Riahuf22 said:Kalok said:Riahuf22 said:Kalok said:Liav said:In EQ cira 1999ish, MMOs were essentially a brand new concept. I can't reasonably expect that the circumstances of the times are going to apply now.
This is why I used P99 in my example. It's the most accurate recreation of the original EQ experience, yet many things that applied in 1999 do not apply now. What explanation is there for that other than we now have two decades of experience with games of this type to draw on?
Actually, it can reaspnably be applied given that Brad and Co have already stated that that is EXACTLY the sort of experience that they are looking to re-create in multiple threads and Twitch streams. The old "you have to bust your ass to get there" experience of the original EQ. Not some power-leveling game like WoW and the modern ilk.
To give the EXACT same experience is basically impossible to achieve, for one EQ was a new experience for basically everyone playing it, or the whole looking for loot, making money, adventuring to zones, basically everything was so foreign to us that it took time to adjust. its 2017 all of us know pretty much exactly what to do to advance, we are going to be more agressive in our adventures, finding dungeons, camping namers, and finding spots that might give decent money. so all in all becuase we are "better" players than 1999 players a lot of this cant be related to what we will be doing in 2017
And yet iif the game mechanics are similar to the original EQ of the Kunark days, no matter how "experienced" you are, you are only going to level as fast as the game mechanics allow for.
They have already said that they are lookign to re-create that experience as much as possible. Needing to eat and drink to remain "healthy", which in this case means unencumbered. Death having a penalty. Time consuming travel. The whole nine yards.
If that weren't the case, you wouldn't see as many "old school" EQers commenting on these threads and as active as there are. In this case, by "old school EQer", I mean the guys that were playing back in the Kunark and Scars of Velious days. Pre-PoP... Pre EQOA....
This is the experience that VR has said that they want to re-create.
Which is fine, and you can keep all of that "experience " while having coin not weighing anything, in fact you would experience it more becuase you didnt have to go back to the bank to deposit coin, or delete it, or drop it, you gain absolutely nothing from this, but lose a lot.
The coin weighing something was a part of that experience. It's not like each coin weighed "a pound". The coins were in fractions of weight. It, literally, took thousands of cp, as I recall, to actually make any meaningful impact on your encumbrance, end even then, it also depended on what other gear you had.
At the end of the day, none of us really know what is going to happen. Some of us hope, based on what VR has said, that it is going to stay as faithful as possible to the old pre-PoP EQ experience, and preferrably the xperience of SoV and earlier, and others hope that this game will be more like other, modern, MMOs in experience.
In no way, shape, or form has it been suggested that Pantheon is being designed to resemble pre-PoP EQ. I'm very positive that the developers have never used those words on this forum or in any other medium.
Pantheon is its own game, with its own identity, that is taking inspiration from specific old school MMO features like a high dependence on socializing, and not being able to solo quest hub your way to max level. Coin weight is such a minor detail that it is impossible to know if it's even on the radar.
Chiming in to say that they have repeated many times that they aren't trying to make an EQ or VG emulator nor incorporate every detail the similar. Take what worked and improve and ditch what wasn't so great.
Aradune said:Bottom line we think all of the above and more will make for a better MMO and is part of our efforts to move the genre forward (again I always am compelled to let you guys know we are not making an emulator of EQ or VG or any other game). Players of past MMOs should feel right at home, and in that case we are making spiritual successors. It's who we are, it's what's in our blood. We are not content with simply re-creating the past.
https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/blogs/151/176/pantheon-new-features-and-new-players
Aradune said:...
I also understand whenever something is brought up that a. wasn't in EQ or VG (seems to be primarily EQ, which is fine) or b. was implemented in another game but not well, that people raise red flags and concerns. This happens internally too, and I totally understand. Indeed, systems never tried before or that have been but poorly implemented in other games require additional scrutiny.
All that said, we aren't making an EQ emulator, which I know all of you know, and we are in a different period (2016 and not 1999). So there are some realities we have to deal with, one of the big ones is there will be a lot of people checking out Pantheon who aren't used to grouping/cooperative/social/community. Some/many may end up trying it and not liking it, preferring instead one of the more single-player oriented MMOs that are prevalent right now. And that's fine. But as I've posted before, I truly believe a significant percentage who haven't experienced the magic of EQ and earlier games *will* love Pantheon, and it's important both to us and you all that we bring those people in and take care of them, at least short term, so they can acclimate.
...
