QSP Jack-o-Nine-Tails [v2.3] [ImperatorAugustusTertius / qwertyu12359]

[BliniKot]

What if you try other days? It might be also that the outcome is predetermined in spite of savescuming. That has been introduced for the enemy you'll fight in the fog, and the risks to fail a turn in a race, so I'm thinking it could be about Parcel ordering too. Give it a try

just gave it a try and nope
every single day of an entire decade all failed
my guild rank is at A+
so unless I need to do something to regen rgn besides from just clicking on end of the day, smuggling while at high rank success chance is so low it's not even worth thinking about

 

[qwertyu12359]

just gave it a try and nope
every single day of an entire decade all failed
my guild rank is at A+
so unless I need to do something to regen rgn besides from just clicking on end of the day, smuggling while at high rank success chance is so low it's not even worth thinking about

Maybe you need to keep getting caught and eventually you'll manage. But that'd be lame

 

[BliniKot]

Maybe you need to keep getting caught and eventually you'll manage. But that'd be lame

even at maximum 50% the risk/reward balance would be not worth it to most people
10 consecutive times in a row? definitely needs to be rebalanced
unless it's a bug
here is my save if you want to test it yourself

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

Correct me if I am wrong but is it impossible to order parcels once your guide rep is above a certain rank? I even tried to savescum but no matter what I still got caught.

At B+ or above reputation or guild rank, you'll always be caught. It also lowers your rep and guild rank so if you consistently use the service you'll eventually fall below the threshold and the guild will stop caring until you regain your rep/rank.

2000$ for a slave that starts with B+ in all common skills, qualifies for most specializations, and is already obedient enough to qualify as D- on normal difficulty after a single "explain her position" (on easy difficulty, obedient enough to qualify as C-) ... needs to have some downside or you'd never get a slave any other way once you can afford the price. If getting caught were left to chance then you'd be able to save scum to avoid it. If you are willing to give up one third of your sparks and a bit of reputation, you can still save a lot of time on training this way if you wish. When you find yourself low on sparks is actually one of the most financially beneficial times to get a parcel ... which fits with the concept of this method of slave acquisition being for the desperate (or ineffectual).

 

[BliniKot]

Gating an entire feature because "people might save scum" is questionable at best
2000 + 4000 fine maybe even more, that's the upper range of B+, idk where you got 1/3 from
It's especially stupid in my case as I didn't even touch smuggling until I got a couple thousands in the bank, at that point my brand rep would be B+ or 1 slave away from B anyway.
So this entire feature is designed to be abused and then locked away, not contributing anything to gameplay whatsoever

 

[i107760]

Everything has been podged together, no one wants to migrate from QSP (horrible engine). Things are more or less stuck together. Some refactoring has occurred, looking at the source from different locations and time, but nothing substantial. JONT needs a complete ground-up rewrite to another engine.

The code indeed was a mess (and probably still is), I think both Lokplart and I did some refactoring/cleaning up to improve things, but it's just a daunting task to clean it all up, especially since in the end it'd still be QSP which is... shit, like you said.
As for redoing it all in a different engine, that's a lot of work, it would be nice though I'd also be afraid some of JONT's charm would be lost. Even back when I still had free-time to spend on developing games, this would be too much, but given that the game is open-source maybe someone will someday step up to the plate.

 

[Flying Geaser]

Does permanent lactation increase slave sale price?

 

[qwertyu12359]

At B+ or above reputation or guild rank, you'll always be caught. It also lowers your rep and guild rank so if you consistently use the service you'll eventually fall below the threshold and the guild will stop caring until you regain your rep/rank.

2000$ for a slave that starts with B+ in all common skills, qualifies for most specializations, and is already obedient enough to qualify as D- on normal difficulty after a single "explain her position" (on easy difficulty, obedient enough to qualify as C-) ... needs to have some downside or you'd never get a slave any other way once you can afford the price. If getting caught were left to chance then you'd be able to save scum to avoid it. If you are willing to give up one third of your sparks and a bit of reputation, you can still save a lot of time on training this way if you wish. When you find yourself low on sparks is actually one of the most financially beneficial times to get a parcel ... which fits with the concept of this method of slave acquisition being for the desperate (or ineffectual).

