Sleuth Home - Message Boards - Sleuth Talk


0 0
Swapping Items
  <<First Page  |  <Previous Next>  |  Last Page>>  

River D
River D
Well-Connected

Oct-14-2006 17:35

Just a short post in which I would like to bring to discussion the recent spate of swapping items between agencies. I believe this is certainly unethical and takes away much of the challenge of the game. For obvious reasons I cannot be too specific, but it does not reward hard work and organisation, just laziness. It also abuses what the locker function is all about.

Obviously you cannot ban people from trading things between agency lockers and calling it unethical is not going to stop people doing it.

I would like to hear the Sleuth community's thoughts on the issue, I may be in the minority but from my initial feedback I feel like this has caused some distatste amongst some members.

Should the majority find this practice unethical I propose a 72hr cooloff period for locker access in agencies after having been promoted to agent or higher. This would also to a certain extent prevent immediate hit and run thefts that have happened from time to time.

Discuss :)

Replies

Autumnsprings
Autumnsprings
Con Artist

Oct-14-2006 17:52

Just to clarify, older players cant do below incred hard favors, which means they have no access to certain items.

Christopher Leroy
Christopher Leroy
Old Shoe

Oct-14-2006 17:54

I don't know about this for certain, but...

Aren't certain items you may need for the "new" areas impossible for certain detectives to get on their own?

If this is in fact true, the only way to attain these items is through assistance, be it teammates or otherwise.

In the global direction this game has taken recently, with the advent of the AVL for example, is there really any specific harm being done by anyone who chooses to utilize "other" resources, typically to a mutual benefit, to acheive their goals?

I admit I have recently completed a "transaction" which benefitted both interested parties. I wouldn't complete this deal if I personally found it to be unethical in any way. It didn't affect anyone in the community in any way other than the 2 willing participants.

I just can't see an argument against it, considering ALL interested members will be able to access these new areas eventually anyway. Unless there's something about this whole situation that I don't know, there is no disctinct in-game advantage for accessing these areas before other people can.

JimmyC 09
JimmyC 09
Old Shoe

Oct-14-2006 17:56

Isn't Sleuth not only an individual game, but also a game where we are encouraged to rely on others?

River D
River D
Well-Connected

Oct-14-2006 17:58

As far as I am aware there is no item required that cannot be found on an IH favor. If anyone can offer evidence to the contrary id be appreciative.

Autumnsprings
Autumnsprings
Con Artist

Oct-14-2006 17:59

obviously, this is assuming not all needed items are incred hard favor rewards.

River D
River D
Well-Connected

This reply has been deleted by a Moderator

River D
River D
Well-Connected

Oct-14-2006 18:00

apologies for the duplicate post, i accidentally refreshed

JimmyC 09
JimmyC 09
Old Shoe

Oct-14-2006 18:00

If you can offer evidence that all items ARE able to be found in an IH favor, that'd be appreciated.

Christopher Leroy
Christopher Leroy
Old Shoe

Oct-14-2006 18:02

New thought...

What about lone wolves, which the game has taken recent steps to provide more content? Detectives that choose to operate outside agencies voluntarily could potentially have 0% chance of reaching the new areas, because they choose to play the game alone. The only way they *could* access these areas is to join an agency where someone with the capability of obtaining a particular item could assist them.

Are we saying those detectives should be screwed by their own perfectly valid choices? I hope not. It just doesn't seem like a clear line between that and trading items between non-at-the-moment-teammates.

Also, consider the case of an agency who does not desire to bring in new detectives for whatever reason. If all their members are of a high enough experience, that whole agency is cut off from access to potentially necessary items. Should THOSE agencies be penalized for their voluntary, and to this point, perfectly accepted practice? I don't think so.

Because of the nature of this situation, I feel that the swapping that is currently occurring is necessary, and will continue to think so until the game mechanics are changed so that these "rock and a hard place" problems are resolved.

Christopher Leroy
Christopher Leroy
Old Shoe

Oct-14-2006 18:04

***previous comment based on the assumption that the relevant items are not 100% accessable to all detectives at all necessary times***

  <<First Page  |  <Previous Next>  |  Last Page>>  

[ You must login to reply ]