My problem with this suggestion is that it's not realistic. By the time your gun ability is evolved enough to be able to kill living accounts, you're not simple thugs anymore but mobsters. Look at any mob movie and you'll see the executions depicted: they're quick, usually a shot to the head or a garrote, and the murderer quickly leaves the scene to prevent being spotted. There's no time to rummage through the dead man's pockets.

If your taking so much realism into view like that Padrino, do we really consider mobsters to have upwards of 1 million dollars in their pocket? Dont know about you, but my pockets aren't deep enough for that.

Its role play. Although the term pocket is what we stick with, the deceased could easily have been carrying a case of money from when he was last at the bank, after all thats what we do we make a withdrawal from the bank. So its easy enough to suggest the shooter picks up the case after taking out the target.

I don't see any reason for realism to be a prevention for this idea.

Because gangster movies are the high of realism?

We also have people with 200+ BG's... (Unrealistic)

We also have almost every murder being witnessed (Unrealistic)

We have people casually pickpocketing each other. (Unrealistic)

We rob what 100, 200 7-11's a day? (Unrealistic)

If you don't like the idea, that's cool but to shoot it down for lacking realism is a bit cheap.

Not every kill, especially not ones performed by hitmen will be in the middle of a busy street at lunch time with 1000 people watching... If you are going to take to kill someone and fit them for cement shoes, you can be damn sure if they have $1,000,000 on hand people are going to be taking that from them before throwing them in the ocean.

The exact mechanics need to be refined, but I stand by the suggestion

Well, I've made my mind up that I feel the idea is good. Hopefully we'll have some more constructive thoughts on it though.

I hesitate to sponsor this based upon what Squishy has stated...

While I love the idea - Squishy is right, we have a delicate balance within the game - financially. Can we please get some real statistics about how much is lost on average when people die?

If we can't come to some agreement on balancing this maybe we could work the math out in some other way?

Here's what I would suggest:

1. You wouldn't bother searching their pockets if they don't have much in them. So I would propose that if someone is holding 1mil or less - you don't get a nickel. (this cuts down drastically on the FREQUENCY of getting money from a kill.

2. You wouldn't be thorough in your search - because you just commited a murder. So you would only get 10-15% of what is on them. (decreasing the amount taken per event)

3. You wouldn't want to spend a lot of TIME to search, therefore there should be a cap on how much you could take. Let's say the cap is 500,000. Decreasing the MAX amount you could take per event.

4. Of course - excluding all NPC/RIA/MIA

5. (Just an afterthought) Maybe we could do this only for people that you kill that are offline? Think about it, if you're attempting to kill someone who could actively try to stop you - yell, scream, fight back, call the cops/his friends/the neighbors then you won't be sticking around to go through his pockets.,. Killing a 'sleeping' mobster? Hell, run his pockets.

So what you have when you're left is that you only get money when someone dies with 1mil+ on hand (generally rare IMHO) Then, you only get 10-15% of that so you would get around 100,000 from someone that had one million. Then - you can cap it out at 500k (which would require someone to have 5mil on them) So, when you think about it, you're just getting a reward for killing a RICH person, and the reward does not really stack up to the amount of effort needed to slay the person - and still removes a very large sum from the game in a general sense. 

I think that is a reasonable way to go forward (although the numbers have room for fudging)

But, I am neither an economist nor a person that has the statistics about this type of thing (that being amount of money lost per death). So, I would love to hear from people from those categories.

On another note - and I know I will sound like a broken record but... This balance of cash thing always seems to be a huge problem!! Then when suggestions come about being able to buy 'things' or 'privileges' that make your life easier with game currency - most people hollar at the top of their lungs about 'swiping a credit card'. Well folks if you want money to STAY/COME IN to the game you have to find ways for money to GO OUT of the game! Maybe we should come up with a valuable compromise that would allow everyone to get what they want! Which is: A balanced and stable economy, and more features and ways to go about getting/keeping/finding money. {now I know why congress doesn't get anything done} 

In fewer words - You have to balance the incoming cash with the outgoing - or else you end up with an unbalanced economy - leading to a shit game and loads of social problems.

The first thing I will say about this is that I do not have a head for economics either, so until someone can come to the table with solid facts and figures about exactly how this would have a negative impact on game economy, I will reserve judgement on the finer points.

Nonetheless, this is a sterling idea. It has been mentioned quite a few times that it could focus on small, capped amounts of money. As Cassi said, it is very similar to a mug and as such, we don't appear to be quarreling over how those affect the game. Also, it is true that very few people walk around with large sums of money in their pockets; the potential loot, overall, wouldn't amount to a catastrophic amount.

