I'm not sure whether this is feasible or not and have no knowledge whatsoever as to the fiddly bits of how these things work in reality, but my suggestion taking this into consideration is below.

I know that many, many people enjoy this game. Some of these people however, like me, do not enjoy the direction that the game has gone in as much as we liked how it was previously. I personally much preferred the old bodyguard system (being capped at 10), no abuse of credits and having a gun of 300 kills being an absolute cannon. That was about the optimum level for my commitment, which is significant, but not life devoting. I don't have to forsake a social life, I can see my loved ones and I don't have to quit my job just to compete. These things to me, a committed player, seem over the top expectations from what is essentially a game.

Equally, I appreciate that some people love the extra commitment that this game rewards. They love that they have somewhere to go at any time, they love that they will achieve more by forsaking sleep and they love being able to kit themselves out with the use of real money. I have no issue with that and they are entitled to play the game in any way they want to.

However, my assumption is that the latter appeals to far fewer people than the former. I do not believe that a game can effectively cater to the minority; reward them certainly, but not gear it towards them. It is unhealthy for the individual and not a sound marketing strategy for the game. My belief is that this is reflected in the amount of people who have subsequently turned away from the game, not new players who don't like it and never login again, long term players who have subsequently left. The easiest person to sell to is the person who has already bought from you in the past. People who used to play this game, obviously liked it enough to try it and play it, but they lost faith in it somewhere for some reason. Now, I'm not saying that all of these people left because they didn't like the changes within the game, yet just from frequenting IRC, there are a lot of people either jaded or purely dicking around because they don't have the energy to invest into this anymore. Similarly, I know that there are some people like me who do not enjoy the angle of the game now, compared to how it used to be.

This brings me to my suggestion; why not cater to both markets? Would it be possible, and if it is possible would we have sufficient demand, for a separate server or separate world within this one, where the conditions of the game could be reverted to how they used to be. The scope of the features on this separate world could be determined by polling of the users, assuming sufficient demand, but I envisage things such as BG caps, DFPs, fluctuating drug prices, HQ sizes, MIAs/RIAs and drug unit levels all being evaluated and trialled at either the old levels or whatever level the majority of people agreed upon.

In terms of the owners' perspective, this would involve two games running simultaneously, which I don't claim to appreciate the difficulties of in practice. I do not know whether it is even possible to do. However, if it was possible, I would love to see this put into practice even on a trial basis and I believe that demand would be in place for it. People could have 1 account here and another there, therefore preventing it detracting from this game. Similarly, if credits were included, I'm sure people would still utilise them for things sure as jails, timer/toolbars and MIAs, generating an additional revenue stream for the owners.

I'm sure staffing would not be an issue, as I am confident plenty of people would be prepared to take up roles in that world as well as this one, or purely there. This prevents the need for any more full time staff, because the code would be largely the same and the users would most likely jump at the opportunity to help out.

From a player perspective, I think the advantages are obvious. I know I would welcome a return to the ways which I knew, understood and loved. I also feel that I am not alone in that. If I am and there was no demand for this, what has really been lost? Nobody will ever be able to say 'I wish it was like this, this and this' because they had the opportunity for it to be like that and didn't embrace it. If it does work, then the game has lots of happy people using and enjoying it, which is in the best interests of everyone.

So just to summarise what I am suggesting:

• An additional server/world that runs MafiaReturns in conjunction with this
• This world would be subject to different playing conditions, with issues such as MIAs, BGs, HQ sizes, DFPs etc. being altered
• These conditions would be determined by the players at the levels which they would most enjoy
• These conditions would be determined by an open vote/polling with each individual having 1 vote
• You would be able to have a separate account on each world

I hope this is clear and I will gladly elaborate further on any aspect which is not.

Look forward to hearing from everyone.

