my 2 coppers (lol) I love coin weight, and encumberance in general. it adds lots of small gameplay/RP opportunities like forced banking and having to deal with that as an Evil race far away from home, or having to choose between leaving a camp to sell and staying around for the XP.
it's also one of those small things that makes the game world feel more real and less like a damage simulation. It also allows for cool items to grind after like weighht reduction bags. just have a magical coin pouch you can loot once you are higher level that reduces coin weight by half or something and bam, everyone is happy.
OneForAll said:it's also one of those small things that makes the game world feel more real and less like a damage simulation.
You're saying that you often burn your money or give it away because it gets too heavy? If they wanted it to be realistic, they would adjust the weight of the coins (like someone else had mentioned). Each metal's weight is completely different.
I think their mechanic to address the weight will come into play with their mystery currency (that will hopefully be nearly weightless) and hopefuly their exchange system will be able to be done on-the-fly (i.e. 1000 copper to 1 gold with the click of a button). Otherwise you are going to get what I posted like 3 posts back, which is people erroneously deleting currency.
Brooks said:Well, since people are on board with this horrible idea let's not forget that metals weigh different amounts. Silver is denser than copper, gold is way heavier. One Cubit foot of copper is 559 lbs whereas Gold would be 1206 lbs. So if you convert your money to gold you should only be able to carry half of that amount. One cubic foot of Gold weighs 1,206 lbs. You could also make it take bag space too, because you will need to store your money somewhere. If they are going to size, that's fine but I'd suggest we allocate bag space per weight and size then. Each bag can carry 8 slots or X weight, and our bag space will be limited by size and weight. So you may have a warrior that can carry 4 cubic feet in total space which is 8 slots in the backpack, but 3 of those may be occupied with "gold" space, or twice the space if it's Silver. We could also make sexes carry more, we can't ignore the extra muscle mass from testosterone that males have. Everyone should have to drop their bags on the ground when fighting too. Can you imagine trying to fight with 1000 gold coins on you, or 100 if you are a mage...
This is a horrible idea, it adds nothing but frustration to players. It is not balanced within classes because they have different strength levels. Someone shouldn't be penalized on the amount they can carry based on their class. No one wants to have to break off and go to town twice as often as the rest of the group just because they are an intelligence-based class.
It adds a lot to many players (obviously)
Are some players being penalized on the amount they can carry or are some being rewarded based on there streangth? It's just a matter of what you're looking for, you can find it.
Riahuf22 said:Brooks said:Well, since people are on board with this horrible idea let's not forget that metals weigh different amounts. Silver is denser than copper, gold is way heavier. One Cubit foot of copper is 559 lbs whereas Gold would be 1206 lbs. So if you convert your money to gold you should only be able to carry half of that amount. One cubic foot of Gold weighs 1,206 lbs. You could also make it take bag space too, because you will need to store your money somewhere. If they are going to size, that's fine but I'd suggest we allocate bag space per weight and size then. Each bag can carry 8 slots or X weight, and our bag space will be limited by size and weight. So you may have a warrior that can carry 4 cubic feet in total space which is 8 slots in the backpack, but 3 of those may be occupied with "gold" space, or twice the space if it's Silver. We could also make sexes carry more, we can't ignore the extra muscle mass from testosterone that males have. Everyone should have to drop their bags on the ground when fighting too. Can you imagine trying to fight with 1000 gold coins on you, or 100 if you are a mage...
This is a horrible idea, it adds nothing but frustration to players. It is not balanced within classes because they have different strength levels. Someone shouldn't be penalized on the amount they can carry based on their class. No one wants to have to break off and go to town twice as often as the rest of the group just because they are an intelligence-based class.
Well i can see why people might not like this idea of coin weight, i don't think anyone actually thinks that your money is actually going to be occupying bag space, or think gold coins are going to weigh more than copper coins, or most of what is said in this post is invalid, as it isn't going to be a thing, it just going to have its own weight and be in its own storage or sorts, so it basiclly only afects you in the weight aspect of it and not the other, and I already wrote a solution to solve most of the problems it can represent while also keeping it just as important, who knows maybe they already have an idea to make it work in their own way, time will tell.
