Shared Bank?

[project99toons]

Shared bank on P99 Blue...yes or no? I would love to have a shared bank so I can easily transfer items/plat to my other toons (yes I know it’s not classic but meh). Maybe if this gets enough attention...hmmm...

[kyrobo]

whether you'd like to see it or not, it won't happen. it's not classic.

[kaluppo]

whether you'd like to see it or not, it won't happen. it's not classic.

What he said.

[Bboboo]

moving to resolved

[Tethler]

I'd love shared bank, but it has like 0% chance of happening here.

[Bardp1999]

Getting scammed in EC tunnel or a bag proofing full of gear on the ground is far more classic than shared banks

[Thomacles]

You are delusional to even think that P99 blue is anything like classic. They have already modified and nerfed what they want. You can't have it both ways. Its either the state it was on release, or you modify and nerf and it is no longer classic.

The end.

"Luclin's comin' "

[Jimjam]

You are delusional to even think that P99 blue is anything like classic. They have already modified and nerfed what they want. You can't have it both ways. Its either the state it was on release, or you modify and nerf and it is no longer classic.

The end.

"Luclin's comin' "

Please give examples of nerfs away from classicness. Most changes seem to be toward a more classic server.

If you are aware of non-classic elements please gather your evidence and submit them to bug reports.

As far as I am aware the greatest intentional non classic factors are for CSR quality of life. Perhaps there is a shred of hope that shared bank might be enabled to reduce item reimbursement petitions. Seems unlikely, though.


My own opinion is no to shared. I like to view my characters as separate individuals, rather than different faces of me as a player. As such I don't really see 'my wurmslayer' to move around characters as it suits me, rather it is 'my rangers wurmslayer'; if my level 40 warrior wants a wurm slayer he has to go find his own and not steal my rangers.

[oqrelord]

Please give examples of nerfs away from classicness. Most changes seem to be toward a more classic server.

If you are aware of non-classic elements please gather your evidence and submit them to bug reports.

As far as I am aware the greatest intentional non classic factors are for CSR quality of life. Perhaps there is a shred of hope that shared bank might be enabled to reduce item reimbursement petitions. Seems unlikely, though.


My own opinion is no to shared. I like to view my characters as separate individuals, rather than different faces of me as a player. As such I don't really see 'my wurmslayer' to move around characters as it suits me, rather it is 'my rangers wurmslayer'; if my level 40 warrior wants a wurm slayer he has to go find his own and not steal my rangers.

Item linking

[drmccollum]

Please give examples of nerfs away from classicness. Most changes seem to be toward a more classic server.

If you are aware of non-classic elements please gather your evidence and submit them to bug reports.

As far as I am aware the greatest intentional non classic factors are for CSR quality of life. Perhaps there is a shred of hope that shared bank might be enabled to reduce item reimbursement petitions. Seems unlikely, though.


My own opinion is no to shared. I like to view my characters as separate individuals, rather than different faces of me as a player. As such I don't really see 'my wurmslayer' to move around characters as it suits me, rather it is 'my rangers wurmslayer'; if my level 40 warrior wants a wurm slayer he has to go find his own and not steal my rangers.

Most people learned to share in kindergarten.

[Triiz]

Item linking

I think that may be part of the Titanium client. I remember reading somewhere a long time ago that the reason P99 devs couldn't edit Titanium client is because it would be outright copyright infringement but somehow the server it's self isn't or something like that. It was a direct quote from Rogean or Nilbog iirc.

Edit: That was surprisingly easy to find, was an article about catching people using third party hacks

"It's the same code, really," Rogean said. "It's a very similar setup.
We have a disadvantage compared to SOE, though, because we have no
control over the client. We cannot make any modifications to the client
itself, as that would be a copyright violation. So we aren't easily
able to put anything in that will either prevent the hacks or detect
them."
http://www.tentonhammer.com/articles/hacking-everquest-part-two-how-to-stop-a-hacker

[kotton05]

I take it y’all don’t understand that with certain UI the shared bank slots are in.

[Kika Maslyaka]

I think that may be part of the Titanium client. I remember reading somewhere a long time ago that the reason P99 devs couldn't edit Titanium client is because it would be outright copyright infringement but somehow the server it's self isn't or something like that. It was a direct quote from Rogean or Nilbog iirc.

Edit: That was surprisingly easy to find, was an article about catching people using third party hacks

"It's the same code, really," Rogean said. "It's a very similar setup.
We have a disadvantage compared to SOE, though, because we have no
control over the client. We cannot make any modifications to the client
itself, as that would be a copyright violation. So we aren't easily
able to put anything in that will either prevent the hacks or detect
them."
http://www.tentonhammer.com/articles/hacking-everquest-part-two-how-to-stop-a-hacker


Actually they did fair amount of hacking since then. They just couldn't hack out the item linking.

