty basic that plenty of other games had. Certain merchants would only buy certain types of things. You wouldn't sell a daedric dagger to an alchemist.

-Merchants had a limited supply of money. They ran out after enough selling and no merchant had near enough money to cover even half the values of certain artifacts.

-Really good swag was pretty hard to come by. For instance all artifacts were pretty well hidden or at least required some work to find and retrieve. There was only one set of unowned Daedric armor (the ultra-swag) in the game and it was hard to find. The other set was held by a very powerful mage. Glass, dwemer, and ebony armors (super swag) were also a little hard to find, whether in the possession of nobles or held by powerful foes. No average bandits or soldiers with +12 Hackmasters.

So as long as a gameworld meets the following criteria.....

-Good swag is in sensible places
-Said swag has a use to normal people if merchants buy it
*Possibly opening up some nifty choices like the aforementioned one with the APA.
-Merchants purchase what makes sense
-Merchants have mildly realistic fund pools

...I'm super-good. Although gameworld economics really doesn't pique my interest too much.

Little tangent here. I heard some people bring up save/reload gameplay and mentioned balancing a game against it. Personally, I don't think it's possible. Removing the ability to use save/reload is like developer suicide in an RPG and trying to balance against it is useless. It's a choice that's open to the player for good reasons, but can be exploited and enhance or destroy the fun of the game.

dagorkan said:

Problem is this:

I want there to be a progression in weapon lethality as you progress in the plot. You start off with a knife, spear, improvised club or whatever. Shortly after you can find/buy the first improvized guns, shitty pipe rifle type guns which are barely better than melee weapons (since reloading takes a whole round, and most shots miss) and only by very late in the game will you have a fully functioning pre-war desert eagle and not have to worry about ammo. There's a gradual but clear pattern of improvement, each stage you trade one penalty for an improvement (on the whole gaining each time).

Trouble is that as soon as you find your first enemy equipped with the higher level weapons and win you've advanced. On top of that the higher level weapons have been made extremely expensive to keep them out of reach of starting/low level character, but once you've reached that level and can kill/loot enemies of your level or lower you become a billionaire and can do anything.

What I want is a game where high level guns are a big advantage but have their own costs and where you could slip back down by using your ammo stupidly/carelessly. And where at the same time you don't have to choose between scavenging all the time or be a masochistic LARPer. I want the player to have to think about how they fight and each weapon to have it's uses in different situations all along the game - instead of the usual generic sword -> +1 sword -> +2 sword ... sword of ultimate slaying typical of CRPGs.

I could just make a half-assed mod (like so many) which is maybe what I'll end up doing, but want to at least attempt something better first.

Click to expand...

Yeah, this was one of the areas Fallout disappointed me in. You could try fingerprint/DNA locks for high tech weapons so looting them just gives you a nice looking bookend I suppose. You could possibly let someone reset them with a ridiculous (150+) repair AND science or just make them uncrackable with the tools and time available to the PC. It already mostly follows the custom that armor gets trashed in combat and isn't lootable. There's also the idea as stated that most people wouldn't have much use for a Turbo Plasma Rifle. Can't use it, can't find ammo, can't afford it, won't bother. You could probably find somebody to take your Plasma Rifle for a week's rent as a novelty item, though. It might be a pain to implement, but different goods would have different values to different people. Your average schmoe would find a few stimpacks infintely more valuable than a Plasma Rifle. The only guy in the wasteland who repairs and sells them charges an arm, a leg, and your firstborn, and is happy to take some off your hands, only he's a collector and only trades you for his own merchandise and doesn't have much use for hard currency. So at best you might be able to trade some of your high tech gear for some of his high tech gear, but you're not going to be able to buy a town for a plasma rifle with a little financial juggling, the economy is based on individual people's needs and wants, not highly fungible commodities and universal currency like we're accustomed to today.

Walks with the Snails said:

his own merchandise and doesn't have much use for hard currency.

Click to expand...

I doubt it would improve economy in the game.

First, the problem. In the beginning of the game you want to buy stuff, but can't afford anything. Later in the game you have tons of money, but can't find anything worth buying.

Then, the primary cause. Loot is the single best and most reliable source of finance in the game. But do you really need to buy anything when you can simply use scavenged items? Not really. Hence the vicious circle.

Also, the game suffers from scaled pricing. In the beginning an average quest gives you around 50-100 dollars. In the end you can earn 2-3 thousand for a single caravan drive. Weapon prices jump up from several hundred bucks for Desert Eagle to 17,000 for Avenger later in the game.

Essentially, what you have is an economic crisis, an inflation.

(Dagorkan said most of that before, but it's worth reemphasizing.)

I think the simplest solution would be to diversify items, dump price scaling and give more money for quest completion. So, instead of getting ice-cream money for your quests, you would get some hefty sum, but you would be encouraged to spend in on equipment so you do better in the near future. That would also mean that you would have better weapons than most of your opponents, which is only fair, since you are frequently outnumbered and, in fact, doing suicide missions most of the time.

In general, having money should always, always give you some advantage. The bigger the sum, the bigger the advantage you could afford. But it shouldn't be just about buying gauss rifle, since buying the rifle is more or less inevitable. I'm speaking more about something expendable and optional, but nevertheless useful. Fallout had grenades, lockpicks and chems but none of them really made a big difference. Heck, what's the point of wasting points on grenade when you did more damage via your primary weapon? What's the point of having a lot of lockpicks, if most of the containers are open anyway, and your skill means infinitely more, than the equipment you had? None of the expandable items in Fallout (except stimpacks) allow you to do something really different and interesting, so why bother buying them?

Hm, another thing that comes to mind is paid companions. Want Marcus to join you to deal with New Reno mafia? Pay him 300 a month. That would also eliminate "rest for a month, who cares about time" phenomenon.

I would also swap stimpacks and medical skills in terms of efficiency. First aid could heal 15-20 points. Stimpack could heal 1-5 hittpoints and take action point even if used from inventory. That would instantaneously fix the medical skill deficiencies and make first aid kits a worthwhile investment.