Just been having a conversation in the coffeeshops about this and was wondering everyone's thoughts on the following...

Currently the bodyguard cap is set to just ABOVE the stat of the biggest gun. Quite a few people have already stated they would prefer the BG cap to be BELOW the stat of the biggest gun.

So, quite simply... above or below?

I shall vote first.

Below.

Below, subject to a bare-minimum amount if absolutely everyone dies off.

Above. Otherwise what would be the point... There'd be no need to wave people anymore etc etc.

I vote for a reset.

"Above. Otherwise what would be the point... There'd be no need to wave people anymore etc etc."

You would need to wave people anytime your biggest gun was sufficiently outclassed by their biggest gun. Which, well, didn't he earn that right? Why do you have a right to shoot 12 of his city before they kill enough of your bgs because it's ridiculously mad easy to stack defense?

Above

To be honest, Izzy changes the Cap all the time. Which means from the point when it's economically feasable to buy bodyguards, til the time when you plan to max your bodyguards, those bodyguards are going to cost you in the ballpark of 4-5mil a piece. 

So, If people want to max their bodyguards out every time the cap is raised, I say good for them! If you want to pay 5mil for a bodyguard that someone can ask a wiseguy to pop then that's fine...

Honestly.. If you constantly have the BG cap BELOW what the top shooters can hit, You might as well have no fucking bodyguards because that means that SOMEONE will always be able to one shot you... On that note though I think the BG system could use a revamping but I dont think simply lowering the cap is enough...  

Also, it makes for a scarey sitution if the top guns could 1shot EVERYONE that would mean that the top gun in the game could essentially BG to the cap, and start taking apart every single person from the top... I know it's a hypothetical but I think that the way the BGs are set up currently is a quite effective measure for preventing that... 

Above

Quick question for the "above" folks:

What, exactly, does a bg cap accomplish at all when it is set to above everyone's gun?

@johngalt

It makes it so you cant buy som many that you could never be killed. if there was NO CAP at all.. People could theoretically but thousands of bodyguards and then when people shoot them just buy more

With a cap just a tad over the highest guns you can have a few people pick of bodyguards until they're under where a person's gun can shoot..

OR set just above, if the top gun wants to kill them they will need to put the work in to catch up with them.

Why should it be set below and just handed to a gunner?

They can't catch up, that's the point... Marston was still shooting for THAT reason and the cap just kept going up.

it is said the bg cap is set "just above"  with work they can surely catch up. I believe Izzy said he reviews the cap after major events or once a month.

In this thing of ours, one way or another, everyone is gettable.

"It makes it so you cant buy som many that you could never be killed. if there was NO CAP at all.. People could theoretically but thousands of bodyguards and then when people shoot them just buy more"

But with the cap above gun strength, it means you can buy enough that no one can hit you. Then you can sit on cash instead. So yes, you can buy enough that no one can ever kill you.

More importantly, when the cap is set to above gun strength it means that age of accounts will never be constrained to a any reasonable timeframe because of defense topping out. Any time accounts get older (and thus more kills), the cap goes up and old accounts replace bodyguards. So defense goes up anyway.

Wasn't one of the key reasons for a bg cap to prevent an upward spiral of account age, strength, etc? So setting it above gun strength undermines that goal.

The above is why Marston had 240 mill stashed away :P

well you can't very well lower it beyond the person with the most to accomodate gunners :) That is what it would take, especially after this. You have to kill their support, chip at their bg's and kill them.

This thing of ours has fried bigger fish in the past. It wasn't easy but it was done.

"well you can't very well lower it beyond the person with the most to accomodate gunners :) "

Why not? What dasterdly evils would result? Heaven forbid the person in the game that put forth the absolute most effort out of everyone else should be able to do something with it!

Right now we have a situation where 75 barracudas with one huge great white shark attacking 10 really fat tuna... ends up with the 10 fat tuna winning, because the huge great white shark has his teeth filed down and is intentionally set so he is not able to eat the fat fish in one bite. Why? Shouldn't the shark's prowess hunting count for something? Shouldn't the shark be the top of the food chain?

whoever has the most has either used a ton of game cash or maybe even real cash to acquire their bg's. you can't take what they already have from them. How would you like it if you were top and they took yours .. and you had used real money on credits .. to get the game cash for your bg's? Think Izzy will be issuing refunds?

Do what was done before. Kill off the bg's and earn it. Nothing should be handed to anyone. If you are running out of bg shooters, sorry about that. Such is the way of this thing of ours. This one is a particular messy bloodbath.

Mr Galt, i have to applaud your analogies, simply brilliant.