Uhm, the economical and crafting sistems stil need some more loving..

[Elhazzared]

Yeah but this is the one thing i'll never really shut up about because this makes the game bad. Plain and simple.

It is not simply a case of personal preference. I have pointed out why it makes the game bad, I have pointed out why the economy system will never be able to be fixed because of this.

If this was a case of. Should the game use a square base movement system or a hex based movement system. I'd say i prefer square based even if hex based is better. But that would just be a preference, not an objective problem with the game. This economic and weight system is plain bad and hurts the game. So I will be very vocal about it as it is a real issue that needs to be addressed.

[Eliasfrost]

But it is not an objective problem because evidently equally as many people like the system and its implications (based on the vocal portion of the audience, which doesn't really say much either way but let's assume for the sake of argument that they are representative). I personally, am fine with it. What does that make of those who like it if it's an objectively bad system?

[Elhazzared]

There is no problem with some people liking an objectively bad system. That is not what I am saying.

The problem is for all the people who don't like it because it is just bad... That means it hurts game sales and basicly becomes a black review for a developer who is quite obviously putting his passion into the project. It's also true that having a bad record in games makes people less willing to buy games you develop in the future... There is also the issue of making a game which many people just reguard as bad and then have all the credit attributed for a good game being given to a modder who actually solved the issues that a game had.

It's as I said. If Styg really wanted to put this system in no matter what when it is objectively bad. Fine, but make it optional as he made it with the XP system.

[Eliasfrost]

You've already said that and there's no basis behind it so what you predict means nothing because you can't back it up beyond what you personally think it good or bad. I'm sorry but that's how it is. I'm going to stop listening to you from now just like everyone else because you're just repeating yourself now. I don't even know why I bother.

[Elhazzared]

There is basis in my argument. Most people don't like objectively bad systems. Some people do, but they are a minority. That is the reason why you see many bad games out there but with a very small number of people who actually think the game is good as it is.

Ask people if the liked weight limits in fallout 2 and they will tell you no, it made them go back and forth. Ask people if the liked limit of money in fallout 2 and thwy would say no because they had to go between a couple towns to sell loot and probably still take a few stimpacks as payment.

Ask people if they liked that there was no money limit in stores for arcanum and they will say they do. As people if they minded the weight limit in arcanum and they will tell you no because between you and the companions you could always carry everything, though they will also say if you could just carry everything yourself for the sake of easier inventory management it would be better.

People will always prefer mechanics that do not make them waste their time. Bear in mind that leaving stuff behind because you can't sell it is wasting your time. Wasting time killing things because you are at the end of the day not getting anything out of it, in fact you are only wasting both your time and your resources.

[Eliasfrost]

Sorry but can't prove that unless you can link reources to where those questions were asked and answered. Making changes to a product require stone cold facts as a basis for the change, not baseless assumptions from one guy on one forum.

Sorry but that's the reality, deal with it. Good Bye.

[Elhazzared]

Right, because you have never played any kind of game, be it multiplayer or single player that had mechanics that made you waste loads of your time and you never discussed it with people you know how bad it was.

Because you don't really need to do a survey or any study to know that. You are just chosing to ignore this because you like this bad mechanic and I get it. You like it. It doesn't changes the fact that it is a bad mechanic however.

[Eliasfrost]

I'm not ignoring anything, I have already discussed the ins and outs of the system with you before. I'm just sick and tired of you nagging about things you can't possibly change and it's really, really annoying. You just don't seem to understand that things will not change just because you say so. Get over it.

[Elhazzared]

Yes I am fairly aware that the developers may  chose to just ignore what I am saying or simply not belive it as I put it. But when the game comes out a full reviews come out saying, this game could have been good if it wasn't for this, this and this and as a result people don't buy their game. Then they can't say they weren't warned during the development phase that this was a very real and game breaking issue for the majority of people.

Because trust me, I can already see the reviews saying exactly that the game will make you waste your time. In fact if TB were to look at the game right now I'm absolutly sure this is what he'd say, it is one of the things he most hates in games, when they waste his time.

EDIT: And the reason I keep vocal about it is because aside this and the crafting not being very good at the moment, the game is great and it could be one of the most awesome CRPGs since fallout 2 and I'd loath to see it ruined by a bad decision in it's game mechanics. If it was just another gam where I might or might not care about that much I'd just have given up the game a very long time ago, but this is exactly one of the very few games I wouldn't like to see ruined.

[hilf]

As for your example I cannot speak for your experience. Mine is, get to junkyard, get stuff much better than whatever you'll find on any quest around or exploring. With luck you can find something on the same level as what is available there... Also durabillity is not really much of a sign of superiority although better durabillity usually means better stats. But waht matters is the stats, durabillity, meh you can repair it anyway.

