Darkfall Expansion Spotlight: Local Banking

[Nex Vita]

Just make it like in good old UO !

Add some chests to player houses where the owner/friends can stack theyr items and a placable vendor in front of it.
This would make me very happy:rolleyes:

See ya.

Thats basicly what house banking is, in house storage. I dont why they call it banking. On the note of complete local banking, the global reward far out weigh the annoyances. This is not a single player game. There needs to be an economy, local banking is the best possible way to achive this. Prices would stablize as there would be risk in trading. Last I check this was a MMORPG sandbox with full loot pvp. Its not halo where you just grab your gun and go. If you plan to siege you need to plan ahead. You shouldnt be able to stop at the nearest bank and magicly all your items are transported in to this box. Its also not that hard to keep track of gear, the worlds not that big.

[Lorgan42]

Let me suggest an alternative to this local banking idea. I believe it would be immersive and fun for those who are into it, while also removing the aggravation for those who are not into it.

** Local Banking with Courier System **

Basically, banking is global if a player has made a run from it to the master bank recently. As time passes, the magical link between them fades, and item propagation gets slower. Eventually, the link expires, until somebody re-establishes the connection.

In detail: Each bank, other than the master, is local. Each bank can have a magical connection to other banks, forming a network of connections across the world. Each connection has a timer on it, and as the timer progresses, the speed of item propagation slows, eventually stopping. Items in a bank become available at other banks at a time equal to the total delay time of the path needed to get there. (This is largely invisible to the players who aren't participating in the courier system.)

Each bank has an NPC next to it, the bank manager. Bank managers offer quests, for enterprising characters to transport a vortex stone to banks, which will re-establish the connection between them.

While carrying the vortex stone, the player has a very slight glow or particle effect. Not enough to be a beacon, but enough to be noticed if inspected. The quest to carry the stone has a quest reward. Killing and looting the vortex stone of an opposing faction, and safely delivering it back to your own faction (such as race, or the vortex stone of a bank belonging to an at-war clan) offers a reward as well.



In effect, people who don't want to do local banking need not ever do so, but might notice some delay in their items getting back to them at other locations. People who do want to deal with local banking, have a system of quest and quest opposition built for them, so they can do such things their hearts' content.

[Greyfoxzb]

They need to address Water logging, and making bindstone recall louder and take a wee bit longer. I don't like it when someone can just water log to get away from me.

I love the idea of local banking, and I am curious to see what the caravan system has to offer.

They need to make all clan banks be connected via clan bank ( your clan banks only not your personal bank. ) and make all personal banks local.

This makes things really interesting. Now people will have to move items from their first bank to their clan city if they get one...

Oh wait there is bindstone recall.... make it so bindstone recall cannot be used while over encumbered this way people cannot haul large amounts of items/resources with using bindstone safely in a towered city to bank their shit in the clan bank.

Now people would then have to actually use this so called caravan system to haul large amounts of resources etc items of all sorts to their clan holdings/bank.

Also I like the idea of local house banks, but make sure recalls cannot be used while overweight and make it so if you log out in water you simply log out and log back in in the same spot.

People doing raids / sieges would have to bring all their equipment ( hammers battlespikes etc ) with them before they get to the enemy city/hamlet instead of using their banks, they also wouldn't be able to really bank the items in their bank they would have to loot and leave.

Lets make all personal banks local, and make clan holdings have a clan bank that you can transfer items through only to be accessed at your clans holdings, and make it so you cannot recall over encumbered, thus making full use of the caravan system to haul large amounts of cargo.

[driftwood81]

On the note of complete local banking, the global reward far out weigh the annoyances. This is not a single player game. There needs to be an economy, local banking is the best possible way to achive this. Prices would stablize as there would be risk in trading.

Or the seller will just make you go to where they are and where they bank... like they pretty much do now anyways.

Want to do a quick easy change that may help out local economies? Limit trade chat to specific regions. Could also limit the amount of regs NPC vendors can sell, although at this stage of the game, you'll just be screwing players who haven't skilled up magic yet.

Btw, you guys do realize virtually everyone is clanned/allied right? And the majority of people are going to go through their clan/alliance when they can, which basically makes this local banking magical economy fixing talk pretty much useless right?

Main people who will suffer are the clanless new players or small clans who are going to get frustrated trying to travel back and forth, and have a tough time trading, and get discouraged. Ohhhh but we killed that traveling newb blacksmith and stole his 150 ingots and made him quit the game! yeeeeehhhaaaa!

Last I check this was a MMORPG sandbox with full loot pvp. Its not halo where you just grab your gun and go. If you plan to siege you need to plan ahead. You shouldnt be able to stop at the nearest bank and magicly all your items are transported in to this box. Its also not that hard to keep track of gear, the worlds not that big.

This game's population also isn't large enough for them to start throwing in annoying tedious tasks to do just to bank.

You can partly solve one of the biggest issues you somewhat touched on by simply giving clans the ability to set access levels on their bank. Clan only, Alliance only, everyone, etc.

[Sin'jin]

How many if any current MMO's out there have local banking.... I can think of ZERO (EVE maybe? but thats a totally different style of game.). There is a reason for that....

Yes, one can argue that there are very few if any full loot pvp games out there but thats a totally different argument.

Local banking makes the game not fun. The last thing DFO needs right now are more things that make the game less enjoyable for people. Notice our populations as they stand today... We have seen them shrink drastically since release and they will continue to if more so called "hardcore" improvements get made. By saying hardcore, I refer to the few idiots who think that running half way around the world to bank an item makes you hard. Where as looting your opponent and banking it at your local bank is /cough easy mode.

I am all for having Clan banks being only used by said Clan or its allies. Home storage is fine, though pointless.. But having a entire local banking system put in place would kill off this game within a month. The vast majority of people game for fun, the loud minority play games and need to feel "hard" in games because their lives are a joke. Thus their online persona is their "life". Oh and how hardcore they truly are =p

HAGG!

[DEDjed]

I will concede that the intention of including local banking at the village level only may be to provide a guage for future expansion of the local banking system ... my question is HOW exactly they intend to extrapolate any useful info from this?

- They cant get a feel for the effects on economy as local banking would only affect the economy if there wasnt a global alternative runnign concurrently
- They cant get a feel for the effect on trade routes/pvp/pirating/caravans as no-one would risk transporting any valuable by physically carrying whilst a safe alternative (global banking) exists
- They cant get a feel for how popular a local banking system is as, ofc, if a global system exists players arent going to disadvantage themselves by not using it when everyone else is...

This is why im starting to get paranoid ... the 'test' of putting in local banking as they have described cannot give any conclusive or even useful information but can easily give an impression biased against local banking.

tl;dr

The local banking 'first step' as described will constitute a redundant and disadvantageous system that will provide no useful information from which to judge the potential of a full local banking system... it is pointless and dangerously misleading

[Greyfoxzb]

Maybe we should fix mob glitching, magic kiting ( jumping and shooting magic is just so fucked up it's not even funny ) over powered magic, unbalanced magic armor, bugs in general, ability to break someones parry with say a power attack would be nice if balanced out.

I'm looking forward to this expansion, and what it has to offer, especially on the naval area.

Hopefully they fix WATER LOGGING.

[boxfetish]

I will concede that the intention of including local banking at the village level only may be to provide a guage for future expansion of the local banking system ... my question is HOW exactly they intend to extrapolate any useful info from this?

- They cant get a feel for the effects on economy as local banking would only affect the economy if there wasnt a global alternative runnign concurrently
- They cant get a feel for the effect on trade routes/pvp/pirating/caravans as no-one would risk transporting any valuable by physically carrying whilst a safe alternative (global banking) exists
- They cant get a feel for how popular a local banking system is as, ofc, if a global system exists players arent going to disadvantage themselves by not using it when everyone else is...

This is why im starting to get paranoid ... the 'test' of putting in local banking as they have described cannot give any conclusive or even useful information but can easily give an impression biased against local banking.

tl;dr

The local banking 'first step' as described will constitute a redundant and disadvantageous system that will provide no useful information from which to judge the potential of a full local banking system... it is pointless and dangerously misleading

Winner.

[coder1024]

The local banking 'first step' as described will constitute a redundant and disadvantageous system that will provide no useful information from which to judge the potential of a full local banking system... it is pointless and dangerously misleading
what you're saying is true on the flip side as well. if they did a complete switch to local banking, that wouldn't provide info either. sure, everyone would be using the new local banking system, but only because they had no choice. by having both systems in the game, they can see what people prefer. I think people will prefer the global banking and will find the local banking to just be a pain in the butt in the long run and I'm guessing it won't ever progress to a complete local banking system.

[Kasmos]

what you're saying is true on the flip side as well. if they did a complete switch to local banking, that wouldn't provide info either. sure, everyone would be using the new local banking system, but only because they had no choice. by having both systems in the game, they can see what people prefer. I think people will prefer the global banking and will find the local banking to just be a pain in the butt in the long run and I'm guessing it won't ever progress to a complete local banking system.

I think his point is that who the fuck is even going to TRY to use the local bank in a house when there are so many global banks everywhere?

You can't judge how a system is going to work if when you add it in a "first step" it's not going to do a god damn thing and 98% of the population is not going to use it. That's the problem.

The localized banking "first step" should have been hamlet and city banks becoming local, not this bullshit player house nonsense.

[coder1024]

The localized banking "first step" should have been hamlet and city banks becoming local, not this bullshit player house nonsense.
how would that have been a "first step"? if you make hamlet and city banks local what's left? wilderness banks? starter cities? that's more like a complete switch-over than a "first step" imo.

[Kasmos]

Of course that change should be made. But that has nothing to do with local banking.

I have noticed with Kasmos he loves these extremely restrictive ideas to stop and encourage something from happening, when there is a far less restrictive and more sensible way of achieving the goal. If he isn't the guy who was diehard for a soft cap with decay just to promote diversity, then my bad.

Yes, I was the guy who was diehard for a soft cap with decay (which by every poll was the majority winner), but we'll have to wait and see how this wonderful "specialization" system plays out.

Anyway, I proposed a system a while ago in which I laid out my thoughts on local banking and global banking, and incorporated both of them.

Here is it, give me your thoughts.

Here is why local banking in my opinion would be a great aspect to this game, and I'll also give my suggestion on how it should be implemented.

First my suggestion:

First off, all gold should be global no matter what the bank, but when I refer to local and global banking, I am referring to ALL items. All NPC city banks, clan banks, hamlet banks, village banks, and wilderness banks guarded by a tower should be local only. The only banks that should be global are non-protected wilderness banks. Now, I think more of these should be added in locations that are reasonable and maybe some of the current ones tweaked, but I think you have the general idea.

My reasoning behind my suggestion and why I think it would make this game a lot better:

Reason for making only non-protected wilderness banks global:

If you want to place items in a global bank and be able to travel naked around the world to get them someplace else, there has to be a great risk in doing so. This would promote open world PvP making non-protected wilderness banks prime location for raiding parties/protecting parties, it would actually make caravans and player owned shops meaningful which in turn would GREATLY diversify the economy and make it more stable and prosperous from region to region, and it would make transporting items by ship (which would allow for pirating as well) a much more viable option for transporting items.

Reason for making all other banks local:

You should not be able to "teleport" items around the world in safeguarded locations such as clan banks or NPC city banks. This is why we see naked people running from city A to city B to sell their items because as it stands, there is no risk in doing so except getting ganked and having to run all over again. If you're going to be basically completely safe due to towers (unless you're getting raided of course in a clan city or hamlet), you should not be able to teleport items period.

Also, I think that when a clan's city or hamlet is sieged, ALL items in the specific bank should be able to be looted (spoils of war) if the bank is destroyed or the hamlet/city is overtaken. This would create a lot more incentive for sieging hamlets and cities, and also would create a new dynamic where you would possibly see a clan leader or a group of people fleeing the city with their goods, allowing them to be hunted (or if they're sneaky enough) or allowing the fleeing party the ability to run to another wilderness bank.

[Kasmos]

how would that have been a "first step"? if you make hamlet and city banks local what's left? wilderness banks? starter cities? that's more like a complete switch-over than a "first step" imo.

The point is, no one is going to use localized banks so how are they going to test if it's a good function? I don't own a player house, am I going to be able to test the functionality?

What about everyone else without a player house?

The fact is, very few people are going to be able to "try" this new functionality, so how in the world are they going to "monitor and see what happens"?

And yes, adding local banking to clan city and hamlet banks IS a good first step. If it works out, they could make banks local between racial alliances. They could make chaos banks local. They could make wilderness banks guarded by towers local. Etc.

[coder1024]

And yes, adding local banking to clan city and hamlet banks IS a good first step. If it works out, they could make banks local between racial alliances. They could make chaos banks local. They could make wilderness banks guarded by towers local. Etc.
Your post that I responded to which I quoted before referred to hamlet and city banks *becoming* local. I was simply saying that this would not be a "first step" it would be a complete switch to local banking.

[Kasmos]

Your post that I responded to which I quoted before referred to hamlet and city banks *becoming* local. I was simply saying that this would not be a "first step" it would be a complete switch to local banking.

