Is It Fair To Give 20% In Heists?

[fear_the_nut70]

 

My friends and I will fail any heist you want if you give 15%. 20% buys completion. Anything less is a host being greedy and you won't get satisfaction from us. 15% is not enough and as others have stated people got paid for the setups. We usually join by phone and 1 person invites whoever else they can into the heist. If we join and it's the 1st setup we'll play through to the final. If we join and its a final then we will finish it only if we are paid fairly. 20% is fair 15% is not. Too many greedy bastards will play the setups then not reinvite the people who got them there. Then they try to use the "you didn't do any setups so you only get 15%" line. 55% to 1 person is just them being a greedy douche.

Not really... 55% for a leader doesn't make them greedy because the leader has to pay to start the Heist and the Leader gets no money from the setups.

 

 

If you believe this then I'm thinking you aren't very good at math. Set up on Pac Std is $100,000. Oh hard, you can get $26k for each set up, there are 5. That's $130,000. At 55%, the leader collects $687,500* total. This leaves 15% for the other 3 players, which is $187,500. Add that to set up pay, and each player IF they did all set ups would earn $317,500. When you subtract out set up cost, greedy leader under your scenario earns $587,500. How is that equitable exactly?

 

Now I know some see it differently if players don't do the set ups. But in my book, either way, the leader is getting a windfall, it's just a matter of who he is taking it from. As has been discussed many times on here, fairest payout is 40/20/20/20 (which leaves the leader coming out slightly ahead).

 

* totals above are for Pac Std on hard.

[EABetteBalterZen]

I always do 40-20-20-20 and if I join a Heist I want 20, no matter what. If I don't get it, I leave. Not my problem.

[Locce]

If a random do all the setups I will give him 20% and I know he is getting paid for the setups(like few people keep saying on this thread), but not as much as the actual heist. If we do all setups together and I only give him 15%, I still made more money then him at the end. Doesnt make sense, if he did the same amount of ''work'' he deserve as much as me. I usually host anyways and never join randoms cause that way I don't get f*cked at the end

Ah, yes, that confirms my suspicion about bad math. If you gave 20% regardless of setup participation you would still earn a handsome amount of money more than someone who did not do the setups with you. The one profiting from giving 15% instead of 20% is the host and only the host, not the ones helping him with the setups who had earned that money by that logic. For me the mathematically unsound "did not do the setups" justification smells a bit too much like an incentive to ditch the setup crew in favour of a new heist crew for those extra 15% of the heist reward.

[Nomis24]

 

If a random do all the setups I will give him 20% and I know he is getting paid for the setups(like few people keep saying on this thread), but not as much as the actual heist. If we do all setups together and I only give him 15%, I still made more money then him at the end. Doesnt make sense, if he did the same amount of ''work'' he deserve as much as me. I usually host anyways and never join randoms cause that way I don't get f*cked at the end

Ah, yes, that confirms my suspicion about bad math. If you gave 20% regardless of setup participation you would still earn a handsome amount of money more than someone who did not do the setups with you. The one profiting from giving 15% instead of 20% is the host and only the host, not the ones helping him with the setups who had earned that money by that logic. For me the mathematically unsound "did not do the setups" justification smells a bit too much like an incentive to ditch the setup crew in favour of a new heist crew for those extra 15% of the heist reward.

 

40/20/20/20 is the most fair payout for anyone. Don't start to say I'm bad at math when you don't seem to understand my point. I will say it again. If someone did all the setups or most of it with me and the heist, he did the same amount of ''work'' as me, therefor the good thing to do, is give him the closest payout to mine as possible. I would rather have a good ''set'' of randoms that do all the setups with me and I give them 20% then having to find new randoms every setups and end up taking twice the time it would take to go throught the heist. I did it once giving 15% and like I stated if took me 3 hours to go throught the 5 setups of humane labs so I think it was more then fair.

 

Simple thing you can do is look at the payout/time. If you join at the finale and get a payout of 15% your payout/time will be more then if you go through all the setups and get a 20%

[WWEMichaelB]

10% or less will get you a troll from me

 

15% will get you me just without my armor or snacks

 

20% or higher I can guarantee I won't die

[aurther61287]

I will give it 1 try at 15% 0 tries at 10%. stick it out no matter how many tries at 20%.

