I think you should get a High percentage. Maybe 15-20%...

BUT, there has to be a CASH LIMIT on how much you can get.

Say the limit is 1 Million dollars.. so even if you wack someone with 100mil on them, you just get 1 million. 

Because what you wanna think is, first of all how much someone is gonna really be able to carry on their person.. Then the second is.. how long you're gonna spend muddling around after you kill someone when you have to worry about cops and other enemies at the moment...

I think 20% would be okay - with a reasonable cap on how much you can take...

Swapfail. Well, I agree with that handsome and delightful Tricky_Dick fellow.. whoever he is..

"I like seeing people lose money during wars."

They will still lose money during wars. But more often then not, they will be transfering money. Like stated before, there is more money in someone's bank then their should be on hand. Seems like the brightest idea to keep keep money in there anyway.

"I just don't think there should be a cash reward on killing"

There already is a featue like this, it is called the hit list. Because.... this is the.... MAFIA!!!

"Would people want to pick up some money off of BGs when they shoot them too?"

Noooo, just real life accounts. This would only come into effect when you shoot an Active account, nothing else. BGs don't even carry that much cash (As you can tell from PPing them.

"If this feature was to be implemented, it would kinda make graverobbing pointless."

As stated earlier, people only do grave robbing for the achievements, not the actual funding! Also, when you seach pockets, you take only a percentage, it will still leave money left over to be grave robbed. Not to count that you can't even use this effect after Wise Guy! What the hell do Made Men plus have to do with this feature? Nothing.

Just for perspective, there is $378,987,823 in onhand cash right now floating in the game.

Reply by: Squishy at Jan 18, '13 17:34

Total Available Cash In Game: $1,920,000,000

People don't put money in their bank? HAH. Cassi, had the best idea I have heard on it.

I don't know that I would even go as high as 20%. If someone has 3 mil on hand during a war, which is absolutely feasible, that would mean you'd net 600k. I'm thinking on a much smaller scale here.

Reply by: PC-Cassiopeia at Jan 18, '13 20:24

Or if you think of it on a realistic value, you could replace this with being jailed.

I certainly think there should be some kind of risk if you are going to choose to take the time to search someones pockets after killing them. A risk for a small reward, like everything else in life.

Right, just for some perspective (and to get my head around this better), there is $1,930,000,000 total cash in game (in banks and on hand) and $378,987,823 of that is on hand. So $1,551,012,177 is sitting in banks.

Just using some very crude figures here, let's say that money is roughly evenly distributed across the site and half the site was wiped out during a war. That sounds like a pretty drastic war to me, where you would see if this game change would have a significant effect or not. Just note, if this change was actually in place, I'm betting people would be holding a lot less cash on hand (i.e. it would be less than $378m total), but for the sake of using greater numbers to really see, let's just pretend that during this site war where half the site died, there was still $378m on hand.

A modest figure for a payout (to me) is 20%, so I'll work with that just as a starting point. If half the site dies (again, assuming roughly even distribution of wealth), half of the bank monies would be removed from the game ($775,506,089) and 20% of half of the money on hand would be retained by the winning hitters ($189,493,912 money on hand counting only the people who are dying (half the site), which means $37,898,783 total is received by the winning hitters during the war).

So, out of a potential $965,000,000 (half total game cash) to be removed by half the site dying, $927,101,217 is still removed (via 100% of bank accounts and 80% of on game cash for half the site being lost) and $37,898,783 is retained by surviving hitters through this game change (going on a modest percentage of 20% being pocketed from each kill).

Just for some perspective, the amount retained (37.9m) is just under 4% of what would otherwise be lost without this (965m) game change. I still don't see how that counteracts the economy deflating aspect of a war. Not to mention you still get the reduced earning capacity for the following 1-2 months.

These are crude figures though. It assumes even distribution of wealth, but it also assumes the hitters who profit from this don't end up dying during the war themselves. We've also assumed that even with this game change, people are silly enough to still keep such large amounts on hand, knowing their killer will be profiting from their death (which I'm sure people would try to avoid.. which is more realistic.. which is just one part of how this suggestion adds more depth, IMO).

I think I've said my piece on this now - I don't think it's going to botch the game economy.

Regarding saying graverobbing is already a crude equivalent of this feature: I don't agree - the amounts received in graverobbing are definitely not aligned very well with what people had on hand when they died (in my experience), the feature only works for people below Made Man, and it's not an instantaneous pocket swipe, it's a graverob 24 hours later (i.e. different in terms of realism and application). Graverob also doesn't add the same depth of risk/reward that this game change might (see my posts on page 1, no point reiterating).

Regarding asking if this includes receiving money for BG shots too: I'd say no. The original game suggestion was to do with receiving players on hand game cash when they are killed (perhaps it was extended to CA's and Durdens too, but I think the intention was for player accounts mainly), so I don't see why BGs would be giving out money too.

