This game of ours is growing stagnant, there are places to expand and no one's expanding. We are capable of easily filling 8 cities and have a diverse culture of City Heads and CLs, but we only have 4 cities occupied and 17 total leaders. The current crop of leaders let LV sit lifeless for FAR too long and it was eliminated shortly after the families in LA. I fear we're approaching an eerily similar situation now that the families in Detroit are dead and this go around I'd like to ask if we can see external motivation (other than threatening to remove a city) to expand applied. Far too high of a percent of the population aren't active any more or fear this game has nothing to offer them because there are so few opportunities and leaders to choose from. I fear that in making accounts capable of massing epic Defenses and Guns that we've made an unkillable class which shouldn't happen in this type of game. I realize I can't talk you into nerfing BGs and MIAs to make everyone killable but I would like to ask that we at least force the current Leaders to expand. If they want to let the number of active members dwindle and let cities die from a lack of motivation to expand I would like to ask that you threaten them with a reset or something. Having a little fear from a real threat is a good thing, and I honestly believe that after hearing few rumors LV would be inhabited that we're going to let the exact same thing happen to Boston. I feel the leaders don't want to expand, and the players aren't willing to stand up to the current leaders and force them to expand so I'm coming to you to ask you to apply some external motivation to increase the number of occupied cities and CLs in the coming months. This thing of ours is meant to be filled with conflict and lots of leaders (which causes conflict) but it's better for individual positions of power if there are fewer conflicts and CLs because we have conflicting interests. When City Heads, who are motivated to stunt growth to bolster their own position in the game, let cities go unoccupied to the point of removal I feel the Admins should step in. The threat doesn't have to be as severe as a reset, but after they've shown they don't care if cities remain vacant I feel something must be done because there are MANY of us who would truly love to see 8 cities worth of opportunity again. One other idea for a punishment I've heard of is that if X number of cities are vacant there should be a Y% chance the Durdens will actually shoot at active members without being shot at first (if this is possible). Again, I honestly only come here because I believe it's in the game's best interests that we expand rather than delete cities.

i do agree! we need more crews and new leaders! we all know whos gona get a auth to fill DT and BOS soon or later... The same people all the time... New faces would be great! And people want to feel that adrenaline rush on 3 days wars etc... not dying in a blink of an eye like in the Blitzkrieg battle that killed all DT...

I think you may find more crews popping up once we start moving from cities to districts in the next few weeks.

As for unkillable accounts, I believe a high ranked individual with 240 bgs died just the other day, from one apparently accidental shot. No one here is truly unkillable. If you feel the time is right for a change in leadership, rank up and do something about it, stop complaining in the suggestion forum.

Oh right, he was the unkillable account (since we're all being coy), what was I thinking. I'm sure the districts will fix everything and this type of problem will never happen again. Thanks a bunch for the help, I get it now. All I had to do to fix a culture problem was press the petty button, it's so stupid it's genius.

And Joey_Zazza I'm not asking for new leaders, hell they can be the same ones that always get recycled I'm just asking that we don't end up losing another city because people don't feel like expanding. There's no point in Izzy keeping it open if no one's gonna use it and there's no good reason LV went uninhabited as long as it did or for Boston to STILL be uninhabited after Izzy removed the West Coast to show we need to use the cities.

WhereAmI, you put it down quite nicely. Props to you for being the awesome beast that you are.

As for the comment "rank up and do something about it, stop complaining in the suggestion forum" by Ms. Silva, you are too cute. When someone as tiggy says that it has a certain charisma/power to it, however when it comes from you, well, you just sound like a tool.

Silva, I hate to say it, but that is the core of the issue. I'm a fan of the answer "rank up and do something about it", but in this case, that isn't possible. When one CL dies, another is Authed. No growth, no expansion. If your lucky, have enough time to play this several hours+ a day, and happen to be in good with the right people, You can earn a spot as a hand, and eventually, enough people will die for you to be top of this list. But that is still stagnation. kill a godfather, another one rises, and no growth has occured.

Thanks for your enlightened reply kpacu, really showed off your intellect there.

Who gets authed where and when is up to the Godfathers and the council, so getting to Godfather and on that council doesn't give you a chance to change things? To auth more CLs? to expand into empty cities? Not everything has to be accomplished here at the end of a gun, just most of it.

