Perhaps Tyler can only shoot at non-anon hits that are placed. 

Its been this way forever. Any change is just self serving for the current group in power. You didn't see Grin crying when he was hitlisted. Put up with it or pay them off. 

LockeLamora, no it hasnt. Tyler hasnt always shot at those on the hitlist.

My proposal below:

My suggestion would be for city hall not to publicly display the hit list as we know it to those originating from Delaware city.

If a person wishes Mr Durden to have involvement in the dance then that person should pay.  Its all about balance after all.

To the mayor (if he is listening squishy ) I propose a small tweak to the way the hit list is advertised.

Normal hits for all the community to take part in, admire and discuss at the normal rates of issue and buy out, Mr Durden cannot see these advertised.

However, if a person wishes Tyler to be involved then a placing $100M on the table equates to a $75M hit and a specific option to advertise this hit to the residents of Delaware.  Same rules for buy out, the person on the list understands this and the hit lister has paid a little fee for the trouble of advertising in places where Mr Durden lurks.

Isn't the dollar amount already unlimited, since multiple hits can be posted?

Also, any discussion here is bound to attract claims of self-interest, as seen above. Would it be possible to grandfather in current accounts so they have to continue to play by existing rules? But accounts created after a certain date could have a different set of hitlist standards? I believe this was done before for at least one major change. 

Tyler is a 1 in 100 chance of hitting. If the hit listed people do not want to take the chance I suggest buying the hits off. RunaKatte is on the right track that if this is to be implemented it would be prudent to do it on a "Accounts created after X date"

I am genuinely surprised at the level of complaint, given the chance of a hit from Tyler is so low. Also in other threads the harping that no player has recently taken on a hit for the reward strong disagree. Even if people don't take the hit just for the cash it certainly helps sway things in terms of a decision for a take down. If city Y doesn't like city X & is 50-50 on hitting them a large hit is always going to sway their thinking weather they admit it in public or not. 

On reading this suggestion I'd actually be fine with removing the funding limit on hits as long as they're based on the actual game economy, or as stated in the suggestion thread, the "free market". On the other hand, if a significant portion of the funds end up being raised through the auto-created listings that were outlined from this feature: https://mafiareturns.com/comm/thread/1093572#16728852

Then this would probably be a no from me, since they're not based on the actual economy.

On reading this suggestion I'd actually be fine with removing the funding limit on hits as long as they're based on the actual game economy, or as stated in the suggestion thread, the "free market". On the other hand, if a significant portion of the funds end up being raised through the auto-created listings that were outlined from this feature: https://mafiareturns.com/comm/thread/1093572#16728852

Then this would probably be a no from me, since they're not based on the actual economy.

I echo these words. Its a good change that the players get to decided who actually shoots at the person hit listed. Rather than Tyler. However, a lot of the hits are actually being financed by these stimulus funds, than actual game generated funds. Which, in it self is outside the realm of 'free market'.

Its a system that is being taken advantage of, by folks that have gained tons of credits at the dice tables. And for mere shits and giggles, will sit hours to collect these funds. As, these funds can't be created this quickly in the game, in a more natural form. There is no way that the game generates 25mill in an hour and presents it to be 'bought'. However, these credits/cash being spawned per minute. Allow credit loaders to create 25mill per hour out of thin air. Its certainly not consistent with the game economy. 

I dont think any of the current suggestions are a personal suggestion. And its one of the reasons, why I didn't want to chime in. Since I am currently on the list. 

However, my suggestion. Is mostly that any funds acquired from the 425k that is generated from outside game funding. Should not be permitted to be used towards the HL. Im not asking to nerf someone from gambling. Not asking someone to be cut out from exchanging credits for game generated cash. Im argument is simply, that due to the 425k generation per minute. The Credit caches can generate 25mill per hour, out of thin air. However, if they were limited to buying just game cash. They would be limited to cash that is actually generated in the 'economy' of game. Which would be a more realistic factor towards H/L. Rather than basically creating funds out of thin air, which is what the 425k allows people to do. 

