Gold takes up too much space in the bank and thus needs some change

[Viper09]

I would just thinking when reading the thread about storage increase that gold is one of the culprits in making most run out of space in the bank. Whether it's checks or gold piles.

Everyone has gold and it will always go into the bank. So why should gold take up our item space in the bank? It shouldn't.

Either that or vastly increase the amount of gold we can put into a pile and check.

 

[Old Man of UO]

I would like bigger checks... say turn 10 x 1 mil checks into a 10 mil check.

Double clicking on the 10 mil check turns it into 10 x 1 mil checks.

 

[Viper09]

Ok, option 2 should also mention increasing the maximum check sizes. I realized I left that out after I posted and I can't edit it

 

[SevenFaith]

Turn in 10 x 1 mill check to get a 9 mill check. How about that?

 

[Old Man of UO]

Turn in 10 x 1 mill check to get a 9 mill check. How about that?

You sound like my stock broker!

 

[Viper09]

Amen to increasing the check limit to 10 million.
But we are definitely in need of changing the gold stack limit to something much higher. Perhaps 10 million as well? But at least 1 million.

The current system worked well way back when a couple million was a lot, but that's no longer the case

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

I would like bigger checks... say turn 10 x 1 mil checks into a 10 mil check.

Double clicking on the 10 mil check turns it into 10 x 1 mil checks.

While I have not done this since I returned but doesn't the withdraw command take gold from checks?

If so then one would think that borrowing that code would enable the check command to withdraw from checks as well, such that if one had a 10M check and said check 2,500,000 then a check for that amount would be generated and placed in the bank and the 10M check would now read 7,500,000.

 

[Zym Dragon]

Amen to increasing the check limit to 10 million.
But we are definitely in need of changing the gold stack limit to something much higher. Perhaps 10 million as well? But at least 1 million.

The current system worked well way back when a couple million was a lot, but that's no longer the case

The reason that is no longer the case is because we are able to store and acquire more gold now than ever before. What costs 10 million now will cost over 100 million in short order if you increase the amount of gold we can store. Leave gold as it is.

 

[Lore Master]

I voted both of the above but I think bigger then one mil gold checks like Old Man of UO suggested is a another great solution to gold taking up too much bank storage.

 

[Africanus]

Just put a vendor up at your house and store it there. Increasing the size of checks is asking for trouble.

 

[Dragonchilde]

While I have not done this since I returned but doesn't the withdraw command take gold from checks?

If so then one would think that borrowing that code would enable the check command to withdraw from checks as well, such that if one had a 10M check and said check 2,500,000 then a check for that amount would be generated and placed in the bank and the 10M check would now read 7,500,000.

No, it doesn't. If I try to withdraw gold with no actual gold in the bank, the banker waffles about me not having that much...

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

While I have not done this since I returned but doesn't the withdraw command take gold from checks?

If so then one would think that borrowing that code would enable the check command to withdraw from checks as well, such that if one had a 10M check and said check 2,500,000 then a check for that amount would be generated and placed in the bank and the 10M check would now read 7,500,000.

No, it doesn't. If I try to withdraw gold with no actual gold in the bank, the banker waffles about me not having that much...

*Shrug*

To bad because the code obviously does exist as I know that Insurance claims are paid from checks.

 

[Siteswap]

*Shrug*

To bad because the code obviously does exist as I know that Insurance claims are paid from checks.

Same with purchasing from vendors. Or customising your house. Both draw from cheques.

 

[Serafi]

I like the fact that gold is "physical" (virtually anyway...) and not just a number on your paperdoll. But yes to an increase in how big these checks can be and how big the piles can be.

 

[Viper09]

Just put a vendor up at your house and store it there. Increasing the size of checks is asking for trouble.

...

 

[SevenFaith]

Viper09, incase you needed some help analyzing his post...

You are asking for a change that will allow dupers to do, instead of 1 dupe batch of gold, 10 batches in the timeframe of 1.

 

[Siteswap]

Viper09, incase you needed some help analyzing his post...

