{Setting a bad example there tita, it's only been in suggestions 3 days :Þ}

Does anyone not see the hypocracy in this? If the revenue made in other cities does not go to the crew leaders, all this does is extend the time needed for leadership to be put in place. The whole reason why it is taking this long as it is is due to the financial situation and economy. By thus making it even further difficult to raise money, this is just going to make it take longer.

On another note, why would organized crime presence in a city effect a member from another city at all? If a New Yorker visited New Orleans, why would the crime group in New Orleans offer this person any protection to commit crimes in their city?

This is an assumption that with organized crime, it's easier to do crimes because of the judges and police on the payroll. So you mean to tell me that New Orleans is paying judges and police, so that members of other families can come and make money in their city? This does not seem realistic to me.

Furthermore, why would having a family in a city effect the outsiders members boss knowing of any crimes. If this is the case, then no city should auto-tribute, as how would the crew leader know of the income to begin with.

 

There seems to be the belief that the crewleaders have to set up people in levels of high protection. This is up to the leaders how protected they want their members setting up. You can set up someone with just Protected as far as bodyguard counts go. I can understand that you want your Crewleaders to live longer then they normally do but, you need to consider that they can make their own money when they own their own family with members just like it used to be. The cost of a headquarters is only 15 million at maximum capacity you can buy currently and if you believe the economy can't afford that price given when there is over 500 Million in the game somewhere.

There will come a point where you can't always bodyguard up your leaders before they go to set up. You have to make that call when it is indeed that time to do so.

I do like the suggestion squishy but not because it might make crewleaders set up more leader in other cities but because it is realistic. Think of it this way a city would still be run by the cops with out mobsters to take over. So if it is a sponsor you need, you have me.

{For those that seem to think that just because its not coded in yet to be available for sponsorship, please don't forget this is still a test run.}

PC Tech, it is not a matter of level of protection.
It is a matter of financial planning ahead.

Why does the current batch of crew leaders need to take a huge financial hit, while the future crew leaders will then be at an advantage?
What am I referring to?

If someone is set up now with 25 bgs.... they will then have to pay 5,000,000 + for BGs going forward.
However, someone setting up in the future will be at a financial advantage, as they can purchase BGs at 750k.

This means that if the person who set up with 25 bgs now wants 75 more BGs ,they are going to have to pay $375,000,000 to get to that point, while future crews can get their auths up with only 75,000,000. 

This means that the leaders of right now are going to be at a severe disadvantage, as while they try to get their own protection up, they won't have the financial advantages as others in the future.

Why should the victoring side be punished and force to take this huge financial hit?

If the demotions for BGs is taken out, then yes, i would support that someone can be authed this very second. But because people can be demoted and IWPed up signifantly cheaper, this is not fair.

Why would the victoring side be punished and forced to make moves that at any other point in time, others would not have to make?

We're comparing having to spend 750,000,000 in the future, instead of waiting a few days and spending 75,000,000. This is a pretty big difference and plays a huge role in the development of a city. 

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.

That doesn't make any sense.

If I do a crime in a city which has a crew in it, that crew doesn't get any cut of my income my crew leader does.

Maybe taxes need renaming as automatic tribute levels??


I am tbh not a fan of this idea at all, it seems very much like forcing people to do something that the admins want to get done. Very much a kneejerk reaction to a war that the winners didn't start.

We seem to be getting off topic with people going back to IWP crew leaders and authing people.


The demotion to obtain BGs is a whole new topic which we would need game suggestions on.

If a mobster from New York does crime in the streets of New Orleans, the New Orleans Godfather should be getting a cut. After all, this NYer is operating on NO turf. From what I've gathered in this thread, that seems to be the case now correct? If that city has a GF?

"Why should the victoring side be punished and force to take this huge financial hit?"

The better question is why you feel that you are entitled to make the userbase suffer so that you can wait for cheaper bodyguards than a leader is supposed to be able to purchase? When did the userbase's expectations of how bodyguards are purchased change from "those are something for leaders to buy" to "yeah, that's something to be bought by a leader that got them at thug, for their other members after a demotion to thug, and to hell with you if you want me to waste money doing anything differently"? It didn't happen overnight, but I would say it's one of the most profoundly negative balance-related shifts in user attitudes that has happened over my MR career.

