Bank Deposits

[Athon]

I understand the intent of the interest fee charges with bank deposits (10%), but it really makes the use of the bank to be a big deterrant to use at the early levels. When you're young, every copper counts. That leads to lower-level characters carrying all of their coin on them which in turns becomes a huge risk if they die. The bank is there to protect your money but many times the lower levels can't afford to lose the money to the deposit to store the money. It's a bit of a catch-22 until you get to a higher level.

My proposal: allow the first 50 or 100 platinum in the bank to be deposited without a charge. From that point on, all the money will be deposited with the 10% banker's cut. This will make the bank friendly to lower-level characters while still serving it's general purpose to everyone else.

[Selveem]

As a player of many alts, I'd have to agree with this. None of my characters begin depositing money until they can pretty much stand on their own.

At that time, it's really only to minimize the heavy percentage of my maximum carry weight that coin seems to like to use up. Depositing coin at low levels means you can't buy all that ridiculously overpriced armor or train all those pesky skills, spells, stats as you level.

Banking Benefit = 0 to me.

[Khelebhzed]

Rather than adjust the current public banking system, I think it would more interesting to see creative private alternatives. Either as a player run banking system, or perhaps one without the percentage issue but perhaps you need an agent (Waukeenar anyone?) present to deal with the private firm, or some other aspect that requires additional interaction for the privilege of not paying a percentage.

[Selveem]

Yeah, sure.

Why not trust my Halfling with all your valuables?

But in all seriousness, I disagree. I would not like to see player-run alternatives. When I want access to my hard-earned coin, I want my coin right now. I don't want to wait for a few weeks, months, years when said player comes back from their hiatus. :/

Unless you mean something like a shop..? In which case, I don't see the point, really, aside from said player trying to make themselves famous by getting their name out there. *shrug* It'd be no different than just adding an additional non-player-run bank. Except, perhaps, the workload might be a lot less on adding generic banks/changing existing code.

[Grenwyn]

There ought to be a price for the service of keeping your coin safe--I don't think that should be free. But perhaps 10% is too much--I haven't seen many banks IRL that charge 10% interest.

5% would be more reasonable. 1% might be a little cheap, I don't know.

[Athon]

I would like to reiterate this suggestion. It seems like we're changing many aspects of this game for the better and to be more encouraging to new players.

I really think that the "cut" the banker takes needs to be removed for the first 50-100 platinum in the account. It is such a deterrent to low-level characters that I don't use the bank at all until I have quite a bit of money (aka, not for a lonnnnnnng time).

[Gwain]

I've suggested adding an investment system to the banks which would see accounts gather interest over periods of time/logged in active playing instead of paying a fee to store coin. That way we have an incentive to bank instead of hoarding coins on our mounts or person.

[Athon]

I've suggested adding an investment system to the banks which would see accounts gather interest over periods of time/logged in active playing instead of paying a fee to store coin. That way we have an incentive to bank instead of hoarding coins on our mounts or person.

I would totally agree with this as well. But I'd be content with just removing the fee to start if the admins decided that interest was too much.

Unless we could find something for the banks to "invest" in ICly, at which point the interest would be undeniably justified.

[Selveem]

I've suggested adding an investment system to the banks which would see accounts gather interest over periods of time/logged in active playing instead of paying a fee to store coin. That way we have an incentive to bank instead of hoarding coins on our mounts or person.

I don't like the idea of interest. There are already some people out there with max bank accounts (not naming any names here) and have no real use for coin. The truth of the matter is, at max level, there's little use to spend coin too much. My Priest and Wizard don't have any great problems making it even with component costs.

Once characters are equipped, regardless of class, they're pretty much golden if they know how to play their class and actually spend time getting coin.

So, who are the only people this really affects?

Low level and/or ill-equipped characters. Most especially: newbies. Older players, like Athon and I, probably don't use the bank much before they don't really need it.

In short, I am echoing the support I showed earlier for this idea.

[Gwain]

I would be fine with just removing the fee if possible. My goal was only to make the fee make sense. I don't find the fee on deposits makes no sense at all without beneifits. Coin can be stabled, is light and can be carried in the hundreds with little restrictions. Banks should be a viable option for storage without losing a great deal to deposit, permanently. I know that when the fee was first introduced, it was used to justify increasing the limit of savings a character could have for rp beneifits. At one point it was much more than what it is now, then it was halved. I am of the opinion it should be removed entirely or incentives should be introduced that make characters want to pay a fee to bank their coins.

Incentives could be:
-Items of interest after you bank a certain amount that are worthwhile for doing business with the bank, quests that generate after you invest enough money, such as foiling robberies and transporting bank goods.
- Investment oppertunities in a ingame stock market exchange that randomly changes based on merchant activity much like the trade system in the mud, but with localized or nationalised indexes.
- Exclusive clubs or discounts at local merchants for being a premium member of a bank by keeping a certain amount of coin in an account.
- Ability to store coin in several different accounts, a short term account with no restrictions, a long term account with accumulated interest and charges associated with action before a certain date.