The only people I think this truly won't resonate with would be 1. those who truly do just want us to make an EQ emulator and 2. those who really don't want any newbies in Pantheon, who would be content to have Pantheon merely be a haven for those of you who've felt abandoned and orphaned by the newer MMOs. If you fall into one or both of those categories, then I'm going to have to be really straight up with you: Pantheon isn't want you think or want it to be. Hopefully you think about all of this more and change your viewpoint. But I'm going to stand firm on those two statements: not an emulator, and not only for the old school gamer.
And from the FAQ:
Pantheon is most definitely a modern MMO with modern graphics and new and exciting features and mechanics. There are already emulators out there that are clones of earlier MMOs and Visionary Realms has no desire to make another emulator. That said, we also feel that many of the features and mechanics of previous MMOs have been abandoned in more recent games, resulting in a less challenging, compelling, deep, and social experience. Pantheon, therefore, will indeed bring back some of these conventional mechanics and ideas but with a fresh perspective, some tweaks and revisions. We also understand that while gamers’ tastes don’t fundamentally change over time, their situations, lives, and responsibilities do. Likewise, some game mechanics often associated with earlier MMOs involved inordinate amounts of downtime, overly severe penalties, too much competition over content and resources, and even downright boring or overly repetitive gameplay. Our intention, therefore, is not to bring back ‘everything’ from the old days, but rather to pick and choose those which make sense and are needed to make a fun, social, cooperative, and challenging game.
Liav said:In no way, shape, or form has it been suggested that Pantheon is being designed to resemble pre-PoP EQ. I'm very positive that the developers have never used those words on this forum or in any other medium.
Pantheon is its own game, with its own identity, that is taking inspiration from specific old school MMO features like a high dependence on socializing, and not being able to solo quest hub your way to max level. Coin weight is such a minor detail that it is impossible to know if it's even on the radar.
Given that PoP is pretty much universally regarded as the expansion that started the beginning of the end for EQ, yeah, I would say it's a safe bet that it will be pre-PoP.
Iksar said:Chiming in to say that they have repeated many times that they aren't trying to make an EQ or VG emulator nor incorporate every detail the similar. Take what worked and improve and ditch what wasn't so great.
Aradune said:Bottom line we think all of the above and more will make for a better MMO and is part of our efforts to move the genre forward (again I always am compelled to let you guys know we are not making an emulator of EQ or VG or any other game). Players of past MMOs should feel right at home, and in that case we are making spiritual successors. It's who we are, it's what's in our blood. We are not content with simply re-creating the past.
https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/blogs/151/176/pantheon-new-features-and-new-players
Aradune said:...
I also understand whenever something is brought up that a. wasn't in EQ or VG (seems to be primarily EQ, which is fine) or b. was implemented in another game but not well, that people raise red flags and concerns. This happens internally too, and I totally understand. Indeed, systems never tried before or that have been but poorly implemented in other games require additional scrutiny.
All that said, we aren't making an EQ emulator, which I know all of you know, and we are in a different period (2016 and not 1999). So there are some realities we have to deal with, one of the big ones is there will be a lot of people checking out Pantheon who aren't used to grouping/cooperative/social/community. Some/many may end up trying it and not liking it, preferring instead one of the more single-player oriented MMOs that are prevalent right now. And that's fine. But as I've posted before, I truly believe a significant percentage who haven't experienced the magic of EQ and earlier games *will* love Pantheon, and it's important both to us and you all that we bring those people in and take care of them, at least short term, so they can acclimate.
...
The only people I think this truly won't resonate with would be 1. those who truly do just want us to make an EQ emulator and 2. those who really don't want any newbies in Pantheon, who would be content to have Pantheon merely be a haven for those of you who've felt abandoned and orphaned by the newer MMOs. If you fall into one or both of those categories, then I'm going to have to be really straight up with you: Pantheon isn't want you think or want it to be. Hopefully you think about all of this more and change your viewpoint. But I'm going to stand firm on those two statements: not an emulator, and not only for the old school gamer.
And from the FAQ:
Pantheon is most definitely a modern MMO with modern graphics and new and exciting features and mechanics. There are already emulators out there that are clones of earlier MMOs and Visionary Realms has no desire to make another emulator. That said, we also feel that many of the features and mechanics of previous MMOs have been abandoned in more recent games, resulting in a less challenging, compelling, deep, and social experience. Pantheon, therefore, will indeed bring back some of these conventional mechanics and ideas but with a fresh perspective, some tweaks and revisions. We also understand that while gamers’ tastes don’t fundamentally change over time, their situations, lives, and responsibilities do. Likewise, some game mechanics often associated with earlier MMOs involved inordinate amounts of downtime, overly severe penalties, too much competition over content and resources, and even downright boring or overly repetitive gameplay. Our intention, therefore, is not to bring back ‘everything’ from the old days, but rather to pick and choose those which make sense and are needed to make a fun, social, cooperative, and challenging game.