Gating an entire feature because "people might save scum" is questionable at best
2000 + 4000 fine maybe even more, that's the upper range of B+, idk where you got 1/3 from
It's especially stupid in my case as I didn't even touch smuggling until I got a couple thousands in the bank, at that point my brand rep would be B+ or 1 slave away from B anyway.
So this entire feature is designed to be abused and then locked away, not contributing anything to gameplay whatsoever

I personally agree with BliniKot.

That the odds of getting caught should be proportional to your reputation, maybe makes sense. But that you get totally 0 chance of succeeding once you have a good reputation is not really believable, or fun, or fair. Especially since the dialogues let you believe that it's a risky dice throw, without hinting that you have a 100% risk to fail.

Maybe the odds of success vs failure should stay the same no matter your reputation (unless the lore implies that the more reputation you have, the more you are spied on by authorities of Eternal Rome, which I don't think is the case). What could change based on reputation is the impact: "the higher they are, the harder they fall". Ordering a parcel is basically "cheating"; you get to sell a slave with one hell of a quickstart. If you get caught, the more reputation you had as a slave trainer, the more shameful it is that you'd resort to the "easy way".

And then, since the possibility exists, people can savescum if they don't like the consequences... but they'd do it knowing that they cheat their way through the game. People that are into roleplay will NOT savescum no matter what. But for roleplay to make sense, the odds should not actually be stacked against the player, or he'll feel that save scumming is fair against a game that is unfair.

I had this with a sports game around a decade ago. I was really immersed into the career as a team manager. I was not savescumming when my best player got injured before the most important matches, even though I could. Then I got money, a lot. Because that's the dream, I tried to get the two most expensive players in the team. I felt like I was close to get them both, but one would say that "he'd consider if I offered more money". I tried ruining my club, took the gambit of selling my other favorite players just to have those two together: still didn't work. Then I got annoyed and used Cheat Engine to see how close I was to get them both. Turns out there was, in my playthrough at least, no way. I offered 999 999 999 999$, was still "not enough". I decided "fuck it" and stopped playing alltogether.

My conclusion is that we should either entrust the players with the power to save and load at will and count on their will for roleplay or immersion, or add the ability to save only at specific checkpoints like at day end or every decade. In both cases, it feels disgusting for a player to be considered like a child, and get stripped away from a dice roll because he could "cheat and re-throw the dice as much as he wants".

Suggestion: Let's make it so that the amount of money and reputation loss is as great of a risk than getting a mostly pre-trained slave is a reward.

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

Gating an entire feature because "people might save scum" is questionable at best
2000 + 4000 fine maybe even more, that's the upper range of B+, idk where you got 1/3 from
It's especially stupid in my case as I didn't even touch smuggling until I got a couple thousands in the bank, at that point my brand rep would be B+ or 1 slave away from B anyway.
So this entire feature is designed to be abused and then locked away, not contributing anything to gameplay whatsoever

It’s not gated, it has a cost. (Being caught does not take away the clone, it only penalizes you.) 2000$ if you have low rep, otherwise 2500$ minimum and scaling up from there if you have more savings.

It’s still a viable way to skip early training and immediately start building devotion. You can get a clone to B+ within a few days if you use a philtre, and it will easily sell for a profit at auction, or you can sell it to one of the district residents if you’re looking to move. There are plenty of other ways to take advantage of this if you think about it.

 

[qwertyu12359]

It’s not gated, it has a cost. 2000$ if you have low rep, otherwise 2500$ minimum and scaling up from there if you have more savings.

That would be great if it'd stop at that. The problem is: "At B+ or above reputation or guild rank, you'll always be caught."

