Someone will run a bank, likely a noble since they are more trustworthy. Your money is kept in their bank. If you want to get some out you have to go to the bank to get it. If a clever deviant comes into the building and robs the bank, you'll have to take it up with the noble (which could mean lynching him for having such bad security cause you want your money back :P)

There is no banking "system" in CoE. Every item you own from gold coins to your furniture to the tunic on your back exists in the world and must be stored.

If a player (or NPC) sets up a building that is reinforced, has triple locked iron doors, and other defenses and says I will store your gold coins and you sign a contract with them they are a "bank". But a thief can sneak in and rob the place, the "banker" can easily break the contract and keep your items/funds.

In short there is no actual MMO banking system in CoE. Only what we players create.

Sorry, but the statement that nobility is more trustworthy made me chuckle.

Only trust yourself :) Make a secret floor safe and put your valuables in there. I'm sure you'll be fine

Posted By BioRules at 11:29 AM - Fri Apr 28 2017

Someone will run a bank, likely a noble since they are more trustworthy. Your money is kept in their bank. If you want to get some out you have to go to the bank to get it. If a clever deviant comes into the building and robs the bank, you'll have to take it up with the noble (which could mean lynching him for having such bad security cause you want your money back :P)

This please

Posted By Malais at 11:37 AM - Fri Apr 28 2017

There is no banking "system" in CoE. Every item you own from gold coins to your furniture to the tunic on your back exists in the world and must be stored.

If a player (or NPC) sets up a building that is reinforced, has triple locked iron doors, and other defenses and says I will store your gold coins and you sign a contract with them they are a "bank". But a thief can sneak in and rob the place, the "banker" can easily break the contract and keep your items/funds.

In short there is no actual MMO banking system in CoE. Only what we players create.

At first I saw this as a huge fps / resource hog , but if devs can get this right it would be awesome . Typically there's a bank In which all your items are stored client side , alleviating load on the server because it doesn't need to track it constantly unless the person opens his bank ; in this game we'll have hundreds of storages everywhere (that's inevitable , unless they don't have persistence which would be stupid) and it seems a lot harder to implement .

Here's to hoping I'm wrong about this (my experience stems from playing MMOs and not making them) and the devs can nail this system down so we can have a super realistic and immersive experience even when it comes to storage .

I don't think this is a good idea. Banking should be 100% secure, at least for certain items like gold.

I know the idea of "only player banking" sounds cool, but it becomes such an impediment on game-play and developing the social structures and gameplay that can emerge. You need to have a minimal "structure" that gives a backbone of security to an open-world game that allows players to develop more advanced forms of cooperation and exchange.

If there is no 100% safe banking, you'll probably have completely walled-off cities with a NO STRANGERS ALLOWED policy - strangling potential gameplay as there won't be any trust between players outside a much smaller circle - limiting interaction.

This is why I think breaking in player's housing is also a bad idea. It leads to the same result as above. If something is not 100% secure, you can be absolutely guaranteed that players will be out there 24/7 trying to break into people's stuff 100% of the time. This results in risk-aversion, as players will behave in a way to protect themselves 100% - leading to isolation, 100% distrust of any outsider, and makes it impossible to widen interaction, exchange, or travel to happen between players.

A game should maximize and expand possible player interaction to be fun and interesting. The only way to expand interaction is to build trust. Trust only is built when there are reliable institutions available that secure people's money. Without that, wider interaction will never develop because people are too risk-adverse to take on more challenges or interactions in a wider pool of players.

Placing banking completely in the hands of players is going to lead to drama, chaos, disappointment, and quitting. Why would someone devote their gametime to maintaining a major bank? Fending off griefers trying to break in day after day? What happens when they just decide they have enough and just drain the bank of all the funds and run off with it? Economic collapse and depression?

I know in theory it sounds fun, but its not. It severely limits the possibilities of gameplay. A minimal structure that provides a certain, fundamental level of security is needed to induce cooperation between players, which in turn leads to more complex social structures and activities emerging. Without that, it will never emerge. Secure banks are vital for any advanced economy to emerge.

Every player settlement should have an "NPC Bank" that they can store at least their gold/currency in which is 100% secure. Allowing it to be accessed universally makes sense and helps conduce advanced gameplay. Banks naturally would have ledgers of your account, so you can access money outside your home town. This can be explained lore-wise through a neutral NPC faction like the 'Iron Bank' in Game of Thrones. This also facilitates economic interaction and commerce as its easier to do trades and business globally with a global banking network. WIthout it, trade will be much more difficult to do and restricted locally. I know it sounds cool to place the effort in the hands of players to build a reliable banking network - but its not going to work permanently. People will get bored and tired of running such a network, and when it collapses, the economy and society will collapse with it. It won't be fun playing the end of the world either, as you'll lose all your stuff and be afraid to trade or do anything outside of your home city. You would literally experience what the Dark Ages were really like, and people will quit because it isn't fun.

