JohnCarver wrote:anybody who argues to remove a mechanic that allows "yet another" way to summon somebody is really a carebear in disguise trying to save his own hide.
Slayblaze wrote:You don't track the item, you track the person. Anything other than that would be ridiculous. An item can't commit a crime, only a person can commit a crime. When a person commits a crime, they can't just wipe it clean by simply giving the item away or selling it. The fact remains that they committed a crime whether the stolen item is still in their possession or not.
The crime can't be tied to an "item", only to a "person".
rogoku wrote:When tracking a scent of larseny (?) It shows "TRACK ITEM" lrn2ranger
rogoku wrote:When tracking a scent of larseny (?) It shows "TRACK ITEM" lrn2ranger
Slayblaze wrote:It also basically means "don't buy or trade anything from anyone because if the item you just bought was stolen, then there'll be somebody knocking on your door in the middle of the night to slit your throat" = there goes the trade market, down the drain.
JohnCarver wrote:anybody who argues to remove a mechanic that allows "yet another" way to summon somebody is really a carebear in disguise trying to save his own hide.
MagicManICT wrote:You could do the same thing in HnH and it didn't effect the trading one bit.
MagicManICT wrote:A smart raider will either alt-vault the good for X days until the scents wear off (3-4 days if I recall right) or only trade them to people he/she knows isn't going to fuss over having the stolen goods.
MagicManICT wrote:A bit too much hyperbole in that statement for me. You could do the same thing in HnH and it didn't effect the trading one bit. A smart raider will either alt-vault the good for X days until the scents wear off (3-4 days if I recall right) or only trade them to people he/she knows isn't going to fuss over having the stolen goods.
Un1ted wrote:The fatal flaw I mentioned is that most of the community seems perfectly fine with game mechanics that favor the raider and even seem fine with using whatever little loopholes they can find, such as using alts to insta-port themselves which had to be patched out of the game it was being abused so badly. This is why we can't have nice things.
Un1ted wrote:1. Why does the answer to almost everything have to be "we did XYZ in HnH and it worked just fine"? I'm so sick of hearing that being used to counter a perfectly logical point. Use logic rather than saying "well some game that nobody played or even heard of did it that way, so Salem should too!". That's not a logical rebuttal.
TotalyMeow wrote: Claeyt's perspective of Salem and what it's about is very different from the devs and in many cases is completely the opposite of what we believe.
Un1ted wrote:MagicManICT wrote:You could do the same thing in HnH and it didn't effect the trading one bit.
1. Why does the answer to almost everything have to be "we did XYZ in HnH and it worked just fine"? I'm so sick of hearing that being used to counter a perfectly logical point. Use logic rather than saying "well some game that nobody played or even heard of did it that way, so Salem should too!". That's not a logical rebuttal.
[A whole lot of nonsense...]
Tonkyhonk wrote:but some people actually did use "hot items" to find their enemies whereaboutsit did effect some, not all though.
Dallane wrote:you know more people play hnh then they do salem right?
JohnCarver wrote:anybody who argues to remove a mechanic that allows "yet another" way to summon somebody is really a carebear in disguise trying to save his own hide.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests