In PC-tita's absence, can one of the other suggestion sponsors please summarise this and open it for discussion?

I believe this would fall on me as I was second to sponsor this suggestion. I will reread all replies and create a summary as soon as I get all the resource compiled. Please allow me time and we will see if I can get this started. Thank you for the reminder on this PC-Grin.

The original proposal was that any city deemed vacant would not generate any tax money for existing crewleaders. This suggestion has high hopes of a gentle push to authorize future setups in the cities without families. The following features of the game will be altered in these cities: Petty Crimes, Felonies, Selling Drugs and Organized Crimes. It was brought to our attention that vacant needs to be defined to a minimum amount of members required before cities may receive profits from tax in the city.

During the sponsorship period others suggested difficulty increases to everything in the vacant city. The Player Commission should touch basis on this and decide whether it should be part of the final draft or not.

Another factor that needs to be set in stone is what happens with the money that would be taxed. Does it still get taken out as percentage that goes to the city which would be taken out of the game? Does the tax money stay with the user that does the crime? This would be tax evasion as people in the mafia were able to do this in real life.

Fear struct some users about how crewleaders could ban them from the vacant cities. Crewleaders can ban their members from any city now but they don't. This shouldn't be a major obstacle as the crewleaders choose their public image already. Should they feel the need to alter their public image by all means they are entitled to do so.

A part of the user base said that the situation the cities are in now is unstable. It was mentioned that if it was stable this suggestion would be a great time to enact it. Well, what are you going to do when it finally gets stable and a major war breaks out leaving only a couple of cities; back to square one correct? The users control the stability of the cities. Just because the state of the game isn't where this idea would receive full benefit shouldn't stop us from thinking that overall this would be good for the players.

"Another factor that needs to be set in stone is what happens with the money that would be taxed. Does it still get taken out as percentage that goes to the city which would be taken out of the game? Does the tax money stay with the user that does the crime? "

I would think if a user travels to an unoccupied city, then no taxes are taken out, the user gets the whole amount.

I don't see a CLs banning cities, that would limit drug incomes, reduce RIA/IAs available to the crew. I could see them trying to tax the members, but not flat outright stopping travel.

I think it is enough of a nudge that it would encourage CLs to have cities occupied.

As I said in the actual discussion, I went back and forth on this one.

I think for the long term benefit of the game, avoiding a situation like we had under Deimne and Roman with many, many families stacked in just one city, is going to be worthwhile for gameplay. I think that expecting players to ultimately weaken themselves by doing so however is a little much. Instead, this seems like it would be a step in the right direction, a motivation for players to authorise outside of their own city.

I would like to see difficulty increase in cities that have no criminal presence. Longer sentences, more difficult to avoid jail on drugs, crimes and killing. It would again make players balance their own survival against a need to occupy all cities within the game.

It would also allow us to extend into the realms of what the real life crime families actually strayed into - cops, lawyers, judges, politicians. All these people need to be on the payroll somewhere and that should come from the top of the family. This could be designated to people within the family, like LHM has to make sure that the local police chief is paid off every week, if he isn't, that family are going to find themselves under scrutiny from the cops. So on and so forth. It could serve as another realistic element as well as a money drain from the game.

Anyway, that isn't really the point of the suggestion so I'll leave it there.

I must confess from the offset I am not overly a fan of this.

Whilst I understand from a game owner point of view that it looks better with cities being all utilised I fear the punishment it would bring to existing CLs.

Let me give you an example.

Recently LA and LV took on NY and PH. It is widely recognised that LA and LV got their asses whipped and as a result we ended up with vacant cities. All of a sudden the non-aggressors in a battle are being forced into authing into cities they never planned about to keep their taxes going. To me that just seems wrong, why should I as a CL further weaken my city that has just been attacked?


If it was to be implemented however then I think it would need to be as part of a larger overhaul of systems. If no tax was to be taken, then we are safe to assume no godfather exists in the city and similarly in existing cities then the third that goes awol to the non existent godfather should be sorted out and restored.

Changes like this are going to punish the incumbent leaders, there is no avoiding that. However, if we never punish anyone, we'll end up with the same situations arising again and again.

Do we want the cities filled? I think we all do really as it makes for a better game with more diversity and more scope for entertainment. Therefore, someone, at some time, has to take the brunt of a change as the people first subjected to it or nothing will ever change.