Yeah, I understood you haha. I disagree and believe making clan city and hamlet banks local WOULD be a good first step. What better way to test the system instead of this "first step" that no one is going to test? If it really fucked shit up, it'd probably be easy to revert back, but somehow I think it would have made this game a hell of a lot more fun and interesting.

Of course, that's not to say that they won't do that eventually, but I would have found that a much better "test" then what they're doing.

[boxfetish]

Your post that I responded to which I quoted before referred to hamlet and city banks *becoming* local. I was simply saying that this would not be a "first step" it would be a complete switch to local banking.

How disingenuous. Is that deliberate?

In what bizarro fantasy world is having all player banks (clan cities, houses, etc.) be local and all NPC and wilderness banks remain universal not be a first step, but a complete switch to local banking?

Get real. The self-delusional contortions some of you put yourselves through to maintain the illusions that the game needs to be (or remain) dumbed down is just ridiculous.

[coder1024]

boxfetish, you're as dramatic as ever I will give you that :)

I was simply saying that if you make clan hamlet and city vaults be local only then, yes, that essentially is a complete switch to local banking. Its not a first step, its a complete change.

[Kasmos]

How disingenuous. Is that deliberate?

In what bizarro fantasy world is having all player banks (clan cities, houses, etc.) be local and all NPC and wilderness banks remain universal not be a first step, but a complete switch to local banking?

Get real. The self-delusional contortions some of you put yourselves through to maintain the illusions that the game needs to be (or remain) dumbed down is just ridiculous.

I think sometimes in the future I'm going to PM you just so you can write what I am trying to say. Thanks haha.

[Kasmos]

boxfetish, you're as dramatic as ever I will give you that :)

I was simply saying that if you make clan hamlet and city vaults be local only then, yes, that essentially is a complete switch to local banking. Its not a first step, its a complete change.

But again, why? If all NPC banks and wilderness banks remain global, how is that a complete switch to local banking?

You're basically saying NO ONE uses wilderness banks, NO ONE uses NPC city banks, and NO ONE uses chaos city banks.

That clearly isn't the case.

[coder1024]

Yeah, I understood you haha. I disagree and believe making clan city and hamlet banks local WOULD be a good first step. What better way to test the system instead of this "first step" that no one is going to test? If it really fucked shit up, it'd probably be easy to revert back, but somehow I think it would have made this game a hell of a lot more fun and interesting.

Of course, that's not to say that they won't do that eventually, but I would have found that a much better "test" then what they're doing.
Well, I guess its a moot point as their "first step" is going to be adding it to player housing and then adding (not replacing) it for the cities/hamlets. We'll see what the community response is to this as to whether they'll continue down this road. I'm guessing global banks will get a lot heavier use than local ones though and so its not gonna be necessary to make a complete switch to local banking.

[driftwood81]

Yes, I was the guy who was diehard for a soft cap with decay (which by every poll was the majority winner), but we'll have to wait and see how this wonderful "specialization" system plays out.

Anyway, I proposed a system a while ago in which I laid out my thoughts on local banking and global banking, and incorporated both of them.

Here is it, give me your thoughts.

I'd be willing to test it out, although my belief is that in the end, it would merely be an obstacle and an annoyance to access your stuff, while the reasons you give would not play out like you think.

As for the village local banking being a pointless change and a pointless indicator, I believe the devs have a lot of changes in store for villages. Will it actually attract people to them this time? Dunno, but if they can successfully turn villages into gathering places and a hub of sorts, then it would prove to be a good change, and possibly a good indicator of further local bank implementations.

[coder1024]

But again, why? If all NPC banks and wilderness banks remain global, how is that a complete switch to local banking?
Its "essentially" a complete switch :) Perhaps not literally as, yes there would still be banks with global access. But its a significant enough change that calling it a "first step" hardly seems accurate.

[dirtknap]

I am in favour of local banks only.

The "ridiculous annoyance" factor can be gotten around with an additional feature: NPC and PC trade consignments.

What is a trade consignment? Essentially a Fedex quest for PCs, with a gold reward for moving consignment XX to local bank at position YY. pickup and delivery of consignments would be protected by escrow and/or insurance -- the player picking up the package has to deposit XX gold which is returned on delivery.

And because not all consignments/trade quests will be fulfilled by players, you'd also need a baseline NPC trading service, which essentially moves items from local bank X to local bank Y, but takes much longer (eg: a week or more depending on distance), and charges much more.

The upshot is: players who just want their stuff to move can pay (through the nose) to have their shit moved for them, while others will move their own stuff, and others will get into the moving business themselves for profit, especially if this stuff gets tied into the use of ships and caravans/vehicles.

Solving the irritation factor of LBing with trade mechanics such as those above IMO is the way to go.

[coder1024]

The upshot is: players who just want their stuff to move can pay (through the nose)
How is having to pay through the nose to move some things an upshot?

[Steorn]

I've seen a few interesting ideas on associated and local banking. Here's my 5 cents.

Associated Banks:

1) Alliance Clan/Hamlet <-> Chaos Banks.

The link to the Chaos banks is for if/when your city/hamlet is taken, your stuff is not gone until you take back that city, and everyone in the guild is not totally up a creek. It also covers reds being OK as well.

2) Allied NPC Cities

If you want to move out of the newb cities, you have to move out - like we've seen in Eve.

3) House

I think this should be stand-alone, used as a pit-stop to put or grab stuff... like a cabin in Alaska. You know, the kind you run across like in The Bear, with Anthony Hopkins.... booze, ammo... maybe a water craft. "Lure him, Charles...."

[Shioni]

I think it would be a great idea to have the option of banking something local or not. Perhaps have a skill that has a waiting period to open global banks but allow players to bank things locally instantly

[driftwood81]

I am in favour of local banks only.

The "ridiculous annoyance" factor can be gotten around with an additional feature: NPC and PC trade consignments.

What is a trade consignment? Essentially a Fedex quest for PCs, with a gold reward for moving consignment XX to local bank at position YY. pickup and delivery of consignments would be protected by escrow and/or insurance -- the player picking up the package has to deposit XX gold which is returned on delivery.

And because not all consignments/trade quests will be fulfilled by players, you'd also need a baseline NPC trading service, which essentially moves items from local bank X to local bank Y, but takes much longer (eg: a week or more depending on distance), and charges much more.

The upshot is: players who just want their stuff to move can pay (through the nose) to have their shit moved for them, while others will move their own stuff, and others will get into the moving business themselves for profit, especially if this stuff gets tied into the use of ships and caravans/vehicles.

Solving the irritation factor of LBing with trade mechanics such as those above IMO is the way to go.

This system is extremely exploitable.

A.) There is no insurance, the person who takes up the goods transfer lets friends kill them and then they get the loot.

B.) There is insurance, the person who does a goods transfer has more loot than the insurance costs so, he has his friends kill him or the transferrer and loots more loot than the insurance costs.

[Pyro Kiddie]

This system is extremely exploitable.

A.) There is no insurance, the person who takes up the goods transfer lets friends kill them and then they get the loot.

B.) There is insurance, the person who does a goods transfer has more loot than the insurance costs so, he has his friends kill him or the transferrer and loots more loot than the insurance costs.

na cos the insurance is the same value as the shit being moved. Hence you will get big big companies (clans) with thousands in the bank doing the big moves.

[Epicurious]

Wouldn't they have to make gold local and give it a weight, then make it so you can't teleport or recall when overweight to make local banks work?

If I can just pull gold from anywhere, I can just run to the place I am buying my goods, withdraw the gold and recall home.

With the current mechanics, what would be the point in local banking?

[driftwood81]

na cos the insurance is the same value as the shit being moved. Hence you will get big big companies (clans) with thousands in the bank doing the big moves.

So if someone wants to move 100k worth of stuff(how would this ever be valuated by the way to come up with the insurance cost?), they can potentially lose 100k plus whatever the contract fee is and still have the crap sitting in their local bank?

And when they spend this 100k, they are putting their trust in some random player(s) who can go right ahead and purposely die to their buds?

Ya... semi-decent idea that would never work.

[amah]

i like the idea of local banking. I think killing someone in a city and then banking in his own bank is the most stupid feature of the game .

[Dragoon]

Maybe if house banking is "successful" then they'll add local banking to clan cities and hamlets next.

[ping_pong]

“With any form of local banking, it's a fine line between cool feature and ridiculous annoyance, so we are trying to do this in steps, and work with our players to get it just right.”, Claus concluded on the topic.


Well said... In my opinion, local banks would only be a ridiculous annoyance ! I for sure wouldnt like to have different stuff at banks in human lands and elf lands for example. I am a traveller... I need to access my stuff everywhere... It would be ridiculous to have to travel to specific banks whenever I needed some special reagent or arrow... Or what about if you forget where you banked THAT specific acid bow ? You have to travel to like 5 different banks only to find it ? No thank you...

Localized banks are only good for people who play on their own hamlets or cities... It isnt viable for nomads like me !

/signed

[edaw22]

Im extremely dissapointed about this, probably more so than i have ever been with Aventurine.

This idea of limited local banking will mean that an extremely exciting prospect of the expansion, one that so many people are looking forward to. Will be basically cut away from anyone who doesn't own a house which is many, many people. And, what is probably far worse, will not have the positive effect on the Darkfall Economy that so many people were waiting for.

In fact this particular introduction of local banking with have almost no effect on the game at all, except letting people who own a house an already bigger advantage than being able to teleport a raiding party across the map.

Cool Crayfish says, Thanks a lot Aventurine, I sincerely hope the rest of the expansion offers something a little more substantial than this.

[Vogular]

Localize banking should start in clancities :)

But in the other hand, what of u raid a city and there are some people with like building modules, mounts, wood and iron as loot.

u can't take it all and u can't bank it so it makes it even more safer for afk crafting because city raiders won't be able to carry much of the loot..

[trimil]

Everyone who wanted to have lockal bank had it a long time ago. Eveything you need is a alt charatcer on your farm spot. And you can never leave that spot farming runes at the place and banking it into your alt. But this is a moving local bank and thats more usefull that AV wants to implement.

[Dragoon]

How many if any current MMO's out there have local banking.... I can think of ZERO (EVE maybe? but thats a totally different style of game.). There is a reason for that....

*sigh*... some people should have to pass an IQ test before being allowed to post.

Eve and Darkfall are the only two PvP-based sandbox mmo's released in the last few years. Mortal Online will be the next, and yes it will include local banking. Which means out of the three most recent sandbox PvP games two of them have local banking and one doesn't.

All of those other MMO's you're talking about are themepark games. Sandbox games usually have local banking. Darkfall SHOULD have had local banking in the beta. And if it didn't work they should have removed it. Not giving us the feature and telling us "you don't want it!" was pure ignorance. They also insisted that Caravans were a bad idea and we wouldn't have them and now look... they're adding them in.

But I'm not all doom and gloom about this. This is just the first step, the lack of local banking isn't this games biggest problem right now. Hopefully they'll add local banking to all clan cities and hamlets in a patch.

[boxfetish]

How disingenuous. Is that deliberate?

In what bizarro fantasy world is having all player banks (clan cities, houses, etc.) be local and all NPC, chaos city, and wilderness banks remain universal not be a first step, but a complete switch to local banking?

Get real. The self-delusional contortions some of you put yourselves through to maintain the illusions that the game needs to be (or remain) dumbed down is just ridiculous.Its "essentially" a complete switch :) Perhaps not literally as, yes there would still be banks with global access. But its a significant enough change that calling it a "first step" hardly seems accurate.

You are "essentially" completely full of shit.

You know this is nowhere near a complete switch when chaos cities, wilderness banks and all NPC banks would still be universally linked as now.

You also know that "houses only" as a first step will be useless as an indicator of anything.

You also know you are dishonest for suggesting otherwise. On both counts.

[RonarcBracklaw]

I would like to see banks in hamlets follow the same rules as the clanstones. Let the owning clan and their allies bank, everyone else is SOL and must find a wilderness bank nearby. It would add the the "control point" aspect of the territorial pvp.

This. While I think it would make hammering harder, I assume that's what the caravans would be for?

[coder1024]

You are "essentially" completely full of shit.

You know this is nowhere near a complete switch when chaos cities, wilderness banks and all NPC banks would still be universally linked as now.

You also know that "houses only" as a first step will be useless as an indicator of anything.

You also know you are dishonest for suggesting otherwise. On both counts.
As I said, if they were to do a complete switch that would be just as useless as an indicator. So they're doing a partial "addon" implementation to see where it leads. And yes, I do think that switching player hamlets and cities over to local only banks would be "essentially" a complete switch even if you still had NPC banks as global. And no, the fact that I'm not agreeing with you does not necessarily mean I'm being dishonest :D

[boxfetish]

As I said, if they were to do a complete switch that would be just as useless as an indicator. So they're doing a partial "addon" implementation to see where it leads. And yes, I do think that switching player hamlets and cities over to local only banks would be "essentially" a complete switch even if you still had NPC banks as global. And no, the fact that I'm not agreeing with you does not necessarily mean I'm being dishonest :D

Meh. You are either being patently dishonest or you are delusional. It's one or the other. It has nothing to do with agreeing with anyone or not.

Two assertions:

"only switching clan and hamlet banks to local and leaving all other banks universal is not the same as completely switching all banks to local"

and

"non-global house banks only will not effectively be a metric or indicator of anything"


Both are self-evident.



