The Billionaire's Analysis of the Computer Chip Event - Kudos to Funzio?

[The Billionaire]

My Thoughts on the Electronic Safe Event

I have to say Funzio i really like the new layout of the latest event. The range of prizes is better, there's two modifiers, a leaderboard and i'm guessing more winners??

During the first 2 days i was extremely frustrated because the drop rate of the safes was terrible. This is why i think every player should start with 5 or 10 safes when an event begins. This would have a number of bonuses to both Funzio and the player.

Player Bonuses

Those players who miss the start of the event will have a far better opportunity to catch up because they won't have to go on the hunt for safes.
Players will be able to hit the ground running and open safes from the moment they see the event. This will be a lot more exciting for the player because they won't experience that dull 24hr period at the start of an event where safes are hard to come by and thet find themselves being left behind. They also wont experience that frustration of seeing Kevin at the top of the leaderboard with 35 chips when the player hasn't even been able to get a safe.
This will also create an all out free-for-all style of play at the start of an event with players trying to steal each others safes. It will also mean the pop up info at the start of an event is more of a true statement. Lets be fair, there's no point in fighting or robbing other players within the first 48hrs like the pop up states because nobody has any safes to steal.
Most importantly your customers will be happier.


Funzio Bonuses

As everyone starts with safes players will be more likely to do timer resets to get a head start......leading to more gold sales.
As everyone starts with safes players will be more likely to give the event a go from the start because they've already got safes to open.......leading to more gold sales.
With more safes in circulation, more players will be opening them.......leading to more gold sales
The free-for-all style of play that will occur at the start of an event will mean more fights and robberies will take place earning players more XP and levelling them up faster........we assume this is what you're trying to do with the frequency of the events.....trying to close the gap in the Shark Tank are you??



If the above is implemented then there is one rule that must also be implemented. The safes given to a player at the start of event don't become active until the player has picked up the event. This way you won't have players logging into the event for the first time to find all of their safes have been stolen.

As for the prizes in the last event.....Kudos Funzio! there were some nice weapons up for grabs along with some good modifiers. I think more players would of claimed a prize as well. However i think it's about time we had some more defensive modifiers because you've released a lot of attacking mods so far. Everyone's attack is increasing yet their defense isn't. How are we suppose to defend ourselves against that along with defense buildings that don't use their stated defense stat. It would be nice to see mods such as "armor defense increased by 30%" or "Mafia defense increased by 20% and some event end prizes like "Booby trap explosive - Attack 112, Defense 305" or "Motion Detector Explosive - Attack 259, Defense 618" you could call it the "Motion Massacre".

As for the event itself it was very well done. There was plenty of chips available and the leaderboards were always up to date. However we would like to know why the leaderboard was frozen with 45 minutes to go?? Just out of interest.
It was nice to see chips coming thick and fast, none of this getting chip #8, chip #9 fifty safes later and chip #10 one hundred safes later or never to be seen. I felt a lot more excitment a lot more of the time during this event because of the rate we were receiving chips. However the length of some of the fail streaks was a bit over the top. Some people were saying they got 20 fails in a row which is a bit excessive. The fail streaks should last no longer than 10 attempts because at the moment some players might go a whole day and not receive a single item. Think about it Funzio, that can't be fun for anyone.

Regarding the type of the event please can we see another underboss tournament or some kind of robbery event. The underboss tournament has been my favourite so far!

I'm slightly relieved to finally see some improved content come into Crime City and you don't have to look any further than my summary of Dreno33's thread for more ways you could improve the game.

http://www.funzio.com/forum/showthread.php?36751-SUMMARY-What-YOU-want-to-see-in-Crime-City-so-far........

Sorry guys, didn't realise this had turned into an essay but its about time we had some constructive threads worth reading because the majroity over the last week have been BS.

