To Asphyxia (and everybody else in a similar position), I respect you being a student and not having more than 3 hours to play, but why should we put a limit on the progress of a guy willing to spend 14 hours on here?

I'm not insinuating that a person who spends 14hours here as compared to the guy who spends 3 hours here should be limited in their progress I'm saying that through a real BG cap the run away account scenario where a person starting now in comparison to an account who started 6months ago can't be caught.

By limiting the BGs the person effectively can be caught it doesn't mean that the person will be brought down it just puts you in the running to be able to. And as this is a game and not real life I see no reason why someone who plays 3 hours a day has to fall so far behind that it is in essence pointless them playing.

And as Alabama put it, you don't need RL cash to get far in the game. I have only donated a few times, mainly to get the added perks like DFP bribe stacking, but like Squishy said, being able to keep up with the 48 hour window is the same as that. Axe's BGs were all paid by myself. I slowly bought credits, yes, some even from past charactars, but I'm still the same person playing.

Maybe you don't always need CDs to get to the top directly, but I almost certain that majority of the people at the top benefit directly from CDs and those who don't benefit directly benefit indirectly where someone has purchased the bulk CDs and donated/given the cash to them to build that account.

"So to continually cite this war as an example of bringing down a powerhouse it's not a great one so many factors made it easier to do - not to say it was an easy feat but it was easier than if Sherminator would of been alive, Deimne active and the whole site didn't turn on them."

The war I was talking about on IRC where BG waves had to be done to bring down the guy with the most BGs in the game, was the recent war a few months ago with NY-CH when Shocker was the last man standing from NY.

"Raise it up? if you raise it up, doesnt that completely defeat the purpose of capping it in the first place?"

Lets say there is a huge war and everyone dies, the highest BG count in the game is 18.

Matching the cap to 18 would not be a good change, and I think despite matching the max at that time, that it should be higher, and therefor, will raise it to what I deem is fair.

^tag error

Why dont.you have a bg cap per rank... like .org but obv more bgs lol..
gangster -1
Goomba -3
Earner - 7
Wiseguy- 15
Made - 50
Capo 100
Boss 150
Consig 200
Don 300
Godfather 400

Stops all this demoting bollocks aswell :) when yoh can onlh have 1 at gangstrr :)
And also a 400cap is fine becauwr we all know someone of 400 bgs can be killed still

The problem with suggesting BG caps, is that we should also, then, suggest wack caps and then you're back to square one. I don't think we should cap anything.

Although I like Antonio's idea. Demoting for BGs goes against RP. On the other hand, though, you *could* RP a way in which you go underground and you come back with a low profile making your way up the ladder...

Also you could put a set price on bg's of lets say 2mill per bg no matter what rank you are... :) also set a whack limit of 400 then it goes on awnsers nd rank to wether you hit... nd

The problem with suggesting BG caps, is that we should also, then, suggest wack caps and then you're back to square one. I don't think we should cap anything.

The thing about suggesting BG caps is that it indirectly leads to a wack cap. If the limit is 30BGs people are going to feel more comfortable making power moves, going rogue and so on so guns will not be able to pass a certain part. Lives will be shorter and because of that the dominant answer set will shift which would lead to more WBs. It is a knock on effect.

However, since it seems that I only hold this opinion and I'm arguing for no reason as the title of this thread suggest the code is already in place I feel there is no point in arguing these points. People I know share these same opinions that I have voiced continuously but fail to show their face and voice their opinion. So I will stepping back from this argument and focusing on real life since this game doesn't cater to the people who have a life outside of this game.

"And one thing that about that if it fell to 18 - which it would never do - the game would self-regulate there will be tons of wars big guns will die and then 18 will be a significant number."

A brand new account can shoot an 18 BG player with simply 18 days of work.

I would like you to take the pepsi challenge. If you feel that the good faith of the site is enough to protect you for longer than 18 days (the amount required to kill an 18 BG'd character), I will personally fund your ability to re-educate me.