I guess your a proponent for someone that pays to play. Which is fine. However, all that does is render the 'game economy' useless. As anyone that is paying to play, will always have a leg up when it comes to playing. And not to say, that a big chunk of the users don't pay to play. However, it just greatly undercuts anyone that actually puts in the work in game. And then watches their hours of work go down the drain. As someone with absolutely no work put in game, can easily swipe a card and render months of work. Worthless. 

As for someone wiring someone else the money, that was bought from the 'superficial generation' like the 425k. Thats just a loop hole, I am sure others would like to exploit. Hence, there should be a bar on that. Any cash put into the game from 'superficial generation'. Should be barred from using it on the H/L.

As for opening other features to generate more funds in game? I am all for that. 

Ive certainly seen the evolution of the game. I remember a time, when 'credits' didnt exist. When initially introduced, credits wasn't the universal currency. When first introduced, credits were primarily used for jails compared to JB $ we would buy. I have no problem with credits and paying to play. I know what keeps the lights on. There is a reason why your IWP BG's cost 350 odd million. 

As for advancement vs advantage. Thats a debate that can go far and wide. Someone can easily sleep the whole time. Log in do the Mia thing and go back to sleep. Not sell a unit of drugs, not click a vote, not hit petty/felony etc. Till they desire the need to rank. And then all of the sudden wake up on the eve of a 2x jails. And advance, as numerically their account advances in mere sleep. Now granted the example I gave is a bit extreme. However, that can be achieved. 

I think there needs to be a balance between, the player that swipes and advances with its advantages. Cause obviously a player not swiping, will never advance, w/o putting in hours. In the light of the aforementioned example. 

What the H/L is showing is the stark difference between the two actually. That you can have someone (and I am trying not to make this about me, cause the game is greater) that has put in a thousand hours. And have all those hours be worth absolutely nothing. Cause someone that has an account worth a few hours, with several thousand credits. Can alter the trajectory of a account, that has quite some hours of advancement. Its simply just not fair. 

Its why I suggested what I said earlier. There has to be a balance. If the swiping player with absolutely no hours invested just goes and sits and collects the 'superficial cash'. They can bare down on someone that has actually put in work thru the 'game economy' and perhaps more. However, my concern is very simple. That the amount of work needs to stand for something. Otherwise, whats stopping an army of swipers, rendering every major account in the game worthless? And all because they can H/L with 'superficial funds'. 

So make it fair. Make it balance. The swipers can bring their swipes to the table. Absolutely no problem with that. Just they should be limited to using 'superficial funds' to certain features. And H/L should not be among them. They want to H/L someone. Have at it, just wait till 'game economy' generated case becomes available. And H/L to your hearts desire. 

There has to be a balance. 

I would suggest anyone who is currently negative about the hitlist has already had the feature balanced by the removal of Tyler shots.

I am also highly amused that the overriding opinion is the people funding the hits do not have active player accounts, that they are just logging in to swipe & hitlist. The hits are Anon. You are just guessing. For all you know the person doing the hitlisting could be a Don from your own family who wants to shake things up or advance up the ladder. 

Grin et al never cried about hitlisting. Either raise the funds to pay them off or work on your alliances so no one with a gun capable of hitting you would ever consider taking the shot. A great player is always worth more alive than dead. 

You are a little misinformed sir. And I sorta stated this in one of my earlier comments. That I was trying to stay out of this discussion, as I was on the HL myself. Which, kinda makes my words a little dull. However, I am not out here for my own personal accord. But more for addressing a discontinuity in the game. 

Case in point. Karizma got shot last night, by an account that was 2 days old. Because of Auth, that was leveraged to a HL by probably an account that was just as young. Personally, Ive taken my share of shots from 2 day accounts as well. So that whole "work on the alliance part" conversation goes out the window. Because, no one with a decent gun. Will throw away their account for 200mill, when just the BG's they have cost over 300mill...and that doesn't even equate for the WORK. 

So keeping in synchrony with the WORK. Your argument about 'climbing ladders' would have merit. If the person on the HL was a GFC/GF/CL. However that argument goes out the window as well. Since the last two people with big HL's on them were anything but. 

Back to the Work argument. What we are seeing from the army of swipers, is something thats basically undercutting people that have WORK put in. Your watching accounts that are not upper, or involved in decision making. Being bullied, by accounts that are simply swiping their cards. Then leveraging that into 'Superficial funds' like the 425k credits...which were not created by WORK. To wipe out someone that has put in immense amounts of WORK. 