As DEDjed already said, the only reason I can see that somebody might want to take such a farcical non-step towards local banking would be if they later wanted to be able to say "See! We tried to implement local banks and nobody used them and they didn't change anything! So we are ditching them!".

If AV wants the intelligent members of their community to believe they are honestly trying out local banking then they need to take a genuine step towards it, not an artificial one.

[kdchan]

I think you shouldn't able to bank in a enemy city, especially when you siege it.

[Sinuhe]

I think you shouldn't able to bank in a enemy city, especially when you siege it.

/sign

[Drasked]

Local banking in player villages and vendors!! Hardcore sexyness!!!

[evoke]

That system is so half-assed it's pathetic. No one is going to use your shitty local storage. You're putting it in just so you can say "we listen to our playerbase" and so you can claim that you have local banking. Seriously, it's not about taking "small steps", put something in that's actually useful not retarded like this idea.

[Belteyn]

I think you shouldn't able to bank in a enemy city, especially when you siege it.

/sign

Banking in an enemy city during a siege is the most stupid concept this game has.

[DeadlyHit]

Im extremely dissapointed about this, probably more so than i have ever been with Aventurine.

This idea of limited local banking will mean that an extremely exciting prospect of the expansion, one that so many people are looking forward to. Will be basically cut away from anyone who doesn't own a house which is many, many people. And, what is probably far worse, will not have the positive effect on the Darkfall Economy that so many people were waiting for.

In fact this particular introduction of local banking with have almost no effect on the game at all, except letting people who own a house an already bigger advantage than being able to teleport a raiding party across the map.

Cool Crayfish says, Thanks a lot Aventurine, I sincerely hope the rest of the expansion offers something a little more substantial than this.
Wow cry more.

[pete the pirate]

The world is full of doorless homes,seroiusly i havent seen a home with a door on in some time,FIX IT,and 2 homes in my village ran out of rent lately,the rent is too high and the benifits are too low.ATM homes are just a gold sink.:bang:

[pete the pirate]

The world is full of doorless homes,seroiusly i havent seen a home with a door on in some time,FIX IT,and 2 homes in my village ran out of rent lately,the rent is too high and the benifits are too low.ATM homes are just a gold sink.:bang:

As for player shops in villages,villages generallly are away from anything so they wont get many customers.

[Kasmos]

Well, I guess its a moot point as their "first step" is going to be adding it to player housing and then adding (not replacing) it for the cities/hamlets. We'll see what the community response is to this as to whether they'll continue down this road. I'm guessing global banks will get a lot heavier use than local ones though and so its not gonna be necessary to make a complete switch to local banking.

Of COURSE global banks are going to get used 1000x more than local banks with this "first step".

Why?

Well let's see here.

A) how many people own player houses compared to the actual population?
B) of those few people that own player houses, how many are going to store items "locally" if they can just keep all their shit in the global banks?
C) who, when given the option of tons of global banks or one local bank is going to use the local bank?

OF COURSE global banks are "more appealing". OF COURSE more people would use global banks if they're still widely available instead of local banks. Who in their right mind wouldn't? Why risk your items when you can insta-teleport them anywhere in the world?

The point is, local banks open up new dynamics to a game. Look at EVE, which is very successful right now, and their banking system. I don't see people bitching all the time about "how unfun" it is.

Shit, maybe I just realized that EVE players are more hardcore than most of you.... :eek:

[edaw22]

Meh. You are either being patently dishonest or you are delusional. It's one or the other. It has nothing to do with agreeing with anyone or not.

Two assertions:

"only switching clan and hamlet banks to local and leaving all other banks universal is not the same as completely switching all banks to local"

and

"non-global house banks only will not effectively be a metric or indicator of anything"


Both are self-evident.



As DEDjed already said, the only reason I can see that somebody might want to take such a farcical non-step towards local banking would be if they later wanted to be able to say "See! We tried to implement local banks and nobody used them and they didn't change anything! So we are ditching them!".

If AV wants the intelligent members of their community to believe they are honestly trying out local banking then they need to take a genuine step towards it, not an artificial one.

I must say, reading the above conversation, is a refreshing breath of air.

I am afraid I have become so polluted with the toxic waste, that has become the norm in Forumfall conversing, that when someone finally posts a piece of text with a genuine point, that fits the context of the thread AND that honestly attempts to convey an idea in a clear and succinct manner I cannot help but be impressed.

I tip my hat to you my good sir.

[driftwood81]

*sigh*... some people should have to pass an IQ test before being allowed to post.

Eve and Darkfall are the only two PvP-based sandbox mmo's released in the last few years. Mortal Online will be the next, and yes it will include local banking. Which means out of the three most recent sandbox PvP games two of them have local banking and one doesn't.


Wow, so much irony in this post.

So he makes a point saying very few MMOs (is the count actually 1?) have had local banking and you insult his IQ for some BS reason?

Oh ya, we forgot the constant redefiners of the term "Sandbox" (read: people who use the term as a crutch whenever it suits them, like this for example) have once again redefined sandbox to include local banking, to once again act as a crutch trying to support their weak argument.

[edaw22]

Wow cry more.

I do not believe that, once during my post, either the words "cry" nor the textual representation of such an action were expressed. I simply put forth my opinion of Aventurines decision in regards to their so called "Local Banking" scheme.

Sure, I may have been slightly hyperbolic, but this is a discussion, not some chat with friends. I had a point to convey and convey it I did. If Aventurine was offended by my comments I am more than happy for them to say so. However since the aforementioned comments were not directed at you, I see no logical reason why you should make a judgment on their legitimacy.

[Kasmos]

Wow, so much irony in this post.

So he makes a point saying very few MMOs (is the count actually 1?) have had local banking and you insult his IQ for some BS reason?

Oh ya, we forgot the constant redefiners of the term "Sandbox" (read: people who use the term as a crutch whenever it suits them, like this for example) have once again redefined sandbox to include local banking, to once again act as a crutch trying to support their weak argument.

I think you fail to see his point. His point was that of the few "sandbox" games that are coming out/are out right now, two of them will have local banking, NOT that sandbox games NEED local banking.

In my opinion, local banking just makes sandbox games BETTER.

[Uncletouchme]

Shit, maybe I just realized that EVE players are more hardcore than most of you.... :eek:


:ninja: (cough) /This (cough)

Some of us EVE players are, we just have no need to boast it :D

- We know how to use local banking, and manipulate trade routes using the "caravan" system. - This will be fun. It's all about learning the DF curve.

[driftwood81]

I think you fail to see his point. His point was that of the few "sandbox" games that are coming out/are out right now, two of them will have local banking, NOT that sandbox games NEED local banking.

In my opinion, local banking just makes sandbox games BETTER.

If he just made his very weak point without adding hypocritical personal insults, I would have browsed over his very weak point without feeling the need to respond.

[James Troll]

wow People began to use MO as an example even if the game is in early alpha.

Jeez you are so bad trolls.

[Krucial]

Driftwood,

If you dislike of local bank I respect you, however it isn't a thread about if the local bank will be implemented or not, it's a thread for the opinion of people about the first step for local bank system, so, the local bank will inserted in the game independent if you like or not.

The most players want a TRUE local bank system and think that this first step is a joke, local bank in the village house and nothing is the same thing.

Have a nice day and sorry for my poor english.

[driftwood81]

Driftwood,

If you dislike of local bank I respect you, however it isn't a thread about if the local bank will be implemented or not, it's a thread for the opinion of people about the first step for local bank system, so, the local bank will inserted in the game independent if you like or not.

The most players want a TRUE local bank system and think that this first step is a joke, local bank in the village house and nothing is the same thing.

Have a nice day and sorry for my poor english.

I understand, and was suggesting that people wait and see the overall changes to villages to see if the changes, along with local banking there adds anything to the game or not before completely trashing the idea.

That's pretty much all you can do. Feedback isn't going to make them roll out full universal banking in the next couple weeks with the rest of the expansion.

Might as well see how the changes go before potentially putting your foot in your mouth :P

[Crulty]

I find it very amusing when people say EVE is hardcore, lets see you gain skills while afk for a month, you point and click to move and rig with most guns wins the battle once you lock down your target? and that's hardcore? I think TETRIS is more hardcore than that.

[Manifoldgodhead]

I love how they are going to fuck up the implementation of local banks which will fail epically and then use it as a reason why local banks don't work and never worry about it again.

WHO THE FUCK WILL PUT ANYTHING IN THEIR HOUSE BANK?

There's no point to it. Why would I store something locally when I can just put it in universal everywhere bank so I can access it in the middle of a siege to restock.

Plus the way he talked about these banks making villages and such more attractive to raids make me think the local house bank will be lootable which means the only use for it is for RPers who put a couple of shirts in there to pretend it's their real house.

Epic Fail AV, but then my expectations are not high.

[smcgrath]

localized banking in houses is a great idea but as long as its only for houses, i dont want to run across the world to get something out of one bank than have to go to another

[Kasmos]

I understand, and was suggesting that people wait and see the overall changes to villages to see if the changes, along with local banking there adds anything to the game or not before completely trashing the idea.

That's pretty much all you can do. Feedback isn't going to make them roll out full universal banking in the next couple weeks with the rest of the expansion.

Might as well see how the changes go before potentially putting your foot in your mouth :P

Yeah, I have a lot riding on this expansion.

The specialization system doesn't seem like it's going to do much of anything in my opinion in creating diversity, but we'll have to wait and see what happens.

The local banking first step seems like a complete and utter joke, and I predict no one is even going to utilize it, but again like you said, we'll have to wait and see.

The whole concept of caravans and player owned shops which I was EXTREMELY excited about and you can see posts of mine when they announced this to confirm that, seems pointless now to add in because of the lack of really any local banking at all. Who is going to use a caravan if they can still insta-teleport all their shit? Who is going to open up a player owned shop at their player house if they can just teleport their shit to a major NPC city hub?

Hopefully naval combat upgrades will add a new dimension to the game, because the lack of naval combat currently is disappointed. Again, we'll have to wait and see.

Basically, this expansion could push this game in a very positive direction or not accomplish much at all even though the potential of the concepts are huge. Unfortunately, with some of the recent updates about lack of a skill cap of some sort and this lame attempt at "testing out" local banking, I'm leaning more towards the latter.

I hope to god I'm wrong....

[driftwood81]

I love how they are going to fuck up the implementation of local banks which will fail epically and then use it as a reason why local banks don't work and never worry about it again.

WHO THE FUCK WILL PUT ANYTHING IN THEIR HOUSE BANK?

There's no point to it. Why would I store something locally when I can just put it in universal everywhere bank so I can access it in the middle of a siege to restock.

Plus the way he talked about these banks making villages and such more attractive to raids make me think the local house bank will be lootable which means the only use for it is for RPers who put a couple of shirts in there to pretend it's their real house.

Epic Fail AV, but then my expectations are not high.

Wouldn't people who are diehard for local banks actually want to try out the local banks? What? It's going to ruin your fun if everyone else isn't forced to travel for hours on end just to get some shit they left in a different bank?

Maybe this test is going to fail like you said because no one wants to travel for hours just to get shit out of multiple banks?

Oh but I know... local banks is magically going to make things better, just like fairy dust!

[Kasmos]

I find it very amusing when people say EVE is hardcore, lets see you gain skills while afk for a month, you point and click to move and rig with most guns wins the battle once you lock down your target? and that's hardcore? I think TETRIS is more hardcore than that.

There's nothing "hardcore" about having to AFK macro and bloodwall all your skills up just to be competitive. The point I was making is the banking system in EVE is much more sophisticated, complex, interesting, and guess what!? FUN! then compared to Darkfall's elementary themepark global banking bullshit.

Yes, EVE's banking system is leaps and bounds more "hardcore" and better for the game environment than Darkfall's.

[Kasmos]

Wouldn't people who are diehard for local banks actually want to try out the local banks? What? It's going to ruin your fun if everyone else isn't forced to travel for hours on end just to get some shit they left in a different bank?

I would love to test local banks, but guess what? I don't have a player house! So how in the FUCK am I going to test it?


Maybe this test is going to fail like you said because no one wants to travel for hours just to get shit out of multiple banks?

No one wants to grind their skills up either, but don't we have to?

No one likes to get ganked and lose a lot of expensive shit, but doesn't it happen?

No one likes to build up a city only to have it destroyed, but it happens doesn't it?

No one likes to have to run back to their tombstone far away after being killed by a mob in hopes of getting their shit back, but it happens doesn't it?

Just because some people will be pissed that they have to travel from point A to point B to get items they left in another bank doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented. Maybe they shouldn't have put their shit in that bank if they knew they were traveling across the world. Maybe they should have thought about where they farm and what they do so they can allocate items and resources accordingly.

Just because local banking will indeed be a harder system than global-banking-easy-mode, doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented. With global banking, there is nothing that players can create in the world off of this system. With local banking, the possibilities are endless.....


Oh but I know... local banks is magically going to make things better, just like fairy dust!

Nope, it won't "magically" make it better, but it will allow for things to become better. Again, regional economies will begin to form, caravans will actually become useful and meaningful, ships will begin to be used for transporting items, pirate clans will begin to form, raider clans will begin to form, defender clans will begin to form, etc. etc. It's not going to be a "magic switch", but it will be the catalyst to many great things to come.

