No to shared bank slots.
Bank space limitations were an accidental yet effective monetary policy against mudflation. You could have too much steak to eat and therefore be forced to trash or give away or drop stuff because you had too much and you were running out of room!, and learn your little piggy lesson while listening to the beatles white album and suddenly be ashamed of yourself and learn a life lesson then sell that piece to a merchant or give it away to a newbie and be free and made a better person in RL.
Shared bank spaces may have come about because of the evil RMT''ers getting one over on the devs before RMT was a known thing, couched in a QOL pastiche but enabled the evil ones to resolve the bank space issue by just creating more alts, there was never an over abundance so the price never came down so long as they had space to store it.
Because naturally, the more of a thing, the less the thing costs, right? drives the price down. However if you control the supply of a thing- corner the market if you will, you control the price- look at Debeers and Diamonds. This is one of the things thing that started the downfall- shared bank space.
If you want to trade between players, you run the risk of getting seen doing so, or logs showing so. Or run the risk of dropping bags hopefully in a place where no one can see you or where no one goes.
How much steak can you eat? (isn't that what they say when talking about pork-barrel political favors?)
As a general rule I cringe at the mention of QOL ideas. Like icons over the head, or fast travel for all, easy/inexpensive corpse summons.
Partial bank shared storage, just enough to pass items back and forth I could get on board with as it's behind the scenes inventory management.
Now if you're talking about one giant bank for all items shared between all alts. I think that would be taking it too far. I think present day EQ has a reasonable balance 6 or 8 shared slots + coin transfer slots.
1. Mail should work between characters on the same account - so assuming that Pantheon has a mail system a shared bank is not necessary to enable sharing of items or money with alts. Helpful, yes, but definitively not necessary.
Why ? there's no proof neither hints of such a system. If you take wow, Alt-mail works, and guess what ? It's used to mule as you can send dozens of mails fulls of items/stacks to your alts and just press "return mail" to get them back in your mailbox, extending your storage amount whenever you want. That's not a good system, it burns away the necessity of inventory management.
On FFXIV, mails don't work on the same account characters, even with all the conveniency the game has, you need someone to trade your goods.
The mail system isn't a guarantee that mailing items will work at all, or how it will work on same account characters.
Too many unknowns to give an accurate answer, but here's some If / Then branches..
If items are trade-able? Then it doesn't matter, because it's just a money barrier. If I have two accounts, I can trade. But those without two accounts can't. That's horrible, but a valid design if your goal is to make people buy two accounts.
If certain items aren't normally trade-able, but you can transfer them via the bank? Then that implie the feature is required, not desired.
If we can have more than one character per account? Then it would be handy.
If we can't have more than one character per account? Then we're back to making people buy two accounts.
If we can place items on the ground and they are visible to everyone, and last longer than x minutes? Then maybe someone might take the risk, but why have this as a design goal? Nostalgia? I haven't seen a NA MMO since .. 2005? that allows items to be placed on the ground, visible to everyone.
If there is going to be a mail system, then people would likely ab/use every feature of that, if they're permitted.
In a larger context, it's slightly disconcerting this question is being asked without revealing the current public design goals and completed features as part of Project Faerthale, which stated that the whole point of PT was to show off all a complete game zone with all features complete. This would seem to be one of those systems that should be complete, unless not all game features will be complete in PT.. which sort of makes the whole point of it a bit suspect.
Kilsin said:Community Debate - Shared bank storage with your account or separate bank storage for separate characters? Please explain your answer. #MMORPG #CommunityMatters
I would prefer to see shared back storage for the account, not just the character but does bring up some limitations:
1. The largest bag will have 10 slots
2. A bank will have 10 slots for bags
This means you can only store 100 unique things at any given time which, at first glance, seems like a lot of different things but any serious crafter or item collector will tell you 100 is not alot. This is a limitation of a global banking system that is further limited by having X characters all linked.
We've been told, or at least it has been alluded to, that banking will be non-global so that what you store in ThroneFast will not be visible to you at the bank in Faerthale or Skargol. If this does turn out to be correct (and I reall hope it is) then such limitations really are not much of a concern. With 12 races, each having a separate bank means (using my assumptions) 120 separate storage slots giving you the ability to store 1200 unique items. That's not bad really.
So yes, shared bank storage using non-global banking is a good solution. It allows for a greater capacity for storage; allows an account to share items/money relatively easily yet still keeps the local markets local..and that is hugely important.