Brooks isn’t too far off the mark though. Coinage weight is really just an odd line to draw in the sand. “This realistic and No FURTHER!!”. It would likely actually be a boon even in a slot based inventory system to assign a slot to keep your cash in, that way you can at least get some weight reduction on it.
There is also the “Why do we even have that lever” on having 5 denominations of coinage. If Roenicks (pulling for you man) can even drop then they will just become the defacto currency of trade and everything lower will just be trash. We could just as easily get bank drafts in 1000s of gold from a specific bank to trade with other players on high value items and stick with just 3 currencies and a low enough drop rate (between cash and vendor trash) that coin weight wont be a factor.
I do favor mounts/vehicles being for carry capacity rather than for movement speed myself.
Trasak said:Riahuf22 said:Brooks said:Well, since people are on board with this horrible idea let's not forget that metals weigh different amounts. Silver is denser than copper, gold is way heavier. One Cubit foot of copper is 559 lbs whereas Gold would be 1206 lbs. So if you convert your money to gold you should only be able to carry half of that amount. One cubic foot of Gold weighs 1,206 lbs. You could also make it take bag space too, because you will need to store your money somewhere. If they are going to size, that's fine but I'd suggest we allocate bag space per weight and size then. Each bag can carry 8 slots or X weight, and our bag space will be limited by size and weight. So you may have a warrior that can carry 4 cubic feet in total space which is 8 slots in the backpack, but 3 of those may be occupied with "gold" space, or twice the space if it's Silver. We could also make sexes carry more, we can't ignore the extra muscle mass from testosterone that males have. Everyone should have to drop their bags on the ground when fighting too. Can you imagine trying to fight with 1000 gold coins on you, or 100 if you are a mage...
This is a horrible idea, it adds nothing but frustration to players. It is not balanced within classes because they have different strength levels. Someone shouldn't be penalized on the amount they can carry based on their class. No one wants to have to break off and go to town twice as often as the rest of the group just because they are an intelligence-based class.
Well i can see why people might not like this idea of coin weight, i don't think anyone actually thinks that your money is actually going to be occupying bag space, or think gold coins are going to weigh more than copper coins, or most of what is said in this post is invalid, as it isn't going to be a thing, it just going to have its own weight and be in its own storage or sorts, so it basiclly only afects you in the weight aspect of it and not the other, and I already wrote a solution to solve most of the problems it can represent while also keeping it just as important, who knows maybe they already have an idea to make it work in their own way, time will tell.
Brooks isn’t too far off the mark though. Coinage weight is really just an odd line to draw in the sand. “This realistic and No FURTHER!!”. It would likely actually be a boon even in a slot based inventory system to assign a slot to keep your cash in, that way you can at least get some weight reduction on it.
There is also the “Why do we even have that lever” on having 5 denominations of coinage. If Roenicks (pulling for you man) can even drop then they will just become the defacto currency of trade and everything lower will just be trash. We could just as easily get bank drafts in 1000s of gold from a specific bank to trade with other players on high value items and stick with just 3 currencies and a low enough drop rate (between cash and vendor trash) that coin weight wont be a factor.
I do favor mounts/vehicles being for carry capacity rather than for movement speed myself.
I can kind of understand what you mean by all that, especially the whole coin purse able to reduce coin wiehgt or something to that affect, but to me if you bring in mounts to actually help manage weight/bag space than everything else is just extra, just adding mounts in general to help with this situation is a huge step in the right direction for me, if you wanted to throw in a coin purse that can be made to also reduce weight on coins okay, i mean that can help to, but i think having Tradeskills able to make camps oe tents to summon mounts in deep dungeon dives and such will be such a big plus for everyone
Trasak said:Brooks isn’t too far off the mark though. Coinage weight is really just an odd line to draw in the sand. “This realistic and No FURTHER!!”. It would likely actually be a boon even in a slot based inventory system to assign a slot to keep your cash in, that way you can at least get some weight reduction on it.
