| Oct 10 - 13:00:50 |
|
| Post Reply | Post new topic | Page: [ <<< - < ] 1 2 |
| GAME CHANGE: BG Cap changed, protection levels changing | Started by: Squishy on Mar 02, '18 21:36 |
|
Why are BG's used as a last resort? |
|
| Reply by: NRA at Mar 15, '18 04:25 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
The same reason an armored vehicle, bullet proof vest and basically gearing up in a juggernaut suit should be a last resort when you feel the need to go to Albertsons to get a box of cereal. First and foremost, you should do everything you can to not put yourself in a position where the people around you want to kill you. You should do everything you can to put yourself in a position where it would lead to less than desirable results for someone to kill you. You should do everything you can to put yourself in the company of like minded people who care for your safety and consider the consequences of their actions against the safety of yourself.
Consider BGs like a seat belt and air bags in your vehicle. They are designed to aid you and keep you alive in many situations. They turn many small accidents that would have traditionally killed you, into one where you can walk away. These things are not magical devices that will stop 100% of the consequences of your vehicle colliding with things. They are a last resort. If the speed limit is 35, don't do 135. Breaking the rules increases the risk of danger. Don't hit other cars and speed off. Pissing people off increases the risk of danger. Don't cut people off. Pissing people off increases the risk of danger. If a pack of teenagers in ricers fly by doing a high speed, don't join them. Joining in a pack of people who are pissing everyone off and disregard proper etiquette of the roads means that you when the time comes for them to be held accountable for their actions, you also are held accountable. Running with a pack that is just playing by their own rules off increases the risk of danger. If you see the person in front of you is texting and not paying attention or caring about anyone else on the road, move away, their lack of care puts you in danger. Poor actions of those in front of you increases the risk of danger. I could go on with many other situations, but I think the point is made - there is a metric boatload of things you can do to ensure that your exposure to danger can greatly reduced so that you may actually never need a seatbelt or airbags. But, if I intentionally put myself in a unstable lawless situations, if I intentionally surround myself by poor decision makers, if I intentionally make new enemies daily, if I go out of my way to step on the toes of of everyone around me, then maybe an armored vehicle and a bullet proof vest would be more needed than if you paused Wheel of Fortune and took the dog for a ride to go get a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk in Suburbia Minnesota one evening. |
|
| Reply by: Squishy at Mar 15, '18 05:03 | |
| Report Post | Tips: 2 / Total: $40,000 Tip |
|
LOL @ ricers |
|
| Reply by: GangsterPriest at Mar 15, '18 08:45 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
What? I ain't following since I know for a fact well paid guards mean jack shit. |
|
| Reply by: NRA at Mar 18, '18 06:24 | |
| Report Post | Tips: 1 / Total: $20,000 Tip |
I agree with this to some degree, but if we employ this context to the increase in BG cap; it seems to say that those at the top who can afford the protection should be exposed to a smaller number of players. If we consider gun strength to be some distribution between 0 and 2000 kills, the players wielding a gun that can shoot those at the top gets smaller as the BG cap goes up. And each time changes like this are made, this distribution gets more difficult for the players starting over (the losers of a war, so to speak). Additionally, if BGs are to be viewed as a last resort rather than the primary mechanism of protecting oneself, and that the networking should be that primary mechanism, why increase the BG cap? Your posts seem to encourage players to align themselves correctly, use good information to trust the right people, and network well as the ticket to survival, but raising the BG cap further insulates those with the money (IG or credits) from the consequences of those decisions. If we really wanted people to be vulnerable to the company they keep and the decisions they make, surely reducing the BG cap would more accurately accomplish that? This does the opposite. All this is simply to say the same thing I've said for years; the BG mechanic encourages a big-spending, untouchable upper class of player that's only threatened when they allow themselves to be. Less vulnerability. To remedy that, I'd suggest to change BG wack to be for warfare rather than training. Make the BG cap as high as you want, but allow larger groups to do real damage to their targets' protection so that the pool of players to whom you are accountable grows, but only as long as those players are in total cooperation. Then your networking and alignment represent a truly massive portion of your survivability. Until then, this change simply puts more distance between the 0-day player and the top. Something that maybe the game needed (I'm not sure at all), but does not appear to be supported by saying all players are vulnerable to networking and bad decisions. |
|
| Reply by: Serapis at Mar 21, '18 21:48 | |
| Report Post | Tips: 1 / Total: $50,000 Tip |
|
Will this be re-assessed due to the recent mass carnage? |
|
| Reply by: TedBundy at May 20, '18 13:31 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
There are still users at the 200 level TedBundy. |
|
| Reply by: Warrior at May 21, '18 08:01 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Not many live so long anymore to get so many BG but its good to have this for all who have much money can be spent in game ;) |
|
| Reply by: Whoopsie at Jun 14, '18 18:14 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
wow thats alot |
|
| Reply by: GUNFORHIRE at Jun 15, '18 02:53 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| wowzy' | |
| Reply by: Clint- at Jun 17, '18 23:15 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Post Reply | View All Threads | Page: [ <<< - < ] 1 2 |
Minimum $20,000
