Cheap Items in the Shop

[Unwanted Guest]

In Thief and Thief 2 (and fan missions of course) there were fire arrows in the chimney, water arrows in the pools, moss arrows in the green house, gas arrows in the sewers. I don't believe that they magically appeared there, but they were pit there by the people for a certain use (e.g. let the fire in the chimney burn longer).

 

I allways liked this idea of magic elementar arrows. Was another nice part of this fantasy world.

 

 

For me, I viewed them this way; crystals grow, and these particular crystals encapsulate and condense the enviroment they are around.

 

Crystals that grow in water encapsulate water, fire crystals are rare because they cannot grow in the fire, or too far away from the fire (as they cannot capture the fire), they have to grow on a very fine boundry along a fire under the right conditons. Gas arrows are really expensive because they are made by people who not only manufacture knock out gas, but know how to grow crystal in their "knock out gas chamber" . But then again maybe sewer gas could be knock out gas, in which the crystals grow; being expensive still as someone has to go into the gas field and retrieve the crystals without passing out in the process......

 

M

[Samael]

In previous Thief games, the cost of things made absolutely no sense. A single broadhead arrow cost more than stack of coins. How on earth would hunters make a living? A single water arrow was worth more than a gold cup, yet they could be found lying around in toilets or sinks. Garrett could make more money stealing from equipment shops than he could from mansions in some cases. The cost of things in TDM is also artificially high, but we've made them as economically feasible as possible, after addressing gameplay concerns.

 

Also, the previous games created the unrealistic assumption that Garrett never spent his money on anything but equipment. Make 1500 on a job, have 1500 to spend for the next job. What about rent? Food? Entertainment? Bribes? Etc.

 

If we wind up creating a campaign, a player would only bring over a certain percentage of their overall take for equipment purchases--probably 10%.

 

 

If you intend to give the player the chance to buy food , to get entertained and to bribe people andsoforth, you can set the prices that low. Otherwise this doesn't make any sense and seems more like an economy project for a politics course in school.

 

To the topic about the arrows : For all we know Garrett buys his equipment in a Black Market shop ( see Thief 3) so naturally the prices would be higher because of the risks of the shopkeepers. So maybe hunters had some kind of licence and could buy them 10 for a penny. Or maybe hunters carved their own arrows. Or there aren't even any hunters because "The City" is so huge anyway and people never leave town, because the forests are trickster and pagan territory. So maybe it wasn't the intention of Looking Glass to make a world that is perfectly sensible anyway because even then in the huge city you'd need thousands of hunters to supply the people.

 

And the water arrows? Well first of all you never find exactly water arrows in the game, you only find the crystals and as far as i know reading some book by victoria in Constantines Mansion the crystals seem to form at places with high presence of the element, like water crystals forming themselves in water, moss arrows in earth and fire arrows naturally in fire. And then again you can only buy them in Black Market stores. But as i have seen in the Dark Mod the water arrows there are an artificial invention and not made by nature like the crystals...wouldn't that make them even more expensive?

 

About Garrett being able to make more money by raiding equipment shops: Well I guess you are right. But Looking Glass certainly didn't want a perfectly consistent game in everything I think. They cared about the gameplay and most of all the plot and it worked out perfect.

 

To the idea in general : I was wondering about the small amount of money the items cost too. As long as the mod will be consistent in itself thought it's fine. It would be nice if you'd have a free world sort of, where you actually can buy entertainment and food andsoforth, otherwise I see no point in cutting away 80-90 % of the loot you stole beforehand. And i wouldn't like to steal a lot of loot just to get it cut away again anyway, or having to calculate while playing how much of the loot i'll keep for buying items. As long as it's consistend and well made i'm alright with the idea but just don't get to much lost in economical principles, because thief definitely was never an economically correct game anyway. It's like building a house on sand otherwise.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am really admiring the mod and the overall greatness of the Dark Mod. (I can't stop playing it really) I'm just trying to give my views on the subject here.

