Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How does maxing work

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How does maxing work

    I understand it goes by 2% per hour. if your not hit for an hour do you accumulate how much you can be hit? I've read the game guide and i feel its not explaining it well. I'd like to read a post by a coder that explains step by step how its calculated.

    for instance, is it the percent at the time your hit, or does it add up all worth stolen and compare it to your NW each time your hit. I'm jsut saying, there's questions : )

  • #2
    Lmao.. Storm aint the boss... Musubi is.. he runs all of TMB land.. Storm is but a puppet... Hell.. even MafiosoGod is scared of The Subi..


    p.s. Be aggressive with Musubi... he does like it rough...

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi Dor,

      I am not a programmer for TMB, but I do know a little bit about coding.

      However, I am fluent with the algorithm that is the maxing system.

      At ever top of the hour, you are switched from whatever status you were in the previous hour (maxed or un-maxed) to un-maxed. At which point, you are open to at least one hit. You can incur up to 2% damage every hour. Once you have accumulated that 2% damage, you are considered maxed and cannot be hit again until the next hour (unless someone has revenge on you).

      As an example:

      TOH 1: Networth = 600 MIL (500 MIL on hand, 0 DUs, 100,000 Hustlers, 0 on everything in black market)
      HIT HQ ONCE = 25 mil taken (5% of Cash on Hand)
      IF (25 MIL / 600 MIL) * 100% > 2.0
      THEN MAXED
      ELSE UN-MAXED

      Clearly, 25 mil is more than 2% of the total networth, so you are maxed

      TOH 2: Same situation as above but your networth is now 575 mil
      EXTORT BUSINESS ONCE = at MOST (attackers can take at most 5% of ops in one hit) 5k Hustlers lost (or 5 MIL networth)
      IF (5 MIL / 575 MIL) * 100% > 2.0
      THEN MAXED
      ELSE UN-MAXED

      Well 5 mil is not 2% of 575 mil, so you are un-maxed and can take at least one more hit.

      Hope this was helpful to you.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks silouette. You covered it well.

        Comment


        • #5
          Hey there Sil,

          I have another question that sort of expands on your last post. In your 2nd example, where a player is not maxed in 1 hit, obviously a certain % of that is applied to a count, hence the "accumulated" aspect.

          Now my question is, how is this accumulation calculated?

          Is it 2% based off the value of the first hit on you, or does it calculate the % damage of the hit and add it purely based off the number of that particular hit?

          Example of first situation:

          Player has $1000 and gets hit for $10, that is 1% damage, based on the original 1k net. Next hit, they lose $99 which is slightly less than 1% of the original base net, so they would have an accumulated damage of something like 1.99%, therefore, it would take 1 more hit to max them.

          Example of second situation:

          Player has $1000 and gets hit for $10, that is 1%, next hit they get hit for $9.99, rounding down to $9, which is 1% of the new net, meaning they ARE maxed from 1% + 1%

          Not great examples, but I think you get my point :P

          This is something I have wondered for a while now, but never bothered to really test.

          Thanks for any insight you might be able to offer.
          Popebeenadick

          Comment


          • #6
            Wow! I think ole Thunder there is a bitter body. Whatever happened pal, It's not worth holding a grudge. Life goes on.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Popebenedict View Post
              Hey there Sil,

              I have another question that sort of expands on your last post. In your 2nd example, where a player is not maxed in 1 hit, obviously a certain % of that is applied to a count, hence the "accumulated" aspect.

              Now my question is, how is this accumulation calculated?

              Is it 2% based off the value of the first hit on you, or does it calculate the % damage of the hit and add it purely based off the number of that particular hit?

              Example of first situation:

              Player has $1000 and gets hit for $10, that is 1% damage, based on the original 1k net. Next hit, they lose $99 which is slightly less than 1% of the original base net, so they would have an accumulated damage of something like 1.99%, therefore, it would take 1 more hit to max them.

              Example of second situation:

              Player has $1000 and gets hit for $10, that is 1%, next hit they get hit for $9.99, rounding down to $9, which is 1% of the new net, meaning they ARE maxed from 1% + 1%

              Not great examples, but I think you get my point :P

              This is something I have wondered for a while now, but never bothered to really test.

