I'm surprised not to see any replies in here. I would have thought this would get some reactions...

Totally agreed. You need to protect the game.

I would stop doing anything or start doing anything (within reason) for the profitability and sustenance of this site. Mainly because I am not selfish, and secondly because it is self destructive to do otherwise would prevent my patronage of it.

We would welcome any help in the game instructions indicating that joining a family is not required but more than welcome. I know it does already, but we need to find a way to reinforce this specific detail.

Recruiting is a great love of mine, but some of the new people are a bit standoffish because they think the mafia is all about scams, lies, and shooting people.

Currently when you meet new people, you have to CONVINCE them that you come in peace. When I meet that guy who is a 48+ hour old gangster that joining our family is better than being shot, they don't quite believe me.

They are more worried that I am scamming them or pushing them in the wrong direction. They are afraid of being a rube.

Jodi Arias

I am sorry it has come to this, but sometimes rules are needed for the greater good of everyone, even if they are incapable of seeing it for themselves.

 

I totally agree with this. If advertisement doesn't actually help the game gain the members it needs, you (administration) must do whatever to keep it running.

I would enjoy looking at 60 secs list and read 1000+ members :)

What if a gangster who is under the age shoots or does an action? Does that remove his innocence like before?

I do want to know the answer to michael's query. I assume the answer is yes, but i'd like to here for certain

You're doing it backwards. A player who has played more than 4 hours in the 48 is someone playing, that's who you want to protect until they find a home. The ones who don't aren't gonna stick around, they're who you should get a point for shooting.

Michael:
This doesn't impact on your ability to remove trouble makers or the likes, it simply removes any benefit in shooting them so that people won't be rushing/racing to do it (they'll avoid doing it as it's a waste of their attack timer). Instead of the hitters lining up looking for recently active unsponsored members, it'll only be the recruiters looking to get in touch with them and provide them with help and support.

z:
The point of the change is to allow a new player, logging in for the second time (already +48 hours), a little time to have a chat with some of the players and understand that they must join a family to survive and receive some guidance on how to do that. If they've managed to clock up 4 hours of game time and still have not found a family, or at least received enough information to make them aware of how important that is, there's something far more fundamentally wrong there.

"The ones who don't", as you describe it, are impossible to identify in advance. Any new player may well be willing to put in 4 hours of gametime, but just haven't had an ample opportunity to do so just yet within the 48 hour window. By giving them the 7 day window and/or 4 hours of activity (in place of the more traditional 48 hours flat) it is hoped that far more of the users who are currently being lost to dying as unsponsored +48s, never to return, will be turned into active and contributing members of the community. This would have the effect of greatly lowering the effective cost per user of the advertising, greatly increase the ROI of the advertising and make the game a far more secure, sustainable and hopefully rewarding venture for the team.

I applaud you Scott. I really do my friend. It's about time you took the bull by the horns and actually put your foot down. Our world lately is just built of as you say... the greedy people who just want a +1.

A great change and hopefully with these refines/updates in this code we'll see a much fairer and lengthier time to allow new people to get a new family before the greedy seagulls blow their face off for +1.

Its more of the fact that if I remove a threat, a new player who tries to shoot at someone, would I gain the +1.

I understand where you're coming from Satanta. It wouldn't be necessary to get the bonus, but I just wanted to know. We all know removing a proer who is proing a rogue can be arguably hard, and shouldn't that be worth a +1?

I think it's incredibly unfair that you're putting the blame on crewleaders for the killing of +48s.

I can say without a doubt that any crewleader would rather take in a new member than wait just to get a +1 on their gun.

If you never wanted people to kill people as they went over 48 hours, why make it a +1 to your gun when they do? Yes crewleaders *could* have said "dont ever shoot stuff below 7 days old", but with the way you coded the game you created the mindset that killing +48s is fine and beneficial.

On to the topic of this change: I love it.

It depends on the specifics of it Michael. If they're greater than 48 hours but with less than 4 hours activity, you can shoot them but with zero benefit to your gun. If they've gone over the 4 hours activity, you will get the +1.

With so many targets these days, a single +1 (or not) isn't going to have a meaningful impact on a SR. So the change simply means you still have the right to shoot the characters you used to (in the case of trouble makers and the likes), you just don't benefit from it (so only the ones that deserve to die will die). If Squishy and the team tried to include every possibly eventuality that would warrant death as an exclusion to the lack of a +1, it would make the coding of this change exponentially more complicated than it needs to be. It will be rare enough that this scenario arises, so if you're not willing to kill the guy knowing that it doesn't have a positive impact on your gun... has he really done something that warrants death at all?

Satanta, why do you always have to have valid points...

I hate you.

DeadlySin, I don't have the same interpretation of Izzy's message. He's not saying CLs are to blame. He is actually letting you guys off the hook. He is NOT expecting you to enforce such a policy because he understands it would be too much to ask. He is actually doing what you are suggesting, by removing the +1.

im inclined to agree with deadlysin on this issue. the fact that ppl are greedy is not the fault of either the godfathers or the cl. it is the fault of the individuals who are taking the shots. it takes the fun out of the game if you kill a person right after they turn 3 days old. some ppl are very selective of which family or city they want to represent. so i agree with both deadlysin and the admins on this issue. i know for a fact my CL would rather us sponsor the -48 than shoot him. each new individual brings a unique set of skills to each respective family. for some its earning and for others its hitting and i have even seen ppl who are better at recruiting than both the previous 2. Why deny someone the opertunity to prove himself just so you can have a stronger gun?