PDA

View Full Version : Get rid of the 20% black hole for robbed buildings



Burn
05-10-2012, 03:57 AM
Currently when one of your buildings gets robbed the Robber takes 20% per hit - 2 hits max*.

So they can steal 40%, but you can still only collect 40%, because 20% just disappears into a Black Hole.

I can see no logical reason for this 20% Black Hole loss, to my mind it serves no purpose in game at all.

If it was gone, and became a simple 40/60 split, people might be a bit less likely to lose their sanity and delete things, people might be a bit more casual about synching/collecting, and overall the stress levels regarding collections could be diminished greatly.

End result of this increased relaxation? The game would become less 'tight', probably more things to rob, more opportunities for robbers, less pain for the robbed = more happiness, less anxiety = everyone wins.

Thoughts anyone?

Maybe you like the discipline that this extra 20% loss puts on you collecting on time?

Maybe the pain and anxiety are what makes the game what it is, and losing it would diminish the games overall appeal?

How about if the deletion of the Black Hole was a prize for one of the Event items?


*Yes I know you can get a third $1 hit on some junk buildings, shut up and stop being so pedantic :p

Feng1234
05-10-2012, 04:09 AM
Currently when one of your buildings gets robbed the Robber takes 20% per hit - 2 hits max*.

So they can steal 40%, but you can still only collect 40%, because 20% just disappears into a Black Hole.

I can see no logical reason for this 20% Black Hole loss, to my mind it serves no purpose in game at all.

If it was gone, and became a simple 40/60 split, people might be a bit less likely to lose their sanity and delete things, people might be a bit more casual about synching/collecting, and overall the stress levels regarding collections could be diminished greatly.

End result of this increased relaxation? The game would become less 'tight', probably more things to rob, more opportunities for robbers, less pain for the robbed = more happiness, less anxiety = everyone wins.

Thoughts anyone?

Maybe you like the discipline that this extra 20% loss puts on you collecting on time?

Maybe the pain and anxiety are what makes the game what it is, and losing it would diminish the games overall appeal?

How about if the deletion of the Black Hole was a prize for one of the Event items?


*Yes I know you can get a third $1 hit on some junk buildings, shut up and stop being so pedantic.

Agreed, great suggestion with great value.

AppleMacGuy
05-10-2012, 04:27 AM
How about if the deletion of the Black Hole was a prize for one of the Event items?

I think we all know that this is exactly the intended purpose of the current 20% black hole :cool:

Spartacus
05-10-2012, 04:37 AM
Currently when one of your buildings gets robbed the Robber takes 20% per hit - 2 hits max*.

So they can steal 40%, but you can still only collect 40%, because 20% just disappears into a Black Hole.

I can see no logical reason for this 20% Black Hole loss, to my mind it serves no purpose in game at all.

If it was gone, and became a simple 40/60 split, people might be a bit less likely to lose their sanity and delete things, people might be a bit more casual about synching/collecting, and overall the stress levels regarding collections could be diminished greatly.

End result of this increased relaxation? The game would become less 'tight', probably more things to rob, more opportunities for robbers, less pain for the robbed = more happiness, less anxiety = everyone wins.

Thoughts anyone?

Maybe you like the discipline that this extra 20% loss puts on you collecting on time?

Maybe the pain and anxiety are what makes the game what it is, and losing it would diminish the games overall appeal?

How about if the deletion of the Black Hole was a prize for one of the Event items?


*Yes I know you can get a third $1 hit on some junk buildings, shut up and stop being so pedantic :p

I like this idea.


I think we all know that this is exactly the intended purpose of the current 20% black hole :cool:

I like the way you think!

Luciferianism
05-10-2012, 05:15 AM
I dislike the idea for two reasons.
1) People would have more money, game would be shorter and easier. Very much so.
2) It would be less hilarious to rob people I hate.

Fig Oni
05-10-2012, 05:18 AM
@Burn

Already thought of the 20% black hole and the reason is simple.
First when a building gets robbed it need to get repaired and the insurance premium goes higher, so the 20% seems fair to me.

Feng1234
05-10-2012, 05:25 AM
We're talking about fake money here lol. How about reducing those premiums to even 5 or 10%?

