Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
ACE_JackalBark

An Introduction to Banks - Official Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

re: alts

i dont see why people wouldnt just park an alt account in a fort [enjoying a larger base inventory size vs small local bank] and if it is taken when logged out they will be safely teleported away to nearest other spawn with no decay hit ;0

Edited by Tinnis

caldera_forum_banner_wings.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tinnis said:

re: alts

i dont see why people wouldnt just park an alt account in a fort [enjoying a larger base inventory size vs small local bank] and if it is taken when logged out they will be safely teleported away with no resource hit ;0

I don't think people want to be forced to have alt accounts to use for storage. I sure don't.

I hope to all hell we get some form of high volume unsafe storage, but with some kind of lock or permissions that can be set when you own the stronghold.  Once the strong hold is lost so would the items in those chests once they were destroyed or had their lock picked.. or something...


"Float like a Butterfly.... Sting like a Misplaced Decimal Point" - Xarrayne 2018

YouTube Channel

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tinnis said:

re: alts

i dont see why people wouldnt just park an alt account in a fort [enjoying a larger base inventory size vs small local bank] and if it is taken when logged out they will be safely teleported away to nearest other spawn with no decay hit ;0

Plus they get more imports and exports. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally believe that end-of-campaign exports at the very least should require travel to a dangerous place. Makes more opportunities for interesting fights to happen in new locations and encourages being social since you'd need friends to go with and protect you on deposit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Destrin said:

I don't think people want to be forced to have alt accounts to use for storage. I sure don't.

I hope to all hell we get some form of high volume unsafe storage, but with some kind of lock or permissions that can be set when you own the stronghold.  Once the strong hold is lost so would the items in those chests once they were destroyed or had their lock picked.. or something...

i wonder how that 'thief' and 'pickpocket' will fit in re: storage! :0

Discipline_Thief.png


caldera_forum_banner_wings.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, recatek said:

Personally believe that end-of-campaign exports at the very least should require travel to a dangerous place. Makes more opportunities for interesting fights to happen in new locations and encourages being social since you'd need friends to go with and protect you on deposit.

Thinking about it, they could split exports, the way they they split the type of resources POI's produce vs nodes.

They could have an export location for building materials only, and keep the spirit bank model as is.  Put different limits on exporting through the export location and building materials than for item materials.

They figured, and I think correctly, that building blocks and item materials should be different in kind, so why not make exporting them to the EK's also different in kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How will Caravan inventories function?

Like a player inventory or trade chest - any one (faction or friendly) can add or loot?

[how are they controlled and how is owner log on/off handled etc?]

[and for players....log off count down should probably cancel on damage to stop people logging out to avoid being looted potentially]

Edited by Tinnis

caldera_forum_banner_wings.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

p.s. i can't remember if vessels are subject to decay or not these days? [with regards storing in a bank and summoning them etc]

will we be able to store a 'free' vessel in a bank when not using it e.g. the old 'key chain of bodies' idea to switch things around - or can only crafted bodies be stored (with decay)

Edited by Tinnis

caldera_forum_banner_wings.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concern #2:  With little storage space, how are we to hoard for winter when resources are supposed to become more scarce? Having the resources spread across multiple people or multiple alt accounts isn't very appealing.


"Float like a Butterfly.... Sting like a Misplaced Decimal Point" - Xarrayne 2018

YouTube Channel

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Destrin said:

Concern #2:  With little storage space, how are we to hoard for winter when resources are supposed to become more scarce? Having the resources spread across multiple people or multiple alt accounts isn't very appealing.

Another column in a spread sheet indicating the local storage location. 


CfWBSig.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Destrin said:

Concern #2:  With little storage space, how are we to hoard for winter when resources are supposed to become more scarce? Having the resources spread across multiple people or multiple alt accounts isn't very appealing.

Don't most survival games allow you to make personal storage chests to hold your items? It could be a strong reason to own a house/land in a CW

Edited by YouTubejasonwivart

Check out my youtube channel for testing gameplay https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCp-AgZ6mHOVObusemDVEXoA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, YouTubejasonwivart said:

Don't most survival games allow you to make personal storage chests to hold your items? It could be a strong reason to own a house/land in a CW

Yes, they do.  The in game trade chests we have right now are operable by anyone near by.  So you put it in and anyone else can take it.  So you put your fat haul in to a trade chest anyone can walk by and pick it, even if it is a fort or stronghold your faction owns. We don't have any information on other storage other than these banks, and what we have in game.

We need other forms of storage me thinks, that isn't as safe Local, World, or Spirit Banks but more safe than trade chests.


"Float like a Butterfly.... Sting like a Misplaced Decimal Point" - Xarrayne 2018

YouTube Channel

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Destrin said:

@jtoddcoleman@thomasblair

Concern #1: With the size of the local banks shown in the screen shot, and that we are lead to believe in the article that World Banks won't be available on every CW, how do you expect us to collect enough material as a guild and house it for gearing people out?  You have SO MANY crafting components and we need DISGUSTING volumes to craft armour with all the additives for a single set.  Don't you see a severe storage issue for guilds?

