Account crossbank now. Please.

Thread starter #1
Please leave the bank to be accessible by any character in the same account.
One of the most tiresome and unnecessary things of the game is to be sending items from one character to another.
Account crossbank now. Please.
 

Speznat

Senior Member
Please leave the bank to be accessible by any character in the same account.
One of the most tiresome and unnecessary things of the game is to be sending items from one character to another.
Account crossbank now. Please.
that would be awesome than we all would have an accoutn bank.

would be better than you can clearly see were you have still stuff left in a town, bump

please SV that is a quality of life improvement wich will make more people happy because everytime this relog shit is s annoying i need to do such shit since a decade now and its terrible. please make an account bank and not 4 speerate banks, PLEAAAAAASE

like each city have an account bank with 400 slots
 

Xunila

Cronite Supporter
What about one additional row in the bank to be accessed account wide? 10 slots with bags should be fine.

As Speznat wrote, an account bank would require 400 slots because every of the four characters could have filled all 100 slots!
 

Najwalaylah

Exalted Member
Banks in MO have been seen to be inadequate almost since the beginning; local banks are still a pretty nifty idea, but some shared slots and a way of viewing your account's other character's holdings in one area (or, even your single character's bank inventories in other locations) wouldn't break the world, I think.

Even EverQuest got around to supplying one slot that allowed minimal transfers from one character on an account to another-- back before Nave cooled, and when Iksars ruled Norrath.
 

agead_drem

Junior Member
The main reason I'm against linked banks is if there is a breach to your account, if they don't outright delete your characters, they still have to log into each character, and travel to each bank they want to check to see if they can clean you out.
 
I disagree with the idea of shared town banks. I think the new housing does a find job in providing players a way to do these types of transfers between characters.
 

MolagAmur

Well-Known Member
Idk man I love logging off and on every 15 seconds to transfer stuff. Its very fun and engaging. The best is I usually have to dual-client unless I want to spend money and walk over to the mail.

Log on first client.
Log on second client.
Make armor
Transfer items.
Log off.
Log on.
Make weapons.
Transfer items
Log off.
Close client.
 
I disagree with the idea of shared town banks. I think the new housing does a find job in providing players a way to do these types of transfers between characters.
Why not, its just a convenience thing, it would be local for each bank. What if you dont have a house and live only in NPC cities? Stuff like this just make the game more tedious for no reason... oh I love having to mail 3 sets of armor piece by piece thru the veredari, such engaging gameplay...
 
Why not, its just a convenience thing, it would be local for each bank. What if you dont have a house and live only in NPC cities? Stuff like this just make the game more tedious for no reason... oh I love having to mail 3 sets of armor piece by piece thru the veredari, such engaging gameplay...
What is Mail has to do with banking !
 
Thread starter #10
What about one additional row in the bank to be accessed account wide? 10 slots with bags should be fine.

As Speznat wrote, an account bank would require 400 slots because every of the four characters could have filled all 100 slots!
Good idea but all bank is better.
All bank will solve all problem.
 
banks are too powerful as is. items should be in the world and vulnerable, not in banks and completely invulnerable at all times. to that end players should really be limited in how much they can log off with. I realize making big changes to this would be quire radical at this late stage in the game but the current banks are more than adequate now that alternatives exist (simple 2-unit houses can store a ridiculous amount of stuff).

not everything needs to be invulnerable. building a house doesnt take very long. anything truly valuable will be on your crafter and logged out of game with it, and thus invulnerable. less used but still valuable items can stay in the bank.

-barcode
 
Why not, its just a convenience thing, it would be local for each bank. What if you dont have a house and live only in NPC cities? Stuff like this just make the game more tedious for no reason... oh I love having to mail 3 sets of armor piece by piece thru the veredari, such engaging gameplay...
As Barcode mentioned above, town banks are immune to risks. Having house banks have such benefits over town banks gives more reason for people to risk stuff outside of towns.

Before the new houses this argument had a bit of weight. But I think the new system gives a perfectly good option for players to deal with such things easily.



With the new housing a player could build a armor and butcher table in their house. Next to each they could put a box.

A pve player could kill some things and place the carcasses in the box near the butcher table.

Another character could take out the carcasses at any time, butcher them and place the extracted items in the box.

An armor crafter could at anytime go to that box and get material to craft armor with. Craft armor and put it in the box next to the armor table.

Now any character that has access to that chest can come at any time and pick up any armor that they want.


All of this convenience comes with having a house now. And it is easier than ever to get one started.
 
