I agree with pretty much all that you wrote here, though we must remember vis-a-vis your first sentence that they did not stick to their guns regarding coin weight. They said it wasn't in the game, then said it was.
When I say "stick to their guns" I don't mean that they can't make any changes. I just mean I don't want them to make changes for the purpose of satisfying a group of people that disagrees with their tenets. If they make a change I want to believe they made the change because it's best for the game and is supported by their tenets.
Zorkon said:My comments added in red (from the View of one that plays casters almost exclusively)
Nagasakee said:As I read this thread the coin pro-weight side has made a variety of points regarding benefit:
- Its "realistic" (it adds all kinds of oppotunity for player interaction and emersive behaviour)
- It promotes playing with friends (it promots playing with OTHERS, making new friends)
- It doesn't hurt their chosen class, and several other classes (it adds flavor to all the classes, expecially Monk)
- It promotes the banking system (yes, populating the otherwise barren Cities)
- It promotes people helping each other when they get encumbered (strength buffs, SoW etc) (yes, coin exchange, working together.. thinking of the origanal j-boot quest here)
And I've seen the no-weight side (of which I am a member) make other points:
- It causes encumbrance which while sometimes funny, is not a pleasant game experience (IS a pleasant World experiance to know you are loaded up, Had a good day)
- When encumbered, if there is no one there to assist, you have to destroy items or coin, (Or be creative on how to do it without destroying it, MANY have been listed). hurting classes that are not high strength, . especially casters (Or Rewarding classes that are High streangth that don't get things like Gate and Teleports etc). This will hurt casters (I played a caster exclusively in EQ... was never a big problem) and monks (who in a World pretty much unaversally swarn to a life of Asceticism) over time as they may not be able to collect items and coin at the same rate as other classes.
- When adventuring in a group players may have to leave "early" to bank (or drop the Copper... just how much will be collected in a 2 hour play session?). This applies to solo play too.
- The weight penalty is annoying but dramatically effects the gameplay of only ONE class: the Monk, (who in a World pretty much unaversally all religions has swarn to a life of Asceticism and has no use for material items) who loses AC as they exceed the weight limit. (based upon EQ monks mainly)
Did I miss anything crucial? (I don't think so, just that there are differing views to a lot of what you said)
I'd be curious as to why Joppa changed his mind on this, does anyone know? Has he said why? (yes, he said in the stream)
It's all a matter of how you look at each of those Items,
This Monk argument is Null in my eyes, Monks ALL monks of any religon, race, era, have one thing in common... they swear to a life of poverty. And yet they are here in this GAME complaning they can't keep thier riches... I can't belive they all just choose to ignore that and not even address it. If you're not willing to accept that, DON'T play a Monk. Now I feel VR should also accomidate this as Skills, Quest, Gear all for a Monk should be litterely Free, Drops for even BIS should be pleantaful, Epic Quest should be the easiest (or at least cheapist) in the game, the whole class should be built with a life of poverty in mind. THAT IS A MONK
People also ingnoring this two hour play window. (when it's convenant) you really think a Caster will be incumbered in two hours... I hope so, that would be a rocking play session.
Many keep saying "Some classes are Penalized" Bah!!! Some are Rewarded. Glass half full or half empty, how you want to look at it apperantly depends on if your pro or con coin weight. Take the early Warrior in EQ as example can't heal, can't gate , can't buff, got no run speed, what a pathetic class... But never needs to buy spells or spend $$ on much of anything. In late EQ I just started Boxing a Shaman and a Warrior... same hours played, same level, same zones, always grouped together.. they each pay there own way.... lvl 50 and the Shaman (never had to drop anything for incumbrance) has less than $3k and wearing only what has dropped. That friggin Warrior even after buying all the level appropriat plate and weapons for all schools at the Bazaar still has $12k
The caster isnt's penalized, the Melee is rewarded
Dude. Some glaringly strange comments here. Please don't take this as some kind of attack, but I feel motivated to counterpoint.