There is also the “Why do we even have that lever” on having 5 denominations of coinage. If Roenicks (pulling for you man) can even drop then they will just become the defacto currency of trade and everything lower will just be trash. We could just as easily get bank drafts in 1000s of gold from a specific bank to trade with other players on high value items and stick with just 3 currencies and a low enough drop rate (between cash and vendor trash) that coin weight wont be a factor.
I do favor mounts/vehicles being for carry capacity rather than for movement speed myself.
An odd line is solely a perspective things, as for some it might be perfectly fine TBH. I'm not a fan of "slot inventories" but at least they are quite clear and efficient to read and manage. About coins, in EQ there was one zero of jump while here there is one more currency and two zero, which means the "Roenicks" might be relevant only at a specific level and might never drop until 2-4 group target bosses.
Used to be against it, in this very thread even. Upon reflection I like it, glad it will return.
Hopefully somewhat balanced between all classes. If a caster can carry 70 lbs and a warrior can carry 150 lbs then I hope the full weight of the equipped items for the warrior is 80ish lbs while the caster is maybe 5ish lbs.
Iksar said:Used to be against it, in this very thread even. Upon reflection I like it, glad it will return.
Hopefully somewhat balanced between all classes. If a caster can carry 70 lbs and a warrior can carry 150 lbs then I hope the full weight of the equipped items for the warrior is 80ish lbs while the caster is maybe 5ish lbs.
That is another good point Iksar. Its not as much the difference in maximum strength but rather the amount of loot one can pick up in addition to standard gear for that class without becoming encumbered. For all we know the plate classes might have the least available carry capacity and may always technically be encumbered but do not suffer a significant penalty for it.
Monks wearing cloth or leather and actually aiming for strength could leave them will a fair amount of carry capacity before becoming encumbered. EQ monks had it rough because it was a flat max weight rather than a function of strength.
If we are going to be realistic, then coin weight shouldn't be a factor and it's archaic. Lets take a look at real life when it comes to banks and money. Banks were started WAY back when the very first instances of currencies started to be used. Banks came into prominence when people started using things such as obsidian as their trade goods for things like grains and animals. Since before this, animals and food already had massive stores at the producers location, they had no real need for banks. When Obsidian became the trade of choice for payment, banks were implemented because, well carrying around chunks of obsidian were too heavy to continuously carry around. Not to mention that people had no real place to store coffers in their smaller houses. While the more well off probably could, it still weighed way too much. Banks started as a way to store the items that were too heavy, so now, no one has to really carry anything around that was encumbering. They could go about their trace and take out what they needed to purchased what they wanted, or they could get a stone receipt for what was owed and then ask the bank to move it to the place if it was too much for one person to carry. Eventually obsidian became replaced with silver, copper, gold, and other such things and then turned into coin, all in an attempted to make it less heavy and to be able to carry more on a person so that it wasn't an inconvenience to continuously go to the bank all the time.
Even with coins becoming the more modern thing to use as currency, the fact that it still took a lot of weight to make any sort of major purchase, still had an effect on people. In the 1600's the first bank note was started in...Germany...Britain...one of those, and people took to it like glue, because once again, it took the weight out of their pockets and it also relieved the banks of having to find suitable places to store all the coins and coffers without having a massive footprint. Naturally they left some coins in for change and whatnot, but people rather quickly changed over bigger amounts into bills because they were lighter in the pocket and easier for the banks to store and transfer; so their facilities could be guarded a lot easier with the smaller footprint. From here, time went on and even now bills are becoming a hassle, While people could carry more because of the weight, but there was only so much room in ones wallet or purse for it. Men usually only have a wallet, and you can only put so much in that before it looks like you only have one buttcheek implant, and women were just throwing them in the bottom of their purse because their pocket books wouldn't hold anymore. I won't go into details about cheques and stuff, mainly pointing out money on hand. Now, come to this age, and more and more banking is being done digitally. Direct deposit and debit cards have made it a lot easier for people to pay for things. Why? because now they don't have to carry about 2000 in cash to pay for a computer or something along those lines. The difficulty of amount was still there for people making big ticket purchase, so debit cards were started as well as ATMs for the people that still wanted to use cash and hadn't gotten a plastic card yet. Even now, less and less ATMs are around because more and more people have a debit card. You can make a massive purchase without having to carry around ungodly amounts of money on you, and you don't have to run to the bank every time that you seem to be short of your purchase that you need.