I would be more than happy to pay for your BGs to get you to 18. I will pull every favor that I can to get you authed. Then we can both sit back and watch the good faith of the site keep you alive.

When you become the target of opportunity for anyone who has put 18 days of work into their account, who is willing to "hurt someone else, for the lolz", you quickly realize that its futile to try to build a long term character.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe a character that can be killed by anyone who puts in 18 days of work will be safe from the other 750 players. Maybe I am wrong here. I would like you to take this leap of faith with me, and the results of your character will let us know the reality of how this thing works.

Are you willing to back up your words with action? I'll even fund your BGs, your HQ, and take a step back and watch things unfold without intervention.

When I see threads like this, where everything turns into a debate, which then dissolves into a thread about people disliking the game for any reason, I feel obligated to respond. I may not always find the time to do so, but as an employee of the game, I want to know that the customers (players) are enjoying their time here. Otherwise, there is no reason for me to even log in. With this in mind, there were a few things said that I would like to comment upon, and perhaps help clear up any confusion as to why the Admin team is putting in this new addition. Bear with me, as I tend to be long winded.

I've come to the conclusion that to acheive greatness in this game you have to be willing to shell out tons of money and play all day.

Sorry to disagree, but that statement is wrong. If that is your opinion, I'm genuinely sorry to hear that, however, I have heard just the opposite in many success stories in my years on this site. Personally, I usually have no extra money to spend, I have no more time than the rest of the site, and yet I have achieved greatness (in the eye of the beholder, understandably, but I was pretty freakin' awesome) on several accounts. Hand built, hand made, not a penny spent on any of those accounts.

I have found, more often than not, working for and being loyal to a family will get you miles ahead than cash and playing 12+ hours a day.

If you have only 3 hours to play, among these people, then you don't play to be Alpha Dog. So what? You only enjoy a game if you are the absolute most powerful person?

Absolutely agreed. I have spent more than I'm willing to admit on the Call of Duty franchise (now you know where my extra money goes). I am not the worst player, but I'm certainly not the best. I play to learn, I play to get better, and I play because I generally enjoy the game. Just because I can't go 32-0 on multi-player like JaneDoe doesn't mean I'm disenchanted with the game- I merely think, "Holy fuck, how did that person get that good?".

Raise it up? if you raise it up, doesnt that completely defeat the purpose of capping it in the first place?

Today? Yes. If we raise it today there's no point. Two months from now, that may be a realistic need the site could use. Say it does happen: all the current City Heads die, and now the biggest leader is a Boss with 20 bgs. If we allow people to live off of a small amount of bgs, then wack becomes too easy. And then we have to re-configure wack. And then all of a sudden, it becomes hard to kill people again. So we have to cap bodyguards, *again*. Lather, rinse, repeat (but no more than twice).

As of now, in the game, there does not exist as big of a gap between wack and defense as people are led (or imagine) there to be. Step back and look, objectively, at the situation. Yes, there are people with a fuck-ton of bodyguards. There are just as many people with a fuck-ton of kills. Kills are easier to get than bodyguards. Kills are offered for free through RIAs and Durdens, you can kill another player in the game, you can buy kills with credits. Hell, even killing bodyguards (which, if people actually did, they wouldn't be as large of a problem) adds to your WACK! stat. Bodyguards are obtained with in-game money (however you obtain that money is your own prerogative). Therefore, it is safe to say, that it is still easier to kill someone than it is to defend against an attack.

Yes, the introduction of credits/selling credits/buying credits/etc. has made it slightly easier for people to obtain bodyguards. However, as admins, we cannot police what the players within the game allow other players to do. The sole reason, and I firmly believe this, that the reason 'bodyguards have become out of control' is because the players allow it to happen.

Boss X dies due to wackback. He comes back upset, and goes to his Godfather. Said Godfather, knowing what type of a player X was, buys them 200+ bodyguards before they even hit gangster. The game has written in this feature for it to be used; the players have allowed it to become abused. This is a role playing game. Realistically, Kev, as a goomba, you should have no bodyguards. Your friendships within the game, and as incentive for you to break your conviction to retire from the game, were the sole reasons you received those bodyguards. We as admins have no way to prevent that from happening, nor do we have any say in what you, your family, your leader and your city does with their hard earned cash.