Anyway these are just my thoughts on the previous event and i give you the thumbs up Funzio. Your about to hear the thoughts of everyone else and i hope they give you the thumbs up too :rolleyes:

CCM: If there's any chance you could answer the below questions that would be great and much appreciated.
Why the leaderboard was frozen with 45 minutes to go??
Were there more winners in this event compared to the old style "Gotcha" events??
Can we expect a more stratigical style of event anytime soon?? Underboss or robbery tourney

[AppleMacGuy]

As for the event itself it was very well done. There was plenty of chips available and the leaderboards were always up to date. However we would like to know why the leaderboard was frozen with 45 minutes to go?? Just out of interest.

Whatever Funzio might say, the leaderboard was frozen purely to instil blind panic in the players...what else could you then do to maintain your board position other than blast through yet more gold...poor show by Funzio IMO.



It was nice to see chips coming thick and fast, none of this getting chip #8, chip #9 fifty safes later and chip #10 one hundred safes later or never to be seen. I felt a lot more excitment a lot more of the time during this event because of the rate we were receiving chips. However the length of some of the fail streaks was a bit over the top. Some people were saying they got 20 fails in a row which is a bit excessive. The fail streaks should last no longer than 10 attempts because at the moment some players might go a whole day and not receive a single item. Think about it Funzio, that can't be fun for anyone.

You didn't make any comment on the difficulty in obtaining the safes during the game...IMO it was far too hard and evident that this was to force players to expend additional gold on energy and stamina.

FWIW, this event was the biggest cash cow for Funzio yet. Period.

[Paulio]

Very thoughtful post, Billionaire. I do agree with AMG that the drop rate for safes was borderline ridiculous. You're idea starting off with safes sounds good at first, but the Kevin's are just going to get a bigger head start that way. Yes, it will be fun for the casual players, but it will make no difference in the final outcome. Still, I support your idea because it could mean more items for everybody.

[Jtstar7439]

I have to say I was happy with this event. I spent about 150 in gold and got the car. I ended up being I think #153 with 31 chips and that was with 4 on the last day when i used the gold. I probably would have gotten it without gold. Compared to the last event where I was determined to get the corpse maker because of the 50% cash bonus and used way more.

[DenZ1]

Whatever Funzio might say, the leaderboard was frozen purely to instil blind panic in the players...what else could you then do to maintain your board position other than blast through yet more gold...poor show by Funzio IMO.



You didn't make any comment on the difficulty in obtaining the safes during the game...IMO it was far too hard and evident that this was to force players to expend additional gold on energy and stamina.

FWIW, this event was the biggest cash cow for Funzio yet. Period.



I guess expect next one very soon then.

What I'm wondering about as I haven't seen a single player who finished 51-100. They must have spend tons of gold and got no reward (second reward wouldn't require significant additional investment on their part). I guess they are all satisfied with that outcome. That is a huge minus of this event. To get to final prize there is extremely significant investment involved that would yield you nothing if you were to finish 51st.

As an event was pretty good, 1 thing stand out. Have you seen somebody getting final item who already hasn't spent $1000's on the game. They are all there. Exept a few who hasn't been playing that long yet but will get there with their firepower.

Those 50 items could have just been auctioned to highest bidders and all the drama would have been avoided (yet to see that 51st person :) ). Otherwise, what's the point.. It was still an auction anyway. I just hope nobody like me was dare to start pursuing that goal. They whould have been burned badly.

Just thoughts.

[Dangerous Greg]

I have a strong negative response and perspective on the event. I don't think this was a good move (long-term) for Funzio. How much would someone be willing to wager that the next event that is structured like this one will not generate even 70% of this first event? I think that a company that is selling virtual items needs to make money but not appear too greedy at the risk of upsetting the money spenders. There is an element of trust that perpetuates player loyalty that is related to willingness to spend real money on a virtual game.