My argument this whole time has been very consistent. And that is WORK should wipe out WORK. WORK should have bearing on WORK. A 2 day old, swiping a card. And then bearing down on an account that has put in WORK, just isn't fair. In any medium. Does not exist. Certainly not in the mob. Usually a 2 day old goomba would not be able to post a HL in the mob. Why here? And that real world HL, in the mob comes from 'real economy'. Not some superficial printed monies.

So how about we find some consistencies? And my suggestion is very straight forward. Give the guys that are paying to play, their advantage. They have it. They can bare down, on a account that has put in WORK. With a singular swipe. However, they should not be allowed to use 'superficial funds' to bully someone on the HL. Someone that has actually put in a bit of WORK. However, to keep things on a even keel. Im certainly not barring them from placing hits. Throw hits up to your hearts desire, its your money/credits. Go wild!!! Just those hits should be restricted to 'game generated funds'. Its only fair that WORK pays for WORK. 

As for the Grin argument. Yea, he didn't complain much. Because if you have been paying any attention. The community held Grin liable for his antics. The revolution showed that quite distinctly. GFC's got shot round after round, and their members didn't even care to pro anyone. Thats about as loud of a referendum, you will get against a regime or group of players. But that surprised no one. And if there was a 'voting sys', as was suggested here. Ill take a gander, that the community would have authed that hit on Grin. I can't, say that for the others that have been on the HL more recently. 

In the end. I echo, what Ive been trying to say all along. "WORK should pay for WORK"

Karizma did not get shot by a 2 day old account. If you believe that you are incorrect I am afraid.
 

 https://mafiareturns.com/news/uprofile.php?id=2603301

And you can verify that yourself. Not going to do your WORK, for you. 

At present nothing is preventing you putting in some WORK & buying off the hits. You have exactly the same framework to work under as the hitlisters. If 2 day old accounts shooting at you is too much risk to take then buy off the hit? Pretty logical? No one here will ever out work death its inevitable for everyone.

 

Thank you for making my point. A swiper can use 'Superficial funds' generated from 425k cash. Rather than waiting to acquire 'Game generated cash' from the 'game economy'. To fund a HL. Your argument is simply. WORK harder. My argument is. WORK needs to be balanced with WORK. Not SWIPE + "Superficial cash" = Work....which it isnt. 

All this rubbish about a voting system for hits & who the “community” would auth a hit on or wouldnt auth a hit on is ridiculous. This is the mafia not a popularity contest.

No one said anything about a popularity contest. Good try, trying to move the goal posts. The argument was, he didn't complain. Yes. Cause he knew deep down inside he was GUILTY as charged. Also, he was an upper and a part of the 'ladder' you referred to earlier. 

I do agree that work should beget work as that is how the game has historically added and addressed features from both the gameplay and the credit aspect of it.  There's a reason why you're required to shoot your own MIAs and do your own jails even if you've paid for them, and there's a reason why there are minimum days required for certain ranks.

Looking at the size of the economy through stats right now (2.5 billion), I don't think that when it was created, that the automated cash on the right side was intended to be used in a way that could potentially wreck or greatly inflate the game's economy or result in endless hitlists.

Taken to an extreme example, theoretically you'd be able to raise 600 million and some change if the feature was utilized to its maximum extent.

Suppose for a moment that we suggested a feature that could add up to 25% of the entire game's economy in a single day.  Suppose for a moment we suggested a feature that could add even half of that in a day.  The feedback would be filled with "game breaking" and "adding too much money to the game" before you likely even got a thread out.  The notion for a feature that would even add 5% more per day would be ridiculous and not worth discussing.

I think there's a way where that feature can be allowed to provide some emergency funds without it presenting the risk for abuse.  Spacing out the refresh times, implementing daily or hourly limits on individuals, lowering the amount offered so that it truly is a last resort (as buying credits at 525K/ea are) or a combination of all of these could be implemented with a focus on limiting the amount that can be added to the economy in a given timeframe while allowing people to still have an option to liquidate some of their holdings if and only if it is a necessity.