PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed 4 - A chance for a fleshed out economic system?



Farlander1991
03-03-2013, 12:18 AM
I never was a fan of the economy systems in the previous AC games. They were absolutely broken.

I liked AC2 Villa thing from an aesthetic standpoint, it was really cool to see it get rebuilt and more alive overtime, but that's about it. The problem with the AC2-ACR economy was that there's no economic flow. You buy a store/item/literally ANYTHING - you will start making more money. Each time you buy something, you get even more money. Sure, they tried to balance that out by making items more expensive (and stores getting more expensive the more you buy them), but in the end... there was no economic flow. Because not only with each thing bought it gets easier to buy the next one, you just eventually run out of things to buy.

AC3 was a little bit better in this regard. The crafting of items to trade was pointless, but at least there was a little bit of flow in terms of skin trading. You get animal fur -> you sell animar fur -> you buy upgrades for your ship (and items, although ship upgrades are much more useful). Although it's still kind of broken, because eventually, the flow just stops. Again.

But since the focus of AC4 is probably going to be captaining, given the setting and all that, there's a chance for an ACTUAL economic flow.

We can have a crew that we have to pay (let's say, the skeleton crew is free, but if we get more people for faster reload times/repair times/or something like that, we have to pay money). We can have a ship that we have to repair. Not just upgrades. There can FINALLY be a need for the money to flow OUT, instead of us just getting more richer and richer like Scrooge McDuck.

If the economy is tied directly to the naval gameplay, where you keep spending money to be more effective and afloat, then there's actually a reason to keep getting more money. Flow. It doesn't have to be anything complex, but there can be finally a reason for it to be there.

Ever since AC2, I always was of the opinion 'they have to cut this economy thing out', but now, I actually think that it finally may work.

What do you think about the potential economy system of AC4?

SixKeys
03-03-2013, 12:33 AM
Good points. It would also be cool if there were random events where you get attacked at sea and instead of desynching if you lose the battle, your ship gets robbed.

Disciple930
03-03-2013, 12:36 AM
That sounds like an awesome idea. Really have nothing to add, just saying, since I already think you have an awesome idea. It could be elaborated on though, maybe you have to split all plunder (at least that of which you acquire with their help) with your crew?

SixKeys
03-03-2013, 12:48 AM
That sounds like an awesome idea. Really have nothing to add, just saying, since I already think you have an awesome idea. It could be elaborated on though, maybe you have to split all plunder (at least that of which you acquire with their help) with your crew?

^^ This. Actually, they need more treasure chests that don't contain any loot at all. Sure, there should always be a jackpot somewhere at the end of a tomb-like level, but in previous games there are always chests spread all around the place like candy. Sometimes you should have to go through multiple chests before finding anything useful. (Not with the AC3 lock-picking mechanic though.)

MetalCreed
03-03-2013, 12:50 AM
I chuckled when you said "Scrooge McDuck" no idea why.

Farlander1991
03-03-2013, 12:54 AM
I chuckled when you said "Scrooge McDuck" no idea why.

Because everybody loves DuckTales. :D

MetalCreed
03-03-2013, 01:05 AM
Side-note: I absolutely hate Ubisoft for ****ing up the franchise with Revelations and then the biggest disappointment of the gen; AC3.

Not buying AC4 until I hear rave reviews, and see it's actually "fun" to play.

Disciple930
03-03-2013, 01:22 AM
Side-note: I absolutely hate Ubisoft for ****ing up the franchise with Revelations and then the biggest disappointment of the gen; AC3.

Not buying AC4 until I hear rave reviews, and see it's actually "fun" to play.

This thread's topic is original and interesting. Let's talk about that.

Anyway, SixKeys' suggestion would be awesome. Also, booby traps anyone?

Farlander1991
03-03-2013, 01:25 AM
^^ This. Actually, they need more treasure chests that don't contain any loot at all. Sure, there should always be a jackpot somewhere at the end of a tomb-like level, but in previous games there are always chests spread all around the place like candy. Sometimes you should have to go through multiple chests before finding anything useful. (Not with the AC3 lock-picking mechanic though.)

We could have fake treasure maps, that point to chests that don't have anything. Scammers and stuff. So you have to be careful instead of buying every chest map there is to buy. Plus, I always wondered, in AC2-AC3, who made all those chests maps anyway? O_o

SixKeys
03-03-2013, 03:23 AM
We could have fake treasure maps, that point to chests that don't have anything. Scammers and stuff. So you have to be careful instead of buying every chest map there is to buy. Plus, I always wondered, in AC2-AC3, who made all those chests maps anyway? O_o

Re: AC2 maps: never mind the maps, who keeps all their valuables on their balcony or a street corner? :p

I like the fake maps idea. And the chests should be randomized, so that let's say the first time you play the game, you visit Skull Island™ and find an empty chest there. The next time you play through the game, that empty chest will be at a different location, otherwise you would always avoid certain locations on subsequent playthroughs.

Booby traps would definitely be cool. Maybe we could use Eagle Vision to scout out possible dangers when entering a new location.

