Skip to content
TORNLIFE More

Is abusing negative money on hand a fair mechanic?

Started by Fishyfox [2010062] on in General Discussion.

301 replies · 3.74k views · thread synced · 4 days ago · View on torn.com
About this thread

Posts archived: 302 / 302 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch

Counted by TornLife from the archived posts.

Archived posts
302
Discussion span
→
Authority score
63 / 100
Historical score
39 / 100
Story score
71 / 100
Engagement score
90 / 100

People posting, likes and official posts are not counted for this thread yet: on threads longer than one page they come from a periodic pass over the archive, which has not covered it.

Most-liked replies

  • bogie [148747] Admin · 184 likes ·
    My personal opinion, as the one who also replied to your report, is that it's not bug abuse since it's not a bug. They had funds deducted from illegal gains, they made extra funds by scamming you due to your …
  • Pharma [2684976] · 100 likes ·
    I think it’s fair and smart use of the situation.
  • Lasky [1718783] · 96 likes ·
Fishyfox [2010062] · #1 · edited

This morning I attempted a buymug on someone who was not online.

10:00:23 - 13/03/26 You bought 7x Parachute on Sqall's bazaar at $470,990,000 each for a total of $3,296,930,000
10:00:27 - 13/03/26 FreeSpirit mugged Sqall for $0 (+2.93)

Turns out, they had a huge negative balance on hand due to gambling errors fixed by staff, which meant that there was no money left on hand after mug.


(thanks for the attempted warning SirJux!)

I reported this to staff as bug abuse, and they said that they do not consider it bug abuse since it is not a bug. I guess in terms of technicalities it is not a bug, but it seems to be an abuse of game mechanics.

 


Considering that the items were deliberately overpriced and there's no way to know that there is this much negative money on hand without checking every potential mug target's money on hand through hiring someone to do it through job points, this seems like an abuse of in game mechanics. (Not a shot at Sqall who actually checked with staff before doing this, more of a commentary on how insane this mechanic is).

Sqall for example, has a 200b networth. I think a much better option than reducing money on hand would be to first reduce money stored in banks or stocks (without breaking stacks) instead of allowing there to be such a large deficit of money on hand to lead to such exploits.

What do you think?

Swervelord [3637232] · #6

This is like buy mug baiting without having to pay attention to fast deposit. This is overpowered as f**k. It shouldn't be allowed. 

PhanPhanwhat [3947295] · #9

What’s the mechanic for gambling debts? If money comes into hand, does it immediately go towards gambling debts? Or do you have a chance to spend money before it pays for those debts? Are gambling debts ever forgiven?

ghostfacers [2233008] · #10

f**kin complainers man

if you had bought with negative money and had them mug you would you have made this forum post? NO BECAUSE YOUD HAVE BEEN RAKING IN THE DOLLARS SO QUIT WHINIGN xxx

bogie [148747] Admin Staff · #11

My personal opinion, as the one who also replied to your report, is that it's not bug abuse since it's not a bug.

 

They had funds deducted from illegal gains, they made extra funds by scamming you due to your greed - there's nothing illegal or abusive about selling a parachute over market value - you just got greedy and it caught up to you... 

 

Is it unfortunate? Sure. Am I opposed to some clearer marker showing when a player has negative cash? No, but I can't really think of any simple way to do that which isn't jarring - I've raised this to Ched before and we had the same conclusion there. If you can consider something feel free to bring it up in suggestions. 

kILLIAN- [1310389] · #15

There is such a small amount of people that actually end up with large amounts of a negative balance due to the very small amount of ways it can be abused. I think it would be very different if there were very simple ways to reach -3billion in money. But i fail to think of even one situation where I could possibly acheive this, especially without completely hindering everything that I have done in game!

 

you always take that risk with buy mugs that you may not get the mug and at the end of the day it’s only one attack.

 

if anything I actually have a bit of respect for him for catching you out as a buy mugger

bogie [148747] Admin Staff · #18 · edited

Player A sells parachute at above market price in an "unsafe" manner

Player B sees an opportunity to mug said player, taking on the risk of buying at higher price because the mug they can pull off will discount it sufficiently being a good deal for them

 

(i.e. - 470m parachute becomes a something like a 420m parachute after the mug - good deal)

 

However, since player A has negative cash they don't get the money on hand, instead going to pay off debts (if they have -1b on hand, they now have -530m on hand)

 

Mug = 0

 

Player A chuckles to themselves that their scam worked and they were able to benefit this manner as a result of their penalty for negative cash.

 

I completely understand the frustration on the muggers part, as they feel this person is therefore indirectly benefiting from previous cheating and penalties. 

 

However they still took on this risk and it didn't pay off. It's not a "bug" so isn't "bug abuse", the argument is more that its unfair for them to be benefiting in any manner by having negative cash.

 

Again I don't disagree with that perspective, but realistically it's an unfortunate quirk that I don't really have any way to give recourse for. Having negative cash is already quite restrictive on one's account and where scenarios permit I try to avoid it, but in many cases it is unavoidable. 

 

It's extremely rare where this comes up, and in my view again comes down more to a scam and exploiting someone's greed rather than anything we need to spend significant time in applying some sort of countermeasure. 

 

I think there's a decent discussion value here though and certainly open to hearing the overall perspectives. 

 

It's very easy to be "haha get f**ked mugger", and a part of me enjoys that catharsis too, but I feel it's equally reasonable to be "f**k you rule breaker you didn't deserve that extra cash". Not every scenario of negative cash is a result of rule breaking though (most are, but not all).

 

Ultimately it comes down to what we as game designers can actually reasonably apply to make things "fair". Sometimes things just aren't entirely fair, it's just the best we can do. 

blockhead77 [2539580] · #19

I have always found it a bit odd that a negative balance is placed on hand. The problem is, what if the person doesn’t have enough in their bank? Then you’re stuck. I think that’s why it is always placed in hand, even if it kinda sucks for the player. (And muggers too I suppose.)