Perhaps instead of the tax money going to the CL, it goes to the city as bribe money, since there is no other organized crime in the area to keep the police corrupt enough.

Or something.

Unoccupied cities would be ones where organized crime does not exist. I therefore think that perhaps crimes should be much more difficult to get away with in empty cities, as it stands to reason that nobody is there either from your family, or any family, to protect you from the law. With nobody looking out for you and making those boys in blue look the other way, what stops them from locking you up for snatching a purse?

In terms of not generating revenue for CLs, this seems like a good idea to me. If we have no element of organized crime in these cities, earning from them wouldn't go on for long. Therefore it is in everyone's best interest to see them occupied, even by people who aren't Insanely Well Protected.

{Perhaps a wider implication of this could be the removal of all automated taxing of earnings. It is obviously not possible to automatically take a slice from each individual crime that someone commits and perhaps it is time to extend this into making the only earnings someone makes those that they choose to tribute to their leader.}

Technically it is written into the game that there is always organised crime in every city. Every single city has a godfather either an NPC or a player.

No they don't.

That was once the case Nino, it's not on display anymore.

Previously Locals held an NPC Godfathers name there when a player didn't hold control over that city, not sure when this was removed but its certainly been gone for quite some time now.

I like this idea, not sure it really requires a "suggestion" when its admin that want to make the move, but I appreciate the transparency from Squishy in placing this in Suggestions so that the PC may decide its fate just like every other suggestion.

My concern though, is what if these cities suddenly gain a criminal presence, does this idea continue to be considered and implemented, or does the fact it served as the impetus to fill cities serve enough purpose?

The last time I was on IRC when someone took godfather was Marston and he challenged the existing godfather to a duel.

I wasn't on when Jono got GF on PoisonousJelly, but it could easily have changed. Either that or the person who was the old godfather of Las Vegas died of old age.

However I tested taxes on my last playing account and from speaking to Squishy a godfather exists in the city who takes a cut of the taxes. I suppose again he could have changed that recently.

That is all correct Nino, I believe what Grin was referring to was the concept of the Godfather being displayed in the locals; thus showing a figure of organised crime present in that city.

At the moment, though your tax goes into thin air, its not apparent who gets it. We are unaware of who the Godfather in Chicago, New Orleans, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, New York and Detroit are. A number of those cities have crime familys present to cover the role play aspect, others such as Vegas and Detroit don't. I'm aware this will be rectified in due course, however that doesn't alter the fact that currently there is no known face for the organised crime syndicate in those two particular cities.

I do appreciate that code still exists to give your portion of tax to the Godfather of the city, but to me that doesn't fit the Role Play aspect of the Godfather exisiting, as you and I have no idea who that person is as he only exists in the code and not in the actual game play enviroment, if that makes sense?

I don't mind this change being implemented, but if I am not paying tax/tribute to my leader I shouldn't be paying it to anyone, can I get the full value of my crimes as I would if I was unspons if in Detroit/LV?

Considering that everyone who has challenged the fake GF has easily gone in and shot them in the face means they were terrible in the first place. The GF challenge could also be reworded from 'Challenging the Godfather' to 'Challenging FOR Godfather.'

Further to my conversation with PC-El_Nino something definitely needs to be clarified in terms of the unoccupied cities.

If there is a Godfather present/some form of organised crime, then I would reverse my opinion and state that there is little reason that crimes shouldn't generate a revenue for their crewleader.

If there is not a Godfather present/some form of organised crime, then I stand by my previous post and my opinion has not changed.

I quite like this idea and it seems quite reasonable to me. Considering that on locals it clearly states that the city has not leadership and also on the crew lists doesn't list that city with a family in, there is no reason for a leader to be receiving taxes from it. A mobster can go and commit crimes all they want and they can kick it up to their leaders, but that is up to them to do so.

I'm also of the opinion of making things a bit harder though, perhaps more fails into jails and such.