 

somone willing to give 20% or more deserves to have me stick it out.

 

15% you better have a competent group unless im the one that messes it up im out after the first try if it fails.

 

wont even both with 10%.

[Retroview1955]

Am I the only person annoyed when people ask for 20% in Heists? There's always strangers I meet on freemode joining my Heists and asking for 20% when they haven't done any setups.

 

Even my friend is greedy like that, whenever I invite him to setups he never joins (unless it's a fun setup like Humane EMP) but when there's a Heist he's nearly like the first person to join and always asks for 20% even though he's done no setups.

You gave what you want as the heist leader. The question is will they stick around once they see what you are giving them?

I only do heist with friends.

[pycnotic]

I always do 40-20-20-20 if it's the same crew for the majority of the heist setup missions, it's the most fair way because the host doesn't make money on setups plus pays the fee. But if someone doesn't play any of the setups I pay 15% and will pocket the extra money for myself. If you want a good payday then play the setups also and not just finales.

[OptiCog]

20% is more than fair if someone is helping for a finale only. however consider 25% if they stuck with you all the heist.

This. Not going by this logic and giving people 15% regardless of competency just because they signed up for the finale is just a sign of greed and selfishness. Same goes for those who only give 20% when they've stuck with you through the set-ups and finale. Give me 15% on a heist, expect to sit there until the timer runs out. If I don't have 20% by then, I'm gone after the first death. I can carry the other three through a heist and do them solo with ease. You gotta give a fair cut if you want a good player on your side.

Edited December 21, 2015 by aLucidMind

[Cubanoking99]

This topics been beaten way into the ground already. Your heist, your choice but here's the break down.

 

15% for randoms who didn't do any setups

 

20% for those who helped in at least one setup; personally, i do this for my actual friends on psn and my crew members as well.

 

Ultimately it's your choice though, you put up the setup cost.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Cubanoking99

[DominusTaranis]

"only if they did all the setups"

To be fair, YOU, as heist leader, NEED a second/third/fourth person, or you're not getting paid at all, plus you lose your upfront costs. I always pay 20%, unless someone is being a cocknugget or exceptionally incompetent, at which point I kick them and move on.

[Locce]

 

 

If a random do all the setups I will give him 20% and I know he is getting paid for the setups(like few people keep saying on this thread), but not as much as the actual heist. If we do all setups together and I only give him 15%, I still made more money then him at the end. Doesnt make sense, if he did the same amount of ''work'' he deserve as much as me. I usually host anyways and never join randoms cause that way I don't get f*cked at the end

Ah, yes, that confirms my suspicion about bad math. If you gave 20% regardless of setup participation you would still earn a handsome amount of money more than someone who did not do the setups with you. The one profiting from giving 15% instead of 20% is the host and only the host, not the ones helping him with the setups who had earned that money by that logic. For me the mathematically unsound "did not do the setups" justification smells a bit too much like an incentive to ditch the setup crew in favour of a new heist crew for those extra 15% of the heist reward.

 

40/20/20/20 is the most fair payout for anyone. Don't start to say I'm bad at math when you don't seem to understand my point. I will say it again. If someone did all the setups or most of it with me and the heist, he did the same amount of ''work'' as me, therefor the good thing to do, is give him the closest payout to mine as possible. I would rather have a good ''set'' of randoms that do all the setups with me and I give them 20% then having to find new randoms every setups and end up taking twice the time it would take to go throught the heist. I did it once giving 15% and like I stated if took me 3 hours to go throught the 5 setups of humane labs so I think it was more then fair.

 

Simple thing you can do is look at the payout/time. If you join at the finale and get a payout of 15% your payout/time will be more then if you go through all the setups and get a 20%

 

I was referring to the text I quoted and I am saying that 40/20/20/20 is the most fair payout for anyone regardless of setup participation which is where we seem to disagree. So, I guess I understand your point just fine. Saying the host should get more money, because other people helped him with setups makes no sense, least of all mathematically. Either you factor in setups, in which case the host would be obligated to divide the money he takes from a new member's cut among the players who helped with setups but not with the heist (which is quite difficult in most cases), or you do not factor in setups at all and accept that the setup helpers got paid already while those who only join for the finale do get less than anybody else even with a 20% cut.