~C~

While I wasnt a player in the older days of MR that you're refering to Chuckle, Ive heard many stories and recaps of those events. I was always interested in how thigns played out and would like to have been apart of that. While I'm fully aware that a second server would be an extremely costly venture for the owners, I put my 'vote' or nod of encouragement behind this suggestion. I think a game where BGs are capped, accounts are on a shorter lifespan, and theres more conflicts and battles for power would be extremely entertaining. Am I saying I dont enjoy what we have now, not at all. But I would like to see how things play out when the playing field is leveled and instant 400 BG accounts cant dominate the game.

Much like Hawk, I do currently enjoy the current game. However, I would agree that such things as BG Caps would be much more beneficial to giving some more of a level playing field to the average user.

I can't imagine we would see two worlds, but obviously thats for admin to answer. I will however admit that I would very likely have an account in both worlds, should it be done.

I really want to agree with you Chuckle, I really do, but alas I just cannot quite get there. I cannot see how running a seperate game would be a viable option.

I do agree with BG capping, I think that the current levels of BGs are excessive but history has taught us that even those people can fall. 

I would like to see, in an ideal world, BG capping in the next version of MR. 

That's the problem JkL... Izzy has already said he won't cap BG's, so that is just NOT going to happen... EVER.

Have to agree (again, wtf is going on) with Chuckle on this one. I think a separate server with more of the old style of play would be greatly beneficial to both the admins and to the users. I think you would find people spending money on both servers and would probably grab a lot of old players back. Some people have moved on simply because of the amount of time and effort it takes to do anything here. You literally have to give up your social life, swipe a credit card or not go to work just to compete with some people here.

Having a separate server for a game similar to that of old would give those of us who can't dedicate our lives to this place a chance to do something productive.

I totally agree with this suggestion. I'm a relatively new player in contrast to old man Chuckle but I have become disillusioned with MR. Not because I don't think it is a good game not because I don't think I could be the best but simply because the work to be the best is not something I'm willing to do. I'm not going to: sacrifice my social life; my degree; or my job. While some may be willing to do it I can't I have priorities and I saw this game as an escape but at the rate it is going at it will become an addiction that some will make some crumble and become empty shells of their former selves and from that my disillusion stems.

I support BG capping for a handful of reasons:

One, it would enoucrage much more player interaction. This would alleviate the one powerful member, 100 peons..and instead encourage more politics, player interaction, and keeping people happy throughout the game. 

Two, stagnation would never occur. Cap the BGs and people no longer become untouchable. Yes, they're still difficult to get to, but it still requires mass coordination. All the potential power shifts that could occur would surely make way for new leaders and opportunities for players who otherwise would not have the opportunity...see the Buddy System threads in OOC...or Auth A Mong thread...

Chuckles is right. New players are already hard to come by, and with old ones leaving due to the unnatural balance of power...well you get the drift.

But I do not support the idea of two separate servers. The skilled players will always rise to the top

It is my humble opinion that the way it is set up now(no bodyguard cap, among other things) is going to lead to the downfall of this whole game. Almost all the people playing this game take it as just that, a game. I don't want to have to spend eight hours a day playing this. It will eventually degrade into ppl without jobs or a life being in control(that and unemployed fat guys with cheeto stains on their hands and underwear.) Who really has time to do all this? I know i don't. It is suppose to be a game, not an obsession. Another server wont solve the problem, just create more tension.  Maybe theyre should be a vote or something...get the feel of what the players really want, instead of a select few nolifers that dominate everything and are untouchable...so says the priest.

To post again, people who support this need to speak now. Not just because you're sitting pretty in the inner circles or you have BGs or you have a nice gun you don't want to rock the boat. Think of it as what do you want for your long term enjoyment of the game not just: "I have these things now so I will say nothing then when my account dies and I have nothing to lose I will complain".

Just remember the speech by Martin Niemöller

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

And if you're not sure how that applies mail me in game I will be happy to explain!

Chuckle, I sympathise with what you are saying here. This world is very different to the one I was in over 2 years, some of the changes I like, some of them I do not. It is a much more stable world, but some would argue a much more boring one. Is this down to the code? Is this down to the features? Or is this jsut down to the userbase which now gets on with eachother a lot more so there is less beef created?