You are asking for a change that will allow dupers to do, instead of 1 dupe batch of gold, 10 batches in the timeframe of 1.

I think were way past the point of no return on that one. Theyre duping billions and billions. Billions more will matter not a jot.

By your logic EA should really then reduce the max cheque size to say 100k so that dupers will take 10 times as long to dupe their gold.

 

[Viper09]

Viper09, incase you needed some help analyzing his post...

You are asking for a change that will allow dupers to do, instead of 1 dupe batch of gold, 10 batches in the timeframe of 1.

You got all that from Africanus' post? He actually sounded quite sincere in what he was saying. I didn't see any kind of suggestions for dupers anywhere in that post, lmao.

But Siteswap pretty much explained it all.

Dupers will keep duping regardless. Only difference that increasing the maximum piles of gold and checks would do for them is decrease the amount of time they spend. That is, of course, if gold duping is really that big of a problem to have to really tip-toe around.

 

[weins201]

:loser:

Put a vnedor in you house they can hold alot more gold and only dost 60 gold a day sound like a fiar price to store more gold than anyone should need.

 

[Fink]

If anyone has excess gold taking up space on Oceania, I'll gladly take it off your hands.

 

[PsychoKinetic]

Because of the way UO is coded the maximum amount for a pile of gold is 65536 (rounded down to 60000). The maximum for a bank check is 1048576 (rounded down to 1000000).

Changing the current maximums would be a true programming nightmare and I dont think any of the devs want to tackle this issue any time soon.

 

[Viper09]

Because of the way UO is coded the maximum amount for a pile of gold is 65536 (rounded down to 60000). The maximum for a bank check is 1048576 (rounded down to 1000000).

Changing the current maximums would be a true programming nightmare and I dont think any of the devs want to tackle this issue any time soon.

Yay for old code

Wonder how much different this game would be if the code wasn't so problematic.

 

[Diomedes Artega]

I say in my opinion...no change is needed. Reason being that you can always cut a check for the loose amount of gold you have to cut down on item space. Chances are if you have 125 million gold on a toon anyways...it should be a mule.

Additionally, you can always use the house placing tool to see how much gold you have on-hand. That by the way gives the break down of total gold + checks resulting in your total amount on hand.

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

We have enough gold-flation as it is, what we need are ways to REMOVE gold from the game on a more constant and significant basis, NOT more ways to keep gold stockpiled ingame.

 

[Viper09]

...

We have enough gold-flation as it is, what we need are ways to REMOVE gold from the game on a more constant and significant basis, NOT more ways to keep gold stockpiled ingame.

A great point. But the only problem are the prices on player vendors. Even if we could remove gold from the game people will still be selling their items for a ridiculous amount.

Gold sinks have rarely ever worked from what I've seen. A great gold sink would be to include taxes in the game

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

Prices on vendors would come down once money started flowing out as well as it does into the game. People charge stupid amounts because they know they can. Without that premise, they will have to find a new floor on prices.

Of course this also dovetails into the problems UO has currently with Luna being a de-facto monopoly on vendor trading. If there were a centralized server that allowed better market access to non-Luna vendors, you would see prices dropping rapidly due to straight competition. As it is, even now, based on what I have seen on LS in regards to a certain Luna vendor house, people are already vocally and viciously attacking people who are charging stupidly exhorbitant prices for items in comparisom to vendors as close as next door.

Secondly, gold sinks that are recurring DO work. Reagents used to be a GREAT gold sink for the game. Insurance and Tithing are both good gold sinks. House rebuild SHOULD have been a good gold sink, but since the system refunds the difference if you downsize, it's missing great potential (you should be able to change a small number of existing tiles (tile A to tile B) for free, but beyond that, rebuilding your house should cost you money EVERY TIME.

I cannot within the scope of the TOS or even the medium of a message board voice or type my severe, complete and utter opposition to the idea of ingame "taxes" (which in effect are forced sinks to maintain a status quo). A gold sink should always be a voluntary but desirable portion of a game. You should ALWAYS get some form of benefit for the gold you spend beyond what you have currently.

