See that greece over there, you can ruin its economy.

Could be like the economy i D3 was, where good items sold for some, better for alot and a perfect item would sell for really lots, or? In F4, cost for the player that is.

I fail to see the reasoning behind how a fully equipped laser rifle that is better calibrated and trumps the standard model should somehow cost just as much.

The interesting point here to me is that in many games, some players find tricks and ways to exploit something or other.

Some publishers will 'fix' the exploits, but for a single player game that can also be modded,

is there any point to fixing exploits if indeed they were 'found' by players?

Is there such a thing as the 'integrity' of the game in single player?

Yes. With OP's example of 30 caps of components grossing 400 caps for a scope, the OP forgets about the labor I put into finding the components and the education I had to invest in (selecting perks) to be able to make the scope. Then you need to factor in overhead. If I had to use a stim while out in the waste I would want to recapitalize on that expense. Damn Commies never understanding market forces.

A better system would account for supply. If I sell 20 hunting rifles to a merchant in an area then the amount I receive for the hunting rifles should be less as now the local supply is high and the cost of the hunting rifles would come down.

But seeing as how all the bankers, economist, monetary policy makers in the world can't agree on how to setup and run an economy I doubt Beth, a game designer, will get it right and I will excuse them from that.

Not worried about the economy because I'm going to steal and take at gunpoint every bottle cap out there!

But you have a multi-pass! (he says, not realising that this joke has already been used about 400 times lol)

I never worry much about the in game economy in a single player game, or any game really. It seems like any game where money can be earned will eventually see the player with more than he/she can spend. When I stopped playing Forza 4 I had over 20 million in cash and nearly every car in the game. In Skyrim and Fallout I usually end up with 10's of thousands in caps or gold. By the time I do have that much, I m usually very deep in the game. Fallout 4 will likely see my PC sell very few items but hoard many many things to turn into weapons or settlements later.

Another good idea! I hadn't thought of this specifically, but I always thought bartering should have been more about items than caps. I hope that becomes the case.

What I'd also like to see is just more ways to spend your caps. In FO3 you could be "themes" for your crib (I don't recall if that was added by a mod or if it was Vanilla) and other mods added expensive camping gear etc.

If the whole settlement thing involves caravans and such, it would be realistic to have some of those go lost, or simply not make money. Some people do lose money on trading and the PC could easily be one of those. Not everything has to go our way all the time. The easiest solution is obviously making things more expensive and caps harder to come by, but that's not very inventive. Although, if you don't have the barter perk, it would be fair that merchants rip you off.

Well, at some level, I do believe there is. You want the game to be "balanced" and therefore fun to play for the majority of the players. Of course, determining what that "balance" is, is the challenge.

That said..... "exploits" that players have to go out of their way to do? (Not things that are right in your face, and might happen with just a click) I don't see them needing to be fixed. Because - you have to deliberately go out of your way to do these things. You have to work at it. And if you actively decide to do exploits like that? That's on you (and your lack of self-control and/or obsessive need to always do the min-max-most-advantageous thing even if it 'ruins' the game for you) not the dev.

(things like a 100% chameleon suit in MW/OB, or the zillion-damage weapons from the full-synergy crafting circle in SK. Or being able to do an hour rest after every fight for a full heal. Or restocking vendors by sleeping 36 hours in a different cell. I've got no problem with those things being in the games, because you have to actively go out of your way to take advantage of them. You don't just accidentally stumble on those.)

Acquiring vast wealth hasn't bothered me in Beth games. Your character is exceptional. S/he has the skills to challenge te wasteland powers-tht-be and shape destiny. There is always great reward for that.

The average wastelander isn't going to overpower a band of raiders, and thus get the combined wealth of 3 - 5 people.

I do wish there were in game alternatives to hoarding and selling though. Like settlements that have material needs: water, food, materials, power sources, weapons and ammo, and luxuries. As you donate or sell these at discounts you build up town reserves and good will.

Keep a town well stocked and maybe they give you rent free accommodations, followers, free stuff from surplus supply categories, or unlocked quests.

The wasteland should have "need" everywhere and reward the player for filling it.