              Thanks for any insight you might be able to offer.
              Hi Pope. You raise a valid question, and this comes down to just a few million dollars (but can be more than that on a larger scale)

              In short, the 2% damage is calculated from the original, un-maxed networth.

              Say for instance your networth is 500 mil. 2% of that is 10 mil. Once 10 mil (or more) is taken, you're maxed.

              So if you're hit for 1 mil, your net is now 499 mil. You lost .2%. You can still be taken for 1.8% of the original networth (500 mil) - another 9 mil.

              Your question is that does it work for the new networth (i.e. 1.8% of 499 mil - which is fractionally less than 9 mil). No. It is based off the networth at the time the player was not maxed. This is where the "increment" comes into play again.

              In the old system, the increment was there so that you could have 10 attacks in. Now, it's 2% of total accumulated damage from starting networth.

              Hope this made sense.

              Comment


              • #8
                Yes it does, thank you.

                I honestly figured it'd be the second example, but I guess the first is more simple :P

                I am just surprised it has not been abused a little, I mean, what would stop someone from getting say like 2 tril net from a transfer, getting tapped by a 1 car drive by and then dropping back down to like less than 1 bil. Then technically they would need like 40 bil to max, which I am not 100% how it could be abused XD but if I thought long enough, i could find something.
                Popebeenadick

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thank you pope , now the new monopoly will abuse it :P

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Popebenedict View Post
                    Yes it does, thank you.

                    I honestly figured it'd be the second example, but I guess the first is more simple :P

                    I am just surprised it has not been abused a little, I mean, what would stop someone from getting say like 2 tril net from a transfer, getting tapped by a 1 car drive by and then dropping back down to like less than 1 bil. Then technically they would need like 40 bil to max, which I am not 100% how it could be abused XD but if I thought long enough, i could find something.
                    Actually, that in itself is a problem. Now you're making me think about this situation more and I'll have to find a way to test it to the best of my ability. It seems to me that there would be a fail-safe in a situation like this

                    Let's consider this item pending until I can get back to you with some concrete evidence.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      i have no reason to get involved here, and no evidence. but if it were me i'd use the first example. so start the hour with 1k. loose 10, then loose 9..... so far -$19 so 1.9% you should still be open to one more atack. which if ratios and stats stayed the same, would suggest you could loose another $9, i.e 0.9% .....so in theory....if somebody could figure out how mush their attack would cost you in NW they could use a similar tactic to control an attack, and take 1.99% and THEN hit you with everything they got so as to inflict maximum damage....if they had some kinda reason to want you damaged as much as they could.

                      sorry kinda got lost in a different train of thought there :L but what i was getting at is that the first example would be the easiest to program as it would be something similar to

                      if total attacks/loss this step(hour) > 2% of NW at start of Step - set status to "MAXED"
                      (is more than)

                      obviously i dont know what terms they have used to program the game, or if they have used values, but you get the idea.

                      and sorry to butt in without anything to base this on, but this is the way i would have done it

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        How a "Anti-Bully/Pro-Victim" Attitude is actually Adding to World Warfare 3, and the Just Dependable Option
                        Using conflict warp speed among Hezbollah along with Israel, years of American involvement within Irak along with Afghanistan, and also Islamic terrorist works taking place throughout the world, that is definitely legitimate for you to question whether we're noisy . levels involving Entire world War III. Except if there exists a major change in the status quo in the center Far east, even if the actual situation along with Israel as well as Lebanon concludes, it is going to just be short-term. Battling will evolve again, quite possibly more catastrophically than previously. Lots of people believe the particular Holy bible prophesizes which Armageddon, your war to absolve most battles begins at the center Eastern, which it really is previously start. I think anyone who is actually pessimistic concerning the wish for planet serenity carries a justification to become.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Something is different since conclusion regarding World war 2. In the past, nations around the world would likely earn conflicts due to their particular excellent may well. It could be irrational for a weak land to assert fight against a new stronger one as it could be rapidly demolished. This is no longer correct. Nowadays, minimal army power can easily brazenly obstacle entire world superpowers and also get! What's happening?

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X