So if we are taking from real life, then coin weight shouldn't be a thing, because even WAY back when, people were looking for ways to not have to carry it around because of the weight, and we eventually got to that point with debit cards and direct deposit. Hardly anyone has cash on them now, and it's usually only the older people that carry that much cash on them, I'm talking into their 60's and 70's that would carry it all in their purse or wallet. So, I think if we are going based on real life, there should be no coin weight, as it seems to be that we don't have any now in this day and age, and even back in the Egyptian period, they didn't want the weight and did their best to find ways to stop that.
OCastitatisLilium said:If we are going to be realistic, then coin weight shouldn't be a factor and it's archaic. Lets take a look at real life when it comes to banks and money. Banks were started WAY back when the very first instances of currencies started to be used. Banks came into prominence when people started using things such as obsidian as their trade goods for things like grains and animals. Since before this, animals and food already had massive stores at the producers location, they had no real need for banks. When Obsidian became the trade of choice for payment, banks were implemented because, well carrying around chunks of obsidian were too heavy to continuously carry around. Not to mention that people had no real place to store coffers in their smaller houses. While the more well off probably could, it still weighed way too much. Banks started as a way to store the items that were too heavy, so now, no one has to really carry anything around that was encumbering. They could go about their trace and take out what they needed to purchased what they wanted, or they could get a stone receipt for what was owed and then ask the bank to move it to the place if it was too much for one person to carry. Eventually obsidian became replaced with silver, copper, gold, and other such things and then turned into coin, all in an attempted to make it less heavy and to be able to carry more on a person so that it wasn't an inconvenience to continuously go to the bank all the time.
Even with coins becoming the more modern thing to use as currency, the fact that it still took a lot of weight to make any sort of major purchase, still had an effect on people. In the 1600's the first bank note was started in...Germany...Britain...one of those, and people took to it like glue, because once again, it took the weight out of their pockets and it also relieved the banks of having to find suitable places to store all the coins and coffers without having a massive footprint. Naturally they left some coins in for change and whatnot, but people rather quickly changed over bigger amounts into bills because they were lighter in the pocket and easier for the banks to store and transfer; so their facilities could be guarded a lot easier with the smaller footprint. From here, time went on and even now bills are becoming a hassle, While people could carry more because of the weight, but there was only so much room in ones wallet or purse for it. Men usually only have a wallet, and you can only put so much in that before it looks like you only have one buttcheek implant, and women were just throwing them in the bottom of their purse because their pocket books wouldn't hold anymore. I won't go into details about cheques and stuff, mainly pointing out money on hand. Now, come to this age, and more and more banking is being done digitally. Direct deposit and debit cards have made it a lot easier for people to pay for things. Why? because now they don't have to carry about 2000 in cash to pay for a computer or something along those lines. The difficulty of amount was still there for people making big ticket purchase, so debit cards were started as well as ATMs for the people that still wanted to use cash and hadn't gotten a plastic card yet. Even now, less and less ATMs are around because more and more people have a debit card. You can make a massive purchase without having to carry around ungodly amounts of money on you, and you don't have to run to the bank every time that you seem to be short of your purchase that you need.
So if we are taking from real life, then coin weight shouldn't be a thing, because even WAY back when, people were looking for ways to not have to carry it around because of the weight, and we eventually got to that point with debit cards and direct deposit. Hardly anyone has cash on them now, and it's usually only the older people that carry that much cash on them, I'm talking into their 60's and 70's that would carry it all in their purse or wallet. So, I think if we are going based on real life, there should be no coin weight, as it seems to be that we don't have any now in this day and age, and even back in the Egyptian period, they didn't want the weight and did their best to find ways to stop that.