1) Even if all real world monks live in poverty (I don't think they do, but, even if we consider the Shaolin Bhuddist type) what has that to do with a 'monk' in an MMORPG? In EQ they were just martial artists that studied it to a degree they could perfect their physical selves and 'weaponise' their 'essense' to a certain extent. I don't even remember any religeous aspect, never mind a poverty vow. The coin restriction was to do with encumbrance and the dodging afforded by free movement in their martial arts and nothing to do with wealth. Those monk trainers charged just as much as others.
Should Pantheon Clerics be like real ones too? They usually don't fight. They can just provide religeous services to the group as they enjoy the game, yeah? Organise the odd charity rummage sale? THAT IS A CLERIC. Lol
2) Can you imagine the difficulties of making 'monk' items free and others expensive? The impact on itemisation and the the economy? Persuading player traders to sell cheap just to monks?
3) The two hour slot 'session' has little to do with it. If everyone has to travel to a bank every session it will be a PITA. Yes, it would be worse if you have to bank mid-session, but that doesn't make every session a good thing. Aside from that in EQ it wasn't just about a monk (and others with low strength to a lesser extent) having to bank more often, it was that the monk just didn't/couldn't take anywhere near as much loot because they couldn't just leave mid-session and had to just grind their teeth while the others shared out the coins and didn't hand them gems to compensate (often because there was no equitable light-weight loot).
4) If coin weight is anything like in EQ then warriors and other classes where strength was a primary stat would have effectively infinite looting ability as a side-effect. Not just better, but not even an issue. Other classes would have to effectively gimp their character putting points into strength (which even a non-minmaxer wouldn't do) or spend a fortune on magical bags to add anything like a 'good' looting capacity and even then struggle with management issues that warriors just didn't have to consider.
The EQ warrior having infinite carrying ability was not some kind of bonus to compensate for less utility or abilities than other classes. It was a side-effect. Not glass half empty/full, but warriors had a mobile tap and others were constantly worrying about thirst.
Also clearly Pantheon warriors will have no such derth of interesting abilities to somehow need to be compensated with easy looting ability (even if that were a good idea).
I get the idea of coin weight being a management issue and management issues not being essentially bad and sometimes a good and worthwhile aspect, *but* that needs to not be an isolated feature that to some is irrelevant and others is vital. If it is to be included to enhance immersion it needs to be weighed up with other related issues else will seem ridiculous (ie. we have to micro-manage coin weight, but can wear half a dozen large backpacks and carry 100s of different, equally retrievable inventory items?!).
I'm not against Pantheon having inventory management and encumbrance at all - it is something I value and somewhat enjoy if done well - it just needs to be approached with care and even-handedness.
The EQ Monk example *is* appropriate. The careful management of lightweight armor and weapons was kinda fun. You would have to carefully weigh up (pun intended) a heavy weapon against the potential for your armor class to be reduced if you took it out of your weight reduction bag to use, stuff like that. But coin weight? It was just a constant irritation. Coin drop was a major income for all classes, but monks basically had to excuse yourself from that default income source or be seriously hindered.
It was a lesser consideration to 'weak' classes like mages, but still a consideration that became important/annoying very often.
There is no class that should not be encumbered by huge bags of coins strapped around them, but the way coins were dealt with in EQ was primative and was painful to some characters, especially monks and not to others.
If VR do it differently and better, as they could, then great, but if they simply introduce coin weight as a concept in isolation to any other encumbrance mechanics, then it will be just as painful to a lot of players depending on the class they choose. Not an overall plus to the Pantheon experience.
Joppa mentioned, seemingly as a primary concern, that banking made no sense without coin weight. I just hope they also consider that re-introducing coin weight might make banking more important, but at the same time make a nonsense of other encumbrance considerations and be just plain annoying to some classes/players.
