I see where you are coming from Tyrion, I tried to race from work on my phone and it was such a frustrating thing to do I had to give up or I would have thrown my phone at a wall.

I do work 40 hours a week but when I was building I still managed to win on average 2/3 races a day if I went for 5/6, you won't win everytime but you will be rewarded if you put in the effort. 

This change reduces the need to put in any effort at all and all I am asking for is a reason. I honestly do not care if this change is permanent it'll annoy me but ill get over it all I want is an explanation as to why it is necessary at this moment for an extra 8 MIA's every 4 days with no increase in durdens:/ 

The majority of those against this adjustment are long serving leaders (a couple close to a year old). I can understand that they would want to protect their hard work and are on the defensive – but, over the years I feel as though the game has gradually implemented features to increase the longevity of accounts (for example, no WB death, which was a prominent feature for many years).

I can see some are mentioning that there are already plenty of targets. I would agree. I’ve never been a fan of Durden’s (for starters: NOT 1930’s *rage*, hehe) or any artificial targets – but they are necessary due to the implementation of being able to employ a vast amount of bodyguards and it requiring almost 4 digits of kills to be a good hitter.
So, although I can understand – I can’t exactly sympathize.

If you don’t like the concept of a potential enemy/threat building a “cap hitter” in 70 - 80 days* – then you can always eliminate their character a little sooner?

*Trust me, I am not going out of my way to disagree with everything – but I also believe that several hours per day, for 3 months, is a sufficient and fair amount of time to gain a powerful gun. Let’s not forget that during these months, you need to avoid being killed and whatnot. To those that disagree, what length of time do you deem to be fair?

So, you agree that it's too much, but you think the time length is fine for what they're doing? What? That's called fence sitting.

Sure, several hours for three months should and WILL give you a fair amount of time to gain a powerful gun, but it was on the edge of not too powerful for a 3 month mark. But if people are achieving a monster gun in 70-90 days, without this change, then why should this new change be implicated? You don't even have the days for Godfather, but you should be able to blast one right out of their seat? Even if I weren't a Godfather, I'd disagree with that 110%. In fact, I liked the days when you HAD to get people involved to BG wack someone down and get them into range for a shot. It made wars fun, involving to those who don't always get the chance to be in a first wave within a war, and it made things exciting that you had to trust people to involve to make this happen. Another element to this game that is now gone, and will suffer because of it.

Basically, the average player now can achieve a cap hitter with a little hard work in 120 days, and that was perfectly fine. Seemed about the right routine to take if you chose that path and busted your ass some days, and relaxed on a few others. If you exceeded that, you would be in a better position at like 70-90 days. Now with double MIAs, you can achieve that in 50-60 days for some people who would be dedicated to doing what they're already doing, building a gun. 

But for you to think it's too much, than think it's perfectly fine doesn't make any sense. And it does make me tend to think that you're just out to disagree with things, whether you truly believe it's excessive or not. So if you think it's excessive, than why does it make it okay? You said yourself that you know there are too many targets out there, but you support there being more? Things were perfectly fine before this change, and now it breeds for people to be lazy on the game. It makes it so that people with a wallet can edge out people who spend time here and work hard. That's what MR has always tried to refrain from happening, the admins have said it themselves. But now, it's okay to do?

One of the factors that is irking me (and I don't think it's been mentioned yet) is the financial side of it. Gradually over the years, more and more parts of the game have become semi reliant on money that the user puts into this site (credits that lead to timers, MR cash etc), and that is OK, because after all, this is a business for Izzy. However, is this just a step too far?

If we break it down further. It's 16 MIA's every four days. There is just over seven, four day cycles in a month, seven times sixteen is one hundred and twelve.  So basically, ignoring timers, CA's etc, I would have to pour $112 into this site each month to be able to achieve this. Sure, there will be free MIA's going around, and yes, you can use MR cash to pay for credits (a sizable 500k PER credit), and for the lucky few, will be given in game cash by others, but that is still a huge total. Not all of us can afford this.

Take me for example, I work a normal job, nothing special, and trying to save up for a Masters. I would not be able to afford to pay this $112 every month, but some person who has less responsibilities to pay for, or someone who earns a bigger wage than myself would be able to excel on their gun further than mine, simply because they have more monetary means, NOT because of skill.

I'm sorry, but to me, that does not seem fair.