And do not make the mistake and think your heist members spend any less time with setups before they see a heist payout. For finales to exist somebody has to do every setup. By far not every player showing up just in time for your finale is a dirty finale hopper looking for a quick payout. Most of them will have invested just as much time as yourself... only to hear that "15% since you did not help with setups" nonsense. That is not even remotely "more than fair". At best it is "just fair enough".

[Nomis24]

 

 

 

If a random do all the setups I will give him 20% and I know he is getting paid for the setups(like few people keep saying on this thread), but not as much as the actual heist. If we do all setups together and I only give him 15%, I still made more money then him at the end. Doesnt make sense, if he did the same amount of ''work'' he deserve as much as me. I usually host anyways and never join randoms cause that way I don't get f*cked at the end

Ah, yes, that confirms my suspicion about bad math. If you gave 20% regardless of setup participation you would still earn a handsome amount of money more than someone who did not do the setups with you. The one profiting from giving 15% instead of 20% is the host and only the host, not the ones helping him with the setups who had earned that money by that logic. For me the mathematically unsound "did not do the setups" justification smells a bit too much like an incentive to ditch the setup crew in favour of a new heist crew for those extra 15% of the heist reward.

 

40/20/20/20 is the most fair payout for anyone. Don't start to say I'm bad at math when you don't seem to understand my point. I will say it again. If someone did all the setups or most of it with me and the heist, he did the same amount of ''work'' as me, therefor the good thing to do, is give him the closest payout to mine as possible. I would rather have a good ''set'' of randoms that do all the setups with me and I give them 20% then having to find new randoms every setups and end up taking twice the time it would take to go throught the heist. I did it once giving 15% and like I stated if took me 3 hours to go throught the 5 setups of humane labs so I think it was more then fair.

 

Simple thing you can do is look at the payout/time. If you join at the finale and get a payout of 15% your payout/time will be more then if you go through all the setups and get a 20%

 

I was referring to the text I quoted and I am saying that 40/20/20/20 is the most fair payout for anyone regardless of setup participation which is where we seem to disagree. So, I guess I understand your point just fine. Saying the host should get more money, because other people helped him with setups makes no sense, least of all mathematically. Either you factor in setups, in which case the host would be obligated to divide the money he takes from a new member's cut among the players who helped with setups but not with the heist (which is quite difficult in most cases), or you do not factor in setups at all and accept that the setup helpers got paid already while those who only join for the finale do get less than anybody else even with a 20% cut.

And do not make the mistake and think your heist members spend any less time with setups before they see a heist payout. For finales to exist somebody has to do every setup. By far not every player showing up just in time for your finale is a dirty finale hopper looking for a quick payout. Most of them will have invested just as much time as yourself... only to hear that "15% since you did not help with setups" nonsense. That is not even remotely "more than fair". At best it is "just fair enough

 

You still don't seem to understand the time factor in all this. Sometime you can wait up to 5-10 minutes in a lobby for a setup to get all 4 players. Who is waiting the whole time there, the host(yes the second player to join wait also but the host is always the want who wait/lose time the most). Like I said I did ONCE to give 15% but the one time I did it, i spent 3hours doing the setups. It was double money, none of the player in the finale were there for any setups. I could have given them 5% and they would have made a good payout for the time they spent doing the mission. Humane lab is a easy finale that you can do most of the time on the first try on hard in 12-15 min. You saying that im mathematically wrong could be only true if you don't consider Time at all, which is completely wrong to do cause it's all about how much money you can do in a set amount of time that makes some activity better then the other to make money faster.

 

If I join a heist finale, I would rather have 20% but if the host gives me 15% I don't mind cause at that moment, I know there is no activity even close to giving me a payout as high as that for the time it takes to do it. The second best option at that point is quit, go do 2-3 contact mission, which will give me about 30-40 K Max and with the 15% of the heist in the same amount of time I can do 100 K or more

Edited December 21, 2015 by Nomis24

[lessthan3]

Really, Rockstar should have locked it to the default payout from the start. The mere ability to change it is what ruined Heists. Because people are greedy twats.