I personally think that balance point lies where you never have enough caps to buy all the things you really want. You should never have more caps than you can just barely afford the second-nicest thing in the store so you always have a carrot in front of you. You should always be encouraged to look for ways to get more loot. In Skyrim loot was so abundant that I never even looked at my gold. Also, since they didn't bother incorporating Weapon Condition, everything you found was worth max-gold, not just a fraction of the max value of a full condition weapon. That way you could always sell everything, whereas in Fallout 3 you at least had to repair some thing before they were worth selling, thereby adding value to them.

As frustrating as it might be, one thing that I always thought made more sense would be if I could only sell a hunting rifle to someone who ~wanted~ a hunting rifle. Granted, in a barter system, even someone who did not WANT a hunting rifle could turn around and trade it to a hunter who ~did~ want a new rifle, in exchange for some hunted-up meat and skins... but for a regular "merchant" type character, a storefront of sorts, it looks like if they accepted every little type of loot in exchange for caps or whatever they were selling, they would end up with a junkyard of stuff behind the counter. And a guy who is in the business of selling meds, for example, might have a harder time "moving" equipment like power armor helmets and scoped laser rifles.

But then again, in a post-apocalyptic world, would we really have specialized merchants? In a fantasy game you might have an alchemist and a blacksmith and a grocer, etc but those are still relatively civilized and stable environments that allow that kind of specialization. If everything's a wasteland and civilization (using the term loosely) exists only in pockets, then maybe a more general "jack of all crap" merchant would be more likely ---- hauling your wares around on the back of a brahmin, you probably don't have the luxury of only selling one type of thing. You sell guns now because someone traded you a gun for the meds you had, and when someone trades you a power armor helmet for that gun, now you are a power-armor-helmet-selling merchant.

Pretty much talked myself out of my argument, there. Still, in REALLY civilized areas like downtown Boston (perhaps) there might be more specialized merchants who would simply not be interested in buying a giant pile of Yao Guai meat slabs from you. And while it would be more complicated (and frustrating), having different merchants offer different prices for the same item would make more ~sense~ I would think. A hunting rifle may be worth a lot to a hunter using a piece of crap weapon out in the wilds so he would gladly trade you the rare stimpacks he's been hoarding and some meat and skins in exchange for that hunting rifle.... but a dapper chem merchant in downtown Boston may scoff at your dinged-up hunting rifle and ~deign~ to offer you a small pack of mentats in exchange, with the intent of dumping the gun on some poor shmoe at an outrageous price later on.

While it's true that we usually end up with ~way~ too much money at end-game, in the early game I am nearly always scrounging or saving to the point where I don't end up buying much at all... and then when I can afford to buy things, there's nothing I need since I already looted everything I need along the way! Definitely a hard nut, how to balance an economy.

For me, I'm a bit more concerned about the economy feeling natural, rather than balanced. It just doesn't feel natural for me to have thousands of bottle caps without putting much thought into it, or for every merchant to have hundreds of them all the time. You come across maybe a thousands bottles in the game? For some reason I imagine myself carrying my bottle caps in my pocket and I'd prefer a system where 20 bottle caps would be well-off. Not to mention that I am actually somehow carrying thousands of bottlecaps without struggling with it at all. I know I'm in the minority here and that I have a weak imagination or whatever for not being able to ignore these things, but yeah, oh well.

As for the other balance issues (100% chameleon, crafting circle), those really did bother me since they were so obvious and they were a natural thing for a character in the game world to pursue. Things like drinking restoration potions to increase the effect of equipped enchantment effects is not a bid deal for me though since I consider those bugs.

I think vanilla Skyrim did work this way and there were perks that let you sell anything to anybody at some point of barter skill? Or was that Oblivion? Anyway, I agree it would be nice if NPCs were more picky about what they traded for.

I'd like to be able to invest in shops my PC was interested in as well.

Yeah, I have the same problem. I was thinking of caps as something you'd use to even out an uneven trade and they should be very valuable. Smaller items should be traded for other items, whereas if you're in the market for a rifle, or something of similar value, you could use caps as an incentive.

