I've only been playing for a few months, but I've already seen multiple scenarios where people get demoted and buy loads of BG's.

My idea is to make something higher that 'obscenely well protected.' I don't really know how to explain it but you people probably know what I mean, so if the have 100+ BG's they are ... 'presidentially protected' or whatever.

I don't know how hard it'll be to code but it's just an idea out there for you all.

There is already Insanely Well Protected for 101+. However, I agree, there does need to be another rank added. Possibly at 200?

Ok, sorry, I got the info from the (slightly dated) tutorial.

Im down for 200 being the next tier. :D

Agreed. Although the profile should read: "Bodyguards: Seriously, just dont even try right now!"

Aye. Something like that. Perhaps "Invincible" or some shit.

Nobody is invincible..

but perhaps you are right in that we need another tier of bodyguard protection.

Heh. 200 BGs is nearly Invincible. Problem will be coming up with a name, I suppose.

Impossibly Well Protected.

I kinda liked Presidentially Protected. Definitely agreed though, there does need to be another tier.

No. No more increases in bg tiers. The "every three months another tier is needed" effect we have right now is nothing more or less than a sign that the site remains broken and wack/defense need re-balancing. There is no reason the game should ever have gotten to the point that anyone got 100+ bgs in the first place. BG totals need to come down. Kill-infusions to the site can come down to compensate. Death wackbacks should come back from the nether realm of "stupidly low probability" and be a meaningful cap to the amount of power an account can wield. The endless spiral must end.

"I can't keep modifying the site to cater to the lowest common denominator. Last week we had 7 days straight of BGs available, something that should have lasted 3 days max. This is the result of users unwilling to work to build a gun. I just can't see how adjustments are needed right now when the users who scream the loudest, are unwilling to put in any real work."

I agree that it's not a good thing to throw thousands upon thousands of kills into the game. My problem isn't with how much wack is going into the game. As I said, after bgs are better balanced, "Kill-infusions to the site can come down to compensate." My goal isn't that we should have a slaughter were everyone should be able to kill everyone super easy. I agree that wouldn't be a good thing for the site.

My point is that the endless spiral of more and more kills, leading to more and more bgs, leading to more and more kills and so on to our already-absurd levels is the symptom of a larger balancing problem than can be solved just by capping bgs or throwing a ton of kills into the game. The problem is that there's never been any real trade-off for stacking someone with an absurd amount of defense. The band-aid that has slowly moved in was lowering the death wackback rate so there would be no real trade-off to building your wack, either. I'd prefer to see a system where there's a trade-off on both ends. Real risks of death wackbacks happening for hitters, but real, substantial costs being imposed on people who buy tons of bodyguards as well. This would make the game less dominated by a a couple of uber accounts and make maintaining larger coalitions of users more important. And since alliances are more apt to break apart than dictatorships, it would lead to more dynamic gameplay without any specific person being "too easy" to kill.

"It seems like now people want to be able to one shot someone three times their age with 1/10th of the work put in, I just can't get on board with that."

I don't want someone to be able to coast to success putting in 1/100th the work someone has to put in to shoot them. That's what we currently have. New accounts pop up that instantly are given two weeks worth of city earnings, and require an account with 1000+ hours worth of work to be able to hit. There's no comparable ability to pare someone's defense down through teamwork, because...

"Show me one war where your entire crew is involved where a realistic result doesn't happen, then I'll be more than happy to."

ScipitaRourke's epic failure of a combined effort bg wave against Aurora comes to mind. I think since then every HSL has realized the futility of that tactic and very intentionally avoided putting their own city on the chopping block by doing anything but striking at the hitters in the other city. See, for instance, the "kill all the hitters, and only after that start on Deimne's bgs" tactic used when 7.5 cities turned on him.

Hmm. Well, besides the fact that luck had nothing to do with Belle waking up(certain people let things slip too early, rather easy to notify someone... coughcough.) Scipitas plan was excellent and I have to agree with Squishy here, it's a deccent way to lead a war if you have everyone in on it.

But moving on, I can see both sides of this argument and now's not the time or place for me to get into this... I don't really see how adding another BG tier will effect any of the things either of you have mentioned. It's merely a cosmetic change, it wouldn't effect anything except letting others have a slightly better idea on how many BGs you have.

"We both see this war completely differently. Scipita was trashing Auroras BGs at a pretty good clip. Scipita started the war at a time when her target would normally be asleep. Bad luck would have it that this was the one time that Aurora would wake up at that hour. The war would have been a completely different war had things gone the way they should have."

So, in other words, you're conceding that bodyguard shooting is an utterly worthless feature anytime the person you're using it against isn't sleeping?

Also, as Mr. Terranova addressed, it wasn't luck. It was darn near inevitable when one side was digging all the way down to bg-shooters on the trustworthiness scale.

"I don't see it as an epic failure of a war by any means, I actually see it as one of the few times where a CL - faced with a larger opposition - chose to use the features in the game to gain an advantage in a tactical way. If I was in Scipitas situation, I would have, and still would, do the same exact thing."

Again, Scipita didn't gain any advantage. Scipita LOST a huge advantage. Instead of having return-fire coming from the few LV hitters that survived the starting wave, instead PH had return fire from the entire LV arsenal. Instead of starting out that war with a large advantage in manpower that would allow them to clear bgs in relative peace, PH instead started out the war with (I'm guesstimating here) a 20% reduction in Aurora's defense and still weren't anywhere near being able to hit her.

They gave up a huge tactical advantage and got nearly nothing in return.