[baakss]

FTE messages, raid bosses being immune to lifetaps, epics requiring 46+, etc, etc, etc..

Plenty of non classic changes have been implemented to curb toxicity.

[kotton05]

Forgot the 25 mob limit that saved chardok

[baakss]

On a less direct/tangible level, player behavior is far from classic because we know too much.

You open a new server or expac, we'll flock to what we know will be nerfed. In Classic, we didn't know. Certain classes are over-represented because players know they're stronger.

NToV dragons, Tormax, Statue being pulled to zonelines. Was that normal back in the day? We sure didn't do it.

Socking things we know the timers of like Lodizal. Yuck.

A faithful recreation of classic is impossible with players who too far advanced in knowledge of the game itself.

[Rygar]

I think that may be part of the Titanium client. I remember reading somewhere a long time ago that the reason P99 devs couldn't edit Titanium client is because it would be outright copyright infringement but somehow the server it's self isn't or something like that. It was a direct quote from Rogean or Nilbog iirc.

Edit: That was surprisingly easy to find, was an article about catching people using third party hacks

"It's the same code, really," Rogean said. "It's a very similar setup.
We have a disadvantage compared to SOE, though, because we have no
control over the client. We cannot make any modifications to the client
itself, as that would be a copyright violation. So we aren't easily
able to put anything in that will either prevent the hacks or detect
them."
http://www.tentonhammer.com/articles/hacking-everquest-part-two-how-to-stop-a-hacker

This is not a result of the Titanium Client (item linking), I'm fairly certain. There is a more relative quote from Haynar saying they didn't want to disable item linking because it created a CSR burden (made trade scamming easier)

[Rygar]

FTE messages, raid bosses being immune to lifetaps, epics requiring 46+, etc, etc, etc..

Plenty of non classic changes have been implemented to curb toxicity.

If by plenty you mean a sprinkling, most to alleviate CSR burden / Player confusion. Sounds like you haven't researched some of the epic requirements either, cause that was classic. There were a few items that did not allow equipping until a certain level even though it wasn't listed. I believe Club of the Ice Ocean was one of them (possibly primals and Narandi's Lance too).

I do agree about the life tap immunity being cheesy now, hasn't aged well since getting out of Kunark. As I understood it this was due to Ivandyr's Hoop exploits. Could have easily added a 6 sec cast time to avoid this. All classes can do the amount of damage of a single click in 6 seconds.

I am in favor of the AoE nerf as this is a better simulation, the amount of consistency of 120+ pulls was not classic. Pathing was horrendous and there is some evidence of code in place to limit some assist calls to keep train sizes lower. I do feel 25 is a bit limiting, I hope they re-evaluate and up it to 40 or 50.

[Jimjam]

FTE messages, raid bosses being immune to lifetaps, epics requiring 46+, etc, etc, etc..

Plenty of non classic changes have been implemented to curb toxicity.

Curbing toxicity boils down to CSR QOL.

If you want shared bank you gotta argue for it from that perspective and just maybe it will get undisabled.

I'd love to see life taps get unnerfed. I don't think lifetap will continue to provoke the CSR issues it previously did.

[Triiz]

I've posted many times the evidence on the AOE nerf -- not classic. Plenty of evidence to support AOEing 50+ mobs was commonly done in 2001. AOE groups were even done in zones like HS and that was when most players were bad at the game and had terrible gear. I don't expect it to ever get changed back though.

Actually they did fair amount of hacking since then. They just couldn't hack out the item linking.

Aw I wasn't aware I thought night vision among many other things was unable to be fixed due to it being a client issue.

Sounds like you haven't researched some of the epic requirements either, cause that was classic. There were a few items that did not allow equipping until a certain level even though it wasn't listed. I believe Club of the Ice Ocean was one of them (possibly primals and Narandi's Lance too).

I'm not sure if it was a thing by this point in Velious but I could be wrong. When it was added to P99 Nilbog said epics for only people over 46 was what the live developers intended and the P99 staff agreed. I can see why they nerfed it though.

Doesn't look like Club of the Ice Ocean had a level requirement until 2003 but Narandi's Lance requirement is classic.

[Rygar]

Doesn't look like Club of the Ice Ocean had a level requirement until 2003

False. The tag was not always listed, but it prevented you from equipping. Ele researched and proved this with classic evidence.

[Kika Maslyaka]

Aw I wasn't aware I thought night vision among many other things was unable to be fixed due to it being a client issue.



Yeah that was another things they couldn't really fix - it was very graphics intense.
BUT the RoF2 client is actually working more correctly than Titanium when its night or when its rains/fog. Titanium is just all lit-up.

[baakss]

Sorry I should clarify: I'm not arguing for shared banks. I don't care about them. But you had asked for examples of nerfs away from classicness.


Sounds like you haven't researched some of the epic requirements either, cause that was classic. There were a few items that did not allow equipping until a certain level even though it wasn't listed. I believe Club of the Ice Ocean was one of them (possibly primals and Narandi's Lance too).