I’m happy to elaborate on the reasons why I stated that on one hand I’m in agreement that there are already plenty of current targets – and on the other why I have no issue with the increased number of MIA’s.
As I said, the quantity of artificial targets is a necessity – but despite shaking my head for years at the sight of the huge amount of fake, inconsequential sitting ducks (even including Rogue’s…) I accept & understand their existence. 
So, despite feeling that the array and quantity of artificial NPC’s is very excessive – I realise that they are required due to the killing-stat-system (wot) that’s in place (ie. requiring XXXX amount of kills to be a top killer). My grievance is with the focus to automated ‘enemies’ over user-controlled. I'm fully aware at how fruitless it would be to expect a U-turn at such a late stage, hence the reason I then stated that I’m not concerned with the increase in the quantity of MIA’s.

I honestly don’t see it as a negative that a *dedicated* player can earn a respectable gun in 60 days. Only a minority would use it 'irresponsibly'.
It may come across selfish, but from an entertainment perspective: conflict, wars, etc. (regardless whether I am involved directly) can be extremely engaging, compelling and exciting. I’ve always believed that it’s much more enticing to play a role in a community that is constantly drowning in unpredictability, danger, vulnerability, unsteadiness and paranoia! I favour a dynamic and sudden exchange of power, etc. and can find uneventful months discouraging and mundane. This is nothing personal and is a view I've held for several years.

Can someone walk me through why the BG cap needs to be increased, other than the obvious fact that the Godfathers want it to be? I mean, I could follow if we had seen loads of 60 day old accounts (which by the by seems like more than enough time to have a worthwhile account in my opinion) causing havoc, but we haven't. So if that is possible at the moment and not happening, why will this development suddenly make everything change?

Reply by: Heel at Sep 22, '14 20:35

BG Cap was set based on the top gun at a point in time, top gun has risen considerably hence cap needs to rise.

BG caps were brought in because people could horde BGs and make themselves unkillable without a fuckton of work waving BGs. Cap level was from memory so that a small percentage could actually hit through a capped player.

I am totally unaware of the cap actually ever rising since it was brought in, it has only ever fallen. In light of the change the cap should IMO be increased.

Manu, why is adding more MIAs into the mix going to have such a massive impact that people are suddenly going to start dying left and right? Someone said earlier they got a "cap killer" gun in 60 days. Based on the logic that I can get a "cap killer" gun in 60 days, I can be miles and miles over the cap in 100. There are plenty of accounts of that age or above but none of them are flattening the planet, despite probably having the firepower to do so. 

So the point I'm essentially making is that the factor in this that isn't being considered is that we are people playing these accounts, not machines. Therefore, just because someone can get more MIAs doesn't mean they will suddenly do anything different than they've done before. If they weren't killing everybody before, it seems very improbable to me that an extra 8 MIAs every 4 days is going to make them do so now. 

I'm sorry guys, It seems I have misinformed you all. As Squishy had to come to my aid and point out, I was not a cap killer at 60 days the magic number is 875 for that. I was however 760 kills in 65 days and thats not counting my 40 kill boost I was given. However I was told 760 and 875 are nowhere close to each other. I would just like to say if I had these extra MIAs then, I would have been at 875 for sure, so it is possible to build a cap hitter in less than 7 months! 

You'll see Cantillon, Kyubey and Mako I'll actually make first wave material now bitches.

I mean with the MIA increase you're getting 4 kills a day for free and 120 kills a month no skill involved shoot get the kill if you wackback wait an hour spawn another etc 

Now add in durdens their dead bgs and the occasional IA race or no Ia race at all and you can easily spoon feed yourself to 250+ wack stat a month and you'd be cap hitting by 90 days w/o really having to do anything but log in every hour either spawn and MIA or look through mapping and shoot.

And why should the bg cap be raised? There are a ton of cap shooters lets say in the next week everyone gets pissed at eachother for some reason and we have a 303 split and the others just choose sides (Just theoretical for arguements sake) 

It's not even really going to be a war really whomever would get the first wave is gonna win because everyone can just shoot everyone no bg waving required , I think if someone puts in the hours to become a godfather they shouldn't just die to one simple click it should take some effort to take them out.

I look back to the Roman takedown also the Silk LA war where it was 4 cities against them and it still took a ton of effort to take them out because we actually had to wave them even with the two biggest guns in the game a simple fuck up took a takedown to a full on war and it was actually so much fun and that's how I want wars to be not just simple one wave take downs but people actually having the chance to do something with the hours they put in not just being one shot dead , "Oh fuck couldn't do anything with my cap killer"

The best example for that would be StarScream the guy had 2056 kills and had no chance of using that was 195 and held up an average of over 10 kills a day for the course of his account.

So why should the bg cap be raised?