If the only thing that ties a GF into an empty city is the GF promotion, the roleplaying could easily be modified.

I quite like this idea and it seems quite reasonable to me. Considering that on locals it clearly states that the city has not leadership and also on the crew lists doesn't list that city with a family in, there is no reason for a leader to be receiving taxes from it. A mobster can go and commit crimes all they want and they can kick it up to their leaders, but that is up to them to do so.

Based on that, why should a leader receive taxes at all?

If I perform a crime in a city my leader has no interest in why should he get a cut of it?

The difference stands on one city being run by organized crime, your leader having afiliations with such organized crime and getting a cut out of it and other cities not bring run by organized crime, there so, not generating any sort of auto income.

But it shouldn't matter where I am when I'm doing my crimes. I give my boss a cut of my earnings because he's my boss and that's what we do, I don't see how this makes sense. If I go away on business for a few days and work in a different city I am still employed by the same person, ergo they should still take a cut of what I earn. I can understand the rasoning for wanting this implemented as in get more auths in game, but I don't see the logic benefit of it.

I don't like this idea, just seems like a knee jerk code to force player controlled aspects of the game to be how the admins want things.

My redacted text earlier was in relation to do away with automated earnings all together. I believe that players should be able to tribute how much they want, including nothing at all, rather than having some automatically taken off you.

That would be more realistic than having individual cities earning or not earning.

Doesn't really solve the wider problem though.

I'm with PC-Grin and PC-tita on this one. Even though I'd hate to see my leader get less money from my crimes, if we're to role-play this it does make sense, your leader wouldn't normally know about every single petty, felony or OC that you commit in a different city, unless he or she had any ties to that city, same goes for murder. With no families in an empty city, there really isn't anything tying your family to that city, thus your leader doesn't know what you are doing there.

I would love to see this change, but I would add more to it... make the OC's harder as well as everyone doing them in that empty city would be from out of town anyway, or remove the option completely unless a leader from their own city is starting the OC (people will hate this though as it means they won't be able to fully complete their achievements, unless of course every city is occupied, but that is the point with this isn't it?) but the latter means the leader(s) members involved would kick up cash through taxes from the OC since it's a CL arranging it.

I would also like to see that the CA's no longer help you in an empty city, and the reason for that is the same as the crime family not getting any revenue, if there are no EMPLOYED CA's there is no way for your CA or one owned by someone else to be able to save you, as they have no "crooked" connections inside the FBN of the empty city that would be willing to "listen" to them and have them release you from any type of jail sentence.

I would get in to the whole MIA aspect of it, but since this suggestion was solely about money related aspects, I won't upset more people.

Right now, whenever we commit a crime a cut of our profit is taken away and a small part of it goes to the GF of the city we're currently in (or vanishes if there's no GF) while the rest goes to our CL. The size of this cut is set by each CL and is global for all cities.

I like the idea of unoccupied cities not generating any income for the leaders, however, I would be very careful about how this is implemented:
1. If there's no CL cut, all the profit stays in the player's pocket. They may still decide to tribute it to their CL.
2. If the cut taken is still based on the Crew settings, but it goes into thin air instead of CL's pocket, then CLs might set taxes to 0 and rely on their members' tributes. This way they go around the new rules and all the money stays in players' hands, no matter how many cities are unoccupied.

Either way, there is no clear disadvantage of having empty cities. The money earned by the players might stay at the same level, it's just that the decision whether to send it up or not is theirs. Considering that it is tributes and not taxes that make up for the greatest part of CLs' profits, I don't see this making a huge difference.

With this in mind, I think that what was mentioned by some posters above would be a better solution. Crimes performed in abandoned cities should be more difficult or the types of crime allowed should be restricted. Another option is to severely cut the profits in empty cities - for example down to 50% - regardless of the Crew taxes settings.

I believe this idea can be discussed and worked on to be fit into the game, there so, I'm sponsoring it.