Why would having a treaty lower your defence to people not in that treaty?

If it were set up as you're describing, you'd be paying millions of dollars for someone to have a much easier time backstabbing you. Their guns would be stronger, your defense would be weaker, and you can invite them to OCs for millions of dollars. That just seems counter-intuitive and I don't think anyone would make that deal. So I say make the gun strength bonus for all shots (not just shots against your treaty partners). And make the defense reduction for all shots (not just shots from your treaty partners) for the same reason; the purpose of the treaty's downside isn't just to make it easier for your treaty partners to backstab you (though it does have that effect), it makes it easier for any enemy to attack you.

This way, like I've said, you can't make treaties with everyone or you'll drive your BG efficacy down. If the defense reduction only counted against your treaty partners, you could send treaties to every crew outside your district and gather all those gun boosts (which count against non-treaty participants) and have no downside against non-treaty participants (as the defense reduction would only be applicable to your treaty partners).

So I guess it just seems more fair. If your gun boost from your treaty works on players outside your treaty, then your defense reduction should as well. Otherwise you could just stack treaties with people you trust with no "downside" against non-treaty participants. I think there should be a downside outside of being backstabbed (because no matter how you shape it, that will be a very very unlikely occurrence); that if you enter into a treaty with someone then both parties are agreeing to be a little bit more vulnerable (to all out-of-district players, not just treaty members) in exchange for gun strength when they meet up in the same city.

However, as I also stated, the defence drop doesn't just affect you against people you have  a treaty with but also people they have a treaty with. Ie City A and City B have a treaty, but so do city B and City C and City A and City D.

so City A's defences are reduced against B, C, and D. The logic you suggest is that you pay millions, get a wack boost and loose defence against everyone in game. All for the ability to invite more people to OCs. I have to feel that if this were the case, no one in their right mind would engage in a treaty. Hence my suggestion of a general wack lost and a limited defence drop. 

Having said aid all that, you could end up with your defence dropping against everyone, depending on who has treaties with who.

The logic you suggest is that you pay millions, get a wack boost and loose defence against everyone in game. All for the ability to invite more people to OCs.

I fear you may have phrased it a bit poorly, as this way makes it seem like the wack boost is a cost rather than a benefit. Here's how I would phrase it:

The logic you (I) suggest is that you pay millions and lose BG efficiency everyone in the game when nearby a high concentration of treaty members. All for a wack boost (also according to a high concentration of treaty members) and the ability to invite more people to OCs.

Basically, my vision of treaties is as an offensive agreement; that you form a treaty in the interest of targeting someone by utilizing the gun boosts. The risk of forming that treaty is that if your target (or some other entity) discovers and attacks you, your BGs aren't as potent. Making a treaty increases your power to attack an external threat, but reduces your power to defend an external threat.

If this mentality were applied to your idea: you form a treaty in the interest of targeting someone by utilizing the gun boosts and the risk of forming that treaty is that if your treaty partner betrays you, your BGs aren't as potent. Making a treaty increases your power to attack an external threat, but reduces your power to defend an internal threat.

As per your thoughts on the treaty networking, I don't see support for it in realism or as a unique game mechanic. Whatever argument for realism that would cause a drop in defenses around your treaty partners wouldn't really hold for your treaty partners' partners. It wouldn't make sense for "your guard to drop" when you don't even know whether or not they have a treaty with one of your partners. So you either need to make that information known (by some form of treaty network page), or not have that information be hazardous. Plus, it has no counterplay or accountability and offers only more potent backstabbing mechanics, which isn't really necessary (considering your partners' partners would already get a gun boost from their treaty, they don't need your defenses dropped to make a difference).

I think you guys are trying to balance the bonus' and negatives in the same thing, whereas a separate negatively viewed treaty should be for that (my suggested addition).

I think lowering defences for everyone is a little odd. I do agree with lowering defences to those you are partnered with, as you would expect less reason for them to shoot you. And this would also mean you would really be cautious to those you want to partner with. If it's done in this way, then the bonus's do actually balance with negatives in the same treaty.

It actually is realistic imo to have defences lowered around partners for only those you are partnered with. IRL this is how people do get taken out. People back stab each other in the mafia, because they are influenced to do so for the purpose it's easier to get an audience with them in some way then have them popped as the enemy itself, as it's harder to get close and do. Keep all others neutral, yet lower the partnered defences, and this is realistic.

I also agree in having ALL traits involved (offensive, defensive & economic), yet in a balanced way. If it's just for flash, it really does become pointless.

I also think your guys ideas are complex! lol If we can simplify it so if it was on a wiki page and a newb to the game read it and understood it in a paragraph, that would be easier for people to back and for admin to look at and say 'yep' and maybe be implemented.

I think an initial fee involved is unnecessary if economic traits are boosted whilst in the treaty also. Anyone should be able to be allied with anyone else, and if the defensive traits are lowered in said partnership only to said partners, it already means the decision is a serious one and money need not be involved. The monetary gains come from actual partnered joint earnings such as OC's and whatever other boosts through moment to moment gameplay.

My thoughts.

Originally I wanted the treaty cost to be an investment rather than just a price to pay in order to form one. My intention was to make some return on investment if you uphold the treaty to its expiration while also having an economic incentive to break it. Basically, you both pay $5 and get $10 back at the end if you stay nice. Or you can get mean and get $20. Without the economic incentive, I don't think there's any reason for the price on the treaty. From a realism perspective, think of it like: "The treaty between our districts and the peace it brings has caused business to flourish for both parties, resulting in a 100% return on investment." "One partner of the treaty has attacked the other, taking those economic gains for his own."

I think a better way to do it than what I've suggested is to remove the bonus for terminating the agreement. Originally I said there'd be a reward for terminating the agreement, and looking back that seems foolish. So my thoughts:

The only way you get out of the treaty is by the death of the CL. If one of the CLs dies, the other gets a 200% return on original investment.

This way, there won't be any flippant treaty-making and treaty-terminating for those little gains. Now it's all-or-nothing, and the economic incentive is there both to keep the treaty and to break it. So, in conclusion, I'd say we either include an economic incentive like I've described or we scrap the cost of the treaty altogether.

The only way you get out of the treaty prior to its expiration is by the death of the CL. If one of the CLs dies, the other gets a 200% return on original investment.

How about, rather than a one off payment at the end of a set time, a steady income over the running time of the treaty, similar to CAs?

So you pay your treaty price and at the end of every week you get half a mill, or so. After x amount of time, you have recouped the cost of the treaty, the longer you keep it going, the more you make. Rather than just a huge one off payment, which seems less realistic.


My vision of a treaty seems a lot different from yours, Denam. You are suggesting that it is something formed to take a third party out, or at least increase your chances. I personally see a treaty as a way of consolidating existing power and driving revenue by opening up new territories and business opportunities. Yes there is an element of we are stronger together, but I don't see its primary role as we can take over when we work together, but rather we can earn more by working together. At the end of the day, the driving force behind the Mafia, is Organized Crime, in other words making money.

I can apperciate your thoughts Scarfo, and we are working on making it as simple as possible, but if Treaties where coded in to the game, they would be a complex element, its not just a simple matter of doing a crime or selling drugs. However, a lot of this wouldn't be on the wiki. The wiki would be very simple. Pay A, Get a boost, invite others to OCs and suffer Y. Percentages etc would not be included in the wiki because they are game mechanics and not relevant to the user base. Also, as you need to be at least a CL, you would therefore have some knowledge of the game, enabling you to understand more complex game options.

I am changing my mind on the defense drop; you have convinced me that it should only be dropped against treaty partners.

I very much like the idea of a steady income. Though that begs the question; do the treaties have expirations? If not, then we can proceed with the steady income that extends indefinitely. If so, then we need to have a closing amount of money (like the lump sum I suggested).

Next question: how potent should the gun boost and defense drop be? If the purpose of this isn't offensive, then should the stats be particularly strong? Let's say (entirely for example) that the "away from home" stat drop is 10%. If no treaty partners are around, you have a full 10% stat drop on your gun. From 0 partners to 10 (1/4 of the total crew members), that stat drop approaches 0. After 10 (1/4 - 1/2 of total crew members), your gun goes up by 10%. It maxes out at whatever the positive equivalent for the "away from home" reduction would be. Does that sound fair?

