Hello fellow Pantsers!
I was reading another discussion and came upon something I wanted to sniff out. In most MMOs the items you store in a bank can be accessed from any bank across the world. I was wondering how everyone felt about this. Should the items we store in banks be accessible from strictly the bank we put those items in? Or do you prefer having access to your items from any bank across the world?
Hey Noobie! The most recent show from the Voices of Terminus (VoT) featured a fairly detailed discussion about your very question! You should check it out - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwKsO3M2e9Y
As far as my two cents go, I like the idea of having detatched, local banks where your items and money that you put in a bank are only accessible from that bank and none other. Remember that Aradune had mentioned pets are going to play an important role in Pantheon. I think the inherit risk of packing up your horse, or what have you, to travel to a new city will help anchor communities to grow in many cities by incentivising players to have a sort of "home" city for a while. I think if we detatch banks, we will see decent populations in every city, each with their own set of crafters, adventurers, traders, etc. which will add to the charater of that city and make visiting new places even that much more enjoyable. It's risky to uproot yourself from one city, but once you make it to a new one, its very likely its a living city with its own bustling economy and player's that call it home.
Having a "home" city, anchored by a detached bank, would be a wonderful shared experience for us players.
I do like detached banking, but with an option whereby you can get the bank to send your stuff to you in a caravan that takes time (and money) to arrive . The further away the bank is, the longer it takes to get to you.
It might be fun actually seeing these caravans travelling over the land too.
I would like to see a set of banded charges that have to be paid in order to get the goods to you. These charges directly reflect the number and the quality of the guards that look after the caravan. The higher the band, the better quality and number of guards are employed to defend your goods.
You could also introduce single player paid for caravans (expensive but quick to organise) or group based caravans that would require a minimum number of players wanting to get their goods to and from the same place. This would cost less, but would take time until there was enough interest in the caravan to make the trip worth while.
You could also introduce a magic paid for system too. It would be a lot quicker and a lot more expensive, but your goods would be guaranteed to get to you. The cost of this service would depend on the value of the goods beng ported. Using this method would make it uneconomic to flood local markets from other areas and so protect local economies. So should result in only goods that are really needed from being transferred in this manner.
Question: How would people feel about the bank transfer caravans being an integral part of the game, i.e. attackable by mobs and players (in PVP)? How about player escorted caravans? This would add an extra dimension to goods and make them valuable and not just a means of making a quick buck.
Regardless, I agree, having a free magic transfer banking system in place does mean that local economies suffer to the point of not being local. If you want (which I do) true local economies, then a detached banking system is a must. Time and/or expense to get items from high availability to low is a must.
I want a vibrant set of local economies where trading between areas is a game in itself and those goods impact on the local economies and game play, being a part of the landscape and not a point and click excercise. I would also like to see products made from base items are proportionate to the availability of the base items, too. So leather (which would be abundant in high animal game areas) would mean lots of leather base products being available, but maybe not gold and gold based products (unless there was a gold mine near by or a trader took the time to set up in the area and arranged a caravan supply route).
Yeah. Make getting items from one bank to another, important. Make local economies important. Make local crafting important.
"Having a "home" city, anchored by a detached bank, would be a wonderful shared experience for us players."
@syntro, I dont know if I would want to have to run around to different banks to access my belongings. PathFinder Online uses this model and it is time consuming having to run from bank to bank wondering where I left what belongings. I want a game that I can enjoy, not have to endure.
Oldtimer: @syntro, I dont know if I would want to have to run around to different banks to access my belongings.
I think a detached bank can be playable if the contents are browsable from any bank, but items must be retrieved from those banks in some manner other than instant access so that local economies are not made useless.
I also think if you want to maintain local economies that the banks should be detached. It will make people really think about where they want home to be (especially if player housing is added in). Will also make being a trader/merchant a viable player profession. If you can't just reach into the magic bank to pull out a thousand logs in an area where logs are scarce then those that wish to deliver it to that area for the crafters can make a good living.