LA and LV where removed as already stated by Izzy to ease the transfer from cities to districts. Boston was introduced to help redress the balance somewhat. DT recently went kapow, so yes we went from 1 empty city to 2 empty cities. Who's to say that one if not both of these may be opened up again in the next couple of weeks? Did you ask all the godfathers if they had any plans?

Izzy also revealed that once the switch over occurred, MR would be undertaking a huge advertising drive in an effort to raise player levels. An influx of players will require somewhere to house them, which will require more crews. Further to that, the way the new districts are shaping up, competition will increase for limited resources forcing Crews to expand into new territories.

Most of this information has already been discussed in the announcement thread, as well as via the admin updates messages you get when you log in. Keeping up to date on those would have saved WhereAmI from having to create a thread asking for the very things that are in the pipeline.

Let's just wait for this new grid system and see what crews have planned for that rather than complain about either real problems that are already known or problems that aren't actually problems and people are just ignorant to. 

It will all correct itself in due time, as it always does. 

LA became Boston to help with the transaction, LV was removed due to the fact no one was using it. Boston has been empty since LA was renamed, so considering Izzy was mad when LV went unpopulated as long as it did I guess I just assumed showing no efforts to populate Boston and Detroit becoming empty... looks eerily similar to how we lost LV... and something about losing Boston seems to leave a bitter taste. They didn't populate Boston with any haste when LV disappeared so why would they at the threat of losing Boston?

As for whether or not people will actually make space for the incoming members... I'd like to point you to NO's current situation. 3 full 50 Man Crews and a full GF family. I don't ask the GodFathers because quite frankly you'd be an idiot to actually go straight to a God Father without some kind of title. I did however go to friends in the city who are in the upper structure of various cities and they're yet to give me any realistic plans in the near future.

As for the huge advertising drive... I'll direct you to NO's current situation. A full GF family and three full 50 man HQs. They're unable to take on any new members from a lack of expanding so clearly a little encouragement wouldn't be a bad thing. As for "competition will increase for limited resources forcing Crews to expand into new territories" I could spout random variations upon economics class definitions (though I'd focus on monopoly definitions where a company stunts growth in the total sales of the product to make prices spike) that don't have anything to do with the situation... but I'll try not to.

All of this information is known... my issue is that we've lost cities due to lack of growth with these leaders. There are two open cities right now, if they wanted to expand they could. So what part of more territories to expand to is going to make a group that isn't looking to spread out spread out? The whole point, is to institute something to force the leaders to face some form of negative effect if they simply don't use cities rather than let the community get robbed of a city, or a future district.

God Fathers are going to do what's best for their city/themselves which apparently doesn't include populating Boston. There is a conflict of interests here, the community is much more vibrant when it's spread out and conflicting so the GFs will naturally do what they believe is best for their city rather than risk expanding and conflict unless pushed or it's needed. I'd rather put something in place to encourage leaders to spread out than cross my fingers and hope the districts fix everything. I'm picking on these leaders because after LV was taken there was no fruitful effort to populate Boston over the past couple months and it's this type of "it'll fix itself" attitude that let LV get taken from us. Hell if we would've been more proactive at fixing this problem we might've gotten the West Coast back by now because believe it or not when people get authed some older members seem to come out of retirement to help their friend with their young family. I remember hearing that Hound brought his family into the game either shortly before or after getting some form of power (though honestly I've forgotten those details at this point) and I guarantee that the population will grow with each auth. I'm not asking people to hold hands here, I'm just asking them to spread out after taking other people out. Use everything we're being given so we don't lose it, but with little efforts shown to populate Boston I feel the admins should step in so the community isn't punished for what the current leaders do.

Most of this could've been realized if you read the thread in front of you and you didn't assume I'm an idiot. I don't have much spare time to articulate my points any more so I apologize if it's in ugly block form and a little blunt but this is a culture problem, something that probably won't be fixed by increasing the total number of areas to expand. People may move more when they first open up, but culture problems have this issue of being nagging cyclacle problems that will rear their head up more than we like to admit.

I only have one question. Why would anyone WANT to auth people into a city that was opened with the add on of "but we may close it down, so those that set up there will have to find new homes."? Seems kind of pointless to auth someone into a city that may reach Godfather and then have nowhere to go because it gets shut down.

