Sleuth Home - Message Boards - Sleuth Talk

Feb-16-2008 18:02

I think its time to revisit the idea of subscription limits for onw person within an agency. It's been the rule that one individual person can only sub up to two people in an agency. After that it's considered an unfair advantage. This was the case a while ago, maybe not so much anymore. I currently have 3 subbed detectives, ctown, Brady Quinn and Bonelady. I have never hid that but also never really offered that information. I really wasn't aware of the "rule" that is really impossible to enforce. What about couples that log in from the same IP address, families, etc.

Anyhow, when this was brought to my attention, I decided to move Brady Quinn out of Dawg Pound Investigations to avoid any conflict before omeone complained. I still think this is an unfair rule. The agencies that have "control" of their detectives because they have gone inactive and the directors know the passwords actually gives a better advantage. They got that control, yet someone else has paid their money for it. IMHO, if I want to pay to sub 3 dets, thats my money paying for it. Either lift that silly rule or ban password sharing. I don't see how you can have it both ways. Now remember, this is to be an open debate, if you are looking for an argument, find a different thread, if you disagree but want to be objective, please post and lets have a respectful debate!

Feb-16-2008 19:30

I do agree with you that it's a silly rule to limit the number of "own" people in the same agency. It's no secret that I don't respect that rule.

But, in order to not provoke the community, I don't do Treasure Hunts either. Actually treasure hunt's are not my cup of tea ;-)

I understand that it feels unfair for someone that others are able to subscribe more than one sleuth, and also that having more sleuths in the same agency, gives an unequal power when participating in agency-competitions. But, really, if you take care when you build your agency with 10 different people, that they all belong to the same time zone, and stay online at the same time, and all get themselves apartments that they stuff with cases before a treasure hunt, and cooperate and plan well, they are much better off than what a single person with many sleuths can do.

Also, it's said that password sharing are allowed, even though it's highly adviced against it. That gives equal power over an agency as one person with multiple sleuths.

But, the last thing I would like to mention are: what if I had my multiple sleuths in different agencies (that all were doing treasure hunts) in the same city. What if all those agencies started in the same treasure hunt. As soon as one of the agencies got the first favor fixed, I could rush to the others and tell what favor is next.... Actually, I think that if I did so, I would do more damage than if I kept all the sleuths in the same agency.

Oh, yea, you could run to Ben, and say that it's unfair that I subscribe multiple sleuths.... Even though Ben is fully aware that I subscribe multiple sleuths, he have still said "thanks for subscribing" to me. He even helped me to get some names that was valuable to me, on my 4. and 5. sleuth. - so, yes, Ben already know.

Even for me there are limits to how many sleuths I can handle. I easily get confused about who are going to get which contact now, and when doing cases, what contacts do I have now? (cont.)

Feb-16-2008 19:39

cont.:
I could subscribe more sleuths to support the game, but I have problem with doing more daily cases on a regular basis. Actually, I don't feel that I have to do all my cases.... - but the good thing with being multiple subscribed are that when I one day would like to do cases, I am able to. If I were to stay in an agency with other people, I would be of little support, as I don't log in every day... - and I would fill up quite some room...

I started another thread in order to try to give away some gift subscriptions, but it seems like there are little interest for it. - so then I have concluded to myself that there seem to be no-one out there who would like to be active, but cannot afford to subscribe. Of course, that issue is still running, and if anyone would like to qualify, I would be very happy for being mistaken.

Feb-16-2008 20:03

I have tried a couple of times to subscribe a sleuth "in silence", not taking it into "my" agency, but, since I have found out what makes a sleuth grow quickly, I always get discovered and invited into an agency when I top the novice high score list. It is actually possible to get about 200 000 in 10 days. I know. But, it seems like the directors find it extraordinary, and thus I get invited...

I think it's a loyalty problem when I am involved in more than one agency, so I have ended up finding peace when I collected all myself into the same home.

Feb-16-2008 20:43

I'll say this simply.

People don't like the idea (whether it be true or not) that someone could, essentially, "buy" wins in treasure hunts by having many detectives in one agency.