 

[Old Man of UO]

...

We have enough gold-flation as it is, what we need are ways to REMOVE gold from the game on a more constant and significant basis, NOT more ways to keep gold stockpiled ingame.

I don't disagree with this statement, but having larger checks and gold piles really has nothing to do with the in-game inflation. As others pointed out, you can already store large quantities on vendors, a change in gold stacking would have no effect.

 

[MalagAste]

I think if your having that much of a problem storing gold then you should just give it to me. Wouldn't want you to suffer unnecessarily with the burden of too much gold. And I can guarantee that you would NEVER hear me complain about having too much.

 

[Tjalle]

...

We have enough gold-flation as it is, what we need are ways to REMOVE gold from the game on a more constant and significant basis, NOT more ways to keep gold stockpiled ingame.

A great point. But the only problem are the prices on player vendors. Even if we could remove gold from the game people will still be selling their items for a ridiculous amount.

Gold sinks have rarely ever worked from what I've seen. A great gold sink would be to include taxes in the game

Removing or at least capping LRC would be a nice start...

 

[Sarsmi]

Viper09, incase you needed some help analyzing his post...

You are asking for a change that will allow dupers to do, instead of 1 dupe batch of gold, 10 batches in the timeframe of 1.

You got all that from Africanus' post? He actually sounded quite sincere in what he was saying. I didn't see any kind of suggestions for dupers anywhere in that post, lmao.

But Siteswap pretty much explained it all.

Dupers will keep duping regardless. Only difference that increasing the maximum piles of gold and checks would do for them is decrease the amount of time they spend. That is, of course, if gold duping is really that big of a problem to have to really tip-toe around.

Actually dupers don't dupe gold nowadays. It's much more efficient to dupe high dollar items (like rares) than to dupe gold. Of course if they could hold a billion gold in their backpack (100 10m checks) at a time then it would probably become worth it.

Vote no on the idea. Use vendors to hold gold or suck it up and use house storage.

 

[Diomedes Artega]

Vote no on the idea. Use vendors to hold gold or suck it up and use house storage.

Is what you eventually have to do anyways once there's no bank box space. It's either that or a 2nd account...which is silly in my opinion.

 

[Bomb Bloke]

Because of the way UO is coded the maximum amount for a pile of gold is 65536 (rounded down to 60000).

This is right - sorta. It's a cap, not a rounding operation.

Incedently, it's possible to get piles between 60,001 - 65535 but the game will only let you use them as a single gold coin. It's due to an old bug where a beggar gets less gold depending on his karma - take it low enough, and he starts getting "negative" values.

The maximum for a bank check is 1048576 (rounded down to 1000000).

I'm not so sure; three bytes is a logical limiter, but that would allow for checks up to +16mill.

Apparently it used to be possible to create checks in excess of 1 million, though this was nerfed. That said, I don't myself know how much gold could have been stored in a check prior to that point.

http://www.uo.com/15trillion.html

Frankly I agree that allowing players to hoard too much gold is a bad thing, regardless of how they acquired it.

 

[Harlequin]

How's this idea -

Replace all gold coins/checks etc with a simple numeric counter in your bank box and backpack that does not take up space. Doesn't take up weight in your bank, but does take up weight if it's still in your backpack.

Limited to say 10 mil per char? Maybe 100 mil? Can also be scaled depending on account age (+10 mil cap every year). Or better yet, total skills (+10 mil every 100 skill points).

Large transactions between players can be transferred directly from 1 bankbox to another, no matter if you are near a bank (medieval UO have just invented wire transfer! next step, the stock market! could be a good future idea for gold sinks *ahem*).

Corpses has a numeric counter to show how much gold is on it.

Trade window has 2 extra fields for transferring of gold between players. 1 from gold in backpack, 1 from gold in bank.

Characters with deposits of 10 mil earns a title of "xxx, the Wealthy Legendary xxx".