Was this in the original game or was it added post v2.1? I'm 100% in favor of reverting the change that's the case.

I don't think "You'll eventually fall below the threshold and the guild will stop caring until you regain your rep/rank." is a fair or realistic solution to make up for how dull it feels to have odds 100% stacked against you.

It’s still a viable way to skip early training and immediately start building devotion. You can get a clone to B+ within a few days if you use a philtre, and it will easily sell for a profit at auction, or you can sell it to one of the district residents if you’re looking to move. There are plenty of other ways to take advantage of this if you think about it.

There's no good reason that it should only be an "early game" feature.

To the opposite, you're most likely to miss on it, and be attracted to it only when you get familiar with the game enough that you want to try "something else". Then that "something else" always fail, 100% (and the player doesn't get to know exactly why). It feels righteous to be annoyed at the unfairness of it.

If it has to become a cost, then it could be the opposite: your reputation is so much that the guild respects you too much to penalize you for that (corruption of the elites). However, it gets a cut, or you have to pay them to shut up.

I have a trouble with the "you get a dice roll but the dices are loaded" thingy. So the most important is for the player to be able to guess the odds before letting him take a gambit.

 

[BliniKot]

Thank you for articulating my points more clearly qwertyu12359
Also for a game that allows you to lie and cheat your way to the top
100% chance to get caught is not fun

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

That would be great if it'd stop at that. The problem is: "At B+ or above reputation or guild rank, you'll always be caught."

Was this in the original game or was it added post v2.1? I'm 100% in favor of reverting the change that's the case.

The getting caught mechanic was added by crushboss in the Hongfire era. It was a 25% chance. I changed it to 100% at some point.

I don't think "You'll eventually fall below the threshold and the guild will stop caring until you regain your rep/rank." is a fair or realistic solution to make up for how dull it feels to have odds 100% stacked against you.

The perception of having a chance to avoid being caught is just that, perception. The message when you get caught says that the guild is keeping track of its VIPs. That's a clear "you had no chance to avoid a penalty because your rep is too high" in my view, but we can add more to the text since that is apparently not explicit enough.

There's no good reason that it should only be an "early game" feature.

This is not "only an early game feature." You always keep the clone, so it's a cost/benefit. As I stated previously, the benefit outweighs the cost when you have low sparks, but the fact that you'll then be very close to bankrupt means that you have to be strategic about it. For example, you could buy a clone just before you sell your current slave. This would mean that the penalty assessed for the clone doesn't touch your profits from the slave you are about to sell, so you have extra sparks to spend on the clone without taking out a loan.

To the opposite, you're most likely to miss on it, and be attracted to it only when you get familiar with the game enough that you want to try "something else". Then that "something else" always fail, 100% (and the player doesn't get to know exactly why). It feels righteous to be annoyed at the unfairness of it.

It doesn't fail. You wanted a clone, you got a clone. You just didn't get it as cheaply as you wanted. Once you know that there's a penalty, you can plan around it. The fine never puts you more than 500 sparks in debt, so even if it takes you by surprise, you can recover with a loan and selling the clone.

If it has to become a cost, then it could be the opposite: your reputation is so much that the guild respects you too much to penalize you for that (corruption of the elites). However, it gets a cut, or you have to pay them to shut up.

No way. The guild's business model depends on having a monopoly on slave trade (no one is allowed to sell slaves in the city without them involved; being a member of the guild yourself is the only reason you can sell direct). They are given this monopoly because they provide a value-added service, training a never-ending stream of human refugees to meet buyer specifications. Clones don't qualify for top rankings without additional training, but they do threaten the guild's monopoly on servicing the lower end of the market (qualifying for D up to C rank without any training needed).

The guild knows about the smugglers. So it tolerates them, why?

First, because the smugglers only sell to slavers. Otherwise the guild would absolutely crush them without mercy.

