Limited Wallet Size

[omen613]

What do you guys think about a game having a max gold system relative to the Legend of Zelda series. You can hold say 99 gold and anything more is lost until you spend some gold. You could later upgrade your wallet to carry more gold with maybe a max of 500 gold. Thinking of adding this to my current project in the hopes it will make gold feel a little more valuable but at the same time make the player more likely spend some money in the shops. This may even have to go hand in hand with a limited inventory system as well to be most effective...Maybe make a steal gold or mug mechanic more helpful as well.

I think we've all played a game where towards the end of the game you are a billionaire and gold has no real value because you just buy 232423232 max potions or revives and antidotes making items kind of blah...especially if your "healer" can just make items obsolete (or items make your healer obsolete lol.)

So what do you guys and gals think? Too frustrating? People like to hoard items and money and how dare I say they can't!

 

[whitesphere]

The way I make the player spend more in the shops is by depriving, say, the healer of certain key abilities.  Or, perhaps, healers are more often targeted in battles.  I know the first thing I target, as a player, are the boss's healing minions.  Geneva convention be damned (it is technically a war crime to attack an unarmed medic --- this is important if you are creating a modern war game type RPG).

So the player still needs the shops, because the healer can go down in the middle of a battle.

I think limiting the amount of gold isn't such a good idea, since it basically deprives the player of rewards after awhile.  Instead of limited items, I would use "max carry capacity" and weight lowers in-battle agility if anything.  Logically, gold and items have weight.  Said weight would effectively reduce the entire party's AGI (assuming items equally distributed).  And, after a certain point, prevent all dashing or Escaping in battle.  And eventually prevent the party from moving at all.

So, sure, you can have a billion Gold, but oh your party can't move...

Obviously, the player must have the ability to throw Gold or items away.  And it might be useful for the player to have, say, a locked treasure chest at home to store a certain quantity of items (volume limited).  Not that helps at all when the player's in the middle of the swamp battling a boss.

This approach would make players have to consider "Do I need the 1000 Gold or the Potion of Healing more?"  and prevent "I'm carrying 230000 Max Elixirs" without being as strict or obvious about it.

 

[That Bread]

In legend of Zelda it was something I grew used to while playing. It never annoyed me, because I didn't really need to buy items, but I hated it when you had to get something for a sidequest or any quest that required a wallet update. I suggest avoiding this, so you do not annoy the player.

So do I think you should do this? Well In Legend of Zelda, it still didn't feel special, money was everywhere! Even with a limited amount of money it just didn't matter. It could add balance, but I find limiting the amount of items better. As long as you balance the amount you limit items to. A good number I find would be twenty for each item, adding a bit of challenge. Make sure you do not let the player have to go back and forth for items.

However I could note. That some fun sidequests were involved with getting a bigger wallet, I'm sure that this would be the only benefit. Plus, it is a nice reward... I remember getting the giant fish wallet in Skyward Sword. It made me feel like I was special, because it looked nice. Other than that it kind of felt empty afterwards, probably, due to the fact I finished the game by that time.

I recommend the limited items, not limiting the gold or money, because it still just doesn't feel special. Even if it is a rewarded it still just, doesn't feel all that special.

 

[Eschaton]

I think a limited wallet can help keep the player from breaking the game's economy, for starters.  However, it can break the economy if money is really easy to come by no matter what your wallet size is (*cough*zelda*cough).

 

[omen613]

Interesting points and thanks for the rather quick replays....

I think the very fact it's not challenging to find more gold once you depleted the gold is what makes spending it more easy. And making certain things unobtainable until you have a bigger wallet kinda makes sense if your looking at it economically. I mean most games are linear with their shops in the sense that the first town is only gonna have bronze weapons and armor...next town has iron...next has silver...etc etc...wouldn't it make more sense if all the shops had most of the basic weapon tier upgrades but you just couldn't afford them yet? Might even make item rewards from chests more rewarding due to this limitation...but that's getting a little off topic lol.

Would the Zelda game's rupee system of been more annoying if you visited item shops more frequently? what if link had to "fix" his armor and weapons that got worn out at the local blacksmith and it costed like 99 rupees to fix his shield and sword. But the Master Sword never wore...but his shield did...and his hammers and stuff. But all you had to do was open a few chests or smash some pots to find more rupees? or maybe a certain enemy dropped more rupees and you would go hunt it down after a big upgrade.