You coming with what those at the top would WANT is my point that there is a conflict of interests. You don't want to expand but it reduces stagnancy, which is what's in the best interest of the game. You clearly don't WANT to expand even though you should so I'm asking the admins to give you some form of encouragement to spread out. As stated before, we have the people to fill 8 cities... but we're all huddled up in 4, even though more cities reduces the stagnancy and increases the thing you're really here to avoid... conflict. Conflict reduces stagnancy, and I mean real conflict; not whiping out a puny city with the two biggest cities. You coming here proves my point, actually. Those at the top don't want people to spread out because it's not in their best interest even though it's in the community's best interest, what's to stop them from preventing people from really spreading out and growing in the districts? When there's a conflict of interests it should be brought to the attention of the admins, so that's what I'm here to do.

I did read the thread, and I didn't assume you were an idiot. I merely disagree with you and feel you are reading too much into things. Given the information the admins have revealed over the last few weeks, I honestly believe that the Districts will solve 90% of your listed problems. Should it not, then I am quite happy to eat humble pie and admit that you were right and I was wrong. I just don't think that will happen though.

The reason I stated that people will have to spread out is because of something Izzy said last night. Although each District will be capable of housing 255 crews and 1 GF crew, any more than about 2 crews per district will see income start to reduce for each crew. If income reduces, then the IWP people will not be able to support their IWP status, and the status quo will change. Now call me naive, but I honestly believe that if families start to topple because they can't sustain their protection levels, then the remaining families, and their replacements will learn from this.

I really wish you could edit your posts...

anyway, almost forgot about Monopolies. There are safeguards in place to ensure that no one crew can monopolize the new businesses and the way money is generated. Credit where credit is due, the admins obviously realised that to allow one or even two all powerful GFs to control all business would be detrimental to the game, and its chances of survival.

I'll start editing my posts again when either the game isn't stagnant or the people stop saying "If you feel the time is right for a change in leadership, rank up and do something about it, stop complaining in the suggestion forum." without actually addressing the issue presented. I'm also sorry if you feel I got offended, but I'm just blunt and a dick to people who criticize things they don't understand. My issue, the one no one is yet to address is that current and potentially future leadership wants to keep the game contained into as few areas as possible. This causes less conflicts... and STAGNANCY. STAGNANCY is bad for the game. I believe there should be some form of protocol set in place to force these leaders to do what's best for the game. I'm not asking them to force themselves out of the 4 huddled up cities, I'm asking the admins to put something in place to punish them if they don't so the current and future leaders won't try to limit the game to X number of easily controllable areas so we can avoid this kind of stagnancy. If anyone can prove that herding the population into a small area doesn't cause stagnancy I'd love to hear it. I'd love to hear someone tell me how increasing the number of players in a power position spread across the map wouldn't cause more conflict and less stagnancy. Each district will have its own benefits, but I'm yet to hear about some add on to the districts that would prevent this exact same thing from being applied in the districts. Shrinking the game is bad and this isn't a problem a few players can fix.

By you I meant a general you, as in everyone. I wanted to add in my post about monopolies without having to add a second post. There's also times where I notice mistakes after posting, spelling, formatting etc that I wish I could correct. Apologies if you thought I was taking a did at you... again. :p

As I said, the new system will force gfs to spread out. Each city will be like 4 or 5 cities currently. Travel times will reduce the desire to travel to other cities, in effect creating mini mafia worlds. If we take Chicago as an example, there are 4 crews. When SpaceCowboy becomes GF, we may well have 5 crews. Once we move to the district system, these 4 or 5 crews will have to move into at least 2 if not 3 districts, the equivalent of Chicago moving into 2 or 3 cities in the current system.

All the GFs are going to have to do this, if not, then there will be insufficient money to support their defences, their bodyguards, and all their additional costs. This will weaken them, leaving them open to assault, hostile take over or obliteration. Does that not deal with your chief concern of everyone grouped together and the game stagnating?

The thing is that they aren't moving out now, and in the future they'll be capable of putting 255 people into one city with just 3 leaders. The districts might sound like they're forcing leaders to split up and spread out but I can already see how someone basically doing what they're doing now to a greater extent. It used to take at least 5 leaders to realistically house a population of 200 people. Now you only need 2 or 3 if you have a GF? There are too many people who gain leadership and just want to clump up and sit in the same little corner. I haven't heard about city boosts if all the districts are filled or if there is a GF in every district (which could be in place and if not could be used as encouragement in the future districts) but I'd still like to see something put in place to either threaten or entice leaders into using every available space if possible now that could get grandfathered into the new system. People are authing the bare minimum number of people and using the bare minimum number of cities right now, it could be just a blip on the Mafia Returns culture or it could be a lasting trend. I'd like to see something involving the GF tax or ANYTHING that punishes the GFs if cities (or districts when the transition happens) go unused. By that I mean a reduced income from the GF tax unless every space available is being used.

