Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity Original Sin - Beta Don't dare steal from yourself

Hi,

While standing in a trader NPC's house I moved all my gold from one character to another to buy stuff. (btw after that my female character wanted to like have my leader's children... nice)

Then tried to give it back (about 2K left), but this was seen as an atrocious theft and the trader pawned me.

Bit odd...

Recommendations:
-Shared gold between characters
-Let switching between characters work while on the trading screen.

I would go for shared gold personally, and not as an item but instead as a counter of some kind. Picking up gold items in game could just translate to the counter when you pick it up, so it shouldn't be a big deal to do that, and it just seems to make a lot more sense that way.

And we stop all these strange gold theft errors people bring up. So instead of fixing bugs they change the mechanic and everyone wins ;D

That's not how bugfixing works!
Lazybones! :p

That is exactly how bug fixing works, if you can remove system complexity by changing something that would not only probably resolve this issue but has a chance to pre-emptively avoid number of other gold transferring related issues that might not even be known right now then it is worth considering.

It all depends on how dear gold as a physical player item is to the devs and how their internal systems work and interact with it. But of course no-one of us can know which solution is the best since we probably don't have all the relevant information.

Bug fixing is often about finding the most cost and resource efficient solution (meaning time, man hours etc). Now if none of those are a factor or you are motivated by learning from the solution or maintainability is a major concern then the priorities might change.

The main problem with shared gold is that (when playing multiplayer) an overzealous friend can wipe all the funds of your party out, where as you may have been trying to save for something.

I definitely wouldn't mind having the option for single-player, though.

If you don't mind complexity, sure, taking it all down the drain to fix an issue might sound as 'good bug-fixing'...

To me, not so much.

It's like fixing the current sound issues by just making the game silent. FIXED. Repair useless? Remove it. FIXED. Identifying doesn't work quite right, just make everything pre-identified. FIXED.

Actually, that sounds a bit like bioWare making 'fixes' to the game like Mass Effect 1 > Mass Effect 2. If it's slightly broken; just remove it...

EDIT2:
Not to mention, people have reported it with other items than gold too, so the solution in this case would not resolve the bug.

I don't think anyone here is saying that good bug-fixing is removal of features. Changing systems that are more complicated than they are worth is very different from killing features.

I can see the multi-player frustration Gyson brings up, but even so, it's a bit of a strange circumstance if you and your friend can't communicate about what to buy. Everything has its up- and down-sides though. I'm rather glad I'm not them, honestly, heh. It's easy to offer suggestions and bug reports. It's much harder to try to sort them out and decide.

Applying common sense when reading a post is something I'd expect everyone to be capable of. Obviously everything said in my post is subject to moderation. Fix sound related bugs by removing sound, yeah right... sarcastic much.

For one I wasn't even talking about gameplay complexity to begin with, but pragmatic complexity. Eliminate necessary test cases to reduce potential bugs by simplifying implementation. Rather than potentially complicating the underlying system even more to count for a bug and in turn introduce potentially more issues. Sometimes this can translate to changes that are visible to the end user, but it doesn't have to be the case.



In that case the proposed solution is not correct, but in the context of the OP's description it would have been something to consider which is all I said.

At the end of the day, OP's post is missing a lot of relevant information... like for example, whether the characters he is switching between are a companion and a main character or two main characters. As far as I understand it, in the game companions are independent "agents" (ie. you control them, but unlike your player characters they are not "yours" and they may leave at any time depending on your actions). So if your player character suddenly gives them 2k gold it would make sense for them to "want to have your children", likewise it would make sense for them to be pissed off when the gold is taken from them (depending on your relationship with said companion and their circumstances).

Except as far as we know, the issue isn't even related to gold anyway.
(Eh, I should read the whole post before replying. But you get the point)
Fixing cause rather than cause... doesn't help anyone. Especially if it requires remaking so many existing stuff to fit the new method.

Also, sarcastic, ME? Never!

I found it quite odd that each character had it's own gold anyways. I can't recall any other party based RPG that was this way.

I agree with shared gold.

That also reminds me how difficult it is to drag items to another person, unless I Just haven't found the simpler method yet. Have to drag item, go up click arrow, drop item. Repeat. If wanting to move a ton of items at once..very slow and tedious.

If you drag and drop something on a character portrait, it goes into their inventory. You can't do multiple items at once unless you put them in a container first (e.g. a crate in your inventory) and then drop the container on your other character's portrait.

Nobody has forgotten about what the characters in the game played by two different people? Suddenly, if you come to the store to buy a shiny new sword and your friend how you spend your way telepathic common money on him the necessary scrolls? Each character has their money and this is the right game mechanics!

hmmmm I am against sharing gold because in multiplayer, your 2 characters are 2 different players with their own inventory and so their goal. But a trade window (or right click and slide to the character portrait) might be an option to avoid those stealing confusions

Yeah yeah... multiplayer...

All I'm saying is that there is A LOT of fixing needed there. Buying stuff for individual characters should not: A: Have a chance to get you killed. B: Make you want to gouge your own eyes out.

They can chose how they want to resolve it, but I would say: Each player must have a single purse from which all his characters under his/her control can draw. That solves it for both multiplayer and single player.

For inventory management and trading in general the game can do with copious amounts of love. That part of it is far from being "the best thing ever" in RPGs.

Please understand that I am not kicking DOS with these statements. The game appears to have significant potential.

Or here's something...

can you open the trading interface between characters? That would work just fine.

same same in single player, you can play 2 opposit characters and might want to separate their possessions... but being able to trade bewtween the players with a drag and drop on the portrait might me an idea

There's already an open inventory and open skills button under each character. A little icon with scales or something next to each other character (apart from the one that is leading at present) to open the trading screen any time you like would be great.

Trading allowing you to swap characters as intended should fix a lot of those 'gold is seperate' issues, without causing issues for co-op unified gold can cause.

Just pick which character to pay, put his/her gold in trade, go to character you want the goods, press V.
Of course, that's currently not possible, but there's no point to modify other systems to accomadate a broken system rather than fixing that!