Jump to content


Photo

Designing a Real Guild Bank...


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#21 Daboran

Daboran

    King Hippo

  • Members
  • 681 posts

Posted 23 September 2006 - 12:37 PM

Heck, make it a real time transfer - if an officer is on that has sufficient rights to authorize withdrawls, he gets a pop up approval window allowing him to allow, or deny with a short comment explaining why. If allowed the item is immediately given to the player in question.

They wouldnt do this, it would break the limitation on potions/buffs. Theres a reason pots only stack in 5's.

#22 Grillkohle

Grillkohle

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 60 posts

Posted 23 September 2006 - 12:48 PM

Heck, make it a real time transfer - if an officer is on that has sufficient rights to authorize withdrawls, he gets a pop up approval window allowing him to allow, or deny with a short comment explaining why. If allowed the item is immediately given to the player in question.

They wouldnt do this, it would break the limitation on potions/buffs. Theres a reason pots only stack in 5's.

I don't see how it would break the limitations on how many buffs one can have. What it would actually do is work around inventory space, as you could use the guild bank as a general extension of people's inventory.

Therefore, if people request stuff from the guild bank, it shouldn't just pop up in their inventory, but be automatically mailed to them, with the usual restrictions that apply to mails that are sent with items attached.

#23 R4zza

R4zza

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 52 posts

Posted 23 September 2006 - 12:55 PM

There would have to be some limit on what guilds could open a 'Guild Vault', a certain size of guild for example. Otherwise you could simple make your own guild, get some level 1's to sign your charter, and hey presto, you have a massive amount more bank space than was intended for the average player. Ofcourse putting a huge gold price on such a Vault would be one way of checking it, but seeing as gold can be farmed or bought by one person, some sort of size limit would be more effective.

#24 Praetorian

Praetorian

    Mike Tyson

  • ♦ Administrators
  • 27,761 posts

Posted 23 September 2006 - 02:07 PM

It's fun to design on the level of complexity here, but if Blizzard ever does implement something like this, I can guarantee it'd be on a simple level -- straightforward and easy to use. All I'd like to see is the following:
1) Create a communal guild bank. Allow gold to be deposited as well as items.
2) Start with 100 slots, and allow the GM to upgrade the guild bank by purchasing additional blocks of 40 or so.
3) When the GM is setting rank permissions, alongside the ability to invite or to see/use Officer chat, he would be able to specify Deposit, View, and Withdraw permissions for each of the ranks.
4) For added security, the way you have to type "DELETE" to junk a blue or better, let the guildmaster set a password that has to be typed in order to access the guild bank, once per access session. (If you really want security here, make it a virtual keypad that pops up.) Now the guild is only vulnerable to betrayal from within, rather than one random officer getting keylogged.

That's it. All the other features are nice, but the above is all we need. #1-#3 are really just the essentials, and #4 obviously has significant practical advantages.

#25 Khalikryst

Khalikryst

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 108 posts

Posted 23 September 2006 - 04:49 PM

I agree with Gurg that they'll keep it fairly simple.

I know others have suggested immediate access but Blizzard seems to kind of hate expanding (and I assume, adding new) realtime storage like banks and bags but doesn't seem to mind us floating loads of junk around between our mules via the mail system (raise your hand if you have 50+ items floating between 2-3 mules at any given time *raises hand*). I'm guessing this has to do with their database setup. So I wouldn't be at all surprised that any guild bank system they put in would work somewhat off of the mail system so it can operate at a lower priority than individual banks and bags.

And I think that would be ok. Afterall, most transactions to/from current guild alts are through the mail system anyway.

One additional requirement I'd like to see though would be transaction reports. Not only would that help with accountability issues, it would probably give guilds a method to script up DKP credit for bank contributions and such.

#26 Eej

Eej

    Soda Popinski

  • Allied Members
  • 4,327 posts

Posted 23 September 2006 - 04:52 PM

See, I found a clever method around your overly controlling scheme!

Or Blizzard could define a policy about such behaviour.

Wait, you want it such that you're not allowed to boot bad people from your guild? Why should Blizzard (or anyone for that matter) interfere with a guild officer's right to boot people who they believe don't make the cut?

#27 Dakous

Dakous

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 482 posts

Posted 23 September 2006 - 05:25 PM

Relatively easy and imo fairly necessary feature (especially from a "Please, save the CSRs!" perspective -

Auditing transactions.
Everybody is your brother until the rent comes due.