In the end, we either did or did not get the prize and individually ask "was it worth it". Did I get any kind of value for my money and or time relative to the market established within the reality of this game? In this case, would I have been better off buying crates or other rare items? If the answer is yes, then less players will engage in the event in the future. I can tell you with no doubt that I would have ended up much better buying $800 in crates! Geeze, I almost spent $800 and DIDN"T get the prize! I was # 50! I spent the least amount I could and still got the top prize and I am telling you that it was not a good value proposition for me. What about the people above me that spent more?

Obviously, the question is the same with different answers depending on what prize the player was seeking. It seems the second-tier prize was a good value. In the future, I can see being involved in the event but only for that target.

In my opinion, for the top gold spenders, this was a bad move by Funzio. Being part of this group, I can say that I won't participate in this kind of event (for the top prize anyway) again. Also my opinion, I thought what they did at the end was VERY VERY dirty play. They changed the rules at the end of the game! That is a breach of trust in my opinion! IF I didn't get the prize I know that I would be absolutely furious. Before the leader board was frozen I was in 42nd place with the 4 chips above the 50th person.

Trust is important to maintain your player loyalty. What do you think the top 50 players are feeling? What about the top 100 that didn't make the top 50? For this small group of really big spenders this was a really questionable tactic on Funzio's part.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!

[BeniBugatti]

Whatever Funzio might say, the leaderboard was frozen purely to instil blind panic in the players...what else could you then do to maintain your board position other than blast through yet more gold...poor show by Funzio IMO.



I think they did it to avoid a bash-lash from players who just missed being in the top 50... you see by not having a live list, they could pad the results to make sure that all players who were spending multiple vaults got the final reward and walked away ready to spend on the next event. Has anyone stepped forward and said "Damn it I had 99 chips, spent $500 and got nothing for my efforts..." It seems really odd to have not seen a post like that...

[buddylee]

What did Funzio do at the end?



I have a strong negative response and perspective on the event. I don't think this was a good move (long-term) for Funzio. How much would someone be willing to wager that the next event that is structured like this one will not generate even 70% of this first event? I think that a company that is selling virtual items needs to make money but not appear too greedy at the risk of upsetting the money spenders. There is an element of trust that perpetuates player loyalty that is related to willingness to spend real money on a virtual game.

In the end, we either did or did not get the prize and individually ask "was it worth it". Did I get any kind of value for my money and or time relative to the market established within the reality of this game? In this case, would I have been better off buying crates or other rare items? If the answer is yes, then less players will engage in the event in the future. I can tell you with no doubt that I would have ended up much better buying $800 in crates! Geeze, I almost spent $800 and DIDN"T get the prize! I was # 50! I spent the least amount I could and still got the top prize and I am telling you that it was not a good value proposition for me. What about the people above me that spent more?

Obviously, the question is the same with different answers depending on what prize the player was seeking. It seems the second-tier prize was a good value. In the future, I can see being involved in the event but only for that target.

In my opinion, for the top gold spenders, this was a bad move by Funzio. Being part of this group, I can say that I won't participate in this kind of event (for the top prize anyway) again. Also my opinion, I thought what they did at the end was VERY VERY dirty play. They changed the rules at the end of the game! That is a breach of trust in my opinion! IF I didn't get the prize I know that I would be absolutely furious. Before the leader board was frozen I was in 42nd place with the 4 chips above the 50th person.

Trust is important to maintain your player loyalty. What do you think the top 50 players are feeling? What about the top 100 that didn't make the top 50? For this small group of really big spenders this was a really questionable tactic on Funzio's part.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!

[BeniBugatti]

What did Funzio do at the end?

They turned off the leader board

[Luke 3457]

I placed 22 in this event spent a shi t ton of money. This event will be my last. I've spent a good share of gold on the last 7 events and have succeeded with 10th item each time. This was a huge cash cow for funzio but a bad choice overall. I'm sure this put a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths because of the sheer greed that was exhibited. This was not a fun event more of a chore. I'll start events again if it's old format if not funzio won't see a dime.