I also like the idea of being able to transport goods through a caravan for a price and time delay. For the instant transport I would also put a max weight allowed to be brought over.
Dunkmeister said: I think the idea is fun but if it adds a ton of programming time to the game it's not worth it to me. Shared banking is not a game breaker concept to me.
The problem with shared banking is that you can harvest an area. Then when you get to an area where that resource is not available, the market becomes flooded, immediately. This kills any local trade. Thats my real concern with it. As for the programming time, I think pre-alpha is the exact time to code this kind of mechanic. You cannot introduce this after go-live for numerous reasons. Personally, I think any time invested in this would be very worth while for a refreshing local based economy as apposed to a world economy.
If you had a local based economy, then someone harvest's the local area. They make a killing and the local price comes down. That the makes it less of a worth while option to do it again, or the harvester has to go further afield to get a good rate of exchange, slowing down the harvest process. If you have a world economy, then either everyone spends their time harvesting for a quick exchange rate (where the prices are fixed), or if the prices drop, only those first harvesters get the benefit.
I think a detatched bank would encourage people to explore, to find new places to sell their wares, but also stop the ability to immediately make a huge profit if the bank vault is linked. Time and effort would need to be made to get the items to the new area, slowing down the innundation.
I dont think restricting banking is going to fix market traders. Its just going to make it alot more inconvenient for other players. They would be better off evaluating drop rates or utilizing fixed market values to sell goods at rather than trying to control access. You will always have players that find loopholes and exploit them.
The more I think about this, the less I like the idea of restricting banks. Honestly, noone reminesces about how fun it was to have to travel across the map to collect your stuff. Especially if you have to grab something real quick to join your friends in a dungeon. Just think about this.. "hey guys, it's gonna be 30 minutes or so before I can join you. I have to go get my potions from another town". Im all for challenge. That's just not challenge, it's annoying.
vjek said:Personally, having played several games with non-shared/non-global banks, I can now say I prefer shared/global banks.
If you haven't tried a game that has a non-shared/non-global bank, I strongly recommend you try it before recommending it. It's not fun.
I've seen a few of these responses arguing for global banking based on experience in other games, those arguing for local-only banking seem to be theorizing about its benefits.
I don't think non-global banking would help all local economies flourish. I think it would simply hasten the arrival of focal point cities, similiar to how the EC tunnel emerged. Easy to navigate city, centrally positioned for crafter delivery/pickup, fast travel hubs nearbye, crafting stations and merchants for each tradeskill etc. Word spreads, 'Hey, North Ru'lun is the new EC tunnel'. Friends follow friends, traders follow farmers or vice versa, etc. Eventually a majority of people bank there for convienence. Focal point cities will probably happen anyway but I think non-global banks would increase this effect, possibly turning non-focal point cities into glorified starting areas, quickly moved on from.
Another aspect of non-global banking is aggravation. If the occasion arises, like an example I gave on VoT's show, I forgot my 'blue totem of help-me-not-freeze' in the bank and my group wants to goto a cold environment, now I need to go to the bank. Having to go to the bank is punishment enough for my lack of preparedness, having me traverse the world for the one single bank where I can access my goods is extremely annoying. Waiting over an hour for me to get to 'my' bank is a group breaker. While you may believe we need to stick to hardcore oldschool guidelines (and I agree for the most part) I don't want to play BankQuest.
Also, with 9 races, assuming half are evil, half are good, and the 3rd half are neutral (<--math joke), we're only talking about 6 banks at most. How often do you goto another city's bank? Not enough for their team to waste time coding in some sort of caravan system that would apparently anger as many people as it would provide immersion.
This is a world where magic exists. Instead of making the bank look like a vault, it could be animated as a dimensional hole. I'll let my imagination run wild... It could be kind of like the Portable Hole Jarlaxle used in the Sellswords series, but it only works at special locations. Two birds could be killed with one stone if they could be player housing too. Make it so your 'Portable Hole' starts out barren and you purchase furniture to organize your stuff.... Okay, I'll quit dreaming now.