EDIT: There is one problem with shared bank slots: No-Drop items. How would a No-Drop item, placed in a bank slot in a shared bank system, keep itself locked to the player that deposited it? You'd have to replace No-Drop with 'Bind-on-Pickup' tagging that item to the character.
A shared bank seems mechanically logical, but thematically inconsistent. Why would my human warrior share a bank with my dwarven paladin even though they've never met?
That said, individual banks lead to thematically inconsistent results even if it makes sense in a vacuum. Level 1 characters created just for their bank space are even more thematically inconsistent than shared bank slots.
Any banking option is themtically flawed due to players not being restricted to one character, so why not go with the most mechanically convenient design? Side note: I would prefer rented bank space to bought bank space. Money sinks ftw.
I feel like to find the best option, we need to identify some of the abuses or ways to game the system that can come with banking that could have some downstream impacts:
1.) People creating multiple useless characters for the sake of having additional bankspace.
2.) Enabling currency farmers the ability to seamlessly continue to cycle through new characters to sell in-game currency for RL cash and avoid getting caught.
3.) Characters ability to potentially manipulate economy of items (debateable on the level detriment) - having multiple characters that can sell the same shared item could create a false sense of high supply or having the ability to test the economies of specific localizations easily (i.e. an item regional in Skargol could sell for more than in Thronefast, but this is only if the assumption is there's no global auction house or global trade chat)
4.) Other
Given that, I feel like there's two options:
1.) Having separate bank storage for each character, with the ability to make transfers to only their alts at a cost and make the cost to do the transfer meaningful enough that it takes some consideration to do so. (Having a transfer cost just 30 silver or whatever the currency when it's abundant is just pointless, but if it costs a few platinum, it continues to give currency meaning in the game) I also think having it be a considerable amount to do a transfer would deter currency farmers from making alts for the sake of being additional storage. It would also push players towards having meaningful trade transactions to occur in person as the there would be no cost to do so versus a transfer (therefore maintaining the push for community interaction).
2.) Having one joint banking across all characters with the ability to upgrade the storage capacity and the cost to upgrade the storage would be on a sliding scale of significant cost for each tier of increase. Limited Resources are valuable and bank storage space is another resource that could potentially be abused. I get that there's people out there that like to hoard and store everything as they have a hard time determining what to keep and what to sell, but that is just going down the rabbit hole of a totally different issue.
In the end, I feel like the major thing that should be driving this issue is how to maintain the health of the in game economy as I feel that you create the best gaming experience ever but it would quickly deteriorate if items and currency lose their significance quickly.
people amaze me with crazy solutions to such a simple question. I hate to sound like a broken record. if it's not broken, don't fix it. Follow EQ1 here. 2 slots at bottom (that can hold backpacks etc for Shared) Some people seem to make up elaborate excuses as to Why we shouldn't have shared banks. But that's just dumb. just do it like EQ1 and be done. Should also be able to share cash I have made with ANY of my account characters.
No i should not have to pay a "fee" to transfer stuff to an alt.
No, I do not want to be REQUIRED to be in a guild with that perk just to transfer to an alt. This isn't wow.
No, I don't want to ask a stranger to hold my Cloak of Flames so that I can put it on my monk.... seriously....
No, those characters should not have to be at the same bank, or same "hub" or any such thing.
No, shared banking should not be tied to Progeny or any nonsense like that.
Me wanting to send my monk a haste item has NOTHING to do with community. Let me get my haste item to my monk so that I can go GET A GROUP AND BE SOCIAL after i transfer the item....
Some of us like to "twink" so YES, I want access to my money I made on my main. I can't even believe I had to say that.... if you don't want to twink, DON'T TWINK, but don't tell me i can't twink because you can't control yourself....
i guess basically i am saying shared .....