 

The way it's supposed to work is that the host pays an initial setup fee, then they get nothing from the setup missions, and then a huge payout during the finale. But the other people don't pay a cent, get money for each set up mission, and then a smaller cut for the finale. But in the end, if you add up all of the rewards from the setup missions, EVERYONE GETS THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT, provided they did the same amount of work, ie. all of the setup missions.

 

But because you can change the cut, people will just quit out of the setup missions, and only do the finales, pressuring the host into giving them a larger cut or they quit, because they feel like coming in at the end and doing 5% of the work, they are surely entitled to a larger percentage of the total reward for the entire heist, than the host himself. It's especially enraging when you, as the host, sat there for hours waiting for people to help you do the setup missions, because these same asshats who are now demanding more money, quit out as soon as they saw it was a setup mission. And it's the ability to change the cut that creates this problem.

 

In no other game have I ever met such scumbags. This particular part of the game is literally filled with the worst people in all of gaming. I have played hundreds of games, and I hate people who only join heist finales more than any other people in gaming. I'd rather spend time with actual nazis. I think they'd probably be better people.

[z06z33]

Depends on the player,if he's got skills like is an excellent pilot (me) or a great sniper ect he's worth more obviously. It's all about what you bring to the table to me. I can fly really well but I suck at shooting,so I need people who are good shots.

Edited December 21, 2015 by z06z33

[DBrasco]

20% is fair with or without setups.

[Agent Smiz]

I will happily take 20%. If the host sets it at 15% and all the other players ready up, 9 times out of 10, I'll accept it.

Lower it beyond the default, however, and I'm gone. Not straight away but right as the countdown hits zero. Just out of spite. Happened to a bloke the other day who tried to give me 5% on Pacific Standard. 75/10/10/5 is beyond a joke.

[fear_the_nut70]

 

 

If a random do all the setups I will give him 20% and I know he is getting paid for the setups(like few people keep saying on this thread), but not as much as the actual heist. If we do all setups together and I only give him 15%, I still made more money then him at the end. Doesnt make sense, if he did the same amount of ''work'' he deserve as much as me. I usually host anyways and never join randoms cause that way I don't get f*cked at the end

Ah, yes, that confirms my suspicion about bad math. If you gave 20% regardless of setup participation you would still earn a handsome amount of money more than someone who did not do the setups with you. The one profiting from giving 15% instead of 20% is the host and only the host, not the ones helping him with the setups who had earned that money by that logic. For me the mathematically unsound "did not do the setups" justification smells a bit too much like an incentive to ditch the setup crew in favour of a new heist crew for those extra 15% of the heist reward.

 

40/20/20/20 is the most fair payout for anyone. Don't start to say I'm bad at math when you don't seem to understand my point. I will say it again. If someone did all the setups or most of it with me and the heist, he did the same amount of ''work'' as me, therefor the good thing to do, is give him the closest payout to mine as possible. I would rather have a good ''set'' of randoms that do all the setups with me and I give them 20% then having to find new randoms every setups and end up taking twice the time it would take to go throught the heist. I did it once giving 15% and like I stated if took me 3 hours to go throught the 5 setups of humane labs so I think it was more then fair.

 

Simple thing you can do is look at the payout/time. If you join at the finale and get a payout of 15% your payout/time will be more then if you go through all the setups and get a 20%

 

 

Simple thing you can do is look at the payout/time. If you join at the finale and get a payout of 15% your payout/time will be more then if you go through all the setups and get a 20%

 

This is true from the perspective of the host. But if the equitable split really is 40/20/20/20, if you pay someone 15% at the end because they only did the finale, the persons you are taking it from are the others that completed the set ups (did the "work") who are now not around for the payday. That's why I say it's a windfall for the leader.

Really, Rockstar should have locked it to the default payout from the start. The mere ability to change it is what ruined Heists. Because people are greedy twats.

 

The way it's supposed to work is that the host pays an initial setup fee, then they get nothing from the setup missions, and then a huge payout during the finale. But the other people don't pay a cent, get money for each set up mission, and then a smaller cut for the finale. But in the end, if you add up all of the rewards from the setup missions, EVERYONE GETS THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT, provided they did the same amount of work, ie. all of the setup missions.