Per the original post from Nilbog:


"There is inconsistent research regarding which epics required level requirements to obtain. Several couldn't be completed until 46 or higher due to level checks on quests or certain steps involving planar zones. It has been noted by the original developers that epic items were intended only for those of higher levels. Additionally, we feel that acquiring an epic weapon should only be possible when a player has become powerful enough to cross interplanar portals. Therefore, we are adding a level requirement of 46 to equip all epic items."



Again, don't get me wrong... I think epic's not being completable until higher level is a good change, but I don't get the impression this was as clear cut from his post that you are suggesting it is.

[Quizlop]

Don't forget about weapon swing fatigue, but I believe that's a client limitation.

what the live developers intended

The problem is that they are very selectful about the implementation of these "intented" features. They should probably disable item recharging if they wanted to stay with the intent of the developers, since it was an uninteded feature that was eventually disabled on live.

[DoucLangur]

in theory for, but practically AGAINST because there's enough scammers already. not requiring them to dual-box or perform a trade to another player in order to transfer scammed items is just making it easier to obfuscate where a stolen item went.

I don't care about that logs can follow the item. it takes admin intervention, while if they need a helper, the circle of witnesses increases among the playerbase - OR they use an IP exemption for boxing which in theory could get them banned (I know, I know).

[Champion_Standing]

They already went through the trouble of removing the shared bank, i seriously doubt they're gonna go reverse those changes.

[Evia]

Please give examples of nerfs away from classicness. Most changes seem to be toward a more classic server.

If you are aware of non-classic elements please gather your evidence and submit them to bug reports.

As far as I am aware the greatest intentional non classic factors are for CSR quality of life. Perhaps there is a shred of hope that shared bank might be enabled to reduce item reimbursement petitions. Seems unlikely, though.


My own opinion is no to shared. I like to view my characters as separate individuals, rather than different faces of me as a player. As such I don't really see 'my wurmslayer' to move around characters as it suits me, rather it is 'my rangers wurmslayer'; if my level 40 warrior wants a wurm slayer he has to go find his own and not steal my rangers.

-nerfing aoe to 25 targets
-5 years of kunark
-forcing raid rotations
Thats all i can think of atm but there is a lot more changes that have been made that technically aren't classic.

[ZiggyTheMuss]

With the nerfing of seafuries and Chardok aoe before this recent revamp, it’s clear that the only non classic changes they will make are ones that have a negative impact on players.

[Zipity]

I take it y’all don’t understand that with certain UI the shared bank slots are in.

Oh really?

[indiscriminate_hater]

NOT VLASSIC

[Veleria]

Quite a pickle we are in.

[I Felt Nostalgic]

Shared bank slots would make life in Norrath 100% less stressful.

[Axlrose]

Personally, I would like the share bank option so I can "sell" back and forth among my characters without always needing my brother to be the middle man. It would make the transferring of buying and selling coinage much easier.

I understand it was not a classic aspect; but it would be a great quality of gaming life improvement (especially with that particular quirk on how I play).

[Champion_Standing]

Oh really?

No not really, you can get UIs that show the slots but they don't work.

[fan D]

shared bank slots are already in the game, go download a UI that has it

[SewingMachine]

shared bank slots are already in the game, go download a UI that has it

what ?

[fan D]

No not really, you can get UIs that show the slots but they don't work.

wrong

you can even get UI's that show all of your bags as 10slotters. even if you equippin a 4slot tailoring bag

you can put stuff in all 10 slots, and theres a two bag spot for shared bank too

sometimes when you loot your corpse you go /ld though

[SewingMachine]

wrong

you can even get UI's that show all of your bags as 10slotters. even if you equippin a 4slot tailoring bag

you can put stuff in all 10 slots, and theres a two bag spot for shared bank too

sometimes when you loot your corpse you go /ld though

Is there really a shared bank slot, this cant be real. This would make my life way easier.

[fan D]

yea for two bags. i forget the Ui though

[Champion_Standing]

wrong

you can even get UI's that show all of your bags as 10slotters. even if you equippin a 4slot tailoring bag

you can put stuff in all 10 slots, and theres a two bag spot for shared bank too

sometimes when you loot your corpse you go /ld though

Wrong, You can get the two extra slots if you use the stock titanium or other UIs, but you cannot get a shared bank. The items or plat are not accessible on other characters. No shared bank.

[fan D]

okay bud you play with your standard sole banking 8)~

[Champion_Standing]

You won't get people to lose items by telling them the shared bank works, you can still take the stuff out on the character you put them in there on. Dunno what the point of this troll is.

[TheSurgeon]

If any unclassic change actually happens it needs to be disabling MQs.

Shared bank is nice and all, but won't and shouldn't happen.

[fan D]

i used shared bank slots and 10slot backpacks since 2016