I mentioned durability because it's actually very good indicator of generated item's quality. Items with higher durability have higher stats, and not just 'usually' but pretty much always.
That's because quality of components in generated (as opposed to crafted) items seem to differ very little.

[Termy]

Elhazzared, I don't think "objectively"  means what you think it means.  The very fact that we are able to argue over the economic system suggests it isn't objectively bad at all.  It is self-evidently a subjective issue. Personally I think the current system is workable - I've had virtually none of the problems you've had,or at least not to the extent you've had them. Furthermore it is a point of distinction with other RPGs. I think one of the points of contention  you seem to hold -  that it is different from your favourite RPGs -  is actually a selling point of the system. The "wasting time"  issue is an artifact of how YOU are playing the game. I've not had this problem myself, and I've progressed much further in the game than you.


Debate is useful, but you'll need to do better than claiming the system is "objectively" bad based on your subjective opinion.

[Elhazzared]

Whether you like a system or not is subjective. Whether a system is bad or not is objective.

For a system to be good it must not create any kind of problems. The current system breaks game immersion, makes the economy system utherly impossible to balance and wastes either player time to pick up and sell everything, or wastes developer time in all the areas that are created and are not going to be used most of the time because there is no point to it.

All of these problems are not subjective, they are very objective. Even if you want to call some of them subjective which they really aren't there is one you cannot say ever to be subjective, and that is not being able to balance the economy because of the limitation of merchants buying stuff. You can adjust prices all you want, it's not gonna make a diffence because you'll always have enough, too much or too little money no matter if you do sidequests or explore. In a good balanced economic system just going through the main storyline is not going to earn you enough to fully equip yourself. You need at least a decent amount of sidequests to suplement that lack of money and if you do all or nearly all of them then you'll have a bit of a surplus. But the fact is that you cannot make something that balanced and good with the current economic system. It just doesn't works no matter how you try to spin it.

Thus I say it again. The current system is objectively bad and if not removed then it should at best be optional just like the XP system.

[Termy]

I agree with your distinction between subjective and objective. Your points are still, largely, subjective, because you are saying the system is BAD FOR YOU. For example:

The current system breaks game immersion

This is PURELY subjective. Evidence? I find this system, SUBJECTIVELY FOR ME, increases immersion, or at least balances practicalities of game mechanics with immersion. If it OBJECTIVELY broke immersion, then it would mean it breaks game immersion for EVERYONE. It doesn't.

That is, without recourse, a subjective argument on your behalf. That is fine, but be aware that it is a subjective argument no matter how much you say otherwise.

makes the economy system utherly impossible to balance

I do not agree with this statement.

I can see some areas for improvement with the economy, and certainly after a certain point I have accumulated a large amount of money. I can also see plenty of solutions that do not involve discarding the current system. I think part of the issue here is how we define "balanced"; you want the game balanced towards one style of play, whereas I find the game, as it stands, appeals to my personal style of play. In this sense, I will argue that there is a degree of subjectivity here in your claim as well.

A traditional "vendors purchase anything and have unlimited cash" approach would be much EASIER to balance, but I'd (subjectively) find this boring, because I enjoy the current system and the (slight) strategy involved. Also, again this is an immersion issue - for me, the concept of a merchant who will buy or barter ANYTHING is unrealistic enough to break immersion FOR ME.

wastes either player time to pick up and sell everything, or wastes developer time in all the areas that are created and are not going to be used most of the time because there is no point to it.

This is not Diablo. There are reasons for entering areas other than just collecting loot. This is something of a conflict between HOW YOU PLAY THE GAME and HOW THE GAME IS DESIGNED. For one, I DON'T PICK UP AND SELL EVERYTHING, and the greatest pleasure I have found in the game has been exploration. I loot tactically and selectively. I role play a bit. I'd actually like the system made even more strict, so that greater emphasis on strategy needs to be employed while looting. (I'm probably in a minority here though.)

I break down a lot of stuff I can't carry so that it isn't an entire waste (although I really would like more breakdown options...) I use my Player Home to store components between looting runs, and typically target specific types of components (this definitely could require expansion and balancing, true, but that is not a function of the economy per se) and I have gained immense satisfaction from the game. While the crafting and economic system are far from perfect, I absolutely disagree that it is broken or immersion-destroying, and I whole-heartedly disagree that it means there is no point to visiting areas.

On the contrary, I visit those areas because they're THERE to be discovered, and this for me is truly the charm of the game.

not being able to balance the economy because of the limitation of merchants buying stuff. You can adjust prices all you want, it's not gonna make a diffence because you'll always have enough, too much or too little money no matter if you do sidequests or explore.