AppleMacGuy
05-10-2012, 05:27 AM
1) People would have more money, game would be shorter and easier. Very much so.

So what? How's that any different to the purpose of most of the event items so far?

Dr Girlfriend
05-10-2012, 05:48 AM
Is it possible that 20% goes into some sort of "escrow account"?

Very often, I'll rob a building and get one full (not $1) take and then the "already looted" pop-up. Often on buildings that it would make no sense at all for the previous thief to leave that money there. I've been thinking that someone got the initial 40% percent, and then some amount of time passed allowing me to come and grab that mysterious 20%.

Fig Oni
05-10-2012, 06:09 AM
We're talking about fake money here lol. How about reducing those premiums to even 5 or 10%?

LOL, Like it's not a fake robbery.
So I'm in the fake world get in it.

Feng1234
05-10-2012, 06:15 AM
LOL, Like it's not a fake robbery.
So I'm in the fake world get in it.

I am but your world kinda sucks. I like one where it changes for the benefit of the player so come into my world.

Sasha54
05-10-2012, 06:16 AM
I think it's a fantastic idea - however I'm pretty sure that Funzio/Greed won't implement it - call me cynical....

Amber_
05-10-2012, 06:31 AM
Would be great with an event with something that makes you keep the 20% when being robbed.
Sure there's both pros and cons to have the 20% just disappear, but I think it'd be more fun if that 20% either went to the robber, the robbed, or even got splited between the two.

BeniBugatti
05-10-2012, 08:29 AM
Is it just me that wishes that robbing would give the robber 100% and the victim 0%?

Nicholost
05-10-2012, 08:53 AM
I can see no logical reason for this 20% Black Hole loss, to my mind it serves no purpose in game at all.

It's to prevent the following cases:
Robber gets 60% and victim gets 40% - Robbers grow too fast because of their inflated income.
Robber gets 40% and victim gets 60% - Victims are able to shrug off losses because "oh well, I still got more than half."
Robber gets 50% and victim gets 50% - I dunno. A combination of the top two, maybe?

People feel a 60% loss (OMG, that's moar than half! I angriez!), it angers them, and that anger encourages them to seek revenge. That revenge fuels the PvP aspect of the game. If no one attacked back, the game would be pretty stagnant.*

Likewise, if the robber were to get 60% instead of 40%, people may give up attacking altogether and only rob because the lucrativeness of robbing. Hardcore robbers would grow too quickly (in Funzio's eyes), so by only giving the robber 40%, it gives some balance between the loot, respect, and potential cash from attacking and the respect and cash from robbing.

* I'm doing my part to ensure it does. I almost never attack back. :p

dudeman
05-10-2012, 08:57 AM
It's to prevent the following cases:
Robber gets 60% and victim gets 40% - Robbers grow too fast because of their inflated income.
Robber gets 40% and victim gets 60% - Victims are able to shrug off losses because "oh well, I still got more than half."
Robber gets 50% and victim gets 50% - I dunno. A combination of the top two, maybe?

People feel a 60% loss (OMG, that's moar than half! I angriez!), it angers them, and that anger encourages them to seek revenge. That revenge fuels the PvP aspect of the game. If no one attacked back, the game would be pretty stagnant.*

Likewise, if the robber were to get 60% instead of 40%, people may give up attacking altogether and only rob because the lucrativeness of robbing. Hardcore robbers would grow too quickly (in Funzio's eyes), so by only giving the robber 40%, it gives some balance between the loot, respect, and potential cash from attacking and the respect and cash from robbing.

* I'm doing my part to ensure it does. I almost never attack back. :p

I wrote a response twice, and I deleted my efforts twice. Reason being I didn't think of a way to put it the way Nicholost did.

All I could think of was "it's more balanced" or some dumb thing. I haven't had any coffee yet today.

sexkitteh
05-10-2012, 09:23 AM
Is it just me that wishes that robbing would give the robber 100% and the victim 0%?

+1

It only makes sense o_0

Burn
05-10-2012, 09:25 AM
Good answer there Nicholost, makes sense.

Dudeman, it could have been you getting the plaudits. If only you'd had that coffee.