[Fredo]

I think they did it to avoid a bash-lash from players who just missed being in the top 50... you see by not having a live list, they could pad the results to make sure that all players who were spending multiple vaults got the final reward and walked away ready to spend on the next event. Has anyone stepped forward and said "Damn it I had 99 chips, spent $500 and got nothing for my efforts..." It seems really odd to have not seen a post like that...

Are you seriously suggesting that Funzio froze the leaderboard in order to award MORE final event items than to just the people in the top fifty? Really? Do you actually believe that they would do that, when they haven't done it for any other event?

Many people have spent plenty vaults of gold in past events and come up short, and Funzio sure didn't care about them. Do you think that a company that bends over backwards to compel people to spend money in pursuit of intangible items, and has shown no particular concern for its customers, is just going to hand them over to people falling out of the top 50?

And do you think that such an action, if it were taken (and I doubt it was), is supposed to encourage people to spend more gold on future events? Let's take a look at two people on this thread that spent a ton of gold, and got the item. What do they think? They seem to be pretty upset about the freezing of the leaderboards and believe it was done to instill panic and more gold buying at the last minute. So how does that seem to be working out?

I'm not trying to be harsh, I just think your theory is insanely unrealistic. In any event, where do I buy such powerful rose colored glasses?

EDIT: Now it's three big spenders commenting in this thread that got the final item and are still very pissed about it.

SECOND EDIT: And let's accept your theory at face value. Funzio would NOT have to freeze the leaderboard to accomplish the same objective - not in the least. It could just award the item to the big spenders that fell out of the top 50, and let them assume that they made it across the finish line to the top 50 at the last second, which would not have been reflected in the leaderboard right as the event ended.

[DenZ1]

Are you seriously suggesting that Funzio froze the leaderboard in order to award MORE final event items than to just the people in the top fifty? Really? Do you actually believe that they would do that, when they haven't done it for any other event?

Many people have spent plenty vaults of gold in past events and come up short, and Funzio sure didn't care about them. Do you think that a company that bends over backwards to compel people to spend money in pursuit of intangible items, and has shown no particular concern for its customers, is just going to hand them over to people falling out of the top 50?

And do you think that such an action, if it were taken (and I doubt it was), is supposed to encourage people to spend more gold on future events? Let's take a look at two people on this thread that spent a ton of gold, and got the item. What do they think? They seem to be pretty upset about the freezing of the leaderboards and believe it was done to instill panic and more gold buying at the last minute. So how does that seem to be working out?

I'm not trying to be harsh, I just think your theory is insanely unrealistic. In any event, where do I buy such powerful rose colored glasses?

EDIT: Now it's three big spenders commenting in this thread that got the final item and are still very pissed about it.

They'll do it again for sure. And you'll see all the same players on top 50 list with tons of gold spend. Just Greg and Paulio will be replaced with 2 other players. AIn't big deal for Funzio. The event should have stopped at 2nd final prize. 1st should have been auctioned. No board freeze, no frustration.. Either pay or not. This way you forced to pay and some still wont get it. They should have made it top 100 at least. The competition would spill over more people but with less money to spend per person. No too big f.. ups..

And yes, i do find strange nobody voiced their opinion who finished 51-80 or 100. Something tels me they might got it as well.

[Fredo]

And yes, i do find strange nobody voiced their opinion who finished 51-80 or 100. Something tels me they might got it as well.

Or they are too embarassed to publicly announce that they wasted so much money and utterly failed in the end.

[InGameName I]

My analysis

even with a BILLION its not enough to beat me!

[Dangerous Dan]

I know funzio wouldn't do this as the revenue would likely drop....but I think there should be 2 leaderboards. One for free players and one for gold players. It would even up the odds and get more folks involved. On the other hand, a lot of folks don't even read the forum therefore don't know that people are actually spending a lot of real money. People can do whatever they want and also have their own opinions but IMO I think its absolutely crazy to drop more than a monthly house payment each month on a damn video game.