A question to the leaders, Right Hands and Left Hands; in a realistic, mafia-like setting, if a common thug approached you on the streets with hundreds of people behind them, and asked for a spot in their crew... would you let them in? If you said yes... why? How can you trust someone who comes to you, already with a wave of supporters behind them? You don't know this kid... and yet you are allowing him/her and their legion to join you, and quite possibly, someday, watch as they kill you. So there's really no question... why are people who aren't apart of the 'family' (Made Man or up) allowed to have protection? You cannot, as players, stop someone from buying themselves a ton of BGs... but you can certainly not let them into your family without knowing who they, and their hundreds of friends, are first. And from what I've heard, you can't survive in the game past gangster without a family.

This is just one way, of many, that the players themselves can take proactive steps to ensuring that the bodyguard numbers are controlled.

People complain that demoting for bodyguards has become a problem within the game as well. Again, this is not something as Admins that we can 'police'. The feature of demotion is there for a legitimate, punishment reason. This is, as well, a feature that has been abused by the players. So why not be the family that makes a stand, and refuses to demote for bodyguards? Ah, because you are afraid of being weak in comparison to the other cities; the lowest on the totem pole. Understandable. What I do not understand, however, is that out of a majority of the players I have met, associated with, worked with and befriended, not one of them was ever afraid to stand up for their beliefs, or something they truly believed could be changed. So why has this not become one of the causes that people have attempted to rally behind? We have all seen countless, fruitless attempts by people to change things that really didn't need to be changed. If we can all agree that demotion for bodyguards is a worthy cause, why are we not acting to stop it?

I've mentioned it before, from a player stand-point in the Streets and as an Admin in various forums, people simply don't want to have to work harder than they have to. However, people aren't content with being less than the best in this game. The drive and enthusiasm behind that sentiment must be commended, but in reality this game is not about being 'at the top'. This game is a role playing game, where we all get to act like mobsters because, and I'm taking a shot in the dark here, none of us are mobsters in real life. We're bankers, teachers, lawyers, shop-keepers, who want to take a few hours out of their day pretending that they are smarter, savvier, richer, braver than they actually are. Everything else that comes along with those feelings are just added enticement. We don't need wack to pretend we're mobsters, but it's fun to have the ability to shoot. We don't need bodyguards to pretend we're mobsters, but it's nice to pretend that we command a fleet of men who exist solely to protect us.

I think thats maybe making a max of of bg's you can buy would be a good idea ...So it would be like the max bg's you can buy is 200 that way if you go to battle its more strategic and more about the power of your family as a whole.But im not no one important just throwing an idea out there.

And that's the essential idea we're trying to promote here, Undertaker. By capping bodyguards, you *will* be only able to buy a certain amount of bodyguards per person. I think people also forget that 'swiping a credit card' doesn't automatically equate to "has bodyguards... and too many of them". People use their credit cards to buy 'credits', which in turn they sell to the rest of us, the average player, so that we in turn can use them to buy timers, buy MIAs, or to flip and sell at a better price so we too can fund bodyguards. Someone has to be buying those credits for people to get the money for the bodyguards, and it certainly isn't the people that swiped the credit cards, as if they bought their own credits, they'd be losing money and it would be pointless.

Furthermore, why hasn't anyone stopped to see the good side of people purchasing credits with real life money? Just because we can't do it, doesn't mean we should shame those that do. People who purchase credits do so with money it took them 40 hours a week to make (average full-time American working hours). We get to buy those credits for... two hours of work? And in turn we reap the same benefits from them. These people have been known to save the game's economy when it takes a turn for the worse, and have, time and time again, sold off the equivalent of real life cash for money in game... that they themselves could easily obtain. They're getting the short end of the stick, if you look at it. A majority, however, only see it as something they themselves are not reaping the immediate rewards for and thereby damn anyone who does it. Just because they can get these things (credits/kills/bodyguards) faster, does not necessarily mean they are better. Who won, the tortoise or the hare? And we can all think of plenty of in game examples where the "tortoise" ended up better off in the end than the "hare" did.

