I don't like to vent about little things, but when it's something that affects core gameplay, it's time to talk...

One of the primary reasons we were given for the adjustment to BodyGuard pricing was to deter the demotion of individuals to gangster in order to purchase a "Insane" amount of protection for a fraction of the cost... I will paraphrase an administrator that claimed "while not everyone will find the new adjustment a deterrence, it's a good balance and compromise to the old system"

No offense, but I've served on Capitol Hill in Washington and seen better reasoning for bad policies... 

I don't expect my singular voice to in some way invoke a stark change, but someone, somewhere, sometime has to call it for what it is - a failed deterrent and counterintuitive pricing system.

i also don't expect people to agree with me entirely, and I harbor no ill feelings towards anyone that has chosen to be demote in favor of spending their hard earned cash more wisely.  I can't blame them for seeing an obvious weakness in the system and exploiting it to keep up the "arms" race...

but let's be real guys... We are better than this.  I mean, did anyone in the "committee meeting" even remotely out on the table a viable solution?  How bad would it be to limit the amount of BGs that can be purchased at each rank AND have a FLAT rate for BGs purchased at any rank.  Wouldn't it make realistic sense for Bgs to cost the same for their equitable services to any protectee?

I have seen over a handful of the communities most respected made men and leaders be demoted in the last week alone... Sometimes more than once in favor of buying BGs.

So to the administration, whom overall has the best interests of all at heart... I plead with you that if you will at least not agree it has not helped to deter this practice and that we we need another solution... Don't put lipstick on the pig and then tell me it can fly too...

Respect always,

Ballsy

You make a fair point Izzy, and I thank you for the floor for open debate with possible alternative solutions.. but I would like to identify the flaw in this line of thought with your analysis, regardless of its validity...

if I were a Godfather and wanted my position at the top to be solidified in the current system, all I would have to do is take my top hitters and demote them individually, one by one, utilizing available funds to pay for their insane BG count and allow them to get up to a certain rank before continuing the process with the next candidate... This way, my position at the top is never really threatened, and I can slowly but surely, see to it that my entire squad/platoon of the best guns have a massive advantage over anyone who comes later.  I will be honest in saying that this is not my idea... I stole it from every family in every city that promotes this practice daily.  This is not to smear their reputation mind you, as they are simply utilizing the methods and tools available to them.  In addition, I am fully aware of the converse to this argument and that is the process of doing this is slower and therefore gives the people at the bottom time to rearm and gear up appropriately...

But let us pray tell the reality we always face - there is no such thing as "fair."  The people at the top will always have an advantage, however... I do believe in happy mediums and I have a theory and thought.. I hope others will comment on them with possible alternative solutions and not simple cynical retorts that offer no constructive answers..

My idea requires two parts and if implemented with the correct "skew" of numbers, can balance things appropriately well into the next phase (districts) of MR.  I will elaborate...

I believe that the first part, addressing BGs, is absolutely necessary, but will only work with maximum effectively with the second change.  The first part I am referring to of course, is simply:

1.  Flat rate for BG cost (based on numerical average available funds among all players) so that the price is the same regardless of rank.

2.  BG cap is limited per rank.  (Example - Wise Guy and below limited to 1 extra guard per rank max so that by Wise Guy, max is 4.). This will also promote mafia realism in that it would be odd seeing a street nobody walking around with 30 guards... 

3.  Total BG Max Cap for any rank must be severely reduced.  I believe a max cap number of 50 for a Godfather is more than accurate and sufficient for higher ranking members.  

Now, there are a few other details to converse over with the changes to BG limits and costs to best fit the numbers we live by... However, it will also be important to change one other feature and this one... May turn heads...

Wacking - In order to compensate to the changes to BGs and better balance the upper and lower ranking and powered guns, we absolutely must change a major feature with wacking - It has to be finite.  What I mean by that is this... Eventually, numerically there has to be an end percentage of maximum effectiveness on a gun (not just a system of limited gains) and any kills after that point are solely for a newly added feature - weapon degradation.  So to be more precise, gun skill should not only increase, but also degrade over time if it isn't used.  Thats what happens in resl life right?  (Nods to gun enthusiasts).  We all enjoy killing Durdens and IAs, but there has to be a point where the skew between the gun of a year old Godfather and a month old wise guy is not as absolute as it more often than not, turns out.  Wars should be a game of chance and last resort as in real life and the inherent danger needs to be less calculable (that's a word right?) than we have seen in any recent takedown.  I believe all of these changes even to the wack system will be great additions to the district system, particularly when the grids are placed in entirety.  It would be great to see a Boss looking across the street and seeing a goomba and thinking... Even this guy is dangerous.  As I said before, there is a numerical medium and more refined details to mull over, however it would take far longer to discuss and I believe deserves a full forum for debate among those of us whom understand the full consequences of numerical changes (pro or con).  