1) It's easy to build a gun with all the free kills around

2) It makes wars fun and actually have to have more planning to them

3) If you put in over 1000 hours on a character spend tons of money jailing on bgs and a gun it shouldn't just be 1 click to kill you IMO

875 is the number to shoot through 175 bgs, which is the cap. 875 might not be the exact number you need considering defense and a few other things come in to factor but it is the base number to shoot through 175 bodyguards. However I'm not exactly sure how I used it to win my argument. I was off about 10 days or so and for that I'm sorry. I wasn't arguing with anyone, you're the one who seems to think any type of discussion is indeed an argument, sorry you feel that way. Anyway as you guys can see it is possible with the new change to get a cap killer in way less than 7 months which was my original point. 

I am not going to add to the argument because honestly I couldn't care less. However I am enjoying reading everyones point of view. I ask one favour though, please please please do your math when talking numbers. You can't always take what people say at face value. So when newer people are reading this and not confident enough to offer their own opinion or ask their own questions... They will take from this conversation that if they get on or near an 875 wack stat, they can shoot anyone in the game when it's just not true. Not to mention the random number of days that people are throwing about that it takes to build one. 

Let's say a better than average hitter is gaining 10kills a day. If that person wants to shoot one of the biggest accounts in the game then they would need to consistently hit 10 a day for about 130 days if not a little more. Giving them a wack stat of 1300. 875 is NOT a cap killing gun. That is just for the Bodyguards. Then if you want to take on a capped Godfather you take in to account their BG protection, HQ protection, member boost, personal defence etc etc. Not to mention with gun tapering in effect. 

Please, use facts. Not best estimates. 

Jono, it would be absolutely wonderful for more misinformation to exist. It would be so beneficial to the game if people didn't know they needed X amount of kills to shoot through X amount of BGs, because then they might actually roll the dice and see what happens rather than knowing absolutely they have a shitty percentage of success. The 'known facts' surrounding the BG maths is one of the worse things that ever happened to this game. I would actively encourage everyone to estimate the fuck out of everything and redact every equation in this and every other thread; it would make the game significantly improved. 

PaulyD, a couple of questions: 

1. Why would 8 kills every 4 days make people, who already have the ability to blow each other to pieces, suddenly do so when they haven't for god knows how long? 
2. If we did raise the cap how far should we raise it?
3. Why would the increased cap make for a better game? 

Please factor in:

• the additional X amount of months required to get to the new level to make something happen where nothing happens 
• the additional number of people now required to make your war effort possible 
• the time required to cultivate and trust those new people now required
• the outcome of this site-wide war and the reality of the victory being virtually unopposed

Personally, I think the game is much more enjoyable when you have wars which occur fairly frequently involving only a few families rather than lots of takedowns and one site-wide implosion every 12 months. 

I don't really care that much about more MIAs being available. Sure it makes the game even more pay to win but MR have been P2W for years now. That battle was lost a long time ago.

However I think the cap should be lowered. Preferably by a lot. Having to work/play non stop for months to be able to take down the top players is fucking crazy. People dying more often would bring a lot of excitement and constant change to this game. Not just stagnation and the same few people on the top time after time like it is today. 

Not even really a two sided argument when you haven't explained to us yourself on why this change was needed and implicated, Squishy. So for a guy to make his case against a nonexistent explanation from our admins, but he is the one being misleading? Lol.

And it's simple math tbh. If anyone knows that 175 BGs is cap, multiply it by 5 and you have your equal rank matchup number = 875. That's not including any boosts, as for example a Don versus Don or a Godfather versus Godfather. Now, what that doesn't consider is loyal members, nerfed stats from admin competitions, misguided wacks for the shooter, or HQ boosts. The safest number would be 925. It's basic math. For a Don to try and take on a Godfather, you'd need around 1125 (not including side boosts), easily to figure out over the vast amount of wars over the past year or 2 and comparing guns to those who have done it. Sayyid ain't so?

I don't know about increasing the cap to make better for the game, but it would be nice to not see people 1 shot so easily. But if Deadpool is still on my nuts, I'd be considered bias. But considering my thought process on this has been the same for many years, you can look up posts from Rhakios, Zero_McHannon, and Cory_Chase (LA) to support that my opinions haven't changed. Personally, I'd like to see a gun cap that is under the BG cap to involve people in wars, etc. Would bring us back a touch of what a war really felt like again. But I wouldn't request this change without extensive looks into how well it would and wouldn't work. Simple thing is, more kills added to the game will make things easier for all parties involved. Waves will be more effective, thus making the game a bit more boring when executing takedowns, instead of trying to find that excitement factor that has been either replaced or taken away completely slowly over the years. 

Dorothy, work harder than those who have reached the top and do something about it. Don't be lazy and want everything handed to you on a silver platter the size of the Independence Day Spaceship.