Kilsin said:Community Debate - Shared bank storage with your account or separate bank storage for separate characters? Please explain your answer. #MMORPG #CommunityMatters
consider the following: immersion/practicality
major factor: marketplace
for maximum immersiveness(my preference): localized marketplace, separate banks per character, decentralized banking(banks between two cities are separate)
certain types of players will pick up an offshoot lifeskill by trading between cities. this is full blown hardcore player driven realistic economy. players will setup alts in local markets to check market prices, make a nice spreadsheet with time/risk/reward assessments and will proceed from there.
for player practicality: centralized marketplace, shared banks with all characters, centralized banking
really convienent for players and gives devs a tool to directly control the economy. instate and adjust taxes on marketplace and bank usage.
for a balanced approach: a centralized marketplace, shared banks with all characters, decentralized banking.
this allows the players to sell and manage their items with ease and allows devs some economic control. this is probably the healthy compromise between immersion, ease of play and economic control between the player and the devs.
if no marketplace exists, then go full blown hardcore mode with no banking. then i can setup my own banking and item delievery business in game :D
((The mail system isn't a guarantee that mailing items will work at all, or how it will work on same account characters.))
Very true. Which is why we cannot really give good answers to a question about banking without knowing how the mail system will work. But since Kilsin asked we answer.
Shared bank account with limits!
Using a shared bank avoids easy problems of abuse of trade stealing, trying to game the system with hidden stashes, etc. RMT is immaterial since that will occur regardless of any systems such as this. Immersion is addressed by the simple fact that you can notify a bank now that multiple people can access the account/storage box with proper credentials. In-game mail could be used as well with similar results, but is less friendly if you are going to allow item transfers with a bank.
If you consider alts the concept of the progeny system or same family, but just a different branch of the family thematically it fits.
Possible Limitations:
This is also a great time to bring back up realistic volume based inventories vs slot based inventories.
A shared bank is really important if a character has 8 inventory slots that can have bags up to 8 slots for a total of 64 inventory slots. If a bank then has 8 more slots for bags then the bank doubles a characters inventory. If the shared bank has even 2 slots for bags as EQ currently does then that is a 25% increase in inventory space over the 8 a character initially does and 12.5% after bank space.
If then each alt is able to freely move items through that shared bank then each alt represents another 128 items an account can store. You will end up with most people having several alts just for the storage space alone. Bigger magical bags may start shifting the importance around but the base line 8 character account will be able to store 1040 items including a 2 slot shared bank space.
To me this is a very stupid and archaic inventory system that encourages item storage alts and almost necessitates an inventory addon or 3rd party app to keep track of everything. It is also a huge pet peeve of mine that a single gold ring takes up the same space as an entire chain maile hauberk.
Rather than using slots give all items a volume value (it can be very simplified so that there may only be 10 different volume values) and then have all bags or storage boxes have a maximum volume. Your character would still be encumbrance limited due to the total weight of the items but magical bags could be found to act as a % weight reduction or better yet a buoyancy effect that negates the first X pounds of items in the bag.
Banks could be bank box warehouses that you rent a storage locker at to place a certain volume into, weight is not an issue in the bank locker. Each bank locker costs more to rent but no more than the first one (this will effectively remove the need for a mule, though couriers might become a thing). The character renting the bank locker can set who has access to it with the default being anyone on the account but up to anyone specifically on your friends list. Its will only be accessible from the bank that the locker is in.
If coin has no weight then there is no reason not to just have your total coin value available at all times on all characters on the account.
Shipping lockers from one bank warehouse to another could be a function of the mail system and in my opinion should be the only automated way to move items from one place to another. Shipping a trunk should be both time and cash costly.
Moving to a volume system will create a specific game play based on collecting bulky items that would usually be left behind in favor of small valuables. Specifically crafting ingredients are often going to be bulky low value items that required deliberate intent to go collect. There also becomes an option to rent small vehicles to help players move bulky items such as getting a wheelbarrow, mule, wagon, river flatboat or even an ocean going cargo hauler.
Volume based inventories also allow for much easier sorting and finding of objects within storage spaces which can allow for many more unique items without hurting over all storage capacity vs stackable objects.
Jabir said:I'm surprised to see how many here believe that shared bank slots are harmless.
It's not that they're harmless - I think everyone here recognizes that they do reduce the need for players to depend on others. But the reality is that without them, players start engaging in a lot of risky behavior. I know some people don't remember it but there was a time when EverQuest didn't have shared bank slots - actually, for years it didn't. And that led to people doing things like dropping stuff on the ground in the wilderness, or asking random strangers/guildmates/etc. to help them transfer items to/from alts and hope they weren't going to get robbed or scammed.
Guides and GMs in EQ spent a LOT of time dealing with tickets related to item trading gone wrong. I remember that very clearly from the time I was a guide myself, and I'm sure Brasse has horror stories.
