The /contract system

[Finn]

I've been thinking long and hard about the use of hitmen contracts, particularly after this recent fiasco. I've long been an outspoken proponent of the system as it is, and I've argued a number of times with people who believe debt should be easier to ameliorate. However, I've come to realize something important about this system: it's subject to the man at the top. The fellow with the most money will essentially command the entire hit-faction. I know, I know, it seems obvious, but I'm looking at a rather specific quandary: namely, that it isn't really a viable option when it comes to peer competition.

Think about it: you and your buddy are both worth a million dollars. Suddenly, you start bickering, and your buddy decides to go apeshit with a massive contract. The most he could possibly do to you is 25% of your total holdings, and he'd be bankrupting himself in the process. Just like that, he's at a tremendous disadvantage. He'd essentially be cutting his own throat. Assuming that you're worth 5 million, suddenly your friend can't even put a dent on you, for all that a million dollars can buy. What's more, you could bankrupt him, and still be swimming in seven digits.

Essentially, the system lends itself to abusing the little guy. I know that's not what it's about, but I'm saying that if the playing field is slanted, the ball will tend to roll in one direction.

Now, I'm not going to call for a reformation of the debt system, because I think it's nifty. I am, however, going to make a suggestion for a way /contract can be adjusted to address this problem. True, conscientious hitstaffers were good enough to make the recent wave of contracts less terminal to their targets, but the bottom line is it shouldn't need to rely on that. So, submitted for your approval, here's my idea:

/contract takes its toll on the party targeted after the kill is carried out. They stand to lose up to 100% of the cost of the hit, so long as it is not in excess of 25% of their total holdings. However, the minimum that can be lost is 25% of the hit price. Practical example of this: A-man takes out a contract on B-man for a million dollars. B-man only has 500,000 to his name. 25% of that is 125,000, which is less than 25% of the hit price, so they stand to lose 25% of the hit (250k), as is the minimum. A-man also took out a million-dollar hit on C-man, who's got 3.6 million in pocket. 25% of 3.6 million is 800,000, which is between 25% and 100% of the hit price, so he stands to lose 800,000. Finally, A-man puts a million-dollar hit on the mighty D-man, who has 10 million to his name. 25% is 2.5 million, and thus he loses the full price of the hit without hitting the 25% cap. D-man is out a million dollars. He's pissed, and with good reason, since someone just made a dent in him, and believe you me, D-man hasn't experienced real loss in some time.

I understand that this is not a "perfect" solution (but what is perfect, these days?), but I think it is less imperfect than a system that relies upon OOC intervention and offers no substantial means of retaliation, as it currently does. It makes the game a bit more egalitarian, at the very least. All our discussions about "money sinks" only seem to be addressing a symptom of the real problem, which is balance at the top level. This will go a small ways towards addressing that.

I would like to note, before anyone points it out, that keeping one's money stashed in a bank will still only effect upon them the minimum hit penalty, since as it's written, it only affects what's on them. I don't know if there's a way to combine totals for the sake of calculating the hit, or if we'd even want to do that at all, since no one's looking to turn this into an outright high-level witch-burning; powerful individuals make a lot of enemies, and that option could pave the way to leaders being cleaned out daily. I posit that it's better to leave it only affecting the carried total, giving them more reason to be on guard when they've got their money on them, and making a well-planned, well-executed surprise hit all the more devastating.

Anyway, all this and more is up for discussion. Questions/comments/criticisms?

[Juke]

/contract takes its toll on the party targeted after the kill is carried out. They stand to lose up to 100% of the cost of the hit, so long as it is not in excess of 25% of their total holdings. However, the minimum that can be lost is 25% of the hit price.

So you're saying hits should be more damaging?

Practical example of this: A-man takes out a contract on B-man for a million dollars. B-man only has 500,000 to his name. 25% of that is 125,000, which is less than 25% of the hit price, so they stand to lose 25% of the hit (250k), as is the minimum.

