SP - Economy Why equipment pricing should dramatically drop

[JuanNieve]

The biggest problem I feel with the high prices of armor and weapons is that the stats are usually not worth the cost. On armor I think there should be a substantial increase in their stats to make them feel worth investing in. As for weapons,devs could add the option that it can be broken in combat such as shields. The quality and therefore the duration of the weapon would be linked to its cost. Wooden weapons such as spears or pikes would be easier to break, while weapons such as swords would be the most durable and with that their high cost would be sustained.
There are also weapons such as javelins or bows, it feels strange that they can have exorbitant values, crossbows could make sense because their construction is more complex. Also, the crossbows should be like in warband that gave you the feeling that it was a weapon that did good damage without having to invest in strength points and power draw.

 

[Revenant342]

I think another issue with the huge prices on gear is that whatever system determines what a shop has *does not* like stocking items that cost more than 100,000. So as a result of this, you're lucky to even have the option of buying top-tier gear, even if you have so much value in loot that towns don't have the money to buy it all.

I haven't seen a single noble bow or Imperial Lamellar chest piece for sale in several major patches, which makes the only option for getting it marrying a noble and taking it from them, which requires a dialogue check and maybe 5k denars. So your only real method of getting this stuff now is even easier and cheesier than saving up to buy it in the first place.

Just had a thought too, with death implemented in the latest patch, you might just be able to marry your way through all the nobles of Calradia, stealing their gear and sending them to fight the enemy wearing a potato sack until they die, then repeating the process with the next poor fool unlucky enough to be wearing something especially shiny.

 

[zMasterofPie]

I agree with OP, and I think money should just have an increased worth in general - meaning it's a bit harder to get but goes farther. In the middle ages, a few gold/silver coins could get you quite a bit of stuff. Buying one sack of grain shouldn't cost even 10 denars, it doesn't really make sense.

And of course, good armor costing hundreds of thousands of denars makes zero sense whatsoever.

 

[RozBritanicus]

The cost of armour and weapons is game breaking . 37000 for a sword for instance watch is more than the income of a city ,its stupid. TW should not to much worry in the player buying the best gear. and stop breaking the world entire factions get cripple because i sell them a sword.

 

[STR4Y]

Well late game players would gladly pay 100Ks for armor that was slightly better, or a sword that looked cool. So making things cheap doesn’t make any sense. The ability to forcefully bankrupt an entire town by selling them any one item is what’s ludicrous.

Commodities and equipment need to be treated differently. And whom in a town is willing to pay for what should be diversified. It’s not that complicated. About to post about it.

 

[zMasterofPie]

Well late game players would gladly pay 100Ks for armor that was slightly better, or a sword that looked cool. So making things cheap doesn’t make any sense.

Yes, they should add maybe some gilded top tier armor or something that would cost that much, but literally plain lamellar armor shouldn't cost hundreds of thousands of denars. Either way, OP proposes that you would have to spend much more to actually upgrade troops, so you would need those 100k's of denars to run an army anyway.

 

[RozBritanicus]

I still think it silly to have any weapon or armour be worth more than any city . Put like this ,lets say i have a sword that's worth more than London and someone in London was going to give me the cities entire worth for just one sword . Reducing the prices would stop this . I think paying more the upgrade troops would be better or having other ways to spend money.

 

[STR4Y]

I still think it silly to have any weapon or armour be worth more than any city . Put like this ,lets say i have a sword that's worth more than London and someone in London was going to give me the cities entire worth for just one sword . Reducing the prices would stop this . I think paying more the upgrade troops would be better or having other ways to spend money.

More families have cars than have dogs. But dogs are free and cars cost tonnes. Lots of people needing cars doesn’t mean they’re cheaper.

it’s not an issue with the price of the item. It’s how it can be sold and in what quantities, that upsets the in-game market.

A BMW sedan can be worth $50K to one person. 50 of that sedan is not worth 2.5 million to the City of London. But a customized version of that sedan (which is functionally identical) can be worth $500K to a rich footballer.

It’s not the price, it’s the way they’re treated. If there were an incredible sale on mattresses, you still only need one mattress. You’re not going to stock up and start peddling them out of your house because you only need 1.

You only need 1 sword in this game, one set of armor (per character). They should be expensive if they’re good. The model they’re using is to achieve that by scarcity, which also makes sense.

The problem is that the character can manipulate space-time and mass produce these items and dump them onto a magic universal market. This is what needs to be changed. The market doesn’t differentiate between commodities and personal use items.

 

[RozBritanicus]

I think just dropping the prices would be less complicated .TW just needs the right balance with money one that not the cost of a city .

 

[Akka]

Well late game players would gladly pay 100Ks for armor that was slightly better, or a sword that looked cool. So making things cheap doesn’t make any sense.