Making banking matter isn't a good enough reason in isolation, in my view (in fact even with coin weight, in EQ banking was much more important for item storage than cash. Coins were avoided were possible), but as I have said elsewhere, I trust that VR will think about that and do things to mitigate the potential issues like that which others in this thread have mentioned, eg. make encumbrance strength-based for monks, not just flat weight based as it was in EQ. Eg. Make encumbrance have a 'storage' aspect, not just weight. Eg. Realise that if coins have weight the first thing that people, especially adventurers, would start using would be bank notes... magical ones...
While I don't like bothersome elements that take play time and convert it to logistics / inventory management time, if we are keeping coin weight, it can be made to be equally sucky for all.
If every point of strength allows you to carry X coins, then for every X coins you are carrying, your effective strength should be reduced by 1 since you're using that strength to carry weight. Thus, Max strength warriors will still care about encumbrance because it weakens them in combat. Also, extra weight should have a very strong debuff on climbing ability.
On a side note, if coins have weight then they should not be auto split able into lower denominations. If a mob drops 3 gold, 16 silver, and 113 copper in a 5 man group then only the first 3 get gold coins, everyone gets 3 silver except for the first person on the silver list getting 4 and everyone gets 22 auto-trash I mean copper. Each time you loot the group loot tool keeps a list of cash break down and cycles through trying to keep it mostly even by coin type rather than value. Otherwise the mobs will be giving lower value loot by splitting cash into trash.
Evoras said:FWIW:
To make 'coin weight' work, there is a need for 'trash coinage' to be burdensome, but higher coinage to maintain a high value so fewer actual coins are needed. This is where many traditional (MMO) games make an error - and it is more to do with (worry about player) maths than programming or intent.
Typically :
10 copper = 1 silver, 10 silver = 1 gold, 10 gold = 1 plat
So 1 plat = 10x10x10 = 1,000 copper
This means that the kind of 'expensive' items that players deal with on a day-to-day basis (of which NPC never deal with) soon start to cost hundreds, if not thousands, of plat. This means that gold becomes 'burdensome' and hence equated with a trash-coin. So, developers consider either 'zero-weight coinage' or 'auto-exchange in bag' as the way to go since this avoids the problems. Otherwise by level 30 you have everyone having to ditch silver and even gold to avoid carrying cash.
Potentially - a solution : (NB: arbitrary convertion chosen below for demonstration purposes)
100 copper = 1 silver, 50 silver = 1 gold, 25 gold = 1 plat
So 1 plat = 100x50x25 = 125,000 copper
Now we see that levels 1-10 will likely work in copper with a smattering of silver and almost no gold. Lower-Mid levels will start to work mainly in silver with a good proportion of gold. This allows players from level 15+ to use plat as a 'wealth unit'. It has little weight, but is valuable enough to pay for items with just a few coins. Eg: 8pp = 200 gold which is 10,000 silver. More than enough for *any* purchase up to level 20-25 or even higher.
More 'extreme' conversions: These would give you better 'scarcity' but may feel odd to many players. The maths, though, would be much easier initially (consistent)
100 copper = 1 silver, 100 silver = 1 gold, 100 gold = 1 plat
So 1 plat = 100x100x100 = 1 million copper.
As in the previous example, 8pp = 800 gp = 80,000 silver! Players will be dealing in silver (as a non-trash coin) until level 20-25+. Gold would be only likely to become 'commonplace' after this.
NOTE: Medieval Europe through to the Renaissance (and beyond in many areas) worked with multiple currencies and variable exchange rates. With little 'formal' maths skills they were able to deal effectively using little more than ledgers, knotted strings and abaci. The conversion rate between 'pennies' to a 'pound' was approx 120 pennies to 1 pound. Given that the 'halfpenny' was a common coin (initially cut in half by merchants from a penny) this meant that the peasantry were dealing with 240 'half-pennies' to the pound (not that they ever saw one). They managed ... because failure to do so would result in starvation or imprisonment for lack of tax.