Thus, shared bank slots became an innovation in other games and eventually came back to EQ. This allowed players to do what they were going to try to do anyway in a safer manner. They absolutely brought their own problems with them, but in my opinion and I would guess many others, it was a lesser evil.
I think what we should be looking for from VR is for them not to go overboard on anything - there is a middle ground between perfect interdependency between players, and enabling them to play in a way they'll enjoy. We should accept that no matter what limitations there are, people are still going to want to move items to their alts from time to time - and rather than introducing a worse problem by not supporting that at all, it's better to provide a method that has some limitation to prevent it from being overused.
I have strong opinions when it comes to the crafting sphere and the economy, which I alluded to above, and in a perfect world I'd prefer to see no shared bank slots because of that. I absolutely do not want to see a situation where players can ignore interdependency or not have to interact with others across all the spheres (not just adventuring). However, I recognize that it is absolutely not going to be a perfect world, and there has to be some compromise there. Thus, I feel like a very small number of shared bank slots is probably a relatively safe approach to take. It allows people to transfer items in ones and twos, without crossing the line into an account-wide bank.
There needs to be a lot of individual bank storage and a lot of account sharing bank storage, as well as guild storage. For me this is a QOL issue I require. Mostly I want the game to be as “real world” as possible. The whole individual bank account which can be accessed from any city is not realistic, but it’s a QOL issue. It’s a game play requirement for me.
Actually quoting Baz because my answer and reasoning is the same.
"...shared bank. Cause people are still gonna find ways to transfer items between their characters, and I don’t see a reason to fight that too much. I do like the idea of keeping with local banks and making those items available only at that specific location."
I want to see one shared money slot and equipment slot. This makes passing items and money between your characters easier. That is a quality of life feature. Otherwise, we will be forced to hide a backpack in some obscure corner of a zone and hope it is still there by the time you can switch out characters.
This will not enable mudflation, that will happen anyway. Though there should be some rules. Non-tradable items should not be able to be placed into the bank. I also don't like the idea that it is only enabled if you are in a guild. Some people don't want to play in guilds, and now you are punishing them.
MauvaisOeil said:Shared bank slots is a riskless, costless, solution for Alt trading. It recudes players interactions or the risk of putting your gear in a crafting station in order to get them on their alt, at the risk of someone else looting them. It also reduces the risks of asking a random player to trade your stuff with a fee so you increase the chances of them not stealing or something.
The fact is, trading between your alts should be either having friends, or taking risks.
Convenience can be a killer for social relationships, and we've been too much used to have everything conveniently handled to us.
As long as you have even one shared slot, you can transfert your gear with only time mattering "a bit" and honestly it's just a stupid chore with no cost or risk included.
That's why I vote for : No shared bank, no alt mail : Make space matter and relationships flourish over that.
I definitely see what you are saying and that is a concern of mine as well.
To me, shared banking is not a dreaded Quality of Life feature. It makes no sense to NOT have shared banking. If a world is complex enough to have a banking system it's ridiculous that you wouldn't be able to tell the banker "hey, let [this guy] have access to my account too, please".
The lengths you'd have to go to in old school EQ (and others) just to give items to another character you happen to own were silly. You could always do it - there always was a way around it howver obtuse and weird - it made no sense in lore or role-playing - and it was generally painful/annoying. Throw the item on the ground, maybe behind a tree, and hope no one found it while you log off and on again? Awesome.
And if you bugged another player to help, it was hardly a 'social interaction' to cherish. It was just a necessary irritation fraught with worry. The scamming and 'mistakes'... ugh.
If they want local markets they will have to have local banking (and restricted or no mailing), sure, but shared banking - even if just local - is plain sense.
Maybe there will be an 'administration fee'? *shrug* fine (no pun intended). Personally, I'd like a banker or market vendor or whatever to be a person with which I can leave items or money for any characters I name to pick up, not just my own... That kind of function is one of the first that any society with basic commerce develops and for good reason. It doesn't mean the parties don't converse, bargain, haggle and make all manner of deals and arrangements, it just means you have sensible methods to resolve the arrangement you've come to without having to drum up some random third party intermediary every time for no good reason.
Imagine you go to a bar and you can buy drinks for anyone you *don't* know with no problem, but if you want to get a drink for someone you *do* know, you have to give a random stranger money and have them get the drinks for you. More 'social interaction'? Sure. Fun/good social interaction? Not so much...
