I'd like to take a feature that already exists and bump it up a notch. This past war revealed something that I actually really like about this game; organization. Some crews/districts/cities have it, some don't. I'd like to make a change to how conflicts are fought:

Active Made Men and above set to "Loyal" must die before a CL can be shot at. If a Made sets his status to "Loyal" after  a CL has received a pro wack, the CL is protected by the loyalty feature but has lost his prowack protection (to prevent manipulating it for CL's safety).

I think this has a plethora of good effects.

1. CLs dying to 1% protection wacks would drop. Because CLs don't need to take a pro shot until all their mades are dead, we'd see fewer 1% deaths on CLs.
2. Takedowns now require more organization; any failures and it could turn into a lengthy war (which, in my opinion, is a bit more realistic). Plus, you can never down a whole city in one wave (unless you're strategic gods or some kind of aerial swine creature).
3. Wars would shift from ivory-tower fights to hitsquad fighting; "winning" the war now requires more than just a cap killer and a field of proers. CLs spend more time organizing their troops since they don't need a proer.
4. There is the option of disloyalty; if you convince a CL's men to switch to disloyal, buy-out, or take a demotion, you can shoot at the CL directly.
5. No more "jump ship" street speeches after every god damn takedown. If you're a Made and you survived, you were disloyal and that's the end of it.
6. Demoting members to protect them from being seen removes the CL's protection loyalty protection.
7. Rogues can no longer kill CLs in one shot.
8. CL's BGs become less important over all; and he can focus more on protecting his men than himself.

Bad effects or manipulation:

1. People will be a lot more hesitant to start a war, as they won't be able to do it quickly. Account lengths could get longer.
2. I've added in the loss of wack protection as soon as a Made sets himself to loyal to avoid quickly switching between loyal and disloyal to grant the CL a hidden pro shot.
3. Disorganized wars could take a very very long time.
4. Rogues can no longer kill CLs in one shot.
5. Just to note; the CL is not immune to wackbacks. He simply cannot be shot at.

Thoughts?

make it so take a bullet setting instead of loyal and im game

Metallica... That is a tremendously good point. Not sure why I didn't think of that. Can we get rid of the weird Take a Bullet mechanic and replace it with this?

i wonder if the take a bullet mechanic has been activated yet, i cant recall anyone shooting for someone and getting someone else through it

I guess I see Take a Bullet and Loyal as the same thing? Loyal/Disloyal was implemented so that members could control how much of an HQ boost the CL gets (I believe). So I guess it seems odd that your men would be so loyal that you get an HQ boost but wouldn't be willing to die for you. Seems like there would still be a case where you're loyal but still end up with a dead CL. I'd like to avoid that; you either put your life on the line in the name of loyalty or you accept that you're disloyal.

To me, I feel like this is one case where RP (whether or not your character is loyal to your boss) can be reflected in a meaningful game mechanic. If we give people the chance to be "loyal" but have no repercussions for it, it seems like it's not really loyalty.

I am kind of annoyed that now you have given rogues the ability to randomly kill anyone if their target was a CL. They can now kill a Made in their family instead. Does that person's work mean nothing to you?

Aside from that... Crewleaders are already protected by massive amounts of BGs. Who protects the unprotected Made Men? No one.

This seems like it stacks up in all the right places for those at the top. But could make it a continuous struggle for someone trying to move up.

I am not sure I am a fan of that. While loyalty is important we need to remember that it is a game. The accounts you are talking about living longer are those of the people in bold and no one else.

Personally I like the way the game is in regards to this. If people want to die for their CL, they tend to do so for the most of us anyways in wars and there is the take a bullet option if it is even live.

if someone has set themselves to take a bullet what do you care about them dying as theyve obviously made their mind up theyd die for their crew leader

this is why we have disloyal loyal and take a bullet

We actually have four options, not just two.

I do care. I care about people that care about their families. I care that they get the ability to reach their goals at some point. Rather than people making that even more harder than it is.

I care that its hard enough to remove reigns. The last war already showed us that a war isn't exactly easy as it is. You want to make it that much harder for a power change? For a change in the game? We already have leaders living very long lives. Is that a bad thing? Maybe. Maybe not.

