No... they just have to secure their shops to the environment around them. People in bad neighborhoods put bars on their windows because they don't want their stuff stolen. Shopkeepers who enjoy their stuff drop eye and mono's.

Insurance is like gambling, if you make the wrong choice, I break your thumbs.

Again with trying to compare Lusternia to real life.

And we still haven't heard a reason as to why hard coding anti-theft is a bad thing, other than "the shop owner should be careful."

eye sigil. Not that hard. seriously.

The default assumption should be in favor of latitude and liberty (and things that free up coding resources for noble pursuits like the nerfing of Pyromancy, the buffing of Starhymn, and the release of four new guilds). The burden of proof is on the other side.

FREEEEEEEDOOOOOOOM

that would be the reason for the and the malaproprism comment

What? Why? Changing stockrooms a tiny bit couldn't take much longer than it took them to change the way that rift contents are displayed. The 'burden of proof' isn't on anyone, Estarra asked for our opinions and we're giving them.

Except that Estarra's solution appears to take almost no coding resources, so that argument's out.

And our player base has shown time and time again that "latitude" and "liberty" in terms of mechanics is not always that great an idea.

Latitude and liberty are two things our playerbase has shown, time and time again, it is not mature enough to handle. Leave even one opening for abuse and you can be certain that people will be clamoring to take advantage. I say, stop giving them the opportunity.

The default should be for latitude and liberty. There's no need to fix that which is not broken. I'm not saying that there's any particularly huge burden of proof! Shop security is a non-issue as it stands, and when items are removed from a shop through non-exploitive, non-bug means, then the thief has earned a reward. All forms of theft are rare because of the barriers between a thief and his booty. As long as you're not off running around robbing novices or scamming people out of unusually scarce goods (like credits, manses, guild/city ranks, etc.), bravery and creativity ought to have its reward.

By "non-issue," I think you missed someone heartstopping with lichseed in multiple aethershops just the other day. It is clearly not a "non-issue." I mean, Estarra even made a thread because it is an issue! We're just being asked to debate the pros and cons and whether shop-theft is a good or bad thing (should be changed or no).

And no, I do not think that a thief should be rewarded. We can just disagree there, but both the "non-issue" and "resources" arguments are non-starters I think.

And that only works because someone didn't drop 1800 gold on the local enchanter for three flames, one eye, one key, and one monolith. Man, that totally explains why no one was interested in buying shop insurance for 100 gold.

I had a flamed mono/key outside the shop, and flamed mono/key/hand/eye inside the shop...Still got robbed and I wasn't on when it happened. My alias to go in/out of the shop and closing doors (even with sigils there) ingrained right into the mapper.

And the question is: Should they have to buy the sigils? If such sigils permanently stop it in most shops, occasionally get screwed up by getting put up for sale in others, and have the rare handful where they aren't there... why are they requirements again?

It's not like they decay, so the ones that do have them are permanently protected. Why shouldn't they all be, really? It's not funding huge amounts of sigil sales.

Again, what does it add to the game? Except the ability to say, "Hey, you suck, learn to shopkeep" to the poor bloke who's just had his/her shop cleared out?

I don't see shop theft differently than theft from a character. Both deprive people of their worldly possessions. In the case of character theft, you have a real chance to render someone completely broke, not this imaginary chance that exists with shops. If I were going to pick the greater crime, it would be taking someone's weapons, armor, and backpack.

"But," the masses cry, "they could have used the bank! They could have had selfishness! Basic triggers!" And they'd be right. We don't ban theft from characters, though, and it's not even a question of what theft adds to the game as much as it is what it takes away from player strategies and the utility derived from skills.

An average shopkeeper who loses everything in a store loses proportionately less than an average person who loses his pack. Without gold dropping on death, banks became very overrated and, while I don't have the actual numbers, I would imagine very underused. There's no similar outcry to remove theft in general from the game, though, and I think there's a real consensus that thieves are bastards but thievery doesn't need to be banned on an OOC or mechanical level.

What annoys me is that the victim can't do anything after the theft has occurred, besides maybe putting a bounty on the thief or getting a group of people to jump him/her (which still won't bring satisfaction because being robbed doesn't equate to being killed, ironically)

In any case, I can't find a good reason to defend theft in this game. It's kind of selfish and arrogant.

We're not defending theft. We're saying Estarra shouldn't have to hold your hand if you own a shop.

Now, assuming this is true and Kharaen actually means 'stockroom' instead of shop, this seems to blow the 'just buy sigils' argument apart. If sigils are broken, then those should be fixed before anything happens insofar as enhancing shop security.

Personally, I'd like to see more security for reasons mentioned already.

Doesn't necessarily mean sigils are broken. Thief could have had a key. Easy to imagine several scenarios there.