[driftwood81]

There's nothing "hardcore" about having to AFK macro and bloodwall all your skills up just to be competitive. The point I was making is the banking system in EVE is much more sophisticated, complex, interesting, and guess what!? FUN! then compared to Darkfall's elementary themepark global banking bullshit.

Yes, EVE's banking system is leaps and bounds more "hardcore" and better for the game environment than Darkfall's.

Sorry dude... calling local banking hardcore is like calling a system where you have to alternate key presses to simulate left and right feet walking hardcore.

In reality they are both just tedious tasks.

This game does not have much local or regional feel to it. You will pretty much find a town near some good spawns or resources, and stay there until you join a clan, then live in the clan city.

You don't really travel from town to town to enjoy the company, role playing, taverns, trade, etc.

Maybe they will eventually head that way. Hell, maybe some of the village changes will turn villages into living places where people can go to "hang" out trade, etc.

But as the game is, there is no local/regional/community feel to the game, and local banking isn't something to just throw in the game until that part of the game is already established.

[driftwood81]

I would love to test local banks, but guess what? I don't have a player house! So how in the FUCK am I going to test it?

Buy a house? Or perhaps you can use a village bank even though you don't own a house in the village? You don't know how it's going to work yet. No sense getting all worked up about it, ya?

No one wants to grind their skills up either, but don't we have to?

If you started this game with maxed skills I wouldn't still be playing it. Character development is key to an MMORPG, right?

No one likes to get ganked and lose a lot of expensive shit, but doesn't it happen?

Risk vs Reward. I think full loot is a huge reason why the majority of people play this game?

No one likes to build up a city only to have it destroyed, but it happens doesn't it?

Risk vs Reward.

No one likes to have to run back to their tombstone far away after being killed by a mob in hopes of getting their shit back, but it happens doesn't it?

Meaningful death penalties.

Just because some people will be pissed that they have to travel from point A to point B to get items they left in another bank doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented. Maybe they shouldn't have put their shit in that bank if they knew they were traveling across the world. Maybe they should have thought about where they farm and what they do so they can allocate items and resources accordingly.

Annoyance vs rew... wait there is no reward? What's the reward?

Just because local banking will indeed be a harder system than global-banking-easy-mode, doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented. With global banking, there is nothing that players can create in the world off of this system. With local banking, the possibilities are endless.....

Please, for the sake of your own argument, stop referring global banking to easy mode. There is nothing hardcore about travel hours on end because you forgot which bank you left your shit in.

Nope, it won't "magically" make it better, but it will allow for things to become better. Again, regional economies will begin to form, caravans will actually become useful and meaningful, ships will begin to be used for transporting items, pirate clans will begin to form, raider clans will begin to form, defender clans will begin to form, etc. etc. It's not going to be a "magic switch", but it will be the catalyst to many great things to come.

Your assumptions are off base in my opinion. I already explained that economies already are regional. People don't want to travel to buy crap, so they will buy local unless they are being over charged, in which case they will simply use a runestone to a different region and buy from someone who isn't ripping them off.

Your regional economies max delta is going to be average price + value of runestone.

Caravans? If people even decide to use them, it's going to be so rare, and the world is so huge with a million different routes to every town that you are not going to have dedicated "caravan raiders." It's all going to be random chance that someone just happens to come across a caravan.

The no effect to economy, and the slight chance there might be 1-2 caravan raids a week on a server does not make up for the fact that every player in the game will be affected by having their shit scattered all over the place, and it will piss them off, and be a horrible change over all.

For your ideas to become reality, they need to make changes to build communities and populations within cities, which would be a huge metamorphosis. Local banking won't help this at all. Local banking needs to happen AFTER communities/towns are established, if at all.

[Dakeyras]

Im in two minds about this one.
Yes it could improve the economy, yes it will give you a huge rush transporting/raiding caravans, if you dont manage to get your hangs on a ton of runestones that is. As things stand and thinking back to the last expansion with chaos chests, theres going to be small armys wandering nonstop to find a victim, steal everything and push people towards quiting...btw i get pk'd at least once a day and honestly dont mind it. Handed my fair share of punishment out to unsuspecting mob farmers in the past ;) so this isnt a QQ post. Also its been mentioned before, but who the fuck is going to want to spend possibly hours upon end making small journeys so losses arent as bad when the 'i cant be assed farming so ill just take your shit' people turn up?

Make or break time could soon be upon us folks, lets just hope its given some real thought, rather than 'we need to add local banks nooooow to stop people moaning' mentality.

[Dasmas]

NO to local banks. Travel already is terrible as is.

[Nex Vita]

I love how peoples main arguement against local bank is about items scattered in different banks. Maybe you should manage your items better instead of relying on a system to do it for you.

[lanigav]

It sounds fairly evident that full local banking requires a huge reduction in fast travel options. Otherwise caravans, ships, etc... will be pointless currently its 400g for a runestone, that is way to cheap.

Assume the issues with local banking are fully addressed. Then the question is do the devs want the game to be a truly regional and territorial game with people out in the world; or are they happy with it the way it is where people travel naked or use runes/bindstone kicks to get from place to place. The answer here seems fairly evident to me, it just seems they are afraid of will the community accept it.

Fast travel creates massive hotspots and centralizes people to certain areas thus reducing the number of "random" encounters. While removing travel options creates random encounters, benefits zergs, and encourages more RP through these chance encounters.

Personally I like the territory idea and the removal of all fast travel options. Unless runes and nexus use is severely limited by weight. E.G. 160 kgs tops (enough for a mount armor and regs). Even this still allows for a shipment of 32 5kg uber weapons across the world with no risk, which can be repeated at 400g a run... see where I am going with this? Long story short I want a shot at EPIC loot and there just isn't any now, no one risks it.

[Kasmos]

I love how peoples main arguement against local bank is about items scattered in different banks. Maybe you should manage your items better instead of relying on a system to do it for you.

This, this, this, this, THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I go to my bank and put money in it, I can withdraw it from any bank around the world.

If I go to my bank and place a gun in my safe deposit box, can I pick it up in another bank the next state over? No, of course not.

People should have to think about how they organize and allocate their resources instead of just dropping it into an insta-teleporter machine that allows you to put hundreds of pounds of shit in one side of the world map and retrieve instantly in another bank on the opposite side of the map.

Hell, they could even add a mailing system that charges you a fee based off of item weight/value that allows you to send items to another bank (although I'd prefer if they didn't). Being able to insta-teleport shit across the map is just fucking stupid and prevents many game dynamics from forming that are possible with local banking (or at least a local banking system with a much less available global banking system).

[Abaratican]

local banking is the antithesis of fun.

also, to people like Kasmos who are so hell-bent on repeating their same crappy ideas until someone agrees with them... newsflash! spamming this thread won't convert anyone to your way of thinking. you don't need to say the same thing in 100 posts, and reply to every other post you see. just stop, everyone knows what you want already.

[driftwood81]

I love how peoples main arguement against local bank is about items scattered in different banks. Maybe you should manage your items better instead of relying on a system to do it for you.

Why? It's such a simple trivial task. Sorry, but in the game's current state, expecting to open a bank only to realize you left the item you are looking for in a bank that's a two hour round trip to go to is ridiculous. There better some damn good reward for that level of inconvenience.

But there isn't. There is no reward for it. In the game's current state it doesn't work. You don't use Local banks to force people to start acting in a local/regional/community manner. You possibly add Local banking once the local/regional/community attitude is already established, which it couldn't be further from this at the moment.

[Kasmos]

local banking is the antithesis of fun.

also, to people like Kasmos who are so hell-bent on repeating their same crappy ideas until someone agrees with them... newsflash! spamming this thread won't convert anyone to your way of thinking. you don't need to say the same thing in 100 posts, and reply to every other post you see. just stop, everyone knows what you want already.

God forbid we have a discussion and provide feedback in a forum, guess I misunderstood what forums were for.

But I guess you're right, let's just let the developers do what they feel is best and just go along for the ride, it's not like I'm a paying customer or anything :rolleyes:

Why? It's such a simple trivial task. Sorry, but in the game's current state, expecting to open a bank only to realize you left the item you are looking for in a bank that's a two hour round trip to go to is ridiculous. There better some damn good reward for that level of inconvenience.

For starters, thanks for having a discussion with me without resulting to insults, this is certainly a topic that is very important for the future of this game.

That aside, this could easily be resolved by having a "journal-like" system where you open up something in game and it inventories where you have what stored. If you really needed that item that is across the map, you should have thought about it before hand and brought it with you. But wait! You might lose it on the trip to your destination? OH NO!!!....

... but isn't that what Darkfall is all about?

And you keep saying there is no reward for local banking, but this too can be avoided. As it stands, there is no RISK in global banking and all REWARD (i.e. able to access all items across the map with no penalty).

With local banking the RISK would be losing your items going from point A to point B, or allocating items poorly (which would be the player's fault, not the local banking) and then getting in a tough situation where you don't have locally what you needed.

The REWARD could be many different things. You could let only local banks create interest to any gold left in there. You could let only local banks slowly repair durability of armor or weapons. Local banking could create trading hubs and varying item prices which would be rewarding for any potential customer AND the seller.

These are just simple examples off the top of my head, but the list could go on.


But there isn't. There is no reward for it. In the game's current state it doesn't work. You don't use Local banks to force people to start acting in a local/regional/community manner. You possibly add Local banking once the local/regional/community attitude is already established, which it couldn't be further from this at the moment.

Here is where I completely disagree with you. There is no local/regional/community atmosphere in this game BECAUSE there is no local banking in my opinion. In other games where there are zones, or instances, etc., the local/regional/community atmosphere is built INTO the game. In Darkfall that is NOT the case because the world is so open and large and non-instanced.

Local banking greatly helps create what you (and I agree with) claim is not in the game already.

I think you have the order of the two completely mixed up: you don't add in local banking once local, regional, territorial communities are formed, you add local banking in first to CREATE those.

[Lexxer]

I like the idea of chests/safes in houses that arent connected to the banking system. Its not going to change much other than just being another "feature".

I think they should put permissions on player city banks. Anyone, Guild, Guild+allies. Just like Towers. A better clan banking system would be nice as well.

My concern is how this player vendor thing is going to work. Whats to stop people from just sitting on/in thier house waiting for some poor schlub to come along for some shopping and just kill him? Hopefully they have some brilliant plan in the works to make player vendors viable.

[coder1024]

Meh. You are either being patently dishonest or you are delusional. It's one or the other. It has nothing to do with agreeing with anyone or not.
No, I'm just disagreeing with you. That doesn't make me delusional. First I'm dishonest, full of it, and now delusional. You have an interesting manner of discussion :)

Two assertions:

"only switching clan and hamlet banks to local and leaving all other banks universal is not the same as completely switching all banks to local"
I think making clan and hamlet banks local only is "essentially" a complete switch. Maybe you took that too literally. I'm not saying that literally every bank would be local. That's sort of obvious given the premise. I'm saying, practically speaking, if you take away global banking from player controlled hamlets and cities you have "essentially" switched completely to local banking. Not sure how to explain that "essentially" does not mean literally every bank. I thought that would have been obvious given the context.
"non-global house banks only will not effectively be a metric or indicator of anything"
And on the flip side making a much bigger switch to local banking wouldn't be a metric either. If all player cities/hamlets are forced into local banking, then they're gonna get used because they have no other choice. So you still wouldn't be getting a good metric. So even if what they're doing is less than ideal, its their attempt at an initial test to see what the response is and how it gets used.
the only reason I can see that somebody might want to take such a farcical non-step towards local banking would be if they later wanted to be able to say "See! We tried to implement local banks and nobody used them and they didn't change anything! So we are ditching them!".
So you suspect the devs of taking time to put in the partial local banks just so they can say they did it and noone likes it? This doesn't add up. If they didn't have any desire to actually see what people thought of local banks they could just leave them out. We haven't had them yet and although many wanted them, there hasn't been a huge outcry for them recently.

[Noxide]

I only read Keno Lair's post

[driftwood81]

Here is where I completely disagree with you. There is no local/regional/community atmosphere in this game BECAUSE there is no local banking in my opinion. In other games where there are zones, or instances, etc., the local/regional/community atmosphere is built INTO the game. In Darkfall that is NOT the case because the world is so open and large and non-instanced.

Local banking greatly helps create what you (and I agree with) claim is not in the game already.

I think you have the order of the two completely mixed up: you don't add in local banking once local, regional, territorial communities are formed, you add local banking in first to CREATE those.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree :P Although through our agreement, there is really no reason to hang around in towns, no "fluff" no community atmosphere, nothing. Throw in local banking, and you will be taking something away from the player without adding any other reason to stick to a certain location. This brings the question, why am I being tied down by local banks? Local banks isn't a "fun" feature by itself when there is nothing else drawing me to the town. It's just a nuisance.

I believe it would require some radical changes in order for full local banking to ever make sense and possible add something "fun" to this game. The only mandatory change imo, is bank permissions in clan cities, as it goes without saying, taking some siege hammers out of your enemies bank to smash their crap down is ludicrous.

