Chénier, what do you think about the idea of having low-risk options have a much higher fail rate, but also much lower capture chance?
I think it'd be fair. Don't they have the choice to play it safe? Imo, they could be playin' it a little more safe, if you know what I mean, on some missions.
Though to think of it, isn't part of the problem the fact that *all* infiltrator actions can cause bans? On one side, one can loot, initiate takeovers, and kill in battle, but will never be able to be banned. On the other, one can simply play around with road signs and then get banned for life, risking death on his next capture. Seems a little unjust, no? Maybe having it so that infils caught cannot be banned unless they were caught red-handed, such as with a bloody knife in their hands or purses full of gold, while being caught sneaking around not being enough would be a better alternative. After all, isn't plausible deniability the thing we are going for with infils nowadays? They should be able to plausibly deny their way out of a ban, then, should they not?