That's your business if you want to spend money. But I can think of many other things to spend money on than an object in a video game. Of course I have 2 kids and am over 30 so I guess I have more responsibilities than the average kid does that we are playing with. On the flip side, I would rather my kid spend their allowance on a video game than dope. I have an eleven year old and a two yr old. Obviously neither play crime. I don't allow my 11 yr old to purchase anything through an app or game.

Anyway, we all have opinions. Funzio has turned this what I thought to be a free game and equal competition into a buy gold or you will be at the bottom situation. As I play more and learn more I find myself spending less time playing the game. I haven't even hit level 100 yet but would probably push forward if there was more to look forward to rather than the same stuff.

My two cent ramble

[InGameName I]

thats like syaing there should be free play tables and slots at the casino

This is a random # slot machine realize where you are and what this is...

[AppleMacGuy]

I placed 22 in this event spent a shi t ton of money. This event will be my last. I've spent a good share of gold on the last 7 events and have succeeded with 10th item each time. This was a huge cash cow for funzio but a bad choice overall. I'm sure this put a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths because of the sheer greed that was exhibited. This was not a fun event more of a chore. I'll start events again if it's old format if not funzio won't see a dime.I agree with all your points.

[sister morphine]

I'm probably going to be in a minority (of one?) here, but I didn't enjoy this event one bit. Having become thoroughly disillusioned after the ATM/debit card event, when for the first time I used gold all the way and still ended up with only 9 cards I reverted to free openings only for this one. At the end I had 8 chips (a figure which has been pretty consistent through all the events for me). However, whereas with the old style events I would have received three items, this time I got just the one.

I'm happy to accept that some players, presumably including the OP, have large disposable incomes which they are happy to spend in this game, but not everybody is in that happy position and I don't like the increased tendency to regard players as mere cash cows, and if some can't (or won't) compete financially they'll just have to accept second division status. The game surely should be about strategy in building a hood and a strong mafia, and not merely about buying dominance though financial clout. We've had enough demonstration of the corrosive effects of that tendency in the real world in recent years without it becoming the norm in this game.

[InGameName I]

I'm probably going to be in a minority (of one?) here, but I didn't enjoy this event one bit. Having become thoroughly disillusioned after the ATM/debit card event, when for the first time I used gold all the way and still ended up with only 9 cards I reverted to free openings only for this one. At the end I had 8 chips (a figure which has been pretty consistent through all the events for me). However, whereas with the old style events I would have received three items, this time I got just the one.

I'm happy to accept that some players, presumably including the OP, have large disposable incomes which they are happy to spend in this game, but not everybody is in that happy position and I don't like the increased tendency to regard players as mere cash cows, and if some can't (or won't) compete financially they'll just have to accept second division status. The game surely should be about strategy in building a hood and a strong mafia, and not merely about buying dominance though financial clout. We've had enough demonstration of the corrosive effects of that tendency in the real world in recent years without it becoming the norm in this game.

IM A 1% er here to further exert my dominance.
sell some of that moprh and you can join SKK and be a Playa

[Dangerous Greg]

I think they did it to avoid a bash-lash from players who just missed being in the top 50... you see by not having a live list, they could pad the results to make sure that all players who were spending multiple vaults got the final reward and walked away ready to spend on the next event. Has anyone stepped forward and said "Damn it I had 99 chips, spent $500 and got nothing for my efforts..." It seems really odd to have not seen a post like that...
Benni, you do have a point. I even wondered about it. If this was the case, you would think that someone else has the same ranking, which could be the case. Did anyone else get rank #50?

[Olly1]

I'm probably going to be in a minority (of one?) here, but I didn't enjoy this event one bit. Having become thoroughly disillusioned after the ATM/debit card event, when for the first time I used gold all the way and still ended up with only 9 cards I reverted to free openings only for this one. At the end I had 8 chips (a figure which has been pretty consistent through all the events for me). However, whereas with the old style events I would have received three items, this time I got just the one.