And as this is a game and not real life I see no reason why someone who plays 3 hours a day has to fall so far behind that it is in essence pointless them playing.

That is, and always will be, the one fact of life that gamers will have to accept when they play games with other real life, living people. I can play numerous amounts of online and console games with NPCs, and be the absolute queen when it comes to killing/driving/saving the princess. Simply because they are designed for the player to win. When you collectively take hundreds, thousands, millions of people who all play a game- together- the fact of life is that some people will have more time to play, some people will just naturally be better than you, and some people will get a lucky break and take the game by storm. It's like high school superlatives: there will always be a class clown, always be the best dressed, and always be the 'most likely to murder 50 people before they are 20 years old' individuals. We cannot control other people, predict their actions, nor force them to do anything, which is what makes the game exciting. Not having complete, 100% control over your surroundings is what drew you to mmporgs in the first place, right? Knowing that you can lose it all for sneezing... or having a stank face... it's a rush! It's definitely more exciting than Farmville, I can guarantee that (unless the crops randomly attack you, in which case I may have to check that game out).

I was referring to the point that someone was bound to mention the Deimne war as if that is golden precedent that someone with BGs can be brought down.

And just as many people can cite examples to people who, with an embarrassing amount of bodyguards by today's standards, held the game in the palm of their hand with nothing more than sheer determination and a bit of luck. As I mentioned before, bodyguards do not make the mobster- the will power of the person behind the keyboard makes the mobster.

Izzy you're against lowering the BG number to 18 but you're prepared to give 8 days to implement this code allowing every Godfather to gobble up the money from the crews to buy tons of BGs and set the cap at whatever their crew eventually donates and from recent showing in CH that could be well over 200million, so in your logic of things would that be a good change?

I'm not Izzy, but no, you're absolutely right. That would not be a good change, it would probably be the perfect storm. However, that 8 day gap also allows anyone who doesn't have an inordinate amount of bgs already to buy them up as well. Everyone gets the same fair chance to get what they can before the change is implemented. And you know, none of us really know what the cap is going to be set at, do we? Not one person, aside from the person with the most bodyguards (and even then, do they know if they do?) knows how many bodyguards each person is allowed to purchase. I think Izzy, by allowing everyone time to wrap their head around this feature, is also placing a certain amount of faith and trust in the userbase that they won't pull an amateur move and buy 800 bodyguards. If he thought that was a real, feasible problem, he would've announced it 24 hours in advance, instead of 8 days. The userbase generally hasn't done anything outrageous that has caused us to feel wack/bodyguards are broken/wrong- it's the players who assume, imagine and gossip who come up with the 'numbers'.

No one has found a completely 100%, fool proof solution to making wack work for everyone. Honestly, no one has. And until that day that someone finds the Holy Grail of all answers, the best way to make the game fair (and ethical) for everyone, is to continuously balance Defense on a grid in proportion to where Wack currently resides. If that means capping (which the current state of the site calls for), then so be it. If that means raising the bar a bit so that any John Smith with a 10 kill gun can't kill *everyone* in the game, then we will.

And one thing that about that if it fell to 18 - which it would never do - the game would self-regulate there will be tons of wars big guns will die and then 18 will be a significant number.