25 mil earns the title "Fabulously wealthy"
50 mil is "Ridiculously wealthy"
75 mil is "Ludicrously wealthy"
100 mil is "Obnoxiously wealthy"



Pros:

No checks to dupe. Unless they find a way to exploit the trade window and commit the "John receives gold" transaction without commiting the "Jane gives gold" transaction. But then, if they can do this, it won't be just an issue with gold. They can dupe any item that can be traded in the trade window.

However, the trade window coding is pretty solid thus far, don't think there were dupes that affected/exploited trade windows directly.

With only 1 single type of counter (as opposed to gold coins, cheques, old cheques, shillings from events etc) hopefully it reduces issues with parts of the game not being able to find funds that are in cheque form.

Alot less items in the world.



Cons:

Major change. Might introduce other bugs. Though centralizing it this way would perhaps make it easier to troubleshoot and track bugs/cheaters.

Effectively limits largest in-game transactions to 100 mil, or whatever the threshold is. Larger transactions requires trust. Or maybe linking the bank funds between different chars in the same account.

 

[Harlequin]

Addendum, amount of gold deposited can also give other bonuses, like giving you a luck value.

And perhaps penalties, NPCs charge you a bit more when you buy stuff. Like tax. No merchant worth his salt would let someone known to be "Obnoxiously wealthy" get away without skinning him first...

 

[Sarsmi]

How would you purchase an item that is worth more than 100m gold then? Castles, rares, lots of items go for more than 100m. Why would you need a cap at all? A lot of us have a lot of gold and nothing to buy with it. It just accumulates.

 

[Harlequin]

How would you purchase an item that is worth more than 100m gold then? Castles, rares, lots of items go for more than 100m. Why would you need a cap at all? A lot of us have a lot of gold and nothing to buy with it. It just accumulates.

100 mil is just an abritary number I was thinking of. What is a better cap you think? The idea of a cap is to limit the infinite or excessively large accumulation of gold. Think scripters.

The current item limit is 150 now, so that's 150 mil checks that can be transferred in a single transaction to buy a castle. Or if one of the parties doesn't have the storage upgrade, 125 mil.

Any larger transactions will likely require trust and maybe arties.

Also, in such a system, it is easier to link bank accts btwn chars in the same account for larger transactions.

 

[kalzaketh]

easy solution, go to an architech buy aplacement tool head out into the wilds find ahousing slot put up ahouse, set up asecure container place multiple checks inside upto 125 items like abankbox, an easy place to look for housing is east of brit by the water

 

[Harlequin]

easy solution, go to an architech buy aplacement tool head out into the wilds find ahousing slot put up ahouse, set up asecure container place multiple checks inside upto 125 items like abankbox, an easy place to look for housing is east of brit by the water

Yes, that's one way to do large transactions currently. Or packhorses. But if you are actually buying houses, it's more difficult. You see, when you trade a house or pets, the owner needs to initiate the trade, trading a house for another house results in 2 separate trade windows...and it makes it impossible to directly/securely trade a house/pet for another house/pet in any combination.

You either need to trust the other party, or use a broker/trusted 3rd party. Or perhaps use multi-million gp items like arties in place of gold. Items that both parties can agree to be worth a certain amount. eg crimmy is worth apprx 15 mil and 10 crimmies would be 150 mil etc.

I'm just suggesting a crazy idea to see if the problem can be approached from a different angle entirely

Also, 2 bytes of data can support values up to 65k, (meaning piles of gold are likely stored using 2 bytes)
3 bytes of data can support values up to 16.5 mil (meaning current cheques are likely stored using 3 bytes)
4 bytes of data can support values up to 4.2 bil (meaning if it needs to store values above 16.5 mil, it can safely handle up to 4 bil).

Can be further optimized by splitting the last byte into 8 bits and using just the first bit to get a cap of 134 mil, but not sure how much they want to balance optimization and easier coding...