I'm kind of in the same boat. I enjoyed it to start with but got more and more frustrated as I leveled up (3 times) trying to find boxes and then stupidly spending money (around 200 gold) a few days before the end. Towards the last day I was still balancing on the top 500 mark and went for the 'in for a penny, in for a pound' logic and ended up spending a bit more gold, more than I was comfortable with really (yes I know it was my own choice!)

I'm definitely going to be taking it easy and not joining in on the next events for a while and it sounds like a lot of other people will be too. To be honest a 300 attack gain over 3 levels isn't great anyway!

[Swingle007]

I dropped 40.00 on gold and finished higher than I expected (230's). The numbers on the lambo justified that much of an expenditure in my mind, so I'm pleased with the event overall. I didn't have any trouble accumulating boxes and ended the event with about a hundred. :-)

[Dangerous Greg]

People need to keep in mind how this was different than an auction. In an auction you place a bid and will get outbid if somebody wants the item more than your bid. You no longer get the item unless you increase your bid. Sounds familiar right? Okay now imagine the same auction except you place your bid and if you get outbid you still have to pay your bid offering but get nothing unless you increase your bid above what anyone else is willing to pay. Doesn't that sound evil? Well, we unwittingly signed up for that!

Now, imagine that you were going about bidding for an item where multiple people are bidding for the item under those circumstances. The same circumstances meaning that you get nothing if you don't bid high enough. The auctioneer decides that he can get more money if he changes the rules. Now, you will not know what other people are bidding and you blindly have to highball your bid or end up with nothing!. You didn't know about this rule before you started the bidding process. This is just utterly and purely wrong! It is an absolute breach of trust! Why would you EVER trust the auctioneer again??? This is stealing no mater how you rationalize it.
Imagine this was a car or a house you were bidding on. Before someone points out it was a virtual item, it was more than just that. It was something that over 50 people paid more than $700 for!! If the virtual item is NOT real let me remind all that more than $35,000 IS very real! that is what Funzio managed to get out of the top 50 people and did so with a total lack of integrity. Sounds harsh? It should sound harsh.

I love this game, I really do. I hate and despise the people that decided that this was an acceptable thing to do.

[BeniBugatti]

People need to keep in mind how this was different than an auction. In an auction you place a bid and will get outbid if somebody wants the item more than your bid. You no longer get the item unless you increase your bid. Sounds familiar right? Okay now imagine the same auction except you place your bid and if you get outbid you still have to pay your bid offering but get nothing unless you increase your bid above what anyone else is willing to pay. Doesn't that sound evil? Well, we unwittingly signed up for that!

Nicely put... I think even Bernie Madoff might not have had the audacity to try that.

[Canoehead]

I finished 64th with 69 chips. Safes were hard to find throughout the event. With an hour to go I had 60 chips and 150 unopened safes. I was two vaults in at that point with all gold opens, a few timer resets and some stamina and energy refills.

At one hour left I was 38 chips out of 50th and thought I could convert my 150 safes to 50 chips. I spent a vault to open 50, but only got 9 chips. When I saw that, and that the leader board was frozen (which I assumed would cause 50th place to go up by 6-10 chips, I said uncle and went to bed.

Frankly I'm happier about the two vaults I didn't spend than I am angry about the three vaults I wasted. I will say that for me the game has changed in a negative way. Gree's obvious greed is part of it, but so us the lack of new things at higher levels. Give me new thug life loot, more levels, new buildings and some valuable things to do with in game $$, and I could overlook the greed. I had a lot more fun below level 100, and the truth for gold spenders is that there will always be another who can kick your azz

[Babytway]

My Thoughts on the Electronic Safe Event

I have to say Funzio i really like the new layout of the latest event. The range of prizes is better, there's two modifiers, a leaderboard and i'm guessing more winners??

