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
| 