 

[Sarsmi]

How would you purchase an item that is worth more than 100m gold then? Castles, rares, lots of items go for more than 100m. Why would you need a cap at all? A lot of us have a lot of gold and nothing to buy with it. It just accumulates.

100 mil is just an abritary number I was thinking of. What is a better cap you think? The idea of a cap is to limit the infinite or excessively large accumulation of gold. Think scripters.

The current item limit is 150 now, so that's 150 mil checks that can be transferred in a single transaction to buy a castle. Or if one of the parties doesn't have the storage upgrade, 125 mil.

Any larger transactions will likely require trust and maybe arties.

Also, in such a system, it is easier to link bank accts btwn chars in the same account for larger transactions.

Scripters would just find a way around the issue, in this case by getting trial accounts and storing gold on trial account vendors. So it would end up being a pain for everyone but the group it was intended to be a pain for.

It would be nice for there to be a system where you could transfer any amount of gold to another character that exceeds the current limit, and would be nice if you could buy a house or a rare item just by entering a number in the trade window...I dunno though. Would it be better to accommodate inflation or come up with more gold sinks? It might be time to start taxing the populace. Charging vendor fees not only based on the price of the items in their bag but also based on how much gold they have stored on them. Give us more things to spend gold on than just transferring it from player to player.

 

[Wenchkin]

I have a very simple solution that needs no dev time...

If you have too much money - spend some. Enjoy it. Give some to new players or recently hacked ones to help them out a bit.

Or find a shopaholic female and give her your logins. That should do the trick in short measure....

Wenchy

 

[guum]

Although I support this thread in general, Harlequin's suggestion is a change I would definitely not support. Like one of the posters above me, I like that gold is a physical resource that has to be managed physically -- I just want slightly less tedious ways to manage it. To turn it into a counter is too WoW-like for my taste.

 

[solina2]

The problem is that you got too much GP give it away, if you are in Chessy i can take a load off your "bank box" .

 

[Harlequin]

Scripters would just find a way around the issue, in this case by getting trial accounts and storing gold on trial account vendors. So it would end up being a pain for everyone but the group it was intended to be a pain for.

True, but it'll at least prevent scripters from farming non-stop, like the current 125 item limit. In general, not putting a threshold on things is not a good idea. As I said, the 100 mil is an arbitary number I conjured up. It can be much larger, but cannot be allowed to grow infinitely.

Using trial accounts lasts only 14 days and trial accounts cannot place houses. Not sure about renting vendor space, but that can be blocked as well, not to mention limiting the cap for trial accounts to 1 mil, evil eh?

Yes, there are still problems I haven't addressed. Such as the one you highlighted - of it causing more grief than good for legit players who wants to purchase things that costs more.

What's the most expensive item sold for in-game gold so far? Perhaps the limit can be based on that?

Or even have a 500 mil global pool that's accessible by any chars on the same account? (+100 mil cap for each char above 5). Though something that costs 500 mil is indicative of something else that's wrong with the economy.

It would be nice for there to be a system where you could transfer any amount of gold to another character that exceeds the current limit, and would be nice if you could buy a house or a rare item just by entering a number in the trade window...I dunno though. Would it be better to accommodate inflation or come up with more gold sinks? It might be time to start taxing the populace. Charging vendor fees not only based on the price of the items in their bag but also based on how much gold they have stored on them. Give us more things to spend gold on than just transferring it from player to player.

Simplifying transfers is what I was aiming for. No more messing around with items like piles of gold or cheques. Just a simple counter in the trade window that determines how much to transfer. And making it able to support large numbers for a single secure transaction.

And removing maybe a huge chunk of items from the game world.

And removing exploits applicable with cheque duping or the old 125-items-overloading-causing-cheques-to-drop-to-ground scams etc.

And ease of managing gold sinks (since there's only 1 value to check, instead of needing to tabulate all the checks in a player's vault), eg npc charges rich folks more, getting invited to an exclusive rich man's casino where you can gamble for arties (if it sounds familiar, it's coz I'm ripping off the idea from another game ).