What's the difference between this and controlling since inactive detectives? - Not exactly sure, but I guess that those eventually become unsubbed.


Personally, if you have all that time and money to waste, all the power to ya.

Feb-16-2008 20:56

I'm actually in favor of limiting the number of subscriptions people can have in any one agency, though whether that number should be raised a bit I'd be amenable to.

I'm very strongly against the banning of password sharing. It's one of the few security measures Directors have to protect their resources in Agencies. Yes, some Directors do use password sharing (Yeah, I'm one of them), and yes, somebody with less than honorable intentions could misuse the practice and go to town with them. I can pretty much guarantee, though, that they wouldn't have people stick around very long in their Agency, and their standing in the community would go straight down the tubes. Any Director worth his/her salt works HARD to help the people in his/her agency, and the people there damned well know it. Yes, there have been people who have abused the privilege in the past. And like I said, they haven't lasted long.

I do see your point, Ctown, but I'm leery of not having a limit. I think the potential for unscrupulous people to take advantage of the system is just too tempting.

Huglover, you do have a point with multiple single people having a great deal of power with apartments, high experience levels, and so forth, but they've EARNED all that. And yes, you could have one person go rushing from agency to agency, blabbing their mouths off about the next favor needed for a hunt, but that happens anyway on PM's and instant messaging. People still have to GET the actual favor, which isn't always as easy as it seems. If someone tries to switch from one agency to another because they've got the needed favor, they lose it when they join the new agency (part of the system). So quite a few safeguards have already been put in place.

Bottom line, I'm happy with the system as it is now. If there were a ban implemented on password sharing, I'd probably leave if stronger security measures weren't also implemented.

Feb-16-2008 21:04

This idea's been bantered around quite a bit before, and I'm not sure if there'll be any difference this time around, but there ya go. ;-)

Feb-17-2008 02:42

The issue I have with this is that it is possible to set up an agency with one main detective and a bunch of subbed/non-subbed ones and you can set each of the non-subbed ones up with a favour that has been completed but not solved.

With 11 detectives in an agency you can have each townie saved with one detective. (It may take some setting up, but it can be done.) This will then allow the "agency" to solve a single city hunt in a matter of minutes.

Feb-17-2008 04:07

Game mechanics aside... password sharing aside...

Having only 2 subs in an agency is good because at the very least you have to play the game with 4-5 other people. (Well originally at least, lapsed Agency players aside)

I could be wrong, but I would have thought the original idea behind treasure hunts would have been to engender some form of, yes competition, but also community, some form of communication between players, to foster team work, mutual support and even friendship.

Having an Agency of 1 with 10 subs (1 with 3, 4, 5 etc) doing a Treasure Hunt would surely fall a very long way short of the original reason why treasure hunts were created in the first place.

It probably falls along way short of why Agencies were invented too for that matter.

I'd really like people to consider when they talk about their rights as paying customers, to also consider their 'responsibilities' as members of the Sleuth Community, and for want of a better word, the 'spirit' in which the game should and could be played.

Feb-17-2008 04:37

In response to V Buster's post:

Any agency can do that - and it has been done - not just an agency with multiple detectives run by one person.

And in response to the venerable Secret Squirrel:

I agree with you, BUT not everyone who has a double gives a squat about Treasure Hunts or ranking high in the High Scores. I for one just want to be able to log on and solve my cases without having to interact with a lot of people. Usually I log onto Sleuth to GET AWAY from people. Even with two detectives, I still can't solve ALL my cases, but it does help, and playing just isn't that much fun if you have to quit TOO MANY cases.

Feb-17-2008 05:11

Perhaps a better way to state that is to simply say that I like to play independently. I don't like to share my password with other people I don't know and I don't really want to know anyone else's password (although I have in the past, I prefer not to), and I don't want to have to wait for somebody else to log on who has the contact I need to be able to solve my case. I'm sorry, but I don't see how this is hurting anyone or that it's any of their business (although I have obviously made it everyone's business now). :)