Ok, I can see this working

A-man also took out a million-dollar hit on C-man, who's got 3.6 million in pocket. 25% of 3.6 million is 800,000, which is between 25% and 100% of the hit price, so he stands to lose 800,000.

Ok, I guess that makes sense

Finally, A-man puts a million-dollar hit on the mighty D-man, who has 10 million to his name. 25% is 2.5 million, and thus he loses the full price of the hit without hitting the 25% cap. D-man is out a million dollars. He's pissed, and with good reason, since someone just made a dent in him, and believe you me, D-man hasn't experienced real loss in some time.

Sure, I guess that's fair...

The problem with all this is regardless of how much you lose, you're still dying. It's more than the million dollars lost, it's getting killed. For high-priority targets like gang leaders this could really lead to people getting burnt out and quitting quickly. Hitmen shouldn't be in the game to try and make people quit, especially gang leaders who are generally the best players in the gang (least annoying.)

I guess my only concern is there really needs to be a limit to how often hits can be put out on somebody. Maybe one hit for every four hours they're online. And there can't be more than one hit at a time (maybe that's not allowed already, I'm not a hitman.)

The reason the BEs went crazy on the hitmen is cause they couldn't do anything but leave HQ and get attacked. Again, hitmen shouldn't be here to grief people into quitting.

[Finn]

So you're saying hits should be more damaging?

Yes, but only in a limited, relative sense that makes hits more viable in light of a huge net worth disparity (which you seem to have gotten from the examples).

The problem with all this is regardless of how much you lose, you're still dying. It's more than the million dollars lost, it's getting killed. For high-priority targets like gang leaders this could really lead to people getting burnt out and quitting quickly. Hitmen shouldn't be in the game to try and make people quit, especially gang leaders who are generally the best players in the gang (least annoying.)

I guess my only concern is there really needs to be a limit to how often hits can be put out on somebody. Maybe one hit for every four hours they're online. And there can't be more than one hit at a time (maybe that's not allowed already, I'm not a hitman.)

The reason the BEs went crazy on the hitmen is cause they couldn't do anything but leave HQ and get attacked. Again, hitmen shouldn't be here to grief people into quitting.

I absolutely agree with you on this. However, I figured the "spamming/griefing" end of it is being discussed more broadly, like in the other thread. I'm mainly seeking to address the unilateral nature of it, and the inaccessibility, real or perceived, of the system to the "little guy." Still, that's another important point that needs to be hammered out.

I am also not a hitman (though I have an alt I hope will someday get to be one), so I can't speak to that time limit thing, but it certainly doesn't sound unreasonable.

[Phoix]

You could add limits to /contract. For example, a level 1 could only have x amount of money put on him. You could also make it so someone could only have /contract used on them by the same person once an hour or something.

[Finn]

You could add limits to /contract. For example, a level 1 could only have x amount of money put on him. You could also make it so someone could only have /contract used on them by the same person once an hour or something.

A cap of 50k for level 1 players was suggested in the other thread. I don't know how I feel about it, really... and I don't know how complicated a process it is to start singling out potential targets, rather than just make broad, sweeping changes to the underlying mechanic. (Also, your second suggestion was essentially made two posts above yours.)

[Sidorov]

Juke: And there can't be more than one hit at a time (maybe that's not allowed already, I'm not a hitman.)

If multiple hits are put on someone at the same time, it just raises the worth of the hit. two 25k hits on one person at one time becomes one 50k hit.

I think your system is worth looking into, Finn. The thing most people forget though, especially about the blood eagle fiasco mentioned earlier, is that hits generally aren't placed at random by gang and non gang members. They're placed because people do retarded shit to piss them off. There were a lot of hits placed on blood eagles because, at the time, they did a lot of retarded shit that pissed people off.

The moral of the story is the little guy needs to stop being retarded so people stop contracting them.