Minimum Bank Storage Capacity [Multi-Select POLL]

I don't like having a smaller bank size just because I couldn't donate as much money. I think the bank size should be linked to player level, or just not be limited (within reason).

One of the absolute best things about UO was collecting older items. If there's not room for them, that would make it sad...

I'm also a little confused... if you put everything in your house instead (presumably unlimited with enough containers), and then you remove your house from your lot... doesn't it go to your bank? Then what happens if everything won't fit.

And on a similar vein... if I have a trunk full of items that I put in the bank, does it count as one? or one for every item? do stacked items count as one?

 

Again someone makes the mistake of thinking house storage will be unlimited (in this case 'presumably unlimited with enough containers'). If it was single player player mode you refer to then perhaps, but unfortunately online there will be limits to pretty much everything in the game.

Remember this data is not stored on your computer and across all players will amount to millions upon millions of items with numerous bytes of data stored for each (that's even if players only had a few hundred items of storage), data that needs to be stored, sorted, transmitted to players, have housekeeping for decay and growth run on it, etc, etc. Just look at any MMO on the market and no matter how big the servers the data for players is always confined to a manageable amount.

Somewhere out there no matter how large that limit is, someone will hit it. Saw a conversation where an EVE player broke the storage limit within the station he used the most - at 1000 containers of 1000 items it has the largest storage capacity in any game that I have seen but the data needed for items there is MUCH more limited than for an item in SOTA (apart from hit-points on ships and modules and stack sizes, most of the other data on an item there is fixed).

 

Cross posting from another thread on the subject: https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...e-rewards-bank-slots.21212/page-5#post-317711

Hello everyone,

Thank you very much for your feedback and observations, especially those of you who included actual data from game-play (entrappedmind). I especially appreciate those of you who have attempted to keep emotional responses out of the discussion. We are listening and considering everything here.

As a reminder we are going to allow players to purchase bank upgrades with in game gold. We do plan to make those upgrades quite affordable (especially at the beginning). This is a standard practice across all games that have banks. It is a standard gold sink and a standard progression mechanic that has been refined over many years of game development. It is also one of the critical components in the player driven economy that forces players to keep goods and materials flowing through the system versus hoarding them.

As with everything that is part of this game we will get the system in the game and then we will test and iterate based on actual game experience/data and not conjecture. Once we get that real data we will consider changes like increasing the starting bank size and allowing infinite upgrades with in game gold.

For now I ask that you have some patience.

-Darkstarr

 

Buying bank space is not a gold sink and should not be used in such a way. You want to help the economy and hoarding of materials, yet you want to allow for increased storage as players progress? No, to do it properly, I would limit bank space to 125 slots for all (never a chance to upgrade) and make sure you don't make the housing ridiculous with storage. Maybe have the cap on max storage a person can have at 1000 items. (not talking lockdowns or decor)

Example Lord of the Manor House 1000 items, Duke 850 etc. Only then will you achieve balance and a proper economy to avoid hoarding. So owning a Lord of the Manor would net you a total storage of 1125 items.

I'm available if you would like to hire me.

 

You are available? Thank goodness! What would we do without you on our team? We will hire you immediately and pay you with bank space!

 

Finally !! I just booked my trip to Austin, no worries my cousin who lives there will pick me up at the airport

 

I think that's the first time I've ever seen a sarcastic post by Darkstarr since this project began. Impressive.

Somewhere in the Portalarium offices is a sign that used to read "547 Days since the last sarcastic forum accident".

Time to flip the sign back to zero!

 

Its all good fun, i was a smart ass and received in return.....the proper reply

 

I hope this is Will Wright or Raph Koster incognito.

I want to see Darkstarr go over to Crowfall next and help them fix their game.

 

Nah, Will Wheaton..

 

G Din,

Its a generous offer... you should take it.

 

Thank you for the reply, Starr! First time I've ever been singled out by a Dev, kind of makes it hit home just how unique an experience/opportunity we have here. Don't worry, I'm not so Starr-struck (*groan!*) that I'll cease questioning the team's decision-making when necessary.

Honestly, while there is certainly some rationale and logic behind my (and those on the same "side" of the debate as I) argument, I do admit much of it is simply based off my experience in UO - and every time the number "125" comes up, I know I'm not alone. Those are numbers that I've long considered "gospel" - 125 items, 400 stones.

 

This is interesting support material.

Are not quest markers over NPCs and on maps also iterated and refined gameplay ideas over many years of game development?

I find it amusing that you pick and choose what is ok to justify with that logic.

The simple mechanics of tying them to levels, or only making them in-game purchasable, instead of adding a real world currency value, I think is one half the problem.

The other is obviously giving rewards in the rears to existing pledges.

You should also tie any store purchases (new) to granted @ of slots. Like if I buy a cloak, it should already come with a slot to cover it in case I melt my entire house with my cloak inside.

Also, it would have been smart to allow players, in game, to lease their empty bank slots to other players, and make a real economic value.

Additional slots should also be rewarded from quests.

If you are true about innovating an existing idea, then I would love to see innovation, not a crouch back onto existing paradigms now that they suit your argument, versus all the months (years!) of saying the stuff that existed was MEH in design.

 

This poll is biased by its very nature. People who paid more for their pledges, especially at the highest tiers are more likely to want to keep things as is, but because there is way less of them overall their votes won't count as much as the majority of people who bought lesser valued accounts.

The outcome of the poll is predictable and so its not really a poll. Of course the majority will want more bank slots, because the majority didnt pay for the higher end accounts.

 

You make a fair point. However, I think the majority of people that voted likely already have enough slots they are in no danger, but I cannot prove that. And since the ultimate goal is to have more players, not cater to the highest pledges it seems fair enough. On top of that, I have the highest level pledge, so i don't have personal skin in it.

The most popular thing people say about polls is they are biased no matter who takes them, who made them or how they are worded. I did my absolute best to be fair here and appreciate at least some respect for trying. It took me 9 hours of consideration before even posting it. There are three other threads where people have raised their concerns, many of which took the poll. If you disagree with the results, pick one of them and make your case. I will read it.

 

I was going to ask this question as I reading through all the posts here. I can't see where the issue comes from as long as I can increase my limit within the game.

Now, as long as it's not a rental situation I am fine. More specifically, rent with store currency. At this point I would rather have a monthly sub instead of nickle and dime things. - my pet peeve.

 

Bank spaces won't be rented, one time purchase.

 

If that's the case, I would hope that the one time purchase would be comparable to the impact that the same amount of storage a person would have in a home. Actually I'd think it would be more since it's a one time event. What would concern me is people not pledging to buy a home because living out of their bank is so affordable.

 

Not sure what you mean by "impact", if you can clarify.

A lot of people who want lots might not be able to find them, banks are security for them ; plus I'm not sure why you'd want people to buy homes who aren't interested. Its good that the people who choose to buy homes are role-players who want to use their homes to add to the town they're in, rather than just players who want a storage deposit.

 

I think there's a very direct relationship between available storage (in banks) and the value of housing. I don't want storage to be so easy to get that housing becomes less valuable. I think that's a fair stance to take considering what I paid for housing.

Notice I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the opportunity to get storage (and lots of it) just that it should be of a reasonable value so that housing doesn't become significantly less important.