okie first of...wat if like in RL..a WG does a hit to become Made... the LHM of a family is the disperser of the list in which the family uppers have come up with togthr....(MIAs,IAs,etc. or even in wartime...killing a certain person)....but mind you..you get your gun at earner then at WG you do the hit to become made....now this will have to slow the auto systems for promo from earner to WG about a week giving the person time to somewhat build the gun....then secondly

wat if BGS were only granted to made members only as in RL you would see no need for them to be needed for WG and below....also this would substantially submerge the current system in play but if the money to buy were say 250k per BG....caps as rank goes like ballistic said and then reset the guns ratio as well to modify it as your rank goes...as you rank up...and level up....so does your gun...levels remain the same...tending to the ranks but they also tend to gun making it harder to rank up but worth it....so each time you see someones level you kno they have earned it tremendously...but also lastly.....the guns ratio will be cut with these changes as it wont suit the current percentages per shot...idk the numbers yet but will think of em



so here it is:


*get gun at Earner rank....

*wise guy rank you shoot someone a upper (LHM will be incharge of it)(a list of hits the family uppers have come up with together) 

*Made men + only with BGs

gun and rank working togther to build guns..slwing process of ranking quicker just abit....

The leaders can change things.

They can stop demoting for BGs.
They can make them mean more.
They can not max out their favourites...

And in time, as those maxed die, the cap will be lowered. It cannot be lowered while there are people already maxed.

Code doesn't have to change, we have to change.

Mind you this would also make it easer for those WGs to get shots off at those ppl who come in game and leave not even making it to WG rank and going IA..so now it makes the WG have a easier chance at killin the IA..ya know

Tiggy said it all....

We as players can make the changes or bring the bgs down to a level where the admins can finally change the system properly without there being a gap between older already demoted bged up guys and the new guys having to suffer with a new system. I remember as a community we had enough of NPCs and got rid of that nicely. Now a much better system is in place for it.

I respect what Tiggy is saying, however in a Mafia simulation that is constantly having new features added and people learn loopholes to getting around them...

yes, things need to change and that includes code.  If leaders had any interest in changing, demotion practices would not keep happening.  If there is one thing I can tell you guys from my experiences in government it's that people will always find a way to beat the system, unless the system is simple (flat rate BGs) and does not give them easy opportunities to do so.  

We are in a Mafia simulation and the code changed many times from the original design so to say it does not need to change is really perplexing... The change to the BG system in the first place is why we are here.. And the fact others do not share the same ethics we do is proof that so long as a game has loopholes.. They will be exploited.  And anyone that has played a shooter online with 13 year olds in a game with glitches knows that morality issue... Heh..

The community and leadership handle enough matters to keep most things in check... But this is all code and I think my multiple-point solution is a good answer for at least the BG system

Hell I'd remove BGs altogether.

I never liked the idea of BGs, but they are a revenue driver for the Site. People buy Credits, sell them on the market, and fund BGs.

The idea of BGs in the mafia is stupid though, what Mafioso in his right mind would trust employees who aren't part of the family with the secrets of his organization (BGs will overhear conversations and business plans that they shouldn't)

Ideally BGs should be chosen from your family, and assigned by the CL. For instance, a 50 man crew might have 25 associates assigned as BGs (I'd say a max of 50% of crew size is fair). Each Associate gives protection based on 20 current BGs. A maximum of 10 associates can be assigned to any one individual. Inactive players only give 50% protection, because they aren't 'paying attention'.

This would eliminate the stupid issue of CLs walking around with armies of BGs, it also eliminates the idea of none Mafioso being privy to Mafia Secrets. This would also make wars more tactical. To take out CLs and high rank hitters, you'd first have to kill his associates to reduce his protection. This in turn would make CLs want to protect their lower level members, because they in turn protect the higher level members.

Double the price of HQ fortifications to offset the sudden removal of BGs from the game. Hell triple them even if needed.

Just a suggestion, feel free to flesh it out or completely ignore it.

i like that idea raoul

I love the suggestion. As you said, it would eliminate users going around with hundreds of BGs and make the little guys more important.

Also I say put it in the suggestions forum, I think it should have a thread of its own.

I do like Mr. Silva's suggestion and idea.. It would be ideal.  I could not agree anymore.

of course, assuming BGs are going to continue to be around as a major feature in the game, I am open to other suggestions as to how to practically go about fixing this bodyguard mess...

As for my own solution... It's not a matter of "if" it will work... I know it will.  The question is, if we are going to keep BGs, how do we convince others there is no other fix to the problem than starting with a flat rate...

Why not keep charging based on rank the same? For example if someone gets demoted then they still have to pay the price that they were paying before. I dont think that a boss that gets demoted to capo should get capo rates, buy everything they need and then become boss again. It sort of makes things a bit unfair. If you get demoted there was a reason for it so if you lose your units, so what, you shouldn't have F'ed to get demoted in the first place.

