Poverty

[Boothie]

I really like the idea of a tradebased economy, there will be coins ofc and if you have a lot of it you can outright buy what you want, but if your low on coin you can make up the difference by selling something of your own, or something youve picked up off a corpse.

 

[Cooper Holt]

I feel like a trade system would best suit the lower and middle class, while coins and other treasures would probably be better for nobles of the higher class.
Everything would still have a value, and the game's code would check whether or not what you're trading is of the same or higher value than what you're trading it for. For example:
You want to trade a slab of venison for a three mild-steel ingots. The game would determine that the vendor will only accept trades in which he gains a lot more than he loses (because this vendor is just a greedy kind of person). The meat is worth 10 coins and the ingots are each worth 20 coins, so the vendor, being as rapacious as he is, declines the trade.
Perhaps, however, he could be persuaded through cleverly-worded speech or intimidation. Or, for a more adventurous approach, perhaps he would give you the ingots if you did him a favor.

 

[Parco]

what about making their decision also based on what they need, not only what they might profit from. even if they accept the ingots you want to sell them they will have to sell the ingots again somewhere themselves later, most likely to a blacksmith and if there isnt one in the area then they might not bother accepting the trade because of the traveling distance, and maybe their next destinations are even further away from where they can sell the ingots and that affects their trade decision.

 

[Cooper Holt]

what about making their decision also based on what they need, not only what they might profit from. even if they accept the ingots you want to sell them they will have to sell the ingots again somewhere themselves later, most likely to a blacksmith and if there isnt one in the area then they might not bother accepting the trade because of the traveling distance, and maybe their next destinations are even further away from where they can sell the ingots and that affects their trade decision.

Exactly, that't what I mean. Good point.

 

[calithlin]

I'll definitely second (or third) having shopkeepers not buy things they can't reasonably expect to sell. If anything, it can be done as simply as a stored variable (or list) for what items the shopkeeper specializes in. If they don't match up with what the player tries to sell them, "Sorry, but how am I going to make a profit off this? No one comes to my shop for cheese, it'll just sit on my shelf for a week until it goes rotten. Go find a grocer or a hungry sod if you want to offload those four wagons of dairy products. I'm a blacksmith, you dolt!"

 

[cnileoleman]

I agree with the idea that a shopkeep wouldn't buy something they know nothing about. (Sure, that sword looks good but is tempered so badly it's going to bend when you do anything with it) I know about cheese, not swords, so I won't buy it.

 

[Vold]

Also, what'd happen with stolen items / market?

In most games where you can steal items from the environment, the biggest catch is to pick them up without been noticed; but after than you success (in most cases it's a piece of cake) you can sell stolen items to a vendor and profit.

I remember a few more advanced games where you could only sell stolen items in the black market (oblivion). That's a better way to handle it, but still far from "reality". So, I was wondering how would it work in SG?

 

[Mello]

I'd think it would be organic ie. if the NPC has no reason to believe you've stolen it, you can sell it to them. But they'd have to want the item, and also hoarding money isn't a big part of the game apparently

 

[Guibou9]

@tiny lampe: You do make an excellent point.

However, I find it hard to think off a system that would prevent you from selling whatever you'd like to any merchant. How would the AI know if it's "inprofitable" to buy something? And how can the AI refuse to buy something? (and how do you tell the player that a particular merchant don't want to buy it?)

Add to this that this should (IMO) be handled dynamically. A steel Salet might not be attractive today for your general store keeper since he had a hard time selling them to others. (represented by him having quite a few in stock). But the very next day, maybe a band of mercenaries came through town, having recently accomplished a job thus having cash in their pocket. Now they want some new fresh armor and buy the merchants complete stock of steel sallets. Still they want a few more... (I.E. the sallets are in high demand) If you were to swing by the merchant today the sallet would sell off at quite a fair price(...).

I really love your idea as long as you can't sell anything to every single merchant. For example a general store kind of merchant would buy almost anything, but you can't sell books to a blacksmith or plated armour to a fisherman... You get the point. Also I'm really into the idea of trading items, goods or whatever for other goods. IMO both system can work in harmony as long as the currency makes sense (like some other players already mentioned, no crazy amount of gold pieces..).

(Yeah I know this thread is quite old but I don't know if anything new on the currency system was published by the devs)

 

[MindSliver]

Well the barter system with coins as an in-between is well established. In Skyrim for example if you trade in more valuable gear than the merchant has coins you just take a bunch of arrows or potions to make up the difference rather than leaving money on the table. Same thing here except that there is less initial coin.

What I would love to see is Jewelry and I'm not talking about 1 ring per hand and 1 amulet. Coins are heavy, inconvenient and easily pilfered (opportunity for thieving npc's perhaps?) where as jewelry is showy (can you say charisma buff?), light and can be put all over the place from rings and pendants to brooches on cloaks and gilded equipment all ready at a moments notice to be traded in for larger purchases and much more difficult to steal without calling down the wrath of the owner.

I would love to see a system where players don't WANT to keep 1000 gold in their inventory (how hard would it be to carry 1000 gold coins?!). They want to invest their wealth safely in the one place they can keep an eye on it at all times. For the first time in video gaming history we may see players BUYING un-enchanted jewelry instead of only selling it.

 

[Elaxter]

The Fallout 1 and 2 bartering system was fantastic. Also, give me a chance to shoplift!

 

[Gsprfdude]

Or he goes mad and morphs into a diabolic ghoul that tries to eat your face off!

That is always possible.

 

[konggary]

Mount and Blade-esque property ownership would be delightful.

 

[Saetheer]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, so I made a thread for it.
If I remember correctly, the devs have mentioned that money will be pretty hard to come by most of the time, and that player housing will be in SG. These go hand in hand with the poverty issue. Of course, you won't need to worry about food supply, but perhaps heating your house and other various things will require at least some money.
Input? Suggestions? Comments? Anyone?

I say no. If you ask me, it feels like this are more The Sims and not Sui Generis.

 

[NachoDawg]

I know that deep, deep in my heart, I'm going to spend an unreasonably amount of time to make sure my home i beautifully decorated with the spoils of my adventures

I woulnd't mind things that expand on housekeeping, like owning land and generating income, or having an editor that lets you place/buy furniture and decorations- but maybe it should be done in the spirit of Fallout 4 where it's entirely optional and you can play the game without really touching that side of things at all