However, the guild does not want its members to deal in clones only, because then what would be done with all the non-clones that constantly show up from the Fogs? Someone needs to break them and train them too, or else the city would start questioning why the guild isn't doing its job.

So the guild tolerates lower tier slavers taking shortcuts from time to time (though frowns on it -- you always lose rep for buying a clone, even if you're below the B+ threshold, this was true even in the original 1.2.1), but doesn't want all of its slavers doing so. Therefore, VIPs who deal in clones are reprimanded and fined.

The guild is 100% aware of the smuggling operation, so having any chance of "not getting caught" is unrealistic. The only question is whether they care enough to intervene or just add a black mark to your record.

I have a trouble with the "you get a dice roll but the dices are loaded" thingy. So the most important is for the player to be able to guess the odds before letting him take a gambit.

There are no odds. Just because the smuggler says "don't get caught" you take it at face value that it's up to chance? That's naive, but even if you do believe that, the first time you get caught should disabuse you of that. They outright tell you that you are being monitored. You're a slaver, not a spy. Good luck expecting privacy from your employer.

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

To clarify further: “The fine never puts you more than 500 sparks in debt” is the worst case, point being it’s always survivable even if it is a surprise. If you have more than 2500$ sparks before you buy the clone then you’ll not be in debt at all. The fine is 500$ or one third of your remaining sparks after the 2000$ is deducted, whichever is more. So if you wanted to min-max the penalty you’d arrange to have exactly 3500$ sparks before buying a clone, which would leave you with 1000$ for training.

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

Adding to why the guild tolerates: if a low tier slaver is struggling to make ends meet, allowing them to take a shortcut that can get them some breathing room increases the survival chance for that slaver, and the guild wants to have a lot of low tier slavers to deal with the constant influx of refugees. The guild could bail them out but there’s a high risk of losing that investment. The guild chooses not to waste resources on slavers who aren’t able to manage their finances independently (beyond the initial investment of training and housing them, which is the tutorial).

 

[qwertyu12359]

The getting caught mechanic was added by crushboss in the Hongfire era. It was a 25% chance. I changed it to 100% at some point.

That's too drastic of a change. You should revert it to 50% at B+ reputation and 90% at S+, why not. Also drastically increase the penalty for getting caught. But please revert the impossibility. This is a symptom of the balance philosophy there was in v2.2.2 and we found out it was not suitable for normal difficulty.

The perception of having a chance to avoid being caught is just that, perception. The message when you get caught says that the guild is keeping track of its VIPs. [...] Once you know that there's a penalty, you can plan around it.

So only after you "threw the dice". That's scummy. That's exactly the kind of design choice that push people to always save before they try a new option.

As I stated previously, the benefit outweighs the cost when you have low sparks, but the fact that you'll then be very close to bankrupt means that you have to be strategic about it. For example, you could buy a clone just before you sell your current slave. This would mean that the penalty assessed for the clone doesn't touch your profits from the slave you are about to sell, so you have extra sparks to spend on the clone without taking out a loan.

This is not fun enough of a benefit to convince me that there should be a 0% chance of succeeding to smuggle a slave without getting caught if your reputation is high enough. The "cost" should be the cost of failure, there should always be a chance of success for this mechanic. If not, it should be hinted better before the player takes the risk.

You just didn't get it as cheaply as you wanted.

And there was no way to get it as cheaply as you wanted. That's lame. There should be room for great reward if you take risks.

The fine never puts you more than 500 sparks in debt, so even if it takes you by surprise, you can recover with a loan and selling the clone.

Which is fine, but it shouldn't happen every time. It's not about "how horrible the consequence is", it's about how annoying it is how a mechanic that was designed to be a lottery.

So the guild tolerates lower tier slavers taking shortcuts from time to time (though frowns on it -- you always lose rep for buying a clone, even if you're below the B+ threshold, this was true even in the original 1.2.1), but doesn't want all of its slavers doing so. Therefore, VIPs who deal in clones are reprimanded and fined.