So what you're saying is that Weight of money should not be an issue because banks were holding them for you which is exactly what is aimed in pantheon ?
Coin weight is good, it promotes the utilization of banks, which in turn promotes the utilization of capital cities (or areas that host bankers), which in turn will lead to areas that people congregate, which will lead to socialization, which in turn will lead to a community-based game, which is what Pantheon is aiming for.
Granted, this is just one component of creating scenarios where people socialize / interact, but it's a significant one.
Maybe that tunnel became such a magnet for trade because of the close proximity to banks for good & evil races?
Trasak said:Iksar said:Used to be against it, in this very thread even. Upon reflection I like it, glad it will return.
Hopefully somewhat balanced between all classes. If a caster can carry 70 lbs and a warrior can carry 150 lbs then I hope the full weight of the equipped items for the warrior is 80ish lbs while the caster is maybe 5ish lbs.
That is another good point Iksar. Its not as much the difference in maximum strength but rather the amount of loot one can pick up in addition to standard gear for that class without becoming encumbered. For all we know the plate classes might have the least available carry capacity and may always technically be encumbered but do not suffer a significant penalty for it.
Monks wearing cloth or leather and actually aiming for strength could leave them will a fair amount of carry capacity before becoming encumbered. EQ monks had it rough because it was a flat max weight rather than a function of strength.
No, EQ was absoulutly a function of strength. Strength buff an imobal incumberd player and they could move again. this was a common practice.
I spent 10 years in a game with coin weight. Three things I clearly remember concerning that scenario:
1. By the time I joined the game - just a few years in - players had already taken to using the most valuable vendor-sold item in game as a much-lighter-weight subsitute for 'official' currency.
2. Some years later, even the vendor item was too encumbering for wealthy players and so the Devs gave in and created paper notes in several increasingly high denominations.
3. I never found any real enjoyment from the mini-game of money exchange, nor do I remember any of my friends expressing enjoyment in it.
All that said, while I do not favor the decision to have coin weight it won't make a significant dent in my intention to play Pantheon unless the Devs do an appallingly poor job of implementing ways and means to effectively deal with the burden.
MauvaisOeil said:So what you're saying is that Weight of money should not be an issue because banks were holding them for you which is exactly what is aimed in pantheon ?
No, what I'm saying, and I love how you didn't read the bottom; is that we don't even have coin weight now. We have direct deposits and electronic things for our money; and a card that holds millions of dollars all with a very thin piece of plastic. Sure, it has a weight of MAYBE 3-5 grams, but you can hold billions on it if you want and not deal with the pounds upon pounds of weight in coin and cash.
OCastitatisLilium said:MauvaisOeil said:So what you're saying is that Weight of money should not be an issue because banks were holding them for you which is exactly what is aimed in pantheon ?
No, what I'm saying, and I love how you didn't read the bottom; is that we don't even have coin weight now. We have direct deposits and electronic things for our money; and a card that holds millions of dollars all with a very thin piece of plastic. Sure, it has a weight of MAYBE 3-5 grams, but you can hold billions on it if you want and not deal with the pounds upon pounds of weight in coin and cash.
I read it. It's simply unrelated to a high fantasy setup.
Shadowbound said:Coin weight is good, it promotes the utilization of banks, which in turn promotes the utilization of capital cities (or areas that host bankers), which in turn will lead to areas that people congregate, which will lead to socialization, which in turn will lead to a community-based game, which is what Pantheon is aiming for.
Granted, this is just one component of creating scenarios where people socialize / interact, but it's a significant one.
Maybe that tunnel became such a magnet for trade because of the close proximity to banks for good & evil races?
No coin weight is good because it promotes playing and adventuring with friends. Is this game about playing with friends, or running to the bank? Socializing can be harmed with coin weight. When playing people will be making runs back, breaking up their play, not to then sit in town and socialize. There will be plenty of trade hubs and reasons for using cities other than having to break up playing with friends to run back and dump gold in the bank.
MauvaisOeil said:OCastitatisLilium said:MauvaisOeil said:So what you're saying is that Weight of money should not be an issue because banks were holding them for you which is exactly what is aimed in pantheon ?