Also, we often see from a RP perspective, high ranking and respected community members arguing their concerns for the promotions of the "wrong sort" to positions of higher ranks and eventually going rogue... What if the leveling system played more of a vital role in weapon skill than rank... What if ranks were simply titles and the leveling system were at the forefront?  Well... That's a discussion for another day and thread...

So to summarize changes in my "refined Bg/Wack system":

1.  BG flate rate cost regardless of rank

2.  BG Limit cap per rank

3.  Max of 50 BGs (or other realistic number) total per person.

4.  Gun skill degradation

5.  Maximum and finite gun skill number

Now, I understand there will be a lot of concern of random killers using a system of more deadly and newer guns to their advantage... I lived through that era by the way... Which is why we should discuss numerical balancing with the 5 main changes proposed... There is a happy medium and perhaps we can increase the importance of HQ fortifications in the new system and with the districts... As it will be nearly impossible for anyone to kill members hiding in their HQ, but without wandering the streets and conducting business, these people won't make the money to keep their families strong... Now I bet that's a variable nobody here has pondered yet ;)

Hope these ideas offer some new insight and I'd be happy to take them to IrC one day with some others from the community.

many thanks again Izzy and staff for all that you do..

(brought to you by the guy who first offered the leveling system idea years ago)

-B

I forgot one final thought and possible addition to the BG System in lieu of, or in addition to the previously stated:

6.  BG cost compounds after 5 BGs (or other number) so the more BGs purchased, the more expensive the next BG will cost.  If individuals don't value a flat rate, surely the cost of Bgs compounding with each new addition BG will bring an added cost and severe consequence to families strategically choosing where financial resources are allotted... 

Of course, this #6 could be added to the flate rate idea and simply implemented after a specific number of BGs as this will help the average number of BGs being equitable across the board for most members

Honestly your system is one I have contemplated for the past 4ish months now and I agree with it the problem is it will never work without a game reset. I would love for a world where 50 BG is the cap, no durdens no MIA's no bought kills only racing kills which you have to earn and requires work and are harder to come by exists but the problem is it never will.

The only way you can fix the BG problem is by coming up with a system similiar to yours on the price but an acceptable price not only seen by players but by admins and keeping the cap to a point where it still works. The tapers put into the game are quite good for the future but one person will always be above them unless some random war happens where the only guy who survives for a city had a 500 kill gun which is unlikely to happen.

If you want to remove demotions then the best idea I have come by is flipping the system, yes it makes it so people of Gangster rank will never buy BGs so what? It will also make it so the people who would of spent the money to get BGs at a lower rank will now just wait enough to get to Don and be a little bit built up then put the money into BGs. Flipping the system would just turn the prices around nothing would really change and honestly I do not think there would be a difference between somebody shooting a Gangster who is getting capped or a Don who is getting capped so I do not really see an example of this being abused to keep the top in power.

Just my thoughts so far.

Severe, 

your point on the implementation of the refined BG/Wack system is a fair one, but lets consider this... If members of the community with over 50 BGs were financially compensated for their investments for the upcoming district change, they could apply those funds towards the purchasing of new businesses or perhaps so that their family members can enjoy some extra protection as well?  I don't think a reset would be necessary and before I wrote down the few key changes, this concept was at the forefront of my thinking... Solutions that can be implemented without rupturing the structure below our feet.. I promise it can be done :)

Iwonder also, if anyone considered this idea - would a Don not be more likely to send a hitman or wise guy to take down someone that has fallen out of favor (family IA in example) if the danger in shooting that individual were greater or at the very least... Chance of success without wack back less calculable?

The problem is people are not going to get rid of 200 something BGs to go down to 50 and make themselves an easier target. Sure it could be worked in a way that maybe after a big war the cap could be brought down to 50 all the BGs from the dead in the war could be erased and the limitations on hitting would make it so that a 100-200 gun is big. The problem with the BG cap is that somebody will always be over 200 BGs at the end of a big war.

GIVE IT TIME.

You are thinking waaaay too short term Ballistic. When the next big war comes and we lose some of the people who purchased BG's under the old system things will be different. The change has been implemented at a time when it is not useful... but Izzy can't just wait around for the net big war then stick it in. Might as well be here now, ready for when the top ranks are cleared out.

I think you're forgetting that just because it SAYS 'Insanely Well Protected', does not MEAN they're 'Insanely Well Protected'. I know of quite a few people who have an IWP status, but are most defintely not on an IWP level of defence.