1) You seem to have a weird definition of "making sense". What doesn't "make sense" is a weapon costing the same as a castle. THAT doesn't make sense.

2) Players can afford paying that much BECAUSE they sold high-end weapons that had huge price. If the price of gear is lowered to reasonable levels, then the players will have much less money available.

The game should, precisely, be based on what "makes sense". Prices in the game right now are based on a completely broken exponential formula that doesn't make any sense.

 

[SadShogun]

To help with the discussion I will share the explicit formula we use the gauge the prices of certain items.
The basic formula for the cost of any item in the game is as follows(with a quite a lot of other parameters but this is the most significant part):

ItemPrice = 3^Tier x 100 e.g. 8100 Denars for a T4 item

Tiers of the items generally range between 1 and 6 (though floating-point tiers from -1 to 7.5 and floating-point tier are used in the formula. These tiers are calculated based on item parts used, its stats, etc. )
While this exponential item valuation is fine and actually desired, being able to immediately sell these items at their valuations is an aspect we can discuss.

Another thing we do not want to do is to separate the valuation for looted, legitimately bought, bartered, and crafted items. Also, we like to one-to-one correspondence of item and troop tiers (which makes judging value everything in the game easier for players as well.)

An idea we are currently thinking upon is having very huge trade penalties for items with very elastic demands (such as high tier swords, armors, luxury items, etc. as it is hard to find immediate demand for these) and have huge margins for price fluctuation(in a downward way). This would be a realistic solution which would reduce the massive profits from crafting and looting. This being said, I cannot foresee how exactly it would affect the game economy at this point and I'm sure it'll require extensive testing before we can release a change of this magnitude.

 

[Akka]

To help with the discussion I will share the explicit formula we use the gauge the prices of certain items.
The basic formula for the cost of any item in the game is as follows(with a quite a lot of other parameters but this is the most significant part):

Thanks, that's appreciated !

While this exponential item valuation is fine and actually desired

This, on the other hand, is seriously dubious.
Exponential is nearly never a good idea. Exponential growth nearly always breaks systems by reaching ridiculous number way too fast, and I have the strong feeling it's the number one issue with both the economy and the experience points in Bannerlord, allowing people to amass ridiculous amount of wealth and making XP progression crash through the floor way too fast.

I strongly urge you to reconsider the validity of exponential use. Linear increase is both much more realistic, and probably much more manageable by all the game systems.

Another thing we do not want to do is to separate the valuation for looted, legitimately bought, bartered, and crafted items. Also, we like to one-to-one correspondence of item and troop tiers (which makes judging value everything in the game easier for players as well.)

This make little logical sense. Why would a looted item would be priced differently than a bartered or crafted one ? If someone sells me a sword, anything but its own value is completely irrelevant.
It seems that the only reason need to artificially separate the source of the items is due to the huge price they can reach, and I'd say that's just another proof that exponential growth is bonker and harms the game. Fix the source, don't twist everything to keep a bad formula.

This would be a realistic solution which would reduce the massive profits from crafting and looting.

See above : if crafting and looting bring far too much money, the obvious problem is that prices rise too much, and again it shows that exponential growth is the source of the problem.

I'd like to ask : why do you want to keep said exponential, when it causes so many problems ? What positive does it give that justify trying to redesign the entire game around ?

 

[SadShogun]

This make little logical sense. Why would a looted item be priced differently than a bartered or crafted one ? If someone sells me a sword, anything but its own value is completely irrelevant.

Thank you for your feedback!

I think you misunderstood. I said they should be priced the same when I said, "we do not want to do is to separate the valuation for looted, legitimately bought, bartered, and crafted items." Sorry if I worded that confusingly.

For the exponential valuation for the items, they in the ideal simulation actually correspond to the rarity of a given item. (Thus an item with 10000 gold would be 10 times less like to exist than a 1000 g priced item.) When you consider this, the exponential growth actually makes sense instead of a linear one. However, you are correct in the sense that the exponential functions grow too fast, and actually, I am, personally, open to other functions between the exponential and linear(perhaps a polynomial one would be better).

It is not that we want to design the entire game around, it is that many functions actually are designed and tweaked around the exponential valuation(item spawning, NPC trade, etc.) and changing this valuation might require refactors in a large number of systems.

Also, with the clarification, what do you think about the demand elasticity idea?

 

[Akka]

I think you misunderstood. I said they should be priced the same when I said, "we do not want to do is to separate the valuation for looted, legitimately bought, bartered, and crafted items." Sorry if I worded that confusingly.

My bad, I misread you and missed the "not", it's entirely on me
Happy to know that you want a consistent system that works the same for everything, that's definitely something I can support ^^

For the exponential valuation for the items, they in the ideal simulation actually correspond to the rarity of a given item. (Thus an item with 10000 gold would be 10 times less like to exist than a 1000 g priced item.) When you consider this, the exponential growth actually makes sense instead of a linear one. However, you are correct in the sense that the exponential functions grow too fast, and actually, I am, personally, open to other functions between the exponential and linear(perhaps a polynomial one would be better).