I never said anything about it being an "emulator" of EQ or Vanguard. I said that it was going to be an "old school" game in mechanics and playing style like EQ was, which is that thay have stated. They want to re-create the EXPERIENCE of that.
Edited to add: Coins having weight was a part of that experience.
Edit: At this point I don't really know what to think. I think I'm done, this is just getting repetitive.
Riahuf22 said:Kalok said:Riahuf22 said:Kalok said:Liav said:In EQ cira 1999ish, MMOs were essentially a brand new concept. I can't reasonably expect that the circumstances of the times are going to apply now.
This is why I used P99 in my example. It's the most accurate recreation of the original EQ experience, yet many things that applied in 1999 do not apply now. What explanation is there for that other than we now have two decades of experience with games of this type to draw on?
Actually, it can reaspnably be applied given that Brad and Co have already stated that that is EXACTLY the sort of experience that they are looking to re-create in multiple threads and Twitch streams. The old "you have to bust your ass to get there" experience of the original EQ. Not some power-leveling game like WoW and the modern ilk.
To give the EXACT same experience is basically impossible to achieve, for one EQ was a new experience for basically everyone playing it, or the whole looking for loot, making money, adventuring to zones, basically everything was so foreign to us that it took time to adjust. its 2017 all of us know pretty much exactly what to do to advance, we are going to be more agressive in our adventures, finding dungeons, camping namers, and finding spots that might give decent money. so all in all becuase we are "better" players than 1999 players a lot of this cant be related to what we will be doing in 2017
And yet iif the game mechanics are similar to the original EQ of the Kunark days, no matter how "experienced" you are, you are only going to level as fast as the game mechanics allow for.
They have already said that they are lookign to re-create that experience as much as possible. Needing to eat and drink to remain "healthy", which in this case means unencumbered. Death having a penalty. Time consuming travel. The whole nine yards.
If that weren't the case, you wouldn't see as many "old school" EQers commenting on these threads and as active as there are. In this case, by "old school EQer", I mean the guys that were playing back in the Kunark and Scars of Velious days. Pre-PoP... Pre EQOA....
This is the experience that VR has said that they want to re-create.
Which is fine, and you can keep all of that "experience " while having coin not weighing anything, in fact you would experience it more becuase you didnt have to go back to the bank to deposit coin, or delete it, or drop it, you gain absolutely nothing from this, but lose a lot.
I disagree that WE "gain absolutely nothing" from this. On the surface as an individual player (for example in a non social game) I would agree with you. But as far as Pantheon and initiating social activity within the game I believe WE stand to gain a lot with this in the world. There have been many examples given in this thread where it promotes social activity. I'll add yet another my Co worker used to do in early EQ. he got his riches started as a Barbi Warrior in Halis as a coin runner for higher levels farming Ice Giants.. not sure the exchange rate he was giving but he made bank long before he could kill an Ice Giant.
Zorkon said:I disagree that WE "gain absolutely nothing" from this. On the surface as an individual player (for example in a non social game) I would agree with you. But as far as Pantheon and initiating social activity within the game I believe WE stand to gain a lot with this in the world. There have been many examples given in this thread where it promotes social activity. I'll add yet another my Co worker used to do in early EQ. he got his riches started as a Barbi Warrior in Halis as a coin runner for higher levels farming Ice Giants.. not sure the exchange rate he was giving but he made bank long before he could kill an Ice Giant.
A friend of mine did something similar. He called himself a "money changer". He didn't do it with his main, but with his alt. It was pretty amazing how fast he got cash together, which he then funnelled over to his main. The funny part is that nobody knew that the "money changer" was his alt....hehehe
It seems like this conversation has run it's course at least 3 or 4 times now in this one thread :p
Having said that, I think we have reached a bit of consensus. Specifically, while there are conflicting opinions on coin weight, it seems generally true that whatever they do, the folks who disagree won't really care all that much. (i.e. it's not going to stop anyone from playing and loving the game)
One thing I think would be interesting to me is (if we could manage it), a thread where we tried to list all of the "pseudo-realistic" things we think we mostly agree are OK. For example, I THINK we are generally OK with inventory items having weight that is mitigated by weight reduction bags... but I could be completely wrong.