Farlander1991
03-03-2013, 09:30 AM
Re: AC2 maps: never mind the maps, who keeps all their valuables on their balcony or a street corner? :p

I like the fake maps idea. And the chests should be randomized, so that let's say the first time you play the game, you visit Skull Island™ and find an empty chest there. The next time you play through the game, that empty chest will be at a different location, otherwise you would always avoid certain locations on subsequent playthroughs.

Booby traps would definitely be cool. Maybe we could use Eagle Vision to scout out possible dangers when entering a new location.

Props for Monkey Island™ reference! :D

Regarding AC2 chests, I can let the balcony ones slide, because... well, I guess people just don't expect somebody to just climb over. But the street ones are really dumb, I agree.

And the Eagle Vision for booby traps would be cool too. AC3 barely needed Eagle Vision at all, it was disappointing.

ace3001
03-03-2013, 09:46 AM
If there's one thing I want gone, it's the economy from AC3. I don't want a pseudo economic simulator. This is not a strategy game, after all. Personally liked how Brotherhood handled it.

Farlander1991
03-03-2013, 09:51 AM
If there's one thing I want gone, it's the economy from AC3. I don't want a pseudo economic simulator. This is not a strategy game, after all. Personally liked how Brotherhood handled it.

I'm personally of the opinion that it's better not to have an economic system at all than to have it as Brotherhood handled it.

Sushiglutton
03-03-2013, 11:22 AM
:(. I dunno I just don't like being forced to repeadily do tedious tasks. Having to repair the ship every time I get to port and pay salaries to my crew doesn't sound fun at all. I loved the new health system in AC3 because it got rid of having to run to the doctor for medicine and blacksmith for repairing the armour. Now you want to bring that back again for the ship? I much prefer if the economy system is something on the side and doesn't effect the things you do all the time on a day to day basis, so to speak.

The economy system in AC3 failed on a couple of points though:

1) It plateaued too quickly. You could just buy three carriages and two ships (if I recall correctly) and then it was capped. What is fun about economy games is that accelerating feel of exponential growth, where you just keep investing and investing, and get richer and richer. There needs to be more levels to provide that feeling.

2) Weak UI. Maybe I missed something but to load ten bottles of cider on a ship I believe that you had to select each one individually. Also one time upgrades didn't disappear from the menu after you had done them. Stuff like that kills the fun and makes you wanna go out and climb trees instead.

3) Long term motivation. There needs to be some really expensive things to buy. Maybe a villa on one of the islands. Maybe an entire island. Maybe outfits. Maybe jewelry. Maybe a beautiful sword. It doesn't have to be useful stuff. On the contrary since the economy system should be optional to participate in, it's better if it's fairly useless stuff.


I'm not opposed to treasures, hunting whales, assaulting other ships etc to get money. Not at all :D!

Another idea is that we can load on cargo in one of the ports and if we can get it safely to another one we can get a profit. However we may get attacked and if we lose, they take the cargo. This would be an optional, non tedious way of implementing SixKeys ideas.

Farlander1991
03-03-2013, 11:39 AM
I much prefer if the economy system is something on the side and doesn't effect the things you do all the time on a day to day basis, so to speak.

That's the pathway to a broken economy system, though. Like in AC2-AC3. It's broken PRECISELY because they wanted to create an economy system that's something on the side and doesn't affect the things you do, but that's THE problem. Without tying it in to the core gameplay in any way, there is very little point to it, and it's better to just remove it altogether. If the main point of it is to get useless stuff like paintings in AC2... then to hell with it, I say. Let's just get useless stuff by stealing or interacting with an item in the world or talking to somebody or something. Or rewards for side-quests (which, reminds me, you usually get the best stuff for side quests/challenges in AC games anyway, not from the store... well, in case of AC3, the best stuff is crafted). No need to create an economy system for that.

EDIT: Note, by economy system I don't mean 'having money' and 'having items to buy' precisely (because just having that doesn't necessarily mean that there is an economy system), or in case of AC3, 'having a crafting system', but the economic circle of getting income, spending it and getting profit - that's very broken in the AC games.

Sushiglutton
03-03-2013, 11:56 AM
That's the pathway to a broken economy system, though. Like in AC2-AC3. It's broken PRECISELY because they wanted to create an economy system that's something on the side and doesn't affect the things you do, but that's THE problem. Without tying it in to the core gameplay in any way, there is very little point to it, and it's better to just remove it altogether. If the main point of it is to get useless stuff like paintings in AC2... then to hell with it, I say. Let's just get useless stuff by stealing or interacting with an item in the world or talking to somebody or something. Or rewards for side-quests (which, reminds me, you usually get the best stuff for side quests/challenges in AC games anyway, not from the store... well, in case of AC3, the best stuff is crafted). No need to create an economy system for that.

I don't mean it should be completely detached. I just don't want it to insist upon itself by, for example, forcing me to renovate my ship every time I get to port. In practice it will play out like this: You get to port. You run to a repair ship icon. You tap a button to interact. You click through a short menu and your ship is repaired. And this you have to do over and over and over and over. No thanks!