I wouldn't worry about a 'closing payment' as such, sure the amount paid could theoretically go on indefinitely, but at the same time your treaty partner could be taken out at any time, and you've lost a fair chunk of change. Alternatively, it could last 6 months, and you've recouped many times your outlay. However, we could include a 'time period renewal' A message like "Your treaty investment is starting to wear out, do you wish to renew the treaty for $xxxx" Where each member would have to pay say 25-50% of the inital cost again. If you pay, and your partner says no, you loose that payment. I'm assuming that these payments are an investment of sorts, bribes to the FBN and Police, mayors offices, DAs etc. They aren't about to pay it back if your partner gets cold feet. It adds another potential shafting to the treaty as well, where you pay out a couple of mill, and your partner decides he doesn't like you anymore and refuses to pay up.

The gun boost I'm happy with, as its only going to be based on crew in your city, kinda extra bodies you can call on in times of need, so its never going to be a huge bonus, unless you have a treaty with CH and 150 of them arrive in NY. On average its probably going to be somewhere like +5 to +25% of what your normal crew gives you, again especially if its only based on MM ranks. However, as I'm not up to speed on what bonuses you get based on crew size and rank, I'd be happy for admin to decide the final ultimate figures.

I'd lean more towards an indefinite treaty rather than a renewed one. I don't think we need a renewal charge, I think it would be better to just reduce the amount you get back over a certain time. So you'd get 5 payments of 1/5 of your treaty cost, then every payment after that would be 1/10 of the treaty cost. Making it renewable is effectively the same as just having reduced economic rewards. So I'd rather just keep it simple and have a modest reduction in those 5-day bonuses than make the parties renew it.

That works for me.

Aye that's fair enough Chris_Vaughn and it's obviously going through it's paces right now. I'm not privy with the backend stats so it's quite informative to see you guys suss it all out; learning as I go. :)

I've given this a bit of thought and tried to see it in the best way that I can - but I can't help the feeling that this is going to force everyone into one of these treaties, because if they don't then they're going to be behind the people that do. There are enough benefits to people actually speaking to each other to make these kinds of arrangements and this feels like unnecessary fluff that basically punishes people who don't want to give other cities or districts that much power in their own home.

Everyone knows that when people group together to form bigger alliances (Roman + Prem, me and Phil_Steak, the CP, other big groups that were successful etc) you have a much greater survival rate and success chance even without any of the benefits that have been suggested here. If you give even more benefits to people like that, it's just creating a situation where these people are even stronger for even longer - which is what will force everyone else into using this feature just to keep up, which surely is not be a desirable side effect of any game change?

Thanks for your feedback DeadlySin, it is always constructive and appreciated. That is why we are trying to find the right balance. My main aim was to find a way for sister cities to be more cohesive by allowing crews to interact more, such as with OCs, its why we are trying to strike a god balance here. I want people to think long and hard before accepting a treaty, as you would in real life, which is why the negatives need to be well balanced. Sure we will have decent bonuses as a team, but as Squishy said, it shouldn't be all bonuses. In fact we need a way to make you weaker in some respects so that as you said, everyone doesn't feel compelled to be in a treaty with someone else.

As I suggested, if you are in a treaty with me, and I am in one with Aliens for example, then Aliens will find it easier to kill you as he can use his treaty with me as a backdoor to you. If every one just jumps into a treaty with other folks, then it could be that you are leaving yourself open to being taken out by a 3rd party.

However, if you can think of further bonuses/penalties to further balance things, I am all ears.

As I suggested, if you are in a treaty with me, and I am in one with Aliens for example, then Aliens will find it easier to kill you as he can use his treaty with me as a backdoor to you. If every one just jumps into a treaty with other folks, then it could be that you are leaving yourself open to being taken out by a 3rd party.
 

 I am assuming that player A would get a notification if Player B  has agreed to a treaty with Player C and can nullify the treaty with player B?

Eventually it all comes down to trust; do you trust Player A and his/her crew/district/city? Those you regard as friends today can easily become those who will take you out tomorrow.

.... find a way for sister cities to be more cohesive by allowing crews to interact more, such as with OCs, its why we are trying to strike a god balance here

The responsibility is on the crewleaders and those who authed them to encourage cooperation and interaction, why try to automate it? What is holding them from interact more now? Laziness

I want people to think long and hard before accepting a treaty, as you would in real life...In fact we need a way to make you weaker in some respects so that as you said, everyone doesn't feel compelled to be in a treaty with someone else.

Or stronger crews would use it as an excuse to take you out just because you're not a team player/hiding something, and in many cases CL/GF would take it as a personal insult and react accordingly.