Changes to Criminal Acts

[LadyV]

With Xcom's revelation of using mine supports to mass block an area and thus use the criminal acts HHP drain as a defence I suggest cave ins be exempt from causing such damage. It is pure abuse of a mechanic, nothing more.

[TeckXKnight]

It's honestly a better wall system than the current one in place. Lots of small barricades that are relatively easy to smash in comparison to a brick wall but one that requires tons of preparation and multiple assaults to finish off. It's also not subject to ridiculous ram mechanics. As for the HHP damage, it's not like you can't bandage yourself up as you go.

The only thing I'm actually worried about is the number of scents in the area slowing down the grid. Assuming someone were to lay out thousands of rocks between them and the world, breaking a line through to them would involve leaving thousands of scents.

[Arcanist]

Not really. Any decent character can break a cave in in one stamina bar.
that said it has been suggested before using thousands of round pole fences as a defence mechanic, and hhp for scents is just plain stupid as it limits what you can do on an enemy claim.

[LadyV]

@Teck

I agree on small walls. I'm surprised we never had the option for stone walls. My opposition is that it uses the criminal acts as a deterrent beyond their scope. Unlike rock that has potential to form rooms or yield ores cave ins are only a hazard and obstacle. So I think the application of vandalism to them is a far stretch at best. It only serves to create more difficult to access vaults and that only benefits one side, raiders.

[LadyV]

Not really. Any decent character can break a cave in in one stamina bar.
that said it has been suggested before using thousands of round pole fences as a defence mechanic, and hhp for scents is just plain stupid as it limits what you can do on an enemy claim.

I think it was used more as a temporary solution to players inability to create security systems like traps and such. A sort of abstraction of such defence.

[Arcanist]

no, it was introduced because AD used the generation of millions of scents to lag and crash the server.

[LadyV]

no, it was introduced because AD used the generation of millions of scents to lag and crash the server.

So like Teck said it would only serve to create tons of scents to slow if not crash the server. All the more reason to exempt it from the Criminal acts issues.

[Arcanist]

regardless of if they caused hhp damage or not, it would still create tons of scents.
And it would only slow down the server as much as the cave ins would, since 1 cave in would become 1 vandal scent.

[LadyV]

regardless of if they caused hhp damage or not, it would still create tons of scents.
And it would only slow down the server as much as the cave ins would, since 1 cave in would become 1 vandal scent.

Then maybe my suggestion should extend to leaving no scents as well. Cave ins have no impact other than a mining hazard so its not such a far leap to leave them purely as that.