I'm going to have to agree with Wild Card on this one. If I can see the actual status of a persons BGs then I would like to see that status of their gun too.

I'm not sure how that makes sense at all. When you look at someone in the street, you can see how healthy their bodyguards look. For instance, you can tell that five of their bodyguards are coming down with a cold and could be taken out easier than the other 5 in perfect shape. You can't see how skillful someone is with a gun. You're not getting a flashy new gun for every 100 kills or whatever and even if you were, the person would likely keep said gun concealed and you would never see it. 

To be honest a cold would not really have an effect on a BG at all. Also how would you be able to tell that? A cough here a sneeze there? maybe they had a tickle in their nose or throat...in order to really tell if a BG is sick and unhealthy would be to sit there and watch them for a day or so. You would not be able to tell how healthy they are just by them walking down the street. SO unless you camp out for a day outside their HQ just to see how sick their BGs are then you would have no idea therefore this idea is not a good one and is unrealistic.

Erm. If you were attempting to kill someone, would you not watch their house and their daily activities? <.< You wouldn't just run into their house and start shooting. You would learn about the person you are trying to kill. Besides, when most people are sick, you can tell. This idea is alot more realistic than being able to see their skill with a gun. >.> In fact, I feel that this suggestion goes hand-in-hand with the change to the bodyguard's health.

In many of the previous posts here they have just talked about seeing the BGs walk down the street looking sick. That is simply just not realistic. If a person is hired as a BG they are going to do everything they can to make it seem as if they are in perfect health simply for the reason they do not want to be shot or fired. So saying a BG that is sick is going to look sick is not realistic because they will portray themselves as a healthy BG unless they are deathly ill which in that case they would be dead anyway. A simple cold would not effect them and would not show on them.

I agree with Rico on this one. And do all gangsters watch the houses of the people they attempt to kill? No, not all of them. I do not think it would be a good idea to show the effectiveness and health of a persons bg. When you pass someone on the street can you tell if theyre sick or not? Not all the time.

"a simple cold would not effect them and would not show on them" How do you explain the deteriorating health in the BGs then? You are claiming it would not make sense in an RP standpoint when it clearly does. Not only does it make sense, it would also make it easier to scope targets in a war which would lead to more wars on the side. This would slowly chip away at the stagnation of the game and as I have stated multiple times in multiple places, stagnation is what's hurting MR. Two or three years ago, you seen wars fairly often and members barely lived past a month or two. Now, a war happens very rarely and members live up to a year old. Most players on this game agree that this makes the game dull. Living for a year and doing the same thing every single day is boring. Besides, Flash is not suggesting that we show the health of the bodyguards. Simply changing the protection status to reflect how many active bodyguards a person has. In the end, it wouldn't matter much because the person's bodyguards will still die from the same amount of shots. It simply takes away some of the mystery and makes people have a better chance of successfully killing their target.

Well when it comes to guns how often are WS's relied on these days anyway, if a family was to attack Altidore and the had 10 WS from a member of our family who is not known for being a hitter and 0 from myself who would be the priority? It would be me, even if I wasn't RHM. WS's mean little or nothing these days as it can take someone on info answers 81 kills just to get the base wack state of someone who has signed up on wack answers.

As for BG health I wasn't talking about them being sick as I agree you wouldn't notice in the streets if they had a cold, but a bandaged arm from being shot at? A leg in plaster? And we would know who the weakest BG is as the weakest one always gets shot at first and that is coded into the game already.

As far as knowing which one is weakest I agree with because you can always pick out the scrawny ones of the bunch. However Phreaking Panda what you just said is very hypocritical. You just said that Flash wasn't talking about health at all. This is true because he wasn't. However, you have been saying all along that it is the HEALTH we are talking about that we will be able to see which ones have colds and which ones don't which if you ask me is dumb to begin with because if I have a cold I'm still going to kick somebody's ass just as if I didn't have a cold. It is not health either that the BGs lose it is effectiveness. If you can actually read what it says on the BG screen it says effectiveness so we are not even talking about health to being with so like I said saying you would see a cold on them is stupid. It seems to me that your only problem here is that you want more wars so if you want more wars act on that. Having things implimented in the game merely to create more wars is pointless. If you want wars then do something on your own to time do it but don't make the rest of the game suffer just because you want to use your pea shooter.

Do me a favor. Click over onto your bodyguard screen. What does it say next to your bodyguards? Does it say 98% effectiveness? No, it says 98 health. When someone shoots at your bodyguard, they take a certain amount of health away from it and either kill it or wound it giving it protection. Therefore, I've said nothing hypocritical. For, I was talking about health in the sense that your bodguards have an HP. However, Flash was talking about showing your current BG effectiveness. As for your point of doing something myself to promote more wars, that would only be something to change the stagnation temporarily. The site needs something implimented that stops people from feeling comfy sitting on their 200 bodyguards.

This is an excuse to get lazy on training a gun. It wouldn't help with being able to war and most with IWP if not all have their bgs trained. Plus if you know someone isn't training their bodyguards why does it need to be public knowledge? Should we just hand out ways to kill off people easier?