As was stated and what is appropiately put, there will be 5 denominations and at base 100 for all forms. That means...
100 Copper = 1 Silver
100 Silver = 1 Gold
100 Gold = 1 Platinum
100 Platinum = 1 Mithril (or whatever they call it)
If going by EQ values, early on in 2000-2002, good end game gear sold for Kpp (1000s of Platinum) or in the tens of Kpp, although much of it operated in the tens and hundreds of PP range.
With a mere base 100, that 3kpp SMR would be 3pp in Pantheon and you still have the Mithril range. Most of the game, especially in the level 1-45 range would operate chiefly in the Copper to Gold range with 15-45 being operationally in the Silver and Gold range with the rare platinum piece used.
This is probably the best news and also removes some of the detriment of coin having carry weight.
I went into detail on this last year. https://www.reddit.com/r/PantheonMMO/comments/az0wpk/denominational_currency_in_pantheon/
Shea said:101 copper otherwize whats the sense of banks exchanging it :)
Or of course you could be able to summon your mount mount and have it hold your money and items on deep dives, and in the process involve Tradeskilling as well, like i've mentioned before while keeping exchanges, and keeping bag/weight management important, just saying.
Riahuf22 said:Shea said:101 copper otherwize whats the sense of banks exchanging it :)
Or of course you could be able to summon your mount mount and have it hold your money and items on deep dives, and in the process involve Tradeskilling as well, like i've mentioned before while keeping exchanges, and keeping bag/weight management important, just saying.
I feel this makes the most sense over telling people to suck it up and either delete or not loot. If we are being realistic(in a high fantasy world that is) travelers would aquire some kind of mount to make traveling easier when they become more experience. Doubt there would be this much pushback if at later levels your mount could store gear and other items for you on longer journeys.
And of course bank notes for specific denomination. Not something you would carry with you to a dungeon but definitely something you would take with you when traveling to another major city or using for purchase of expensive items
Janus said:As was stated and what is appropiately put, there will be 5 denominations and at base 100 for all forms. That means...
100 Copper = 1 Silver
100 Silver = 1 Gold
100 Gold = 1 Platinum
100 Platinum = 1 Mithril (or whatever they call it)
If going by EQ values, early on in 2000-2002, good end game gear sold for Kpp (1000s of Platinum) or in the tens of Kpp, although much of it operated in the tens and hundreds of PP range.
With a mere base 100, that 3kpp SMR would be 3pp in Pantheon and you still have the Mithril range. Most of the game, especially in the level 1-45 range would operate chiefly in the Copper to Gold range with 15-45 being operationally in the Silver and Gold range with the rare platinum piece used.
This is probably the best news and also removes some of the detriment of coin having carry weight.
I went into detail on this last year. https://www.reddit.com/r/PantheonMMO/comments/az0wpk/denominational_currency_in_pantheon/
I imagine the 5th currency would be something more than another 100-> 1 scale. Why? The reason they were against coin weight at first was about how it encumbers players while making big purchases. Just having the 100-> 1 wouldn't really solve the problem. I do think something higher like a 1,000->1 would be more appropriate to truly combat the money weight issue. I think of it like the old $100,000 US bill that was used to exchange money between federal reserves. No one wants to transfer millions of dollars in hundred dollar bills.
I feel I would be remiss if I didn't come in here and show my support for coin weight. I've been champioining for this for some time, and I was absolutely delighted when Joppa made the announcement. But I feel like I want to get a few things out of the way:
I don't want coin weight for the realism. I think adhering to a strict realism argument would make for a ridiculously poor game. I'd rather not have to remove all my armor before I go swimming. I'd rather not have to stop and catch my breath after having "run" toggled for 2 minutes at a time. I'd rather not have to make my character sleep for 8 in-game hours in every 24-hour period. Ralism does NOT make a good video game. Therefore, anyone talking about having different weights for the different denomiations of money, your argument doesn't work on me. That would be realistic, yes. That would not be fun (see earlier statement), nor a good use of development time.
