Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 7335191" data-attributes="member: 23751">You seem to have misunderstood what I said.&nbsp; I didn't say that would look at what they would spend on items and that's it.&nbsp; I said they would buy those items and test them.&nbsp; That means that they are going to have encounters to find out how powerful the items are vs. the money spent.&nbsp; If the +1 sword is at 50,000 and no one buys it for their encounters, it's priced too high.&nbsp; If it's at 1,000 and everyone buys one, it's probably too cheap.&nbsp; That combined with how effective items purchased are against the encounters they play against will show the best average price for an item.&nbsp; Actual investment in a character is a detriment as it will skew the combat perceptions on the effectiveness of items.They wouldn't be simulating the purchase of items, though.&nbsp; They would be simulating combats with purchased items to see if gold values are proper, too cheap, or too expensive.&nbsp; Who buys what for the combats would help with pricing.&nbsp; The same would be done with standard campaigns.&nbsp; Once they get the combat pricing down, they would playtest games with both combat and out of combat situations to see what non-combat items are purchased and how frequently.&nbsp; Those numbers would be used to adjust the non-combat items.&nbsp; At no time would they be just testing the purchase of items.&nbsp; That would be silly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 7335191, member: 23751"] You seem to have misunderstood what I said. I didn't say that would look at what they would spend on items and that's it. I said they would buy those items and test them. That means that they are going to have encounters to find out how powerful the items are vs. the money spent. If the +1 sword is at 50,000 and no one buys it for their encounters, it's priced too high. If it's at 1,000 and everyone buys one, it's probably too cheap. That combined with how effective items purchased are against the encounters they play against will show the best average price for an item. Actual investment in a character is a detriment as it will skew the combat perceptions on the effectiveness of items. They wouldn't be simulating the purchase of items, though. They would be simulating combats with purchased items to see if gold values are proper, too cheap, or too expensive. Who buys what for the combats would help with pricing. The same would be done with standard campaigns. Once they get the combat pricing down, they would playtest games with both combat and out of combat situations to see what non-combat items are purchased and how frequently. Those numbers would be used to adjust the non-combat items. At no time would they be just testing the purchase of items. That would be silly. [/QUOTE]

Verification