What would be really cool is if there was an ACTUAL bartering system. You offer something, they counter, and you reach an agreement based on who rolls the better Barter check. Simply having the prices adjusted for your bartering skill was always a bit weak, IMO.

i still laugh everytime that movie was made of soild GOLD

im a crafter so i will be poor i think i endup stripping baddies for crafting materials

That would be awesome! They depict bartering that way in the charisma video, sooo maybe? It would be a bit tough to implement since, when bartering, you are usually either focused on trading away specific items or you are focused on trading for specific items. You would need to be able to ask the NPCs what they want for a specific item they have but also ask what they would give for a specific item you have, along with counter offers. You'd probably also want to be able to restrict certain items in your inventory that you know you don't want to trade from being visible to NPCs during bartering so that you do not need to reject a ton of offers every time you barter.

Yeah, not saying it's not tricky, there are definitely a lot more variables. That's why we trust in the brains of Beth =)

No, BGS should stop trying to force playstyles onto anyone. If someone wants to have a character that specializes in crafting stuff and selling the products, that should be just as viable for making money as a character who goes out killing others for their equipment and selling it or a character who goes all over scavenging for old stuff and selling it.

Players who have tens of thousands of caps in FO3 and FONV are not roleplaying except maybe roleplaying antisocial thieves of various kinds. For example, if you play a tech-focused energy weapons specialist, you will be broke constantly due to the high cost of ammo, let alone the guns and other items that are tech-oriented (e.g., conductors, fission batteries, etc.). Not to mention the enormous cost of the housing and various upgrades, of course. If you're simply stealing everything in sight and selling it, you may be better off, but that is a very specific character behavior that would not apply to most characters.

By the late game, it is logical to have a lot of money, and any character surviving that long should be fairly wealthy.

The problem in BGS games, to date, has been a lack of proper supply & demand economics (i.e., very few caps for goods and services rendered by player characters) rather than overabundance of money. It's poor design to force players to pick up every weapon and armor dropped in order to actually make some profit when the character simply doesn't do that.

EDIT: I'll give another specific example.

Pure water is the main concern for Fallout's world. Therefore, pure water should cost a fortune if found. A place like Goodsprings would never exist because those with power would take it over in a heartbeat so as to control the endless supply of pure water available there. Purified water in bottles are rare but cost almost nothing when in fact the law of supply & demand would indicate that they would be some of the most expensive items in the entire wasteland.

That's the idea of how an economy should work but never has in BGS games.

Whereas I never saw those as "obvious".... they didn't occur to me until I read about them on the forums. But, then, I'm not a "natural" powergamer - I don't see most synergies right off the bat, etc. So all those things, to me, are stuff that you really have to go out of your way (with a lot of effort required) to have happen.

re: general economy. In Beth games, I see "struggle to gain resources/establish yourself" as one of the early-game challenges. At some point, you get strong enough that you move on to new goals/challenges. And again, as an open-world playground with effectively infinite loot out there? Maintaining a scarcity of funds & resources throughout the entire game doesn't seem workable - more linear games, where nothing respawns and the maximum amount of cash the player will have at the end of each chapter can be known to within 10%? Yeah, those kinds of games it's much easier to price equipment & resources so that people have to struggle to afford the best stuff. The less rigidly controlled the game world is, the harder that gets.

(this also sort of ties in to my thoughts on loot-rich games and limited carrying/storage capacity. Why torment the player by filling the world with semi-infinite amounts of loot and then telling them they can't take 90%+ of it? I love that Bethesda games are full of all this stuff - clutter, enemies having all their equipment, etc. And I also love that I can carry a whoooooole lot of it away. Sure, it's not "realistic".... but that's fine.)

One issue with that kind of system is... sure, it's interesting the first couple dozen times. But by the hundredth/three-hundredth/thousandth time you go to sell stuff? Having a long drawn-out "barter" session for every vendor interaction would be hellish. You (ok, me ) just want to be able to get in there, off-load your loot, and get out again.

Consider this. World of Warcraft and Secknd Life have *actual* economists working on staff. Why? Because modeling economies is hard, even when dealing with actual people driving them.

Consider this also. Despite having professional economists, you can't go a page on their forums without complaints about the economies in those games.

I honestly don't want to be able to just start crafting stuff for profit. Just turns it into a sim lol. I hope vendors are cheap as feck lol

Well, them economists didn't do to well in Wow then. The cry in Wow was usually against people people that would undercut which I never ever understood why they would cry. AH was a minigame in itself, if people were getting undercut then they needed to adjust said pricing.

Used to laugh at them forum economists be like "Brah is gonna crash this servers pretend economy"...