Discussion Archives Index


Current Index

Posted by Herbert on 08/13

ok im sure something like this has probably already been written here and sufficiently flamed but if it has I didnt see it and im sorry for giving you another chance to flame. what I would like to see is this.. a way to do instantaneous banking transactions between players without the need for huge piles of ungainly coin. Now im aware that any kind of command that lets you do that kind of thing easily would open everything up to crossplay and such which is all very bad and so on. But this is where the real core of the idea comes from, have the transfer command or whatever you want to call it only accept names which are on your current befriend list, and even possibly have that person also have to befriend you. Thus any crossplay would be punishable easily and under the same rules as sharing chars housing, multiplaying etc with existing befriend list rules. I dont know its just an idea i had because Im tired of not being able to pay Lachesis my share of the housing costs without her being around, it makes sharing a house a huge pain in the butt. love, Herbert. |U6

From: Krynn Sunday, July 07 2002, 11:33AM Or you could just have a balance transfer command that only works if you're both at a banker. Doesn't have to be the same banker per say. Just both at one for it to work. -K |U6

From: Hannah Sunday, July 07 2002, 04:39PM Or have a 'transfer' command that the sender initiates and the receiver has to ratify for it to actually transfer funds from one bank account to another. That would even eliminate the need for the people to be on at the same time at the same banker. A short notice 'You have unapproved transfer requests waiting' or something along those lines could be added as a login display and bank statement report. My thoughts... Hannah |U6

From: Ea! Sunday, July 07 2002, 05:58PM One of the things that we don't like doing is coding commands that remove the necessity for people to be in the same room. That is, we like to encourage people to interact with each other. So for us to do this, we'd probably require both people to be in the same room. At the same time, we wouldn't want to remove the standard banking charge... At this point, I'm not sure what the advantage would be over just withdrawing and handing it to the person. We'll talk about this, though. Perhaps we could make a wire functionality that would allow you to send money to someone who's not there (or even necessarily online), with a larger wire transfer fee. Of course, since it opens up other possibility for abuse, it'll depend a bit on the admin department and so forth... -Ea! |U6

From: Annika Sunday, July 07 2002, 06:14PM Another to way to solve this problem would be to allow joint ownership of a house ... perhaps some code that allows a house owner to sign over half ownership to their co-tenant. Then half the rent could come out of one player's account and half the rent out of the other. If there's insufficient cash in one person's account, it all comes out of the other player's account. Alternatively maybe some kind of joint account system could be allowed, where couples could have a joint account and nominate that as their rent account. Just my thoughts on Herb's problem Annika |U6

From: Rush Sunday, July 07 2002, 09:48PM Maybe a better idea to address the housing issue would be to split the housing costs between all the people who own a house. Or, like with the clan system, have the ability to make bank accounts for groups that own housing together. So CharA and CharB get a house together, each still has their own account but they also have the ability to deposit and withdraw from the CharA and CharB Housing Fund or something like that. I think these ideas have much less opportunity for abuse. Thoughts? |U6

From: Rush Sunday, July 07 2002, 09:52PM ROFL! I swear I wrote that before I read Annika's post ... |U6

From: Annika Sunday, July 07 2002, 10:48PM I hate losing appends. Adding to my previous idea ... there'd probably need to be some form of wedding code, similar to the clan code. This would allow people to be married without renouncing clan allegiances, it would be another level of clan I guess. We could have things like jdep (joint deposit), etc, and jtithe, where each member of the couple would automatically self tithe (with no GM to set a minimum joint tithe). And I guess wedding code means we have to consider divorce code, and what happens when a divorcing couple have a house, or when of the couple permas. Annika |U6

From: Herbert Monday, July 08 2002, 02:14AM Yeah the basic reason I wanted it was for housing, and a way for me to tow the line so to speak so I can use the house without feeling like a bum, but at the moment I have to wait until Lachies about to put money in her account, assuming she will even take the money. Shes kinda stubborn

From: grin

From: But yeah either way, an offline transfer thing, or a way to join housing would do. Perhaps have it as a request system, so CharA owns a house and wants to let CharB pay money into their account for housing as well, so CharA sends an request to CharB and CharB has the option of accepting or declining that request.

From: shrug

From: As usual its an idea born of selfish thought so might not be the most amazing one.. Dunno just throwin an idea out for people to discuss, might bring it up at the next Q&A or something :) Herbert. |U6

From: Rufus Tuesday, July 09 2002, 10:30AM "Just make joint housing..." Hehe. You so funny. Doable, but very, very painful. -Ruf |U6

From: Herbert Tuesday, July 09 2002, 06:43PM oh how tragic some hard work. H |U6

From: Benjamin Tuesday, July 09 2002, 09:40PM The idea of joint housing/marriage code has been brought up before, and the imms didn't want to do it for one reason or another. I think the best idea I've heard so far is the "wire transfer" thing where you can only do it with people on your befriend list and you both have to approve it...seems to cut out the possibility of crossplay pretty well. And Herb...just hand her the money and then immediately "config reject". Works for me. ;) Ben's player |U6

From: Lachesis Wednesday, July 10 2002, 12:47AM Dammit, it'll be a lose lose situation for me. i'm too stubborn to take his cash. But the whole befriened account thing does sound like a cool idea for me. Lachie |U6

From: LadyAce Thursday, July 11 2002, 05:51PM I think the general response to joint ownership hasn't been "no for some reason or another" but rather "we'd like to do that, but it's not easy". Which is what Rufus said, and which is what got him jeered at. One of the reasons that we point out that things aren't easy is to put them into perspective -- if you're advocating a change which is of limited benefit but which is very hard to do, it's much less likely to get done...unless the code looks really fun for some reason, or somebody feels really masochistic. I'm still working on that helpfile update, which I hope will be useful to this discussion. -LA |U6

From: Christopher Tuesday, August 13 2002, 02:16AM I could have sworn I idea'd this 3 years ago. Perhaps the time is right now. |U6


Current Index