Wow everyones at each others throats!
I'm thinking this is one of those things we are going to have to wait to hear from the dev team. Who knows, maybe they are working on a system where coin may have weight, but there may be alternate ways of carrying and transfering funds. So while you have 30 gold bars, you exchange them for bank notes.
The main reason I like the thought of "coin" having weight is that it changes the dynamic of the metal to more than a currency for me. Copper, silver, gold, ect can be crafted into an item, or at least I imagine you could, so its less of a currency and more of a good to me. Maybe there will be no official currency and maybe each region or nation will have their own currency where you would have to exchange precious metals or ores for the proper currency! We don't know yet!
Mentioned this on the last page but I feel it's worth repeating.
When it comes to discussing a specific mechanic/feature of yesteryear, though, we should ask the question that is alluded to at the end of Q2 in the FAQ. Is it needed to make a fun, social, cooperative and challenging game? It's specifically mentioned that certain mechanics teetered more towards being boring or repetitive, and that the goal is to see what is or is not needed. If we look at conversations like this through that lense it should be much easier to have a healthy debate. Wanting something because it's realistic or because someone has a memory of it from EQ doesen't substantiate any of the positive elements they are specifically looking for.
I'm not saying that there is any sort of consensus that has popped up on this thread. It seems to be somewhat split, so it's probably worthy of another look. At the same time, though, we need to consider that the majority of people on this forum are the oldschool gamers that are already sold on Pantheon. We need to consider the new era of gamers ... will they buy into it? I have seen a ton of people make comments on here that Pantheon is being made for a very niche market but that isn't true. It's been stated many times that VR is looking to provide a home for oldschool players while also ushering in a new era of gamers that can appreciate this style of gameplay. As with most things, there needs to be a balance, and we need to pick our battles.
Pantheon is not being designed to recreate the experience of any version of Everquest, period. While it's true that many people view it as a spiritual successor, we need to understand that VR is looking to evolve the genre. The target audience for this game is much bigger than former EQ players. Just because something was in Everquest doesen't mean that it should automatically be in Pantheon. When posts pop up that suggest that EQ was the holy grail and everything should be based around that, it fragments the community. I have never played Everquest and never will yet somehow I made my way to this community and the vast majority of what I have seen resonates with me. I respect that there are folks who view EQ as the greatest game of all time and want nothing more than to relive that experience ... and to all of you, I strongly believe that you have nothing to worry about! The real challenge is bringing in folks from other games/platforms and making them feel at home like you do.
Listing a small fraction of what you might actually gain from coin weight doesn't actually mean you will get it again, becuase for one you could simply make 2 accounts, and give your money to your alt while killing on your main. Also, most of the time getting coin from players a IG fort wasn't really all that, becuase it hardly ever happened, it was simply nice when it was. you can keep on listing the one good time you remember about what coin weight did for you or friend, but the guy that was actually killing the Ice Giants probably would of been a lot happier if that coin didnt weigh anything. Not only that but this is going to be a group oriented game, probably much more than what eq was. So finding a spot where you can get good money and being able to solo it and being able to get a low level charcter there to benefit from it seems extremely unlikely by any means, so the whole going to IG fort again to repeat the experience seems just as unlikely.
Item weight in general is a great mechanic, and coin weight is a natural part of that. They make you feel the impact of what you're carrying, and they lead to mini-missions of needing to find a merchant, putting on a strength buff to go on just a bit longer, or maybe even risking a fight when you're barely able to walk. The encumbered mechanic in general creates a lot of gameplay and adds more variety to what you do and the choices you make (beyond, for example, endlessly killing creatures).
Another thing to keep in mind that plays into everyone’s arguments is that an in-game inconvenience opens up the opportunity for in-game solutions.
In early SWG I believe the survival tree had the ability to setup a camp with a semi consumable item, my memory is a bit fuzzy. The higher you were in the tree the better your camp was and the more amenities were in it. The camps served as both pulling locations and buff/healing stations as well as other option that I’m not remembering.
Pantheon could have “make camp” skill which for one person is just a camp fire and a small tent and for each additional person that pitches their tent close to the fire the camp grows. At a certain point simple crafting stations show up and if the camp is in an outdoor zone a peddler shows up. This could keep going until you have say 36 people at the camp at full size and development. Additional people would just prevent the camp from down sizing when people move their camps but their camp locations would persist for a number of days after logging out in their designated camp. This absolutely could create player driven interactions and quasi festivals.
I’m actually kinda geeked out by this idea now. I hope it gets read.