EVERY game economy can be gamed. As it is, I only started gaining too much cash near the end of the new content.

For most of the game, I've had more or less just enough cash for important things, have crafted some things to fill in the gaps, and when I've really wanted a big ticket item, I've gone out, explored a lot of the out-of-the-way content and looted and traded intelligently until I could afford it. (For example, there was one particular quest where I required a very substantial amount of cash. There are various ways of getting that cash. I looted abandoned places and robbed bandits for it, and rather enjoyed the experience.) This sounds to me very close to the ideal balanced economic system you described. It isn't perfect, but it is not unbalanced to any degree that can't be fixed with tweaks. I think it is absolutely workable.

It seems to me that your problem is that the current system DISINCENTIVISES loot grinding, and you want loot grinding. I loathe loot grinding (and level grinding). Subjectively speaking, I think the current system WORKS because it discourages loot grinding, without outright preventing the player from doing it if they wish (or need) to.


The very fact that I have not had the same problems as you, and in fact have almost entirely had THE OPPOSITE EXPERIENCE from you, suggests that:

1)  We have very different styles of playing, and
2)  The game is balanced more towards one style than another, which means
3)  All of your arguments are based around YOUR STYLE OF PLAY (including your unsupported argument that the system is impossible to balance),
4)  Which makes your arguments subjective.

I am sorry, but that is what subjective means. If you say "This OBJECTIVELY DOESN'T WORK AND IS IMMERSION BREAKING" and I say "But it works for me and I find it immersive" and then your statement is subjective, not objective.

Feel free to make your arguments based on how you feel the game should play, but don't try saying it is OBJECTIVELY anything when it is in fact based precisely on how you feel a game should play.

It is my personal opinion that the current system

i)   is workable (and does in fact work for me rather well)
ii)  is potentially enjoyable (because I actually enjoy it), and
iii) should remain in the game, although I accept
iv) it still needs tweaking.

Like your opinion, this is purely subjective, for what it is worth.

[Elhazzared]

I agree with your distinction between subjective and objective. Your points are still, largely, subjective, because you are saying the system is BAD FOR YOU. For example:

The current system breaks game immersion

This is PURELY subjective. Evidence? I find this system, SUBJECTIVELY FOR ME, increases immersion, or at least balances practicalities of game mechanics with immersion. If it OBJECTIVELY broke immersion, then it would mean it breaks game immersion for EVERYONE. It doesn't.

That is, without recourse, a subjective argument on your behalf. That is fine, but be aware that it is a subjective argument no matter how much you say otherwise.

makes the economy system utherly impossible to balance

I do not agree with this statement.

I can see some areas for improvement with the economy, and certainly after a certain point I have accumulated a large amount of money. I can also see plenty of solutions that do not involve discarding the current system. I think part of the issue here is how we define "balanced"; you want the game balanced towards one style of play, whereas I find the game, as it stands, appeals to my personal style of play. In this sense, I will argue that there is a degree of subjectivity here in your claim as well.

A traditional "vendors purchase anything and have unlimited cash" approach would be much EASIER to balance, but I'd (subjectively) find this boring, because I enjoy the current system and the (slight) strategy involved. Also, again this is an immersion issue - for me, the concept of a merchant who will buy or barter ANYTHING is unrealistic enough to break immersion FOR ME.

wastes either player time to pick up and sell everything, or wastes developer time in all the areas that are created and are not going to be used most of the time because there is no point to it.

This is not Diablo. There are reasons for entering areas other than just collecting loot. This is something of a conflict between HOW YOU PLAY THE GAME and HOW THE GAME IS DESIGNED. For one, I DON'T PICK UP AND SELL EVERYTHING, and the greatest pleasure I have found in the game has been exploration. I loot tactically and selectively. I role play a bit. I'd actually like the system made even more strict, so that greater emphasis on strategy needs to be employed while looting. (I'm probably in a minority here though.)

I break down a lot of stuff I can't carry so that it isn't an entire waste (although I really would like more breakdown options...) I use my Player Home to store components between looting runs, and typically target specific types of components (this definitely could require expansion and balancing, true, but that is not a function of the economy per se) and I have gained immense satisfaction from the game. While the crafting and economic system are far from perfect, I absolutely disagree that it is broken or immersion-destroying, and I whole-heartedly disagree that it means there is no point to visiting areas.

On the contrary, I visit those areas because they're THERE to be discovered, and this for me is truly the charm of the game.

not being able to balance the economy because of the limitation of merchants buying stuff. You can adjust prices all you want, it's not gonna make a diffence because you'll always have enough, too much or too little money no matter if you do sidequests or explore.