The economy system in AC3 was more connected to the core gameplay than ever before (I'm pretty sure that it was one of the driving ideas behind the gamedesign to connect the different systems with eachother). Hunting, forts, Homestead, naval etc all had an impact on the economy, which I'm totally fine with. They were optional. They were there when I wanted to do them. They didn't reset over time. That's how the the core gameplay should effect the economy. AC3 had the right ideas, it just needed a sharper execution.

A sword is not useless. A villa that can serve as a new base is not useless. They could do things like granting access to an expensive club when you reach a certain fortune. I also think it can be stuff just for looks, people love that sort of things (just look at all of the billions of outfit threads lol). However unlocking core gameplay elements through the economy system is forcing people to do things they don't enjoy.

Farlander1991
03-03-2013, 12:15 PM
I don't mean it should be completely detached. I just don't want it to insist upon itself by, for example, forcing me renovate my ship everytime I get to port. In practice it will play out like this: You get to port. You run to a repair ship icon. You tap a button to interact. You click through a short menu and your ship is repaired. And this you have to do over and over and over and over. No thanks!

Okay, well, repair function as a menu in port is a... very stereotypical kind of solution. And I don't mean that as any kind of offence, but, yes, it is the very first thing that comes to mind. It doesn't necessarily have to be like that. It can be something like, 'While you're in the sea, tap a button to send your crewmen start repairing your ship, and as the health of the ship starts to replenish you lose money, press the button again if you think you've repaired enough'. (although, this particular idea has to be balanced to avoid the medicine overdose of the AC2-ACR... so without proper balance will be extremely broken... maybe deactivate it when in battle mode, since all your crew is busy fighting). Or something else. What I'm saying is, any concept can be executed in a different way, so don't judge an idea based on its execution in previous AC games :)


A sword is not useless.

In AC it will be quite useless. ;) Let's face it, it's not like there are going to be any drastic changes of the combat system in AC4. Which means that what matters is the type of the weapon (sword), but not what kind of sword it is. And there probably is going to be a side-mission where we're gonna get the best sword anyway.


However unlocking core gameplay elements through the economy system is forcing people to do things they don't enjoy.

Okay, there's a difference between unlocking core gameplay elements and enhancing the efficiency of those elements. Maybe I've worded myself improperly, but the second one is what I'm talking about, not the first one. I.e., for example, you don't HAVE to get more crewmen and pay them, (you'll still be able to ship and fight just fine with the skeleton crew for which you pay nothing, like in AC3), but with more crewmen your guns on the ship reload faster. Which is a reward for you taking your time to make money. It's only an example, there are different ways to approach this.

The problem with one-time transactions in the economy system (which is the way it is right now in AC games) is that eventually you just run out of things to buy, and then that system transforms into something you never have a reason to use ever again (because you will be making so much money and nowhere to spend it on). That's what has to be fixed. And I'm not saying 'get rid of one-time transaction deals'. I'm saying 'make an actual economical flow'.

EDIT: Oh, on a side note. Adding bunch of chests with enough money to buy every item, for example, that's not an economy system. At least, I don't consider that to be an economy system. Finite amount of chests - finite amount of items... not economy. In my opinion the economy system is the loop (or spiral, I guess) of income-spending. And, really, the economy system loop in AC games is based mostly on income. And I don't really like that. Like, the convoy system in AC3 (which is pretty much the economy system) is useless after I've bought every item from the store. What do I do with it? Nothing, it just sits there. Is there any reason for me to want to use it? No, it's obsolete. Why have a whole system that eventually just becomes obsolete, then?

Sushiglutton
03-03-2013, 01:13 PM
Your system relies on the player to have close to no money at all times. It's only then priorities become interesting. Like being out at sea and not being able to afford repairs, or if you do them, not being able to buy ammunition. If you have so much money that these costs doesn't matter anymore, your system will collapse (in AC3 we can still resupply, it's just that the costs doesn't really effect us). I just don't think it will work because it kills the sense of growth. And you can have both. If the player's fortune growths, eventually the costs will become irrelevant (unless you want them to be a percentage of your fortune, which would be stupid for other reasons).

I also want an outflow, the difference is that I don't want it forced upon me and I don't want upgrades to keep resetting. Outflow should be investments, like upgrading your fleet, opening up a trading post, or buy merchandises you can trade with. The net outcome should be profit though, not being trapped in an endless cycle of mundane repairs and resupplies. And like I said there should also be, more or less useful, luxuary items/buildings/upgrades etc to purchase. Yes they are pointless, but if the economy system is slick and fun in its own right, then all it takes is a top hat and a cane at the end of the road, for me to put the hours in.