 

[Harlequin]

Although I support this thread in general, Harlequin's suggestion is a change I would definitely not support. Like one of the posters above me, I like that gold is a physical resource that has to be managed physically -- I just want slightly less tedious ways to manage it. To turn it into a counter is too WoW-like for my taste.

True, there's that problem too. My wife likes gold to be something physical as well. So it might make it less UO-ish. Gold in UO is like an institution that has been there since the beginning.

There are indeed many other things I have not considered. Just throwing out wild ideas.

 

[Sarsmi]

Scripters would just find a way around the issue, in this case by getting trial accounts and storing gold on trial account vendors. So it would end up being a pain for everyone but the group it was intended to be a pain for.

True, but it'll at least prevent scripters from farming non-stop, like the current 125 item limit. In general, not putting a threshold on things is not a good idea. As I said, the 100 mil is an arbitary number I conjured up. It can be much larger, but cannot be allowed to grow infinitely.

Using trial accounts lasts only 14 days and trial accounts cannot place houses. Not sure about renting vendor space, but that can be blocked as well, not to mention limiting the cap for trial accounts to 1 mil, evil eh?

Yes, there are still problems I haven't addressed. Such as the one you highlighted - of it causing more grief than good for legit players who wants to purchase things that costs more.

What's the most expensive item sold for in-game gold so far? Perhaps the limit can be based on that?

Or even have a 500 mil global pool that's accessible by any chars on the same account? (+100 mil cap for each char above 5). Though something that costs 500 mil is indicative of something else that's wrong with the economy.

It would be nice for there to be a system where you could transfer any amount of gold to another character that exceeds the current limit, and would be nice if you could buy a house or a rare item just by entering a number in the trade window...I dunno though. Would it be better to accommodate inflation or come up with more gold sinks? It might be time to start taxing the populace. Charging vendor fees not only based on the price of the items in their bag but also based on how much gold they have stored on them. Give us more things to spend gold on than just transferring it from player to player.

Simplifying transfers is what I was aiming for. No more messing around with items like piles of gold or cheques. Just a simple counter in the trade window that determines how much to transfer. And making it able to support large numbers for a single secure transaction.

And removing maybe a huge chunk of items from the game world.

And removing exploits applicable with cheque duping or the old 125-items-overloading-causing-cheques-to-drop-to-ground scams etc.

And ease of managing gold sinks (since there's only 1 value to check, instead of needing to tabulate all the checks in a player's vault), eg npc charges rich folks more, getting invited to an exclusive rich man's casino where you can gamble for arties (if it sounds familiar, it's coz I'm ripping off the idea from another game ).

If a scripter is making enough money they'll pay for the spare accounts to have houses, plop down vendors and hold gold. If you put a limit of 100m on a player vendor people are going to get mad fast, and a higher limit is just going to be ineffective. Right now I think they already have a limit of only being able to hold a billion. So in a sense they're already capped that way (if I'm right in my thinking).

There would have to be a lot of changes implemented in order to try to hit scripters, and honestly it would hit the filthy rich as well. There would always be some crossover, or it would be useless. As it is there are caps simply because gold is a physical item and you can only have so many checks. Sure it's a really *high* cap, but it's in place.

Besides all this most people don't script and dupe and go to all the effort to farm gold just to sit on a big pile of gps. They do what they do, then sell the proceeds for RL money. So they'll never reach whatever artificial cap you put in place, only the ones who don't sell gold but accumulate it (most of us) will be affected.

Yeah it'd be great for big trades, but things should not cost so much that this should be considered a solution to the problem. Inflation is terrible and it needs a fix much more than trying to figure out how to move vast sums of money around more easily.

 

[Setnaffa]

In my opinion, a better approach would be to reduce the amount of gold in the game. Not only would this save you storage space, but it would also make gold valuable again. Here is how I'd do it...