Trasak
Nice one Trasak! Sounds like a cool idea. I know outposts are in the works and what you describe sounds like it could fall into that territory. I don't think they will require X amount of players to make them work though because it would just add to the competition for resources that they are looking to alleviate. I am thinking more along the lines of players being able to set up outposts and then maybe there are courier NPC's that might stop by every now and then if the trade route is cleared? Another idea is that NPC's can set up shop at various locations off the beaten path depending on how the players interact with the world and whether or not they take advantage of events or opportunities. The idea of quasi festivals sounds legit but it could also lead to players bypassing a degree of risk vs reward designed by the dev team. Don't get me wrong, I think it sounds really fun and like you said Trasak, it could help drive player interaction. We just need to make sure that players can't exploit such a mechanic and set up shop in certain areas of the world that are purposely designed to remain wild or untamed. Seeing them pop up early on in open-world areas of the game would be fine ... great idea!
oneADseven said:*snip*
We just need to make sure that players can't exploit such a mechanic and set up shop in certain areas of the world that are purposely designed to remain wild or untamed. Seeing them pop up early on in open-world areas of the world would be fine ... I think this is a great idea!
Agreed, I would say that certain areas should be flagged as "unsafe for camps/outposts". Just think how cool it would have been if there was a camp that showed up where the river met the lake of ill omen that players would collect up at to form groups but also have something to do while waiting for one to show up.
Depending on the Size of the outpost things that I could see show up:
Well it seems we are all at an impasse, so rather than arguing for or against coin weight, let's divert the topic toward the meat of the issue.
And let's try not to use personal preferences.
1) What are the pros and the cons coin weight?
2) If coin weight is a reality, what can be done to reduce the cons, but not entirely negate the pros?
3) Alternatives
My Opinion:
1)
Pros: Adds another time sink, Removes coin from the game (coins that are left to rot that would otherwise be looted and in circulation), forces some planning to long adventures.
Cons: Encumbrance, Have to choose whether to loot coin or not, Can affect an adventure when too many coins are looted.
2)
Vendors besides bankers than can exchange coin throughout the world, even if for a small fee. This would reduce the need to travel all the way back to town to exchange. Lessening, but not removing the burden.
Coin purses that reduce the overall coin weight within them.
Currencies besides just coin with a fraction of the weight of coins (IE: paper)
3)
Instead of coin weight, give coin volume, so it takes up space in inventory, similar to weight., but doesn't cause encumbrance, just fills your inventory.
You're not going to carry 10,000 coins around in your pocket right? :)
Just as a note - coin weight absolutely is/was a problem in EQ at early levels, unlike what some here are misremembering. I'm on P99 now as a lvl 16 High Elf Paladin, killing willowisps in North Karana, and it doesn't take long at all for copper to encumber me. You could argue that I shouldn't have chosen a high elf, if carrying capacity was a concern, but I'd vehemently disagree with that.
If you pick an Ogre warrior, who has a high default strength as it is, and add a bit more, chances are you'll be fine for quite some time after some pieces of bronze.
If you pick a Gnome warrior, with a low default strength, and add a bit more, it doesn't take long before a few pieces of bronze take up most of your carrying capacity, even at lower levels.
I don't have a problem with these racial differences, and that's a choice people should have to make when determining strengths, weaknesses, and preferences. Not being able to carry as much loot, of having to compare armor weight, and things of that nature that become a concern with races of lower default strength is perfectly fine, but the idea that one class can carry more money than the other just seems wrong.
Down with the 1%.
Edit: To the poster that wondered what P99 was. It is an Everquest emulator copied from, as the name implies, the 1999 era of everquest that goes no farther than Velious. There are some changes - such as hybrids not having the 40% experience penalty, I believe, as well as the original UI not being used - but it's remarkably similar to the original.
Fulton said:Well it seems we are all at an impasse, so rather than arguing for or against coin weight, let's divert the topic toward the meat of the issue.
And let's try not to use personal preferences.
1) What are the pros and the cons coin weight?
2) If coin weight is a reality, what can be done to reduce the cons, but not entirely negate the pros?
3) Alternatives
My Opinion:
1)
Pros: Adds another time sink, Removes coin from the game (coins that are left to rot that would otherwise be looted and in circulation), forces some planning to long adventures.
Cons: Encumbrance, Have to choose whether to loot coin or not, Can affect an adventure when too many coins are looted.
2)
Vendors besides bankers than can exchange coin throughout the world, even if for a small fee. This would reduce the need to travel all the way back to town to exchange. Lessening, but not removing the burden.