Now about this system being finite, that is true. At some point there will be no more interesting things to buy. To me that is a good thing. I don't want to put in hundreds of hours just to be back to zero because my mast was broken. And even if it's finite it could still be very long. They could balance the economy system so that to get the final reward a player needs to spend, say 50h. Almost no one will do that, but if you really enjoy the economy system you can. Then what? Well you wait for AC5 ;)!

ace3001
03-03-2013, 02:09 PM
I'm personally of the opinion that it's better not to have an economic system at all than to have it as Brotherhood handled it.No, that's exactly how it should be handled, so that those of us who don't want to meddle with that won't be forced to. In AC III, I had to go a long way without buying anything at all (not that it actually matters since the combat is easy, but it's more of a matter of principle) because I didn't want to mess with that dumb as hell pseudo-realistic economy.

Farlander1991
03-03-2013, 07:40 PM
No, that's exactly how it should be handled, so that those of us who don't want to meddle with that won't be forced to. In AC III, I had to go a long way without buying anything at all (not that it actually matters since the combat is easy, but it's more of a matter of principle) because I didn't want to mess with that dumb as hell pseudo-realistic economy.

ACB economy system is tedious and boring. You go around, clicking on things to buy, and get more money over time because of that. It should've been just: Destroy Borgia towers -> all stores in the district are unlocked. Because going around unlocking them is no more fun than AC3's convoy system. Also, it's not like ACB handles stores any better than AC3 anyway. You can go easily go through ACB just as well without buying anything, just like in AC3, so I fail to see the way it's better.

------------

@Sushi, while I do agree with your points, your arguments rely on something you call 'a fun economy system', a statement which is pretty much a spherical horse in a vacuum. Economy systems are about proper management. It's about adapting to situations and making effective choices, because if you make ineffective ones, your economy goes to ****, and you lose money. Without that failure option, an economy system can't be fun. AC2-AC3 economy systems don't have a failure option. They're not fun. ( Okay, I guess in AC3 you can have losses, if you spend tons of money crafting items that don't sell for good money at all... But that still doesn't make its economy system fun, really. )

Now. As I said, I'm not against a finite number of items to buy. Luxury items to look at, equipment, outfits, whatnot. And I'm not against treasure hunts, pirate raids, and all the possible in-game actions (including just killing a soldier and taking his money) that you can get money with. But that's not an economy system. And I think I need some more proper semantics for both of my definitions. But the loop 'complete quests, side quests, side activities -> get monetary reward -> buy stuff with that reward' is not what I would call an economy system. Sure, you can run out of money, but that doesn't make it an economy system. It's more like a character progression loop. And I'm fine with that. And you're fine with that. We're both fine with that and agree that it's fine.

You are, though (at least it seems to be like that, correct me please if I'm wrong) adamantly against trying to find a way to create a steady economy loop, because you say it's not fun. And yet you are for a fun economy system. But an economy system can't be fun without a steady economy loop (or, well, I guess spiral is a better term) that either leads to increasing profits, or losses depending on how you tackle it. Maybe connecting the economy loop directly to the core gameplay is not the way, I agree. But there has to be a loop/spiral/whatever for there to be an actual economy system. And if it's not there, then who needs that broken economy system anyway? Better just to throw it out, and leave money as a reward for a bunch of gameplay activities and a bunch of things to spend it on.

SixKeys
03-03-2013, 07:50 PM
The easiest way to fix the broken economy system would be to remove investing. The only income you get should be from looting ships, treasure chests and completing contracts. This would also be an incentive for players to actually explore and do side missions. In AC2/ACB the chests quickly became pointless once your Villa was sufficiently upgraded. In AC3 you were set for life once you could start sending bear skins overseas via naval convoys, so there was no point to hunting or looting chests anymore, other than to kill time.

Disciple930
03-03-2013, 07:59 PM
:(. I dunno I just don't like being forced to repeadily do tedious tasks. Having to repair the ship every time I get to port and pay salaries to my crew doesn't sound fun at all. I loved the new health system in AC3 because it got rid of having to run to the doctor for medicine and blacksmith for repairing the armour. Now you want to bring that back again for the ship? I much prefer if the economy system is something on the side and doesn't effect the things you do all the time on a day to day basis, so to speak.

The economy system in AC3 failed on a couple of points though:

1) It plateaued too quickly. You could just buy three carriages and two ships (if I recall correctly) and then it was capped. What is fun about economy games is that accelerating feel of exponential growth, where you just keep investing and investing, and get richer and richer. There needs to be more levels to provide that feeling.

2) Weak UI. Maybe I missed something but to load ten bottles of cider on a ship I believe that you had to select each one individually. Also one time upgrades didn't disappear from the menu after you had done them. Stuff like that kills the fun and makes you wanna go out and climb trees instead.

3) Long term motivation. There needs to be some really expensive things to buy. Maybe a villa on one of the islands. Maybe an entire island. Maybe outfits. Maybe jewelry. Maybe a beautiful sword. It doesn't have to be useful stuff. On the contrary since the economy system should be optional to participate in, it's better if it's fairly useless stuff.


I'm not opposed to treasures, hunting whales, assaulting other ships etc to get money. Not at all :D!