In any case, it is not immersion breaking to have a global bank so long as it can be contextualized in the setting of a world that has magic.
Ezumin said:This is a world where magic exists. Instead of making the bank look like a vault, it could be animated as a dimensional hole. I'll let my imagination run wild... It could be kind of like the Portable Hole Jarlaxle used in the Sellswords series, but it only works at special locations. Two birds could be killed with one stone if they could be player housing too. Make it so your 'Portable Hole' starts out barren and you purchase furniture to organize your stuff.... Okay, I'll quit dreaming now.
In any case, it is not immersion breaking to have a global bank so long as it can be contextualized in the setting of a world that has magic.
The biggest benefits of localized banking is probably in creation of transportation or trader forms of gameplay. Unless they really plan to have the kind of extensive sandbox environment that offers a great incentive for players to move around the world selling their goods or making transportation of good a fun and engaging process, its probably not worth having.
For instance, in an open world PvP game, you may drop everything you are carrying upon being killed. That makes travel dangerous. With localized banking in such a game, it means players that want to siege a castle on the other side of the world have to move resources to a nearby area to prepare to mount their attack. Materials, extra weapons and armor, tools and siege weaponry. Moving these things in preparation means putting yourself at risk of being ambushed and giving players a major payday. The process of moving stuff is challenging and risky but rewarding and fun. It could also lead to guilds of players that offer transportation services.
Without those kinds of incentives, localized banking doesn't serve as much of a purpose. Its more realistic, and could serve to stimulate local economies, but eventually players will likely begin congregating in a west commons type of location. Especially in a game with fast travel spells allowing players to conveniently travel across the world, it would probably end up more an inconvenience than a feature.
Personally, I am all for it if they find a way to create content surrounding it. Trade routes where cities ship goods for a player from one location to another. Maybe scripted PvE where local enemy factions ambush your cart. That sort of thing.
Hey guys my first post here since i just found out about Pantheon 2 days ago. ALready super hyped about it
I personally just cant stand localized banks since i like to travel and look around most of the time. I mean the Idea itself first sounds good but from what ive experienced in for example Albion Online or other games with localized banks is that i never had any fun with that system. For me as explorer whom probably will not be a big Trader but more of a explorer/ Adventurer it has always been a pretty big Bummer.
For example if id like to travel on to a new city and dont have plans of comming back soon, id have probably go 2-5 times and that for every way i want to go.
I just think though the idea of Logistic is a nice idea its just so unhandy and unfun as it can be. Might be im just to Comfortable but if i have to spend like 3-4 hours to move 1 or 2 zones just for running with mats etc. It might give the Hardcore Crafting/Trading players alot more fun but for everyone else (or at least everyone like me) it just whould be a slowdown for the things that whould actually be alot more fun for me.
Tough i can see how it sounds fun to go make a Caravan and travel to next city, the bigger Problem for me is that many dont think about how it is if you have to go 3-4 times and that not from one city to next but maybe from one part of a region to next part or other longer routes it just isnt that fun anymore after doing that ten or twenty times. Maybe ther should be a way to just adjust the selling of the Materials self. For example the bank makes a magic copie of the item that is usable and sellable but since youre materials still are in the other town and have to be brought there (though Caravans or something else ) the selling Price will be alot higher since youre selling the banks items and they want cash too.
That way youd have to travel all the way to be able to flood the market but still could get the things you need everywhere.
Ok so it seems a few for and a few against. I'm with Dullahan and if they created content that really pushed the idea of localized banking and made it very involving then I'd like to see it. I enjoyed Syntro's explanation of the 'home cities' and a player making a city their home for a time being. Some people express the annoyance that would entail having to move all your items from one bank to another once you decide to move to a different city which is understandable. But there are ways to accomodate for this such as designing ways for player to easily move their belonging from one bank/city to another without having to make multiple trips.