Sure, they will have slightly less scope than the leaders before them but they will be in the same situation as every leader following them and that, I think, makes it a justifiable reason for acting now. We can see with the bodyguard change, which we have been going back and forth on for years and years, if we don't do anything about it and skew things slightly in the short term, the long term will just see the same patterns emerging. If the paradigm doesn't change, the result doesn't change.

As to the tax situation, I agree that no third should be removed unless there is a Godfather in situ.

I agree with Grin on the point that there shouldn't be a 1/3 of a crewleader's tax removed if there isn't a Godfather in the city, as well as crimes being more difficult in empty cities, but I'd be more inclined to vote against the core of the suggestion.


There seems to be too many attempts at artificial nudges into turning the leadership (and, for that matter, the game) into a particular direction - whether it be from direct intervention from administrators or code. I can't see an instance where this won't severely inhibit a crew should they survive an all-out war, and at the heart of it, if other people aren't given the chance to lead in other cities, people will take notice, and eventually, be it by pressure or war, people will inevitably expand. The intention of this suggestion is almost purely a user issue - which is where it should remain.

I am still not overly a fan.

I understand the wish to auth people and I am fine with crimes being harder in cities where there is no families.

I don't however see a benefit of making it so if there is no organised crime the CL gets nothing. Yes you want to auth new people and fill cities but this game is organic and grows with the user base. I can't recall a time when a city decided to deliberately forced everywhere to be empty.

I can think of plenty of examples of that happening, including what we can actually see right now in the game environment.

I don't blame any dominant force from securing their own position - it is exactly what I would do and that is the whole point. Without any motivation from external forces to ensure that leaders authorise outside of their own cities, they will always place little importance on doing so.

If we want to see this change, it needs to come from outside.

Jeez, there are still empty cities? I was on the fence on this suggestion until I had a free moment, stopped by, and saw that. There's probably some reasonable timeframe that could be put in place with regards to newly-cleared cities before the lack of taxes kicked in. I'm not sure what it would be off the top of my head, and frankly it's probably short enough (a couple weeks? A month?) that there's not much reason to worry about it anyway.

Because come on, dudes. When was the last time the site had all of its cities filled, anyway, even before that war? Was it under Stamina, or even before that? Player interactions, for all sorts of reasons, aren't solving the empty city problem on their own. A nudge is a good thing in this case.

{Also, El_Nino, it is widely recognized that PH and NY have been the whiniest, sorest winners in warring history. Has there ever been a time when so many new admin changes have been made to counteract unacceptable victor-instituted policies? Sheesh.}

{At least I recognize and redact my blatant trolling of the other side, though. Luvz, bro.}

{Sayyid, do you not think it best to leave that stuff out of the PC? This is not a place where you can bitch about losing a war, or we can gloat about winning it. This is for the betterment of the game, not for you to try to get one over on anybody.

Grow up, seriously. I cannot believe you are still bothered about it and are still crying. At least take it to a PM or mail, rather than in the PC forym, it's not needed, these are not player accounts we are interacting on.}

{I wasn't the one that brought in a gratuitous potshot. Can't handle me calling it out, don't make it.}

{There was no need for derogatory comments from either party. As PC-Pratster said, personal prejudice has no place on the PC. Please desist, everyone.}

{I am lost, what have I been accused of now??

Also, El_Nino, it is widely recognized that PH and NY have been the whiniest, sorest winners in warring history. Has there ever been a time when so many new admin changes have been made to counteract unacceptable victor-instituted policies? Sheesh.

Bless you at some point someone may give you a history lesson. I remember a time when .......

Actually this isn't the place or the time.}

{• All PC members must act professionally and leave personal disputes in the player level field;


Settle down, folks, and keep the discussion aimed towards the suggestion at hand.}

Yes, I would. This suggestion was pitched before quite a few wars occurred. I've always been against changes to the game that essentially nudge players (and leadership, for that matter) to play in a certain way. If people don't like the way the game's leadership is going, time has shown us that they will eventually be dealt with.

Yes I would.

If I am honest this wouldn't make me auth into a city any way until I was ready to.

I hope everyone is clear that this is being voted on literally as the initial idea.

So no making it harder to petty, or felony or jail.

No fixing the third of taxes in existing cities going to the none existent godfather.