How will authing people resolve the perceived stagnancy and lack of growth?

You're working on the assumption that by automatically opening a headquarters, the people who are doing nothing to resolve these problems now are suddenly going to start doing something interesting and dynamic. That won't happen. Instead, you will get a handful of new people setting up who will then work to cement themselves in the position by not rocking the boat or otherwise incurring the wrath of those who can squash them.

What would you do if we gave you a HQ that would alleviate the stagnancy and encourage growth?

Authing more people leads to more minds trying to shape the same thing. Conflicts WILL happen more, people will have more choices for leaders and be less likely to leave, pressure for these leaders to gain high public opinion from multiple leaders rather than just 1 or 2, and that feeling of a new crew ALL reduce stagnancy in my (and many others) experience. Not that long ago who would've thougt Squidmaster would've had a falling out with Phil and DS? Throughout my time here, the most active I've seen members is obviously war, but there is also a distinct increase in activity when they feel they're directly related in building the family. So growing will reduce stagnancy for a portion of the population, which is fighting stagnancy, even if they don't necessarily have more conflicts right away.

As for what I'd do if I had an HQ, I guess you weren't around when I did have one. I didn't want an HQ, I didn't HAVE to get to know about 10-15 of my 50 members personally so much so that we all have our own inside jokes and they'll all be doing me favors as long as our bloodlines walks these shores, I didn't have to publicly announce I'd edit any ideas for street speeches for anyone from any city and publicly back them to get the streets going, I didn't have to constantly go to the streets with my series of jokes about hubcap stealing scouse monkeys, I didn't have to answer any questions members of other cities had in DL and then go further by informing them where they should be able to get answers of that nature in the future (and no pointing people to that gigantic tutorial isn't actually helping them... they all find it and just want to know what sections are important), I didn't have to set up Bars across the country and encourage my members to converse there to open Role Plays in the business Districts when they were struggling, but I did it all because I felt it was my responsibility as a leader to make the community better. I was highly criticized for my "childish" antics by some, but I did what most people would consider a lot while IRL nursing my father back to health from heart surgery, being a full time student or full time worker, and studying for my actuary exams (which was over 50 hours per week working where I couldn't be near a computer). I also constantly complained to my City Head any time something felt wrong in the community to bring things up at the next GF meeting (including encouraging him to doing things that weren't popular like making mugging legal to do to ANYONE (of course he added his old PP rules involving rank, but still made it so mugging would happen more often) while in LV when many cities were against the use of the feature in fear of having their own personal flight timers messed with) so if I felt stagnancy I guarantee I would've kicked his ass into finding a real long term solution rather than throw one big weekend competition and assume that's enough. And I can guarantee you he and I wouldn't have lived this long because I had a back alley thread speech for when I felt the game was getting boring and I'd attack him for no real reason whatsoever. He knew of this, knew I'd warn him when it was coming for a good old fashioned publicly announced war, and kept me as one of his CLs.

I know people don't like that I'm critical of the current leaders, but they've set up a culture where just politely asking questions warrants trolling from a GF and no one blinks twice at that. Something is wrong here, they won't listen to me or other players so this threat to the game should be met by the admins because they're in a position no one individual can affect with anyting less than 6 months of work if you're a prolific hitter and get lucky enough to not get randomly shot, wack back, or found out to have a negative opinion of the leaders (which has gotten people shot when combined with reasons that usually wouldn't warrant being shot under this regime). Force them to do what's best for the game, because leaders who would rather kill growth than risk being attacked by THEIR OWN AUTH shouldn't be allowed to just kill growth so they can stay on top longer or "keep my city safe" as they'll come out here and say. They feel it's dangerous for them to expand, so they're hurting the game. I'm not asking them to do what they think endangers their city, even though it's ridiculous to think authing on of your trusted leaders to run a city is a danger to your city, what I am asking is that the admins prevent them from focusing on their own wants and needs so much that they hurt the community and letting cities be removed IS hurting the community. I'm asking the admins to put in some form of protocol so they don't just cut the game down into a tiny section of what it could be for their own personal position.

So I'll ask you James, do you really want to ask what I'd do with an HQ to reduce stagnancy? Or do you trust I wouldn't sit around watching cities go unused and people complaining about stagnancy?