Another idea is that we can load on cargo in one of the ports and if we can get it safely to another one we can get a profit. However we may get attacked and if we lose, they take the cargo. This would be an optional, non tedious way of implementing SixKeys ideas.

Cargo-running/smuggling would we AWESOME. Makes me think there'll be a Smuggler's Guild in the game.

Sabastian_AC
03-03-2013, 08:49 PM
We can have a crew that we have to pay (let's say, the skeleton crew is free, but if we get more people for faster reload times/repair times/or something like that, we have to pay money). We can have a ship that we have to repair. Not just upgrades. There can FINALLY be a need for the money to flow OUT, instead of us just getting more richer and richer like Scrooge McDuck.

If the economy is tied directly to the naval gameplay, where you keep spending money to be more effective and afloat, then there's actually a reason to keep getting more money. Flow. It doesn't have to be anything complex, but there can be finally a reason for it to be there.

Ever since AC2, I always was of the opinion 'they have to cut this economy thing out', but now, I actually think that it finally may work.

What do you think about the potential economy system of AC4?

I think you've got some solid ideas here. If anyone here has played Sid Meier's Pirates (or seen Firefly), the idea of getting money to stay afloat thing will be instantly familiar. The system in that game is simple, but effective: Get money by raiding ships, use money to repair your ship and keep your crew happy. The more money you gain, the more crew you can keep and the larger the ship you can operate. The trick is, raiding ships also has the potential to damage your ship and kill your crew, so early on you need to avoid large military frigates while picking off smaller ships.

One great thing about the Sid Meier game is that you're always working toward getting a bigger and better ship. I think the ability to buy different ships with different strengths and weaknesses would add a whole new level to the game. It would give you something to work toward economy-wise, and bigger/better ships would legitimately change your gameplay style. For example, do you run a small, fast sloop and outrun / outmaneuver bigger galleons or do you just blast them out of the water with your 100-gun Ship of the Line?

Sushiglutton
03-03-2013, 10:09 PM
ACB economy system is tedious and boring. You go around, clicking on things to buy, and get more money over time because of that. It should've been just: Destroy Borgia towers -> all stores in the district are unlocked. Because going around unlocking them is no more fun than AC3's convoy system. Also, it's not like ACB handles stores any better than AC3 anyway. You can go easily go through ACB just as well without buying anything, just like in AC3, so I fail to see the way it's better.

------------

@Sushi, while I do agree with your points, your arguments rely on something you call 'a fun economy system', a statement which is pretty much a spherical horse in a vacuum. Economy systems are about proper management. It's about adapting to situations and making effective choices, because if you make ineffective ones, your economy goes to ****, and you lose money. Without that failure option, an economy system can't be fun. AC2-AC3 economy systems don't have a failure option. They're not fun. ( Okay, I guess in AC3 you can have losses, if you spend tons of money crafting items that don't sell for good money at all... But that still doesn't make its economy system fun, really. )

Now. As I said, I'm not against a finite number of items to buy. Luxury items to look at, equipment, outfits, whatnot. And I'm not against treasure hunts, pirate raids, and all the possible in-game actions (including just killing a soldier and taking his money) that you can get money with. But that's not an economy system. And I think I need some more proper semantics for both of my definitions. But the loop 'complete quests, side quests, side activities -> get monetary reward -> buy stuff with that reward' is not what I would call an economy system. Sure, you can run out of money, but that doesn't make it an economy system. It's more like a character progression loop. And I'm fine with that. And you're fine with that. We're both fine with that and agree that it's fine.

You are, though (at least it seems to be like that, correct me please if I'm wrong) adamantly against trying to find a way to create a steady economy loop, because you say it's not fun. And yet you are for a fun economy system. But an economy system can't be fun without a steady economy loop (or, well, I guess spiral is a better term) that either leads to increasing profits, or losses depending on how you tackle it. Maybe connecting the economy loop directly to the core gameplay is not the way, I agree. But there has to be a loop/spiral/whatever for there to be an actual economy system. And if it's not there, then who needs that broken economy system anyway? Better just to throw it out, and leave money as a reward for a bunch of gameplay activities and a bunch of things to spend it on.

First off I completely agree that AC:B's system was tedious as hell and to do it one more time in Revelation :nonchalance:, I just couldn't do it. AC3 had much better ideas in this area imo, even though the execution came up somewhat short.

Now, about the other thing. What I primarily want to avoid is a system where, if I don't actively participate, I constantly lose relevant sums of money (aka not buying arrows for .0001% of my fortune, but say repairing my ship for ~20% of my fortune). When I'm out exploring on my ship and visit different islands to climb around, fight some guards etc. I don't want to constantly bleed a lot of money. Such a system would force me into doing activities I don't want to do at that time. I love the sense of freedom in AC that I can do stuff at my pace with no punishment.

You are correct that what I want is a totally unrealistic economy system and very different from every day struggle. What can I say, I'm a closet casual ;)! What I want is a system that is there for me to take part in whenever I want. But if I don't, nothing happens. In this regard the economy system in AC3 was perfect imo. I can explore the frontier for hours and nothing happens to my financial status.