The reason(s) why I HAVE been advocating for coin weight is because it makes you have to make interesting decisions during your gameplay. My inventory is full and I'm encumbered with coin - what do I do? Do I want to keep adventuring? If so, I'll have to either drop/destroy some coin/inventory and/or stop looting, or I'll have to go back to town to take care of that. And what happens when I go back to town? I come across other players presumably doing the same thing. I see/meet people (how novel for a game that's attempting to be social), I deposit money in the bank (why do we even have a bank OR different denominations of currency if weight doesn't matter?), maybe I check the auction house and find a gear upgrade, maybe I talk to some NPCs and get new quests. One of my favorite examples of emergent gameplay came from EQ back when coin had weight, people, often lower level toons, acting as mobile banks for you, for a slightly-less-than-optimal exchange rate (social gameplay anyone?). This simply does not happen when coin has no weight. You need to make decisions about how much money do you need to have on you at the moment, for whatever reason.
The main thing I caution VR on with coin weight, is that it doesn't need to be as oppressive as classic EverQuest. But I believe it absoultely SHOULD be a thing, to create more interesting, deep, and meaningful gameplay. Also, from what we've seen, it seems that encumbrance levels are much lower than EQ. Where even a low level Warrior often had more than 100 weight capacity, we have been seeing through screenshots and streams, that characters have somewhere in the realm of 30-40 weight capacity, so definitely the weight ratio of coin needs to be finely tuned. Even 1 "unit" of weight seems like it will be fairly significant, so maybe the formula could be 1 weight for every 500 coins or something (but that really depends on how much coinage enemies are dropping).
Also, I just want to say, if VR is going to introduce weight reduction coin pouches, they should NEVER offer 100% reduction. If you introduce that into the game ESPECIALLY in launch content (or even a few expansions in), then you've effectively completely negated all the design work that went into coin having weight in the first place. In my opinion, it should be, like, 20% reduction AT MOST. (This is a different topic but I'm generally against any "all or nothing" mechanic, such as permanent underwater breathing for the Dark Myr, or 100% frontal stun immunity (a la the EverQuest Ogre), because there's nowhere left to go from there).
Thank you, VR team, for seeing and understanding the benefits to gameplay that coin weight can bring to the game. Everyone crying about it just doesn't want to be minimally inconvenienced during their gameplay, and the more of those types of "quality of life" "improvements" are added to the game, the more and more dumbed and watered down the game becomes. Coin weight aids in making the game compelling, removing it only makes the game more boring.
Counterfleche said: While I don't like bothersome elements that take play time and convert it to logistics / inventory management time, if we are keeping coin weight, it can be made to be equally sucky for all. f every point of strength allows you to carry X coins, then for every X coins you are carrying, your effective strength should be reduced by 1 since you're using that strength to carry weight. Thus, Max strength warriors will still care about encumbrance because it weakens them in combat. Also, extra weight should have a very strong debuff on climbing ability.
This is an *excellent* thought! A concept to bring the burden of coin weight crashing down, puns intended.
Imagine it, warrior fans: Everything you wear and everything you loot making you a worse warrior.
Welcome to the EQ monk's world...
Seriously, though, if weight effects a monk's armor class, maybe weight should effect a warrior's damage ability, since he is literally diverting his 'effort' to carrying treasures.
Of course, mages would find casting difficult when weighed down, even though strength doesn't matter to them... how to unify that concept?... *shrug* no different to it effecting a monk's armor class, I suppose. Just have it detract from their Invocation skill: -
Fizzle. Fizzle. Fizzle.
Wizard: "Gah! Why did I loot those Orc Axes?!"
Swing. Miss. Swish. Miss.
Warrior: "Oh, gods! I forgot I was carrying that chest of gold bars!"
Thud! Crunch! Thud! Oof!
