"you can't take what they already have from them. "

No, but you can make it so when they are buying it, they're not buying something that is ridiculously overpowered. You can make it so that the guy who put an insane amount of work into building a massive cannon of a gun isn't doing it 100% for no purpose.

Again, what dastardly evils would result from letting the guy or two or three who work the hardest to be able to shoot anyone actually be capable of it?

"well you can't very well lower it beyond the person with the most to accomodate gunners :) " "Again, what dastardly evils would result from letting the guy or two or three who work the hardest to be able to shoot anyone actually be capable of it?"

my point stands. In order to do this you would have to take someones bodyguards to bring them in range. It is not plausible. These people have bought and paid for what they have and until they lose them the cap can't be set lower than them. The dastardly deed, as things stand now, would be taking what they had bought and paid for.

The above is why Marston had 240 mill stashed away

If he didn't have a pot of money, then that was sure silly of him. You can't plan against freak accidents, and it seems to just be smart policy to have it on hand just in case. After all, there's absolutely no danger that someone will shoot you when you are holding onto it at the cap.

If he did, then what difference is that from having the bg cap to 50 bgs higher? It would be the exact same experience for anyone that attacks him. So why not eliminate the sham and get rid of the bg cap?

How about we just have a "gangster bg cap" and get rid of the sham by the time someone hits Made Man.

It would be no different from what we have now.

Or we could do something actually productive and come up with solid ways to revamp the system.

this is something i suggested a while back that no one paid any attention too. When you have a man employed to protect your life with his, that includes steping in front of a bullet. cerrect? so, why not have the bodygaurds actually die when someone with a reasonable gun shoots the person in question. I have a 10 kill gun, and i shoot you. you have the cap BGs, I haven't a chance. but you have to use BGs for them to have any effect. you have to be prepared to take hits to survive.

So i suggest removing BG wacking, and set it so that a regular shot has to go through the bodygaurds. so, if i attack you, and miss because your BG count affords you solid protection, I still wounded or killed some of your bodygaurds. now i'm not saying that all shots do that, just that some percentage, or figure it by gun level. this way, the big gunners can help work through the bodygaurds without "wasting" kills.

Thoughts?

I personally feel that BGs should be capped at by rank and only become available at Made Man, with a GF allowed to have a maximum of 20. 

Below

Above


"Marston was still shooting for THAT reason and the cap just kept going up."

I'd think he was shooting to catch up with the biggest gun. If he was the biggest gun, then I would have thought he would want to stop shooting unless he wanted to raise the BG cap this way.


"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."

I am no war general to know if this is the best tactic or not, but you could, at the beginning of the war, have some people shave a few BGs off your BG-capped target, and THEN have the biggest gun shoot him. Then you get rid of the "untouchable" in a first wave.

"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... "

I completely agree with this statement.


"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!"

Not sure you can conclude that the hitter puts in more effort than the defender. BGs don't come cheap and they are costly to maintain. If you are gonna tell me about CLs using the crew's money for that, well, he damn well deserves it. And I'd think the job of a CL is more demanding than the job of a hitter.

I've noticed that throughout this debate, no one has suggested to third option. so i'll do it. Everyone is in favor of either puting the cap above or below the level of the highest gun. BUT...What if we the cap were put AT the level of the biggest gun. so if the biggest gun and the BG capped are effectivly equal.

thoughts?