As I was reading through the current version of our tutorial, I noticed that, whenever it was written, Obscenely Well Protected was the highest Bodyguard Tier. Some time after, presumably, Bodyguard counts had grown so high that the difference in defensive stat between an individual just acquiring OWP status (51) and the ones at the highest levels of OWP was enormous. Therefore, the tiers were recalibrated and a new tier, "Insanely Well Protected" was added. To compare the differences in these two systems, go from the Tutorial to the BG Wiki page.

I would like to propose a new calibration, also accompanied by an added tier:

• Poorly Protected: 1 - 10 BGs
• Protected: 11 - 25 BGs
• Well Protected: 26 - 50 BGs
• Very Well Protected: 51 - 75 BGs
• Extremely Well Protected: 76 - 100 BGs
• Obscenely Well Protected: 101 - 135 BGs
• Insanely Well Protected: 136+ BGs

Since the current BG tier system has been in use for so long, it would feel weird adding another tier on top. Plus, we're already strained as it is coming up with synonyms for "very". So I propose adding a lowest tier, and bumping up all the current tiers. My reasoning:

1. Bodyguards are easier than ever to buy, and they can be bought at any time with anywhere from $50,000 to $50,000,000.
2. Gun strengths are so high (in general), that it's hard to consider anyone really "Protected" with only 10 bodyguards, even when fully trained.
3. The current system features the following gaps as the BG count increases: 10, 15, 25, 25, 75 (to cap). This would change it to: 10, 15, 25, 25, 35, 35 (to cap). A more moderate slope, in my opinion.
4. Considering the BGs could be fully trained or totally untrained, it seems odd to "conceal" any more precision in the number of total BGs a player possesses. They could have 150 untrained BGs or 15 fully trained BGs, and you wouldn't know the difference by looking at their profile. 

This is far from necessary, I just think that we're due for another recalibration in the BG system and this is a legitimate way to set that up without adding an "Absurdly Well Protected" or "Obnoxiously Well Protected" to become the new "IWP". Let me know your thoughts!

I honestly EXTREMELY like this change! If it was implemented it wouldn't really change too much, except in my opinion make the tiers more realistic!

I'm all for this change. I know we don't have the Player Commission here to vote for it, but I think the masses would like this change.

I think this is a good idea. Although I would suggest maybe a different wording than "Poorly Protected" as it implies that the protection itself is bad, not just a low number - I feel that the word 'poorly' makes it sound something bad rather than good (if that makes sense). Maybe something like "Slightly Protected" would be a better fit?

Not a bad idea, how ever I agree with EricNorthman that the word "poorly" should be changed to something different.

Yes I agree with Mr.Northman as well sightly would be better than poorly.

makes sense to me