Never say never in this game, you should know that by now. There were people who said we'd never see another Godfather after Anita, and now we've had about 50 in the past two years. ;) I'm curious as to how you think the game would self-regulate... if the bodyguard cap did drop significantly low (say, 50?), how long does it take to train a gun to kill 50 bodyguards? That's cake for some of the better hitters out there- not even breaking a sweat for some of them. Then, once again, wack severely outweighs defense, everyone complains again, and then we have to step in and (ahh, that's where it comes in) raise the bodyguard cap limit to put things into proportion again. If we didn't raise the bar, then it would turn into a wacking competition, where the biggest dog in the game kills everyone so they never rank above Earner, and thus allows them to maintain their power until they themselves decide to end their own life. It's happened before, and if we (admins and players together) are not careful, it will happen again. And, as you keep mentioning how the current state of affairs makes things demoralizing, or demotivating toward wanting to play the game, I ask you this: would you rather play under today's circumstances, where you may not be 'the winner', but you're allowed the freedom to play as hard as you want? Or would you rather a game where you *have* to play 14 hours a day, only to have your life ended every 48 hours? I'm not saying that this doomsday scenario would certainly play out, but as I have mentioned that I have faith in and respect a majority of players here not to allow things to get that bad, there are those that would use the circumstances to their advantage, and create a game where no one (not just a few people) wants to play.

People I know share these same opinions that I have voiced continuously but fail to show their face and voice their opinion. So I will stepping back from this argument and focusing on real life since this game doesn't cater to the people who have a life outside of this game.

You only see what you want to see. I have no idea who you are, nor how long you have been playing this game, but I know, personally, as someone who has held a full time job and was Godfather simultaneously (whilst still finding time for dinner with friends in between), that is not what this game is, nor what it ever was. I don't want to attack anyone, but I feel that at this stage in the game, a multitude of people are blaming their own shortcomings on the game/admins, or are finding excuses as to why they themselves cannot compete. Roman: Godfather; has a life. Chade: Godfather; has a life. Kimble: Godfather; has a life. -Premeir: Godfather; has a life. Grif: Godfather; has a life. AlabamaWorley: Godfather; has a life, states she does not spend IRL money on the game. If what you say is true, how did any of these people- how has ANYONE in the history of the game, who has a job, a family, friends, obligations... how have they had success?

Maybe someone should ask them their secret?

I have seen, in this thread alone, as well as in the suggestions forum, many great ideas that have a lot of good mechanical fixes within them. If people honestly want to see a change, I challenge them to mobmail me personally, and I in turn will gladly work with them on their ideas, to see if we can find a way to make the system work for EVERYONE, and in turn pitch it to the big guys or the Player Commission. In saying that, I need people to realize that this means their ideas are not 100% perfect, and that there is room for improvement upon the ideas we have seen. Also, realize that EVERYONE includes the lowliest gangster, as well as the strongest Godfathers. We need an idea that fixes things for every single player, and if we find it then, and only then, will we have found the Holy Grail.

And you'll go down in history like Rudolph.

"A brand new account can shoot an 18 BG player with simply 18 days of work."

Judging by your post, WildCard, I honestly have no idea which side of this issue you are on. So I'm just going to take this statement as a base for my response.

First, you have two players in this case. You didn't specify the ranks of either player, so I'm assuming you speak of equal rank? 18-BG Godfather couldn't be killed by 18 days of work, but an 18-BG Wise Guy... maybe. Use of the word "simply" makes me chuckle a bit, because you'd need 4-5 kills per day for that hit. Plus, you'd need to make sure hitting doesn't get in your way of ranking, and that's implying that the hitter starts off on Wack answers, and the BG player isn't on Defense answers.

All in all, this statement and your entire post seems far too vague for me to really provide an answer; so I'll default with disagreeing with you.

"18-BG Godfather couldn't be killed by 18 days of work, but an 18-BG Wise Guy... maybe. Use of the word "simply" makes me chuckle a bit, because you'd need 4-5 kills per day for that hit. Plus, you'd need to make sure hitting doesn't get in your way of ranking, and that's implying that the hitter starts off on Wack answers, and the BG player isn't on Defense answers."

Ok, lets use extreme examples:

An 18 BG godfather can be stripped of all 18 bodyguards by 1 person in under a day on a relatively mediocre account. Very recently we saw how hundreds of bodyguards can be killed under the radar in a very short bit of time. We've seen how one person alone can drop over 100. You know what made these bodyguard wackers so successful? The simply chose to try. Success can only happen when someone tries.

