These explanations also completely leave out the fact that LustDragon bragged that he knew it was a bug in advance and was taking full advantage of it.
Is abusing negative money on hand a fair mechanic?
Started by Fishyfox [2010062] on in General Discussion.
Posts archived: 302 / 302 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch
One theme Im repeatedly seeing is people who dislike buy muggers saying an exploit like this is OK because they dont like the actions of the person it effected...
This is crazy logic.
It is a blatant abuse of game mechanics, regardless of whether it brings you joy to see the buy mugger lose money.
(Btw, I dont buy mug personally, you can see my mugs stats support this statement...but it is a legitimate part of the game)
How did he even end up that far negative? Was paid out for a bet that shouldn’t have or what?
I get that technically it’s not a bug, but it’s definitely abuse of a game mechanic imo.
I dunno. It’s a smart way for the person in debt to pay off their debts. There’s not really an unfair “advantage,” as any money they get on hand goes to fill in the hole they dug.
That player gets zero benefit from this loophole (not a bug) other than filling their hole faster. Gambling addicts will do anything to fill their hole.
”$20 is $20.” -Gamblers
and, in the words of bogie and ched:
”Working as intended.”
¿Bookies are still a buggy and shitty mess programmed with the balls? No surprises here.
They effectively gained a few hundred million worth of equity on a losing bet.
Imagine crying over not being able to mug.
sounds like the staffs typical "make it up as you go" mentality. and pretty standard stuff from bogie and julie as well. really nothing unexpected here minus the veteran getting banned.
"None are expected" lol true that.
#FreeLustDragon69
finally someone gets it
Those scenarios all involve the negative balance to be a lot more commonly acquired, a lot more controlled on how much negative money you gained and assuming you don't managed to blow it all in bookies trying to emulate it. I want to point out that your scenario, unlike Overseer and Reality, results in a reduced loss/debt reduction unless you double the amount of parachutes. Overseer results with a reduced mug shield while Reality's scenario has the biggest profit with a true mug immunity.
It's certainly really strong but it's held back by it's activation requirements and a possible gambling addiction. I liken this mechanic abuse as similar to mugbots, its not a bug abuse and has it's unfairness but it's still allowed. Unlike mugbots this mechanic is a lot more luck dependant.
This isn't a situation of two people being treated differently, bogie literally specified that baiting buymugs whilst negative balance was not bug abuse when first talking about LD. This is just mental gymnastics to try and defend your friend's account, as it feels like half the f**king fedded thread is these days.
I clicked the link and now I realize the Lust cope is bigger than I thought if they ignored this comment of bogie. And also the fact someone disliked your post of evidence.
They did not lose the bet.
I don't know what this means. How did he get a negative balance?
Won the bet and then had the winnings reverted due a mistake with said bet.
ty
Could you just create a title for bankrupt?
Xxx is an invincible deadbeat
not so jarring.. and stupid players will still try buying without checking
This is really nice way to approach this actually!
Negative cash on hands = title changes to "deadbeat"