I'd not necessarily say that a price would be ideally always exactly following the rarity, though that's an acceptable simplification.
But exponential definitely grows too fast, it leads to basically have two different worlds between early items and late items, and such colossal difference means they simply can't work together.

It is not that we want to design the entire game around, it is that many functions actually are designed and tweaked around the exponential valuation(item spawning, NPC trade, etc.) and changing this valuation might require refactors in a large number of systems.

I understand, but to me that's a weakness in the system, it leads to the economy making no sense and being very easily exploited. There simply is no way to concile the price reached by exponential with anything logical in the in-game economy. Better fix it now than later when the game is released and the flaws causes a lot of troubles that are much harder to change.

Basically, I suspect the core problem is the need to have a money sink for high-level character, hence the very high price on the best gear.
Mount & Blade suffered from this too, but as there were no smithing, it was less obvious and caused less problems. It still was baffling that a single piece of manufactured metal could rival the budget of an entire kingdom, and that training and gearing whole armies of people with the same gear cost only a tiny fraction, though.

I think that a significant adjustment in the whole money philosophy is needed, much closer to real-life one. Instead of trying to siphon the money of the player through gamey methods that breaks the economy and all logic (we have literally javelins costing more than a castle, that's not even a joke), let's just try to see what happened in real-life and make the game replicate it :
No single weapon or armor was a significant budget for a lord or a wealthy man - these people actually fitted whole armies of people with such gear. What WAS costly, though, was precisely raising, equipping, paying and supplying said armies - WAR was very, very costly. Transfer the money sink to war, and I'd say the game would be a lot more sensical with a lot less exploits.

I've made a thread on the subject, because I think it's actually a rather important suggestion.

Also, with the clarification, what do you think about the demand elasticity idea?

I think it's a nice and logical system, that should exists on its own. But I don't think it should be seen as a SOLUTION, rather as feature (because it makes sense, and could prevent other mechanical exploits). The source of the problem still IS the exponential increase of price, which still is completely bogus regardless of if its deleterious effects are reduced by other systems in the game.

 

[guiskj]

Very well said, @Akka

Making parties the money sink would also delay how quickly a player transitions from being a small time clan fielding 10~40 people, going around doing missions and tournaments, to a mercenary-type gameplay with a personal army of less than a hundred and maybe a companion party, to finally a play maker in the kingdom stage with multiple companion parties and a 200+ personal party.

It also makes no sense that a Castle/City cannot support itself even when in perfect health. Getting awarded that first Castle often feels like a punishment because the fief is not at all self-sufficient.

 

[Pentagathoos]

Completely agree with Akka. Considering that the numbers and quality of the troops you lead are far more important than the equipment you and your companions wear it also makes so much more sense in terms of balancing gameplay to have troops be the money sink.
Regarding the scarcity of high tier equipment, the problem here is that these kinds of things would have been made to order. But the player can't have anything made to order. Either give us the option to have specific weapons/armour made for us or allow these things to turn up in shops.

 

[niekdegrijze]

Very well said, @Akka

Making parties the money sink would also delay how quickly a player transitions from being a small time clan fielding 10~40 people, going around doing missions and tournaments, to a mercenary-type gameplay with a personal army of less than a hundred and maybe a companion party, to finally a play maker in the kingdom stage with multiple companion parties and a 200+ personal party.

It also makes no sense that a Castle/City cannot support itself even when in perfect health. Getting awarded that first Castle often feels like a punishment because the fief is not at all self-sufficient.

100% agree with @Akka en others. Prices don't make sense. You can recruit multiple high level units for relatively cheap. But you can not buy good armor for yourself. Your army should be you're money sink. Big armies/ garissons should be your late game money sink. With lower prices for equipment en higher wages, it will take longer to command a respectable size party.

The following are my ideas for the different stages of the game based on the economics in this thread, while not exactly relevant to this tread I could not stop.

With lower prices and higher wages the early stages of the game will have to play out a little different. I suggest having ways to earn a wage first, before being able to pay wages.

I would recommend an early game where you have to enter the service of a merchant as a caravan guard, the service of a notable to join patrols or join a bandit group as a gangmember. It will take some time/renown to get enough trust. After that you will be entrusted with a command over a small party be it a caravan, a patrol or a gang (you will not have to pay wages in this stage). Now you can have a little influence on the world. In this stage you earn a wage and get a percentage of the earnings.

next stage:
Join a clan: get command over a party. Party size will increase with your renown/trust. you still pay no wages and receive your own. you receive a percentage of the spoils. You get your equipment based on the culture of your patron.