Everyone enjoys their periods of stability. Those of us that are truly loyal already die with our leaders in wars. So to me this is just helping the top become even harder to kill and change over. It just seems like the pro's are all in favour of the leaders and not the whole game.

so you dont like people who would die for their leader to take total control?

the user themselves has a choice wether or not they want to factor into their leaders success it isnt forced upon them

besides if a power struggle happens and everyone has take a bullet then they will die for their leader and their leader will have no more take a bullet and the leader will die

war is not meant to be easy

Your annoyance is woefully misplaced, JadedButterfly. I haven't "given rogues the ability to randomly kill anyone." Rogues can already do that. This change would, in no way, grant them more power to shoot anyone. If anything, this would incline leaders to BG up their members rather than themselves, as they will rely more heavily on their loyal members to stay alive. And to ask me if "that person's work means nothing to me," is simply a stupid question.

Aside from the fact that asking "Who protects the unprotected Made Men?" is intrinsically self-defeating and a meaningless question, crewleaders protect them. That's what being in a crew means; you're under their protection. That's why we see unsponsored people in the obits rather than sponsored ones. I hope I've made this clear enough.

It does make it better at the top; but only if your men are loyal. If your men are disloyal, you get no HQ boost and can be shot at any time. And since the loyalty setting is hidden from CLs, they just have to trust their members. I don't think this feature can inhibit or encourage "someone trying to move up," as I don't see how a hidden loyalty setting would prevent you from getting rank or auth. If anything, this would incline leaders to promote more Made Men, in hopes that they would be loyal to them and provide some protection.

I would like to note that most of the oldest accounts right now were not CLs before the war. And they survived on their own merits, in my opinion.

War is already not easy. That is fine with me, how it is. Those that survived had help from pro's. Some were unlucky in their pro's and got 1%'d but that is the game.

I already stated my reasons for why I do not like this idea. There is no sense in arguing it. I feel it only benefits a small group of people and not everyone.

the small group it benefits are called crew leaders lol

Orsik, I understand the reasoning behind this idea and approve of it. I do believe that districts, cities, even empires should take time to be taken over, not just effectively over in one wave. A good idea that's worthy of being noticed.

Love this idea. I'll elaborate more on why if/when I get chance, but I do love it.

So...after the bloodiest war in a couple of years, you propose to make the wars bloodier? I disagree vehemetly.

Yes. This life is too placid at times. A sharp change in the way things are conducted is a welcomed change.

If it aint broke don't fix it.

Prefect; I don't think this will make things bloodier. I think wars and takedowns generally result in the death of every loyal Made Man and above from the target crew. Sometimes more people die, sometimes less. But I feel that on average, loyal Mades die with their CL. The purpose of this change is to make that loyalty something more tangible; you can't be "loyal" unless you're willing to die for your CL. It doesn't really make sense that you can select "Loyal" or even "Take a Bullet" and still jump ship the moment shit hits the fan. That's not loyalty. So why do we call it that?

The change I want to see is taking war organization more seriously, not that wars should be bloodier. I don't think this one change would innately make wars bloodier; because it's up to the crew members to decide their loyalty. If they're loyal, they have to die. If they aren't loyal, they can find life somewhere else. I think this vests in each Made additional power in their crew; if the Mades aren't happen with their leader, he's quite easily removed. And that reflects how crews work in reality; if a leader isn't operating with the support of his trusted men, how can he stand against anyone else?

Cason, I disagree. I don't think things need to be broke in order to be improved upon. That is, in my opinion, the nature of suggestions. What would be the purpose of a Suggestions forum if we never bothered to improve anything unbroken?

While I like the idea to some extent, I don't think it should be implemented. I can only really ask myself: Does it make any sense that a leader is practically invulnerable until his mades die, just because they're loyal?

Aleksandr, when you put it that way it does sound difficult to accept. Do you have any ideas for how to balance out that invulnerability? Should we limit something on the CL to prevent even worse ivory tower situations?