What would stop a civilian or other low ranked player being sent the money to post up a named hit? This change would not really solve anything.

I assume here that upon the civilians / low ranked players death the hit would stay up?

EvilClown I believe that the change is going to make it cheaper to remove the hits.  I don't believe that this will change how the hitlist works, or how hits are posted.

Toby, read then re read the statement.

The change is only for anonymous hits. If a named hit goes up it will still be 2x.

So ergo.... no difference.

I see your point. I stand corrected.

I can see the point behind this, but I would suggest that instead to counter act the usage in such a way, the cost of anonymity should be increased in relation to the expense of the hit. After all, if you place a $100 million hit, surely remaining anon is more important to you now than what it would be if you placed a 100k hit?

This way, the person going to such extreme length to place the hit is facing the same financial hardship as the target. After all, the placing of a hit is meant simply for someone to be tempted to cash in and take the shot, using it as a means to simply burn money is not something I feel is beneficial to the game itself nor does it tie in with any role play aspect imo.

Agree with this, however why not just go back to the old system of when the hitlister dies, the hit disappears? After all. It would deter the hitlister from putting up the hit in the first place or finding and trusting someone enough to place the hit and stay alive and stay alive in the meantime.

I would have to totally disagree with what is being done here. After giving this some thought I can't see how you, squishy, could make the comment 'it just doesn't sit right with me by any means.'

People demoting players back to gangster or goomba and then loading them up with 100, 200, or 300 BGs that sits right with you??

It's ok to swipe a card and carry around BGs and make up a story why a consig got demoted to gangster but still needs a ton of BGs??

Between these two scenarios I think the hitlist is way more realistic and true to RP than this joke demotion and load up on BG thing.

The dollar amount that is put up is the amount the person feels is needed to entice someone to actually take a shot. It is in this way similar to the credit market when someone post a price there. This is an area I think would be left to the players to handle rather than admin start manipulating because of who is getting pissed they are on the hitlist.

Alabama, the person placing the hit should never go through the same hardship as the person who buys it off. If you hire a hit man to do a job for 100 mil he is not going to throw away his rep for 125 mil offered by his intended victim. Also, as in any type of business, the concept of getting your competition to burn their money is very realistic. If LV can find a way to have NY spend money buying hits off instead of keeping their BG at full strength I think that is very realistic and ties directly to roleplaying.

Last item I would also vote for going back to the system of the hitting deleting upon death of poster and agree that alone would probably cause the dollar amounts to calm down and also prevent what EC suggested as having a thug post a hit.

I disagree with this change too, but for different reasons than stated above.

But I'll agree with AllBusiness in this aspect. With all of the realism we have to suspend in order to play this game and RP effectively, take the following two scenarios into account:

Pazzi looked down the barrel of the gun now pointed at his nose. His eyes narrowed and though his face did not show it, he was terrified. Licking his lips slowly, his eyes now moved to the man behind the trigger, the stony-faced assassin who looked more than capable of firing the shot. There was no malice in this man's eyes, only green. Money fueled this ferver, and Pazzi only had one choice now.

"Look kid, whatever they're paying you, I can do better. I'll double it. Just put that gun away before someone gets hurt."

VERSUS

"Look kid, whatever they're paying you, I can do better. One point two five times better. Yeah, that's right. You could walk out of here with twenty five percent more than they're offering."

----------

Double or nothing.

And piggybacking on what AlabamaWorley said, if it causes queasiness about real money coming into play on the victim's side, don't make it so easy and lucrative for the hitlister. Anonymity should be a luxury.

"Five hundred thousand to go find Pazzi and do him up." The briefcase was tossed onto the desk, casually, as if it was a simple request for dinner and a man's life didn't hang in the balance. "And another five hundred thousand to keep your damn mouth shut about it."

The amount required to stay anonymous should be on par with the amount of the hit, not a set amount per rank.

