And yes, apologies also for the derailment. 

I would love to hear some suggestions on how you restore hope to users who every day and every account lose the ambition to bother.

Out of curiosity, would it not be possible to to add a limited timeline to the game that resets every so often. I might not be explaining this very well so let me know and I can try to reword but basically adapt the game so that it each 'session' of game play only lasts a specified amount of time for example 4-6 months? Everyone does their shit, rushes to be the best, shoots the hell out of each other but once it hits 6 months the game resets and everyone has to try again.

This way even if people are being killed repeatedly they can live in hope knowing that it won't be long before they might get their chance to shine.

I don't really think it was pulled out of context. Joke or not, he still openly referenced mere housing of decedents as a stain on the family.

Regardless, these are just symptoms of a larger structural problem here - Accounts last too long...there are an outrageous amount of bodyguards...training up an effective gun take a silly amount of time. As a result you just get regimes that can embed themselves and put a boot on the game.

I'm not even mad that groups can rise to power and exert influence. I'm more mad that once you cross a threshold it doesn't even require effort to stay there. You can literally just log on once a month and shoot everyone. It's just boring.

Maybe eventually they will get bored enough to back stab each other...we can all dream. Hey Disorder I heard Orange was plotting against you!

The problem with a fixed phase like that is you will see a marked drop off whenever anyone becomes established, a "fuck it, I'll wait until the next round" attitude, which I doubt would increase revenues in the long term.

If we are brainstorming solutions, I would propose that accounts deteriorate with age. You never die, but you become markedly weaker as you get old. This would require continual new blood to be added to the family to keep it running as otherwise those at the top will become too weak to hold off their competition. This would present opportunities for more families rather than individuals, i.e. I get too old and Romance leads the Longneck Gang, then someone succeeds him like in the New York families of the mob etc. 

It would also present ample opportunity for knives in backs. 

Can confirm, we want to raid his sock drawer.

^ This I think would be worth researching -- or some variation on it. It would really force you to build lasting alliances, plan for the future, and want to leave a real lasting legacy. It would bring back the politics side of the game which is what is really exciting.

Maybe you don't have to actually die of old age - but as Larry mentioned you cane become more and more ineffective. Now you have to recycle your account and start fresh - you'd be less attached to your account.

Whilst I don't disagree with you Larry that we could end up with people having that mentality, the problem is that we already have that mentality right now. A lot of players are just sitting about waiting for the current leaders of the game to die so that they can come back and try again without the fear of having their time wasted. At least with my solution they would have some sort of clarity on just how long they are going to have to wait.

I think you have a more pronounced drop off. From own perspective, if some guy is entrenched at the top and it would take a month for me to kill him and there is like 6 weeks to go; would I bother? Probably not. You also have the inevitable, "we're resetting in a few weeks anyway" attitude, which will be a lot worse than anything you see in a game that never "ends". 

I think it would be better than having an near enough unkillable top order, but not much.

HoeleeMolee; no. If you feel otherwise, examples?

 Larry you mean to say you have never allowed someone to build for x amount of time to kill them when there gun is x amount?