[Bellayana]

There should be a limit on how many coins you can withdraw as well in the long term account, and perhaps a fee for when you withdraw coins just like a Savings Account. I think that this economy system could also calculate into how many guards a town can produce. I think this could play into the ideas of influence and world RP interaction. Churches could buy into a cities economy, and if a church has the most coins invested into a town they would be more friendly to that Church.

[Harroghty]

Investing would be an anachronism. Banking itself was a developing concept in the comparable real-world time period to our game's setting.

I believe that Athon's original idea makes sense from the business stand-point of enabling new players, but I believe also that we begin to diverge too much into the modern world when we go beyond that concession.

[Gwain]

I still believe in my idea. Money should grow as it sits in a bank, if the banker takes a cut, we should get interest, very little or a larger bit by how much we deposit. It might not fit in the timeline to some, but interest has been around since the end of the classical era, it destroyed rich religious orders, it caused expulsions to forgive the debts of royalty, if we are avoiding a stock market for historical accuracy, that would be different for getting a return on your investment in a bank.

Just my opinion, I've sort of been touting this since 2003.

[Selveem]

I've been agreeing with Gwain on the banking issue since 2003.

The cut, as Athon pointed out, causes players (especially low level ones) to carry around everything they earn. Since coin carries a ridiculous sum of weight to it in many cases (where it doesn't get counted in D&D in any games I ever played), it overburdens low levels unnecessarily and can cause them to get hit more often - especially wizards who don't wear equipment.

A newer player may not realize that coins are causing them to get hit more (not everyone wants to wade through hours of help files when they just start a game - many people I know don't even RTFM in games they buy anymore), so that only compounds the issue.

[Raona]

I'm all for eliminating the cut for PCs with less than 100 platinum total in the bank, or eliminating it all together. That would be relatively easy to do.

Historically, I'm no expert, but interest-bearing demand accounts don't seem to have been widespread until about 1400? If so, that kind of straddles our reference frame. I'd argue there are better investments out there, and not offering interest at a bank is all the more motivation for folks to seek such out. After all, real banks have a risk of failure and disrepute, and ours does not...and we place a high priority on risk/cost vs reward.

So, in short, I can back removing the fee. Should it be complete, or just for the poor? What's the rationale for encouraging people to hoarde their money outside a bank - more opportunities for thieves? I could get behind that, actually. (If you aren't willing to pay to keep your money safe...well, the 'cost' for such falls on you!)

[Gwain]

That's reasonable, a system like I described is complex. I could settle with free deposits under 150 platinum and some fees for more. Money is easier to come by now than it was when the fees were introduced.

[Selveem]

So, in short, I can back removing the fee. Should it be complete, or just for the poor? What's the rationale for encouraging people to hoarde their money outside a bank - more opportunities for thieves? I could get behind that, actually. (If you aren't willing to pay to keep your money safe...well, the 'cost' for such falls on you!)

I would prefer it removed altogether, honestly. If a PC, really, were going to pay to keep their fortunes safe, they'd purchase their own residence, guards, safes, and traps. None of these options are available to players, so I don't see the rationale behind taxing them to death. 10% on every deposit is pretty damned steep (even in modern days). If my bank took 10% there'd be hell to pay.

[Raona]

I had a discussion with the "balance" folks on this, and they are happy with 10%, and fine with folks not availing themselves of it if they prefer. 10% buys you universal accessibility to your funds and perfect security. You can get less for less money, through the luggage service and your own ways of stashing your cash on your person or pets. Granted, that means one more thing to invest in when there's an endless list, but it's an investment decision you have to make.

So I don't see this changing any time soon, at least not without a more compelling argument (in the eyes of those charged with maintaining game balance). Sorry, sometimes this is the end result of a suggestion track! ("Works for me" in coder lingo, I think.)

[Gwain]

I think that's reasonable, if only two crotchety older players like myself and Selveem are going to be carrying this thread currently, I don't see the need for changes. I know that Sharni originally installed the fees when she raised the limit that an account could hold and they were set at around 15%, back then you could not change your money into other denominations without having to lose that much in the transaction. Dalvyn was able to get it down to ten and offer free money changing services, which seems to work fine. My only advice would be that in the future if more than two players advocate for a fee system change, that it be considered seriously, balance aside that's when things matter. Thanks though for taking the time to go through this old thread and discuss. I'm grateful for your time and efforts.

[Athon]

Make that at least 3 players. This sounds more like making the game difficult for the sake of being difficult. It's a flat penalty to everyone, straight across the board.