In his self-regulating example where all the big guns are gone and he propose the 18 bgs would be balanced, I am going on the assumption that he understands how the game works, therefor, he is pitching that it is non-godfather accounts. A godfather account with 0 wacks is still a big gun just by crew/boosts/rank alone. So according to him, this would be a group of regular CLs.

In his scenario, if by luck you stayed alive long enough to get a crew, you very quickly hit a brick wall where then the game cock blocks you and puts a barrier against you being able to defend yourself. At this point, every day means that passes those that are out to kill you make forward progress while you are held in place unable to do anything to improve your odds except by removing the threats. I see the most common way of removing threats, is by using force. What does that mean? Kill anyone before they can get to the point where they can kill you. Follow the progression here, do you know see how that would cause a cause a vicious cycle? When I log into the game and see that I have died, I like to know that its because of my own fault, my crews fault, or my cities fault. I don't want to log in dead because I happened to be X days old and because I did enough petties to earn me a ok rank.

You chuckle at the thought of getting 4-5 kills a day, I'm not sure why. The people who work hard here can bag that on a regular day, plus a few more every few days when durden spawns, plus durden BGs on top of that. If you really really work your account, you can pull down an a solid 35-45 a week, and thats just off of regular RIAs/MIAs/IAs/Tyler/TylerBGs, imagine on top of that if you snagged crew IAs, or took disciplinary/ia shots for your crew. Stack on even more when the vicious cycle of "eliminate all threats, because its the only way to survive" mentality kicks in.

So you build yourself a nice little gun capable of taking own small CLs with 18 BGs... then replace them.... then do what they did... to be shot by someone who used to be like you... just to restart... and become yet again what you were, prior to getting cl. Rinse repeat.

I would just like to add to what Kendra said before.

I do spend money on credits, but that is like any game i play, if I enjoy playing it, think it has potential or already entertains me for long periods of time and I don't think I will be bored in a week then I have no issue at all at spending money on a game, in my eyes that is a thank you to the people that work behinds the scene (Izzy, Anubis and Kendra).

What do I spend those credits on? Sure i bought some bg's, i also maintain a timer, I help my city out with odd and ends, i get a death wack save, i get mia's, i maintain an armory to help my family. It is not all for bodyguards and I dont throw money into the game to maintain them either.

I would also like to add that I work a full time job (40 hours a week), I have a wife and child who is 2 years old, and still have time to socialize with friends or go out but I reached the rank of Godfather. Getting any rank or goal is achievable with hard work.

About the bg situation. What people are asking is nearly impossible. You cant go from one extreme to the other. You can't go from no bg cap to a cap of 50 or whatever people are asking for, it just isn't realistic to do it. Yes something needs to be done, yes Izzy and the other admins are starting to implement ideas and work towards the right balance for everyone.

The positive thing is that something is starting to get implemented and we all have to just be patient, and see how it works out before calling for stricter things to be put in.

Incoming Sarcasm.

Right the max I can play is 1 hour a day so people should be limited by my standard to 1 BG to 1 shot and not be allowed to shoot at me unless it is in a set time frame. All people should be able to nominate a holiday period where they are put in stasis and the game can not change so my 1 BG cant age, I cant be killed and I can enjoy my holiday.



Jesus Christ get with the program people, if you put something into something YOU DESERVE A SOMETHING IN RETURN!!!!!!!


As my good friend Kev pointed out the principle issue is demotion and BG up, the fix for this to me is very very simple. Demotion is a punishment, lets make it a punishment again, if you get demoted your BG purchase price is locked at your max level.

IE if you were a wise guy then at thug your BG price would remain at $2,750,000. Hey presto there goes demotions as an issue.

The Admins should decree a cap for BGs, this cap should be quite simply as follows:

Linked to the top gun of the game at the time (This allows if we have TheDean style 1k plus kills we can protect people)

A set figure 100, 200, 300 or whatever.

