[Emma Pennington]

I will NOT read through 13 previous threads for this.
So if it's been said, sorry.

You shouldn't be able to sell drugs such as stimpacks, psycho or mentats to a man selling clothes/armor.
The same for the rest of the items. This might make it a more immersive economy.
And some people just simply will not barter with you, so you have to spend caps.
An arms dealer with limited stock might want some ammo for the guns that he's selling, such as .44 magnum rounds, but he don't have any need for microfusion cells and will not accept them.
A wealthy settlement's arms dealer will not accept crappy weapons with low CND or just simply bad weapons overall such as chinese pistol.
But even if you have 50 combat shotguns and someone is willing to barter you for them he will not give you his whole shop for all of them. A limit of 1 - 4 weapons per week.

This would mean you cannot spam-sell laser rifles or plasma rifles to everyone and gain a massive amount of money.

But maybe this is too much for the current engine, should I double post this in fallout 4 suggestions...`?

It is not much for the current engine, since it handles that in Oblivion. But, the world of Fallout is a world of scavengers, not established economies. Trading what you have and accepting a variety of things makes more sense in the Fallout environment than specialized vendors.

[FoReVeR_Me_N]

not really...maybe in "frontiers" but in FO2 places like NCR started up actual production of goods again. They had a standing army and everything, that they keep armed and supplied with manufactured equipment IIRC.

[GEo LIme]

Well, you should be able to barter with some people but I just don't like the fact that you can go out in fallout3, kill some enclave soldiers then completely buy out the shops with their stuff.
If some vendors won't accept barter as an option then there would be some use for the actual currency in the game.

And honestly, how much caps do ya'll actually have atm?
I have like 70K of them on my main.
And I never need to use them... I go out, kill enclave, take their laser and plasma rifles, repair them, return to a settlement after awhile and buy out every stimpack and ammo from the vendors.
Only reason I find caps useful for are repairs at Haley's. And I only need to repair the Alien Blaster and Microwave Emitter.

Of course if this was used in New Vegas or F4 people would probably just fast-travel to the vendors that barter....
Hmm....
Now I have a reason to say "No fast-travel!"

[Killer McCracken]

Balancing a game economy for a big game is one of the most difficult challenges for game makers in my experience. We've had tons of weapons, equipment, toys, and treasure have all been do so much that for the most part, they work really well in-game. But economies have so many factors that affect them, that it suffers from the macro-scale affects of small changes. Even one level designer can ruin an entire game economy by allowing some abusable loophole or over-powered items to be bought or sold. gabriel7731;'s example of selling power-armor at the shops is a prime example of this, and I predict it will continue to be a challenge in the future as well.

Getting economies right requires a dedicated person or persons working on the game who just focuses on that (for a time), and who has access and ability to test all of the levels and items Together, and from that to make micro-scale recommendations to smooth-out the macro-scale economics. I worked on the economy of Sojourn and Toril along with many other developers over 10 years, and we still struggled to get the economy just right. DLC's and game-addons further complicate this with inflation by adding more and more powerful and valuable stuff, which further throws the economic balance out of wack.

I for one enjoy a game economy in which I'm never rich and have to work hard for the cash, where items have Real value and where collecting and spending money is both a joy and a challenge. Having 7109834192378041298340 caps ruins many aspects of the game for me, and nor do I enjoy being completely poor - I want it to be challenging, always. I definitely don't blame Bethesda or Obsidian for this, nor any other gaming company for that matter - I just hope they put enough time and focus into the NV and Fo4 economy to make it more robust and dynamic. I hate carrying around a bag of millions of caps - it just ruins immersion!

Miax

[Chase McAbee]

Hard to avoid these kinds of problems in a free-roamer game. Most games have you get rich towards the end and while I don't like enormous wealth (I prefer it when you have to always spend resources wisely), my real problem with it is when you never have to struggle for the cash, even at the start.

For an open free-roamer such as Fallout 3, the developer is gonna rely much on combat to fill out the world. This means that the player will get his hands on a lot of resources, weapons and so forth will be very plentiful and will get the player cash easily. Furthermore, the gameworld has to be littered with "loot" and resources because that's a pretty strong draw for a free-roamer game.
Now, I don't dislike free-roamers. But I must admit that the mechanics of it all kinda work against the setting. 200 years after the bombs feel and the wasteland is still lousy with resources and people with guns and armor, and that's just random raiders and random places in the wasteland. Then when you encounter the more technologically advanced factions, it gets even worse. It's a critique that's been discussed a million times though, hehe.

