fighting crime

I just got robbed. must have been several dozens of thieves. they nearly cleaned me out

I strongly hate thieves in real life. it is a gutless, dishonorable and disgusting behavior that should be obliterated from this game

Here are my suggestions:

1 - you can't trust thieves: if you use them it is unrealistic that they would return all goods they take to your village, they'd keep half for themselves or more, for sure. that way you could use thieves to hurt your enemies, not necessarily to benefit yourself

2 - you should have policeman to catch the thieves. i know the saying "takes one to know one" i myself dislike having to build thieves units, and would rather have another unit to police my village.

3 - every thief that is caught and sender is identified, that information should go on the profile of the player, like a criminal record: how many times he was caught stealing, and when was the last time. so that way you know what kind of neighbors, allies and enemies you have to deal with

A pragmatist isn't going to be overly concerned with labels.  Especially when the distinction is academic.  Thieves take your stuff.  Armies kill you, then take stuff no one happens to be around to own anymore.  Thieves get the bad rap, but it's the effect that should concern you.  Another perspective:  when armies had terrible carrying capacities, I used thieves to raid inactives since they brought more home for the upkeep and traveled faster besides.  It's just using the tools at your disposal.

In one-player games like the Elder Scrolls series, I always play a thief and pilfer everything of value I can get my hands on--except stuff belonging to (living) NPCs I considered friends or allies.  In a game like this, I farm inactives early in the game when those resources are crucial, and thereafter just support myself and maybe do some trade.  Why the difference?  Context.  I care more about what I'm doing here because here I'm doing it to real people, and disusing people doesn't sit well with me.  Luckily for me, an environment powered by real people brings about the real-world phenomen whereby sowing kindness reaps benefits that outweigh the apparent advantage of being cold and calculating without consideration for others.

If you want to be angry at people for the fact that they are abusing you, I understand.  But the method by which they exert that abuse is irrelevant.  It is the treatment of people toward each other that is in question and the cause of conflict...not an in-game mechanic that is obviously sanctioned as "fair game," as evinced by its intentional inclusion in the game.

----

I do like the idea of players getting abstract level rap sheets, like number of times a player has raided an active player (without naming targets), number of different active players raided (without naming targets), number of times caught: stealing, blighting, sabotaging, assassinating, etc., running (rough and at least a few days out of date) totals of units killed or resources raided, and so on.

I say without naming targets because that could potentially reveal sensitive information that compromizes the targets.  Getting named recently or repeatedly suggests you're a desirable target for that activity, for example.  Getting named at all with regard to military operation suggests your troops have been recently destroyed leaving you defenseless.  The information that is important is that which helps establish a general reputation even before finding some connection via social circles and conflicts, and possibly mitigating the inaccuracies of nth-party human reporting down to reasonable levels.

An interesting idea.

Here are a few thoughts on the matter:

The "police" units would probably be formed under a constable and watch system (perhaps a fitting unit name would be "Dogberries" as a little reference to Much Ado About Nothing. )

For some balance a city could not have constables and thieves, the city would have to choose one or the other.  Thieves would probably not find it profitable to work in a city with constables and constables would not (we would like to think) want to serve a master who employs thieves.  None of the other diplomatic units, namely saboteurs and assassins, would be affected by having constables as those units are more for war-time.

As a trade-off a city with constables would perhaps enjoy a slight production boost (depending on the number of units) for having safer and happier citizens.  A cap on the number of units could be placed based on population to keep this from causing an unbalance there, also too many police with too little to do could be a bad thing!

Constables could also be more effective in detecting and catching thieves.

Anyway, just some thoughts on the matter.


BTW:  I started this post before any of the other responses so this does not take any of that information in to account.

 




Edited by Jerec Cross - 13 Nov 2010 at 05:39

Well as for the naming matter if diplomats have leaders like mil units in the near future then you can construct a diplomat army called police so there is no point to select having thieves or policemen. In real world both exist.

Jerec's post concerning the introduction of police or "dogberries"  does have an interesting appeal, but the effect of it might not just effect thieves. You also have to take into account  other aspects of diplomacy in Illyriad such as the assassin, saboteur and sleeper roles that are developed in the Consulate.  This comes to close to Rugre's view of thieves and diplomacy. That it is dishonourable etc and should be "criminalised". Players  need to accept that diplomacy is one the Paths in the game that is available and an integral part of Illyriad.  They need to prepare for the fact that others may send thieves, assassins or sabs to your city to either weaken your defences or prevent you from building an offensive army ( intent honourably killing hundreds lol) from being formed. Sorry Rugre I don't see that it is any less dishonourable than the mass slaughter inflicted by large armies.