You know, we (builders, etc.) wont actually buy goods instead of banking money just to avoid the posibility of theft. Buying goods to safeguard money you plan to liquidate later when you need cash for immidiate use, costs 50% net loss in wealth. The robber is stealing ~20% of the banked wealth, so it is still more economical to bank the money and risk a 20% loss than it is to buy items and guarentee a 50% loss.
On the subject of realism, and folk worried about loosing there own money, I'm not sure when in history this began but I do remember seeing it in a western.
Insurance.
The bank is already deducting processing fees for something. A bank which is (federally?)insured, when robbed counts as money stolen from the government, as the money taken is replaced by the government that the bank can meet it's responsabilities to the clients even in the event of theft.
A town can pay insurance instead/in addition to bank vault improvement so money obtained from the bank can still be same percent of player money in the bank, but players don't actually loose money.
I agree though that if players have nothing on the line, there will be no impetus to hire permanent defence/soldier/cops, posse's etc., so some loss would be neccesary to drive ...I don't know, plot?
@admin guy,
In context, I wonder if origional proposal "buy a house" actualy meant new feature, or was simply a translation error in language, and he meant "Buy a room" (Stay in the hotel room to do the job during those hours). I.E. the gang must actually be in the town to do the job, staying in the town for it, not just arriving by signpost.
