Increase the price of lock breakers

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Increase the price of lock breakers

      Alright, with the price being lower or the same as locks makes defending your house near impossible.
      Let's say me and someone else has the exact same money ($50000). Locks costs $1200 and Lock breakers cost $1000.
      I put 41 locks on my door which in total cost me $49200 but the guy that has the lock breakers cost him $50000 and owns 50. All he needs to do is break 41 locks with 9 extra.

      See where I am coming from? How am I supposed to defend myself if they have an advantage? Sure, if we increase the price it may be harder for the lock breaker daily but to be fair if we increase the price to a minimum of $1500 the price is still somewhat cheap. The only way I could be happier is if the lock breakers cost more than a lock. Like said before, in my opinion $1500 is a fair price. It is still fairly cheap but it still cost more than a lock.

      I'm going to be a little bit biased here but honestly I am not very upset if I fail to steal something no matter how pricey it is. However, if I get stuff stolen from me I feel tiny bit bad and frustrated for what I lost depending if it cost a lot of money or time.
    • I'm not entirely sure the reasoning behind the price difference between locks and lock breakers. Basically from my view, it adds a challenge. With lock breakers being cheaper, it gives players reason to raid a players base as they may lose a lot of money in doing so if the player/players inside don't have much drugs/weed/printers. Because there is nothing worse than paying 500k to break locks and only getting 20k back. It also helps to eliminate those big bases with thousands of locks to hide behind, as a group of players can team up and chip in for lock breakers. Having lock breakers set at a higher price than locks will just eliminate an already dying part of the game. Which will basically mean that those with high amounts of locks are almost untouchable and can gain very large sums of cash without much risk of losing it.
      The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting
    • Greetings Mandrew!

      We had this topic a lot of times and there is a reason why we didnt't change it (yet)

      Maybe you can read some examples HERE .


      But we appreciate your time to give us your feedback and opinion. Our Admin Team will work on every issue to make the Server enjoyable and fair for everyone.
    • Kyuto wrote:

      Greetings Mandrew!

      We had this topic a lot of times and there is a reason why we didnt't change it (yet)

      Maybe you can read some examples HERE .


      But we appreciate your time to give us your feedback and opinion. Our Admin Team will work on every issue to make the Server enjoyable and fair for everyone.

      I got some arguments.


      IDaab wrote:

      I'm not entirely sure the reasoning behind the price difference between locks and lock breakers. Basically from my view, it adds a challenge. With lock breakers being cheaper, it gives players reason to raid a players base as they may lose a lot of money in doing so if the player/players inside don't have much drugs/weed/printers. Because there is nothing worse than paying 500k to break locks and only getting 20k back. It also helps to eliminate those big bases with thousands of locks to hide behind, as a group of players can team up and chip in for lock breakers. Having lock breakers set at a higher price than locks will just eliminate an already dying part of the game. Which will basically mean that those with high amounts of locks are almost untouchable and can gain very large sums of cash without much risk of losing it.
      "Basically from my view, it adds a challenge. With lock breakers being cheaper, it gives players reason to raid a players base as they may lose a lot of money in doing so if the player/players inside don't have much drugs/weed/printers. Because there is nothing worse than paying 500k to break locks and only getting 20k back."
      Alright, that is not a good argument and example. Who pays that much and expects more than $500,000 worth of stuff in the house they raided? This is the fault of the poor decision of the player.

      "It also helps to eliminate those big bases with thousands of locks to hide behind, as a group of players can team up and chip in for lock breakers."
      Well sm_locks is a command that lets us see how much locks is on a door. Although getting the cash will take longer, the players should be well aware when to break the locks. But like I said before, you aren't going to find like $1 million in a base. Let's be honest, the only occasional thing you will find is the printer with a little bit of cash in it along with some weed which will only give you $5400.

      "Having lock breakers set at a higher price than locks will just eliminate an already dying part of the game. Which will basically mean that those with high amounts of locks are almost untouchable and can gain very large sums of cash without much risk of losing it."

      Looking at the doors here, I only see 3 doors with exactly 500 locks. But breaking locks should be a decision based upon what the breaker thinks. If they want to spend the money, that's their choice, not mine. It probably should die because most of the time it isn't a good idea to break locks. I've only broken a short amount of locks per door to kill idle players for their idle money, was it worth it? No because he didn't make a lot of money. Even with my suggested price, I still would've bought the lock breakers.