That's not to say that the older Fallouts where perfect in this regard either, because they were not. Fallout 2 starts off pretty nice I think even if it doesn't make much sense that you don't get a gun, but it's nice that you have to struggle through the beginning of the game with pretty crap gear. But the random encounters in this game can shower you with crap, especially those with faction wars where you can just let everybody kill each other off.

I'm hoping a good solution for some of this will be implemented in New Vegas though I do doubt it.

[vicki kitterman]

I remember reading an article (I think it was over on the Escapist) some time ago - something about the economic models in your average RPG. Basically, you're never really going to end up with anything terribly realistic - a fair chunk of the appeal in a lot of games is collecting and sorting through loot; and you're going to want to be able to do something with the leftover (and I've also wager that the actual trek back and forth just to drop off extraneous gear is one of the least-enjoyable elements of the process, for most people - erego mechanics like being able to break down equipment, donkeys, chests; and even pets to carry your loot back to town and sell it...)

Anyway, what I think might be an interesting idea to toy with (and it's the sort of thing that might possibly look good on paper - but there's no way of telling how it would fare, gameplay-wise,) is to completely do away with "bottlecaps" entirely. Sure, use a standardized price system so that you know the value of what you're trying to barter for and with; but it might be interesting to see how things would work out if there wasn't any currency to make up the difference with. (ie, you go into town and want to trade 1,000 "caps" worth of loot - you're only going to be able to get different stuff in exchange for that, instead of being able to convert it to cash.)

Sure, in some of the more established settlements you might start seeing where they're manufacturing their own money - but only those people who would regularly trade with that town would be willing to take their scrip as payment. Everywhere else, you'd need to resort to pure, old-fashioned bartering. And you could also implement an interesting economic model on top of that, where some things are more in demand in some areas than other (so that if you trade in a handful of rifles somewhere, you might get a couple of Stimpaks in trade - and those could be worth more or less depending on where you take them - possibilities of setting up trade routes and such where you're trading in for something that goes for cheap in one area but sells really well somewhere else...)

Just an idea, though. It's not something I'm terribly concerned about. But I think it might be neat. And it could help push the whole "just barely ekking out an existence out in the Wasteland" thing.

[Robert Jackson]

i personally don't have any issues with the way the trading works but i do understand how difficult it would be to make it more plausible in game. i do however would like the idea that some merchants would not accept certain things, but let me put it into context. in large towns like rivet city in F3 they had the merchants that had a niche market. those merchants would keep to those specific wares and you would have to go elsewhere to sell your goods. since it is a market this would not be difficult. out in the wastes you could trade anything with no restrictions.

on the matter of a vehicle/vehicles in NV it would be a nice addition but if it is just a rumour it wouldn't bother me. some things are needed where others are just wanted.

i do have high hopes for NV as i really enjoy playing F3 and i believe that bringing obsidian on board will add to what Bethesda has accomplished with the game already. i am looking forward to the sneak peek but living in oz and the debut is in the UK it might take a while for me to get it

[Daramis McGee]

Well, you should be able to barter with some people but I just don't like the fact that you can go out in fallout3, kill some enclave soldiers then completely buy out the shops with their stuff.
If some vendors won't accept barter as an option then there would be some use for the actual currency in the game.

And honestly, how much caps do ya'll actually have atm?
I have like 70K of them on my main.
And I never need to use them... I go out, kill enclave, take their laser and plasma rifles, repair them, return to a settlement after awhile and buy out every stimpack and ammo from the vendors.
Only reason I find caps useful for are repairs at Haley's. And I only need to repair the Alien Blaster and Microwave Emitter.

Of course if this was used in New Vegas or F4 people would probably just fast-travel to the vendors that barter....
Hmm....
Now I have a reason to say "No fast-travel!"

I like the Fallout market/economy system just fine. I've never had more than 5,000 caps. I JUST got 5,000 caps in fact at level 28 and I feel like it's quite an achievement. If it was as difficult as you propose, I would honestly just lose interest. That's a little too much for me. Games are fun that I get to have in my spare time away from work, parenting, making sweet sweet love to my wife. I don't have hours and hours to spend dikeing around with some a-hole who doesn't want to sell me stuff even though I have tons of goods to barter with.

