Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 6.2K All Categories
- 3.1K Everything Achaea
- 1.5K North of Thera
- 26 Archives of the Terraformer
- 257 The Matsuhama Arena
- 885 The Golden Dais of Creation
- 299 The Scarlattan Theatre
- 149 The Blank Canvas
- 2K Getting Help
- 412 General Questions
- 258 Quick Class Questions
- 1.3K Tech Support
- 313 Client Help
- 486 Curing Systems and Scripts
- 841 Off-Topic
- 255 The Wander Inn
- 586 The Universal Membrane
- 298 Class Discussions
- 298 Individual Class Sections
- 20 Alchemist
- 9 Apostate
- 30 Blademaster
- 9 Depthswalker
- 14 Druid
- 4 Infernal
- 20 Jester
- 19 Magi
- 34 Monk
- 11 Occultist
- 8 Paladin
- 7 Priest
- 29 Runewarden
- 18 Sentinel
- 26 Serpent
- 20 Shaman
- 9 Sylvan
Comments
@Aerek: Actually, when he managed to do it to me, it was at the end of a rampage, and I was stressing out over the fact that Kaden was the only person left for me to fight after Akaya, and how I was so going to lose after I beat Akaya (this was moments after he tried to pull that tactic on me originally, and I was paying more attention so it did not end well for him). Then I was like, wait, what's Akaya even doing... oh... shoot.
So it's your fault that the thieves got nerfed?
Regretting it already.
@Trance - that's not right, it was changed. There were issue responses on record specifically authorising icewalling stock rooms. I still think it's a bad admin call to change that. You are not stealing from a person, you're stealing from a location, it's not "hindrance" as the theft rules generally understood it (i.e. no using anything which would require cause under the PK rules to help a theft).
I can see the argument, I just don't buy it. You're hindering someone to gain access to a place, not to steal from them. It's actually not even theft as the game understands it, and as the rules draft for. It's picking up a bunch of stuff from the ground.
To use an analogy - if a House estate was breached the same way, and you cleaned out the chest - or to make the case even stronger, picked up a monolith, is that "against the rules"? I think it's pretty obvious that it's not. IMO, it was a bad issue response call which was codified in the rules because it was the latest issue response on it, but it actually went against very long standing precedent. In other words: Thanks, Trance >:/
if you broke into a House estate and cleaned out the chest, that is theft because you just stole a ton of things with the intent of gaining more possessions. If you pick up one monolith to let raiders in, that is not theft because you grabbed the monolith to let people in.
If you grabbed every monolith in the estate and then portal'd back to Mhaldor, that would be theft because you took them for the sake of having more monoliths.
I use common sense to make the distinction between 'picking stuff up' and 'stealing things', in the same way administration uses it to tell the difference between a 'justified kill' and 'lol pk'. As far as game mechanics go, they are identical. As far as everything else goes, they're vastly different.
Right, but you're focusing on the wrong part. Of course it's theft, but you don't really get into why - "we all know it is theft" is not a very good argument. Theft is really any set of actions which (without good reason) deprive someone of property they own with the intention of treating it as your own. If I ask to borrow your cloak and I don't return it, that's "theft". If I break into your player owned house and take the things that lie there, it's "theft" but to which sub-set of "theft" is hindrance really relevant? It's only where you are hindering the person you are stealing from. If I'm shop thieving, I'm stealing from the shop (which you may or may not own, and which might have items you may or may not own), just like if I break into a House Hall I'm stealing from the organisation. But in the latter two cases, first you break into the org-owned property then you steal what's there. The hindrance is how you break in, not how you steal. Hindrance in relation to theft should only be relevant where you are hindering someone who is trying to get away from your thieving, that's not at all what's happening in stockroom theft.
I also disagree with your monolith example and a whole host of other stuff, but I'm trying not to get sucked into forum arguments, and posting in this thread is making me want to do a two page long rant about the abomination that is pickpocketry, so I'll stop there.
Thanks for reminding me precisely why the PK rulebook was tossed out.
Hindering someone without cause was already a violation of the old PK rules. Outside of theft, it wasn't a big deal (not something you'd get punished for). But during a theft attempt, the PK rules were much more strictly enforced. Hindering someone, moving them against their will, stripping defences, otherwise attacking them, all of these things were minor infringements that were never allowed (without cause), but only really punishable when it's also during a theft attempt.
Basically, what matters is that it was breaking the PK rules during a theft attempt, regardless of whether the one being hindered was the one being stolen from.
Edit: I also just realised that moving to simplified PK would have been much more problematic if old theft was still around to complicate the rules, given how important the theft rules were and how inseparable they were from the old PK rules.
I promise I'm not missing that point, it's actually the core of the point I'm making. You can't hinder because you were "breaking" the PK rules during theft against someone. In the stockroom example, you aren't stealing from someone, you're stealing from someplace. You're not trying to keep the object of your theft locked in place, quite the opposite. You don't need anything from their person at all, what you are really doing is playing for time. Taking advantage of bad shopkeeper triggers/reactions, to get an evade in which is very different from hindering someone to steal from their person.
I think a more specific turn of phrase here would be 'a location owned by you whether through full ownership or rented lease'.
If hindering an individual from escaping (in order to protect his property) is illegal, then the reverse should also be true. You can't say that the items in a stockroom 'don't belong to any one person'. A stockroom, estate, or private house are exactly that, private property. The comparison made between the stockroom and the house estate are not comparable because they are tantamount to the same thing. If someone broke into a bank and stole everything in the deposit boxes, is he counted as having stolen from the bank or from the people who rented those boxes? A number of those items would have been personal effects that mean nothing to the bank.
Taking the gold from a person's house is not the same as following them around and picking up all their gold drops on a public thoroughfare. The former is theft, the latter is just being an annoying dick.
It's still a sticky note to argue on. If I were walled into a stockroom and someone attempted to prism in (knowing that naturally they'd try to evade in when I opened the door). My reaction would be to spam a get all alias to pick up all my stock. In which case, I am now walled in a room (hindered) against my will with a thief who (up until recently RIP *theft) has only one other option now. And that is to try and relieve me of my items (no longer possible but at the time was illegal because he has 'walled me in to try and steal from me') or just leave looking silly.
On a side note, the hindrance you cause may affect unrelated individuals who (in accordance with the old rules) might choose to nitpick and take cause.
Unintended hindering of allegedly 'unrelated' individuals was one of the easiest ways to farm cause against a person. I'm just sayin.
The pickpocket system is another discussion altogether, but I think eventual changes were promised.
Y-you wouldn't l-lie to us @Tecton, would you? N-not that I like you or anything.
Actually, making an exception for hindering (and other things) during shop theft would have made the rules more complicated, not simplify them. The rules (aside from defining what is and isn't theft, which was pretty simple) were basically a blanket "PK rules are more strictly enforced during a theft attempt". What you're proposing would be adding more exceptions to that very simple rule, which is part of how the overly-complex PK rules came about in the first place.
I was always fine with hindrance for regular theft, that seemed sensible. I think what we're really disagreeing about is what the rule *should* be, and I totally respect both sides of that argument. I'm just saying it 's not a slam-dunk on either side - as is obvious for the fact that the admin took the side I've been making for about 4 years before changing their mind.
From that perspective, I absolutely am in favour of allowing people to icewall stockrooms, but that's part of a broader argument on what risk and consequence should look like in the game which is really about what your gut tells you makes a better game.
And I'll be good, and not force you all to make more counter-arguments and leave it at that
.