What I do know is spliting the game will not help anything. The userbase of the game is already small (especially in comparison to old .org days!); and splitting the database will only water it down further. We should be looking for ways to attract more players, which will make the game more interestings, and improving the current functions to make them fairer, then taking the easy option and splitting the game.

Dank just to reply to some things you mentioned

It is a much more stable world, but some would argue a much more boring one.

I dare you to ask yourself why it is this stable. If I put in a system where to attain anything of great mertit you have to put in tons of work, you're not going to risk it in a moment just for a strike for more power. So in effect through the limitless number of BGs such motivations start to die slowly. Rogues are non-existant - well none that can cause any real damage - and why you ask it is because of the work you have to put into an account to even make going rogue worth it to do any real damage.

The userbase of the game is already small (especially in comparison to old .org days!)

Has anyone thought to ask why the userbase is smaller, why people who played for years finally said "f*** this I am not playing anymore"? I doubt anyone has asked that reason, you can't look for new members if you can't retain the old ones. Why was MafiaWars on FB so popular - albeit for a short period of time - because it didn't take you 25 hours a days 8 days a week to build a mammoth account (yes I know there aren't 25 hours in a day and there aren't 8 days in a week)

In short - CDs and BGs are cancerous to this game, figure out how to retain players before trying to get new ones.

This is a great idea.

I'm just going to base my response on your bullet points, no offense for excluding the other information.

- An additional server/world that runs MafiaReturns in conjunction with this.

Makes sense. Maybe run the "other world" on a subdomain with its own SQL DB. Feasible, and potentially enjoyable.


- This world would be subject to different playing conditions, with issues such as MIAs, BGs, HQ sizes, DFPs etc. being altered.

Ehh... The fact is, a separate world would have.. nil REAL IAs. The public issue of BGs could be fixed by providing two separate games with different "settings" could be a potential answer. However, stripping the current game of features seems like somewhat of a slap in the face to the coders (just saying).

- These conditions would be determined by the players at the levels which they would most enjoy.

If it were based on the players of the current game as it is now, you'd get a radically different world than if you restricted it to the opinions of those who would play ONLY in this "new world". Personally, I would quit this version to play on that one, if it had the same activity and more reasonable/realistic (or just fun) features. Plus, this somewhat means that if a minority of players have power over the majority, the majority could have things changed to flip the tables on the minority (which is kind of what's happened now, on this server). Fact is, we need SOLID rules and features that we can trust *won't* change. Otherwise, users will ask for resets and changes every time they think it's too tough to win.

- These conditions would be determined by an open vote/polling with each individual having 1 vote.

I disagree. If you base the future on the opinions of click monkeys, you will get a click monkey world; not the one you want. Please read response from previous point for more info.

- You would be able to have a separate account on each world.

I disagree here, too. Conflicts that arise from one could easily spread to the other, and friendships and alliances would jump between servers. People have a hard enough time separating in-game from OOC, how tough do you think it would be to have them separate in-game from in-other-game?

I think this is a fantastic idea that would really give this game a much needed boost (the alternate version at least). I really hope the admins considers it.

I believe that there should definitely be a BG cap and adjustments to the game. As is the reason for the suggestions section. But when I read through your thread I became a supporter of this.

I doubt that we will see two worlds within this game. Also the game of old you described isn't coming back in my opinion. But I do think that things should be looked at and judged by the majority. So things should be changed, maybe a crossroads could be met between the .org days and the days we live in now. Where the game can become more of a level playing field.

But I do support your suggestion and believe that it should be considered. Even if it isn't implemented. Your points need to be looked at and pondered over. 

Great suggestion Chuckle. I'm definitely a supporter of your ideas.

I would love to see a version of the game that you all are talking about but in addition I'd like to see one thing added to it.
Cycles. I would love to have a game that wipes and starts over every year, 15 months, 18 months. Something like that.
That is all.