During the first 2 days i was extremely frustrated because the drop rate of the safes was terrible. This is why i think every player should start with 5 or 10 safes when an event begins. This would have a number of bonuses to both Funzio and the player.


If funzio listens to you on this idea and implements it, it will be every player can start out with 5 safes for 50gold and 10 safes for 90gold. thats the funzio way

[BeniBugatti]

I finished 64th with 69 chips. Safes were hard to find throughout the event. With an hour to go I had 60 chips and 150 unopened safes. I was two vaults in at that point with all gold opens, a few timer resets and some stamina and energy refills.

I guess that puts a big crimp in my theory.

[Coldcommander]

I have a strong negative response and perspective on the event. I don't think this was a good move (long-term) for Funzio. How much would someone be willing to wager that the next event that is structured like this one will not generate even 70% of this first event? I think that a company that is selling virtual items needs to make money but not appear too greedy at the risk of upsetting the money spenders. There is an element of trust that perpetuates player loyalty that is related to willingness to spend real money on a virtual game.

In the end, we either did or did not get the prize and individually ask "was it worth it". Did I get any kind of value for my money and or time relative to the market established within the reality of this game? In this case, would I have been better off buying crates or other rare items? If the answer is yes, then less players will engage in the event in the future. I can tell you with no doubt that I would have ended up much better buying $800 in crates! Geeze, I almost spent $800 and DIDN"T get the prize! I was # 50! I spent the least amount I could and still got the top prize and I am telling you that it was not a good value proposition for me. What about the people above me that spent more?

Obviously, the question is the same with different answers depending on what prize the player was seeking. It seems the second-tier prize was a good value. In the future, I can see being involved in the event but only for that target.

In my opinion, for the top gold spenders, this was a bad move by Funzio. Being part of this group, I can say that I won't participate in this kind of event (for the top prize anyway) again. Also my opinion, I thought what they did at the end was VERY VERY dirty play. They changed the rules at the end of the game! That is a breach of trust in my opinion! IF I didn't get the prize I know that I would be absolutely furious. Before the leader board was frozen I was in 42nd place with the 4 chips above the 50th person.

Trust is important to maintain your player loyalty. What do you think the top 50 players are feeling? What about the top 100 that didn't make the top 50? For this small group of really big spenders this was a really questionable tactic on Funzio's part.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!

I will say that this event has made me feel a little ill towards the game. On day one I was tied for first by day two I was in 25. I felt the constant pressure to spend if I wanted to stay in the top. It was like watching a bad movie that you hoped would get better. I never would have imagined the amount people would spend to obtain these items. I would never compete in this style of event in the hopes to be top 50! But they sucked me into this one by day one there was no going back!!

[The Billionaire]

I dropped 40.00 on gold and finished higher than I expected (230's). The numbers on the lambo justified that much of an expenditure in my mind, so I'm pleased with the event overall. I didn't have any trouble accumulating boxes and ended the event with about a hundred. :-)

This is exactly how I feel although we seem to be the minority. I enjoyed the event because I only spent 650 gold and made the top 500 (174th place). I can see why everyone else is fuming because I would be if I was in their position but I knew it was going to take a massive gold spend to make the top 50 which I wasn't willing to pay this time.

I'm surprised people are complaining about how hard it was to find safes. After the first 48hrs I always had a safe to open and obtained them by fighting other players as I did in every other event.

[Inzaghi]

People need to keep in mind how this was different than an auction. In an auction you place a bid and will get outbid if somebody wants the item more than your bid. You no longer get the item unless you increase your bid. Sounds familiar right? Okay now imagine the same auction except you place your bid and if you get outbid you still have to pay your bid offering but get nothing unless you increase your bid above what anyone else is willing to pay. Doesn't that sound evil? Well, we unwittingly signed up for that!