EVERY game economy can be gamed. As it is, I only started gaining too much cash near the end of the new content.

For most of the game, I've had more or less just enough cash for important things, have crafted some things to fill in the gaps, and when I've really wanted a big ticket item, I've gone out, explored a lot of the out-of-the-way content and looted and traded intelligently until I could afford it. (For example, there was one particular quest where I required a very substantial amount of cash. There are various ways of getting that cash. I looted abandoned places and robbed bandits for it, and rather enjoyed the experience.) This sounds to me very close to the ideal balanced economic system you described. It isn't perfect, but it is not unbalanced to any degree that can't be fixed with tweaks. I think it is absolutely workable.

It seems to me that your problem is that the current system DISINCENTIVISES loot grinding, and you want loot grinding. I loathe loot grinding (and level grinding). Subjectively speaking, I think the current system WORKS because it discourages loot grinding, without outright preventing the player from doing it if they wish (or need) to.


The very fact that I have not had the same problems as you, and in fact have almost entirely had THE OPPOSITE EXPERIENCE from you, suggests that:

1)  We have very different styles of playing, and
2)  The game is balanced more towards one style than another, which means
3)  All of your arguments are based around YOUR STYLE OF PLAY (including your unsupported argument that the system is impossible to balance),
4)  Which makes your arguments subjective.

I am sorry, but that is what subjective means. If you say "This OBJECTIVELY DOESN'T WORK AND IS IMMERSION BREAKING" and I say "But it works for me and I find it immersive" and then your statement is subjective, not objective.

Feel free to make your arguments based on how you feel the game should play, but don't try saying it is OBJECTIVELY anything when it is in fact based precisely on how you feel a game should play.

It is my personal opinion that the current system

i)   is workable (and does in fact work for me rather well)
ii)  is potentially enjoyable (because I actually enjoy it), and
iii) should remain in the game, although I accept
iv) it still needs tweaking.

Like your opinion, this is purely subjective, for what it is worth.

Evidence that the current system is immersion breaking. It encourages players to stop doing what they are doing to go sell/drop loot and then return to the mission they were doing... Now you don't have to do it! But the system encourages you to do it with carry limits that are ridiculous and some items which just weights far too much for what they should. Players tend to do whatever makes them most money, I belive you agree with me there. So if the game says, you don't have space to carry more but you want to make as much money as possible, then you are encouraged to stop what you are doing (thus breaking game immersion) drops stuff at your house or safe point and then continue the mission... This is not subjective, the game objectively encourages this behavior in players thus the game objectively breaks game immersion. Whether you can find a way around it byt not picking up everything in order to not break the game immersion that is a way you find to do it, not what the game encourages you to do.

If you disagree that the economy cannot be balanced, that is merely a point that you disagree. I can say that hitting with your head in the wall is not a bad thing with no negative consequences to you but that is just a disagreement, not a matter of it being subjective or not because it will hurt you and possible cause brain injury.

A balanced economy doesn't lets a player just have too much money and buy whatever he wants. But the fact is that you get to the GMS with whatever equipment you want. By this point you barely started the game, you shouldn't have a fully decked out character and still left over money but it is what it happens. Too much money floating. You say you only have too much money floating by the end game. Then you are doing something wrong. By the time you finish the junkyard in the previous economy system you already had everything as good as possible and several stacks of money. As far as I've seen and also other players imput, this even worse now.

A balanced system does not gives a player that much money just from doing the main quest. The main quest should allow you get some new equipment but not all. Why? Because you are supposed to be immersed in the game finding more about it instead of just doing the main story line. So you make the economy system reflect your need to get out of the beaten path in order to get all you need.

Sadly this is not possible at all with the merchant limits. It doesn't maters whether you go off the beaten path or not because you don't need more loot, you already have more than you can sell anyway so going off the beaten path will wield no more money. You can lower the money but you'll end up with a you never have enough no matter what you do or it will give you always about enough. Basicly the system has no way to have a variable for accounting what you do. This is very objective and this objectively makes the system bad. When a game tells you that it doesn't matters what you, you always get the same results, that's bad design.

However if you do say that this is not true, then please prove me wrong and show me how can this system possibly be balanced. What changes does it needs to become balanced while still maintaining the core principles of weight limits and buying limits.