Last edited:

Xunila

Cronite Supporter
I agree to Sebastion and others: The house chests are in fact the solution for the discussed feature in the wild. And additionally to house chests, which can be looted when the house is destroyed, one can place a bank after creating a guild with ten f2p characters: Every single player can build such a bank within ten days when using a subscribed character as house owner and inviting new characters from one time accounts day by day. Afterwards the bank is more or less as safe as the city banks. When the bank is destroyed the items are staying in the grid and can easily be accessed either by using another bank in the same grid with public banker or by help of other guilds with guild banker (ask for a short invite) or by rebuilding house and bank.
 
When the bank is destroyed the items are staying in the grid and can easily be accessed either by using another bank in the same grid with public banker or by help of other guilds with guild banker (ask for a short invite) or by rebuilding house and bank.
this is something i'll never agree with. banks, when destroyed, should drop the stored items. I realize that any bank that's seen much use will have far too much stuff to drop, the server would likely shit itself if it tried to make thousands of items available to loot. Perhaps the server can do a quick calculation to get the approximate amount of goods stored there and drop a corresponding amount of building scraps. Maybe make it an event and during server maintanence, generate a limited manifest of the items stored (likely would not include any non-stackable items) and have them spawn out in loot bags like the christmas event but in this case bags would spawn until the bank has no more items.

regardless of how the items are made available, no items should remain safe and retrievable afterwards.

-barcode
 

Xunila

Cronite Supporter
this is something i'll never agree with. banks, when destroyed, should drop the stored items. I realize that any bank that's seen much use will have far too much stuff to drop, the server would likely shit itself if it tried to make thousands of items available to loot. Perhaps the server can do a quick calculation to get the approximate amount of goods stored there and drop a corresponding amount of building scraps. Maybe make it an event and during server maintanence, generate a limited manifest of the items stored (likely would not include any non-stackable items) and have them spawn out in loot bags like the christmas event but in this case bags would spawn until the bank has no more items.

regardless of how the items are made available, no items should remain safe and retrievable afterwards.

-barcode
This is not possible because of the grid bank system! You would have to destroy ALL banks in the grid.

The system you are preferring ends up in the need to use lots of f2p bank characters. Is this better? I don't think so, makes the game worse to players with only one subscribed account and one additional f2p account even with four slots. Lots of f2p bank chars had been used before the new house system came into the game.
 
I agree with Barcode on this one as well. If there is no way for loss with banks then there should be no way to build them as TC. I always thought that system was broke with the original TC banks, and was really surprised/disappointed that they brought it back with the new system.

The grid based bank system should be left in NPC towns where there is no way for them to be destroyed/rebuilt.
 
Last edited:
well i wouldnt say that tc banks should not be possible, i can understand the need for them, especially for guilds and town building. Technical complications aside, you cannot actually tell me that you believe blowing up a tc bank should result in no tangible loss for those who stored stuff there (and no gain for those who do manage to destroy the structure). the fact that they do not work in this way is a massive failing by SV and i really think thats something they should reexamine.

perhaps TC banks should work similar to towers, once one is placed, another cannot be placed within the radius. items placed within would be tied to that particular bank and not the grid location it happens to reside in. it would be a completely separate system to town banks in that regard; there would be no linking of banks.

-barcode
 

Najwalaylah

Exalted Member
* * *
Before the new houses this argument had a bit of weight. But I think the new system gives a perfectly good option for players to deal with such things easily.

[Many examples of in-house appliance use follow.] All of this convenience comes with having a house now. And it is easier than ever to get one started.
I agree to Sebastion and others: The house chests are in fact the solution for the discussed feature in the wild.
These arguments tempt me to agree, though I wonder if everything involved in Cooking and preparation for Cooking will fit in anything but quite a large house. (Non-portable Grinder, does that fit inside anywhere? I'm assuming that Presses do, as do the many heat sources and Butcher Tables.)
 
well i wouldnt say that tc banks should not be possible, i can understand the need for them, especially for guilds and town building. Technical complications aside, you cannot actually tell me that you believe blowing up a tc bank should result in no tangible loss for those who stored stuff there (and no gain for those who do manage to destroy the structure). the fact that they do not work in this way is a massive failing by SV and i really think thats something they should reexamine.

perhaps TC banks should work similar to towers, once one is placed, another cannot be placed within the radius. items placed within would be tied to that particular bank and not the grid location it happens to reside in. it would be a completely separate system to town banks in that regard; there would be no linking of banks.

-barcode
Right. What I am saying is that the banks should not exist as they are currently. The items should not be saved and retrievable by placing another bank.

If they could make chests have permissions that would allow the option to give a single person their own chest then that would be better. Players could then make their own banks that do drop like everything else. The building could still have the same item caps as houses. So multiple ones would have to be built to accommodate more players.
 

agead_drem

Junior Member
This whole thread is confusing. "carebears" wanting stuff to drop, raiders not wanting more things to drop. I just don't know who is who anymore I guess.
 
Top