Fun Fact: The local bank size shown has enough storage to make two full plate sets will all the bells and whistles.... two... that's it.  This does not include failures or attempts to make the perfect sub-component for a factory run.  We need more storage... preferably unsafe storage.

Yes, we need crafted chests (wood, leather, metal, quality=size) that have detailed permissions deposit/withdrawal tabs for individual accounts, guild officers, leaders, quartermasters etc.   Crafted buildings with slots for a crafting bench, or factory, or accept 1-3 chests as well.   Banks are personal storage, chests are community storage.  Chests should be destroyed with the building or possibly looted with a survival tree skill.

Chests like this could be linked to factories in the same building as supply for blueprint runs...   training mass production allowing this functionality.

Edited by Frykka

6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spirit banks should have no place in the final version of this game. It seems self evident that they massively compromise the entire risk/reward premise. I will charitably assume that the description of spirit banks was included in this writeup merely for completeness' sake and not because they will remain a feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PaleOne said:

If you cap a keep/fort— you should be able to beat down the local bank chest and loot whatever was stored there.

and the world bank should be like your corpse in that if you claim your inventory before it’s looted you get it back— minus the parts that were looted.

Yar, when first announced I thought CF was going to be more "hardcore" like that.  All these kiddies gaming these days have different expectations thou, so I'm willing to see how it plays out.


rSHxVEY.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Effeh said:

Spirit banks should have no place in the final version of this game. It seems self evident that they massively compromise the entire risk/reward premise. I will charitably assume that the description of spirit banks was included in this writeup merely for completeness' sake and not because they will remain a feature.

I would expect you're going to be disappointed because it's future use in campaign worlds was fairly well described.

Quote

you can expect that in some Campaigns, we will likely use this as a balance mechanic; winning teams can be rewarded with more exports and/or losing teams can be granted more imports as a “catch up” mechanic to keep the Campaigns interesting.

It certainly will have a place in the final version of the game. No way ACE spent all those development hours to simply toss it away because a few people don't like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots to consider here. But one idea sticks out to me as unusual and, for me, antithetical to Campaigns being fairly won- reinforcements.

I do not agree with the premise of reinforcements. The concept of imports and exports was to combat an Uncle Bob using previous power to influence the current campaign. In this scenario, with fixed imports at the beginning, then self-contained CWs with export decisions, and then win conditions - the victor earned that victory from a fairly level playing field (especially in no import CWs).

Now you are saying that you are going to allow those who are losing on this level playing field to reinforce. I see no reason to do this. The winning team is winning, no reason to handicap the game. If your force gets decimated and you cannot regroup and re-arm, you cannot get a new fort or sub your guild to another force, then you should lose and leave the Campaign.

Wait for the scenario where you have adjudged a group to be losing, give them the ability to re-import, then that group turns the tides and wins the campaign. And the losers of the campaign were never given a chance to re-import. You just destroyed what was a balanced situation, with a clear winner, and biased it to the losing team.

You should not be given the opportunity to re-import from your EK. If you lose in a CW, you lose. No need to artificially keep CWs interesting, just end it and start anew.

Edit:

Also - if Spirit Bank exports/imports are not geographically constrained, wow. I do not think that would be a wise design. I'll run naked to a very important, but difficult to reach place, risking nothing, then import huge gear in. Gross. For the EK-CW ecology to function, the connection needs to be important and valuable, and executing exports should be risky and the point of the CW. Otherwise, what are we doing on the CW?

Edited by mctan

Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mctan said:

Lots to consider here. But one idea sticks out to me as unusual and, for me, antithetical to Campaigns being fairly - reinforcements.

I do not agree with the premise of reinforcements. The concept of imports and exports was to combat an Uncle Bob using previous power to influence the current campaign. In this scenario, with fixed imports at the beginning, then self-contained CWs with export decisions, and then win conditions - the victor earned that victory from a fairly level playing field (especially in no import CWs).

Now you are saying that you are going to allow those who are losing on this level playing field to reinforce. I see no reason to do this. The winning team is winning, no reason to handicap the game. If your force gets decimated and you cannot regroup and re-arm, you cannot get a new fort or sub your guild to another force, then you should lose and leave the Campaign.

Wait for the scenario where you have adjudged a group to be losing, give them the ability to re-import, then that group turns the tides and wins the campaign. And the losers of the campaign were never given a chance to re-import. You should destroyed what was a balanced situation, with a clear winner, and biased it to the losing team.

You should not be given the opportunity to re-import from your EK. If you lose in a CW, you lose.

I don't think they are trying to build a PUBG style game.  Back and forth, and the sense of being able to recover from some or even most losses is critical to making sure the game/world isn't over, until it's over.

Last thing ACE needs is empty worlds with a single victorious team waiting out the hunger time all alone exporting resources.  That's just as boring as the Uncle Bob problem.

The game NEEDS some perpetual comeback mechanics if the worlds are going to last more than a few days/weeks, and actually feel like a real territorial conquest game. It's better for both sides, winners and losers, that way.

Quote

We’ve discussed “slippery slope” problems before (for a refresher course, I would invite you to check out this brilliant writeup by David Sirlin) but the summary is:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...