[coder1024]

It would be nice to be able to set permissions on your bank and on all your NPCs. An NPC shouldn't deal with enemies if you so specify.

[Chris Windblade]

@ kasmos the beginning of your last post is that sarcasm?

umm all of us joined this game knowing that we would have to level something.
I am trying to figure out who the one at fault is for forcing you to grind so to speak? who is at fault for losing stuff in fights.

the part about seiging and getting the city blown up tbo i think it should be a lot harder to blow things up among other things.At the same time i think the city should be able to be leveled to the ground. and yes that's how kingdoms are formed people rule over the conquered citizen's that live in the region. tbo there really needs to be a better way to set up perimeter boundaries or guarded areas out side the region. say your city is andruk in a 100 meter area there would be towers set up or even semi walled in like hamlets that help the city defence atm its so easy to take a city or a hamlet because they are not tied together.


as far as local banks go.. i really hope they work out and they expand the idea. if walking to a place to get things from a vendor is to much to ask why even bother playing a rpg?

On that same foot they need to make more skills in the game to help crafters out tho hard very tedious quests that are impossiable to macro through to give the crafters that really want to craft an edge over the joe blow with 100 macroed master.

maybe its a special enchant like a 3rd tir enchant they can add and at the end of the enchant line they can get the 3rd line. then they have to do seperate quests that give them recipies can even tie them in to pvp things not like kill so many players or something like that but maybe held the hamlet the longest or to that effect or maybe a quest line dono the possiablitys are end less its a sandbox for crying out loud.

sorry typos in the dark typeing

[dirtknap]

So if someone wants to move 100k worth of stuff(how would this ever be valuated by the way to come up with the insurance cost?), they can potentially lose 100k plus whatever the contract fee is and still have the crap sitting in their local bank?

And when they spend this 100k, they are putting their trust in some random player(s) who can go right ahead and purposely die to their buds?

Ya... semi-decent idea that would never work.

lookup what 'escrow' means, then re-read what i posted.

[dirtknap]

This system is extremely exploitable.

A.) There is no insurance, the person who takes up the goods transfer lets friends kill them and then they get the loot.

B.) There is insurance, the person who does a goods transfer has more loot than the insurance costs so, he has his friends kill him or the transferrer and loots more loot than the insurance costs.

no it's not, because of escrow.

[Cloud Stryphe]

Wouldnt a sort of mail system help local banking?

[Shaoz]

Still not impressed. Expansion spotlight? How often do expansions come out? They are not expansions they are patches ffs.

[Tibernicus]

Still not impressed. Expansion spotlight? How often do expansions come out? They are not expansions they are patches ffs.

Um... new to the MMO industry? Massive game changing patches have ALWAYS been called free expansions, started way back in 2002. Dark Age of Camelot released housing for free and called it a free expansion. Why can't Darkfall call it a free expansion when they add housing and a hell of a lot more?

Also, this is just the first step, I'm glad they're being careful with it.

[Shaoz]

Um... new to the MMO industry? Massive game changing patches have ALWAYS been called free expansions, started way back in 2002. Dark Age of Camelot released housing for free and called it a free expansion. Why can't Darkfall call it a free expansion when they add housing and a hell of a lot more?

Also, this is just the first step, I'm glad they're being careful with it.

Clearly you are new to the MMO industry.

Enough said.

[MikeJT]

Regarding Player Vendors; are there any plans to include an option to allow players that do not own a house to have a Vendor?

This.

Please enlighten us.

[melipone]

I'd rather they did regular patches and slowly built up the game, than saving it all up so they can call it an expansion. That way changes are introduced gradually, you get a sense of rapid development and you don't get a week of further balancing and fixing post patch. If they have some elements working now why not get it patched in? I know from a marketing perspective its cool to have expansions as it will get people resubbing, but people will be quiting too as there doesn't really seem to be much happening in the meantime.

So many simple things could be done to fix the game, that could have been done months ago. AOE's, global cooldown on spell type etc..More mana use for certain spells. Just general balancing that could be done separately to expansion elements like banks in houses

[Signus]

I'd rather they did regular patches and slowly built up the game, than saving it all up so they can call it an expansion.

I doubt they save it all for one patch just to call it an expansion. It's very likely that a lot of the systems they are introducing are interconnected and complex. Like, without local banking, they wouldn't be able to do the caravan system, ect ect. I would like a few more regular patches though...


As for the above poster talking about the expansion not being an expansion... what Tibernicus said was right on the money. Just saying "I'm rubber and you are glue" doesn't make what he said disappear.

[Kasmos]

Wouldnt a sort of mail system help local banking?

It could, if the mailing system wasn't free or if there were some restrictions.

I've always liked the idea of a mailing system with a chance of interception. What I mean is you pay a certain fee (either based off of item worth or weight) to get an item shipped, but there is a chance (based off of which bank you send it to) that the item(s) can be intercepted and lost. Of course you'd get your money back, but the items would be gone. "Safe" banks like NPC cities would have the highest success rate (over 99%), "Moderately safe" banks like player city banks, hamlet banks, wilderness banks covered by towers, would have a slightly lower success rate (96-98%) and dangerous banks (neutral NPC cities and non-protected wilderness banks) would have the lowest success rate (90-95%).

You could add other features, such as if the package is lost it could be placed somewhere in the world (like chaos chests) so the lucky traveler could "score" if they found a missing package.


But there are of course many other ways to implement a mailing system too. Problem is, without local banking none of them would mean or do anything (including caravans).

[Chris Windblade]

It could, if the mailing system wasn't free or if there were some restrictions.

I've always liked the idea of a mailing system with a chance of interception. What I mean is you pay a certain fee (either based off of item worth or weight) to get an item shipped, but there is a chance (based off of which bank you send it to) that the item(s) can be intercepted and lost. Of course you'd get your money back, but the items would be gone. "Safe" banks like NPC cities would have the highest success rate (over 99%), "Moderately safe" banks like player city banks, hamlet banks, wilderness banks covered by towers, would have a slightly lower success rate (96-98%) and dangerous banks (neutral NPC cities and non-protected wilderness banks) would have the lowest success rate (90-95%).

You could add other features, such as if the package is lost it could be placed somewhere in the world (like chaos chests) so the lucky traveler could "score" if they found a missing package.


But there are of course many other ways to implement a mailing system too. Problem is, without local banking none of them would mean or do anything (including caravans).

there is a mailing system in game aready its called these boots were made for walking and thats just what you have to do. I remember in SWG there was a clan on Intrepid server called UPS and thats what they were known for and there was a mail service and vendors in that game.

really the problem with a mail service is then no one would travel no one would leave there town or where ever the mail terminal is at. its already bad enough people dont leave there city, do to blood walls and macros.

as an idea would be kinda cool if carvans would have like back in the old king richards days that you would get like an armored cart that you can attach to two mounts or a special biger mount no battle horns, and need to have escorts to follow you to city to city could pay for the service or what not. reason for armored support is because it would go slower then a normal mount since it has to pull a armored cart.

[SSguy]

Why? It's such a simple trivial task. Sorry, but in the game's current state, expecting to open a bank only to realize you left the item you are looking for in a bank that's a two hour round trip to go to is ridiculous. There better some damn good reward for that level of inconvenience.


Wait...I'm confused....why the fuck do you get rewarded for fucking up?
If you have to make a 2 hour round trip to go get items you forgot...guess what? You fucked up. You don't get a cookie for fucking up.


But there isn't. There is no reward for it. In the game's current state it doesn't work. You don't use Local banks to force people to start acting in a local/regional/community manner. You possibly add Local banking once the local/regional/community attitude is already established, which it couldn't be further from this at the moment.

Um......So....when does this local/regional/community start appearing? It doesn't. Why? Because the game mechanics don't allow for it.
You are asking for people to deliberately hold back..which is not going to happen. Especially with the leftover population of self indulgence whores.
So how many more months do we need to wait? How low does the server population need to get before these self imposed restricted regional economies appear?

Do you think before you post? Or are you just spouting out any nonsense that comes to mind because you are desperately trying to get out of having any resonsibility over your possessions?

[Gersendai]

Complete local banking is an intelligent way of thinking about things, because regardless of whether this is a game or not, you cannot go to one bank and deposit diamonds and expect another bank to have those same diamonds without having to pay a shipping fee and wait a few days for it to arrive. Thats why caravans would be great to have with local banking... them implimenting caravans just for localized house storage is pretty... well, not that great. its too small to actually take any advantage of.

[Uncletouchme]

(/edit) implimenting caravans just for localized house storage is pretty... well, not that great. its too small to actually take any advantage of.

I agree and understand this tied with just housing banking. But this is also a good way to test it and build off it as more banking becomes localized. There's a whole new raiding system here and who knows what to road travel, plus with out knowing anything other then it's name - we have nothing to go on, like if it's heavy NPC'd, travel time, NPC guarded or player driven? Lots O' fun. :ohno:

[coder1024]

Complete local banking is an intelligent way of thinking about things, because regardless of whether this is a game or not, you cannot go to one bank and deposit diamonds and expect another bank to have those same diamonds without having to pay a shipping fee and wait a few days for it to arrive. Thats why caravans would be great to have with local banking... them implimenting caravans just for localized house storage is pretty... well, not that great. its too small to actually take any advantage of.
I disagree. You deposit diamonds in one bank. You now have N diamonds in your account. You show up in a different town and they happen to also have diamonds in stock and so will give you up to N of them and just deduct them from your account. There's no need for them to give you the same exact diamonds you deposited. Just the same number you deposited. Then, after the fact, the original bank owes the other bank and over time things get sorted out by them sending stuff. But you wouldn't have to wait for the stuff to get there to withdraw it.

[MurielX]

I disagree. You deposit diamonds in one bank. You now have N diamonds in your account. You show up in a different town and they happen to also have diamonds in stock and so will give you up to N of them and just deduct them from your account. There's no need for them to give you the same exact diamonds you deposited. Just the same number you deposited. Then, after the fact, the original bank owes the other bank and over time things get sorted out by them sending stuff. But you wouldn't have to wait for the stuff to get there to withdraw it.


if you are suggesting this as a way to describe it in real world circumstances, you are missing out a few things. you can't think of these banks as modern day atms where they know how much money or diamonds are in your accounts.

with your explanation banks would be giving out diamonds like hotcakes not knowing whos telling the truth

[syryel]

I fail to see the interest for players for eventually having only local storage/bank (i.e. the expansion statements in question imply this is a possible long term goal). It seems to me this will disavantage mostly new players trying to get around.

As for houses, how many people have found a House Deed or how many can afford to buy one? I would like to see the number of players who actually have a house, rather than the opinions of the "elite-I-am-so-hot-and-rich".

Up to now, the whole house thing is a deception.

The only thing I find interesting in this expansion "preview" is:
* Caravans
* the notion of limiting banking in ennemy cities (now that would be a logical limit without making all storage local or house based)

[boxfetish]

Wait...I'm confused....why the fuck do you get rewarded for fucking up?
If you have to make a 2 hour round trip to go get items you forgot...guess what? You fucked up. You don't get a cookie for fucking up.



Um......So....when does this local/regional/community start appearing? It doesn't. Why? Because the game mechanics don't allow for it.
You are asking for people to deliberately hold back..which is not going to happen. Especially with the leftover population of self indulgence whores.
So how many more months do we need to wait? How low does the server population need to get before these self imposed restricted regional economies appear?

Do you think before you post? Or are you just spouting out any nonsense that comes to mind because you are desperately trying to get out of having any resonsibility over your possessions?

These pussies don't want any challenges or consequences for their actions. I doubt anything we say is going to change their minds. We can only hope that AV picks up a copy of 'Game Design 101' and starts getting a fucking clue. Then it won't matter what the easytards say.



I agree and understand this tied with just housing banking. But this is also a good way to test it and build off it as more banking becomes localized.

How is it a good way to test and build off of? Almost nobody has houses or villas. Those that do won't really use this local storage for anything for reasons repeated several times in this thread (and others). Explain exactly what AV will "find out" or be "testing" when only a tiny percentage of players will even have these banks and when the accessibility and advantages off the global banking will make them pointless?

Or maybe you just spouting this nonsense (along with a couple of others) in a contrived effort to sound constructive and supportive when it's completely unwarranted.

[SSguy]

I disagree. You deposit diamonds in one bank. You now have N diamonds in your account. You show up in a different town and they happen to also have diamonds in stock and so will give you up to N of them and just deduct them from your account. There's no need for them to give you the same exact diamonds you deposited. Just the same number you deposited. Then, after the fact, the original bank owes the other bank and over time things get sorted out by them sending stuff. But you wouldn't have to wait for the stuff to get there to withdraw it.

So what happens if I deposit Rubies, Some Sithras, and full bone plates instead?

Unless you want to turn banks into warehouses, a little box in the middle of town isn't going to cut it.

[coder1024]

my point was simply that its not necessary to withdraw the same exact items you deposited just the same type, assuming the banks have a stock. the only thing that requires is communication between banks and, seeing as how we have magic, I'm sure they've figured that out :)

its not that I'm trying to force DFO into the real world I'm simply responding that the real world sort of constraints which were posted aren't really an issue.