The cap would then go "The cap = the greater of 300 or x BGs to provide a (y)% chance to hit from the top gun"

Brain wave, could someone clarify if the cap : gun ratio which was said would be coded in has been coded in?


Final point, because currently having read some of this shite on hear, wasted a considerable level of my day and losing slowly my belief in some of the player bases people. I have one question to ask you.

If you work hard do you believe you should be rewarded for it?

If you spend money do you believe you should get something in return?

Finally, if person A has a disposable income of £500k and year and person B has a disposable income of £10k a year. Should person A really not be allowed to spend the £490k extra he has on things he enjoys?

I have a better Idea how about There is no such thing as BG's that way no one can buy there way up and if you put in the hours you will still reap the benefits of a stronger account.

I don't think you'll be able to reap much if you have no protection at all. This is not a military game like COD or or any FPS when the main goal is just to shoot stuff.

AFAIK, mafia is about making money. You only kill to remove threats or people who won't listen to the bosses and do as they're told. You'd rather keep a person alive and working for you instead of just going berserk and shooting for fun.

The point is that No matter how much time I spend on the game I will never be able to kill someone with 400+ BGs even If I could spend a year training my gun.

Yes it is enjoyable to stay alive for long periods of time but people here are over a tear old and will never be killed because they can its impossible.

You say reward thoose who spend money on the game to immortality?

I have been playong solidy for 2 weeks and I can only just afford 1 BG.

Ialso have a full time job and a fiance but I manage to put inthe hours in order to rank to capo in min time I could start earning more and more to buy immortalitly but the wars are not as fun infact there are no wars becase people are scared that one GF will get invilved and all thier hard work will be over.

I have played many time before in the past when wars would be almost every day and it would be hard to gte to WG. People dont mind getting killed it is fun when you have to try harder next time.

People would have a problem dieing now because they have spend alot of money on thier characters.

In real life how many BG's do you think the GodFather had not 400 not even 30 he probably wold have had 10 inside his manour plus his Crew members.

Acrew memeber should be allowed to have the chance to put their lives before the CL if they are online at the same time somone shoots at their leader this way Loyal members will be the best defense

I would like to offer up the viewpoint that having hundreds of BGs (as many have said before me) seems to be a ridiculous idea.

Why not set the max to 10 or 15 and then train them in different areas of protection?

5 could be adept at shooting for exampe, whilst 5 are used to surround the primary (you) and act as human shields.

Sending a BG on a training course would be the way I could see things progressing, where you would need credits to send them on different courses and then more credits to refresh those courses later on.

The only (but not insubstantial) drawback I can personally see to this is that it would require a complete overhaul of the coding for the BG part of the game, and with everything else going on currently, there most likely isn't the time...but it would be nice to hear that it is on the burner for some action in the future....

Well I said I wouldn't continue in this thread but since I was directly made a challenge I have to respond to it. As much as it would be a great opportunity to do it and prove you wrong. However, I will have to decline your offer.

Firstly because you still fail to understand my point issuing an 18 BG challenge to me in the current climate when my 18 BG claim was if the climate that it was the max number of BGs any player had. So that challenge will not test my point, nor will it be fair. My second point is that by you publicly issuing it as a challenge you painted a huge target on my back so if that makes the challenge fair I would be extremely surprised. Without such a target I reckon I could survive as I've seen auths who set up at 'Protected' and 'Well-Protected' survive. And to round off everything who is to say something fishy isn't going on behind the scenes not to make accusations but if a man can take a nation to war to acheive his own desires for oil, what's to say a man who has the whole world in his hands not to fix things to see the outcome he desires?

Firstly because you still fail to understand my point issuing an 18 BG challenge to me in the current climate when my 18 BG claim was if the climate that it was the max number of BGs any player had. <-- just to clarify, right now me = 18BGs, others = 100+. The proposed climate me = 18BGs, cap = 18BGs

i actually kinda agree with CMpunk's suggestion.

i mean, wth walks around with 400over BG? 100 is already ridiculous .

kev's idea i good too.

of course, with every suggestion made, adjustments can always be made, just gotta think through it