I think if the devs just made localized banking for the sake of localized banking then that may not be something I want to 'endure'. But there are many different things that could be done to make it engaging. Where not only the game could create situations to involve it but also players as well like someone said with the summoners who could possibly summon a players' belongings.
Brad just made this post in another thread which is very related to our discussion. I'll repost it here for us.
Aradune said:
Yes, the intent is that banks are local, so no putting your item in bank A, crossing the ocean, going to bank B and zippy wippy your item is somehow there... doing that I think would interfere with the regional player driven economy we're intent on getting to work.
I like the Detached banking, i would also like to add maybe if you wanted to move you have 2 options you can either move it yourself, which as it known risks, either it be getting killed in your journey, and so on. Or you could pay a fine like 15% of your income in your bank and with id say a 2 hour holding in the bank you transfered it to, i know this seems like a lot but it can obviously be changed, and its also risk free. and you have to wait to spend your money in your "new home".
Syntro said:Brad just made this post in another thread which is very related to our discussion. I'll repost it here for us.
Aradune said:
Yes, the intent is that banks are local, so no putting your item in bank A, crossing the ocean, going to bank B and zippy wippy your item is somehow there... doing that I think would interfere with the regional player driven economy we're intent on getting to work.
Horrible idea. I mean, sure it sounds great, more immersive, etc. Reality is this world will require time to cross. Having to keep ten banks might get to be a bit tedious. And if we only get ONE bank then we're super screwed. Items better not be a big deal if you don't have more easily accesible banking or at least super magical bags that carry hundreds of stacks of X and Y.
I can see it now, it takes 2 hours to get to home city to bank. You put that item in, head out on a 3 hour trip to where you plan to hunt only to find you put the wrong item in the bank and can't join the xp group. That's almost as bad as losing items on corpse decay. The time involved is frightening. I want to explore and game with people, not spend my time AND MONEY doing tedious crud like bank runs. Blah!
Saoirse said:Horrible idea. I mean, sure it sounds great, more immersive, etc. Reality is this world will require time to cross. Having to keep ten banks might get to be a bit tedious. And if we only get ONE bank then we're super screwed. Items better not be a big deal if you don't have more easily accesible banking or at least super magical bags that carry hundreds of stacks of X and Y.
I can see it now, it takes 2 hours to get to home city to bank. You put that item in, head out on a 3 hour trip to where you plan to hunt only to find you put the wrong item in the bank and can't join the xp group. That's almost as bad as losing items on corpse decay. The time involved is frightening. I want to explore and game with people, not spend my time AND MONEY doing tedious crud like bank runs. Blah!
Saoirse said:Syntro said:Brad just made this post in another thread which is very related to our discussion. I'll repost it here for us.
Aradune said:
Yes, the intent is that banks are local, so no putting your item in bank A, crossing the ocean, going to bank B and zippy wippy your item is somehow there... doing that I think would interfere with the regional player driven economy we're intent on getting to work.
Horrible idea. I mean, sure it sounds great, more immersive, etc. Reality is this world will require time to cross. Having to keep ten banks might get to be a bit tedious. And if we only get ONE bank then we're super screwed. Items better not be a big deal if you don't have more easily accesible banking or at least super magical bags that carry hundreds of stacks of X and Y.
I can see it now, it takes 2 hours to get to home city to bank. You put that item in, head out on a 3 hour trip to where you plan to hunt only to find you put the wrong item in the bank and can't join the xp group. That's almost as bad as losing items on corpse decay. The time involved is frightening. I want to explore and game with people, not spend my time AND MONEY doing tedious crud like bank runs. Blah!
Its not that you only get ONE bank, its that all the banks in the world are not connected auto-magaically. Every starting city will have a bank, so already you've got the potential for 9 banks. Some sentient communal NPCs might even have banks in their capital/main base as well we could possibly access if standings allowed.