#28 Malan

Malan

    Mike Tyson

  • Allied Members
  • 29,830 posts

Posted 23 September 2006 - 05:57 PM

Heck, make it a real time transfer - if an officer is on that has sufficient rights to authorize withdrawls, he gets a pop up approval window allowing him to allow, or deny with a short comment explaining why. If allowed the item is immediately given to the player in question.

They wouldnt do this, it would break the limitation on potions/buffs. Theres a reason pots only stack in 5's.

I have no idea how what I said relates in any way, shape or form to potions/buffs stacking.

#29 Whitemane

Whitemane

    King Hippo

  • Members
  • 698 posts

Posted 23 September 2006 - 09:09 PM

Actually I'm pretty sure this is something Blizzard indeed has thought of, and thought better of.

Now, I'm going to set myself in the role as a game designer who's just been given the task to evaluate the feasibility of implementing a fully functional guild bank / vault system in a game like this.

Obviously your first thought is "it's a great idea, encourages guilds to cooperate, no reason not to implement it!". But as you keep pondering a few points start making themselves apparent. First and foremost, of course, in huge online games like this - everything that can be exploited in any way will be, of that you can rest assured. Since a guild bank system is no different from a real bank in the fact that someone else is effectively handling and keepsaking your resources, the system has to be foolproof.

Now, the first step towards foolproofness would of course be to handle a lot of it, if not all, serverside. This is going to add to total server load. Even so, what could you come up with that makes sure a corrupted guild leader / officer does not just empty a guild bank and take off with 25k gold? Do you make all the movements dependant on more than one person acknowledging? It's still only people, basically this might lower the possibility but it's still going to happen. Are you ready to handle the extra log requirements as a result of this, and the extra load on game support to restore stolen items?

Basically I can see why you wouldn't implement such a system just based on the possible exploitations it brings with it. Of course, this is bad news for those of us who are actually thrustworthy and would benefit from the simplicity of having a built-in system to help in our daily guild-resources-handling routines, but still the possibility to set up a working bank / vault system is in the game as it is.

So as a game designer I would say; do not make an explicit system for this, instead make sure it's feasible that players who wish to create one can do so.

All the things you have just mentioned there Blizzard has already covered by saying that they basically don't give a shit if it happens to you.

#30 Copernicus

Copernicus

    Bald Bull

  • Members
  • 1,433 posts

Posted 25 September 2006 - 06:19 AM

If any guild bank features ever get implemented, I'd love to have a "Guild Repair Bot" that uses the guild's gold to repair. Would have to require a minimum guild rank to use etc to prevent abuse etc.

#31 Ghiest

Ghiest

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 81 posts

Posted 25 September 2006 - 09:15 AM

I would settle for just some decent guild tools let alone a guild banking system. Games 5+ years older than WoW have a better guild structure system, it's one of the only things that let down Warcraft imo.

But I'd prefer not hte password method rather than just a guild rank entitlement.

#32 Grillkohle

Grillkohle

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 60 posts

Posted 25 September 2006 - 10:35 AM

If any guild bank features ever get implemented, I'd love to have a "Guild Repair Bot" that uses the guild's gold to repair. Would have to require a minimum guild rank to use etc to prevent abuse etc.

And while they're at it, they could tag the repair bots as Ironforge/Orgrimmar faction, for honored discount... *keeps dreaming*

#33 Kalman

Kalman

    Super Macho Man

  • Members
  • 8,791 posts

Posted 25 September 2006 - 11:54 AM

Heck, make it a real time transfer - if an officer is on that has sufficient rights to authorize withdrawls, he gets a pop up approval window allowing him to allow, or deny with a short comment explaining why. If allowed the item is immediately given to the player in question.

They wouldnt do this, it would break the limitation on potions/buffs. Theres a reason pots only stack in 5's.

The remote mail terminal being implemented in TBC is already breaking this limitation.
Melador> Incidentally, these last few pages are why people hate lawyers.
Viator> I really don't want to go all Kalman here.
Bury> Just imagine what the world would be like if you used your powers for good.

#34 Tyvi

Tyvi

    Never, Mags. Never!

  • • Guide Author
  • 1,884 posts

Posted 03 December 2006 - 08:57 PM

/Rebirth

We already have a design for guild banks and were going to get it into the Burning Crusade, but it is now scheduled to be added in a future content patch after the expansion ships.