[alfar1]

Disappointing.
We were hoping for some real content change and what do we get?
Local banking in villages. And, supposedly in another 6 months, we'll get local banking in cities along with world wide banking.
Because that is what players in this game really, really need - more space to store their stuff. Forums are full with outcries for it.

In my opinion AV always underdoes stuff. Look at the villages: great idea but once the novelty wore off everyone realized they were not good enough. The reward for capturing them is too low, you can't own one house and recall to your friend's house, etc.

Just like that with the banking. Yes, we need banks in villages. But there's much more that we need. I had dreams of local banks everywhere, which would require special mounts (caravans?) to transport large quatities of goods. Ever ambush a freighter convoy in Eve, anyone?

Maybe it's a good idea to do it half a step at a time. Maybe in 2 years you'll be finally able to say: "The game's ok now". I just hope there's some players left by then. My patience is running short tbh.

[GRCPan]

I fail to see the interest for players for eventually having only local storage/bank (i.e. the expansion statements in question imply this is a possible long term goal). It seems to me this will disavantage mostly new players trying to get around.

As for houses, how many people have found a House Deed or how many can afford to buy one? I would like to see the number of players who actually have a house, rather than the opinions of the "elite-I-am-so-hot-and-rich".

Up to now, the whole house thing is a deception.

The only thing I find interesting in this expansion "preview" is:
* Caravans
* the notion of limiting banking in ennemy cities (now that would be a logical limit without making all storage local or house based)

How come you like caravans but don't like local banks? What purpose caravans would serve without local banks?

[magnumopus1337]

Message to the devs:

Make mage-killer specialization deal bonus damage not to people with staves out, but people wearing Robes/Bone Armor. The whole staff idea could lead to ridiculous situations where one mage-killer archer gets the bonus on another mage-killer archer who equipped a staff to cast LM/GM spell. Another thing is a guy with all the schools maxed, wearing bone armor is not considered a mage as soon as he sheathes the staff - this may make the whole specialization completely worthless in small scale combat where people would simply adjust to your tactic taking away the advantage you paid an extreme price for (elemental, arcane and necro magic lock).

[Leg enD]

Message to the devs:

Make mage-killer specialization deal bonus damage not to people with staves out, but people wearing Robes/Bone Armor. The whole staff idea could lead to ridiculous situations where one mage-killer archer gets the bonus on another mage-killer archer who equipped a staff to cast LM/GM spell. Another thing is a guy with all the schools maxed, wearing bone armor is not considered a mage as soon as he sheathes the staff - this may make the whole specialization completely worthless in small scale combat where people would simply adjust to your tactic taking away the advantage you paid an extreme price for (elemental, arcane and necro magic lock).

LOL

i take it this threads going well?

[magnumopus1337]

LOL

i take it this threads going well?

had nowhere else to post it

[Kasmos]

Disappointing.......

Just like that with the banking. Yes, we need banks in villages. But there's much more that we need. I had dreams of local banks everywhere, which would require special mounts (caravans?) to transport large quatities of goods. Ever ambush a freighter convoy in Eve, anyone?

Yes, I have, and it was one of the most fun experiences of my gaming career.

That's why I don't understand why there are these people so against local banking. The things that players would be able to create/do/experience if local banking was implemented are astounding, and we can't do any of those things with global banking.

I'd love to have a spy in some guild, find out that they're moving a lot of shit from point A to point B in a caravan, and set out to intercept them for their goods. This is a small example of what could be possible if local banking was implemented, but you'd never, ever see this happen with the way the system is now.

[GRCPan]

Message to the devs:

Make mage-killer specialization deal bonus damage not to people with staves out, but people wearing Robes/Bone Armor. The whole staff idea could lead to ridiculous situations where one mage-killer archer gets the bonus on another mage-killer archer who equipped a staff to cast LM/GM spell. Another thing is a guy with all the schools maxed, wearing bone armor is not considered a mage as soon as he sheathes the staff - this may make the whole specialization completely worthless in small scale combat where people would simply adjust to your tactic taking away the advantage you paid an extreme price for (elemental, arcane and necro magic lock).

So what if it does bonus damage to another mage killer?

[Elindor]

I see mainly 2 camps:

- Player City dwellers who want local banking.
- Nomads who do not want local banking.

Biggest complaint so far with global banking = "People show up at our city with minimal gear, grab stuff, kill us, loot our stuff, put it back in bank, etc"

SOLUTIONS:

1) If you don't want to implement 100% local banking, perhaps player city vaults have ACCESS RIGHTS similar to the settings available for who the player zap towers will attack. So enemies cannot use your vault.

2) REGIONAL BANKING - If you bank in Sanguine, then your stuff is accessible from any Human area NPC bank, but would not be there in Elven, for instance.
Consider being able to send certain items with a delay through a mail system to another region...and the caravan feature was sounding interesting...brings about a whole subgame of transporting goods, protecting those goods, theiving those goods, etc...

-----

One of the first posters to respond to this said it correctly - without local banking, a huge element of RISK is missing from the game. Avoid rediculous annoyances? Yes. But do not go so far as to avoid RISK vs REWARD in the game, otherwise things teeter dangerously close to any other MMO.

[Kasmos]

I see mainly 2 camps:

- Player City dwellers who want local banking.
- Nomads who do not want local banking.



To be fair, I think there are a lot of us who are nomads or wanderers or hunters who want local banking too. I am one of them because I strongly believe that local banking would add so many fun and great aspects to the game.

Biggest complaint so far with global banking = "People show up at our city with minimal gear, grab stuff, kill us, loot our stuff, put it back in bank, etc"

SOLUTIONS:



1) If you don't want to implement 100% local banking, perhaps player city vaults have ACCESS RIGHTS similar to the settings available for who the player zap towers will attack. So enemies cannot use your vault.

This is not enough in my mind, and basically only would prevent enemy players from banking at your city bank, which although is a major problem wouldn't resolve the bigger issue of the banking system.


2) REGIONAL BANKING - If you bank in Sanguine, then your stuff is accessible from any Human area NPC bank, but would not be there in Elven, for instance.
Consider being able to send certain items with a delay through a mail system to another region...and the caravan feature was sounding interesting...brings about a whole subgame of transporting goods, protecting those goods, theiving those goods, etc...

I would not be against making each region's banks "connected", but I think player cities, hamlets, and most wilderness banks need to be local, and a mailing system if implemented needs a risk associated with it as well.

[Elindor]

Agreed. I would rather see full local banking as well...

Just offering possible compromises because something is better than nothing :)

[melipone]

I think there definitely needs to be a balance between unnecessary tedium and functional local banks that promote player roles and risk.

My way of doing it would be to have all consumables global, and all craftables/equipment local. So you can go to a new place and have regs/food/money etc but you would need to have transported armour and weapons or buy new ones there. This would make crafters valuable and their wares would need to be transported in caravans. No crafting stations in player cities would also add to the economy and force people to have convoys to transport gear

[Kasmos]

My way of doing it would be to have all consumables global, and all craftables/equipment local. So you can go to a new place and have regs/food/money etc but you would need to have transported armour and weapons or buy new ones there. This would make crafters valuable and their wares would need to be transported in caravans. No crafting stations in player cities would also add to the economy and force people to have convoys to transport gear

I actually never thought of this before, but that could work! If all banks were local when it came to armor and weapons and expensive items, there would still be a great risk (and potential reward for attackers) in transporting those goods, making caravans still a viable option.

The question would be at what point do you say this item is local or global? Neat idea, I think you could be on to something.

[melipone]

It could also be written into the lore if they wanted, like we have a separate teleportation bank that can only teleport small items or multiple small items (gold, regs etc). Anything bigger (basically everything crafted) wouldn't be accepted by it.

I think something would have to be done to prevent people recalling with their wares rather than transporting it with a caravan. Gear could weight like 100x what it weighs now unless its actually being worn. So would have to move them in a caravan, and you would even need one when you go pking :)

[Elindor]

I've heard this proposed before...its a very very good idea in my opinion.

Common reagants, arrows, food, common potions, etc...could be universal, and all other items/resources could be local.

Could work.

[lanigav]

Without full local banking, with the option to deposit into a bank removed in player cities unless you are allied with the holding clan; and naked only fast travel (runes/recall/kick), then regional markets, caravans, and ship transport will never be realized. Anything in between is just a nuisance.

[melipone]

Because you think people would recall with gear? That is fixable if they weigh a lot more unless equiped, and you can't teleport overloaded

[Kasmos]

Without full local banking, with the option to deposit into a bank removed in player cities unless you are allied with the holding clan; and naked only fast travel (runes/recall/kick), then regional markets, caravans, and ship transport will never be realized. Anything in between is just a nuisance.

There are, to be fair, some options that would allow some sort of global banking system that is much more restrictive than now that would still provide incentives for caravan and ship transport use, regional markets, etc. Another idea is making it so that only items under a certain value are globally transportable, making it so that any item really worth looting to begin with would be local only.

Either way, they need to make local banking mean something and be widespread, otherwise as you and I have discussed in this thread so many potential new aspects to this game that could arise from local banking will never come into existence.

[Synik]

I agree, this will not sound good to alot of people but it will completely change the game and make combat so much more meaningful.

On the flip it might just give an edge to the power gamer.

First i have to say i am somewhat disapointed that localised banking does not include clan cities from the get go.

The whole going to a city killing a bunch of people and banking their stuff in their own bank is rediculous. So is sieging a city and only bringing minimum gear and restocking in their bank.

Annoyance does not = risk.

Make gold global and keep items localised, add some risks to trading and moving lots of gear.

[trashburnr]

please do not make local banking anything other than house banks and possibly boat banks. The people asking for 100% local banking don't know what it is like to pvp and get loot and then need to bank it. It would be a rediculously annoying hassle to have to anything other than player house banks be local.

If you must implement more of this dumb feature that only carebears and crafters and people who rarely pvp want, you must add more wilderness banks.

local banks inhibit pvp as less people will leave their areas where they have all their stuff stored. It is only good for the carebears and people who don't have to bank pvp loot. For the pvper who raids citys and needs to bank their well earned loot, local banking is an extreme joykill.

[Cunning]

If the GL could set who was allowed to use crafting stations and the bank then not only would the localized bank problems me almost totally solved, it would also provide the ability for cities to be used in different ways. The other ways I imagine cities being used would be much like Shadowbane had. One could set up their city available to everyone and add a lot of player vendors and have them available to everyone and the town would be known as a trading town open to all. You could specialize in the town being a pvp area, known for its fights and layout for excellent strategy. Once you give the GL the option for this, it is only the capturable banks, newbie areas, and wilderness banks you have to worry about figuring what to do with.

[Cunning]

please do not make local banking anything other than house banks and possibly boat banks. The people asking for 100% local banking don't know what it is like to pvp and get loot and then need to bank it. It would be a rediculously annoying hassle to have to anything other than player house banks be local.

If you must implement more of this dumb feature that only carebears and crafters and people who rarely pvp want, you must add more wilderness banks.

local banks inhibit pvp as less people will leave their areas where they have all their stuff stored. It is only good for the carebears and people who don't have to bank pvp loot. For the pvper who raids citys and needs to bank their well earned loot, local banking is an extreme joykill.

Do you explore very much? I explore and rarely look at sinister to see where I'm going. I can't ride more than 20 minutes exploring without running into a bank accessible to me and I'm alfar...

[PhoenixFury]

Local banking at houses will be a failure because there's no incentive to put up with it's limitations.

You can't do a half assed micro implementation of local banking and expect to use that as a barometer of what should be done going forward because the limited nature of it ensures it will be a failure.

You have to approach the system in total to achieve any success.

For instance a proper way to start off limited banking would be to make it so that all player owned banks are local. That would add a lot to the game in more ways that I care to recount.
Only that would be big enough to make a judgement about whether you should then move to make all banking local, which would then create a need for caravans.

Anything less than bold moves is a waste of time.

[Klandestino]

Is this a joke?
DF has not pvp melee / bow!
Trade in DF is non-existent !!!!!
DF has no customization (ex. guild symbol on armor)!
DF has become a fps for magicians!
and we speak of local bank?
I think if it is not a joke DF for November will be dead for me.

[Kasmos]

please do not make local banking anything other than house banks and possibly boat banks. The people asking for 100% local banking don't know what it is like to pvp and get loot and then need to bank it. It would be a rediculously annoying hassle to have to anything other than player house banks be local.

If you must implement more of this dumb feature that only carebears and crafters and people who rarely pvp want, you must add more wilderness banks.

local banks inhibit pvp as less people will leave their areas where they have all their stuff stored. It is only good for the carebears and people who don't have to bank pvp loot. For the pvper who raids citys and needs to bank their well earned loot, local banking is an extreme joykill.

Wait a minute, you're kidding right? You're telling me that it's those of us that want local banking that are the carebears? LOLOLOLOL!?!?!?!? :lmao::lmao:

What fucking crack are you smoking? I only PvP, I don't craft much of anything, and I certainly don't sit around and macro all day, and I would LOVE for local banking to be implemented.

Do you not realize that as a PvPer you would be killing people that were carrying more loot then anyone does now if local banking would be implemented?

Do you not realize you could raid a caravan or ship transport that was carrying a lot of goods because of local banking?

