would it be possible to get 1 or 2 shared bank slots that crossed server boundaries pls .. I would even pay a Perk "fee" for something like that .. I have multiple toons on different servers and have bags that are Heirloom but cant transfer them to another server for new toons on a new server.. hint hint for next expansion ..
Just to play devils' advocate... If this were implemented, how would they prevent items from FreeTrade servers being moved to normal play servers? (I could buy all the raid gear I want on FV and hand it to all my alts on the other servers)
im sure they could put a flag on the FV or other free trade servers , just like you cant transfer off of FV . I would think they could either say if your on a freetrade server then the server shared bank slot is not avail on those servers.. only on Live non free trade .. prolly couldnt do the server shared bank for TLP either due to expansion limitations and stuff .. but for normal live servers ..
I would guess any non heirloom that is normally no trade would not be eligible to be placed in these new bank slots as you can't put no trade items in the shared bank unless they are heirloom. Not that I think this is something they would consider as they do make money from people server transferring to buy rare in game and marketplace items.
The problem with that is as a player on FV I have no clue what is No Trade on other servers (and am often baffled by what is no trade on other servers that's tradeable on FV). I would be frustrated by what couldn't be put in those slots 'cause I would likely just use them as an expanded shared bank space. Back when FV had 1 character per account, the 'shared' bank space that was added was simply expanded bank space with annoying restrictions for what couldn't be put in there.
I'd just be happy to be able to search all bank slots across all toons on a single account. So I can find stuff like Glyphed Rune Words, Ethereal Parchments, trade skill items.
If it was done, it would likely only be possible between servers with similar rulesets and economies. Otherwise, someone could funnel items from a server where items are easy to get to one where it's harder. But even then, it could be too exploitable since no two servers are really equivalent. Having the slot only work for heirloom items could perhaps be an enabling limitation, but again, only on servers with similar rulesets. If you can transfer your heirloom items between similar live servers, it probably wouldn't affect the economy too much since you can't trade those items. But from a business perspective, it's probably not a good idea to add it. Rather than buying bags on each server, a person may just transfer bags from servers they aren't using to servers they are currently playing on. They would have to price this shared-server-slot high enough to make up for all the DB sales they would lose from people reusing purchased items on old servers by transferring to their current server.
it would basically only be for Heirloomable items .. nothing else .. so that way anything Heirloom from say expansions (extra bags etc) or stuff purchased off of marketplace ( LoN card packs prizes, Heritage crate stuff (Heirloom of course))that was Heirloom could be funnled to another server/toon on same account ..
For claimed items, what if you could unclaim them? This would let you do something like put a claimed bag back into the claim window. You could then claim it on the other server. That may be a lower effort, lower impact way to implement this. It wouldn't require any bank changes, and there would be fewer exploits or economy effects to worry about. To mitigate any economic hit to EQ from people reusing purchased items on different server rather than rebuying them, perhaps the unclaim operation would require a "Token of Reclaimation". This token is purchased from the DB cash shop and is used when you want to recover an item that you mistakenly deleted. By requiring this token, EQ may get some money when it's used to unclaim an item. Requiring a purchased token for an unclaim wouldn't be handy as having a regular shared bank slot to transfer unlimited items to other servers, but a purchased token may be a way for the EQ team to justify implementing this kind of feature.
I like this idea better .. its a win win for the player and for DB .. and seems like it would be easy enough for them to implement
You either have that problem or you have people buying items on FV and find out that they can't withdraw it on another server. There is no way that they would want someone to be able to put items that are normally no drop in them and use FV as a way to trade no drop gear. If they did that they might as well just remove the no drop flag on all servers.
This is a good point, even for tradeable or heirloom items it could really mess with the balance/economy on a TLP server.
Can't see this ever happening myself, way too open to exploitation & would require a mine-field of flagging systems to prevent abuses. Overall benefit vs pain in the backside-ness is way too small.
It would also mean less character transfer sales from people that do want to move an item cross servers. So no, unsurprisingly a bad idea.
This wont ever happen, forget that it would be imbalance as you can transfer items from a seasoned server to a newer server if its bags you want to transfer that cost $35-$100 a pop, you want to only get a $5 perk that once you transfer the bag you are done? Would be stupid of Devs to even entertain the thought of such a revenue loss.
This would mess with the economies of servers. Plus this is how EQ encourages folks to rebuy things from the marketplace or do server transfers. Some people who restart on new TLP servers probably rebuy stuff a lot. Letting them reuse such items might cut into marketplace spending. Hard to say though with no data to go on.
Good idea but we need the benefit to Daybreak somewhere. Unless a token costs the same as the item DB is doing a bunch of work to earn less income. Somewhere there has to be a benefit to them in increased sales, subscriptions or retention of customer rates. Somehow it has to benefit Daybreak. Figuring that part out would make your suggestion workable I think.