 

But because you can change the cut, people will just quit out of the setup missions, and only do the finales, pressuring the host into giving them a larger cut or they quit, because they feel like coming in at the end and doing 5% of the work, they are surely entitled to a larger percentage of the total reward for the entire heist, than the host himself. It's especially enraging when you, as the host, sat there for hours waiting for people to help you do the setup missions, because these same asshats who are now demanding more money, quit out as soon as they saw it was a setup mission. And it's the ability to change the cut that creates this problem.

 

In no other game have I ever met such scumbags. This particular part of the game is literally filled with the worst people in all of gaming. I have played hundreds of games, and I hate people who only join heist finales more than any other people in gaming. I'd rather spend time with actual nazis. I think they'd probably be better people.

 

I couldn't agree less. Maybe it's the sociology classes I took as an undergrad, but I find the experiment fascinating. I agree with the guy above--you try and stick it to me, and I will let that timer count all the way down and jump out, thereby wasting as much of your time as possible. I also have used it as a method to pay people for things that they did for me (here is part of my cut for helping me do this), which is invaluable since the game has long since prohibited transferring money. So no, I would not want Rock Star fixing the cuts.

Edited December 21, 2015 by fear_the_nut70

[KashKashMania]

Honestly, it depends who it is. Like if the person asking for the 20% is someone who's helping you and 2 friends out and they've done the heist several times and know it really well, then yes, 20% is fair for them.

 

TBH it just depends on who it is and what the situation is.

[CaptainMental]

 

 

My friends and I will fail any heist you want if you give 15%. 20% buys completion. Anything less is a host being greedy and you won't get satisfaction from us. 15% is not enough and as others have stated people got paid for the setups. We usually join by phone and 1 person invites whoever else they can into the heist. If we join and it's the 1st setup we'll play through to the final. If we join and its a final then we will finish it only if we are paid fairly. 20% is fair 15% is not. Too many greedy bastards will play the setups then not reinvite the people who got them there. Then they try to use the "you didn't do any setups so you only get 15%" line. 55% to 1 person is just them being a greedy douche.

 

Not really... 55% for a leader doesn't make them greedy because the leader has to pay to start the Heist and the Leader gets no money from the setups.

 

If you believe this then I'm thinking you aren't very good at math. Set up on Pac Std is $100,000. Oh hard, you can get $26k for each set up, there are 5. That's $130,000. At 55%, the leader collects $687,500* total. This leaves 15% for the other 3 players, which is $187,500. Add that to set up pay, and each player IF they did all set ups would earn $317,500. When you subtract out set up cost, greedy leader under your scenario earns $587,500. How is that equitable exactly?

 

Now I know some see it differently if players don't do the set ups. But in my book, either way, the leader is getting a windfall, it's just a matter of who he is taking it from. As has been discussed many times on here, fairest payout is 40/20/20/20 (which leaves the leader coming out slightly ahead).

 

* totals above are for Pac Std on hard.

 

Thing is, the host has to play the setups and most likely do them several times since the probability to pass them on the first try is nearly impossible because of randumbs. So time wise the host should be compensated with 55/15/15/15 if the players joined the only for the final.

 

[CrysisAverted]

Is it fair? Maybe

Is life fair? Absolutely not

Edited December 21, 2015 by CrysisAverted

[TCA]

Yes depending if they was there from the start of not 15 or 10 is ok

 

U need a new friend

What Quinn said.

[fear_the_nut70]

 

 

 

My friends and I will fail any heist you want if you give 15%. 20% buys completion. Anything less is a host being greedy and you won't get satisfaction from us. 15% is not enough and as others have stated people got paid for the setups. We usually join by phone and 1 person invites whoever else they can into the heist. If we join and it's the 1st setup we'll play through to the final. If we join and its a final then we will finish it only if we are paid fairly. 20% is fair 15% is not. Too many greedy bastards will play the setups then not reinvite the people who got them there. Then they try to use the "you didn't do any setups so you only get 15%" line. 55% to 1 person is just them being a greedy douche.

Not really... 55% for a leader doesn't make them greedy because the leader has to pay to start the Heist and the Leader gets no money from the setups.