Monk: "Eek! All I did was bend over and pick up a penny!"...
bigdogchris said:I imagine the 5th currency would be something more than another 100-> 1 scale. Why? The reason they were against coin weight at first was about how it encumbers players while making big purchases. Just having the 100-> 1 wouldn't really solve the problem. I do think something higher like a 1,000->1 would be more appropriate to truly combat the money weight issue. I think of it like the old $100,000 US bill that was used to exchange money between federal reserves. No one wants to transfer millions of dollars in hundred dollar bills.
I can understand that position, but it would likely be unecessary. Since we don't know the name of the fifth currency, let's call it Mithril. We should also use values of Platinum in EQ as an example to determine a worse possible reference with its wild inflationary levels.
1 Mithril would be the equivelent of 100,000 Platinum in EQ. Considering that, would it really be needed to make a Mithril worth 1 million? Remember, you want the currency to be obtainable and useable by at least a fairly sizeable fraction of the playerbase. Going by a base 1000, it also creates a deviation from the standardization within each denomination. Having it more uniform across the board makes for a better and even more intuitive experience.
It's also important to remember that Mithril will be dealt with in quantity as well. You don't expect those rare, super wealthy players to only have 1 Mithril ever as their peak wealth. If they get to that level, which would be rare, they would probably have a few Mithril at peak, maybe even 10s of Mithril. That's what you want to see, where the currency denominations cover the wide variety of the players in all stages of their playing experience. You want to see Mithril operating within the 10s to 100 level (quantity). Only when they exceed a few hundred would you expect a 6th denomination which at that level, I don't see it as a possibility. That's the 10 million Platinum level. Even if Pantheon operates at the same broken inflation as EQ, I don't see that being viable for anything but if a top guild decides to collect the total wealth of each of their 100+ players.
10 Mithril would be EQ's version of 1 million Platinum, 100 Mithril would be 10 million Platinum and 1000 Mithril would be 100 million Platinum. How many people in Everquest from 1999-2008 had 1 million, 10 million or even 100 million Platinum? The rates are fine as is, and I expect them to tune drop rates as well as values from items sold to vendors and introduce money sinks so you won't have as much inflation as was seen in Everquest. For all these reasons, I don't see a problem with 100 base for the 5th denomination since we expect some people to operate within some quantity of the 5th denominational placement. Not a circumstance where all you'd have is 1 Mithril.
If they do decide to go with a base 1000 for Mithril, then I suggest we rename it to Unobtainium.
Janus said:bigdogchris said:I imagine the 5th currency would be something more than another 100-> 1 scale. Why? The reason they were against coin weight at first was about how it encumbers players while making big purchases. Just having the 100-> 1 wouldn't really solve the problem. I do think something higher like a 1,000->1 would be more appropriate to truly combat the money weight issue. I think of it like the old $100,000 US bill that was used to exchange money between federal reserves. No one wants to transfer millions of dollars in hundred dollar bills.
I can understand that position, but it would likely be unecessary. Since we don't know the name of the fifth currency, let's call it Mithril. We should also use values of Platinum in EQ as an example to determine a worse possible reference with its wild inflationary levels.
1 Mithril would be the equivelent of 100,000 Platinum in EQ. Considering that, would it really be needed to make a Mithril worth 1 million? Remember, you want the currency to be obtainable and useable by at least a fairly sizeable fraction of the playerbase. Going by a base 1000, it also creates a deviation from the standardization within each denomination. Having it more uniform across the board makes for a better and even more intuitive experience.
It's also important to remember that Mithril will be dealt with in quantity as well. You don't expect those rare, super wealthy players to only have 1 Mithril ever as their peak wealth. If they get to that level, which would be rare, they would probably have a few Mithril at peak, maybe even 10s of Mithril. That's what you want to see, where the currency denominations cover the wide variety of the players in all stages of their playing experience. You want to see Mithril operating within the 10s to 100 level (quantity). Only when they exceed a few hundred would you expect a 6th denomination which at that level, I don't see it as a possibility. That's the 10 million Platinum level. Even if Pantheon operates at the same broken inflation as EQ, I don't see that being viable for anything but if a top guild decides to collect the total wealth of each of their 100+ players.