This does not mean that I'm opposed to all negative consequences, not at all. If I send a ship with tea to Havana and it's ceased by the Royal Navy so that I make a loss, that is totally fine. Do you see the huge difference compared to what you are suggesting though? In this scenario I actively chosed to participate in the economy game by sending cargo. I made a risky investment and I lost. I totally agree with you that this kind of potential failure is an essential part of a fun economy game (but the expected value needs to be positive, so that the player wins in the long run)! However this is something entirely different than money slowly bleeding away when I don't actively participate!

This latter system takes away the freedom to spend my time in AC the way I want. And that is what I want to avoid!

Farlander1991
03-03-2013, 10:31 PM
Well, the first thing I think about when I hear 'AC economy system' is the AC2-ACR economy systems that give you a constant stream of steady income (which, as you may have noticed, I'm not fine with :) ). Which is why I'm thinking more about automatic loops rather than manual.

However. Even though I do see what you mean by 'participating in the economy when you want', there's another side of the coin to that. Which is a big problem in AC3, at least for me. If a person really likes the economy system and wants to actively participate in to create a... well, economy, the loop gets constantly interrupted. Which is also not good. While in the middle of fighting guards and completing a mission, you get money from whatever you did in the economy system, and then it just stops to a halt until you go to the Homestead or a store and then do whatever you need to do again. And again. And again. And again. And that's kind of annoying, because if you want to create an economic infrastructure... you're kind of out of luck, cause you constantly have to get distracted from whatever you're doing, and the economic loop slows down.

Do you see where I'm coming from? If you're a player who wants to create an effective infrastructure (even if the system itself is not that complex, but still engaging... and, I'll be honest, if there would be a good economy system in AC, I would be one of those players) you don't want that loop to get constantly interrupted and having to restart it over and over and over and over again.

RinoTheBouncer
03-03-2013, 10:38 PM
I loved AC:R and AC2 economic systems. On the other hand, I agree that I hated the fact by the time you're able to have so much money and afford everything, there won't be anything left to buy. Maybe we can customize weapons this time like we used to do with bombs. It would be a great way to invest your money.

I love to see that buying places or landmarks will affect people's attitude towards you. For example, If I buy the Hagia Sofia mosque, I will be able to set rules or improve the place or send it's staff members on missions for example, earn the respect of people there, guards don't pick on you...etc.

SixKeys
03-03-2013, 10:43 PM
I love to see that buying places or landmarks will affect people's attitude towards you. For example, If I buy the Hagia Sofia mosque, I will be able to set rules or improve the place or send it's staff members on missions for example, earn the respect of people there, guards don't pick on you...etc.

I agree with the rest of this, except I think guards should become more suspicious of you. You're a mysterious, hooded man in their city going around acting like you own the place (because you do :p), that's bound to make them suspicious. The townspeople themselves should be more friendly towards you (maybe liberating an area would mean unlocking side missions that weren't available before) while the guards would tighten security around that area. It would also dynamically increase the game's challenge level. Do you liberate this area now so you can upgrade your ship for a discount, or do you wait until later when you have better weapons or more crew members to back you up in case you get into trouble?

Sushiglutton
03-03-2013, 10:44 PM
Well, the first thing I think about when I hear 'AC economy system' is the AC2-ACR economy systems that give you a constant stream of steady income (which, as you may have noticed, I'm not fine with :) ). Which is why I'm thinking more about automatic loops rather than manual.

However. Even though I do see what you mean by 'participating in the economy when you want', there's another side of the coin to that. Which is a big problem in AC3, at least for me. If a person really likes the economy system and wants to actively participate in to create a... well, economy, the loop gets constantly interrupted. Which is also not good. While in the middle of fighting guards and completing a mission, you get money from whatever you did in the economy system, and then it just stops to a halt until you go to the Homestead or a store and then do whatever you need to do again. And again. And again. And again. And that's kind of annoying, because if you want to create an economic infrastructure... you're kind of out of luck, cause you constantly have to get distracted from whatever you're doing, and the economic loop slows down.

Do you see where I'm coming from? If you're a player who wants to create an effective infrastructure (even if the system itself is not that complex, but still engaging... and, I'll be honest, if there would be a good economy system in AC, I would be one of those players) you don't want that loop to get constantly interrupted and having to restart it over and over and over and over again.

That I have no problem with at all :). I'm fine with being able to create, for example, a trade-route that loops in the background. Options are always great and that would be a nice improvment of the UI.



BTW, one horrendous implementation of forced systems is what EA did with Mass Effect's MP. Now the MP wasn't that bad, but I didn't enjoy it that much either. Anyway I grinded all the way to 100%. Then I went on a ski-trip with some friends for a week. When I got home all my work was undone :nonchalance:. Seriously how dumb is that? I haven't bought an EA game since lol.

hellomrdarcy
03-03-2013, 10:46 PM
I agree with the rest of this, except I think guards should become more suspicious of you. You're a mysterious, hooded man in their city going around acting like you own the place (because you do :p), that's bound to make them suspicious. The townspeople themselves should be more friendly towards you (maybe liberating an area would mean unlocking side missions that weren't available before) while the guards would tighten security around that area. It would also dynamically increase the game's challenge level. Do you liberate this area now so you can upgrade your ship for a discount, or do you wait until later when you have better weapons or more crew members to back you up in case you get into trouble?