Limitations are fun to a degree don't you think? lol

 

[That Bread]

Limitations add a challenge. With the above I must admit, I rarely... if ever went back to the shops. In fact I relied on the outside drops and I do that for RPGs... until I have to go to a store.
Repairable items? No, no and just no. That would end up in a terrible mess. I think if you could upgrade the item, I would support the idea all the way.

As for rare items, I think they should be given as rewards in the main or even side quests.

For the random money drop like in Legend of Zelda, it worked. However it was never a rewarding experience, I only did it to farm money. Kind of like killing monsters non stop. Selling old weapons is one of the ways I would make money, aside from fighting every enemy I encounter.

 

[Eschaton]

The problem with the way Zelda did shops, particularly in the later games, is that there were way easier ways to farm the items that the shops sold.  Too many drops.  Too many free healing (fairy fountains) points.  Wind Waker's potion economy was worthless thanks to Grandma's soup.  Every other enemy dropped the pickup pinata that dropped way more pickups than you'd ever need.

You need shops that sell what the player needs and can't reasonably farm.  If it is easier to farm, your shops are worthless.  If farming is tedious to the point where there is no point for drops, then your shops will be much more valuable.

Let's just say that planning an in-game economy is hard.  It might be easier with a limited wallet, but the problems that could come out of it are as follows:

1)  If money is abundant, then players would enter a buying/farming cycle, which would just add fake longevity go your game.

2)  If money is scarce, then players would place higher value on the items it buys.  You might run into the problem of players thinking their items have too much value and don't use them (the Elixir paradox).

3)  If there's a bank, than there's no point in having a limited wallet.  The farming/banking cycle would just add fake longevity to your game.

 

[dinhbat3]

In my opinion, I don't like the idea of limited wallet as a player. 

If I am understanding correctly, the reason stated for limiting wallet are:

1. is to prevent the player from accruing too much currency by the end

2. creating unobtainable items for the player

3. tactical/fun limitations

I believe all of these would be better achieved through a balanced economy, which is a bit difficult, but worth the effort as a player. I will outline here for each of the above:

1. If shops are created to be actually useful, then the player should be buying weapons, armors, items, spells, etc regularly at a comparable level to which they acquire currency until end game preventing the hoarding of money. If there is too much money left in their wallets then the drop rate of currency should be reduced or the price/need to upgrade should be increased.

2. An item that can not be obtained until a later time can be a good interest peaker, but as stated by Eschaton, making it unreasonable to farm makes it more relevant. If I saw an item I KNOW I cannot afford, then I'd just move on, but if it were JUST priced that it would take me an extra hour to get with grinding, then I might play your game for that extra hour (though most likely I would not, at least I have the option to do so). Similarly, you would need to create items that would be worth going back when the game allows. By the time you reach the next wallet upgrade, you may have surpassed the usefulness of said item, or it is too far away to bother obtaining, or there is another new item I'd rather invest in by then,the items would have to be so amazing that I will save my limited money to get it in the future unless getting to max currency is relatively easy which leads me to point 3.

3. This limitation is only relevant if money is readily available, which kind of makes for the whole system of limitation pointless. The major downfall is that it would make longer journeys seem less rewarding. Limitations can certainly be fun, but players do not like it when they do not get their rewards they have "earned".

Overall, I just don't really see how a limited wallet would b better than reducing and balancing currency drops. The only times it would come into play is when currency is easy enough to reach max with regularity (which would result in having to go back and forth to shops with unnecessary frequency) or on longer dungeons where going back and forth is not as much an option (which would result in the player feeling they are missing out on rewards earned and a sense of "I can't wait to get out of this dungeon")

These are again just my opinion =D Probably a bit more than the 2 cents you were looking for, but hope it helped bring some new thoughts about the system.

~ Dinhbat

 

[omen613]

Good points.

I guess the real limitation i'm worried about is the one on items than on gold itself. And shops only really hold a value on consumables and gear you can't find outside of the shops because people always take the easiest route.

 

[dinhbat3]

Well people are also trained to know that the gears found in dungeons are usually better than those that are buyable one town before the dungeon itself.

As far as items go, it is all about balancing.