How exactly would you know if someone isn't training their bodyguards? You don't see Dons running around IRC talking about how half of their bodyguards are untrained..Besides, this would not make people lazy on training their guns. Considering there are several people that have guns large enough to knock out IWP people with ease. As for your last question, has that not already occurred? With the addition of MIAs and the Durdens, people are basically being handed kills.

"I don't like this idea. Adding this sort of thing would only provoke more conflict." and "Some people have to take unplanned breaks or simply go on vacation, This feature would punish them for that. "

You say those things like it's a bad thing. I see those as good things. There's nothing I dislike more than lazy folks sitting up top with nothing more than inertia holding them there.

"This game is about balance and fairness, if exact BG effective count is put in, which reveals a huge amount of info, woudlnt it only be fair that we see the guns that others have?"

Was it an unfair "huge amount of info" for the four years or so before the recent innovation of bg effectiveness? Heck, a while back you knew from bg tiers to within less than 10 how many bgs someone had. Now, with the expanded tiers and bg effectiveness, you don't have even that. You have a guess to within 80 or so effective bgs when you are looking at someone IWP. All this change does is put things back somewhat closer to the way they were: you get a very vague -- a range of 25 effective bgs is still a HUGE margin -- idea of how protected someone is.

Phreaking_Panda you're missing every point I made like a champion.

When someone gets IWP it will show that, if they don't train it will drop to OWP, then EWP, then VWP, then WP. So, yes you would know if someone isn't training their bgs if they go to IWP then just start dropping.

And as far as being handed kills I was talking about being handed the ability to know if someone is training or not and having an easier method of killing them.

I love how your response was out of anger instead of adding things up.


Also, who is walking around with 180 bgs ItalianSpiderman? Also why the hell do you have to one shot them. They have a nifty feature on the game found here: http://mafiareturns.com/war/bgwack.php

It helps pull people down into range :)

I think people are really looking for an easy way around things anymore times ten.

"Also, who is walking around with 180 bgs ItalianSpiderman?"

I would guess, off the top of my head: Roman, Premier, JesseJames all have that many or more. But this question misses my point. Say you guess someone was bought 140ish bgs. How many do they have now? There's uncertainty on both ends. Maybe they were bought 30 more. Maybe they were bought 30 less. That's not an unreasonable spread nowadays. On top of that, maybe they're all at 70% effectiveness. All of a sudden your range is 75-180 bodyguards. Congratulations, you know to within about 500 kills how to call your shot. In other words, you know nothing. Your variability -- even assuming you're able to guess within ~20% how much the guy was bought in the first place -- is as large as the minimum number of bgs that the tier on the guy's profile is showing you.

Compare that with 3 years ago. If you saw someone was "Very well protected" you knew they had 18-27 bgs, and each of them was worth one bg.

What was so terrible about knowing that?

You still know today. We still have bodyguard tiers all that have a set in stone range. You know how many someone has when they are very well protected, extremely, obscenely, and even insanely. Most don't walk around 80 btw above iwp. Plus those that do have worked for that right. Hence why there is such thing as bodyguard wacking.

I like this suggestion, it's a nice idea. I also believe more BG tiers should be implemented every 25 BGs above 101 BGs, such as 126, 151, 176, 201... It's only fair. At least until that BG cap is implemented anyway. Or I should say, "if" it's implemented like it should be.

The point is that you don't need to be 80 above IWP in order to have a range of well over 100 bgs that someone is guessing at. As long as in your judgment it's someone who is IWP and "seems like the sort who would be above the bare minimum" that instantly means that you're talking a 100+ effective bg range for them. There's as much of a difference between the lowball possibility and the cautious estimate for calling your shot as there is a difference in defense between someone who has no bgs at all and someone who keeps OWP or even IWP fully trained. This isn't an issue of giving someone "too much" information. This is an issue of giving someone any useful information at all.

The effect runs further down the BG tiers too, it's just far more dramatic at the highest tier where you have no effective way to estimate the maximum defense the target could have. Someone who is OWP could be anywhere from 30-110 bg effective (counting loyal bgs). An 80 BG range is the difference between showing "not protected" and showing OWP in the first place. You're telling me that someone employing bgs that far out of practice, that weak, wouldn't show signs of wear and tear just from looking at them? They'd have to practically be a pack of hobos with butter knives at the low end.

I don't see how bg wacking has anything to do with this problem whatsoever.

whether your actualy BG count, and your effective BG count match doesn't matter.

besides, unless i miss my guess, when you get your effective BG count, your not talking "health" per say. you talking training. at least thats how i read it. and i don't know about any of you, but if you put two average people in front of me, and i can't tell which one has been trained to fight. so making your BG status on your suit reflect you effective count, makes 0 sense.

To be quite frank, most of you are missing the point.

Regardless of how well trained/effective someone's bodyguards are, they are STILL walking around with the same number of bodyguards - if they have 200 bodyguards all at 20 health they still have 200 bodyguards with them or even if they have 10 bodyguards all with 120 hp they still have 10 bodyguards walking with them! So no, you wouldn't know their effective bodyguard count. The way I see it is the training pays for them to learn the latest methods of protecting someone, keeping their reflexes sharp, their awareness high and multiple other things that they need to protect people - something you would never notice from just looking at them.

Bad suggestion, to be honest.