I'll keep this short since it's a pretty basic suggestion. I may be wrong, but I'd always perceived MUCs as a way to get people interacting, to get them RPing and to engage them a little more than the regular crimes.

However, when it comes to actually doing the MUCs, from my experiences, it's mostly beneficial to do them with 2 people, rather than 4-5. This is because the success sum seems to remain pretty static, but with the spoils being split between 2-3 more people.

I'd like to see the payouts increased beyond the norm for larger MUC parties, relative to 2-man jobs.

Apart from anything else, it actually takes more effort to coordinate an MUC with 5 people than it does for a quick 2-man job, so I feel people should be rewarded for this (even if the rewards aren't an even split....maybe the starter gets a bigger cut for "planning" or whatever). I've seen myself sitting for 30-45 minutes waiting on people's timers to run out (just as someone else clicks), all for the sake of getting people involved. Really though, the end reward for that is less than if I'd just kept quiet and done a 2-man. It doesn't seem right.

Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, I couldn't see it.

It depends on luck (From what I can tell). As of late however I do seem to be making more with 3 people than 2. It balances out... sometimes.

I must say adding a high payout (Even an extra 40K) to larger parties would be very nice...along with some stability in MUCs.

Yeah, I mean, I know the payouts vary, but I've seen me get 450k with 2 people and 450k with 5 people. That's not a big issue, but it might encourage people to go for bigger numbers if it's worthwhile.

I have to agree with this.

We regularly try to promote as many people to be involved in a MUC as possible (because it is an obvious way of some basic interaction) but the practicalities of the situation mean you may as well not bother.

The more people you have on a job then the smaller the cut, I understand that principle. But the more people on a job, the more you can heist as well. In reality you wouldn't bring 4-5 people along for a 2 man job, perhaps then we could have MUCs that require a set amount of people to perform them?

2 for the easiest, then 3, then 4 and so on. Obviously the payout would have to be similarly scaled to make it worthwhile, but this would seem to make more sense.

~G~rin.

Here's something else to throw in:

The sums are static irrespective of rank too.  I can do a two man MUC with a Goomba and make a fortune.  I do one with a Don and the amount earned is lot smaller.

Basically, the functionality 'as is' drives folk towards doing 2 man MUCs with lower ranks.  If there's bigger payouts for more people (which I totally agree with btw), could we also have it calculated on the 'collective' rank of the party?

However, the higher payout for those that out rank fits with RP. For a Don to go out on a job with a Made man for example he is going to want the lion share of the earnings.

However, I do agree Boaby's suggestion will be superb if implemented.

I understand and agree that the split of the total sum should be done by rank.  I'm talking about overall total though.

Here's two examples:

I can do a MUC with a Don, a GF and another Consig.  This is in the spirit of the 'interaction' aim.  We make $400k total and split it pretty much $100k.  Not bad.

I do another MUC with a Goomba.  We make $400k and I make $300k with the Goomba getting $100k.

Therefore the incentive is to do a two-man MUC with a lower rank.

Any coder input on this? I still think this needs addressed.