If you don't have this, all you will end up with is a burning hellscape of a Hobbesian world where players cower in their super-mega fortress towns with the 40 other trusted people they play with and impale any strangers on spikes outside of their walls. That's what a no, in-built minimal security game design gets you. And its awful.

TL:DR NPC banks are necessary because building trust amid anonymity is impossible without a reliable institution to cover the risk, both in real life and in a video game especially.

@Beauvais

The entire point of CoE is dramatic stories based on player <made> conflict.

NOTHING in CoE should ever be safe.

When you log out your character stays in the world. Your finest built home can be destroyed. No super guards or safe zones to prevent pvp. In short it's dog eat dog and that is by design.

A couple of rules you may need to know.

1. You will be murdered.
2. You will be robbed.
3. Your house will be burned down.
4. You will lose your title.

CoE is not about gathering up purple gear, epic mounts, and then standing around waiting for dailies to pop. It's about the story of your finding these items and what happens when someone else comes along that wants them.

Posted By Beauvais at 02:49 AM - Sat Apr 29 2017

If you don't have this, all you will end up with is a burning hellscape of a Hobbesian world where players cower in their super-mega fortresses with the 40 other trusted people they play with and impale any strangers on spikes outside of their walls. That's what a no, in-built minimal security game design gets you.

I'm not getting the problem here. The game is built around stories. If one town doesn't trust people, that would be their lost, no trade for them. Plus any skill people that may come in. That be their choice and storyline would build around it. I see most people keeping things in their own house, so unless you think every single house will be broken into, behind a wall, so easily. That will be a sight to see.

At the end, everything we do just create storyline for ourselves and everyone around us. You will need a siege weapon to break down a wall anyway, so shouldn't get robbed so easily.

Posted By Beauvais at 12:49 PM - Fri Apr 28 2017

I don't think this is a good idea. Banking should be 100% secure, at least for certain items like gold.

I know the idea of "only player banking" sounds cool, but it becomes such an impediment on game-play and developing the social structures and gameplay that can emerge. You need to have a minimal "structure" that gives a backbone of security to an open-world game that allows players to develop more advanced forms of cooperation and exchange.

If there is no 100% safe banking, you'll probably have completely walled-off cities with a NO STRANGERS ALLOWED policy - strangling potential gameplay as there won't be any trust between players outside a much smaller circle - limiting interaction.

A game should maximize and expand possible player interaction to be fun and interesting. The only way to expand interaction is to build trust. Trust only is built when there are reliable institutions available that secure people's money. Without that, wider interaction will never develop because people are too risk-adverse to take on more challenges or interactions in a wider pool of players.

Placing banking completely in the hands of players is going to lead to drama, chaos, disappointment, and quitting. Why would someone devote their gametime to maintaining a major bank? Fending off griefers trying to break in day after day? What happens when they just decide they have enough and just drain the bank of all the funds and run off with it? Economic collapse and depression?

I know in theory it sounds fun, but its not. It severely limits the possibilities of gameplay. A minimal structure that provides a certain, fundamental level of security is needed to induce cooperation between players, which in turn leads to more complex social structures and activities emerging.

If you don't have this, all you will end up with is a burning hellscape of a Hobbesian world where players cower in their super-mega fortress towns with the 40 other trusted people they play with and impale any strangers on spikes outside of their walls. That's what a no, in-built minimal security game design gets you. And its awful.

I feel that you're missing a few important points here. For one thing, it's very hard to steal massive amounts of gold. You can only take so much in your inventory, it has weight and takes up space. Also, most value will probably not be in currency but in land and commodities. Then there's the social aspect to theft. If someone is a known thief, no one will be willing to work with them and they'll likely be arrested promptly.

At any rate, there are other ways to store your goods apart from relying on a bank. You can bury them underground, hide them behind a fake wall in a building, or heck maybe they'll implement a safe box of some sort.

On top of all this, remember that there are some things that can't be stolen. Your character skills, reputation and social connections are arguably more valuable than any physical wealth. Having someone rob a bank and walk away with whatever gold they can carry is not the end of the world.

I understand that this game is about conflict, that's what the excitement and drama of a game like this revolves around. I agree completely, and that's what I am attracted to as well.

But, if you don't have a minimal structure to secure player's wealth and economic activity, it severely restricts the possibilities and potential of a game like this.

For example - I am a veteran of EVE Online, which is a really brutal game where you are not 100% safe anywhere. Its home to some really amazing player social structures and co-operation. But those achievements are built upon a really smart game system that provides a minimal level of security that facilitates trade, cooperation, and interaction between players who don't even know each other.