[etdarkb]

Don't get me wrong, I am really admiring the mod and the overall greatness of the Dark Mod. (I can't stop playing it really) I'm just trying to give my views on the subject here.

You will stop soon... Too few missions!!

 

About the topic I wanted to insist about letting the mapper decide: the author will have to set somewhere what happens after the mission success; in this context she might decide to pass the whole loot, a part or fixed ammount of money.

[Springheel]

f you intend to give the player the chance to buy food , to get entertained and to bribe people andsoforth, you can set the prices that low. Otherwise this doesn't make any sense

 

That might be how you see it. To me, it doesn't make any sense to assume the character sits in some kind of cryogenic chamber any time you're not actively playing a mission.

 

In TDM, the character is supposed to be an actual person, who actually does things outside of missions.

[Samael]

That might be how you see it. To me, it doesn't make any sense to assume the character sits in some kind of cryogenic chamber any time you're not actively playing a mission.

 

In TDM, the character is supposed to be an actual person, who actually does things outside of missions.

 

 

I have grasped what you have said. I just wanted to say that to me it's not making much sense if you dont make an open world where the player can/must eat or pay rent. Otherwise whats the point? All you do then is size down some of the loot you get for the next mission to buy equipment. If I as the player do not get the possibilty to pay the rent, to buy food or to get entertained, then what is my motivation to steal more loot if it will be taken away for stuff where i am not actively involved in anymore? I don't mind really that the scales of prices and loot you buy the equipment with are dropped down a bit, but what i mean is i want to have the free choice to do all the buying with the other stuff like going into shops (like in thief 3) but not necessarily into the black market all the time.

[etdarkb]

Seriously... What about letting the mappers decide?

 

Springheel way: After success; loot = loot * .1; load new mission

Samael way: After success; load new mission

 

 

Overall because it depends: think to Thief 1.

Between missions `1: A Keeper's Training' and `2: Lord Bafford's Manor' whole months passes and so the starting money should be fixed.

Between missions `12: Strange Bedfellows' and `13: Into the Maw of Chaos' at most few hours passed and so the whole loot should be kept.

[New Horizon]

I have grasped what you have said. I just wanted to say that to me it's not making much sense if you dont make an open world where the player can/must eat or pay rent. Otherwise whats the point?

 

You're talking about having more RPG elements, but that isn't really what this mod is about. If we make a campaign, our goal is to have more of a linked narrative than an open world. Days, weeks, maybe even a few months might go by between missions but it's not about having the player run around, interacting with everything, paying bills or going shopping for groceries. The motivation is pretty simple, you're running out of cash and you need more.

[Springheel]

I just wanted to say that to me it's not making much sense if you dont make an open world where the player can/must eat or pay rent. Otherwise whats the point?

 

I don't think having the player going shopping for cheese is good gameplay...plenty of things happen "off screen" because they would be boring for the player (eating, sleeping, going to the bathroom, contacting informants, making maps, etc).

 

then what is my motivation to steal more loot

 

What is your motivation to steal more loot in a single one-shot mission?

 

In a campaign, you would carry a percentage of your loot forward, so stealing more loot results in you having more to spend in the next mission. That's more motivation than you'd have in a normal one shot FM.

 

Seriously... What about letting the mappers decide?

 

Obviously mappers will be able to play with the code and settings as they see fit.

[aidakeeley]

Shopping for cheese can be quite fun(ny).

[Crispy]

I'll also add that 10% is really easy to calculate - just delete the last digit.

[aidakeeley]

Fetch hither the fromage de la Belle France!

[etdarkb]

I'll also add that 10% is really easy to calculate - just delete the last digit.

This point is actually... wrong: because 100% is easier to calculate.

[Springheel]

"really easy" != "easiest"

[etdarkb]

Obviously mappers will be able to play with the code and settings as they see fit.

And it solves everything!

A little stronger:

"really easy" <= "easiest"

 

I am counting the seconds before a C maniac says us that we are comparing two const char pointers...

[Mortem Desino]

I am counting the seconds before a C maniac says us that we are comparing two const char pointers...

Present and accounted for!