Anti-steal

[Gort]

simple as it is, no stealing from fences. I think it's useful=). The idea was first implemented by aVENGER_RR in his Rogue Rebalancing, but he does change only the original game stores, and I didn't actually use his code. Camdawg's seen the topic at SHS, so he should know. Anyway, I don't care if you will or won't add any credits, the piece of code is just too small.

 

2 variants: 1st closes direct exploit with infinite money:

COPY_EXISTING_REGEXP GLOB ~^.+\.sto$~ ~override~
PATCH_IF (SOURCE_SIZE > 0x9a) BEGIN // protects against invalid files
 READ_LONG 0x10 "flags"
 PATCH_IF (("%flags%" BAND 0b00000000000000000001000000000000) = 0b00000000000000000001000000000000) BEGIN //if the store is a fence
WRITE_LONG 0x10 ("%flags%" BAND 0b11111111111111111111111111110111) //can't steal
 END
END
BUT_ONLY_IF_IT_CHANGES

and the second won't allow to steal from stores at all (inspired by Kulyok)

COPY_EXISTING_REGEXP GLOB ~^.+\.sto$~ ~override~
PATCH_IF (SOURCE_SIZE > 0x9a) BEGIN // protects against invalid files
 READ_LONG 0x10 "flags"
 WRITE_LONG 0x10 ("%flags%" BAND 0b11111111111111111111111111110111) //can't steal
END
BUT_ONLY_IF_IT_CHANGES

[Kulyok]

Yay!

 

{I would, I would! Version 6, maybe? Maybe?}

[aVENGER_(RR)]

No objections from me.

 

BTW, Cam, note that Rogue Rebalancing implements a slightly customized limited version of the "no stealing" approach - i.e. it prohibits stealing from characters which are marked as fences but it also turns a few regular merhants into fences. If you want, you can add that as an optional component to as well.

[Gort]

Yay!

 

{I would, I would! Version 6, maybe? Maybe?}

why 6, not 5? I don't think this component might cause ANY problems. Up to CamDawg, though. BTW, I recommend to include the part of aVENGER's mod that turns several regular merchants into fences, as well. It makes perfect sense.

[Kulyok]

I'd love it in v5 - it's just I had an impression that each new component requires a call for translators, and since the roll call for v5's been made already, probably v5 is just days away? That's just me guessing, though.

[the bigg]

I believe that Cam has a policy against useless components, and this fits the bill (since if you want to steal you won't install this, and if you don't want to steal this won't change a thing).

[Kulyok]

Mmmm. I have read Sikret posting something like this about Improved Anvil's uber-powerful items(i.e. if you don't want to use them, just ignore them), but I don't remember anyone else subscribing to this approach. Once something is in, it's there to be used - stealing included.

 

The temptation to use "steal and sell" exploit is too high. The temptation to sell all your cool equipment, get a lot of cash and then steal it back is just as high. It is needed.

[the bigg]

Please don't compare IA with Tweaks. IA is a single, monolithic component, whereas Tweaks has 133 components. If this were integrated in IA, then people wanting to steal-sell-steal are forced to either not install IA, install IA and not do what they want with their game, or hand-modify IA. If this were integrated as a Tweaks component, people wanting to steal-sell-steal will simply skip the component.

 

In a mod like Tweaks, components that remove player cheat are useless.

[berelinde]

If this component is introduced, I'm not likely to install it. I don't bother with pickpocketing or stealing from merchants.

 

However, since this component would be offered as a component, I don't much care if it's included. It's no great shakes for me to hit N.

 

What would be really cool would be if somebody got caught stealing, they had severe penalties, fines, something like that. For an evil party, a reputation drop and having to kill a few innocents isn't much of a deterrent.

[aVENGER_(RR)]

What would be really cool would be if somebody got caught stealing, they had severe penalties, fines, something like that. For an evil party, a reputation drop and having to kill a few innocents isn't much of a deterrent.

 

I always wanted to change the generic "Die Thief! -> Enemy()" responses (which happen after a failed robbery) into something more meaningful like the option to return the item and apologize or pay the item's double price. However, I don't think there's a way to check which item in the party's inventory was most recently stolen in IE.

[SirLancelot]

I always wanted to change the generic "Die Thief! -> Enemy()" responses (which happen after a failed robbery) into something more meaningful like the option to return the item and apologize or pay the item's double price.

 

What about having to pay instead an standard fee of 1000, 2000, or 10.000 god pieces depending on which area are you in? (or depending on which npc has been robbed)

 

I think that the "apologize" option should be only offered if a Charisma/reputation check (or other appropiate check) is passed.

[CamDawg]

simple as it is, no stealing from fences. I think it's useful=). The idea was first implemented by aVENGER_RR in his Rogue Rebalancing, but he does change only the original game stores, and I didn't actually use his code. Camdawg's seen the topic at SHS, so he should know. Anyway, I don't care if you will or won't add any credits, the piece of code is just too small.

Cheers, we'll see this in v6. As Kulyok mentioned, v5 is essentially done and just waiting for the last two translations. I hate annoying the translators (more than usual) by sending them last minute lines and whatnot--except for that Cromwell stuff. Yeah.

 

I believe that Cam has a policy against useless components, and this fits the bill (since if you want to steal you won't install this, and if you don't want to steal this won't change a thing).

Kinda, but it was really more about bloat issues. Prior to GROUP, there was a huge problem that every new component meant one more yes/no for users--as you mention, we're already well above the 100 mark. (And folks want to combine this behemoth with other tweak mods? Seriously? ) There's a lot of stuff in Tweaks that, if proposed today, I'd reject without a second thought (Nalia/Imoen avatars, Viccy's skin color).

 

'course, someone providing code increases the chance of inclusion exponentially.

[Gort]

if you think it does not fit, or simply excessive - I can just release it myself, it does not really matter.