For example:

1. The contract system has automatic collateral set aside to cover the risk if you accept a contract from another player. Therefore, if one fails to uphold the contract, the collateral is automatically transferred to the the contract issuer. If the contract is successful, the collateral is automatically transferred back to the person who took the contract. The risk is there, space pirates can attack the guy carrying the cargo, but the system of automatic collateral creates the trust needed for such an interaction to take place. The system also prevents the carrier from just stealing the cargo - it comes in a form of a anonymous box that is destroyed when you attempt to open it.Therefore it allows business contracts with anonymity - I may not know the person I am doing business with, but the system created allows me to trust the business interaction I do with the other player. If that system was not there, then trade and business would be severely restricted to just people I know - within my corporation. The risk of losing my cargo without automatic compensation in the form of contract collateral will make me risk adverse and choose not to try to trade across a region at all. Multiply this effect by 100,000 players and you end up with economic stagnation and a boring, much more isolated gameplay experience.

2. Same goes with the wallet system, money is kept as a non-physical item in EVE. This means that I don't have to worry about parking or transferring physical money anywhere - which would be a massive headache and make EVE's integrated, player-run economy impossible to function. Players can go anywhere and buy and sell products easily, facilitating trade and commerce. Again, without this system, EVE would be a much more restricted, boring game, as adverse behavior would make people stay where they are and not move around much - which would mean risking their hard earned cash. Without that money fueling the economy, there would be less activity, less consumer demand, and less things for players to do. It would get boring and people would quit.

These are just examples from EVE, I am not saying this game has to copy them. My point is to show how a minimal level of structure can create conditions that allow for much more player activity and structure to emerge than without it.

I get the appeal of letting players create the structure of security, but under a certain level, its not reliable because time-consuming and just not fun. It won't happen, and the level of possibly activity and structure that players could achieve will be stunted. You won't have bustling, cosmopolitan cities full of traders and travelers, instead you'll just have isolated forts where a trusted circle of players live and don't allow anyone else in because they want to protect their assets 100% with no risk.

So the point I'm trying to make is that players will always play with risk adverse behavior - if there is even a slight risk of losing something, they'll play in a way to avoid that risk 100% or as close as 100% as possible. Conversely, even if there is just a 5% chance of robbing a bank, then I guarantee you there will be 1000s of players trying to rob banks 24/7 all the time and will try to exploit any mechanic or bug possible to do it. And they'll do it relentlessly. It sounds fun and cool in theory, but it makes for terrible gameplay. What that does it is that shuts down advanced forms of gameplay, and more complex player societies and structures from ever forming - because there isn't the trust to let those form.

What's better is to "structure" gameplay in the way that EVE does by providing the tools that inject the certainty needed in order to for those interactions to happen. It doesn't mean elminating risk - just like how in EVE contracts can fail, and risk is placed on the accepter of the contract, maybe in this game you can be ambushed and killed on your way to the bank. The risk is still there, but the structure allows players to do alot more.

EDIT - Maybe I would like to soften my approach a little. Perhaps banks should be 100% secure until, say, an enemy invasion approaches. If the city is under siege and taken, the bank could be looted. It would create an interesting mechanic as it puts a vested interest on the players in the city to defend the city, or desperately try to move their cash to a more secure city - generating gameplay dynamics. Its just an example about how creating a minimal structure can shape gameplay into more interesting ways.

There is planned to be a contract system in place similar to like what it sounds like EVE does. The difference will be that punishing the person who breaks the rules comes down to guards and bounty hunters.

Posted By BioRules at 8:01 PM - Fri Apr 28 2017

There is planned to be a contract system in place similar to like what it sounds like EVE does. The difference will be that punishing the person who breaks the rules comes down to guards and bounty hunters.

Yeah! I read about that and it sounds really cool. I'm a little skeptical of making players responsible for upholding ALL of the security of contracts and economic interaction, but maybe it'll work. I just think that at some level, there should be some minimal security built into the game that allows people to do more.

I'm thinking about how it could be achieved. Last I heard there wasn't going to be a single "gold" currency, that every kingdom can make their own, so working with it the same way other MMOs do is tougher. Plus so much of the game is based around true physical movement of stuff that having a contract like you mentioned where if they fail to deliver the item gets auto sent back to the person who made the contract kinda breaks the game too. I could imagine someone setting up a "contract" to send an item to another place, then once it's there and used for what it's needed the person "breaks" the contract, and boom, item teleportation.

Posted By Beauvais at 1:08 PM - Fri Apr 28 2017

Posted By BioRules at 8:01 PM - Fri Apr 28 2017

There is planned to be a contract system in place similar to like what it sounds like EVE does. The difference will be that punishing the person who breaks the rules comes down to guards and bounty hunters.

Yeah! I read about that and it sounds really cool. I'm a little skeptical of making players responsible for upholding ALL of the security of contracts and economic interaction, but maybe it'll work. I just think that at some level, there should be some minimal security built into the game that allows people to do more.

Security and rules are drafted and enforced by player monarchs. It's up to the nobility do enforce the rules and if they don't or are unable it's up to the players to replace them.

CoE is a true sandbox. Rules that are hard coded or enforced by the game are to me counter to the apparent design. Sure it may break down and not work but it's literally like our world. Beyond the rules of the physical world everything else is human made. With the artificial constraints of most mmos removed we the players truely have the freedom to remake the world as we see fit.

Who knows if it will work or not. But it will be fun to see.