Source: http://beta.worldofw...geNo=4&sid=1#74

It's not much, but atleast they are aware of the problem.

PS: That is the first Bliz employee that I am aware of that signs his posts :P

#35 Goreshot

Goreshot

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 183 posts

Posted 03 December 2006 - 09:42 PM

As it stands now, the <> tag is nothing more than a glorified chat room. This keeps things simple for Blizzard (low overhead), but in the long run, I think it hurts them more than it helps them (since guilds work around their lack of resources by manipulating and abusing current in-game resources like mailboxes). I agree with the sentiment that if they are going to implement something (all signs point to no), it'll be something extremely simple that no one will be happy with.

4) For added security, the way you have to type "DELETE" to junk a blue or better, let the guildmaster set a password that has to be typed in order to access the guild bank, once per access session. (If you really want security here, make it a virtual keypad that pops up.) Now the guild is only vulnerable to betrayal from within, rather than one random officer getting keylogged.

This won't happen because Blizzard is too damn lazy to implement such a scheme just to log into the game, which would destroy all current keyloggers and potentially shut them down for good.
"User is a tremendous douchenozzel"
-Actual EJ Forums feedback concerning Goreshot.

#36 Tangles

Tangles

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 34 posts

Posted 03 December 2006 - 09:44 PM

As it stands now, the <> tag is nothing more than a glorified chat room. This keeps things simple for Blizzard (low overhead), but in the long run, I think it hurts them more than it helps them (since guilds work around their lack of resources by manipulating and abusing current in-game resources like mailboxes). I agree with the sentiment that if they are going to implement something (all signs point to no), it'll be something extremely simple that no one will be happy with.

4) For added security, the way you have to type "DELETE" to junk a blue or better, let the guildmaster set a password that has to be typed in order to access the guild bank, once per access session. (If you really want security here, make it a virtual keypad that pops up.) Now the guild is only vulnerable to betrayal from within, rather than one random officer getting keylogged.

This won't happen because Blizzard is too damn lazy to implement such a scheme just to log into the game, which would destroy all current keyloggers and potentially shut them down for good.

Whats really runny is that there is a free korean 2d mmorg called Maple Story and it has the virtual keypad where you have to enter a 4 digit pin # in addition to your regular password to long on. Good stuff.

#37 malthrin

malthrin

    stalemate associate

  • Moderators
  • 9,107 posts

Posted 03 December 2006 - 09:46 PM

Which signs are pointing to no? Please don't post if all you have to contribute is speculation.
Lampkin in EJBSG 28 | Anders in EJBSG 24 | Cavil in EJBSG 20
Boomer in EJBSG 19 | Roslin in EJBSG 17 | Roslin in EJBSG 13 | Roslin in EJBSG 8
MTG Online draft viewer

#38 ooj

ooj

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 46 posts

Posted 03 December 2006 - 10:00 PM

If any guild bank features ever get implemented, I'd love to have a "Guild Repair Bot" that uses the guild's gold to repair. Would have to require a minimum guild rank to use etc to prevent abuse etc.

And while they're at it, they could tag the repair bots as Ironforge/Orgrimmar faction, for honored discount... *keeps dreaming*

And while they're at it, they could let you send all boss gold straight too this bank to fund this "Guild Repair Bot" who has faction discount! It could also sell regeants which would be limited by player so it cant be abused! maybe the next expansion.

#39 marketa

marketa

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 03 December 2006 - 10:03 PM

Otherwise you could simple make your own guild, get some level 1's to sign your charter, and hey presto, you have a massive amount more bank space than was intended for the average player.

Who cares. If the average player wants more bank space they can make a fake guild. Does more complexity hurt anyone? Does a fake guild hurt anyone? The current system is retarded.

#40 Eej

Eej

    Soda Popinski

  • Allied Members
  • 4,327 posts

Posted 03 December 2006 - 10:06 PM

Otherwise you could simple make your own guild, get some level 1's to sign your charter, and hey presto, you have a massive amount more bank space than was intended for the average player.

Who cares. If the average player wants more bank space they can make a fake guild. Does more complexity hurt anyone? Does a fake guild hurt anyone? The current system is retarded.

This problem is solvable by requiring that the guild bank be purchased with lots of golds. So it'd be a more expensive personal bank, but with more slots and also features that personal banks don't really need... no one's going to make their own alt guild for that.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users