Back on topic...

Currently, there is absolutely no disincentive to city-stacking built into the code of this game. Why should someone ever auth someone outside of their own city? All it does is make their city look smaller to outside eyes and potentially make the "spun-off" city feel more independent and less obligated to join in any wars. Heck, a godfather authing in their own city makes more money for them out of their automatic city taxes because of the tendency of players to sit in their home city.

Given there are plenty of reasons not to, and the only reason to spin off a new city is basically the internal reward of "aha, I gave my friend a gift," I don't think it's that surprising that players have, over the years, figured out they should just stack their city with crews instead of opening up into other cities.

That's why I'd love to see some sort of hard-coded incentive to expand into other cities added. Internal rewards don't seem like they're working well enough right now. A prod of some sort would help. I'm still pondering between this suggestion, the capped percentage of crews option, and spinning my own suggestion out of whole cloth

Off the top of my head: Maybe more crews stacked into a city could reduce the amount of money gained on crimes in that home city as well as reduce top drug prices (making DFPs far less valuable)? That would make sense from an actual real-world standpoint, where a higher concentration of criminals would end up exhausting all the opportunities for graft.

In any case, I think some sort of a prod is needed, and I've been putting a lot of thought into what form it might take.

I am in agreement with this option. First for realistic viewpoint in a city with no Organized Crime precense there is not anyone there to know you commited a crime so therefore you wouldn't have to automatically send it up or risk trouble (no eyes means no proof crime was commited by you). Secondly if there is no organized crime in the city then there is noone there to demand you tribute any money up, yes your family has the requirement that you do so(with taxes, but go back to point one). If you want to be a goody goody then you always have the option to donate to you family(which also covers the point of needing money for auth as IWP).

Speaking on the matter of authing as IWP, that is the single biggest problem with the game today but since this is about taxes all i will say on the matter is that of course its not fair, but why should life be fair? I don't think you should be able to be demoted at all to get bgs. The only answer i ever see to defend it is well they do it so i do it. I think that demote should be removed and we go back to buying bgs at the rank you are.

Well first off I have to say that some of you are basing all this on the current state of the game and the past war, but you need to look past this current situation as per say this feature won't even have anything to do with the current state of the game. If this goes to PC forum and gets shaped into something workable, still needs to get voted and then added to a to do list. So if after all the proccess of sponsorship, discussing, voting, which would be a long proccess, would still take a while to get coded, we are talking about adding this feature not now, but on the future.

You have to look past the current situation, this needs to be based on a general view. This situation can only be taken as an example, one of many example that has happened over the years. When wars with such a high kill ratio of the userbase happens it is sort of expected that things will take a bit of time to fall back into place, however, we have had situations over the years that were not related to any wars, and those situations is where im basing my personal like for a feature like this.

For example, during Roman's time, where the city of Chicago was already stupidly stacked gun wise and bg wise, there was absolutely no need to keep 8 families in that city. Another situation that had nothing to do with war, just a while ago, the city of New Orleans stayed empty for 3 months while the site was stable had several families in other cities and plenty of people to be authed.

To me those are the cases that over the years we keep seing that would actually make sense to do a change, a small motivator to keep cities filled, to offer diversity, I don't see anything bad with it.

On top of that, it is totally logical to me that a city that is not ran by organized crime would be a harder city to do crimes on. I'm sure that we can work this idea out into something nice to be added into the game also taking in consideration the roleplay part of it.

And just as a final mention as I won't let this pass in blank, a knee jerk reaction from the admins? Are you serious? He doesn't need to get things passed by the PC to code anything in his game. He actually took the high ground to post the suggestion and see our opinion instead of just coding it and its immediately taken as a admin knee jerk reaction? Making a suggestion? That's unreal.

In the same way that the PC members can also post suggestions, why can' an admin post a suggestion?

Try to take the mind of the past war, the war is gone and done with, the game goes on. Features and suggestions will rise and be coded and its not a big conspiracy against the winners of any war. No character is bigger then the game, so try to think of a suggestion as a long term addition to the game, not only based on whats currently happening.

On top of that, it is totally logical to me that a city that is not ran by organized crime would be a harder city to do crimes on. I'm sure that we can work this idea out into something nice to be added into the game also taking in consideration the roleplay part of it.