1. Reduce all gold by 99.9%. So 1,000 gold now is 1 gold piece after the change. Any gold piles below 500 gold disappear;everything else is rounded off to the nearest gold piece.
2. Gold loot is greatly reduced except for Champions and Bosses, which is only lowered by half. When a creature first spawns, it has no gold at all. The longer it is alive, the more gold it has (at a rate determined by the creature's fame level, capped at a predetermined max). This will make Gold Farming far less profitable.
3. High-end Smith BOD rewards gold is dropped down to be inline with the Tailor BOD reward gold. Maybe both are even lower.
4. All NPC vendors buy items at a greatly reduced price (maybe 25% of what they sell the item for) except for resources, which follow a Sosarian-wide market value.
5. House prices stay the same. Sure folks could sell their house for the gold, but then they wouldn't have a house.
6. Temporary option to automatically reset all prices on player vendors. Lowest amount would be 1 gold piece.
7. Insurance rates are lowered to 100 gold per item. This would actually be equivalent to 100K in old gold, so Insurance wouldn't be a given anymore, and dying would be a bit riskier. Also, each time you die within a rl week, your insurance rates go up by 10% on any pieces you were wearing or carrying at the time of death. The extra gold does not go to the victor in PvP (they just get the normal rate). If they did get the extra gold, it would lead to alot more rez killing.
8. If anyone uninsures an item that was insured before the change, then they only get 6 gold back into their account (not 6,000).
9. Any other gold sources or sinks are adjusted accordingly.

End result? 99.9% less gold in the game. Gold actually has value again. 1 Million gold checks (equivalent to 1 Billion in today's gold) become extremely rare. After this, 50,000 gold would actually be alot.

 

[Jesusislord]

A banker/minter profession.

For every 10 points in banking, they can make checks 1 million gold higher than the current 1 million cap.
For every 20 points in banking, you can stack an additional 10000 gold over the 60000 limit.

Banking works with Minting.

Minting works by obtaining gold and silver ingots. You then open your minting gump by double clicking on your Minting Machine. Minting Machines can be crafted by Tinkers and placed in a home by double clicking the deed.

The higher your minting in conjunction with your banking skill, the more gold or silver per ingot you get.

For every 10 points in Minting, you receive +5 coin per ingot.
Banking, in addition to minting will increase gold coin output by: ( Minting / Banking + 1000 / 50 + 3). Your silver coin output is increased by: (Minting / Banking + 100 / 50 + 2)

The skill limit for Banking is 120.
The skill limit for Minting is 120.

 

[aarons6]

i dont think its gold, i think its bank space.. try playing on a shard with no house

125 items is not even close to enough..

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

1. Reduce all gold by 99.9%. So 1,000 gold now is 1 gold piece after the change. Any gold piles below 500 gold disappear;everything else is rounded off to the nearest gold piece.
2. Gold loot is greatly reduced except for Champions and Bosses, which is only lowered by half. When a creature first spawns, it has no gold at all. The longer it is alive, the more gold it has (at a rate determined by the creature's fame level, capped at a predetermined max). This will make Gold Farming far less profitable.
3. High-end Smith BOD rewards gold is dropped down to be inline with the Tailor BOD reward gold. Maybe both are even lower.
4. All NPC vendors buy items at a greatly reduced price (maybe 25% of what they sell the item for) except for resources, which follow a Sosarian-wide market value.
5. House prices stay the same. Sure folks could sell their house for the gold, but then they wouldn't have a house.
6. Temporary option to automatically reset all prices on player vendors. Lowest amount would be 1 gold piece.
7. Insurance rates are lowered to 100 gold per item. This would actually be equivalent to 100K in old gold, so Insurance wouldn't be a given anymore, and dying would be a bit riskier. Also, each time you die within a rl week, your insurance rates go up by 10% on any pieces you were wearing or carrying at the time of death. The extra gold does not go to the victor in PvP (they just get the normal rate). If they did get the extra gold, it would lead to alot more rez killing.
8. If anyone uninsures an item that was insured before the change, then they only get 6 gold back into their account (not 6,000).
9. Any other gold sources or sinks are adjusted accordingly.