Anyway, I have other things to worry about, Swifty is trying out to be a Rat Catcher, and is making a nuisance of himself, FNRCG!!

jaywalker
05-10-2012, 09:29 AM
If my mafia is robbing another mafia, ofc I will never get away with all the cash. They will come rollin' in their 69 camaros and start shooting at me with their M4A1's, on the way out in my double deckers you see cash flying everywhere as one of the suitcases got hit. Then the citizens steals the rest and you never see it again.

AppleMacGuy
05-10-2012, 09:33 AM
It's to prevent the following cases:
Robber gets 60% and victim gets 40% - Robbers grow too fast because of their inflated income.
Robber gets 40% and victim gets 60% - Victims are able to shrug off losses because "oh well, I still got more than half."
Robber gets 50% and victim gets 50% - I dunno. A combination of the top two, maybe?

People feel a 60% loss (OMG, that's moar than half! I angriez!), it angers them, and that anger encourages them to seek revenge. That revenge fuels the PvP aspect of the game. If no one attacked back, the game would be pretty stagnant.*

Likewise, if the robber were to get 60% instead of 40%, people may give up attacking altogether and only rob because the lucrativeness of robbing. Hardcore robbers would grow too quickly (in Funzio's eyes), so by only giving the robber 40%, it gives some balance between the loot, respect, and potential cash from attacking and the respect and cash from robbing.

+1
Very well though out reasoning and makes very good sense as to why it is the way it is! :)

Yahkin
05-10-2012, 10:21 AM
Personally, I think the missing 20% is simply a bug...and I wouldn't be surprised if they were not even aware it was happening.

Swifty
05-10-2012, 10:29 AM
@Burn

That is the trouble with that Swifty, always a nuisance.

Nicholost
05-10-2012, 10:36 AM
Personally, I think the missing 20% is simply a bug...and I wouldn't be surprised if they were not even aware it was happening.

I strongly doubt it's a bug. And they are aware of it:

http://www.funzio.com/forum/showthread.php?22406-CC-Mark-AMA&p=139689&viewfull=1#post139689

DenZ1
05-10-2012, 11:45 AM
It's to prevent the following cases:
Robber gets 60% and victim gets 40% - Robbers grow too fast because of their inflated income.
Robber gets 40% and victim gets 60% - Victims are able to shrug off losses because "oh well, I still got more than half."
Robber gets 50% and victim gets 50% - I dunno. A combination of the top two, maybe?

People feel a 60% loss (OMG, that's moar than half! I angriez!), it angers them, and that anger encourages them to seek revenge. That revenge fuels the PvP aspect of the game. If no one attacked back, the game would be pretty stagnant.*

Likewise, if the robber were to get 60% instead of 40%, people may give up attacking altogether and only rob because the lucrativeness of robbing. Hardcore robbers would grow too quickly (in Funzio's eyes), so by only giving the robber 40%, it gives some balance between the loot, respect, and potential cash from attacking and the respect and cash from robbing.

* I'm doing my part to ensure it does. I almost never attack back. :p

+1 Never looked at it from this stand point of view. I'm just pissed that I'm loosing 60% vs. 40% :)

It's just why wouldn't it be 50/50 split and it'll balance itself out? Sounds pretty logical to me.

Burn
05-10-2012, 11:50 AM
To make angriez!! He telled u dis thing. Now I am angriez at bad reading peoples.

Nicholost
05-10-2012, 12:01 PM
To make angriez!! He telled u dis thing. Now I am angriez at bad reading peoples.

Exactly. Losing 60% should make you angiez; so much so that you revenge your lost monies with the rage of a thousand starving lions. If it were 50% to both parties, I'm sure people would go "oh well, that sucks, but at least it was an equal compromise."

DenZ1
05-10-2012, 12:02 PM
To make angriez!! He telled u dis thing. Now I am angriez at bad reading peoples.

Whats that suppose to mean?

Burn
05-10-2012, 12:04 PM
I'm very angriez even thinking about someone might steal my moar monies. Must go fight now.

Burn
05-10-2012, 12:05 PM
Denz, chillax Bro, I'm messing around.

J-Rizzi
05-10-2012, 12:05 PM
While the 20% Black Hole is baffling, I find the $1 left behind for someone else to "rob" even lamer. I can see no rationale for which the creators of the game said, "and some building's third robbery will yield $1." It's one aspect of the game that benefits nobody.

