[Ideas] Stealing & Physical Currency

[Helvetius 314]

Idea 1#

 

Allow criminals to break/picklock chests w/o being in some 4+ group of 'Bring your weapons, full suit of armor, bow, staff, and food to break into this one house to steal one thing!' First of all, I do believe the common criminal is like this:

 

-Approaches a locked chest in a house he broke into-

- Pulls out his pick-locking set and the lock picks, slowly pushing them into the lock -

- Realizes there are skygod restrictions, suddenly a magical force stops him from even turning his pick in there and he must remove it -

 

When this rule changed, the new rule destroyed normal villains and to me it feels like replaced with more cultists. Also, the result of just normal thieves having to form raid parties means more PvP default on innocent people to get items. I am not against it, however would you enjoy having to deal with pure 4+ man groups instead of single criminals? Groups which may suddenly go rampage killing everyone in the because suddenly they are bored before going towards their original objective?

 

 

Idea 2#

 

Physical Currency. Maybe it is just me, but shouldn't you be trying to keep your wealth safe? Stuffing it in the walls, the floorboards, placing it in vaults, ect...? Instead you have this untouchable bag that is like the void in which it can never fill. Use Gold again for money? Or change emeralds used in staffs to Emerald blocks so that single emeralds can be used as $$$ again.

[yopplwasupxxx 5671]

we need shekels

[Rassidic 470]

First idea ; Yes.

[Parading 302]

Yes, physical currency makes so much more sense.

[PtahWithin 1318]

I would rather have losing 15% minas on death return as opposed to the return of physical currency. Perhaps then people will not be so eager to just walk away from bandits or fight back when they know they are outmatched.

[Helvetius 314]

I would rather have losing 15% minas on death return as opposed to the return of physical currency. Perhaps then people will not be so eager to just walk away from bandits or fight back when they know they are outmatched.

So if a King wearing armor enters battle with RPLY nothing else on him, like Knox with 168,000 minas, he will lose 25,200 minas even though he RPly would never carry all of that to a battle against the scourge to lose it? That does not sound like a good idea. Same for travelers. What if they only had food and no minas on them? They suddenly die and their money at their home in Kralta(Example) zips out magically over to mr.bandit.

[PtahWithin 1318]

So if a King wearing armor enters battle with RPLY nothing else on him, like Knox with 168,000 minas, he will lose 25,200 minas even though he RPly would never carry all of that to a battle against the scourge to lose it? That does not sound like a good idea. Same for travelers. What if they only had food and no minas on them? They suddenly die and their money at their home in Kralta(Example) zips out magically over to mr.bandit.

The money is not transferred, it is absolutely lost.

 

In Aegis, the idea of the mina loss was to make people fear death and consider what it means to enter into dangerous situations. At the time also, a King would be insane to have 168,000 minas on his account. Realizing that things such as gold and diamond have inherit value, he would have spent the vast majority of that money on buying large quantities of diamond and gold blocks, effectively freezing his money into item form, which is then placed in a vault. Realize: diamond and gold blocks aren't the actual currency, but they can be exchanged into currency due to their inherit value and so are a means of storing wealth. In addition, Aegisians propelled by this fear of death would buy a house, and buy diamonds and gold ingots/blocks in order to save their wealth in a similar way, but on a much smaller scale. Having a house in Aegis was when you 'won the game'.

 

In this way, losing minas for dying would instigate a kind of item-currency that you propose, with some differences.

 

EDIT: Also, diamond and gold blocks were immune to mina wipes, which were common in early Aegis due to plugin issues.

[Major Dom 1297]

physical currency has been tried in the past and each time is has failed miserably in every single aspect, theres many many reasons we dont have it right now

[Evilbanana5757 153]

No physical currency, nuh uh! We all know how Malin's turned out. .-.

[Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) 1535]

No to both.

 

Stealing from chests, as was, created enough ooc drama before VAs were removed. Now, with everyone doing it, things would be even worse.

 

Raids provide ample enough opportunity to take items. Allowing anyone to come and steal will just overdo things, and simply devalue lwc as a donation incentive.

 

As for the second idea...

 

Physical mina is pure tedium. We've had it before... and it didn't turn out well. We'd need to provide a way for mass-storage, and those have been glitchy every time we've used them.