In my game for instance I am making MP restore items essentially non existent, making the player spend on healing at Inns.

The player can also forego having a healing character so the items have been balanced to do decent amounts but nowhere near as much nor as effective as if the player chose a healer class, though still manageable.

Unless you mean storage limitation, and if that is the case there are scripts for capping the number of items per stack that could solve that.

~ Dinhbat

 

[Probotector 200X]

One thing I wanna mention first. If you have a limited wallet size, try to do something about opening chests full of money just disappearing if your wallet is full. That's just bizarre and lame. Since Legend of Zelda was mentioned, I immediately thought of Ocarina of Time's wallet, and...how many secret chests with worthless rupees in them. Oops, I have 999 (I think is the max) Rupees and just got a chest with 200. Instead of putting the money back or something, it's just...nothing. Wow.

Also, something I'm seeing people bring up that is mostly a different matter but it's relevant. Talk of items and healers, replacing each other. Argh. Why is it always that? Purchasable consumables can replace the healer, but no one else. So...biased. And specific. I don't know, it bothers me.

 

[Eschaton]

Also, something I'm seeing people bring up that is mostly a different matter but it's relevant. Talk of items and healers, replacing each other. Argh. Why is it always that? Purchasable consumables can replace the healer, but no one else. So...biased. And specific. I don't know, it bothers me.

Care to elaborate?

 

[ShinGamix]

FK! OMG My wallet won't hold anymore money!!

No one ever in the history of the world past present or future will ever say that BS!

I mean NO ONE!

Well counterpoint is that in real life no one ever says you can't have more money...you just have to earn more!!! 

So instead of limiting wallet size make players have to spend money to live and survive like in real life.

Give them Bills!! Lots and lots of Bills,.

Maybe the player could inherit the debt of a brother or parent and then the game starts (*insert evil laugh here.)

Now if the character has tyrannical parents or a high maintenance women they will never see much money anyways!!

Plus that cht would be hilarious in a game!

*dang I was working on a system for my project Battle Dungeons!! before I saw this topic now I wanna go add some of these features to B-D!! Now 

like the money grubbing ho! Now back to my project.

and on the wallet add on for Zelda. Switch it to a debit card!!! Then you can limit daily withdraws!!!! DUH! Then you can have an item increase daily withdraw limits!!!

Take that Zelda Rupee Purse and YtF is link carrying a coinpurse and not balling big time yet. He has saved that damn princess so much he should be epic rich or at least have some babies with her by now!

 

[Probotector 200X]

Care to elaborate?

Sure.

Typically in RPGs, the main function of consumable items (not equipment), especially purchasables is for healing. Therefore, you can heal, quite effectively, without a healer. The attack mage can heal well. The physical warrior can heal well. The ninja can heal well. But can the healer use items to cover something they can't do? Not really. When healers have serious damage dealing deficiencies, tough. Items don't help them there. Or, what if a character focuses on taking hits with high defense? Or someone's super fast? Why aren't there items for that?

Some games do have these items. Attack items, buffing items, etc. But they are usually ineffective, only rare drops from enemies or limited treasure chests, or the battle system makes them irrelevant or a waste of time.

You can have a team of warriors who focus on bashing enemies heads in with swords...get by with healing items. Now try a team of healers, and...they can heal all day long, but they can't do damage. It's not "fair".

And this brings me back to the wallet thing, at least, in terms of Zelda. In Ocarina of Time, the wallet was annoying mainly because it kept getting full so fast. In my last playthrough, I actually bought the consumables from the stories instead of cutting bushes down for a minute to fill back up. So I saved a little busy work, made use of the shops, and rarely had the wallet full 'wasting' money drops. And, the point now is, Zelda games actually have good items. Imagine a healer with no attack power having extra utility from items, like being able to briefly stun enemies with a Deku Nut, throw a slow but powerful Bomb, whip out a makeshift low durability weapon like a Deku Stick...The action adventure "RPG" has items that would be more useful for a healer than a typical RPG. And yes, I'm talking about "JRPGs" because that's what I play...

 

[hian]

FFX 10 had a healer that was basically the biggest powerhouse of the entire game. First time I cleared the game, I was essentially just using Yuna for all boss battles. Store overdrives for all aeons before battle, pluss Yuna's overdrive. Then go to town.