10 Mithril would be EQ's version of 1 million Platinum, 100 Mithril would be 10 million Platinum and 1000 Mithril would be 100 million Platinum. How many people in Everquest from 1999-2008 had 1 million, 10 million or even 100 million Platinum? The rates are fine as is, and I expect them to tune drop rates as well as values from items sold to vendors and introduce money sinks so you won't have as much inflation as was seen in Everquest. For all these reasons, I don't see a problem with 100 base for the 5th denomination since we expect some people to operate within some quantity of the 5th denominational placement. Not a circumstance where all you'd have is 1 Mithril.
If they do decide to go with a base 1000 for Mithril, then I suggest we rename it to Unobtainium.
Your two perspectives are why I am in favor of anything over the highest lootable coin value be bank drafts of some sort rather than a new currency. The highest lootable coin value (or rather the coin value you get from vendoring said junk loot) will become the defacto trading currency and likely the currency cash sinks are balanced relative to. Higher currency is really only needed to control the weight of vast wealth. By the same token a 1000:1 ratio starts to get a little silly.
Bank drafts localize wealth as well as create an opportunity for creating a secondary cash sink in transferal fees that will only affect the supper wealthy. The super wealthy are the ones that can and do rec a server’s cash economy.
Thinking about this more I think we should make coin weight REALLY mater.
Copper is trading at $5.06 per kg (8.96 g/cm^3)
Silver is trading at $485.80 per kg (10.49 g/cm^3)
Gold is trading at $55138.53 per kg (19.32 g/cm^3)
Platinum is trading at $24153.25 per kg (21.45 g/cm^3)
Palladium is trading at $57620 per kg (11.9 g/cm^3)
Ironically this puts the 100c = 1s, 100s = 1g into market parity if all coins have the same weight, though gold would be roughly half the volume. Granted that gold value might be a bit spiked due to the current world state. Platinum and Palladium are performing oddly so they kinda knock themselves out of the running though Platinum is actually a better fit for 100s in both long term value and density.
Where I am going with this is get rid of both Roenicks and Platinum. That will force cash to start to localize as moving 10,000s of gold will be a painful process but anything less than that would still be negligible. A quarter is roughly 5.67 grams and is mostly copper with a nickel shell. A gold coin of the same size will be worth 20,000 copper quarters or 200 silver quarters.
A full suit of steel plate maile armor weights 15-25kg. If we take the average then the weight of every visible slot combined if plate is only 20kg. Converted to gold coins that is 1763 coins or 3527 copper or silver coins. We could be lazier and leave the coins the same weight as each other and set each coin to weight 5g then a suit of armor would weight the same as 4000 coins of any type. Now a modern combat soldier goes into battle with an average of 50kg gear total which we can consider near the top end of human ability for an extended duration without significantly encumbering combat ability, though ballet might be a challenge.
This falls back to a full strength build encumberance level to be 50kg total which if naked means that said character can only move 10,000 coins before becoming encumbered. Someone with less strength and endurance will become encumbered much earlier.
If now one of the requirements to teleport is that you are unencumbered then values of more than 10,000 gold becomes difficult for a player to move around without help. Now we have a system where coin weight actually matters.
Trasak said:Your two perspectives are why I am in favor of anything over the highest lootable coin value be bank drafts of some sort rather than a new currency. The highest lootable coin value (or rather the coin value you get from vendoring said junk loot) will become the defacto trading currency and likely the currency cash sinks are balanced relative to. Higher currency is really only needed to control the weight of vast wealth. By the same token a 1000:1 ratio starts to get a little silly.
Bank drafts localize wealth as well as create an opportunity for creating a secondary cash sink in transferal fees that will only affect the supper wealthy. The super wealthy are the ones that can and do rec a server’s cash economy.