DenZ1
05-10-2012, 12:06 PM
Denz, chillax Bro, I'm messing around.
No worries :) I'm angry too.. :)

Max Power
05-10-2012, 12:07 PM
At higher levels, the only reason for cash is to try and generate more cash. Until Funzio gives anything worth buying, what's the point in caring?

Burn
05-10-2012, 12:11 PM
Max, try to hold on to that thought while you are beating the living crap out of Dreno33 ;)

kykboxr
05-10-2012, 12:46 PM
It's to prevent the following cases:
Robber gets 60% and victim gets 40% - Robbers grow too fast because of their inflated income.
Robber gets 40% and victim gets 60% - Victims are able to shrug off losses because "oh well, I still got more than half."
Robber gets 50% and victim gets 50% - I dunno. A combination of the top two, maybe?

People feel a 60% loss (OMG, that's moar than half! I angriez!), it angers them, and that anger encourages them to seek revenge. That revenge fuels the PvP aspect of the game. If no one attacked back, the game would be pretty stagnant.*

Likewise, if the robber were to get 60% instead of 40%, people may give up attacking altogether and only rob because the lucrativeness of robbing. Hardcore robbers would grow too quickly (in Funzio's eyes), so by only giving the robber 40%, it gives some balance between the loot, respect, and potential cash from attacking and the respect and cash from robbing.

* I'm doing my part to ensure it does. I almost never attack back. :p

N, I like your thought process here. My only retort would be to say that '90% of those playing this game don't realize there is a black-hole,' so it they receive 40-50-60-10-whatever, they are clueless, they just know they got robbed.

Now, i realize that's not the point of why you wrote it as the basis is to define the missing 20%, which is valid. I just don't think people know the payout breakdown of the robberies, at least the vast majority.

I really enjoy reading your anecdotal (and analytical/well-thought) posts. There are a few guys I really enjoy reading, and you're among them. Keep up the good work.

Max Power
05-10-2012, 01:18 PM
Max, try to hold on to that thought while you are beating the living crap out of Dreno33 ;)

Burn, look at my avatar compared to his avatar. This is gonna be pure carnage.

Swifty
05-10-2012, 01:26 PM
Hey, you guys take it easy on my boy Draino.

He is a FNG, after all.

Nicholost
05-10-2012, 01:52 PM
While the 20% Black Hole is baffling, I find the $1 left behind for someone else to "rob" even lamer. I can see no rationale for which the creators of the game said, "and some building's third robbery will yield $1." It's one aspect of the game that benefits nobody.

I'm pretty sure this is a round-off error. The game uses a base_output for each money building. It then applies an algorithm to calculate outputs at various levels based on that base value. However, that algorithm could easily produce decimal numbers, especially if it uses floats or doubles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_conversion#C-like_languages) instead of integers. The game either truncates or rounds these decimal numbers to whole numbers when displayed to the user.

In fact, the game has to use decimal types instead of integers. Tycoon and Goodfella prove this. You can't add 10% to an integer without getting a decimal. ;)

So after a successful robbery occurs, the game runs a test to see if the robbery maximum has been achieved. If it has, the canRob flag is set to false and the building will no longer display a money bag icon. However, if after 40% there is still a remainder, the flag never gets set to false and the building is able to be robbed one more time for the remainder. What you really get on that last attempt is the decimal remainder -- a fraction of a dollar -- but the game rounds up to the nearest dollar.

For example:
A level 1 Laundromat has a base_output of $5. Since it is a Type A (http://www.funzio.com/forum/showthread.php?13183-Payout-algorithm-explained) building, at level 7 it has an output of $155 ($5 x 31 = $155). Now it gets robbed twice, so we'll remove 40%. $155 minus 40% is $93, so the robber got away with $62. But wait, we're not dealing with integers, we're dealing with floats and doubles. And with floats and doubles $155 may not be 155, but 155.000000000005, and $62 may not be 62, but 62.000000000000. Let's say that's true.