If you believe this then I'm thinking you aren't very good at math. Set up on Pac Std is $100,000. Oh hard, you can get $26k for each set up, there are 5. That's $130,000. At 55%, the leader collects $687,500* total. This leaves 15% for the other 3 players, which is $187,500. Add that to set up pay, and each player IF they did all set ups would earn $317,500. When you subtract out set up cost, greedy leader under your scenario earns $587,500. How is that equitable exactly?

 

Now I know some see it differently if players don't do the set ups. But in my book, either way, the leader is getting a windfall, it's just a matter of who he is taking it from. As has been discussed many times on here, fairest payout is 40/20/20/20 (which leaves the leader coming out slightly ahead).

 

* totals above are for Pac Std on hard.

Thing is, the host has to play the setups and most likely do them several times since the probability to pass them on the first try is nearly impossible because of randumbs. So time wise the host should be compensated with 55/15/15/15 if the players joined the only for the final.

 

 

 

Here is a separate question (and an issue raised above), but who is getting through the setups with either friends or randoms and NOT going directly to the heist? I am sure there are some times that a player says ,"man I gotta go." But my experience is that usually isn't the case. And it probably almost NEVER is the case that 3 people need to all go at the Heist, meaning that it is just plain greedy to bump the Host's cut up to 55%. It strikes me that this most often happens when the host has decided to use people to get to that point then jumps off, as recently happened to me.

 

Nice use of Randumbs by the way.

Edited December 21, 2015 by fear_the_nut70

[lessthan3]

 

Really, Rockstar should have locked it to the default payout from the start. The mere ability to change it is what ruined Heists. Because people are greedy twats.

 

The way it's supposed to work is that the host pays an initial setup fee, then they get nothing from the setup missions, and then a huge payout during the finale. But the other people don't pay a cent, get money for each set up mission, and then a smaller cut for the finale. But in the end, if you add up all of the rewards from the setup missions, EVERYONE GETS THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT, provided they did the same amount of work, ie. all of the setup missions.

 

But because you can change the cut, people will just quit out of the setup missions, and only do the finales, pressuring the host into giving them a larger cut or they quit, because they feel like coming in at the end and doing 5% of the work, they are surely entitled to a larger percentage of the total reward for the entire heist, than the host himself. It's especially enraging when you, as the host, sat there for hours waiting for people to help you do the setup missions, because these same asshats who are now demanding more money, quit out as soon as they saw it was a setup mission. And it's the ability to change the cut that creates this problem.

 

In no other game have I ever met such scumbags. This particular part of the game is literally filled with the worst people in all of gaming. I have played hundreds of games, and I hate people who only join heist finales more than any other people in gaming. I'd rather spend time with actual nazis. I think they'd probably be better people.

 

I couldn't agree less. Maybe it's the sociology classes I took as an undergrad, but I find the experiment fascinating. I agree with the guy above--you try and stick it to me, and I will let that timer count all the way down and jump out, thereby wasting as much of your time as possible. I also have used it as a method to pay people for things that they did for me (here is part of my cut for helping me do this), which is invaluable since the game has long since prohibited transferring money. So no, I would not want Rock Star fixing the cuts.

 

 

 

How is anyone sticking it to you? Did you perhaps not understand what I said? The amount of money everyone gets in a heist is the same, if everyone does the same amount of work. A crew member who does all setup missions + the finale at 15% gets the same amount of money as the host at 55%

 

This is what we in the maths business call an even split.

 

Let me explain it in a simpler way for those idiots who still don't get it. Imagine you have a heist with 5 parts. 4 set up missions and a finale. For each set up mission, the crew members get 1 money. So for the four set up missions they get 4 money total. Then in the finale they get 2 money for a grand total of 6 money.

The host on the other hand, pays 1 money to even start the heist, and is at -1 money when the setup missions start. The host then gets f*ck all for doing the setup missions, but in the finale they get 7 money, for a grand total of 6 money, the exact same as the crew members.

 

So after everything is done, anyone who did all setup missions + the finale has gotten 6 money. The only difference is when they got it. In the case of the crew members it was spread out across the entire heist, something Rockstar inevitably did in order to ensure that people didn't skip the setup missions and just did the heist finales. What they probably didn't count on was onslaught of straight up bastards skipping the setup missions anyway, and then whining like the entitled little brats they are when the host doesn't want to cut into his own reward to give to them.

