Issue with the new persistant storage system

[Endelyon]

If other guilds want a banker added they can request one added. It's just an access point that opens the same storage no matter where you are. All we have to do is attach a conversation to an NPC, and I'd be happy to do so, as long as it is publicly accessible like the one at the SCCE. If you want a private one behind locked doors then I would be more reluctant, as that benefits no one but the guild members.

[Maecius]

Having the storage access for BG located in a PC controlled faction building is a bit of an oversight, as the faction could restrict PC access. There are other options within the city, such as the counting house, that are NPC operated and therefore more suitable.

Please note that this was my decision, and one that I made knowing there would be a little bit of controversy by virtue of the PC affiliations. I did not make it lightly, and I apologize if some are offended by it. But it is in line with my overall designs for the server (namely to put more power in the hands of the players, which I'll elaborate on a little further below).

I weighed the current location in Baldur's Gate against the only other reasonable alternatives (the "Merchant's League" and "Lord's Alliance" buildings, both of which have also housed PC guilds, albeit much shorter lived ones), and decided that it would be better to reward player RP than to ignore player RP.

If you have an in character reason to distrust the current location, there are alternate locations you can bank at (currently the Friendly Arm Inn and Soubar on the surface, and the bazaar in Sshamath). All of the banks reference the same database, so if you deposit in one you can withdraw from any other.

It's possible we can implement a second NPC in the city as well if there's a huge outcry, or if the players involved in the guild in question try to control public access, but I'm not going to remove the current one.

Players will go to a bank expecting to be able to, well ... bank. So it seemed silly to literally have a bank in game and to ignore its raison d'etre entirely. I don't want the world to be controlled by the NPCs, and will typically resist anything that limits the ability of players to have an impact on the game world for as long as I remain in my position here. This is because I want the world to be controlled by and to react to player actions: To me that's what makes this game unique in comparison to all of the others out there on the market.

So if you want to start your own bank or enchantment shop (the Red Wizards, in particular, are currently pursuing the long-term goal of introducing a unique item shop that will allow them to sell Thayan products to PCs, same with the elves in Doron Amar), or whatever you'd like, I'd encourage you to do so and you'll probably also impact the world in a meaningful way someday if you stick with it and make it part of the server's lore!

[AlwaysSummer Day]

The other guilds are denied unique things they ICly RPed to get for years. The ooc reason given doesn't seem to apply to this one banking guild. . . As stated before I understand the IC reasoning but oocly it just is inappropriate to make an exception.

[Maecius]

The other guilds are denied unique things they ICly RPed to get for years. The ooc reason given doesn't seem to apply to this one banking guild. . . As stated before I understand the IC reasoning but oocly it just is inappropriate to make an exception.

I disagree. As above, we're currently working with at least two guilds to grant them unique functions that empower their purpose. And unlike the banking system, these will literally be guild-centric.

But if you have an example, or examples, please take them up with me in PMs so as not to derail this thread with our brainstorming? I'd be happy to work with you if you feel an initiative of yours has gone ignored.

[LISA100595]

I think I would rather this be connected per CD Key Only.

Also for location I feel it should Not be in a PC controlled building but in a more general neutral location that can be accessed by all.

[Aspect of Sorrow]

The less OOC hinged to another's availability the better.

[Maecius]

I think I would rather this be connected per CD Key Only.

At the moment it's connected to the PC who opened the account. I think this probably makes the most sense if we're going to approach the system as an in character bank account.

If we connect it to CD key, people will use it as an OOC "convenience" system for muling or for storing literally everything they own (to transfer it from one PC to another at their leisure). Which is fine, but I'd rather not do it for an RP server. My dwarven assassin should not be able to access my elven cleric's staff of healing. Well, unless he kills him for it.

I'm also not sure how the system's performance would hold up if everyone were storing hundreds of random items on the database instead of on their mules.

Also for location I feel it should Not be in a PC controlled building but in a more general neutral location that can be accessed by all.

It is currently accessible at the Friendly Arm Inn and Soubar, on the surface, and in Sshamath for the Underdark. The city of Baldur's Gate cannot currently be accessed by all, it's true, but the other locations are definitely more open to "unsavory" types.

[Aspect of Sorrow]

I'm also not sure how the system's performance would hold up if everyone were storing hundreds of random items on the database instead of on their mules.

Can work some magic with a working MSIL plugin on that.

[mrm3ntalist]

I'm also not sure how the system's performance would hold up if everyone were storing hundreds of random items on the database instead of on their mules.

Can work some magic with a working MSIL plugin on that.

Isnt there a limit on the items one can store? I think there should be a limit.

[Endelyon]

I think the limit is 8 pages. Which would be 200 items or not quite double what a PC can have in their inventory. That's how it came configured by the way, I didn't decide the limit. But if we do want to raise or lower it I think that I can pretty easily.

[Aspect of Sorrow]

Isnt there a limit on the items one can store? I think there should be a limit.

If we were utilizing SQL on a separate thread then recreating the object when pulled, there would be very little additional resource contention and in turn, no harm to large datasets and limitations. In game however, you could imply costs at certain tier counts. Say, the first thirty is free. The second thirty requires a one time cost (500,000), etc.

[mrm3ntalist]

Isnt there a limit on the items one can store? I think there should be a limit.

If we were utilizing SQL on a separate thread then recreating the object when pulled, there would be very little additional resource contention and in turn, no harm to large datasets and limitations. In game however, you could imply costs at certain tier counts. Say, the first thirty is free. The second thirty requires a one time cost (500,000), etc.

Ye, as far as machine resources go, it shouldnt be a problem. However, not setting limits always comes back to bite you in the back. At least that was my experience as a programmer.

[Aspect of Sorrow]

I'm inclined to agree, though with objects with ~2 kb with a description, looking at around 170,000 items before we hit the first 1GB.

Assume 300 recently active players, so 566 items for each key perhaps? 500 for an even number?

[LISA100595]

Sounds good, but seems we would need to keep mules also for the overflow since I'm sure there are people with much more than 500 items per CD key (all characters combined)

[mrm3ntalist]

I'm inclined to agree, though with objects with ~2 kb with a description, looking at around 170,000 items before we hit the first 1GB.

Assume 300 recently active players, so 566 items for each key perhaps? 500 for an even number?

You have the numbers right ( didnt expect anything less ). However we should not only look into how the data are stored, but how they are rpesented in game through the UI. There can be all kind of issues ( pagination etc ) which might result in crashes or other unwanted behavior.

Anyway, to reduce the technical stuff, i think the 500 hundrend limit looks good. However i think we should start lower and as we test it slowly increase it. I think this is better than have to reduce it - just in the slightest case a player has filled his storage.