What we notice from that is there was an inconsistency. I understand your reasoning: "if there's reputation loss, then the guild know, if the guild know, and they don't like it, why shouldn't the player be fine?"

But you decided that VIPs who deal in clones should be reprimanded and fined ^^ Not the guild.

You could have went the opposite route, and decided "if the player doesn't get a fine, then either the guild doesn't care that much, or it doesn't know" and make it so that there's no reputation loss if the smuggle doesn't get caught.

The guild is 100% aware of the smuggling operation, so having any chance of "not getting caught" is unrealistic. The only question is whether they care enough to intervene or just add a black mark to your record.

It's kind of unrealistic that they have eyes on every one of the smuggling operations, from beginning to end. That they know it happens and put means to stop it, why not. But that they watch every one of them and decide to punish high rep slavers 100% of the time but low rep slavers only when they feel in the mood...

There are no odds. Just because the smuggler says "don't get caught" you take it at face value that it's up to chance? That's naive

Now that's scummy game design ^^

That's not "naive" to think that "don't get caught" means there's a chance not get caught... it's common sense.

If you want to introduce that "at one point it's not possible because you're too much of a big shot", fine, but be clear to the player. Otherwise that's literally a trap. I'm repeating myself, but the player click the "take a risk" button BECAUSE of the potential reward. The potential reward is not much so the parcel than having an advanced slave for free. If they find out that there was no way, they will expect traps in the future, and savescum every time there can be a potential one. That's what happens with the player that signaled it, that's what would happen with me, and I suspect it would happen for a good portion of players.

Self-fulfilling prophecy, as I know you try to have player not save scum.

the first time you get caught should disabuse you of that. They outright tell you that you are being monitored. You're a slaver, not a spy. Good luck expecting privacy from your employer.

The solution is to tone down how omniscient is your employer, to then go back to how things were before. Or, I'm willing to compromise to "hint before the first necessary failure". But the current situation has to change.

 

[BupoTiling03-Retired]

The code indeed was a mess (and probably still is), I think both Lokplart and I did some refactoring/cleaning up to improve things, but it's just a daunting task to clean it all up, especially since in the end it'd still be QSP which is... shit, like you said.
As for redoing it all in a different engine, that's a lot of work, it would be nice though I'd also be afraid some of JONT's charm would be lost. Even back when I still had free-time to spend on developing games, this would be too much, but given that the game is open-source maybe someone will someday step up to the plate.

Someone has a complete re-write without assets. The key to any game-development like this is the ability to work with OOP. Unreal Engine was chosen in this case, but it's closed-source development (for now?). They stuck with Blueprints, too, so it's easy for non-C/C++ people and cross-platform as well. They've combined a ton of other elements from other games, too, such as Strive for Power. Problem is, perfectionism sucks and a complete lack of actual assets other than templates bites, not to mention any story, all debug text at the moment. Things are extendable with mods (think Ark: Survival Evolved), though. Biggest issue is assets and story, and I think they want to do it all themselves. They have committed to releasing the *project files and assets* AGPL/CC BY-NC-SA or something similar (if even possible) when finally done with a 1.0 release.

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

The “omniscient employer” is canon, since there was no exception to the rep loss. I’m not inclined to contradict that.

The fine is a legacy from Hongfire era. I agree with the addition. Rep increases your income, but losing rep is not enough of a penalty to discourage behavior that the guild wants to discourage.

Increasing the penalty further would make the cost/benefit even less attractive in the late game. Where it is now is a good trade-off in my opinion. The cost is not so high that you can’t make a profit (which would make it almost entirely unattractive), and the margin is better when you’re relatively short on funds.

As to it being a trap, in real life we get hit with surprise fines all the time. Giving a chance to evade detection by actually doing something that could plausibly accomplish that is something we can consider. A candidate for this that comes to mind is wearing the Snake Talisman (“… blocks scanning”).