The economy is a fun part of Fallout but it isn't the entirety of Fallout to me, I am much more interested in the storyline and action and interaction with characters.

Same goes for your "No Fast Travel" argument. That has to be a joke. You might have that sort of time on your hands but not everyone does, and Fallout is forgiving enough for those of us who do not.

[Tiff Clark]

I'd like to find out more about the locale in New Vegas, the storyline, what the general gist is.

[Guy Pearce]

Well, instead of Fallout 3's fast travel I'd definitely prefer Fallout 1 and 2's world map travel which gives you more of a sense of scale than instant teleportation.

[Assumptah George]

Well, instead of Fallout 3's fast travel I'd definitely prefer Fallout 1 and 2's world map travel which gives you more of a sense of scale than instant teleportation.

Well, don't we already have that? You can fast travel between map points in FO3 just like you can fast travel using map points in fo2

As long as you can WALK across the map, that's fine.

[bimsy]

Agreed - I don't think there's really any difference at all between how you travel between points in Fallout 1&2 versus Fallout 3 - the only real difference is in terms of the scale represented; and whether or not there's any actual "landscape" in those intervening areas. But considering that the game is going to be called Fallout: New Vegas, I'd assume that the game is going to be focusing on a fairly contained area of the world (that being New Vegas, and likely some of the surrounding area.)

Considering that, I don't think there's much of a need to portray a very great sense of scale - if the game was going to be called Fallout: Nevada, then I'd expect a travel system and world map that would encompass the entire state (and something like the old system would probably be a bit more apropos for that.) But since we're likely only dealing with a very specific area, I'd imagine it's going to work pretty darn similiar to Fallout 3 - one contiguous "world," which can be traversed quickly through a map interface to revisit already-discovered locations.

[Anthony Rand]

Does anyone knows anything about vegas or its like it was 4 months ago? Havent seen any pics/vids of it and i am starting to get angry =( but still i dont want obsidian to ruin fo3 rusching to release it ;d

[Stacyia]

First official info will be in next month's OXM.

[Pat RiMsey]

Please make console-commands available for ps3 and the xbox. It shouldnt be so hard to create in the engine. Im so tired of not being able to fix annoying bugs.

[W E I R D]

Agreed - I don't think there's really any difference at all between how you travel between points in Fallout 1&2 versus Fallout 3 - the only real difference is in terms of the scale represented; and whether or not there's any actual "landscape" in those intervening areas. But considering that the game is going to be called Fallout: New Vegas, I'd assume that the game is going to be focusing on a fairly contained area of the world (that being New Vegas, and likely some of the surrounding area.)

Considering that, I don't think there's much of a need to portray a very great sense of scale - if the game was going to be called Fallout: Nevada, then I'd expect a travel system and world map that would encompass the entire state (and something like the old system would probably be a bit more apropos for that.) But since we're likely only dealing with a very specific area, I'd imagine it's going to work pretty darn similiar to Fallout 3 - one contiguous "world," which can be traversed quickly through a map interface to revisit already-discovered locations.

I think I would myself prefer the Fallout 1/2 system, it seems more realistic to me. I did not enjoy the Fast Travel system of Fallout 3, as I found that it made the game too easy, made it go too fast and thus spoiled much of the enjoyment. I found alot of challenge in trying to decide what to take and what to leave behind (I don't use fast travel) when clearing out areas, and in some cases when cargo was so valuable, I would walk the slow-speed home over-encumbered and trying to survive like that. Tons of fun if you ask me.

Thats why I think a region-based version that left at least a Little Bit of travel between the teleport points and the actual destinations would add alot to the game. It would create more immersion, add more encounters and thus increase the longevity of the game without taking away from it. Fast Travel reminds me of remote-controlling my way through the world from a couch, not fighting my way through a hostile world bent on my destruction! I outright banned the use of "Fast Travel" systems in Sojourn/Toril and never regretted it.

I somehow doubt that NV will alter from the Fast Travel system of Fallout 3, as I honestly don't see that most people have a problem with it and there probably isn't enough imputus to change in this case - but I would still enjoy it if they added some Fo1/2 flavor here.

