Economy - Equipment availability/cost

[Dabos37]

What do you think about the current equipment cost and availability? This is one of the things that I think TW should work to improve when they have time.

My thoughts about equipment:

I find equipment currently overpriced, especially high tier equipment but even low tier cost is higher than It should. Plus we still have anlot of issues with high tier equipment availability for no reason.

Concerning equipment high cost, it looks like it is a measure to deal with players getting rich, but equipment being overpriced is one of the reasons because the players' are getting rich when selling loot (same happens for some lords). I think that all equipment pieces cost should be rebalanced and decreased, especially these piece of armor over 600K.

Higher tier armor should cost around 10-20k as much IMO and should be available since day 1. Plus the loot quality obtained from defeated lords could get improved and this wont be a problem if we wont get tons of money while selling the loot like it is happening now.

What do you think?

 

[darksoulshin]

DURABILITY, DEGRADATION AND MAINTENACE SYSTEM,SMITHING SKILL AND PRICE BALANCE THREAD

What I think is that the idea of tiers shouldn't even exist.
If a tier system must be evident, then this system must emerge and be a natural consequence, not imposed, by economic conditions.
Which translated into understandable language means: good armor costs a little more (obviously), but what must WEIGH must be their "maintenance" and not their purchase price.
Switching from an armor that gives 36 defense and costs 50k to one that gives 40 and costs 600k means something is not working.
Because the paradox is that if by pure luck you acquire a 600k plated armor for free then your worries are over.
Instead, a cost spread over time and based on use (the less you use the less you consume) would allow you to buy everything (if you have the money) at a cheaper price (from 600k to 100k) but KEEPING IT IN GOOD STATE will depend on your ability to do so, or thanks to your financial resources, or thanks to your blacksmith qualities (or your companion's).
The idea that armor does not appear if your tier is low is completely anti-immersive and unrealistic, as well as lacking in thickness ...
As I describe the system, however, you can look at everything in the shop window, maybe even buy it, but keeping it in good condition is another matter entirely.
The risk would be to keep an armor for 1 year or less, which then rusts or is damaged by battles, and since you do not have the means to repair it (money or skill smithing), you must keep it damaged and inefficient until you have the ability to restore it to a good state.
The implications are many in this way and all immersive and realistic.

The above link expresses this and more, also in reference to the maintenance of armies.
under the comment you can read "darksoulshin suggestion" which brings you to the section that contains all my suggestion threads, including the linked one, it would be nice if you participated.

 

[Yangbang]

Things like this and now I just feel like i should retire from adventuring

 

[Nakh]

Insane equipment prices is result of unsuccessful developers attempt to give players something to spend money on. Too bad personal equipment in this game mean almost nothing from gameplay perspective and can be totally ignored without any consequences.

 

[Dabos37]

Insane equipment prices is result of unsuccessful developers attempt to give players something to spend money on. Too bad personal equipment in this game mean almost nothing from gameplay perspective and can be totally ignored without any consequences.

Probably yes, but at the same time, insane equipment prices make the player able to get rich faster.

On the other hand, while i do agree we need more ways to spend money, the current situation is not worse than Warband.

 

[Nakh]

Probably yes, but at the same time, insane equipment prices make the player able to get rich faster.

On the other hand, while i do agree we need more ways to spend money, the current situation is not worse than Warband.

It is much worse than Warband. Gear progression in Warband was somewhat natural and getting better items really affected personal combat effectiveness. In Bannerlord, players who don't cheese f out of game economy will run in rags forever and will not care about it one bit.

 

[Dabos37]

It is much worse than Warband. Gear progression in Warband was somewhat natural and getting better items really affected personal combat effectiveness. In Bannerlord, players who don't cheese f out of game economy will run in rags forever and will not care about it one bit.

No, I was trying to say that it is not worse than Warband in terms of how much ways we have to spend money.

The gear progression in Warband was perfect, and I do agree with gear progression in Bannerlord is much worse. Especially in terms o cost and availability.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Armor needs to reduce more damage for me to worry about not being able to find it in stores. I married Ira (Epresses daughter?) and got her good armor, it cost m 6k and a bunch horses too, went into battle and still got 1 shot to the body..... RE-LOAD. Ditched that overpriced ... nice lady.... and got a much cheaper... um .... less renowned Khuzait girl Borte... 2k and got an asiligat and noble bow! Her armor's okay but she can keep it as it's not very helpful.

players who don't cheese f out of game economy will run in rags forever and will not care about it one bit.

Yeah pretty much! I marry early and pay the iron price for the rest 0f the game! Warhorses are my thing to shop for!

 

[Because]

Higher tier armor should cost around 10-20k as much IMO and should be available since day 1. Plus the loot quality obtained from defeated lords could get improved and this wont be a problem if we wont get tons of money while selling the loot like it is happening now.

What do you think?

Completely agree with all of the above. I think they should introduce Shop bought only lordly/legendary gear that costs 10x the standard gear price for a modest increase in stats like warband, this gives you a cash sink and something to aim for without wrecking the economy as it is found as loot.

I'd also like to see high tier armour actually protect a bit more too though.

 

[benchwarmer]

Armor needs to reduce more damage for me to worry about not being able to find it in stores. I married Ira (Epresses daughter?) and got her good armor, it cost m 6k and a bunch horses too, went into battle and still got 1 shot to the body..... RE-LOAD. Ditched that overpriced ... nice lady.... and got a much cheaper... um .... less renowned Khuzait girl Borte... 2k and got an asiligat and noble bow! Her armor's okay but she can keep it as it's not very helpful.

Yeah pretty much! I marry early and pay the iron price for the rest 0f the game! Warhorses are my thing to shop for!