 

[qwertyu12359]

Increasing the penalty further would make the cost/benefit even less attractive in the late game. Where it is now is a good trade-off in my opinion. The cost is not so high that you can’t make a profit (which would make it almost entirely unattractive), and the margin is better when you’re relatively short on funds.

But you're forgetting the thrill of successfully getting a good slave for free.

The trade-off of how more balanced that made the economy is not worth trapping the player with a "take a risk" button that is necessary to fail unless at early game.

As to it being a trap, in real life we get hit with surprise fines all the time.

Do we, really, get fines that were 100% unavoidable? ^^

Speeding tickets, there are techniques to avoid the fine. It's risky, but that's a gambit.
Tax fraud, risky, but some are doing it just fine and never get caught, even high profile people with monitoring.
Even illegal downloading, that's the best example. There's a risk to get caught that increase with how known the film is. You can get fined, but you still get the movie (same as you get the slave). Now what if the "download torrent" button had a 100% risk to get you fined? There would be no use to it.

So yeah, even real life is more forgiving than this addition. Even if not, a game with "traps that couldn't be have been avoided" are games that suck. I really can't think of a good game which had a virtually unavoidable trap for which people thought "ah the game needed that trap to be as good as it is, removing it would lower the game's quality". There's no excuse to have one, it trumps any economy balance/lore aspect I can think off (both should be adapted to make unavoidable traps not part of the game)

Giving a chance to evade detection by actually doing something that could plausibly accomplish that is something we can consider. A candidate for this that comes to mind is wearing the Snake Talisman (“… blocks scanning”).

But then how could the Vatican be able to scan for pregnant ladies?

And even then, it should not be a hidden requirement, or then it's just the same opaque player-hating game design. But why not, it'd just be a matter of hinting it in the dialogues.

But really what would make the most sense to me is that you take a less extreme approach to the problem. You inferred that the guild hates smuggling to a certain degree, lower that degree. You just need to lower the threshold of ninja smuggling failures which you drastically increased from 25% to 100%. Invoke any excuse for the fine not to happen to a player with a reputation above B+, and give it legitimacy. People in general make their own head cannon; nobody had problem with the inconsistencies of smuggling before. And don't be too afraid to reward the player, especially if they take a gambit...

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

But you're forgetting the thrill of successfully getting a good slave for free.

2000$ minimum. Not free. If you want "free", that's the Fogs (minus medical costs).

The trade-off of how more balanced that made the economy is not worth trapping the player with a "take a risk" button that is necessary to fail unless at early game.

You wanted a clone, you got a clone. Having to pay more for it is just a surprise (the first time) tax.

Do we, really, get fines that were 100% unavoidable? ^^
…
So yeah, even real life is more forgiving than this addition.

My point wasn't that fines are unavoidable in real life. My point was that surprises are a fact of life. The fact that buying clones can result in being caught is foreshadowed by the smuggler's dialogue, so it shouldn't even be a surprise for an attentive player. The surprise is in not knowing exactly what the negative consequence will be if you do get caught.

Even if not, a game with "traps that couldn't be have been avoided" are games that suck. I really can't think of a good game which had a virtually unavoidable trap for which people thought "ah the game needed that trap to be as good as it is, removing it would lower the game's quality". There's no excuse to have one, it trumps any economy balance/lore aspect I can think off (both should be adapted to make unavoidable traps not part of the game)

I don't think this is a trap. You've been warned that there can be a negative side effect if you do something. Is a lit candle a trap if I tell you that touching it might burn you?

If you knowingly proceed with a risky action, shouldn't you be willing to live with the consequences?

If you think that there's a chance of not being caught each time you buy a clone, will you save scum in hopes of being lucky? If you keep being caught, how many times will you keep trying?

As a player, how can you tell the difference between a 100% chance of being caught vs. a 25% chance? Repeatedly being caught (and the message telling you that they are monitoring you) should make you believe that the chance of not being caught (if it exists) is small, but you'd need many attempts (or to look at the code, as has happened here) to be convinced that the chance is zero.