Now, imagine that you were going about bidding for an item where multiple people are bidding for the item under those circumstances. The same circumstances meaning that you get nothing if you don't bid high enough. The auctioneer decides that he can get more money if he changes the rules. Now, you will not know what other people are bidding and you blindly have to highball your bid or end up with nothing!. You didn't know about this rule before you started the bidding process. This is just utterly and purely wrong! It is an absolute breach of trust! Why would you EVER trust the auctioneer again??? This is stealing no mater how you rationalize it.
Imagine this was a car or a house you were bidding on. Before someone points out it was a virtual item, it was more than just that. It was something that over 50 people paid more than $700 for!! If the virtual item is NOT real let me remind all that more than $35,000 IS very real! that is what Funzio managed to get out of the top 50 people and did so with a total lack of integrity. Sounds harsh? It should sound harsh.

I love this game, I really do. I hate and despise the people that decided that this was an acceptable thing to do.
I agree with you that this is not a pure auction. But it's not like the case your describe b/c top 51-100 did receive the "small" yet "expensive" car, right?

[Second Comming]

I will end up quiting if this is how the events will now be laid out. So much greed involved. When was the last time grezio released anything that didnt involve gold?

The game has become incredibly unbalanced, I mean, what is the real point in making a strong economy? To spend 84M on a vehicle? Instead of rubbing their greedy cash hungry hands together on how to make the next Million$ they should put some work into adding new decors (that can be bought using $$ not gold), and balance the cost of $$weapons including adding some more powerful ones in. Spending 84M on a vehicle should yield stats with at least 100/100.

But that wont happen because there is no profit in it for them.

[Dangerous Greg]

I agree with you that this is not a pure auction. But it's not like the case your describe b/c top 51-100 did receive the "small" yet "expensive" car, right?

Yes, I'll give you that point. The difference is the amount of gold required to get the car vs the amount of gold to get the diamond knuckles. Based on what people needed to get in the top 500, I can comfortably say that anyone that spent 700 gold were able to get the car. So, the next 6-8 vaults to get to the top 50 are all bids that are costs (100%) associated with the top item.

I like the thoughtfulness of these discussions! Your point is valid.

[DC Gambino]

I couldn't agree more with what everyone is saying about the brazen show of greed on Funzio's part. I did not participate because this was only a contest to see who was gonna spend the most money. Safes weren't dropping which is how its been for the last 3 events which tells me they are trying to get people to not only spend gold on opens and timer resets, but on energy and stamina as well which is nothing more than greed. I have never spent gold on an event and I never will for the fact that there are no guarantees and there always seems to be someone willing to p i s s away a whole lot more money than me. I have still been fortunate enough to have 4 event grand prizes without ever spending gold but I don't think I'll be participating anytime soon if they maintain this format.

[Boom]

Next gonna be 250/25 for leaderboards

[Fredo]

Yep - they are already pulling that trick in KA.

[DenZ1]

Next gonna be 250/25 for leaderboards

I guess this time ill sit back and enjoy the show :) specifically for top 25. That will be fun.Im not even thinking about touching that auction piece of scam :)

[KemoKidd]

This is exactly how I feel although we seem to be the minority. I enjoyed the event because I only spent 650 gold and made the top 500 (174th place). I can see why everyone else is fuming because I would be if I was in their position but I knew it was going to take a massive gold spend to make the top 50 which I wasn't willing to pay this time.

I'm surprised people are complaining about how hard it was to find safes. After the first 48hrs I always had a safe to open and obtained them by fighting other players as I did in every other event.

I did the exact same thing. Altough this was the first event I bought gold for it wasnt much and it was a for sure thing that I would win. I was always 8-12 chips ahead of 500th place and used gold only on the first day (androids first day that is!). I dont think we are in the minority here because we are 100% satisfied with what we spent and what we won. People will post to complain but they wont post to say they are happy. I felt that this was the easiest event for me to collect safes. In previous events I would be frustrated when it was time to try another open but have 0 cases.