Item Pricing Weirdness?
Hawkwinter
Member Posts: 14
What causes this? The in-the-game prices are much much lower than the toolset prices. (I've ruled out game difficulty, and anything to do with appraise)
Post edited by Hawkwinter on
0
Comments
Drop the attached .2da into override and items with charges will be priced correctly in-game, but at 5x property price in the toolset, as opposed to priced correctly in the toolset but at 0.2x property price in the game.
https://pastebin.com/dXP9mtHN?fbclid=IwAR2x5wJYIYy2dLev1jtYDbAA33FW2EgTFfnAr-VUu47BCsA9GzvGUhjVJek
They did not change the actual number of charges on any items, so this wand in store has 50 charges.
The determination of store value in-game includes a recognition of "less-than-full-charges".
Given the wand in-game has 1/5th it's maximum number of charges, it's store value is 1/5th of the items set value.
Hence the 'bug' isn't so much a bug but an unintentional side-effect of the increase in max-charges which needs to be adjusted for.
It's not a feature, it's a bug. Yes, I can see how it happened, it was a mistake that they overlooked the side effect of raising max charges from 50 to 250. But until Beamdog fixes their arithmetic error in the engine such that ingame prices match toolset prices, the only fix we'll get in-game is the one I did with a 2da edit.
"Unintentional side-effect" = bug.
I agree that beamdog should change the balance of charge-costs to reverse the unintended imbalance of the max-charges change (much like you have done with your 2da change), but that is a balance change, not a bug.
>"the toolset price is for a max-charges wand"
>The toolset price doesn't update when you change the number of charges.
Well how about that! I could have sworn it did.
Still:
"Balance changes" are intentional. This effect was not intentional. "Unintentional balance changes" are a kind of bug. Beamdog has acknowledged it as a bug.
https://support.baldursgate.com/issues/37900
"thanks for taking the time to report this. We've verified the issue in the latest build, and it's been advanced to the programmers to analyze. When we have it fixed, we'll make this available in the next-released dev build (and later to stable, once proven to work out)." - Bill Harper, Beamdog.
If it wasn't a bug, they wouldn't have agreed to 'fix' it, or referred to it as an 'issue' to be verified, they would have said it was intentional, and closed the bug report.
https://pastebin.com/dXP9mtHN?fbclid=IwAR2x5wJYIYy2dLev1jtYDbAA33FW2EgTFfnAr-VUu47BCsA9GzvGUhjVJek
Use that 2da instead of the vanilla one (throw it in your override, put it in a hakpack for a server, or stuff it back into the appropriate bif - and you're done.
Like, having them fix it officially would be great, but in the meantime, you can fix it for yourself