This. Yes.

Gi1t
03-03-2013, 10:47 PM
Well, the first thing I think about when I hear 'AC economy system' is the AC2-ACR economy systems that give you a constant stream of steady income (which, as you may have noticed, I'm not fine with :) ). Which is why I'm thinking more about automatic loops rather than manual.

However. Even though I do see what you mean by 'participating in the economy when you want', there's another side of the coin to that. Which is a big problem in AC3, at least for me. If a person really likes the economy system and wants to actively participate in to create a... well, economy, the loop gets constantly interrupted. Which is also not good. While in the middle of fighting guards and completing a mission, you get money from whatever you did in the economy system, and then it just stops to a halt until you go to the Homestead or a store and then do whatever you need to do again. And again. And again. And again. And that's kind of annoying, because if you want to create an economic infrastructure... you're kind of out of luck, cause you constantly have to get distracted from whatever you're doing, and the economic loop slows down.

Do you see where I'm coming from? If you're a player who wants to create an effective infrastructure (even if the system itself is not that complex, but still engaging... and, I'll be honest, if there would be a good economy system in AC, I would be one of those players) you don't want that loop to get constantly interrupted and having to restart it over and over and over and over again.

A lot of very good point, as usual. :)

Although I'm sure there are some players who would question whether an economic system is really that important to the game, the thing is, it's not a very taxing system to create. Economic games have been around for so long, so it's a very small amount of memory for a pretty worthwhile payoff, at least by comparison.

The only other thing to be wary of is making it a nuisance for player that don't want ot get involved in it very much. As long as you can complete the game without needing to use it (probably best to have 1 weapon that doesn't break, say, the hidden blade), and as long as there aren't a bunch of missions requiring the player to try it out (like Mario giving you money and telling you to go buy a piece of armor and a short sword in AC2), then I don't think you'll hear people complaining about it being in there. It's a very nice feature to play with when you're done with the game and just want stuff to DO, even if there isn't much use in doing it. :D

Farlander1991
03-03-2013, 10:48 PM
That I have no problem with at all :). I'm fine with being able to create, for example, a trade-route that loops in the background. Options are always great and that would be a nice improvment of the UI.



BTW, one horrendous implementation of forced systems is what EA did with Mass Effect's MP. Now the MP wasn't that bad, but I didn't enjoy it that much either. Anyway I grinded all the way to 100%. Then I went on a ski-trip with some friends for a week. When I got home all my work was undone :nonchalance:. Seriously how dumb is that? I haven't bought an EA game since lol.

BTW, another thing that could be done would be an improvement of the AC2-ACR bank system. For example, the money that you have on your hands (and receive directly for side-missions and such) stay on your hands all the time (unless you spend it directly). However, your 'bank account' is the one that's being used for the economy system. So you just put a few thousand pounds 'into the bank' to kick off whatever your infrastructure was set to and, and then build an infrastructure that uses the 'bank money'. And adjust it as time goes by, for increasing efficiency And if something horrible happens and you have a HUGE stream of lost money (or your infrastructure just plain sucks so you don't have any profit at all, just constant losses), then it happens to the 'bank money', but not the ones you've got on hand.

dxsxhxcx
03-03-2013, 10:49 PM
the problem is, what will happen if the player run out of money to repair his ship and is eager to continue the main story but is stopped because he doesn't have enough money to repair the ship? Will the player be forced to do side missions not involving the ship to collect enough money? What if the player for whatever reason doesn't like to do the side missions available, and even if he end up doing these side missions he end up being a failure at naval combat and will constantly need to repair the ship? IMO a situation like this can become frustating really fast depending of how much patience the player has..

one thign is certain, I don't want the economic system affecting the difficulty of the missions just to favor the less skilled players who aren't capable to manage their money

RinoTheBouncer
03-03-2013, 10:50 PM
I agree with the rest of this, except I think guards should become more suspicious of you. You're a mysterious, hooded man in their city going around acting like you own the place (because you do :p), that's bound to make them suspicious. The townspeople themselves should be more friendly towards you (maybe liberating an area would mean unlocking side missions that weren't available before) while the guards would tighten security around that area. It would also dynamically increase the game's challenge level. Do you liberate this area now so you can upgrade your ship for a discount, or do you wait until later when you have better weapons or more crew members to back you up in case you get into trouble?

I agree with what you said as well!

It would make them suspicious, yes but maybe in another way, it would make you a man of power. I think outfits should also play a role here. I mean if you're hooded, dressed as a noble or dressed as a pirate would change the way people look at you just like AC3:Liberation so buying clothes (part of the economy) is also essential or it can be selective (if you want no detection, you need to know what outfit to choose and when) or else just go and kill them if they detect you without bothering about outfits.