That's very true. Rather than adding a new coin, then eventually needing another, and another, etc, just have a single "bank note" item that you buy from the banker for whatever price you pay that can be sold back for say a 99% of the value (1% is the fee).
A few thoughts, first : monks were utility / dps for the most part, especially in the group scene as this game is targeting. Losing a bit or some A.C. because of loot isn't as big of a deal as you guys are making it out to be as your job isn't typically to take hits anyway. If loot had hindered your dps in E.Q. or made it so you could no longer feign death than yeah I could understand the whining.
2. Lets not forget ladies and gentleman that you didn't HAVE to go all to a main city to the bank to exchange currency. Most the time all you had to do was go to a vendor and there were plenty and buy/sell something like a stack of food or some spell component and boom you've gotten rid of your copper / silver (as vendors naturally took your lowest coins first).
3. People keep saying we've to take away the unrealistic inventory management if we making coins have weight, well that's obviously not true because : magic. Bags of holding will be a thing ( I think ) aka bags that reduce weight of everything inside and that hold an unrealistic amount of things because it's magical. I imagine they may make a pouch for coins and things that does something similar, but perhaps not either way I'm sticking with the crowd of this is not a big deal, at all.
bigdogchris said:Trasak said:Your two perspectives are why I am in favor of anything over the highest lootable coin value be bank drafts of some sort rather than a new currency. The highest lootable coin value (or rather the coin value you get from vendoring said junk loot) will become the defacto trading currency and likely the currency cash sinks are balanced relative to. Higher currency is really only needed to control the weight of vast wealth. By the same token a 1000:1 ratio starts to get a little silly.
Bank drafts localize wealth as well as create an opportunity for creating a secondary cash sink in transferal fees that will only affect the supper wealthy. The super wealthy are the ones that can and do rec a server’s cash economy.
That's very true. Rather than adding a new coin, then eventually needing another, and another, etc, just have a single "bank note" item that you buy from the banker for whatever price you pay that can be sold back for say a 99% of the value (1% is the fee).
Put the fee upfront... the purchaser should pay the fee.
Trasak said:Your two perspectives are why I am in favor of anything over the highest lootable coin value be bank drafts of some sort rather than a new currency. The highest lootable coin value (or rather the coin value you get from vendoring said junk loot) will become the defacto trading currency and likely the currency cash sinks are balanced relative to. Higher currency is really only needed to control the weight of vast wealth. By the same token a 1000:1 ratio starts to get a little silly.
Bank drafts localize wealth as well as create an opportunity for creating a secondary cash sink in transferal fees that will only affect the supper wealthy. The super wealthy are the ones that can and do rec a server’s cash economy.
I'm fine with that. When I pushed for my currency measures last year, it was based more on them going with a base 100 as opposed to a base 10. This would be enough to deal with the vast swath of the playerbase operating in no greater than 100 coins of any denomination. Mithril or a 6th denomination simply isn't needed but never hurts. I'm only adamant on base 100 within the currency evaluations and open to anything post that point since it would be under very extreme circumstances.
I'm fine with a bank draft or something similar at anything over the Platinum level, but the fee can be avoided by simply going with obscene levels of platinum if they happen to be in that ultra rare moment where one would have that much. Other than guild bank transactions, I can't think of a time where that would be used all that much to be honest and to add, what would a buildbank have to purchase that would be that expensive? Maybe if they decide to bring in guild housing in massive plots of instanced land and guildhalls.
I think though, that within this area, it's too far and few between so honestly, anything over Platinum, I'm not too concerned over it as my only concern is over common use.
I do feel that the coin weight though should be at 25% of what it was in EQ. And this is because with base 100 rates, people are going to have more on them after purchasing through trade or banking but where common collection in world (looting from monsters, etc.) would level that a bit with what we dealt with in EQ which is why I'm not considering a 10% weight. That and weight of coin in EQ was a bit too much on the heavy side.