That's my essay. Thanks for reading <3

As Vazzi said,

"$37,898,783 is retained by surviving hitters through this game change (going on a modest percentage of 20% being pocketed from each kill)."

To your argument Spike, you think this money will be a game changer or flood the site, or simply won't just go away. 37 million isn't going to much for you honestly. One shooter isn't going to be getting the majority of this money either, you will have other shooters taking shots, and searching pockets if they like. This money gets distributed to the shooters, not always just the top gun or CL.

Think of the small people Spike, the small people.

Claps for Vaticus

In a nutshell, thats it. You've echoed exactly what I was going to say after reading through all the other pages.

I think this feature has promise, however, going back to the comments earlier I disagree that it should be linked to the Gun strength. Just because you can fire a gun, doesn't mean your good at then robbing folk. After shooting someone in the street your going to have to act fast to get your ass outta there, so in order to rob them you'd need a bit of skill in that department.

Now thats just a side comment really, as I don't feel the idea itself would actually be done based on either skills, I would presume it would work as a % chance that you get the money, or you don't. I also agree with Cassi in that it would need to have a Cap. Though personally I would like to see the cap at the larger scale, certainly a heck of a lot larger than my esteemed colleague Spike was looking for.

And on that note I actually do like the idea of needing to purchase the chance via a Credit, as usual the credit period for such a perk could be 30 days. I would imagine we'd see a small spike in the use of credits prior to any takedowns as people would perhaps utilise this kind of perk just as they would the attack perk.

I'm also a firm believer that this would have very little, if any, bearing on the economy as a whole. Look around you folks, do you see many people displaying Rich or Extremely Rich status? I'd hazard many of the player base currently hold more than 10 million in their bank accounts, after all its the safest place for your cash. I also disagree somewhat on the notion that all cash is on hand during wars incase of private flights - you have a 1hr window where a private flight is required, even then private flying is seldom required in the common war, unless the fight is particularly large and drawn out.

All in all, i'm very much in favour of this idea. I look forward to hearing more opinions on it though and seeing how other users feel about it.

The small people aren't going to be shooting the people carrying the real money :P

I guess I'm just conservative on changing things concerning wack and redistribution of wealth, even in that small fraction. The original suggestions were asking for more money, and I was arguing that level of redistribution of wealth so no need to be snippy, Zero. 

It seems pointless to me expecially if it's just a small amount as you say (I assure you the statistics during a war are very different). I've already made my decision on it. I do think work needs to be done on graverobbing though and would like to see a new suggestion thread about that if anyone has ideas.

I can assure you Spike, there was no attempt to be snippy.

Warrior, I will give it to you, you are right. Just because you can't shoot a gun doesn't mean you aren't great at getting in someone's pockets clean. Might want to even make it about PP ability, just an idea, not really a favorite of it.

Spike, yes a percentage of the overall held would be nice in my eyes. I am willing to see this change implicated though and am willing to give into a few things here and there. If that means less money, so be it, but it is still a nice touch to an rpg mafia game. I will agree with you, I don't like major changes that usually have an effect on wacking, bgs, or money in the game. I haven't liked the previous changes and my viewpoint on that still stands. However, this idea isn't one that goes to such a drastic level.

Every little bit of money helps.. When you spawn an MIA and get 300k for taking out the trash you feel a little bit of joy for being 300k richer. Getting a lump some like that would do the same in this effect. Still leaves grave robbing in the mix, as there will be some money left over on the person. If the person is holding 500k, they will get a lesser percentage of the capped money of the shot.

Graverobbing aside, this idea has nothing to do with that if people that are dead, still have money on hand because a shot doesn't take the full pocket amount.

What we really need is like everyone has been saying, money on hand during a war/takedown. Or when they die, average user money on hand.

It's a pretty interesting idea. I'm not really much of a fan of cash limits, myself, as it puts an artificial limit on what someone could successfully pilfer. (I have the same thoughts with pickpocketing, but I digress) As Vaticus has stated, a very small portion of the "old" money survives out of the roughly 95-96% of cash that's ostensibly destroyed through a war, and I'd reckon to guess that most of the money that's being redistributed would be going towards rebuilding/purchasing HQ's to house the usual influx of newcomers after a war.

This isn't money put into the game Izzy, just money that is there. Those other things are just increasing percentages, not this change altogether.

I will admit, way to separate the difference :p
Those suck, as you said, this one is a neat feature.

Squishy, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that we shouldn't automatically look for ways to make this a cash neutral feature just yet.

Users (and by users, I mean people outside of crew management) are already limping along trying to afford credits that are more expensive than any time in history while they're receiving less in actual profits. Even in the event that they can manage to afford a CA, they're expected to tribute on top of what they're already being taxed {and considering we just passed a suggestion to let crewleaders now tax people individually, I don't see that boding well for people unless they're one of the few that forfeits their life savings and an arm to get on a crewleader's good side in the hopes for a small break} at in addition to trying to keep purchases current on toolbars, the occasional crackdown, and whatever perk they may think is worth the extra expenditure.