As for limited wallets. I'm going to be the unpopular one, and say that I like them. It makes every buy a real choice, because you know that buying the "99 rupee shield" means you're going to have to go and gain more money before buying anything else.

Time's a commodity, which is why choices that requires players to prioritize time/manage time are some of the most efficient ones for establishing the weight of consequence on the player.

I never really liked the concept of "fake gameplay length" . Unless a game is completely 100% story driven, or never presents the same gameplay feature twice, most of a game is "unnecessary length".

The presuppositions behind any game is that the player is going to enjoy the primary mechanics enough to want them to be repeated, which is why rewards for clearing several repetitionsis rarely viewed as a negative by your ordinary gamer or game developer.

You really have to be on a indie developer forum to start hearing people complaining about stuff like that.

Consider that the widely popular Demon's/Dark Souls series is essentially all about "false gameplay length" due the difficult trial and error nature of the game, combined with a real raw deal when it comes to check points.

Nobody cares though, because that's a part of the gameplay experience. If auto-checkpoints, included just before boss encounters, was a part of Dark Souls, I can guarantee you that fans would run of in droves with smoke fuming from their ears.

Main point though:

If the rest of your gameplay is shait, and the limitation doesn't really add to making choices with impact, nobody is going to suffer that system as well.

It only works if it's built on top of an already working game.

 

[SLEEP]

in Zelda, store items are mostly optional With the exception of a few big purchases, stores are just a quick way to get item drops without the need for farming. And I mean, you need to farm money, so it basically allows you to trade one kind of drops farming for another kind of drops farming. Money also both comes and goes quickly. You stock up on rupees in a dungeon, and after beating it use the rupees to stock up on what you consumed in the dungeon and buy a few upgrades. Money drops remain similar throughout the game, with treasure chests containing rupees increasing in frequency. Essentially, a money cap prevents the player from accumulating upgrades too quickly, and as things become more expensive in the game, sidequests to increase the size of your wallet are introduced.

Typically, RPG money doesn't work like that. There are far more stores, they provide almost exclusively equipment you don't find elsewhere, and although they still dish out upgrades, it's the amount of money the foes drop which limits you from accumulating upgrades too quickly. You can hoard 99 potions by endgame, true, but the valuable, higher-tier potions that will really save your neck in the heat of battle will cost you a fair amount in proportion to what foes are dropping at the time.

A wallet limit could work, but you'd need to think of how you use stores and manage upgrades in the game. Like, what does money mean, maaan.

 

[whitesphere]

I think it's better to limit gold drops and combine it with inventory space or weight limits.  Gold itself would be fairly heavy, as in real-life.  This limits what the player can carry.

Or, you could limit what the player can buy.  It's just too bad that the store only has 2 Potions of Healing in stock right now.  After all, who says the player is the only user of healing potions.  How could a small shop stay in business if it was always waiting for a single customer?

Or you could use a supply/demand logic.  The more Potions of Healing the player buys, the more their cost goes up.

One of the simpler changes is to edit the game script and change the hard-coded max item limit from "99" to a much lower number, say, "10".  This prevents the player from stocking up to a well-nigh unlimited number of Potions of Healing.

 

[Eschaton]

I think a game should have a realistic economy in that there is only a finite amount of gold in the game.  As you accrue more, everyone else loses, and prices go up.  Eventually, you just stop finding gold altogether because there is no more to find.  Shops literally can't buy anything off you because they're broke.  Quest-givers can't reward you because they're broke.

If someone could achieve that in their game, I'd be so proud of them.

 

[Mouser]

A game's "economy" is one of the most difficult parts of the game to get "right". Maybe even harder than combat balance, though the two are closely related - especially in a single player game.

MMO's have the advantages of economies of scale and a "free market" working to even out all the rough edges. Even so, major developers/producers hire professional economists to watch over that precious economy like a hawk and make 'tweaks' on the fly whenever necessary.

You can limit gold, you can limit items, you can have item degradation (yes, it can work if the game is built with it in mind - see: Dark Cloud 2), you can have a combination of all three. The "real" currency of a game is time. In a single player game, players can take as much time as they want to do something: if there isn't a countdown timer in the corner, it doesn't matter if the house is on fire, feel free to farm to your heart's content.

So long as it makes the game more fun, whatever you can come with can work.