Throughout the years we have seen time and time again that people send some members they don't necessarily like but can't bloodline anymore to other cities, just to target them 30-60 days later on right before their guns are capped and become a real threat. People are wiped pretty much instantly, and without leadership any survivors literally don't even know what hit them and are cleaned up by the remaining guns of the other city.

What if we had a feature in which cities could make Pacts with each other, and it could range from:

Alliance Being the closest one.

Neutral Being as the name suggests, Neutral.

Hostile Which would be triggered when one of the people who signed the pact breaks it.

There could also be "No Stance/No Pact" added which would leave people exactly as they are right now, in which people can be instantly shot.

So the main purpose of the first 2 options (Alliance, Neutral) is that each pact would make it so that you have (x) amount of time before anyone from either city can attack the other side.

So for example:

For Allied cities, City A is allied with City B, City B changes their stance to Hostile, essentially declaring war. This triggers a cooldown on attacks from all Made members in City B to City A (and vice versa) for (x) period of time (Make it a random time anywhere from (x) to (y) mins/hours.)  Which means people wouldn't know the exact time of when the pact will be fully waived, they just know it would be within minute (x) and (y).

For Neutral cities, City A is neutral with City B, City A changes their stance to Hostile, triggering the cooldown on all attacks from Made+ towards City B and vice versa for (x) to (y) mins (Have it random time between those 2 so it isn't fully predictable)

When the Chairman/Godfather/(Don of the Capital of the City if no Godfathers are available) of the city changes the stance from Allied/Neutral to Hostile this triggers a message sent to all CL's/Rh's from both cities about said change. You can also have BOTH sides be able to agree to how long this pact lasts, so for example:

Godfather from City A sends an "Invite" for an Alliance to Godfather from City B with a timer of 60 days, the Godfather from City B reviews this pact, and accepts it and the timer begins. After this Pact expires, there is a cooldown of (x time) in which both sides could sign another one, HOWEVER, if they do NOT sign another pact, there is no penalty to attack the other city right after.

The idea here is to give BOTH sides time to prepare, and to make wars more fun for everyone instead of just waking up one day just to realize you died minutes after you and your friends logged off, and after you all grinded for months to have a decent gun/bodyguards. This also makes lower ranks have to be way more involved in the game play since both sides need as many Pros as possible and have a very limited amount of time to get them.

If this is implemented, eventually there could even be drawbacks to the one changing the Pact from Allied/Neutral to Hostile and could even have them decide what their Attack Halt Cooldown would be, so for example:

City A breaks pact with City B, but they have a few options, they can choose for the timer to be longer, which would downgrade all their Made+ guns by a small percentage, or they could choose to have the cooldown be less time, but the penalty is higher for all the Made+ guns in their City.

Let me know what you all think about this, maybe make some changes to it? Would implementing this be good/bad? Why?

I feel like giving some players control over other players CD timers is a bad idea...given the nature of people.

The_Marine  Not control over their CD timers, you could still shoot anything else you wanted such as IAs, Durdies, etc. This would also only affect Made+ members which are normally the ones with Auth to actually kill anyways. It's just that you (As a Made+) wouldn't be able to attack a member from the city your Godfather just broke the pact with for x amount of time. 

I see now, I misread, thinking City A would trigger City B's timers by breaking the pact...you could see where THAT would be abused right? LOL

I get it now though, still would take a LOT of work and consideration to make sure it worked out proper, but I see potential :)

The_Marine heh, any changes worth doing require hard work. That's why I even added the "Eventually" part for the drawbacks of breaking pacts, because I think that's the one that would be the tricky part since it involves formulas and would need a lot of testing before full implementation. But the actual halt on attacks itself PROBABLY (not sure since I am not a coder) would be relatively easy since we kind of already have that implemented to a much smaller scale, and I am talking about attacks on Rogue.

Yeah, there's some basis of it in there, in a strange reverse sense.  It'll be intersting to see if it goes anywhere.

I've seen suggestions like this get shut down time and time again for the same reason, and I'll be on their side for this one. It's not necessary to add features like this which try to explicitly tie in-game politics with game mechanics, especially ones which make wars more 'fair'. It is in everyone's best interests for any war they start to be as 'unfair' as possible to minimize losses from their end so I doubt other people would be interested in something similar to this either. I'm not one of the people who care about the RP or have the 'this is supposed to be the mob' mindset but having mechanics preventing betrayal and forcibly upholding agreements which are supposed to be based on trust, honor and the weight of your own word will not sit right with those people too.

And the easiest way to get around this is to simply have a Wise Guy hitsquad, I believe.

  As much as I do like the initial idea and think something like this would be a good addition all it will do is require alot of work then be abused. Because like JackMiller said, it would just make WiseGuy hitsquads leading to even fewer people wanting to take the Made Man role