What that all means to say, is that continuing the mentality that we need to consistently remove revenue or keep it neutral will eventually (if it hasn't already) put a large burden on users who lack the ability to invest as much time as their counterparts. We had an issue with inflation and massive inflows of money years ago. Today, we have a cap on bodyguards along with a pricing structure that favors higher ranked players, and a landscape that has seen the removal of one of our cities along with an already existing cut in the maximum price drugs can achieve. The landscape between back then, when we actually had an issue with money, and now, is markedly different.

Every feature we introduce that we end up tinkering with to offset or remove cash from is going to affect well-off players much less than it does for the casual players. This feature wouldn't be much different if you're offsetting the cash from another place (even if, in the best scenario, it'd be from wackers) - large accounts that are going to most likely have the biggest amounts of cash on hand are going to be killed by what are more than likely already very, very, invested and wealthy players. With that said, I think it's time we start to consider who these cuts will eventually hit the most if we continue down the path of keeping every feature introduced either cash-destructive, or revenue neutral.

I just want to pose one question really, does it actually make RP sense, would you stand there in the middle of a street that is occupied by many others, shoot a man/women dead then rifle through their pockets?

I know i wouldnt. Just a thought.

Who said it was a shot in the middle of streets :)
From am rp aspect, you can shoot them in a back alley, apartment, home, place of business.

That is the beauty of rp, you make the story. If you don't search the pockets then the event didnt occur. It isn't specified where you killed them so that is your imagination.

Fred's point is true... I mean most of our hits are meant to be quick... and we're being "witnessed" doing it... Bit low of a person to go through some dead guys pockets in front of everyone... kinda why you can't graverob after you're made. 

As for Squishy's point and then ralph's, it just goes to show how much of this comes down to the economics of the game. My point before about higher ranked players shooting the ones with more money on hand touches on this further. The money won't be going to the lower ranks, who don't have funds, and that's where it should be going. We need to figure out something for them, and that's why I was suggesting something for graverobbing... perhaps raising the cap on that just a little bit more. I don't know.

Spike, you do know. You are totally against this idea and have been from the very beginning. You praise every single point that brings this idea down and don't open up to what the others think about the idea but a bit that Vazzi had to say.

Graverobbing has absolutely nothing to do with this idea and has nothing to do with that feature of the game. Especially if there is money left over to rob. People are more interested in shooting then that feature. There isn't anyone interested in improving that, but there is a suggestion of this instead. Please try and concentrate on this feature and improve the grave robbing in another thread. Many ideas get passed these days, drastic ones at that, so there is time to improve that feature. This one, needs looked at without the grave robbing as an excuse. It has nothing to do with this. Way different aspects of the game.


Do you honestly see nothing positive or interesting from this?

I admitted that I was totally against it, and it should seem as such from my first statement. I do not so much praise negative points, but I refer to them and then refer back to my own previous points about it. That is the art of arguing, building up a thesis against something, using examples. I don't really have much else to say concerning all of this. I do however see this thread being used to help build onto a feature that's already in place, and though you say that there isn't anyone interested in improving that, people within this thread have stated that they have issues with grave robbing being "pointless." It has something to do with it because they both concern dealing with money after a person has died. I would like them not to have that opinion of it. Shooting should be limited to that "Success," and nothing more... perhaps that person scrounging up some money 24 hours later. I have concentrated plenty on this feature and displayed my argument. Vaticus made several points that were well thought out, but I think this needs to be looked at with a wider scope. One other thing to mention, the statistics we looked at are statistics right now, during peacetime. I would be more curious to see what they looked like when people were in a scramble during a war because I would expect way more cash on hand. 

I find this thread interesting because it's a not a simple topic to argue. I want to see where it leads, and if any other ideas might stem from it. I see something positive in how people are starting to consider the game's economy more, but in the idea itself, no, I think it would be a bad addition to the game... etc etc. 

Quick suggestion RE taking money from elsewhere without impacting the little guys.

How about if the amount you lift is based on your net worth? What I mean is a Earner in the Capone family, JoeyNoodles kills a Capo who happens to have 2 million in his pocket. As Joey has $2,589 on hand, $125,000 in the bank, and only 1 BG then he would lift more cash, money is important to him.

On the other side, GF JimmyJoe kills GF FrankiePene. Frankie has $8 million in his pocket as he was about to pay his 250 BGS. JimmyJoe has $1 million in his pocket, $40 million in the bank and 250 BGs of his own. JimmyJoe takes the shot and moves on. He'll not risk his high end lifestyle by going to Jail after people witness him going through the dead man's pockets.

Would we really need to drastically offset someone pulling 50-100k off someone who they shot. That sounds a bit over the top to me for a very small amount of money changing hands. What would be the difference if they sent the money off before they died? It's money already in the game, basically the same as a mug, which doesn't need to be offset.