Coin purses that reduce the overall coin weight within them.
Currencies besides just coin with a fraction of the weight of coins (IE: paper)
3)
Instead of coin weight, give coin volume, so it takes up space in inventory, similar to weight., but doesn't cause encumbrance, just fills your inventory.
You're not going to carry 10,000 coins around in your pocket right? :)
If i had to choose a middle ground the whole pocket thing of coins that doesnt effect your weight would be a great solution, but with the thought of it not adding weight, i just dont see anything coming from it at all, yeah maybe a nice guy gives someone some copper, so what that isnt social interaction, social interaction is where you guys actually sit down and talk to each other so periods of time, like in a group, where youve might of been there for 2-4 hours and got to know each other, without the worry of something like coin weight getting in the way and you or him have to leave and actually enjoyed doing what you were doing. The only people i see from benefiting from Coin weight are the people basically not wanting to do anything but looking for hand me outs, or free stuff.
Had some additional thoughts after posting the above. I was left wondering about whether there might be a creative solution that could answer some of the concerns of both parties, without making it an absolute in either direction.
So my thought was: What if there was something like a physical "group war chest" that consolidated loot throughout the fight and dungeon, that you as a group had to physically move with you as you camped. Upon leaving, you could have the option to "cash out" your share, or even if you were feeling generous or didn't want it, leave your share for the others.
While I see that it may require a fair bit of demand on the development side, it could add another deep dimension of play to a currently mundane part of grouping. I'm thinking around ideas like possibly having to protect the warchest from NPCs, but not other PCs (due to griefing issues), that could try and loot it / sabotage it / trap it (another enemy archetype like the alarmist? - ie: the kleptomaniac!) And it by itself would largely mitigate the concerns of being overweight from items until the point in which you are leaving the group anyway, which would help answer some of the concerns regarding it breaking up camps and groups to go manage inventory weight mid farming / camping / grouping. The realism also doesn't come as just being there to annoy you, ie: the pooping comparison. It seems to be a very real and compelling need to protect all the loots you've been farming from a more intelligent NPC class who could easily figure out that adventurers are a great target for banditry. There's also a possibility of upgrading chests over time magically? mechanically? to make them harder to break into, easier to move, larger capacity? The list is long for possibilities.
The more I'm around these forums, the more I am very appreciative of VR bringing the community in so early on in the development process. It's fun to let my mind wander on these topics. It's rarely I can be creative with gaming unless I'm running my own DM campaign!
So far there is one common theme regardless of where you stand on the issue of coin weight: That is everyone wants coin! In fact, given the dichotomy I would say everyone needs coin and everyone feels coin is important. No one wants to do away with coin. And justifiably so, it is an instrument of trade - it has meaning. On one side the viewpoint is that coin weight is annoying and doesn't add to gameplay and is bothersome to have it add to encumberance. On the other side is the supposition that coin is not immaterial and must be handled accordingly (whether that be encumberance or inventory management).
I will add to this that no one, so far, is calling for the removal of vendor items as dropped loot that are to be sold after the adventuring is over. Items that are gathered through the course of adventure same as coin. Managing actual items and deciding whether to keep items for sale or trade at a later date or destroy items due to encumberance or inventory space has been deemed an important aspect of the game (crafting aside since items will be essential for crafing). It's part of the aspect of having to make a decision on whether to keep an item or throw it away. This is also why almost universally people want there to be larger bags for carrying more stuff and weight reducing bags to help with encumberance. Not many are calling for the removal of inventory management mechanisms nor encumberance mechanisms.
So I believe we have an almost universal agreement to keep items in the game and the ensuing inventory management and encumberance aspects that go along with that. I believe we also have an almost universal agreement that coin is important and a necessary aspect of the game. What is not universal is coin being part of the inventory management and encumberance mechanisms - some say "Yes" and some say "No."
So what if coin was removed from the loot table? Coin does not drop in the world of Pantheon. Only items drop. Coin still exists but is gotten from NPCs through the sale of items. Naturally players who happen to have coin can buy items from other players and from NPCs.
This doesn't actually solve the question as to whether coin should have weight, but it removes coin from the equation as to whether one can become encumbered or forced to do inventory management with coin through the aspect of looting from adventuring. This also does not address the fact that players will want to have coin on them to be able to enact trade on demand (players or NPCs) and the argument of coin weight still exists (Yes or No).
Would not having coin as part of the loot table hinder enjoyment of the game? Would it make the game worse?