This suggestion, for me, would help some non-wackers to get into the swing of building a gun because there is more incentive at play. That, in turn, makes the game more interesting. Things that make the game more interesting usually improve the game overall. Pretty simple.

I'm not going to get bogged down with the whole RP, is-it-realistic-to-go-through-a-corpse's-pockets detail. In this case, realism does not apply and Epsilon pointed out some very viable examples of why this is. We are fictional criminals. Of course we're going to half inch a little something from one of our victims if it's possible, it just makes the kill that little bit sweeter.

I can see that there are aspects of this that need to be finely tuned in order to maintain the game economy, but I would wager that we focus on that and try to take it somewhere positive. This suggestion has great potential, there's plenty of scope for the logistics to be figured out and let's face it, the majority of the user base would thoroughly enjoy it. That is why we're here - to help pass improvements for the game that enrich the user base experience and keep them playing. We are not politicians, we're members of a player commission. Let's have a little more emphasis on the very thing that keeps MR going. Without the players, there is no economy.

I feel this debate is becoming obscured by technicalities that I'm sure are quite easily overcome. I'm sponsoring the suggestion on the premise that we do include some form of capping and a small percentage - say for example, 15% of on hand cash OR 100k, whichever is the lower. I would also suggest that there is a chance, rather than guaranteed success, of raiding a victim's pockets and finding the goods, pretty much like a perk.

well if you are comming from a rp point of view stleathy people wouldn't take any because that's not stleathy. Hitmen wouldn't take any because that's not your mo. Only the types that like to get their hands dirty would take the money.

I am with Lola on the economics thing. I really don't see how a small percentage of cash already in the game is going to effect the game's economy as drastically as having to have to offset it.

On that note, I think it would be fair to set it so that you don't get cash every single time. And as I've repeated several times over, no one needs to get rich off of this. Just a very small percentage of someone's cash on hand is more than plenty. I think it will give more incentive to work at being a hitter, as Lola suggested.

I'm going to sponsor this as I feel it would be a worthwhile and interesting addition to the game.

{Economics is what everything comes down to, and until you understand how much this does affect the economy then it doesn't really make sense for anyone to support it. Cassi, people are not interested in that small of a percentage really. People want more money. It doesn't give more of an incentive to be a hitter if the percentage is that low. It's not about getting rich, but if a person isn't getting anywhere near... half the value of a credit... what's the point? Moreover, offsetting the cash as we've been suggesting is crucial. The economy of the game is kinda fucked right now. Credits need to be lowered in some way, and I assure you their price isn't based on the population being poor. It's just simple hoarding which is fine. However, when considering that the main goal is for IG cash to transfer over to credits (instead of someone buying some)... I don't think this idea will help that much. I think that RP is also something that shouldn't be ignored, but to each his or her own.}

{I really don't think you should tell me I shouldn't sponsor something just because no one is actually explaining why it's detrimental to the game. Is it not their job to try to sway me by using the knowledge to explain their side fully? Until someone gives clear reasons on why or how it would affect the economy, it is my choice and my right to support this, correct?}

{Correction: It doesn't make sense "to me" that anyone would sponsor it without the economic information. In other words, I wouldn't sponsor this without that information as it seems to be key to it all... I wasn't saying that you shouldn't, as that is in fact your choice and right, and you have an argument for liking it.}

{The opportunity to supply the information has been there. No one has given me a concrete reason why I shouldn't sponsor it, only throwing out, what looks to me like only something to keep people from supporting as no facts are given to back it up. Why should I wait to sponsor it for information that may never turn up?}

{Because it'll make things much more complicated later when trying to work this out if it gets through the voting stage and we have to figure out how to implement it. We have a lot on our plate so it's not like we need to rush this.}

{Who's rushing? My sponsorship didn't push this through. Which by the way... I've asked people to slow before and have been told I'm silly for doing that. Why now am I being asked to slow down?}

{I've never told you to slow down before. Was just pointing out why this thing needs to be taken slowly... in general. Don't wanna have a bandwagon effect. etc}

{Introducing any feature into the game that doesn't have an offsetting effect will cause inflation - even this one. A small amount of inflation in general is healthy for an economy as long as it isn't runaway, and considering there's a ceiling for credits, it would probably help to introduce a small amount. Offsetting or reducing the amount of money in an economy causes either stagnation or deflation - neither of which are healthy in the long term.}

{I'm still liking this idea, i'm very pleased that others are willing to give it a chance too. I do agree there is no rush for this to go through but just because something gets sponsored, it doesn't mean that it immediately gets voted on and sent to Squishy. We can take as much time as required to sort out pertinent facts on this if it makes it to PC. }