Question for you, are you seriously fucking stupid? It's the carebears that don't want to have to "think" for a few seconds where they want to put their shit, or the carebears that are afraid that now they'll actually have to carry weapons and armor on them that don't want local banking. There are plenty of us that want either full local banking or primarily local banking that are strict PvPers, if you don't see how local banking could help you as a PvPer, well, I'm not even going to try.

Local banking at houses will be a failure because there's no incentive to put up with it's limitations.

You can't do a half assed micro implementation of local banking and expect to use that as a barometer of what should be done going forward because the limited nature of it ensures it will be a failure.

You have to approach the system in total to achieve any success.

For instance a proper way to start off limited banking would be to make it so that all player owned banks are local. That would add a lot to the game in more ways that I care to recount.
Only that would be big enough to make a judgement about whether you should then move to make all banking local, which would then create a need for caravans.

Anything less than bold moves is a waste of time.

Excellent post and I agree completely. Like I stated earlier, this "test" or "first step", whatever you want to call it, isn't going to provide the developers with any kind of feedback or hard numbers to make any further decisions. It's actually either a very pathetic attempt at doing so, or they're blatantly avoiding the issue and putting in a half-assed attempt so that they can later say "Well, we TRIED local banking but no one used it!"

[Elindor]

agreed...i dont see how this implementation will accurately show anything either.

the proposed implementation will be in such a vacuum - a system like this needs to be implemented everywhere to function properly and create the kind of risk vs reward and levels of interdependency between players that forms conflict and community.

[dhaerow]

local banking should absolutely be implemented, however I do like the idea of regional NPC city banks. It adds a level of fear and danger that people might actually have to make a caravan to carry loads of stuff, then you have those guys that become caravan raiders. That just sounds fun on both sides!

[lanigav]

I'm of the opinion that local banking is a complete failure in any partial implementation.

Supposing that fully local banks were implemented, e.g. nothing is global, people would simply use the abundance of fast travel options readily available. These include recalls, bindstone kicks, and runes. With these fast travel options local bank are nothing more than a nuisance. Especially to newer players who do not have access to runes and multiple bind spots. If all fast travels were restricted to naked characters and all forms placed on a 3 hour (or more) cool down then we would realize the intention of local banking.

Think about this, bindstone or house recall both allow being overweight. So no one would EVER use a caravan or ship to transport goods from A to B. Rune stones offer even more versatility at the restriction of being overweight, but one full backpack of high end enchanted staves is worth approximately 800k (2k each, 400 of them at 1 kg each with a 400kg limit). The profits from rune use in this manner greatly outweigh the costs, which would be passed along to end client anyways.

Local banking and fast travel can not be separated in the eyes of the developers. Assuming all fast travel was severely restricted and full local banks are implemented, then I am a supporter of local banks. Anything else is an annoyance, and the current system that has turned the map into about 20 quake style "hotspot" maps will do fine.

Full local banking and naked fast travel would also lay the foundation for regional resources, these would create an instant demand for long distance trade; and it would give players the shot at truely epic loot. Currently the only "epic" loot is catching a farmer that has spent too much time at a spawn or a crafter at the table. PvP'rs risk nothing more than a ready bag and have everything to gain.

I have two threads on this specific topic:
Travel Screwed Up? (http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=217202)
Genius Travel Solution (http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=217341) Modest huh :P

[lanigav]

Also, I would like to see restrictions placed on banks where you can only deposit into them if they are owned by someone in your racial or player alliance.

[Elindor]

i agree with both of lanigav's posts.

[Ausei]

This is a great way they are doing it.

And BTW you can kick down the door.

[Ausei]

This is a great way they started it because this way they are destined to get it right the first time.

[stingerII]

I dunno if I already said this, but wont hurt to re-emphasise that I think this limited local banking sound awful. I would have at least hoped to see it implemented in player-owned banks

ps. city/hamlet banks should only be accessible for people the lightning towers arent set to attack

[coder1024]

Also, I would like to see restrictions placed on banks where you can only deposit into them if they are owned by someone in your racial or player alliance.
racial restrictions should only come into place in NPC racial towns. chaos towns should allow all to use the bank. player hamlets and cities should be controllable by the owning clan.

[Corp-Por]

Darkfall is supposed to be a sandbox game. It needs local banking. Things like people attacking your cities and then pulling siege hammers out of your cities bank are pretty stupid, at least with local banking they would have to have stored that stuff in there previously.

Local banking might sound annoying but it would influence a ton of additional gameplay opportunities.

This is the main issue, why can't AV hear this complain and address it? It as if they're cluessless! Eve online proves full online local banking is a system that can work!

[lanigav]

racial restrictions should only come into place in NPC racial towns. chaos towns should allow all to use the bank. player hamlets and cities should be controllable by the owning clan.

/signed

[Chris Windblade]

maybe i am missing something, lets say local banking will work out as said k thats all clear. what is not clear is every one in this thread saying it and implying that some one will carry a load or loads of stuff from a regon bank two and from each place well i got news for you why would any one travel from one place to anouther when all they have to do is house recall or bindstone recall. why would any one travel with a group to move 400lbs of stuff from point a to point b when all they ahve to do is recall from one loc to the outher and do it with out haveing to bother getting help.

[Corpsepoker]

maybe i am missing something, lets say local banking will work out as said k thats all clear. what is not clear is every one in this thread saying it and implying that some one will carry a load or loads of stuff from a regon bank two and from each place well i got news for you why would any one travel from one place to anouther when all they have to do is house recall or bindstone recall. why would any one travel with a group to move 400lbs of stuff from point a to point b when all they ahve to do is recall from one loc to the outher and do it with out haveing to bother getting help.



Honestly, that's what I had planned on doing.

[coder1024]

maybe i am missing something, lets say local banking will work out as said k thats all clear. what is not clear is every one in this thread saying it and implying that some one will carry a load or loads of stuff from a regon bank two and from each place well i got news for you why would any one travel from one place to anouther when all they have to do is house recall or bindstone recall. why would any one travel with a group to move 400lbs of stuff from point a to point b when all they ahve to do is recall from one loc to the outher and do it with out haveing to bother getting help.
I think they're hoping the fast travel will be taken out.

[melipone]

Well, just modified. If you can't take much with you (maybe just naked or what you're wearing), and at the very least not overloaded (with gear weighing more than now unless in a caravan/ saddle bags on a horse) I don't see why you can't have more fast travel even with local banks. Personally I'd like to see stuff randomly get destroyed as well when you kill someone, just to remove some stuff from the economy so people don't just have loads of stuff everywhere

[Kasmos]

I think they're hoping the fast travel will be taken out.

I'm more hoping that fast travel is greatly reduced, and that severe weight limits are placed on using runes and bindstone recalls/etc. You should not be able to bindstone recall with a ton of shit on you. In fact, I would argue you should only be able to bindstone recall if you're not carrying much of anything.

[xpiher]

I'm more hoping that fast travel is greatly reduced, and that severe weight limits are placed on using runes and bindstone recalls/etc. You should not be able to bindstone recall with a ton of shit on you. In fact, I would argue you should only be able to bindstone recall if you're not carrying much of anything.

You shouldn't be able to bindstone recall while over encumbered, but I don't see a problem with doing it at any other time. Also, local banking only works if there are fast travel options available because people will have to go to other banks to regear if they die. You don't want to add on a 20-40 min trip to just regear.

Its all moot though since AV is chickening out and not going the full mile with it.

[Kasmos]

You shouldn't be able to bindstone recall while over encumbered, but I don't see a problem with doing it at any other time. Also, local banking only works if there are fast travel options available because people will have to go to other banks to regear if they die. You don't want to add on a 20-40 min trip to just regear.

I disagree. If everyone can randomly teleport around the map like they currently can, what's even the point of local banking then? Local banking is so important because it creates an environment where people constantly are carrying valuable goods from one location to another, whether it be PvP equipment or crafted items. If anyone can use a runestone or bindstone recall somewhere with a ton of shit, then local banking in this sense would be basically global banking.

Its all moot though since AV is chickening out and not going the full mile with it.

This I agree with. What happened to the Aventurine that wasn't going to cave in to easy-mode carebear bullshit? *sigh*

[Gray Fox]

I think they are taking this slowly and wisely, however I must agree with last post, this wont bring something very new and important.

I think you should have local banking active everywhere with the exception of an extra bank window that would be universal and could only carry something like 300kg and a limited number of items. Enough to prepare for sieges/raids and low enough that you couldnt use it to trade around the world, thus developing:

-Regional economies (go dwarflands to get cheap armor and weapons and sell them in Cairn, Rubayat, etc)
-Need of ships and caravans to move goods around, creating pvp oportunities and mercenary services.
-Creation of tactical trade alliances, one alliance would have to own hamlet/cities close on each other and patrol the areas for safe transportation of goods.

And imagine advertising Darkfall as a sandbox that has all this, soo epic!

[Chris Windblade]

I think they're hoping the fast travel will be taken out.

Well there is a need for fast travel in some cases a raid aseige or any big grouped affairs. The rune stones do come in handy thee not to over powered same with gates more of the same. How ever I think they need to do away with bindstone recall. Now here me out a sec befor you shoot it down.

Take out bindstone recall. And in it's place add 4 stones that are chaos stone already in place and make it to where you have to travel to them right click on them and then chose yorclan city or your starter city. Ofc there would be only one of these type of stones on the sub cont. This would make rune stone in a players pack more common as well as makeing them more usefull. This would also stop clans that own multi citys the chance to bind kick a huge group and giveing them a advantage of fast travel and interfering with small scale pvp. House recall stays same altho limit it to max of 200 lbs max when recalling. So a normal pack of regs a mount maybe a seige hammer. Or in place
of hammer it would be a runeto get back.

There is many ways they can make this work and make fast travel effeciNt but they need to really think hard about it and look at the exploit side of the equasion of the system.

Sorry for typos at work on my phone

[coder1024]

I didn't say I was against fast travel.

[Razh]

the game should be full localbank systemized! it would give more ''jobs'' for people and more things to do!

With local banksystem people can stay on the roads hide in bushed and attack traders coming from far away. (Roads should give mounts 10 or 20 % exstra speed, then there is a reason to use the roads!)

This will also be giving some ''jobs'' for cheap mercs-jobs like transporting a trader with great loot to another location and so on.... :)

[melipone]

I disagree. If everyone can randomly teleport around the map like they currently can, what's even the point of local banking then?

There are ways to make transporting gear matter still with fast travel. I don't think everyone should craft their own gear, but have dedicated crafters that sell their stuff regularly. I don't have a problem with people teleporting then buying gear if they can afford to. I want a balanced system that isn't too restricted, or make the game boring, while at the same time encouraging random pvp encounters with lots of loot at stake, and giving people roles to fill, like caravan escorts, scouts, bandits hiding along trade routes etc. I think the game has far too much stuff circulating around characters too. Durability loss isn't really enough imo to keep crafters valuable.

There are ways to encourage crafters to have to transport their items, like for example having a limited number of crafting NPC cities which are the only place to go to in your region to craft. So you would have to farm resources and get them to a local bank, then organise some escorts to get your stuff to the NPC city, make the stuff then move it where you want to sell it or to your clan city. Would make crafters much more valuable and help the economy, and you would have to clear a route out of the town as they would be pvp hotspots

[Elindor]

i agree on making road travel faster, thus centralizing travel to the roads...

makes it a choice...you can travel faster on the roads, but you risk more thieves, where off the road travel is slower and there are some more mobs you might run into...so its a true choice to make when traveling....

i like it!

[Cunning]

I dont mind people being able to travel quickly, I just dont want them to travel quickly with ALL thier belongings and have access to them anywhere in the world. I want people who are seiging someone to really ahve to think out thier options for attack points rather than, the current "Jump them at server up so no one is on, we can use thier bank once we secure it, no risk!"
I want people to go into a forest and say, woah, better watch out, the locals here viciously defend this area.
I want people to travel to the desert and be left to the items they are traveling with rather than everything they still have back at home because, hey! there is a wilderness bank right there!

Advocate for local banking and NO RECALLING IF YOU ARE EVEN CLOSE TO 300KG in inventory. Pack Mule should NOT affect your ability to recall with heavy loads.

Edit: I should have the upper hand in my own zone/city!

[telanerv]

yes my vote also for roads giving +% to movement,
this is an idea i like and i've talked about, could b very cool, give me some routes to check out for players

[boxfetish]

Well, just modified. If you can't take much with you (maybe just naked or what you're wearing), and at the very least not overloaded (with gear weighing more than now unless in a caravan/ saddle bags on a horse) I don't see why you can't have more fast travel even with local banks. Personally I'd like to see stuff randomly get destroyed as well when you kill someone, just to remove some stuff from the economy so people don't just have loads of stuff everywhere

This. I would prefer that all fast travel (except for mounts) was removed from the game. However, that's not necessary. You could just make it so that you could only bindstone recall or use runestones, or any other form of instant travel with what you have equipped on your toon and an empty pack. Problem fixed.

The encumbrance issue goes beyond instant travel though. AV should implement a much more realistic encumbrance system at all times. We shouldn't be able to carry anywhere near what we can now.

[Yomaz]

i like the travel and banking the way it is now and with AV saying no caps to our sandbox fun why mess up basic game play if anything give us a little bit of our sprint back

[Elindor]

i think you're missing the point.

sandbox does not mean "no laws of nature"
it means realistic possibilities and options, and allowing risk vs reward and supply vs demand to create interesting gameplay.