Demotion is a punishment. It loses its point if it's used as a reward. I'm very interested to hear what the players and Admins think of Raoul's idea that I personally think of as brilliant.

Is there an issue, from the Administration side, with people being demoted to buy bodyguards for a cheaper price than they should pay for their rank?

If there is, which seems to be the view of the majority of the players, then the current system doesn't work and we need to revisit it. This has been going on for years and will continue to.

If there isn't, why bother having the price change? Lets just have it as a constant regardless of rank and then we don't need to waste any more breath on this?

I'm sticking with JamesKnowles here in saying this...

Izzy, I agree with what ours saying in that Mr. Silva's idea will not really work well with the other game mechanics.  It sounds great on paper, but nice again it's another complex idea that simply does not do any justice for the people under the crew leaders who work their asses off or the leaders who have to constantly worry about where their members are for protection.  It's too complex to organize people traveling with the boss day in and out.  

However, nobody has yet to address my initial solutions one by one or at all.  I listed a highly detailed and carefully crafted set of changes that should be made and nobody has addressed this one way or another..

And at the very least, I asked that if anyone objected to having one flat rate for BG purchases again regardless of rank.  The only point made against this change was by Squishy who fears this may create a top-heavy scenario as well, but that is simply a theory on paper.  In reality we are already in a serious top-heavy scenario and BG prices on the low end are simply still too pricey for new people to buy enough to protect them from those who have super guns or many more BGs.  At least with a flat rate for Bgs, we can absolutely stop demotions for cheap BGs and in addition, have the option to either make BG skills all one flat number or perhaps even randomized so the quantity of BGs may differ, but the skill level for each BG has a possible low and high that cannot be altered.  This may potentially asymmetrically solve the problem with people calculated their chances of success in wacking less absolute and add a sense of real fear and chance....

but alas, my ideas fall on deaf ears...

Ok thank you for the detailed explanation Izzy.

I'm glad to numbers four and five are already in place.  I didn't have any real problems with the current wack system, but I did have to address numerical concerns to coincide with my other points before I knew they were already a factor.

As for number three, it would be nice to have a realistic cosmetic change.  With the explanation of districts and how they will be fully integrated, could we not have BGs simulated in the same way that business will be simulated as each person travels from one to another?  Instead of having BGs simulate business, they simulate protection.  So instead of buying 100 BGs, we buy 10 and they can be trained to have the numerical equivalent of whatever 100 fully maxed BGs are now... I'd be in favor of that for sure.  If we did this, it would make sense to keep the a BG training system as each train would be the full cost of another BG and offer the equivalent protection value of one fully maxed bodyguard as they stand now...

As for number two, I don't mind throwing that option out the window in favor of the others we are discussing.  

And as for my number one point - flat rate cost of BGs, especially if we simulate their value rather than having 100 BGs we have 10 with equivalent protection value of the 100... Would be the only viable way of stopping demotions while keeping the rest of the system you have in place.  The reason why having BG costs on the low rank side at a low price does not benefit the low rankers anymore than with a flat Rate BG cost system is this - high rankers demote their members constantly to give them IWP status so if they did that for all of their top hitsquad and possibly more... The people at the bottom working up would have to pay millions more and spend months longer trying to get the same protection those leaders spent very little on.  In a sense, it's counterintuitive because leaders are so resourceful while not weakening their position in demoting a member or two at any given time.  

I was hoping we could get a number crunch... Or a few from you Izzy.  We are all familiar with the previous and current BG pricing systems, but Id like everyone involved in the discussion to be looking at average daily earnings for people at each rank... Weekly earnings if it would be easier to calculate.

im assuming it would be possible to attain these numbers Izzy, as I believe they would be a huge benefit towards understanding what a realistic and fair value would be for each simulated BG.  Now, I could come up with values from my own personal earnings and what I make daily, weekly on average... But that would only be doing myself service.

if you or anyone else has any ideas as to what statistical data we should base the final numerical cost for Bodyguards to be fair to all ranks... I'm open to suggestions.

Keep in mind everyone, we need it to be costly enough to high rankers and cheap enough to afford some protection to low ranks.  We can't have one simulated BG power cost so much that even on a goombas hard working drug payoff, it would be impossible to afford (for example).

Maybe even a chat discussion with current leaders and a handful of others that have been involved thus far may benefit?  Good way to test shockers chat some more :)

The easiest way, it seems to me, would be to adopt similar to the suggestion that reached the PC.

Once you attain a rank, that BG price applies. If you are Don and you get demoted to Gangster, your BG price would be that of a Don.

The prices would be determined by the average earnings per rank. This would mean that if you worked to an above average level against your peers, you would be able to score more protection. Obviously, as I don't have the figures to hand, this may be slightly out and could be replaced with a suitable system akin to the old pricing structure.