No, what I'm saying, and I love how you didn't read the bottom; is that we don't even have coin weight now. We have direct deposits and electronic things for our money; and a card that holds millions of dollars all with a very thin piece of plastic. Sure, it has a weight of MAYBE 3-5 grams, but you can hold billions on it if you want and not deal with the pounds upon pounds of weight in coin and cash.
I read it. It's simply unrelated to a high fantasy setup.
Brooks said:No coin weight is good because it promotes playing and adventuring with friends. Is this game about playing with friends, or running to the bank? Socializing can be harmed with coin weight. When playing people will be making runs back, breaking up their play, not to then sit in town and socialize. There will be plenty of trade hubs and reasons for using cities other than having to break up playing with friends to run back and dump gold in the bank.
I don't remember this really happening in EQ. You'd simply start making choices on what to loot and what not based on highest value, you'd start destroying/dropping your silver and copper, and at worst someone would eventually make a run to a vendor (but even that was somewhat uncommon as many zones didn't have a decent merchant reasonably close by, sometimes more if you your faction was bad for the nearest major race).
Some of the hardships and inconveniences are good for the game as a whole: the shared hardship or commiseration between players, the memories, the "war" stories. I don't look back negatively at the bank crawls from Freeport to the EC tunnel while completely weighted down or dying because I took a tiny fall, or really any number of "inconveniences" the game had for players.
That's one black mark against playing a monk then.
I played a monk in EQ a lot and I had no problem having to be careful to pick armor and weapons that were unencumbering to a martial art. That was kinda cool.
What was *not* cool was always having to bug people to give me my share of the loot in jewels or bartering for some other equivalency to coin, the annoying pain of which almost always ended in me getting short-changed or left out completely (also because I was continually in action pulling for the party and never getting to actually do the looting).
Making banking meaningful is not a good reason to have coin weight, especially when it will probably only effect a minority of characters.
Bah, the case has been adequately made multiple times, I can only hope VR think it through and either reconsider completely or work out ways to mitigate the unequal and tiresome burden (pun intended) it will otherwise cause.
Zorkon said:Trasak said:Iksar said:Used to be against it, in this very thread even. Upon reflection I like it, glad it will return.
Hopefully somewhat balanced between all classes. If a caster can carry 70 lbs and a warrior can carry 150 lbs then I hope the full weight of the equipped items for the warrior is 80ish lbs while the caster is maybe 5ish lbs.
That is another good point Iksar. Its not as much the difference in maximum strength but rather the amount of loot one can pick up in addition to standard gear for that class without becoming encumbered. For all we know the plate classes might have the least available carry capacity and may always technically be encumbered but do not suffer a significant penalty for it.
Monks wearing cloth or leather and actually aiming for strength could leave them will a fair amount of carry capacity before becoming encumbered. EQ monks had it rough because it was a flat max weight rather than a function of strength.
No, EQ was absoulutly a function of strength. Strength buff an imobal incumberd player and they could move again. this was a common practice.
Was referring to the monk weight limit. Started at 10 max weight and I think climbed to the 20s in PoP eara. If you went over that limit your special monk AC plummeted. If it had been 15% of strength instead it would have given monks a lot more freedom to loot while leveling. A monk basically had to get a 100% wr bag before they could loot while leveling.
Zorkon said:Trasak said:Iksar said:Used to be against it, in this very thread even. Upon reflection I like it, glad it will return.
Hopefully somewhat balanced between all classes. If a caster can carry 70 lbs and a warrior can carry 150 lbs then I hope the full weight of the equipped items for the warrior is 80ish lbs while the caster is maybe 5ish lbs.
That is another good point Iksar. Its not as much the difference in maximum strength but rather the amount of loot one can pick up in addition to standard gear for that class without becoming encumbered. For all we know the plate classes might have the least available carry capacity and may always technically be encumbered but do not suffer a significant penalty for it.
Monks wearing cloth or leather and actually aiming for strength could leave them will a fair amount of carry capacity before becoming encumbered. EQ monks had it rough because it was a flat max weight rather than a function of strength.