 

15% is the default cut for a reason. It's because that is what has been calculated by Rockstar to give everyone an exact equal share of the take. Not the finale take, but the entire heist take. None of you deserve any more. Even if you did the entire heist with the host, your cut should still be 15%, otherwise you're still getting more money than the host. How is that fair? Why the f*ck do you deserve a higher percentage of the reward than the host?

Edited December 22, 2015 by lessthan3

[Nomis24]

 

 

 

If a random do all the setups I will give him 20% and I know he is getting paid for the setups(like few people keep saying on this thread), but not as much as the actual heist. If we do all setups together and I only give him 15%, I still made more money then him at the end. Doesnt make sense, if he did the same amount of ''work'' he deserve as much as me. I usually host anyways and never join randoms cause that way I don't get f*cked at the end

Ah, yes, that confirms my suspicion about bad math. If you gave 20% regardless of setup participation you would still earn a handsome amount of money more than someone who did not do the setups with you. The one profiting from giving 15% instead of 20% is the host and only the host, not the ones helping him with the setups who had earned that money by that logic. For me the mathematically unsound "did not do the setups" justification smells a bit too much like an incentive to ditch the setup crew in favour of a new heist crew for those extra 15% of the heist reward.

 

40/20/20/20 is the most fair payout for anyone. Don't start to say I'm bad at math when you don't seem to understand my point. I will say it again. If someone did all the setups or most of it with me and the heist, he did the same amount of ''work'' as me, therefor the good thing to do, is give him the closest payout to mine as possible. I would rather have a good ''set'' of randoms that do all the setups with me and I give them 20% then having to find new randoms every setups and end up taking twice the time it would take to go throught the heist. I did it once giving 15% and like I stated if took me 3 hours to go throught the 5 setups of humane labs so I think it was more then fair.

 

Simple thing you can do is look at the payout/time. If you join at the finale and get a payout of 15% your payout/time will be more then if you go through all the setups and get a 20%

 

 

Simple thing you can do is look at the payout/time. If you join at the finale and get a payout of 15% your payout/time will be more then if you go through all the setups and get a 20%

 

This is true from the perspective of the host. But if the equitable split really is 40/20/20/20, if you pay someone 15% at the end because they only did the finale, the persons you are taking it from are the others that completed the set ups (did the "work") who are now not around for the payday. That's why I say it's a windfall for the leader.

 

Like I said earlier, the one time I gave 15%, none of the players for the heist did any setups. After the last setup I went refill my snack and armor quick. I launched the finale. Invited player from last job. Waited 2-3 minutes, no one took the invite, I invited other randoms. I also already stated and I'm just copy paste from right above what you have written : ''I would rather have a good ''set'' of randoms that do all the setups with me and I give them 20% then having to find new randoms every setups and end up taking twice the time it would take to go throught the heist''.

 

So if i send them invite and they are not taking it, I cannot do miracle

Edited December 22, 2015 by Nomis24

[AOR BigDaddyZee]

Its generoud to give 20. 15 is set by default for a damn reason

[rlk232]

Its generoud to give 20. 15 is set by default for a damn reason

 

If you think that, you probably struggle to find good help.

[AOR BigDaddyZee]

 

Its generoud to give 20. 15 is set by default for a damn reason

If you think that, you probably struggle to find good help.

Not even alittle

They can definantly have 20 if they actually stayed helped and didnt weigh down. Not an issue. But some kid shows up asks for 20 hes gone

Edited December 22, 2015 by AOR BigDaddyZee

[rlk232]

 

 

Its generoud to give 20. 15 is set by default for a damn reason

If you think that, you probably struggle to find good help.

Not even alittle

They can definantly have 20 if they actually stayed helped and didnt weigh down. Not an issue. But some kid shows up asks for 20 hes gone

 

 

Well yeah, but I guess we both agree anyone who does more than 1 setup competently should be getting 20%. 96% of players seem to fail 4-5 times on those damn things.

[Fozzie]

I always take 0%

 

Too rich for peasant funds of heists