      MiraclesBelieveInMe wrote:

      Thank you for sharing your opinion. The reason we have locks slightly more expensive is to give an incentive for players to make it more worthwhile to break another players locks. If locks were equal or locks were slightly less expensive then we'd have an even greater situation of players hiding in the house being untouchable, as a result players would become even more discouraged to break locks because its a lose-lose senario for them. Not only do they have to spend more money to hurt the person inside but theres no guarantee that the player breaking in will kill the player. Plus the this method helps the circulation of money better for the economy.

      Basically, in you want better protection ur gonna have to pay more.


      "The reason we have locks slightly more expensive is to give an incentive for players to make it more worthwhile to break another players locks."

      Why would anyone want to give the incentive to someone to break locks? I've noticed that when people break locks, they are seen as assholes and aren't treated as well as the ones who aren't as annoying.

      "If locks were equal or locks were slightly less expensive then we'd have an even greater situation of players hiding in the house being untouchable"
      Not really, the thing is I'm not a very rich guy and I may have stuff in my house I may want to protect. But how am I supposed to protect my house from the rich guys if they have a huge advantage over me? Also, untouchable isn't the best argument either. However, this might depend on the amount locks. Still though, I once broke 10 locks right? That cost me $10k but if each breaker cost $1.5k the difference wouldn't be much but invading into someone's should have a penalty.

      "Basically, in you want better protection ur gonna have to pay more."
      I could use this exact same logic against him. I can say "Basically, if you want to get to me ur gonna have to pay more."

      Something else I thought of was this:
      If it cost money less money to destroy locks than place them, then why is unlocking doors not free? Why have a lock pick?
    • Theres already negative incentive to break locks even with the low price it is now. You’ll never break 15+ locks and make that money back with a profit. Most people can afford more than 14 locks so it’s a waste of time to use lock breakers in the first place.

      From an economic standpoint you have to look at the marginal benefit vs the marginal cost, if the choice (not always purely financial) outweighs the cost (also not always financial) you’ll pick the one that benefits you most.

      You’ll also have to look into incentives and opportunity cost. If I could spend my money on something other than a lock breaker and get more out of it, why the hell would I buy a lock breaker.





      [Hypothetical numbers] If you can make 10k an hour and play three hours a day that’s 30k. If someone wants to break in and steal that they’ll look at the locks— you can only have 10k at a time.

      If you invest in locks and put 30 locks and the other person won’t spend more than what they’ll get back to break in you will make the money back that you spent for you locks (+4K)in 4 hours.

      Times that by 3 additional days and you’ve made roughly 94k in profit from just putting down 36k initially. If you can explain a way that lock breakers can do that please explain.








      Raising the price is not the answer. then again this mod is an awful model for an economy but you get the gist
    • eldrun wrote:

      Theres already negative incentive to break locks even with the low price it is now. You’ll never break 15+ locks and make that money back with a profit. Most people can afford more than 14 locks so it’s a waste of time to use lock breakers in the first place.

      From an economic standpoint you have to look at the marginal benefit vs the marginal cost, if the choice (not always purely financial) outweighs the cost (also not always financial) you’ll pick the one that benefits you most.

      You’ll also have to look into incentives and opportunity cost. If I could spend my money on something other than a lock breaker and get more out of it, why the hell would I buy a lock breaker.





      [Hypothetical numbers] If you can make 10k an hour and play three hours a day that’s 30k. If someone wants to break in and steal that they’ll look at the locks— you can only have 10k at a time.

      If you invest in locks and put 30 locks and the other person won’t spend more than what they’ll get back to break in you will make the money back that you spent for you locks (+4K)in 4 hours.

      Times that by 3 additional days and you’ve made roughly 94k in profit from just putting down 36k initially. If you can explain a way that lock breakers can do that please explain.








      Raising the price is not the answer. then again this mod is an awful model for an economy but you get the gist
      For all the time I've played, the only reason people have been breaking locks is to be an asshole and say "haha! I broke your locks!". I've had people threaten to break my locks but that's not very relevant.
      "Times that by 3 additional days and you’ve made roughly 94k in profit from just putting down 36k initially. If you can explain a way that lock breakers can do that please explain."
      I've never seen a single way.
    • eldrun wrote:

      Micobot wrote:

      Locks & Lockbreakers in the current system should be 1:1 in value. 1k for 1k, anything gained from breaking in is profit.
      So spending 70k to get 10k from a printer is a 10k profit even though you rank account has lost 60k?
      No. You spent 70k to get 10k from a printer and to also force the victim party to either give up or pay 70k to get 70 more locks. Are you actually going to argue that people break locks to gain profit? It's a big dick waving contest and part of the profit is knowing you made your victim have to pay to replenish the locks or be easily raided again.
    • Micobot wrote:

      eldrun wrote:

      Micobot wrote:

      Locks & Lockbreakers in the current system should be 1:1 in value. 1k for 1k, anything gained from breaking in is profit.
      So spending 70k to get 10k from a printer is a 10k profit even though you rank account has lost 60k?
      No. You spent 70k to get 10k from a printer and to also force the victim party to either give up or pay 70k to get 70 more locks. Are you actually going to argue that people break locks to gain profit? It's a big dick waving contest and part of the profit is knowing you made your victim have to pay to replenish the locks or be easily raided again.
      You exactly explained why the current system is stupid af
    • eldrun wrote:

      Micobot wrote:

      eldrun wrote:

      Micobot wrote:

      Locks & Lockbreakers in the current system should be 1:1 in value. 1k for 1k, anything gained from breaking in is profit.
      So spending 70k to get 10k from a printer is a 10k profit even though you rank account has lost 60k?
      No. You spent 70k to get 10k from a printer and to also force the victim party to either give up or pay 70k to get 70 more locks. Are you actually going to argue that people break locks to gain profit? It's a big dick waving contest and part of the profit is knowing you made your victim have to pay to replenish the locks or be easily raided again.
      You exactly explained why the current system is stupid af
      If someone is dumb enough to think there is some very expensive item inside of a house with 500 locks, that's on the person who broke the locks. But I don't see why people bring this up because it isn't a good argument to keep the price the same. If you are going to invade someone's house/base it has to be more expensive then the defense.
    • Mandrew - Wonderland_War wrote:

      eldrun wrote:

      Micobot wrote:

      eldrun wrote:

      Micobot wrote:

      Locks & Lockbreakers in the current system should be 1:1 in value. 1k for 1k, anything gained from breaking in is profit.
      So spending 70k to get 10k from a printer is a 10k profit even though you rank account has lost 60k?
      No. You spent 70k to get 10k from a printer and to also force the victim party to either give up or pay 70k to get 70 more locks. Are you actually going to argue that people break locks to gain profit? It's a big dick waving contest and part of the profit is knowing you made your victim have to pay to replenish the locks or be easily raided again.
      You exactly explained why the current system is stupid af
      If someone is dumb enough to think there is some very expensive item inside of a house with 500 locks, that's on the person who broke the locks. But I don't see why people bring this up because it isn't a good argument to keep the price the same. If you are going to invade someone's house/base it has to be more expensive then the defense.
      Please read the part where you say the raiding of someones house is necessary to be more expensive then the defense, think very carefully. Unless the raider is on 24/7 and is never afk the offense will ALWAYS cost more because they will in the end lose more money because of return on investment.

      It's not a hard concept.
      Display Spoiler
      Raid happens on end of day two.


      Defense(starts with 50k):
      -Buys 50 locks(1000x50)
      -Plays 4 hours a day, prints during this time making 10k per hour.
      -makes wages let's say 10 a minute making it 600 an hour.

      50,000 - 50,000 + (10,000 * 8) + (600 * 8) = $34,800

      Defense ends the second day with +$34,800* Zero locks, zero lock breakers.

      *Assuming they win the raid


      Offense(starts with 50k):
      -Buys 50 lock breakers(800x50)
      -Plays 4 hours a day, raids for maybe 1 hour every two days(For this case we'll say it's not the day they raid), the rest of the time they print at same rate as defense.
      -Also makes wages at 10 a minute, 600 an hour.
      -Because they spent all their money on lock breakers they get raided twice by a third party pausing their printing for an hour each time and they lose the money the hour that they are raided on.

      50,000 - 40,000 + (10,000 * 5) + (600 * 5)

      Offense ends the second day with +$13,000. Zero locks, zero lock breakers
      Even if they are not raided offense ends the day with $600 less.





      Anyone that can afford to break 500 locks obviously knows that there is nothing in that house that is going to give them a return on investment... That's not my point. You're making a lot of assumptions on what I'm saying.

      The entire point of making locks more expensive then lock breakers is to raise the risk to printing/planting behind a door so that once you invest money into a (shit ton) of locks you are not making risk-free money. You are literally asking for us to make it unfeasible to ever break into someones house which in return would cause those that are in those houses to just generate more money at a zero-risk rate-- further making the economy even more garbage.



      I'm not saying that the current system is a good one, I'm actually against the current system but raising the price of lock breakers or making it 1:1 is not my idea of a solution.