The new system presents an additional inconvenience to those who wish to acquire bodyguards at a lower price, but it is in no way a deterrent because it is still beneficial to purchase your protection at a lower rank rather than at a higher one. The only way that the current system will work is if, as was traditionally the case on Mafia.org, the life expectancy for any character meant that there was a strong chance you wouldn't be alive to recapture your old rank. In MafiaReturns, where the length of time between the strong cities warring each other stretches for months, this is not a concern and thus not a deterrent.

The major concerns of the previous bodyguard system are still prevalent and have not been addressed. People are still using demotion as a tool to circumvent the pricing structure, rather than purchasing their protection at the appropriate price. This new system adds a layer of complexity that makes the whole process a little more laborious and strange, but solves little.

What I don't understand anymore is why the bodyguard price changes depending upon your rank. Originally, I thought it was so that when you're strong you couldn't buy copious amounts of protection with your increased wealth. However, as everyone demotes for the protection now, why have different pricing? Why not just cut out the ludicrous demotions and let people buy bodyguards for the lowest price regardless of their rank? If it is not an issue that the system is being circumvented, why are we trying to kid ourselves by putting in a system at all?

Ok, I have to admit that I am a little disheartened after reading Mr. Countdown's response and I can tell that the several possible key changes I outlined have either A) Not been presented clearly enough, or B) Completely misunderstood or misconstrued.. Either way, I will elaborate further and address these concerns as I have already taken these few objections into consideration long before I made my points and possible solution.  

First, let me explain what it is that we are trying to accomplish.  For one, to completely make pointless the demotion of individuals to lower ranks for anything other than the original intended purpose of that individual not following family rules or discontent with their performance by their leadership.  Second, to make a better system of purchasing Bodyguards so that the people at the top will not always be too powerful to be dethroned, while also maintaining the balance so that the people at the bottom cannot get too powerful to where they can always get lucky.  In essence, a balance between those who work their asses off to get more BGs and a better gun and those who wish to see their iron-fisted rule demolished... Whereas the first scenario creates an unending cycle of mass takedowns and increased gun skill by the top dogs, the latter presents a scenario where rogues at low ranks can take out key people at the top at random and very often, leaving the gap between working hard and no work at all as a very thin line.  I promise you guys.. There is a way to keep a good numerical balance here and I want my solution to be more carefully analyzed then what I have seen so far... So without further adieu, I will address one by one...

You are thinking waaaay too short term Ballistic. When the next big war comes and we lose some of the people who purchased BG's under the old system things will be different. The change has been implemented at a time when it is not useful... but Izzy can't just wait around for the net big war then stick it in. Might as well be here now, ready for when the top ranks are cleared out. -Countdown

Is it not ironic sir, that we are admitting the change has been implemented at a time it is not useful, and then proceeding to also claim that this is only because the people at the top are continuing their reign without risk of being dethroned until the next "big war" wipes most of them out?  The arguments made against my own solution (pieced together by ideas taken from other members of the community as well) have been made with this same concern in mind - the people at the top being too powerful to be dethroned except by one another.  But in reality, if you read carefully and think long and hard about a flat rate for BGs regardless of rank (solves demotion issue), the BG cap at each rank (more realistic), the max BG cap (limit to total defense of high rankers), in addition to some edits to gun tapering, max skill level,  and inclusion of gun skill degradation, not only are we limiting the numerical skill level of defense and attack of the people at the top to something more realistic, but we are making it slightly more tangible for people at the bottom to have a fighting chance.  

In my system we have no demotions for Bodyguards, a realistic number of protection that makes people at the top carefully weigh options of war against those weaker than they, while also making gun skill and gun tapering more realistic so that newer and older trained guns have to be constantly trained on IAs and Durdens to keep their skill levels higher and at maximum accuracy.  It will not make training guns more difficult for the people at the bottom as the statistical difference will only be severe if they choose not to train at all.  In addition, the limiting of gun skill means that "rolls" when it comes to a wack will be far more difficult to calculate, predict, and plan.  In real life, a lot of shit can go wrong and wars last much longer than one hour.. 

Also Mr. knowles, I completely agree the new system has changed little and it has made for a more laborious grind to train BGs.  I don't understand how BGs that are cheaper at a lower rank (where you make a lot less money) but require training to be anywhere nearly as effective as those fully trained can possibly make sense for a scenario where we are trying to ensure the people at the top aren't at a massive advantage over anyone who comes thereafter?  Mind you this also, while Bgs are cheaper at gangster in the current new system, it takes 10 training over the course of no less than 10 days to turn those Bgs into skill level 100.  In those ten days guys... I just ranked from gangster to Wise Guy at the very least and the price increased three times, as did the cost of training them with it... How does that threaten the disposition of the top rulers in any way... Ever?  That entire time they've been sitting there with 100+ Max Trained BGs wondering how much more cash I'm going to throw away before I realize I gave them a handful of more targets to severely skew our gun skills when it's time to take me out... And others like me...