What if the chance were 1%? Would you be okay with a theoretical chance of getting away with it, even if you never happen to be lucky enough?

But then how could the Vatican be able to scan for pregnant ladies?

The slaver isn't the one who is pregnant...

And even then, it should not be a hidden requirement, or then it's just the same opaque player-hating game design. But why not, it'd just be a matter of hinting it in the dialogues.

But really what would make the most sense to me is that you take a less extreme approach to the problem. You inferred that the guild hates smuggling to a certain degree, lower that degree. You just need to lower the threshold of ninja smuggling failures which you drastically increased from 25% to 100%. Invoke any excuse for the fine not to happen to a player with a reputation above B+, and give it legitimacy. People in general make their own head cannon; nobody had problem with the inconsistencies of smuggling before. And don't be too afraid to reward the player, especially if they take a gambit...

The current implementation is still quite rewarding for the player. Perceiving being caught as a barrier to continuing to play is what’s getting in the way here. It’s just the cost of a clone.

 

[qwertyu12359]

You wanted a clone, you got a clone. Having to pay more for it is just a surprise (the first time) tax.

But you made it so there are only bad surprises...

I don't think this is a trap. You've been warned that there can be a negative side effect if you do something. Is a lit candle a trap if I tell you that touching it might burn you?

It's a trap if there's a prize behind touching the candle and there's virtually no way to win it before burning yourself.

Anyway, it's not just what the smuggler says... it's also about the fact that the game hints that it works with a dice roll because it literally does... until one of your stat reaches a certain threshold.

If you knowingly proceed with a risky action, shouldn't you be willing to live with the consequences?

Yeah. IF you get caught.

These consequences shouldn't be necessary.

If you think that there's a chance of not being caught each time you buy a clone, will you save scum in hopes of being lucky?

Maybe, maybe not. It's the player's business whether he wants to cheat by savescuming. If you think about "the savescummer" as a player to whom you should make the game challenging... You are missing the point of why he would savescumm in the first place ^^ Someone savescumm when he wants to opt out of the challenge.

Me I would have done like the user who complained, savescumming only to find out if I had a fair shot to begin with.

As a player, how can you tell the difference between a 100% chance of being caught vs. a 25% chance?

By being persistant and trying several times.

Repeatedly being caught (and the message telling you that they are monitoring you) should make you believe that the chance of not being caught (if it exists) is small, but you'd need many attempts to be convinced that the chance is zero. What if the chance were 1%? Would you be okay with a theoretical chance of getting away with it, even if you never happen to be lucky enough?

Yes it's hard to tell from a player point of view. However, there are ways to find out, and as soon it's the case, he's going to pester at unfairness, rightfully.

It's like in Pokemon. Usually you have barely 1% chances to catch some pokemon depending on your pokeball. It can be frustrating to throw 100 at a Pokemon, but as a player you will continue because your gameplay experience tells you there's still a meager chance. Maybe if it doesn't work for long enough you're going to look on internet, or savescum just to find out. But it's fine. Now if the game let you use all your Pokeball even though there was 0 chance for a catch, the game would be scummy and people would hate it.

1% would be infinitely better than the current 0%. I wouldn't be totally satisfied, I'd be more in favor of 25% chances, decreasing to 5% at max rep.

The slaver isn't the one who is pregnant...

Then I guess that could work.

If you want to ninja smuggle successfully, you need to be either a nobody, or have a sacred artifact which prevents getting spied on easily.

A little hint or two from the smuggler of how reputation impacts smuggling. Then it'll be up to people to pay attention to the description of the artifact to know it's useful for smuggling.

Perceiving being caught as a barrier to continuing to play is what’s getting in the way here. It’s just the cost of a clone.

I mostly care about not putting what I several times called "scummy game design". It's not about the cost, it's about leading the player to a necessary losing outcome, no matter how small, I don't like that.

We kind of got rid of that with the changes to charriot races. Thank God ^^