What amount of money do you think is sufficient for starting a round?

[Don Antonio]

Hi guys,

I'm not posting this on the beta testing-forum which would probably be more appropriate, because I'll need as many signatures under this petition as possible :)

So, after extensive gameplay testing, we, the Polish westernq3 team find that starting a new round in team roundplays and bank robberies with $20 is just *not* enough, and makes the gameplay very unrewarding, and also unfairly favors those, who may merely have a few rounds of luck.

So we nicely ask, request, beg (and whatever not) the developers (and that's probably Torhu), that they introduce a server-side cvar for setting the starting amount of money so that we can figure out the best amount in gameplay.

And if that's impossible for some reason, please at least consider changing that amount back to $30, as it used to be in the Ol' Good Days, when guns were many, and girls shoot straight.

Yours Truly,

Don Antonio

[ReD NeCKersoN]

And if that's impossible for some reason, please at least consider changing that amount back to $30, as it used to be in the Ol' Good Days, when guns were many, and girls shoot straight.

Was it $30 in beta 2.0? I don't remember us changing that? Anyway, maybe we can change it with a server side cvar for the stand-alone release. I hope you don't mind waiting for it!

[Preacher B.]

I remember such a bug in 2.0 beta that: once, at start, there was 20$ but then (after being killed) there was (and until the end of a map) 30$

Variable (configurable) start-sum is obviously v. good idea. I vote: Yes

[torhu]

I don't see why it couldn't be a cvar. But now I'm off for christmas, so I'll think about it when I'm back.

[Pardner]

a cvar would be nice. this would satisfy everyone. I personally like the $20 starting money. its enough for a boiler plate or a schofield. if you by a the schofield, you have a chanc of killing someone any they might have a boiler plater or a shotgun. true a remington58 and a schofield are no match for duel peacemakers, a shotgun, or a rifle; but if you get them in the head, its a done deal.

[torhu]

I remember such a bug in 2.0 beta that: once, at start, there was 20$ but then (after being killed) there was (and until the end of a map) 30$

There is a system which gives you more money to start with if you die a lot without scoring much. Spoon calls it 'social money' in the code. But that's $28, not 30.

Variable (configurable) start-sum is obviously v. good idea. I vote: Yes

So would you like a cvar for all gametypes, or just for the round-based ones (BR and RTP)? g_money or g_roundMoney? Just for round games sounds ok to me, since you can easily get money in DM by picking it up. Don't fix it if it ain't broke, and all that.

One thing you could check out first is the undocumented cvars m_teamwin and m_teamlose. They seem to decide how much money players on the winning and losing teams get after each round. They default to 16 and 10.

[Don Antonio]

Sorry about my late reply...

I remember such a bug in 2.0 beta that: once, at start, there was 20$ but then (after being killed) there was (and until the end of a map) 30$

There is a system which gives you more money to start with if you die a lot without scoring much. Spoon calls it 'social money' in the code. But that's $28, not 30.

Didn't notice that. Maybe I'm not losing enough :). But I don't recall anyone reporting having some extra money after losing much.

Variable (configurable) start-sum is obviously v. good idea. I vote: Yes :)

So would you like a cvar for all gametypes, or just for the round-based ones (BR and RTP)? g_money or g_roundMoney? Just for round games sounds ok to me, since you can easily get money in DM by picking it up. Don't fix it if it ain't broke, and all that.

I agree. A cvar just for round-based games should be sufficient. g_roundMoney sounds like a good name to me.

One thing you could check out first is the undocumented cvars m_teamwin and m_teamlose. They seem to decide how much money players on the winning and losing teams get after each round. They default to 16 and 10.

I'll try to fiddle with that today.

Apart from that I had another money idea, that perhaps should be discussed separately as it would be a major change in gameplay overall. The idea is that when one kills another player he does not get money automatically but can pick up the dead player's money (all of it, or just a part of it), just like he does with the dead man's weapons. That would be more realistic. Perhaps we should think about implementing a method for dropping money as well (in some preset amounts).

There are already some "money objects" (currently used in DM), so perhaps it would not be to difficult to adapt them to round games and the whole concept. What do you think?

Don A.

[ReD NeCKersoN]

The idea is that when one kills another player he does not get money automatically but can pick up the dead player's money (all of it, or just a part of it), just like he does with the dead man's weapons. That would be more realistic. Perhaps we should think about implementing a method for dropping money as well (in some preset amounts).
There are already some "money objects" (currently used in DM), so perhaps it would not be to difficult to adapt them to round games and the whole concept.

While a good idea (imo) sounds like that would involve a lot of coding work. But I'm no coder. Not worth the trouble for DM games since you already get a, albeit less realistic, bounty for your kills. I can see your reasoning to wish for this in round games though. I think this is part of why br games are less desirable for some of us.

[stainmaker]

guns come with death of opponents or can be taken as in q3a

that buying stuff in the game makes me more then nervous ...

in real life you have no time to buy something if you shoot it out