No my friends, the current system was not introduced at the wrong time.. Nor the right time.. There is no right timing for a system that does not work as intended.  I promise all of you that the handful of changes I have put onto the table, if more carefully analyzed, can effectively solve most of these concerns we have now.  I don't believe that everything will be perfect on day one, but we need Squishy and other coders to have the time to test out more balanced numbers with this system.  I believe if we take a handful of test account and played out the new system in simulation, with the right skill skews between defense and offense, the system will prove most effective..

and I have yet to hear any other alternatives that would be more effective :/

Ballistic I really appreciate the start of this thread. Not all of us would go out and rant and attempt to fix the BG situation like you have.

I completely agree with the demotion for BGs being used as a more beneficial aspect of the game than anything else. I mean I understand the reasoning but I hate the ability to do it. Its a major distasteful flaw in my eyes. When would a Made Man or higher who has taken the oath ever just be demoted and no longer be a full member of the Mob? It doesn't happen.

I have suggested a few BG ideas over the past few months that are some what similar to your overall idea. Hopefully these fix or even give you an alternative to your overall idea.

The first idea I've ever seen that would fix the demotion flaw was your BG price always reflects that price regardless of whether you are subsequently demoted to a lower rank. So if you are a Don and you are demoted to Thug, your price would always be the same as if you were still a Don. I have no idea why the idea that was halted as soon as the PC sponsored it but hopefully it can be brought back to life once again.

I like your overall idea of a BG cost flat rate, a BG cap at reach rank, and even the 50 BGs a GF may have. I've suggested something like this before but you have given it more details behind the idea. The idea of a fixed limit per rank is great because it gives more realism to role play and it also allows more team work / war strategies. You would have to make bodyguards stronger though to equal the cap obviously but I think this would bring in the little guy more often than not when it comes to shooting BGs.

Your idea of the gun degration is something new but is it too close to the idea of the gun tapering that was just introduced? What if the tapering was set even sooner and such? Your idea is close enough to it due to the fact that the GFs have those top notch guns and so on. The tapering is already affecting them.

I just wanted to bring a few possible ideas to you my friend. I seriously hope something is changed or brought to light even because the new BG system is not working as it should be.

The new system would be fine, if people didnt quickly figure out to just stay at gangster for the ten days for the cheapest possible training.

Perhaps there should be a time limit between demotions.

I dont think many are being repeatedly demoted James, most just don't gain units for the duration of their 10 days.

Still the original idea was the removal of demotions.

Demotion is a form of punishment that is an alternative to death for minor infractions.

Removal would force us to go back to killing more members over little things such as not turning in a shot report (just an example) instead of a demote.

I'm sorry Tiggy. I meant the aspect of removing demotions in the way that they are being used now as a financial saviour for BGs.

That's all.

Originally, I had not intended to add a couple of core game changing features beyond setting up a flat rate for BGs and possibly the change to caps at each rank when purchasing them.  However, when I started to analyze the scenario after Squishy's comments regarding balance between old high ranking accounts versus new low ranking ones... It became clear to me that a couple of gun/wack skill changes should be made to compensate as well.  However, I believe the beginnings of all things are small and if we can start off with BGs costing one flat rate regardless of rank, and eliminate the training system entirely (other than upkeep costs), we can move on to more pressing matters and solutions as detailed above on my earlier posts...

It would be nice to reduce significantly, the Bodyguard cap to add realism and balance between the high and low rankers... But I wouldn't mind a more open dialogue on that before jumping the gun.  However, can anyone truly argue that a flat rate Bg cost regardless of rank would not stop the practice of demotions for cheaper BGs?  We can agree on that I hope... 

I also hope I have not offended my peers in higher positions of leadership among the several cities who may have enjoyed the current gun skill system.. I assure you that I have nothing to gain from my proposals here and that as a long long time community member.. The game and community's interests are number one when I am here setting time aside to brainstorm solutions...

Maybe I haven't put enough brain power into it...but does the new BG purchasing really solve anything? I mean, now it costs what, 1.5mil and 10 days to train a BG to 100% at the cheapest possible price? We're seeing it now, demoting to acquire cheap protection is still a factor, only now people are being demoted every day for a length of time.