1. This change alone would be futile but combined with the other changes would be beneficial.
2. Champs spawns are already the fastest way to make money, so people who do them and pick up the gold would just continue to be the richest in the game as power scrolls + 200+k in 20 or so mins is really fast.
3. Nothing here.
4. Would prolly leave this alone, I do not think the price npcs pay for goods has changed ever, but it has been a long time since I bothered with it (aos?)
5. Nothing here.
6. Not sure what you are trying to do here o.o
7. This is the biggest problem with the idea, rez killing will always be rampant and dying a lot while pvping is common placed for some folk, so effectively limiting the amount of time a player who likes to pvp only can play, most likely not the best idea.
8. Why bother allowing them to get any back, unless you are saying 6% of the gold back, only reason I ask is because you say not 6k, and getting 6k back would be the equivalent of getting back 1k with your new system, so 6% with your new system would be 60 gold back total, or 360 gold under the old system.

 

[Harlequin]

If a scripter is making enough money they'll pay for the spare accounts to have houses, plop down vendors and hold gold. If you put a limit of 100m on a player vendor people are going to get mad fast, and a higher limit is just going to be ineffective. Right now I think they already have a limit of only being able to hold a billion. So in a sense they're already capped that way (if I'm right in my thinking).

Just to clarify, what I meant regarding vendors was limit trial accounts and only trial accounts from having vendors (or limit the amount of gold trial account vendors can store).

No changes to existing vendors run full accounts. Of course this still allows a loophole where scripters can use trial accounts to farm gold and then buy stuff off vendors run by their full accounts. However, I'm thinking that it's not very efficient to continuously train up trial account chars to farm effectively every 14 days. So that in itself will hinder scripters using this method.

Plus, this leaves an audit trail that's alot easier to trace.

Let's say we raise my arbitary cap to 150 mil for my examples instead of 100 mil. This would not cause any more grief than the current limitation of using physical cheques. It's like having 150 1 mil cheques in your bank, but without it taking up item space.

There would have to be a lot of changes implemented in order to try to hit scripters, and honestly it would hit the filthy rich as well. There would always be some crossover, or it would be useless. As it is there are caps simply because gold is a physical item and you can only have so many checks. Sure it's a really *high* cap, but it's in place.

Besides all this most people don't script and dupe and go to all the effort to farm gold just to sit on a big pile of gps. They do what they do, then sell the proceeds for RL money. So they'll never reach whatever artificial cap you put in place, only the ones who don't sell gold but accumulate it (most of us) will be affected.

Selling of gold via RMT will be more easily traceable as well, since trial accounts can't be used to trade more than 1 mil at a time. The sellers would have to use their other full accounts to do the trade.

Doesn't make things more troublesome for legit players.

However, I stand by the statement that a cap, no matter what level it is set at, is definitely required.

If we truly fail to bring the economy back down to a manageable level, and castles begin selling at 1 billion, the cap can then be raised to this level. Otherwise, it's no different to the multi-instance transactions we do today.

Yeah it'd be great for big trades, but things should not cost so much that this should be considered a solution to the problem. Inflation is terrible and it needs a fix much more than trying to figure out how to move vast sums of money around more easily.

Yes, back to inflation and gold sinks - as I mentioned in my previous post, I really feel that having things that costs 500 mil or more is indicative of a problem with the economy. There's currently very few ways that gold leaves the game system. Being a hoarder and a miser that loots trash at the bank, I have a fair bit of gold...If we haul in the economy well enough, in theory, there wouldn't be a need to have a cap higher than 150 mil.

For a gold sink to be successful, it must be implemented in such a way that players willingly part with their gold. A choice must be given to the player instead of a one-time blanket removal of 90% of the existing gold. The sink must be in the game perpetually so that it doesn't accumulate again after the one-time removal.

I was thinking of gambling here (again, rip off from another game). But there are several good ideas suggested before previously. so I'll leave this to other threads.