[Cyndikate 2302]

I would rather have losing 15% minas on death return as opposed to the return of physical currency. Perhaps then people will not be so eager to just walk away from bandits or fight back when they know they are outmatched.

Please no. That would 1. Give people with Alts an advantage. 2. Screw over people with a lot of money or not have any effect on those who don't have any money.

 

Physical currency last time we had it didn't work. It promoted hoarding, and as Relgard said, it was tedious to have to go back and store every physical mina we obtain.

[ski_king3 0]

No to both.

 

Stealing from chests, as was, created enough ooc drama before VAs were removed. Now, with everyone doing it, things would be even worse.

 

Raids provide ample enough opportunity to take items. Allowing anyone to come and steal will just overdo things, and simply devalue lwc as a donation incentive.

 

As for the second idea...

 

Physical mina is pure tedium. We've had it before... and it didn't turn out well. We'd need to provide a way for mass-storage, and those have been glitchy every time we've used them.

 

Relgard hit the nail on the head with this one.

[Trips 344]

What was done to lockpicking and stealing from chests was certainly the wrong move. A more ideal way to go about the change was to change the rules in a way that everyone can agree, to minimize said 'OOC drama' but still keep one of the most important parts of villain RP. Instead of bluntly removing the whole aspect of villain roleplay while generalizing that all thieves are greedy item-hungry bastards, they could have for example changed the rules a bit:

1) The owner of the chest or door must be online, increasing chances of getting caught.

2) The moderator would inform the victim that something is being lockpicked when the thief begins.

3) Having similar rules as raid rules, no more stealing for two days; the overseer would set the sign on the chest.

4) Limiting the 'loot' greatly. Perhaps so that the thief would be able to choose only a single item from the chest.

5) Force them to leave a clue or clues - thus creating more roleplay.

6)  Maybe even have similar rules to lockpicking as there is to magic, not many books about it are in the circulation to learn it from. I can't see why wouldn't it work.

But instead of any of these, it was chosen by.. well certainly not the players, that lockpicking will be completely gone.. resulting in even more OOC drama.

[zaezae 1097]

1) The owner of the chest or door must be online, increasing chances of getting caught.
2) The moderator would inform the victim that something is being lockpicked when the thief begins.
3) Having similar rules as raid rules, no more stealing for two days; the overseer would set the sign on the chest.
4) Limiting the 'loot' greatly. Perhaps so that the thief would be able to choose only a single item from the chest.
5) Force them to leave a clue or clues - thus creating more roleplay.
6) Maybe even have similar rules to lockpicking as there is to magic, not many books about it are in the circulation to learn it from. I can't see why wouldn't it work.
But instead of any of these, it was chosen by.. well certainly not the players, that lockpicking will be completely gone.. resulting in even more OOC drama.

 

1) Yes, yes this. This all the way. 

2) No, no, none of this.

3) Eh...not sure where I stand on this.

4) I think one item if they are stealing armor, other things, I dunno.

5) Yes, yes this. This all the way.

6) I think this could work? Maybe increase the success threshold for a roll to make it most likely that a thief succeed? (if they have only one chance?)

 

The clue thing has been used before to great effect, and I support it completely. 

I've come to sympathize with the bandits, even if I still default RP all the way, I gotta throw a dog a bone.

[Lago 2569]

1) The owner of the chest or door must be online, increasing chances of getting caught.

So the locks magically can be picked at certain times and not at others?

 

2) The moderator would inform the victim that something is being lockpicked when the thief begins.

If a player did such there would be a metagaming ban.

 

6) Maybe even have similar rules to lockpicking as there is to magic, not many books about it are in the circulation to learn it from. I can't see why wouldn't it work.

Yay, lockpicking cliques...

 

But instead of any of these, it was chosen by.. well certainly not the players, that lockpicking will be completely gone.. resulting in even more OOC drama.

 

I'd say there's significantly less.

 

keep one of the most important parts of villain RP

 

I will say here and now that more RP is generated by the worst possible Flay sterotype than by lockpickers. It is literally someone takes your stuff. No RP comes from that. You can't stop them, you can't find them, and it's very closely tied to modreqing through barriers and the inevitable ambiguity and bullshit that comes from such. Without a plugin it's just a can of worms that doesn't need opening.

These things have all been tried, tested and found wanting. We know how well they work (or rather, how they don't) from experience. You're all reiterating things that have been done before: there's nothing new here. It's been tried, and it's failed.