Now, we know they cast these decimal values to integers for display reasons. Maybe they do a similar, or reverse, cast and comparison to set the canRob flag. Let's say they do and they compare the sum of what the robber got against the money left in the building; 62.000000000000 vs. 155.000000000005 minus 40%. If the money that the robber has taken is less than the maximum that can be robbed, which it is in this case (62.000000000000 < 62.000000000002), canRob is still true, otherwise canRob is false. You rob again and the condition gets met that says "if 20% of buildingPayout > remainderToBeRobbed, return remainderToBeRobbed." That remainder is 0.000000000002. The game generously rounds that up to $1 when it converts from a float/double to integer for display reasons and sets canRob to false.

This is the same reason why banks don't use floats and doubles. They use BigDecimal instead.

Nicholost
05-10-2012, 01:56 PM
N, I like your thought process here. My only retort would be to say that '90% of those playing this game don't realize there is a black-hole,' so it they receive 40-50-60-10-whatever, they are clueless, they just know they got robbed.

Now, i realize that's not the point of why you wrote it as the basis is to define the missing 20%, which is valid. I just don't think people know the payout breakdown of the robberies, at least the vast majority.
I agree with you. I would wager that the majority of CC players don't even realize they are loosing 60%. They probably know it's more than 50%, but I doubt very many do the math and wonder why they lose 60% but only gain 40%. All they know is that when they get robbed, they lose a lot and assume the robber got it all. They get mad and try to take it back. It's a fantastic dynamic of this game. :)

SevenO9
05-10-2012, 02:06 PM
Conspiracy theory: Those 20% fund CCMarks account ...

Walter
05-10-2012, 03:33 PM
Conspiracy theory: Those 20% fund CCMarks account ...

I was just thinking the same thing, but for Fizzle!

jobadass
05-10-2012, 04:21 PM
CCM already explained this well. Consider it a tax.

J-Rizzi
05-18-2012, 09:48 PM
Nicholost, I just remembered I asked this question and searched for the thread. What an in-depth response. I applaud your passion for analyzing this game at the same time I feel guilty for having you take so much time to answer my question. Your assistance to the forum in understanding this game is greatly appreciated.
I'm pretty sure this is a round-off error. The game uses a base_output for each money building. It then applies an algorithm to calculate outputs at various levels based on that base value. However, that algorithm could easily produce decimal numbers, especially if it uses floats or doubles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_conversion#C-like_languages) instead of integers. The game either truncates or rounds these decimal numbers to whole numbers when displayed to the user.

In fact, the game has to use decimal types instead of integers. Tycoon and Goodfella prove this. You can't add 10% to an integer without getting a decimal. ;)

So after a successful robbery occurs, the game runs a test to see if the robbery maximum has been achieved. If it has, the canRob flag is set to false and the building will no longer display a money bag icon. However, if after 40% there is still a remainder, the flag never gets set to false and the building is able to be robbed one more time for the remainder. What you really get on that last attempt is the decimal remainder -- a fraction of a dollar -- but the game rounds up to the nearest dollar.

For example:
A level 1 Laundromat has a base_output of $5. Since it is a Type A (http://www.funzio.com/forum/showthread.php?13183-Payout-algorithm-explained) building, at level 7 it has an output of $155 ($5 x 31 = $155). Now it gets robbed twice, so we'll remove 40%. $155 minus 40% is $93, so the robber got away with $62. But wait, we're not dealing with integers, we're dealing with floats and doubles. And with floats and doubles $155 may not be 155, but 155.000000000005, and $62 may not be 62, but 62.000000000000. Let's say that's true.

Now, we know they cast these decimal values to integers for display reasons. Maybe they do a similar, or reverse, cast and comparison to set the canRob flag. Let's say they do and they compare the sum of what the robber got against the money left in the building; 62.000000000000 vs. 155.000000000005 minus 40%. If the money that the robber has taken is less than the maximum that can be robbed, which it is in this case (62.000000000000 < 62.000000000002), canRob is still true, otherwise canRob is false. You rob again and the condition gets met that says "if 20% of buildingPayout > remainderToBeRobbed, return remainderToBeRobbed." That remainder is 0.000000000002. The game generously rounds that up to $1 when it converts from a float/double to integer for display reasons and sets canRob to false.

This is the same reason why banks don't use floats and doubles. They use BigDecimal instead.