skulfa, i have to point this out. since the buyotu feature became leaving the crew, roguing isn't that hard to do at all. be a nice trustworthy little wise guy, then leave and shoot.  it won't increase your shooting skill, it won't add new BGs automatically, it just emans that a rogue becomes really obvious.

end of my line, i think this is a change that won't really effect much in this game.

I do like this I must say. It gives a little more option to the rogue. However my good friend Chuckle.. hit every nail on the head. It won't make much of a difference because of the complete crazyiness of unbalance in terms of the amount of BG's.. and these said Indestructable accounts that roam our streets.

It's a 1% chance that maybe someone with a grudge is willing to take and well that is the only spice that is there for these rogues but by the time it takes you to rogue about 5 times.. you tend to be tracked and killed upon sight.. (Just like Kucklinski).

As for what Gallifrey said.. yes I must say it would be interesting to see however the chances of a rogue being 'that' successful without have an indestructable account of their own would be what? 0.1% ? maybe even lower because these days it tends to be...

*Person goes Rogue
*CL Mass Mail Goes out
*Every city hunts that guy

It's very difficult for them to do anything. If I'm not mistaken quite a while ago when someone went rogue.. it was the city that person came from was who dealt with them and the rest of the cities just ignored the rogue unless attacked because it was none of their business. I guess that the way our world is now.. is because people pour so many hours and I mean... like 700+ into their account that they don't want to take any chances of this 1% cause quite frankly.. if you died to 1%.. you would be pissed.

I don't really even understand the argument for why devoting your life to a single account is a better way for the game to run. Keep in mind that when this game is at it's most popular is when people have to play or they die. Equally, the old game was significantly more popular and there the life expectancy was usually at most 1-2 months and only in exceptional circumstances did people get to 4, 5 and 6 months. Here that is common place for even the lowest of the low, with the majority significantly outreaching that.

The game would be far more entertaining if BGs were capped and people had to play intelligently rather than loosely with their bank balance. It would also generate increased revenue for the game from more people restarting and choosing to continually reach the cap as quickly as possible. It wouldn't isolate those players who choose not to slap a credit card onto each account, because they would be able to reach the cap themselves through networking and utilising their own contacts.

Stagnancy would be reduced, turnover would be higher, conflict would be more frequent, the emphasis would be back with smart gameplay, enjoyment levels would increase and likely the user base would grow as a result. Lets not forget that we've been forced to bolster our figures with NPMs to pretend that hundreds of people haven't left. Well, they have left and no amount of replacement with automated accounts will change that and this is the main reason why. As one of the most devoted players here, I can only stomach one proper account at a time, because I simply don't have it in me to start all over again each time. Where as, if I only lost 1/10th of the work, I would be able to do it 10 more times before I reached the point of 'fuck it'. I cannot be alone in that feeling.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I get really bored of being the same account and playing the same character. I like to mix up who my friends are and I like to mix up who I'm fighting against, otherwise it just gets dull. We've reached a point where people can actually retire because they simply have nobody left to fight. That was never the case on the old game, or even this one initially, because there was also someone somewhere who believed they were capable of altering things.

Anyway, I realise this is off topic and likely to garner no response. If this will ever be considered realistically, I will happily debate the pros and cons in the detail they deserve. I would welcome that opportunity.

~C~

I completely agree with Chuckle. The game has gone massively downhill in terms of actual enjoyment. The main reason in my eyes is the amount of BG's people can attain to make themselves almost invincible. Then we have people closing on having a 1000 kill gun, hence more BG's. People are either too scared to cause conflict or are the complete opposite and will eliminate a weaker city in a single wave. Where is the fun in that? There needs to be a cap on bodyguards (say 250 being the most) in order to let the game flow and bring enjoyment back to the game. Just look at Roman, been around for almost 2 years. That is quite frankly, stupid. I have absolutely nothing against the guy but it's like Chuckle stated, there is no way i would even consider living for anywhere near that time period. Hell, i tend to get bored after 4 or 5 months on the same account, as i have proven many times with my awesome retiring skills. The game can get boring when it appears the same people are in the same position all the time for months or even years. It does indeed stagnate the game and deters people from playing because seriously, what's the point? A change of scenery would be quite nice.

A BG cap needs to come into play in order to save the game (totally over-exaggerrating, yes) and who knows, if people see there is reason to play and the game can be more open and enjoyable, maybe we may see real players coming to the game instead of robots...

I agree with Chuckle, but only so far. I don't think capping bodyguards would be an end-all solution for the site. It's usually never that cut-and-dry, especially when many players enjoy the fact that they can hoard BGs and kills. You claim we'd bring in more users, more conflict, and more fun, but most of those are based 100% on how the userbase responds to the change. Based on the situation we're in now, we have a bad history of guessing how the userbase acts and reacts.

As for Thor, your response makes sense up to the point "People are either too scared to cause conflict or are the complete opposite and will eliminate a weaker city in a single wave."

I have to disagree there. Few people are "scared" to cause conflict, as they are playing a Mafia game. In my opinion, I'd say it's just stupid to engage anyone anymore. With the connections and relationships between cities, any move towards one player would bring many MANY more in, which usually ends with the original attacker dying, and not changing anything.

Anyone can preach "moar conflict" in OOC, but no one would dare endanger their account, friends, crew, or city with the thought.