Extreamly limited sharing between characters of the same account. Actually, no. No sharing. I remember in EQ when I made my first twink alt, I had to drop it [gear / gold] on the ground and hope I could switch characters fast enough to pick it up before someone found it. Still one of my most fond memories in EQ. Then I made friends and it got easier. Well except one guy who had 200 of my plat and disappeared. That sucked.
Some might say "It's quality of life. People are going to figure out a work around so just make it easy for them." Well its those LOUD MOUTH GAME RUINERS that have ruined MMO's and lead to the pandering poop show of a game genre it is today.
When will it be maps?
When will it be fast travel for all?
When will it be buy max level characters?
It starts somewhere and as soon as one of those loud mouth whiners see a foothold they jump on it and a dev or company falter, sway, bend and eventually break. Down goes the game, down goes another hope.
*EDIT NOTE* This was a profanity laced post but I cleaned it up a lot as to continue to allow what I think is a valid point.
Stacking has to be increased more so then 20 stacks. Things like 100 to start off with.
Shared bank is important
Lots of bank slots
=
Avoiding all the other games at the start problems. We say we dont need them, then future changes makes it difficult.
Bags can be crafted for more storage.
If you don't allow it on a single account, people will just use a second account of their own. Which is fine, if that's your design goal and target demographic (people who can afford to have/buy two accounts).
Otherwise, yes, you are limiting (arguably, further) your target demographic by not including such a simple, basic, expected feature in 2022.
If you limit the target demographic to a small enough niche, you don't get enough paying customers. See PFO.
If you expand it too far, you get too many customers and lose your integrity. See WoW.
Been true since forever, with a wide variety of products, MMO's included. There are hills to die on, but I don't think this is one of them, personally.
Personally, a game in NOT more fun or ‘immersive ‘ because it requires me to spend time managing the game mechanics rather than actually playing the game!
Not interested in economics, spreadsheets are for RL, not my enjoyment.
I prefer individual character banks, with limited shared slots or a built-in transfer system. Again, asking others to help me manage game mechanics instead of playing- not a thing I’m looking forward to- I value my friends and my time too much to ever consider this as a beneficial game mechanic.
Localized banks are a PITA but I’m willing to cope with them if needs be.
Separate crafting storage PLEASE!
1. I personally do not feel that we should have shared storage for a variety of economic reasons- But IF we do have it- Limited to only a few slots- Which brings me to my next point..
2. I do NOT believe that bank access should be Global- I do believe where you drop an item, and dare I say Money- it should only be accessed there, shared or not.
I believe that by doing this this, it will essentially create hubs for trade between players at specific locations.. And hubs in differing regions may have items/materials/consumables that may be more/less abundant or specific to that region. I believe this keeps the economy diverse as it won't be massively global, saving it from a variety of issues- and I think it would allow players to be traveling tradesman, or give them reason to go from one place to another and use services such as ports or traveling caravans more often.
3. I believe Banks should have limited slots- Say for example 4 slots for bags to start, and more slots available to 12 or something (Just throwing numbers out there) for purchase by in game currency. This would help inflation to a degree with limited storage and money sink.
I feel that with limited slots- It would require players to keep the things that are truly of value, and scrap or sell the rest. I believe that this would create more of a competitve market for players who need to get rid of things but still want to turn a dime. Players inevitably will create Alt Banks regardless of how large or small, shared or not shared storage is.
4. If a mail system exists then I would opt for that being the method of transfer over shared storage.. And if you mail something, I think it would make sense for it to take some time in game to arrive to it's destination. It would cost money to send, which is another money sink to keep inflation down. A fun idea occured to me- You would send mail to a character and it would send to the nearest post box where they resided, which means they would have to go pick it up. Or you could choose what city destination you wanted to send it to.. Food for thought.
5. Guild Vaults- I would apply the same concept of Localized banking for guild vaults even though they are shared.. Perhaps a guild hall, or a major city where the guild hall may reside.. That way it gives players a reason to frequent their guild halls- On top of vendors and other various things... IF this exists at least.
You could also give the Guild Vaults transfer slots for your characters.. Kind of a perk for being part of a Guild... Maybe a dumb idea I dunno.
To alleviate the concerns of the trades people- Consider upping the stack sizes to at least 100 or more for materials in trade skills.. Or perhaps create bags or something advantageous to those who do trades to be able to carry enough materials to do serious leveling or even collecting of materials to sell.