I am noticing Ira's armor got nerfed pretty bad, not sure when but must been the hotfixes.
Kind of lame, some goofer have time to attend this kind of minor changes and somewhat irritating players.

 

[black_bulldog]

I agree that players acquiring 10's of thousands by mid game and millions by late game is insane without some kind of money sink. But equipment should never be a late game money sink. We can see it makes crafting too lucrative and therefore a most players feel they're forced to do it. It makes looting every piece of garbage that drops necessary. It makes getting top gear almost impossible without stockpiling money. It makes it so players can craft one item that can completely bankrupt a town's economy. This and more is just a side effect of TW inability to create a stable economy.

This is what happens when you try to address player wealth with a simple band-aid. Imo keep and kingdom upgrades should be the main money sinks in mid to late game, not equipment. I feel like TW is in over their heads, they created a simulated economy with supply and demand but have absolutely no idea of how it should be run. They tweak numbers and put out hot fixes but to no avail. Instead they need someone who's an economist who will study the economy and offer advice on how to balance it. It's been done in other games and I feel it should be done here too. It's too complex for these simple fixes to have any real effect without destroying the economic balance.

 

[Dabos37]

Imo keep and kingdom upgrades should be the main money sinks in mid to late game, not equipment.

Totally agree with this.

The thing is that we have some really good armors currently at a decent cost like the armor which Champion Fians use (do not remember the mame). It gives 40 armor for torso and we can get It for 13K. Would be great if all +T5 gear could have a similar price and 20K as maximum or even cheaper.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I am noticing Ira's armor got nerfed pretty bad, not sure when but must been the hotfixes.
Kind of lame, some goofer have time to attend this kind of minor changes and somewhat irritating players.

She had a 48 20 20something body, which was better then what I've been seeing from marriage lords lately. I haven't got a 48 body armor by hitching since some of my first games, until this one on Ira. I don't know if it's semi random or it was even better and got nerfed. The Khuzat eligible lords have the 25 8 8 type amour, even since one of the early patches. I assume some lord have better armor, but maybe it's the married ones..... who knows. 48 still wasn't that great though, I
d rather have Borte .

 

[Ichon]

TW is really struggling to implement economy particularly because there is an economy for everything but the game itself can change quite a bit due to sacking/base resources being depleted or in abundance.

I think equipment should not be directly based on supply/demand but have the abundance or lack of equipment resources operate on a fixed curve of supply/demand.

Too many things that happen in a real economy don't happen in Bannerlord so the dev's focus on making prices operate as if they are in a real economy means that will never succeed.

If there exists -50% of a 3 month 'average' resource supply the price shouldn't immediately increase +50% or even more likely in the current game- simply the equipment that is sourced on that supply becomes impossible to find. Rather prices might immediately jump +25% but then increase more slowly each month based on the average 3 month price. In a real economy, someone who has a piece of armour worth 100 but does not need that exact armour for the next few weeks would be highly motivated to sell if the price of the armour increased to 125 from the average of 100 thinking they can buy a new piece of armour in 2-3 months when they really need it or simply make do with slightly lower quality armour but invest the extra month into better sword, horse, or hirelings. So the problem with equipment simply disappearing and no way to purchase would hardly ever happen in the real world without a siege or fullscale invasion that stopped normal market-making.

Similarly because post-battle there is a RNG of armour captured based on the tier of enemy units faced and stores buy equipment at 25% of the 'selling' value (sort of like pawn shops) once player can defeat decent sized armies, even selling armour worth 100 for 25 when you are defeating an army every couple of days the battle loot funds add up hugely because the upkeep costs of an army are artificially low vs real life because this is a game and players want to be able to have armies immediately not wait until they are an established Lord.

TW should just accept this is a game and base more costs in the game on curves which are based 2nd hand on real item availability rather the directly on the availability of resources which fluctuates highly and has skewed costs to begin with.

Historically even brigands are unlikely to fight more than 1-2 battles a month. Weekly battles accompanied by loot is underheard of, let alone daily battles. Basing so much of the economy on battles is the wrong approach. Battles should influence how other Lords, characters, and the hirable/recruitable soldiers view the PC. The economy should be based more on workshops, jobs, trade, and eventually, demesne wealth and raids/war taxes with loot only mattering in the amount of XP soldiers get and if you capture high ranking enemy units.

Fighting battles to increase wealth should be mostly a 2nd-hand effect- defending trade routes, villages in your demesne, mercenary contract, raiding the enemy, fighting a caravan, capturing enemy villages/towns. The benefit of being a brigand in the game should be the opportunity to attack caravans, raid villages, and ambush parties without being a mercenary or part of a faction (which should require high renown to join).

The cost of being a brigand should be pissing off more characters (only direct enemies of the victims should raise their opinions of the PC) BUT successful brigand actions can increase renown even if characters personally don't like the PC with high enough renown they might be willing to hire PC as a mercenary where successful fighting DOES raise personal opinions on the PC which then allows the PC to join the faction and eventually be raised to a Lord with their own holdings and political affiliations.

Players could theoretically become their own kingdom if they are very successful as a Brigand with the main problem being low opinions from most Lords making expanding that Kingdom beyond what companions can do quite difficult as Lords will be reluctant to join a Kingdom they have a low personal opinion of the Leader. Of course as a Kingdom, allying or fighting the same enemies successfully will raise Lords opinions so the end result is not terribly different than joining a Kingdom other than the initial formation of a Brigand Kingdom will be more difficult while Lord rebelling against his own Kingdom or marrying into the Royal family have the difficulties come later in a campaign and slightly different variety.