I like the idea you mentioned about liberating areas. I think there should be multiple ways to conquer an area as well and not just killing a Templar Captain and then the area is no longer RED on the map. Opening new missions, challenges as you said, discounts would be amazing. There will be a motive to do it cause honestly, I didn't touch a single fort in ACIII cause I had no reason to. Just followed the story and left it alone, LOL.

Sushiglutton
03-03-2013, 10:58 PM
BTW, another thing that could be done would be an improvement of the AC2-ACR bank system. For example, the money that you have on your hands (and receive directly for side-missions and such) stay on your hands all the time (unless you spend it directly). However, your 'bank account' is the one that's being used for the economy system. So you just put a few thousand pounds 'into the bank' to kick off whatever your infrastructure was set to and, and then build an infrastructure that uses the 'bank money'. And adjust it as time goes by, for increasing efficiency And if something horrible happens and you have a HUGE stream of lost money (or your infrastructure just plain sucks), then it happens to the 'bank money', but not the ones you've got on hand.

That would also be a way to make things smoother. Allthough I'm not sure I'm comfortable with huge losses. The economy system should be nice imo.



the problem is, what will happen if the player run out of money to repair his ship and is eager to continue the main story but is stopped because he doesn't have enough money to repair the ship? Will the player be forced to do side missions not involving the ship to collect enough money? What if the player for whatever reason doesn't like to do the side missions available, and even if he end up doing these side missions he end up being a failure at naval combat and will constantly need to repair the ship? IMO a situation like this can become frustating really fast depending of how much patience the player has..

one thign is certain, I don't want the economic system affecting the difficulty of the missions just to favor the less skilled players who aren't capable to manage their money

This is one of the points I have been trying to make. The player should basically never get into the posittion you describe imo. Freedom to do what you want is important and like you say the alternative will lead to a lot of frustrations.

Farlander1991
03-03-2013, 11:10 PM
Allthough I'm not sure I'm comfortable with huge losses. The economy system should be nice imo.

I don't agree. You need those occasional 'oh ****' moments. The economy system is more fun with those :D Most systems are, really.

Like, this is not an economy example, but in AC3 during battle I got targeted by two firing lines from opposing directions. It happened only once throughout all my time playing the game, but it was a genuine 'oh ****' moment, that just made it more fun and engaging.

Sure, it's nice to set your economy infrastructure in a way that you slowly get more and more money, and smile as you get richer, but you need that occasional 'oh ****' moment too. Somebody runs out of resources, an item becomes illegal in a colony, or there's an overflow of a certain item so instead of being expensive and awesome it becomes cheap and useless now. So you have to be like, 'oh ****, I have to readjust to the situation now'. Keeps you more engaged in the economy. Which is especially good if you like the economy system :p

Sushiglutton
03-03-2013, 11:15 PM
I don't agree. You need those occasional 'oh ****' moments. The economy system is more fun with those :D Most systems are, really.

Like, this is not an economy example, but in AC3 during battle I got targeted by two firing lines from opposing directions. It happened only once throughout all my time playing the game, but it was a genuine 'oh ****' moment, that just made it more fun and engaging.

Sure, it's nice to set your economy infrastructure in a way that you slowly get more and more money, and smile as you get richer, but you need that occasional 'oh ****' moment too. Somebody runs out of resources, an item becomes illegal in a colony, or there's an overflow of a certain item so instead of being expensive and awesome it becomes cheap and useless now. So you have to be like, 'oh ****, I have to readjust to the situation now'. Keeps you more engaged in the economy. Which is especially good if you like the economy system :p

Yeah that's a good point. If you make a risky investment there should be a potential for a huge loss (need to balance that risk-reward ratio ;) ). But you can only lose the money you have invested! And that is my final offer!

SixKeys
03-04-2013, 01:10 AM
the problem is, what will happen if the player run out of money to repair his ship and is eager to continue the main story but is stopped because he doesn't have enough money to repair the ship? Will the player be forced to do side missions not involving the ship to collect enough money? What if the player for whatever reason doesn't like to do the side missions available, and even if he end up doing these side missions he end up being a failure at naval combat and will constantly need to repair the ship? IMO a situation like this can become frustating really fast depending of how much patience the player has..

I honestly don't think this would be a problem. It should be seen as part of the challenge. The economy system should never get annoying in the sense that it's constantly stopping you from advancing, but I do believe it should be a factor. You need those moments when you realize "oh crap, I've got no more money left to buy more bullets, what to do?" You're going to have to solve the situation. You can either go pick-pocketing until you have a small starting sum (enough for one or two small repairs maybe), you can fire crew members temporarily (meaning less people you have to pay) or go do side missions. I'm all for player freedom, but it's also a shame how many people just blindly rush through the main story without bothering to explore any of the side content. The first AC forced you to explore your environment, it was essential for your survival. Being able to manage your finances is another basic survival trait.