Miax

[Saul C]

I think I would myself prefer the Fallout 1/2 system, it seems more realistic to me. I did not enjoy the Fast Travel system of Fallout 3, as I found that it made the game too easy, made it go too fast and thus spoiled much of the enjoyment. I found alot of challenge in trying to decide what to take and what to leave behind (I don't use fast travel) when clearing out areas, and in some cases when cargo was so valuable, I would walk the slow-speed home over-encumbered and trying to survive like that. Tons of fun if you ask me.

The big difference between the two games is that in FO1/2, there was no option but to use the map travel system. It was impossible to walk form game section to game section, because it wasn't there. In Fallout 3 you have the option of walking from map edge to map edge, OR you can use the overland map as fast travel. There was no fast travel in Fallout 1/2, just overland travel.

I'll say it again: I wouldn't mind a regional system if every gameplay "chunk" is large enough to facilitate exploring. If the developers can't do that, then I'll reject regional/overland map totally. One of the great features of Beth games is the exploration, and I won't give that up for, what seems to me, to be an illusionary representation of distance, only for the sake of that illusion.

[Ria dell]

Why wouldn't each chunk be big enough, if together they were as big as the Fallout 3 map or bigger? I think Point Lookout-sized chunks are big enough for exploring.

[zoe]

Why wouldn't each chunk be big enough, if together they were as big as the Fallout 3 map or bigger? I think Point Lookout-sized chunks are big enough for exploring.

And how many Point Lookout chunks would there be? I wonder how many Point Lookout chunks would fit in the FO3 area.

It's still not as good as being able to walk across the map, but if there had to be chunks, Point Lookout size would be good.

[e.Double]

And how many Point Lookout chunks would there be?

5 - 8 sounds good to me.

[victoria gillis]

Would there really be that much of a need, however, to break New Vegas up into chunks, just for the sake of encompassing a wider and more diverse area? The game's going to be called New Vegas, after all - a Fallout 3-style world map should be more than large enough to encompass such a specific area of real estate. If the purpose of the spin-off is to explore the area in and around a post-apocalyptic Las Vegas, then I don't think you're necessarily going to need to break the game map up into various sections - with vast swathes of Wasteland between.

I think at some point, game-design-wise, you need to look at the sort of game you're trying to make, and then fit the mechanics to suit. If the purpose of the game is to depict all of Nevada (or at the least the more interesting parts of it,) then you're probably going to need to look at a World Map and Fast Travel system that would work best for that sort of gameplay. But if the idea is just to be able to explore one specific area - then I think you'd be better served with a World Map that encompasses that area contiquously (a la Fallout 3.)

Because I don't personally feel any particular game mechanic is inherently "best" out of context of the game you're trying to make. There's no reason to take any particular method of getting around the game world, and then trying to fit the game to that mechanic; rather I'd think it best to decide the scope of the game you're trying to make and adapt a game mechanic to best suit that type of playstyle. (In other words, I think it best to first decide on the scale and scope of the game you're trying to make, and what features and landmarks to include in the game; and then adapt a system of getting around that world.)

[Schel[Anne]FTL]

Well, New Vegas itself might just be the main location, we don't really know what the scope of the whole game will be. And Fallout 3 already felt ridiculously compressed to me.

[kevin ball]

I hope we get to see some of the Brotherhood v. NCR that was planned in Van Buren. I think it would be cool if you had to choose which side to join and you could advance in ranks like with the guilds in Oblivion. (i.e. recommendations like with Oblivion's Mages Guild to become a paladin) I also think it would be awesome if the choices you made affected how the faction you associated with turns out (i.e the Brotherhood exterminates the NCR in the area and becomes a "Steel Plague" or it turns into a more kind faction such as the Capital Wasteland BoS). I also think that each faction would have their bonuses for joining (Power Armor for BoS or implants that increase SPECIAL stats from NCR).

[herrade]

Just pulled this up. I'm pretty sure the chances of that being the release date are slim, but maybe it gives an idea of an approximate time frame. I know Fallout 3 was released in October. Hopefully this one will be sooner.

http://m.bestbuy.com/m/e/product/detail.jsp?skuId=9701377&pid=1218152463953

[T. tacks Rims]

Well, New Vegas itself might just be the main location, we don't really know what the scope of the whole game will be. And Fallout 3 already felt ridiculously compressed to me.

Compressed in what way? Wass there too much stuff packed into the play area, or was the play area too small?

How is breaking the area into chunks going to solve this problem for you?