OK, my idea is this - the person who fires the death shot of a CL, inherits a value determined by the size and population of the HQ

I'd suggest that this is a substantial amount (say, $50k x size of HQ x number of members, so a 50 man HQ with 25 living members: $62.5M).

This would be interesting in two ways:

It would encourage more takedowns - interesting

It could lead to a scenario whereby a CL knows he's going down and takes his own life, rather than see a lot of cash go to his enemy.

As an aside, it could also change the ways that wars are conducted - leaving some alive to increase the value of the HQ being taken down.

Your thoughts?

That would be interested. I can sort of see it from an RP standpoint "You kill the CL (and possibly his R/LHM), so your crew takes "control" of the HQ, and liquidates it to improve your own?

I wonder if there would be a scenario where a CL knows he's screwed, so he ends up executing his own members (say inactives maybe?) to lessen on benefits.

What I would like to know though would all this money go directly to the one who killed the CL, would it be shared among the crew? will the member's CL get a percentage of it? How about the people who may have attacked that players bodyguards (that'd have to be in a specific timeframe as well)

That's where it becomes interesting...  Maybe the HSL of the attacking family gets bought off by his target?  Maybe he IWP and attacks his own CL with the money?  Or maybe he tributes it up, like he should.

Maybe GF crew HQs are even more lucrative?

I really like the idea..

Wait.. wait.. That doesn't explain it well enough.

I love the idea!

Also now war could actually turn out to bring a profit (Mafia is all based on money making right?) Or lessen the amount lost during that war. Great idea.

How does one get a sponsor for their suggestion?

The reality is crewleaders are killed by other crewleaders who have too much money already. Wouldn't this just lead to the rich getting even richer?

I like the premise of the idea, but there's already way too much cash in the game as it is. Perhaps giving whatever is left in the Fort fund would work, but many families are sitting empty or with very little cash there. Plus, I don't think it should stop at just a CL kill, the CL, and both hands should have to die, as well as completely destroying any forts.

Definitely a workable idea though, imo.

The 'sponsor' and Player Commission side of things is gone now, so it's irrelevant Kuku.

Then it comes down to the question of balancing finance. If it's a "substantial" amount, the one thing we have that removes cash from the game (war and death) is hit hard. People already funnel funds into credits to lower this risk, but if we also give a substantial cash reward for killing a CL it needs to be balanced somewhere else in the game. Any thoughts on what would balance this?

The economy is in chaos at the moment, simply because of the longevity of numerous bloodlines.

i have long thought that CLs, and other high tankers, should be jailed for very, very lengthy periods, in lockdown, where only huge bribes could get them out.

"The economy is in chaos, so lets push it further out of balance"? 

Is that really your reasoning behind it?

Yes, the increase in life expectancy of accounts has an impact here, a major one. However that's a situation that is down to users and isn't due to the game mechanics. Even without long life spans, there is still a huge amount of cash in the game. Within a week or two I was earning huge sums, nothing to do with me living long but simply from actively playing and making the most of my understanding of the mechanics. To push the mechanics out of wack with no balance put in place to even try (achieving the balance is extremely difficult and even when you/we try and do it we often fail) isn't enough. We have to think of the long term impacts of a change and look far beyond just the 'current' situation. 

On the surface, I'm not a big fan of what you're proposing as your 'balance'. It will simply lead to large accounts hoarding cash away from the smaller accounts and cause even more of a gap between the top and the bottom. However, if you want to expand on it and show a way that it 'might' work, fair enough. 

Lets say that taking out a HQ nets $50M... 25 active members would have died. A new HQ would be needed. 

It balances itself, no? 

And besides, the equivikant of 100 credits won't do anything substantial. But, the prospect of a cash fall might encourage a rogue or two, or a cash hungry new outfit.

The members that would have died are to balance the existing mechanics. The current life expectancy increases have already caused a shift in balance here, along with credits retaining some of that cash in another form, so we're already in a situation where cash remaining in game has become a little too high. If you add in another 50m per HQ destroyed, that means it's even further out of balance. 

So no, it doesn't even come close to balancing itself.

No rogue will ever set up for the cash alone, or a new outfit make a push for cash alone. If they did, they obviously don't understand the politics or the relationships required to progress in the game and will die extremely quickly. That would be a very rare exception, far from the rule. I'd normally be trying to make suggestions here of what mechanic might be suitable to counter balance the proposal, but in reality I think the last thing the game needs at the moment is more cash being retained. So instead, I'm simply voicing my opinion that this won't work as it's currently presented and without a mechanism to counteract the impacts of it I'll remain vocally against it. 

I am only one opinion though. Other players or the admin team themselves might love the idea, it is a subjective one.