Thinking About Scents

[Jesus_Smith_Nandez]

I have discussed my disapproval for all the mechanics in place to prevent scents from being left, such as outlaw, red handed, and nidbanes. However extending this to a post to spur discussion, what makes one act more criminal than another? Jorb has said in the past:

there does not exist a clear divide between offensive and peaceful actions. Every action you do denies another player some potential action.

This being said, the in-game mechanic of scents, how they are left and possible punishment does attempt to put in place a sort of "clear divide" between peaceful actions and offensive one, for which the offensive ones will leave scents.

The issue lies with the fact there are plenty of things that are potentially offensive which do not leave scents and that the server cannot track. Things such as making fun of someone in chat, blocking someone walking, putting claims around someone, taking all the apples off of trees in a certain area, lifting something someone wants to use, stomping a tile where someone would like to pave, existing in a spot someone else would like to be.

This means that the nub who has just created his first character and logged in, by the mere act of existing, is denying other players certain courses of action -- the most obvious one being interaction with that particular tile, but, as said nub starts to play, more and more actions will be denied other players by his act of simply playing.

These, and many other conceivable actions, are far easier ways to grief people than is PvP, and PvP is the only thing that keeps them somewhat in check. Therefore, removing PvP results not in less griefing, but in more.

In addition, there are potential actions that would leave scents that can be argued to be less offensive, which we can see argued indefinitely in The Moot:

we weren't going after innocent nabs here smh

But whether you're just trespassing over a claim that passes over a river, accidentally dropping a chest on a claim and picking it back up, doing a good deed by killing someone who has been rude to you in your area, taking retribution for a past offence, raiding just for loot or killing for sport and no other benefit, all these actions are clumped together under the huge generalisation of a "crime." Committing a "crime" leaves a scent, and no matter the reason for it, it brings with it all the mechanics meant to "punish" "criminals," such as the aforementioned outlaw, red handed, and nidbanes, not to mention the simple danger of being tracked for these scents, even as low as trespassing.

Would like to hear opinions. Should scents be removed? Changed? Nerfed? Discuss.

[Kaios]

One thing I find greatly annoying is that majority of players raise their exploration to what, 100 at the most? Maybe 150-200 if you've got the LP to spare. So why the fuck can't I see certain player's scents with what's supposed to be as high exploration as you need in terms of foraging requirements. Are players really going to be punished now because they didn't cap out their exploration and perception before the cap was removed?

So, the fact that at the moment majority of players cannot see most competent raiders scents leads me to believe that criminal acts don't in fact need to be nerfed. Nidbanes are almost totally useless except in rare and lucky (or unlucky for the raider) circumstances even when you can see the scent. Red handed is fine I don't see the big deal about that and if u wanna be an outlaw then there's gotta be some negative aspect to it and at the moment when 3 guys can terrorize almost the whole map with little to no repercussions I'd say there's no negative aspect at all.

"Oh no I have to build a road to go kill those newbs cuz I can't port across the map using a charter to get to them instead =(((((((((("

[Jesus_Smith_Nandez]

Did you not get the point of the post? What I'm saying is not everyone who leaves a scent is necessarily a raider yet the mechanic punishes all equally. There is no solid line between "offensive" and "peaceful," as jorb said. Some things that don't leave scents would personally insult me more than things that do. A noob trespassing or chopping a q10 tree on my land would not be worth repercussions, but a noob insulting me or refusing my kin or blocking my path would be worth doing something about.

On the topic of noobs:

New players, I would also like to add, should be, and are, particularly easy to target. The amount of investment needed to create one is so small that affording them any means of special security is inviting for them to be used as grief-machines and if they die, not much has been lost

Can we please do away with the huge stereotype of poor innocent noobs who are the nicest people and terrible bloodthirsty raiders who kill them all for no reason? It is never that simple.

[Kaios]

Yes I get the point and I do understand not everyone leaving scents has the same intent but those mechanics are there for a reason and without them the raiders who end up mostly unaffected by things like red handed and outlaw would be even more free to cause as much havoc as they can. Meanwhile I feel a better discussion is actually what newbies/hermits are meant to do against the leftover raiders after top villages quit especially considering the impacts of leaving scents actually effect them more than they do the raiders they'd be leaving them against.

Can we please do away with the huge stereotype of poor innocent noobs who are the nicest people and terrible bloodthirsty raiders who kill them all for no reason? It is never that simple.

It almost always is that simple.

[Ysh]

This being said, the in-game mechanic of scents, how they are left and possible punishment does attempt to put in place a sort of "clear divide" between peaceful actions and offensive one, for which the offensive ones will leave scents.

You read into it wrong way. Scent does not determine peaceful and offense action. Like you say, some offense action leave no scent. Some peace action does leave scent. What scent does represent is infringement of another player's property or life and no more.

[Kaios]

The cost of criminal actions are completely disproportionate to the amount of time and effort that goes in to creating almost anything that can be destroyed or taken from you including your character. It's kind of crazy to me that anyone would think these mechanics are overbearing, they barely even do the job they are supposed to.

[MadNomad]

What scent does represent is infringement of another player's property or life and no more.

[MadNomad]

idk maybe it should only leave scent when most offensive actions happen or maybe scents should be left all the time (when walking in any area for example, but shouldn't exist too long, only few minutes or half of hour idk)

[shadyg0d]

Theft is theft, murder is murder, regardless of reasons. It might be justice in your eyes but it still makes sense that a ranger could find evidence and track you down. If you commit a "crime" in the name of justice you will still be expected to explain yourself, just like the real world. And if said evil person wants to get revenge on you for enacting justice, I think they should at least be able to find who did it.

But I do think theft itself is pretty much ruined as a game mechanic. I think with theft there should be less punishment, especially considering visitor now protects like 75% of potential victims. The rest of the victims should know they are at risk without a palisade, period. It's not that hard to build a palisade.

[VDZ]

I think the bigger issue is the debuffs. I understand suspicious actions meriting investigation via scents, but for many crimes, the game itself punishes you with a debuff. If there is '[no] clear divide between offensive and peaceful actions', why does the game restrict players performing a specific subset of possible actions? When I last played, the debuffs were the primary reason I refrained from committing any crimes; not out of fear for player retaliation, but because the game will restrict my access to certain features as punishment for doing the 'wrong' thing.