No, EQ was absoulutly a function of strength. Strength buff an imobal incumberd player and they could move again. this was a common practice.
I believe Trasak was referring to the monk penalty being unrelated to their strength, which I believe is true.
EDIT: Ah, he answered as I did. Sorry for any confusion.
It didn't matter how strong a monk was, they could not carry anything more than a very small amount of coin without it ruining their armor class.
Now, if VR make it work differently, then cool. It would be amusing to see warriors unable to loot coin because they are already constantly on the cusp of being encumbered by their shiny armor. I don't doubt quite a few would feel differently if their favourite class turned out to not be able to loot coin just like an EQ monk.
Let's add in weapon/armor damage that you have to repair, then tanks can be annoyed and financially ruined by an 'immersive' feature.
Also, casters should have expensive components used up by every spell.
Let's make it so boots have to be repaired regularly if you explore and travel a lot.
Ugh.
Grimix said: One major downside I see for the weighted currency is parties prematurely breaking due to someone being encumbered. Sure it won't matter if your well off but if your a poor healer where every copper matters, once your full that party is SOL But the idea for mounts to hold items I like, would allow for parties to stay together longer while working in a way to logically deal with the coin weight penalty.
You know, this is a decent thought. At higher level in EQ it was safe to delete everything but platinum. With a 1 to 100 scale it might change around this a little bit, at least at lower levels where all of the currencies are worth something. But at the same time, lower level characters are usually going to be fighting closer to town which gives them easier access to a bank.
But really, without us knowing if the game will generate a lot of coin by NPC drops, we can't say what the impact will be. If most NPC's drop little coin, where most is created into the world through selling items to vendors, that would give players an easier route to bank it before heading back out.
Having more valuble sellables and less coin drops may be a way around this, yet still allow coin weight to stay in to prevent players from keeping thousands or more plat on them.
Trasak said:Zorkon said:Trasak said:Iksar said:Used to be against it, in this very thread even. Upon reflection I like it, glad it will return.
Hopefully somewhat balanced between all classes. If a caster can carry 70 lbs and a warrior can carry 150 lbs then I hope the full weight of the equipped items for the warrior is 80ish lbs while the caster is maybe 5ish lbs.
That is another good point Iksar. Its not as much the difference in maximum strength but rather the amount of loot one can pick up in addition to standard gear for that class without becoming encumbered. For all we know the plate classes might have the least available carry capacity and may always technically be encumbered but do not suffer a significant penalty for it.
Monks wearing cloth or leather and actually aiming for strength could leave them will a fair amount of carry capacity before becoming encumbered. EQ monks had it rough because it was a flat max weight rather than a function of strength.
No, EQ was absoulutly a function of strength. Strength buff an imobal incumberd player and they could move again. this was a common practice.
Was referring to the monk weight limit. Started at 10 max weight and I think climbed to the 20s in PoP eara. If you went over that limit your special monk AC plummeted. If it had been 15% of strength instead it would have given monks a lot more freedom to loot while leveling. A monk basically had to get a 100% wr bag before they could loot while leveling.
Ahh I understand now. And yes, hopefully they can come up with some better ways to handle things.
I'm very happy to hear that coins have weight again!
IMO, if VRs goal is to create a virtual world and not just a game then coins need to have weight. It supports the world's “inner consistency of reality” that I hope they are trying to achieve. ("inner consitency of reality" is not my phrasing but something the Tolkein lectured about in regards to creating believable fantasy worlds) Therefore, the reason it matters *to me* is because if other metals in the world have weight then it stands to reason that coins should as well, it maintains consistency. I understand that this may not matter to others and I think the differing opinions on the topic come from differences in our views relating to where we are on the scale of virtual world to game. Personally, what I enjoy about mmo's is existing in a virtual world, the game aspect is really secondary. The game needs to be fun, yes, but fun for me is "living" in that world based on the rules laid out within it. It might be a pain in the ass.. ok so be it. I'll deal. Glad to see that VR is sticking to their vision of the world.