And by "on par with," I don't mean "equal to" like in my example, but definitely a measured increase. Perhaps 7% of the hit amount per rank.

For example, to remain anonymous on a 1,000,000 dollar hit to wack a:

Gangster = 1,000,000 (original hit) + 10,0000 + 1,000 (base price plus 1k per rank) + 70,000 (7%) = 1,081,000
Goomba = 1,000,000 + 10,000 + 2,000 + 140,000
Earner = 1,000,000 + 10,000 + 3,000 + 210,000

and so on.

The higher rank the target, the more hush money you have to pay out.

Again though, I would still keep the fact that the victim here has to pay double whatever the total amount the attacker had to put up.

So all that extra money you are making the attacker pay still needs to be added to the hit and it would actually be no change to what we currently have. The only thing you are doing is breaking down the amount which is being placed on the victims head.

Not that I'm all about having people hitlisted, but if people are swiping credit cards to payoff the hit then would that not be up to them as a responsibility?

I mean if a leader's name goes up and he waits long enough eventually he can pay it off. If your average gangster has a hit out he could go to his leader at that point and save himself.

To me this takes out the part of making the hitlist such an evil devil.

Maybe instead of the money leaving the game entirely when the hit get's bought off all that cash goes to the person who posted the hit, at least then they may have a chance to find out who posted it to take vengenance.

However that posses the problem of exploiting it to make money however if someone had a hit on me back in the day to save my life I'd either kill the person or pay them off. Seems plausable, but it could get exploited.

I don't think reducing it down and taking that part out is a good idea personally just because that's what makes it what it is. It's one of few things in this game that are like a double edged sword per-say.

AllBusiness, I'm not sure if your comment was directed at me or not, but I don't want the hit buyoff price changed. I want it to be double, as I said in my comment.

I felt if there is a change needed, that it should be in the fees the hitlister pays to be anonymous, not a reduction in what the buyoff is. In my example, the hit price was 1 million. The victim would still have to pay double. But the attacker would have to pay more to be anonymous.

I like this, but if someone buys off a hit, shouldn't the money for paying off the hit go to the person who placed the hit? I'm not 100% sure about the system, but my ancestor put a high priced hit on himself just to see what would happen (I didn't think it would go through xD ) and when it was paid off, my ancestor recieved nothing.

Agreeing with most people here, i dont see why there is a need to change it. Its a two way system, people save up hard or "swipe" to fund the hits so why is it made easier to "swipe" and buy it off.

A question: so if i "swipe" to bg myself up do i get a reduced rate on bg buying?

Jonny, no it doesnt work that way if its anon. Think about it, if it was it could be extorted so much, i.e....

I put a hit of 100 mill on myself, i rally round all my crews, " omfgz please help me raise 200mill to buy it off" BOOM, i cancel the hit, make it look like i buy it off...

Success! i have made 200 mill, minus fees etc.

To be honest in light of everything recently with all the hitlist it makes sense to do a game change but the reasoning behind it seems flawed.

If the reasoning is that people can go and swipe credit card to buy off hits which will extend accounts life expectancy (assuming that a hit being put on you shortens life expectancy) is not good enough reason. As people can swipe credit cards and build tank accounts splurging on MIAs and BGs.

So unless there is a complete overhaul on MIA/CD/Durden/BGs then making game changes like this should not make in such a manner. Especially when at the time of implementation helps an active account.

Personaly I think this idea is wrong, surely by reducing the amount of the buy off only means that the person who has gone out of there way either by earning the money of paying with credit cards has made that choice to do so at there own cost and clearly has there own reasons, so to make it easyier for it to be brought off clearly is over looking the whole point of the hitlist its self. They have put that huge rediculous sized hit on someone for a reason to get the death of someone they can not kill them selves. This is all part of game tactics and the high buy off cost is ment to be a deterent and add some substance to the hit its self. To remove this is wrong and only achieves the death of the hitlist.