I prefer the pittance to "let us keep all the stuff we would have had to donate in order fight inflation in the game".
I feel like you are trolling me and possibly even other users, at this point.
You are purposefully wasting everyone's time and arguing for the sake of arguing, probably without even having any attachment to the current system you are so rabidly defending.
They could remove the entire system, because with or w/out merchant favor, our characters are, just as in all of these games, going to wind up filthy rich.
well, we weren't really discussing a system to combat THAT problem, so this is fairly irrelevant.
And to be clear, sure, we COULD address that, too. But that's an entirely different issue, more tied to the specific fine tuning of the numbers involved that on the trading UI or subsystems acting as foundations.
However, when you have to waffle from "do this" to "I never said do this" to "but, I said "maybe" do this", there's something off.
What's off here is your SPECTACULAR inability to keep up with the conversation, understand context and refraining from going off on unhinged tangents over secondary details, that you are for some reason imagining implemented in the clumsiest possible way.
Actual suggestion made: "We could have a system made in this way, and then have this (fairly secondary) value could scale according to a variable X or Y or a combination of both".
Your take: "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!! X would be a disaster. IF we did this in the stupidest possible way it would break everything and do more harm than good"
...Ok? No one is *really* advocating for the stupid, broken and poorly implemented method you are imagining, though.
For me, I messed with the system the first time I saw it in game but haven't gone back to it since. Why bother?
Yeah, it's pretty damn obvious you aren't really familiar with ANY of the things you are attempting to argue over and you are doing it just for the sake of it.
What I didn't ever think was that "hey, if I can keep all this stuff I had to give away, I'll prevent inflation in game". More stuff to actually sell means more money coming into the game, not less. They could remove it completely, and I would be unaffected.
Putting aside reading comprehension, are you by any chance incredibly BAD at math, too?
Because if you have a system where gifting the equivalent of X nets you increased profits amounting up to to X*10 on the SINGLE TRANSACTION (let alone in the long term) of course you are going to end up with more and more money piling up over time.
And this is even ignoring that I already stressed a half dozen times how "fighting inflation" isn't really the design goal being chased, here.
However, removing a mechanic that removes currency from the game in order to fight excess currency in game one of the stated goals of this "system", isn't going to do that.
There isn't a single correct statement in this sentence, because:
- the current system does NOT "remove currency from the game" (quite the opposite, it gives back way more than the initial investment required to benefit from it".
- "Fighting excess currency" was never the goal. I just commented that it would happen (to a limited extent) as a collateral.
If it's not going to perform one of it's stated goals, what's the point of dedicating time to implementing it?
I have no idea why you seem to be the only one who keeps FAILING at understanding what the two ACTUAL design goals are, despise the fact that I listed both of them in the opening post:
- removing a gimmicky exploits that allow the player to maximize attitude with any trader in seconds and at virtually no meaningful cost (also making one of the TWO trading systems currently implemented inherently worse in the process)
- removing some unnecessary "inventory juggling", helping the game in an area where it is already a slog even by the standards of this genre (inventory management).
I wish we could finally move on from this circus act of me explaining to you the same thing over and over and you failing to understand it repeatedly and moving the same objections I already addressed multiple times.
Still I have the feeling it's not going to happen and you'll be back with a tirade about the imaginary dangers of your fictional take on the system suggested.