Yes this is not diablo but similarly, players should be rewarded for what they do. If you want to even put it from a game immersion perpsective. So you find this guy who says his girlfriend is trapped in a place with burrowers. Now this things put the fear in the heart of everyone in the underrail and he's asking you do dive into a nest to save his girlfriend. So from a realistic point of view, would you do it? You know the odds are you're not coming back alive nor saving his girlfriend. Who just goes on a suicide quest like that especially after you've seen what happened to him who nearly died and not trying to save his girlfriend, he nearly died just trying to get out alive leaving her to rot in that place... but wait? Didn't he said he found a place intact that they were scavenging. Suddenly this suicide quest can make you a very rich person if you can pull it off, all at the same looking like the hero of underrail.

This is a real perspective from a game immersion point. But the reality is that you are not going to be rewarded to go down there and save the girl. Why? Because the merchants already bought all that you could sell.

Exploration. Ok sure, the game doesn't gives you a reward for exploring but if you want to say that exploring is reward enough then I'd say once! You do it once, then you know everything that is there. Replay value of exploration with the current system equals to none. You don't need to go and see what's there, you already know what's there and besides, there is nothing to gain in doing so.

thus it can safely be said that the game does not encourage exploration nor side quests. It encourages to stay in the rails because aside perhaps the first time just to see how it is, you don't have anything to gain from it. It just wastes your time going there and as such it also wastes the devs time put into making these areas which will not be used or will rarely be used.

Now I will agree that we have different styles of playing but I will not agree that all of this is subjective. What you have presented so far is opinions that something objectively bad can be enjoyed by some people. And I get it that you like these bad systems, but they are bad systems none the less and the majority of people tend not to like bad systems.

Really I cannot wait for the game to be realeased and see if either the developers will make a beter economy system or if they will leave it as so. I don't belive they will at this point because as Styg said. He won't be adding more stuff to the game because it takes time and costs money. But if this is so I do sincerely hope modders pick up this game and make it good.

[Termy]

While I understand at least where you are coming from, I still disagree totally with you. The game is NOT encouraging you to stop what you are doing to try to make money. The vendor purchase restrictions actively DISCOURAGE this. You are, of course, entitled to game the system by farming vendor inventory respawns, but I'd like you to show me a system that can't be gamed. As it is, like I said I've found this system reasonably (not perfectly) balanced - by making intelligent decisions on what to carry, I've had always enough cash for what I need, but (until near the end of the game) never too much. You say that I am playing the game wrong, but I think equally it could be said I am playing the game as intended?

I don't necessarily agree that players will always do whatever earns them the most money - this is an artifact of playing games (like Diablo and Borderlands) that encourage loot and gold grinding. Personally I loathe that gameplay model, and the fact that Underrail discourages it (but doesn't outright prevent it) is a point of charm for me.

Unlike you, it is my experience that the loot you find or craft is better than the loot you purchase, with the occasional exception. This encourages looting and exploring. When I have needed money, I have gone on exploration and looting runs. I found they were quite adequate to get me the cash I needed, when I needed it. I understand where you come from when you say that discourages replayability, but I don't agree whatsoever. I STILL play the four Fallouts just for the joy of exploration, despite literally having discovered all the content in the games. I enjoy this. I think a lot of other people do as well. Maybe Underrail would be more replayable if it had some degree of randomness in the site contents

As for how it can be balanced with the current system, we'd disagree entirely on that because I think we have different ideas on what sort of gameplay to encourage. I'd definitely have vendors carry less cash, thus encouraging more goods bartering. I feel that some vendors should also accept more unlimited classes of goods but at a massive discount, particularly components - this would encourage trading off some of those excess useless components in exchange for that one component you really want. (Or maybe a system of component transmutation. The current breakdown options aren't useful enough.)

I'd like certain types of high-value or unique loot to be found in some of the exploration sites, if only because it's nice to have that sort of reward. But I've found exploration to be both reasonably profitable and enjoyable, despite what you claim.

This however would be antithesis to you, since it further ENCOURAGES the sort of play style I've been enjoying and which you don't like. And this is the problem - when you say it is "objectively unbalanced" you mean it is OBJECTIVELY UNBALANCED FOR YOUR PLAYSTYLE. You also say that most people will play in a way that will gain them the most money. In fact, I have been playing in a way that maximises my profitability, but this comes from identifying what is and isn't a profitable activity. If you consider ferrying every bit of loot out of a dungeon a profitable activity, then by all means do it, but the game discourages it. I think MOST (obviously not all) players will identify this as having a low time cost/profit ratio, and will prioritise their behaviour accordingly.

As far as modding is concerned, I've been a extremely enthusiastic modder over the years. When Styg gets around to releasing modding tools (or maybe even the source? One can hope) I'd be more than happy then to get together with you and we can try to redesign the economy, if only to see how different the game plays.

*EDIT I repeat myself too often