Merchant: Buy your own caravan and start your merchant empire. In this stage I will suggest a sort of insurance system with your former employer. So that if you lose your caravan you don't have to start over.

Gang leader: challenge the bandit leader for command and take over the hideout. Now you have to pay wages, but your earnings should increase now that you don't have to give a percentage of the spoils away.
In this stage you can again assert more influence on the world.

next stage:
Clan leader: Become a clan, independent or as part of a kingdom. At this stage your skills should be developed based on you career. This is the stage that you start to pay the wages of your party.
If you want to be independent clan you should have saved some money or get a mercenary contract with a kingdom.
If You want to be a part of a kingdom you should be able to ask the ruler to install you as new clan of the kingdom as soon as there is a new fief available. This fief has to be able to pay for itself and your party.

merchant: buy more caravans. buy workshops, negotiate fixed prices with other merchants. set trade routes. Get requests from cities and lords for trade goods, weapons or horses. by now you have made a name for yourself so NPC's should look you up if the want to get something done. Now you don't have to chase every trade rumor.

Bandit: Keep robbing villagers and caravans until you can afford a bigger army. now you can start raiding villages en small clan parties. After your renown is high enough you will be able to speak to other bandit parties en convince them to your army, cost influence and wages(or spoils)
Get contract from kingdoms to disrupt the economy of their enemies and get mercenary pay + a bonus for every party or village you raid.
Get contract from caravan owners to attack their rivals.
If the streetgang system is implemented. you could try to get control of different cities and get earnings based on the villagers and caravans arriving.

Final stage:
At this stage you are a power broker en can influence the rise of nations.
Clan Leader: get more fiefs and influance and finally become heir to the throne by marriage, or usurp the throne with enough support. At any stage you can split off and become an independent kingdom.

Merchant: I find it hard to imagine and endgame for a merchant play through. I would suggest that you can buy influence with kingdoms so you can be the power behind the nobles. You can choose a kingdom to support and pay nobles to vote your way. Your merchant empire would make it possible to hire mercenary clans to do your bidding and you are able to disrupt enemy kingdoms by creating food shortages.
a extra option for a merchant who wants to keep his or hers caravans save is to buy of bandits. alternatively he can hire bandits to attack rival caravans. All in secret of course.
With enough money he can bribe guard to open the gates and nobles to switch sides. There must be a reason to support a kingdom other than coloring the map. You could earn enough renown/influence to marry the heir. And there should be trade benefits in helping a kingdom.
at any stage you can choose to start your own kingdom. Would be nice if this can be based on militia units en merchant guards.

Bandit:
Now it is time to destroy the system: every bandit group you meet will want to join your army. either like a normal army or just following. Your goal is now to kill the faction leaders. and take over their fiefs. (not very bandit like, but if you have the power why would you not want te become king). When attacking a city, your street gangs have a chance to open te gates.

Hope people like these ideas. Writing this down got me exited to start a new play though

 

[guiskj]

@niekdegrijze brilliant suggestions. I particularly love the sense of progression and how you can be part of different organizations, making different playthroughs feel fresh.

 

[Lusitani 5th Empire]

For the exponential valuation for the items, they in the ideal simulation actually correspond to the rarity of a given item. (Thus an item with 10000 gold would be 10 times less like to exist than a 1000 g priced item.) When you consider this, the exponential growth actually makes sense instead of a linear one. However, you are correct in the sense that the exponential functions grow too fast, and actually, I am, personally, open to other functions between the exponential and linear(perhaps a polynomial one would be better).

I think an important metric to evaluate is the difference between the total value of equipment of a certain troop and the total cost of the unit (to recruit, upgrade, wages - related to the average time of ownership of the unit, etc), and how this difference evolves when you go from low tiers to high tiers of each culture.

In the end what we want is this difference to be is as minimal as possible, even if it cannot be zero it should be at least consistent (linear, exponential or logarithmic) through every kind of troop and Tier.

Another problem that I see is the way items and loot spawn in the game, again, the "cause" or variables that lead to the spawn should be consistent and predictable.

When you have so many parameters and variables you can only compare things by relation to one another, not by absolute values, and to compare all of that, a lot of data is necessary, so efficient ways of gathering detailed and relevant samples of data must be a priority, this is the first step.
The next step is to organize the data in a way that helps us understand what is going on, finding good ways to analyze and compare it (tables, graphs, charts and all of that statistical formulas and stuff).
So, figuring out what we have, what the problems are, what the objective is, and even "out of the box" thinking to work around problems is a process devs should always have in mind.
Also I have to say there is really good information online about game development and making some research could help find solutions.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Cheaper gear and more expensive troops sounds like the way to go for sure. Army building and fief maintenance should be the money sink, not new gear (which rarely ever turns up to begin with).