I think it is illogical that someone from outside the city can find it easier to do a crime in a city which has organised crime in it. Think about it for a moment.

I have a 7/11 in Philly, I pay up for protection to Godfather DeadlySin and someone from chicago comes along and robs me. Don't you think the first thing I am going to do is ask the chap I pay my protection to, the man who runs my city why some punk is wandering in robbing me with no protection from my cities organised crime. It makes them seem a bit "disorganised" to me.

The opposite is true in a city with no organised crime. I walk into a 7/11 and rob it is Joe Bloggs the shop keeper really going to tell the police? Especially after I warn him if he says anything Im going to fuck him up, and his family and I follow that with. You want protection from this shit? Lets talk about some weekly kick up and I will sort you out.

If you want godfathers or city heads to auth out of their own cities there are far better ways to do this. I did it with Authed in New York without a code you want a city do a deal with the godfather who lays claim to the city. But saying if you do a crime in a city that has no organised crime then your CL doesn't get his tribute is fundementally wrong in my eyes and doesn't match a reality.

Before people start throwing in various game features which don't match reality, don't it isn't a road we really need to go down because there is a fuckton of them. Lets try and keep new stuff to at least have some essence of realism.

Just to touch on a few things that have been said subsequently:

If I am a mobster from Chicago and I commit a crime in Chicago, why wouldn't the police arrest me? Most likely because I/my family have enough dirty cops on the payroll that they drop the charges, enough people in the legal system on the payroll that they throw out any charges brought against me or enough of a reputation for violence/harm that nobody dares bring the charges against me in the first place.

If I am a mobster from Chicago and I commit a crime in Detroit, why wouldn't the police arrest me? My influence is in Chicago. Are the cops corrupt here? Maybe, but my family is in Chicago, unlikely they've paid them off so can't expect much movement there. Do we have anyone in the legal system willing to throw it out? Unlikely, my influence is in Chicago, not Detroit. Would my reputation from Chicago carry to Detroit? Possibly but not if I repeatedly committed crimes. Someone, eventually, would report it.

Therefore it seems logical to me that you would be more likely to be arrested and prosecuted for crimes in cities that have no organized crime in them, simply because you lack the same influence and network of personnel that you have in your own city. These are cities free from the strings of Cosa Nostra and are more likely to have justice systems that are not inherently corrupt.

In terms of earning from these empty cities therefore, I think that tribute levels could be maintained as they are but perhaps they carry far longer jail sentences for committing crimes in them, drugs are more likely to be seized when you fly there and deal there, busting out of jail is far more difficult, you're more likely to get arrested for shooting and so on.

In terms of authing outside of your own city, I agree that there are better ways for this to be achieved. It is unreasonable to expect the players to act in ways that are not specifically advantageous to them as they are just players. Therefore some element of code needs to be introduced and I personally would prefer to see it hard coded that could only have X amount of crews per city. However, I think this, if nothing else, would give users a reason to establish crews in other cities.

Having thought this over some more, I like this proposal more and more. It's a prod in the right direction, and one that scales upward as the problem gets worse (viz., more empty cities mean more places for people to fly without paying taxes and better drug runs for the tax evaders). Further if the player base as a whole is unperturbed by the empty cities, they can play around the change by tributing up the difference.

I think the idea still needs some details hammered out before it's ready for introduction. For example: there probably should be some backstop against simply putting one person in a 15-man HQ, never inviting anyone into the family, and calling the city "manned." We can deal with those moving parts later. I think there's enough here to work with and it should go on to the next stage of discussion.

I would not disagree with the fact that since no crime families exist in an empty city, crimes would be much harder to commit there. I however do not think anything good would come of eliminating profit made to leaders from empty cities. I believe this would do rather the opposite of the intention. If leaders feel forced to do something that they don't want to do, they aren't going to do it. And what then is to stop them from banning their members from going to said empty cities. I mean if they aren't going to make money from their members while they are they, why let them fly there at all? So personally I see this as creating more problems, rather than actually being a solution.

In my eyes all this suggestion would do is offend the current set of leaders into telling their members not to go to the empty cities anymore, which will in turn invoke an admin reaction yet again, thus continuing the cycle which will eventually lead to people leaving.

No to this on my part.