[lanigav]

I hate to be repetitive but the point still stands its either all or none. If there are any forms of fast travel that allow you to bring even a pvp bag with regs/gear/etc... then there is no point to local banks. Local banks will only hurt newer players.

Coder said that having to run 20-40 minutes to regear is boring or something to that effect, but that is the point. If you can bring even a bag you risk nothing to be able to rape crafters/farmers in a completely different portion of the map. If you are allowed to bring any weight then merchants will only use this option and drive up prices on goods. So the rich will get richer and the poor will be carrying their goods from A to B due to lack of other options.

Local banking and fast travel (unless naked) can not exist in the same system.

[Elindor]

agreed again.

all the major components of what makes a game like this interactive and challenging are interwoven with each other, you cannot isolate them or implement them successfully in a vacuum.

Full loot, the looting mechanism, banking, travel time, etc etc...they are all tied together and one aspect does not work properly without another or all others. Some components all on their own are just boring, others appear as grinds, others appear impossibly hard - and again, this is because all these systems have to work together and be implemented together in order for the benefit of each of them to become apparent and for the challenge and fun of them to be seen.

[Nyteblaed]

i hate the idea of not being able to access my gear from any bank. that just sucks. its going to be such a hassle...and i will forget where i put stuff...

but, i like the idea that you cant attack a city and then use their bank to get your resupply, or bank their gear once you kill them...that always seems lame to me.

so i think that npc banks should be universal, and only gold should be bankable in player cities that are not owned by your clan or alliance. gold should be accessible everywhere, but everything else can only be accessed in your own clan or alliance banks, npc banks, or in enemy banks if you actually put it in there specifically

[.Go.]

If you put stuff into your local bank at your house...will you be able to take it out at a city bank?

I kill people at my house all the time...but im not gonna put shit in if I have to take it out and recall with it on me...

[Kasmos]

If you put stuff into your local bank at your house...will you be able to take it out at a city bank?

I kill people at my house all the time...but im not gonna put shit in if I have to take it out and recall with it on me...

Uh.... no? Do you even know what a "local" bank means?

[kil_2k]

First i have to say i am somewhat disapointed that localised banking does not include clan cities from the get go.

The whole going to a city killing a bunch of people and banking their stuff in their own bank is rediculous. So is sieging a city and only bringing minimum gear and restocking in their bank.

Annoyance does not = risk.

Make gold global and keep items localised, add some risks to trading and moving lots of gear.

I'm not reading the whole 28 pages, but imagine this scenario;

People come to your city to siege you, kill you all and take all your crap. They now control the bank area. Your guys can't re-gear, so you're 100% fucked. No question. They could have 1 person geared for every 10 naked guys you have respawning at the bindstone, and still be fine. Shit, you can't even get siege hammers out to attack their holdings.

They could still bank all your stuff locally in your bank, and then take it back out after they controll your city. Your guys will have to try and sneak in at some point, naked or in whatever shit gear you can get, try and empty the bank of all your stuff, and pray like hell that you don't die while trying to transport it all.

[SSguy]

I'm not reading the whole 28 pages, but imagine this scenario;

People come to your city to siege you, kill you all and take all your crap. They now control the bank area. Your guys can't re-gear, so you're 100% fucked. No question. They could have 1 person geared for every 10 naked guys you have respawning at the bindstone, and still be fine. Shit, you can't even get siege hammers out to attack their holdings.

They could still bank all your stuff locally in your bank, and then take it back out after they controll your city. Your guys will have to try and sneak in at some point, naked or in whatever shit gear you can get, try and empty the bank of all your stuff, and pray like hell that you don't die while trying to transport it all.

1. So its not much different than what we currently have? Other than the guys controlling the area not having a large supply of gear coming from the ENEMY's clan bank? Not much of an argument against local banking...
2. Its called resource management. Some people who are actually good leaders would like to be able to excel at this game due to their intelligence. What do I mean by this?? Store equipment in other nearby places. Not a hard concept.
3. Enemy's using your bank should NOT be an option...you own the damn thing. And thus we should expect that to change with the local banking implementation as well.

[kil_2k]

1. So its not much different than what we currently have? Other than the guys controlling the area not having a large supply of gear coming from the ENEMY's clan bank? Not much of an argument against local banking...
2. Its called resource management. Some people who are actually good leaders would like to be able to excel at this game due to their intelligence. What do I mean by this?? Store equipment in other nearby places. Not a hard concept.

Of course it's different. Right now you can head to a safehold, wilderness bank, ally city etc. etc. You really want to have 100 PvP bags stashed all around places close to your city just incase?


3. Enemy's using your bank should NOT be an option...you own the damn thing. And thus we should expect that to change with the local banking implementation as well.

Then, going by that train of thought, you shouldn't be able to use any other banks - you don't own them...

[Pyro Kiddie]

I'm not reading the whole 28 pages, but imagine this scenario;

People come to your city to siege you, kill you all and take all your crap. They now control the bank area. Your guys can't re-gear, so you're 100% fucked. No question. They could have 1 person geared for every 10 naked guys you have respawning at the bindstone, and still be fine. Shit, you can't even get siege hammers out to attack their holdings.

They could still bank all your stuff locally in your bank, and then take it back out after they controll your city. Your guys will have to try and sneak in at some point, naked or in whatever shit gear you can get, try and empty the bank of all your stuff, and pray like hell that you don't die while trying to transport it all.

is it me or does that sound kinda fun :P

[lanigav]

Of course it's different. Right now you can head to a safehold, wilderness bank, ally city etc. etc. You really want to have 100 PvP bags stashed all around places close to your city just incase?

In a word, YEP. Although you exaggerate, simply have a few here and there. And yes there should be a penalty for putting all your eggs in one basket then having your basket get stolen. You always have the option of putting items in a red city or NPC city.



Then, going by that train of thought, you shouldn't be able to use any other banks - you don't own them...
Again you exaggerate... i'm sure you get the point.

You can only deposit into wilderness banks, ally banks, red city banks, and npc cities (if you are blue in your racial).

You can withdraw from any bank. So if you lose your city, yes you have to sneak in get your shit and get out... big deal, at least they didn't get to steal it all.

[lanigav]

is it me or does that sound kinda fun :P

It does sound fun, it also gives much needed depth to the game. Right now it's all about teleporting everywhere and risking nothing for huge gains. Noobs have NO chance what so ever, but if a Vet has to move into an area to really gain anything then he actually runs the chance of getting zerged by noobs looking for justice... and their gear back.

[Sarphus]

I think the consept of limited local banking is great.

I think we should always have some form of global bank, though.

[kil_2k]

In a word, YEP.

Welcome to FarmFall.

[-morph-]

wow! A box in a house you can bank at!? Seriously. well that will make all the difference won't it.

And it only took 4 months to develop this box too, really amazing stuff.

[Sorenal]

“With any form of local banking, it's a fine line between cool feature and ridiculous annoyance, so we are trying to do this in steps, and work with our players to get it just right.”, Claus concluded on the topic.

/this

Looking forward to see this first level of local banking and how it affects gameplay. To the whiners: die in a hell fire!

[leone2nd]

Yes! \o/

This feature is what made me actually buy a subscription!
Local banking not just for homes but for clan cities etc, maybe even some day territory control for prices matts etc.

See you all inside!

[leone2nd]

1. So its not much different than what we currently have? Other than the guys controlling the area not having a large supply of gear coming from the ENEMY's clan bank? Not much of an argument against local banking...
2. Its called resource management. Some people who are actually good leaders would like to be able to excel at this game due to their intelligence. What do I mean by this?? Store equipment in other nearby places. Not a hard concept.
3. Enemy's using your bank should NOT be an option...you own the damn thing. And thus we should expect that to change with the local banking implementation as well.

Well what people did in EVE is that corporations (clans) were getting preparing ahead for such an outcome (when there were political indications that such a thing might come) and kept main assets moving around while establishing a supply line with equipment etc to the defending or attacking force.
Expansion of Local banking will make the game more interesting because it can slow down the pace at which battles occur and put more weight on tactics, strategy, politics and small local warfare especially by proxies.

[metaman]

Ok if I understand why ppl whine that DF needs local banking. 5 reds come to the Talpec, kill everyone grab all the loots than banks in Talpec! Noone in Talpec can gear up and fight these 5 reds cuz they at the bank killing everyone.

Problem is enemy coming to your city and using your bank. Proposed solution, local banking.... or is it LOCAL BANKING?

My suggestion is fix it so that the enemy cant use your bank. HOW? By implementing taking damage and the player cant use the bank for x amount of time. So in this case Talpec bank has a zap tower, now the reds cant use the bank cuz they getting zap. If Talpec doesnt have a zap tower, the nakeds can go hit the reds and they cant use the bank. So its a simple solution.

For local banking should be better use for my post here http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?p=3819742#post3819742

[DwellerBelow]

Ok if I understand why ppl whine that DF needs local banking. 5 reds come to the Talpec, kill everyone grab all the loots than banks in Talpec! Noone in Talpec can gear up and fight these 5 reds cuz they at the bank killing everyone.

Problem is enemy coming to your city and using your bank. Proposed solution, local banking.... or is it LOCAL BANKING?

My suggestion is fix it so that the enemy cant use your bank. HOW? By implementing taking damage and the player cant use the bank for x amount of time. So in this case Talpec bank has a zap tower, now the reds cant use the bank cuz they getting zap. If Talpec doesnt have a zap tower, the nakeds can go hit the reds and they cant use the bank. So its a simple solution.

For local banking should be better use for my post here http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?p=3819742#post3819742

What you want is Access Control, not Local Banking.

Local Banking means the pk's can use your bank, and store stuff in your city to use against you later. They could raid you, stock up on stuff in your cities bank, only to pull it out later when they siege you. I would even go so far as to store siege hammers and cannon in your bank during a raid, so I can drop them on you during a siege.

Access Control means that only Allies of your Clan can use your Clan city bank.

Access Control is totally different from Local Banking, please be sure to ask for what you really want.

[metaman]

What you want is Access Control, not Local Banking.

Local Banking means the pk's can use your bank, and store stuff in your city to use against you later. They could raid you, stock up on stuff in your cities bank, only to pull it out later when they siege you. I would even go so far as to store siege hammers and cannon in your bank during a raid, so I can drop them on you during a siege.

Access Control means that only Allies of your Clan can use your Clan city bank.

Access Control is totally different from Local Banking, please be sure to ask for what you really want.

Dude u got it wrong. What u describing is global banking. Local banking means whatever u store is localize to place where u store them. U cant take them out in another bank across the map.

[DwellerBelow]

Dude u got it wrong. What u describing is global banking. Local banking means whatever u store is localize to place where u store them. U cant take them out in another bank across the map.

With Local Banking, and no Access Control, I can raid your city, steal your regs, put your(now, mine) regs in your player city bank, and then get them back out again when I come back to siege you. As a pk raider, I do have to return to your city to get those regs, but I plan to.

With Access Control, and Universal Banking, the pk's cannot use the enemy city bank, and have to bank anywhere else, but they can then run nekkid across the map and get the items from any open access bank.

Universal Banking with no Access Control is what we have now.

With Local Banking and Access Control, pk raiders must lug stolen gear all the way back to a bank they can access, and can only get that gear back out of that same bank.

[Tonk]

Can you bind at an enemy bindstone? No. Then why should you be able to bank in an enemy bank?

Access control. Not local banking.

[Rhygar]

Can you bind at an enemy bindstone? No. Then why should you be able to bank in an enemy bank?

Access control. Not local banking.

Yes, please god just stop enemies using your bank. That is actually the reason for people wanting walls to be higher. Raid groups can get into a city with barely any warning in certain cities because the system radius is shite... kill the few people in there, bank and then leave when the defenders retaliate. The only times they get killed is when they stand and fight - which is not always.

[lanigav]

Access restrictions are important as well, but many of us are actually arguing for full local banking with access restrictions. It's not just pks, its local markets, territory, sieges... many many aspects. Any form of global banks will allow people to keep loot in their banks at all times. They will only pull out what they need at any given time.

Access restrictions certainly help, but finding a bank you have access to is usually easy. Just head to the nearest red city, this doesn't support territory.

[pstallworth]

I agree with implementing some form of access control on banks, and perhaps a mix of banking localities. I think it would be good to see local banking, and then common banking among a couple start cities. For newbies I think it would be nice for them to be able to have a common bank at their starter city, and then maybe at another starter city so as they are doing the newbie quest chain and get away from their starter city to a different one they can store/retrieve.

[lanigav]

I agree with implementing some form of access control on banks, and perhaps a mix of banking localities. I think it would be good to see local banking, and then common banking among a couple start cities. For newbies I think it would be nice for them to be able to have a common bank at their starter city, and then maybe at another starter city so as they are doing the newbie quest chain and get away from their starter city to a different one they can store/retrieve.

I like this idea as well, perhaps just within a specific race's area. E.g. a dwarf can not use his home bank in elf lands. This way trade in the noobie zones would be as is now and there would be less incentive for PK's to hit the nooby areas as often. Knocks out two birds with one stone good idea :)