I do actually think that this change will create those worse ivory tower situations seeing as I think the overwhelming majority will have themselves set to ''Loyal'' and the CL can just dish out damage without having to fear for being killed until his mades are dead. This gives him way more time and opportunities early on, somewhat diminishing the advantage of striking first. 

It also makes takedowns a lot riskier, but that may be a good thing. However, is it fair that if someone misses on a lone Made Man (who happens to be inactive) the whole takedown fails because the leader can't be shot? I don't think so.

I think it would be better if this ''loyalty protection'' only worked if a Made of the CL's crew is in the same city (or district if you really want to narrow it down) and has been online recently.

What about this; the loyalty protection serves as pseudo wack protection. Once the leader shoots, the protection is lost for x amount of time? (like minutes, not hours) (except for IA targets, perhaps?)

That way, in a war or takedown, if the CL starts returning fire he's opening himself up to being shot at. Or he can holster his gun and retain the protection. How does that sound? The CL can choose between defense and offense.

How about a 5-10 minute loss of protection when the leader shoots? I guess a system can be implemented to make a difference between the leader shooting IA targets and actual targets.

Maybe something like this:

• Needs to have an Made Man with ''Loyal'' set in the same city, who has been online in the last 24 hours.
• Loss of protection for 5 minutes when shooting.

This will also make the leader look up where his Made's are and fly to that city and hope that the specific member has set his loyalty to ''Loyal''. It will also make him coordinate with his mades instead of him seeing them like easy protection.

I like a 10-minute loss of protection on non-IA shots. I think that's a good way to balance between CLs who want to stay on the defensive and organize their men and go on the offensive and take some shots.

I do think if we're going to bring down the protection benefits (you can't shoot, etc.), I don't think we need to make it as difficult for the CL to have the protection. So, a CL with invulnerability can shoot as much as he wants as long as a Made Man anywhere in the game is alive is imbalanced. So we drop the CL's ability to capitalize on the protection; offensive CLs can forego the protection and defensive CLs can use it.

I fear if we make the protection too conditional, it'll have no discernible effect on the game. My happy medium is; any Made set to Loyal that was online in the last 24-48 hours (this can be discussed) in any city must die before the psuedo-wack protection on the CL is lost. However, the CL can willingly forfeit this protection by shooting at a non-IA target. That way, some stealthy IA Made isn't keeping the CL alive, but it also means active Mades don't have to follow their boss around to keep them alive.

How does that sound?

If we set the online parameter to 24 hours, that sounds good to me.

Alright; so the suggestion in its current form is:

By setting their status to "Loyal," Made Men are pledging to die for their leader. If a living and loyal Made Man has been active in the last 24 hours, their crewleader is protected from all shots (but not protected from wackbacks). This protection is forfeited for 10 minutes upon the CL shooting at a non-IA target.

Anyone else have any thoughts? 

The thing is, in a war, leaders always have the option of stopping once their opposition's leaders is dead. They can issue a pro order, let everyone else live. This FORCES them to kill everyone.

It only forces them to kill Made Men, people who shouldn't be included in a protection order and should die with their leader anyway.

This feature forces you to kill active made men. In my opinion, those people should already be on your list to be killed. If they aren't, it's because they've been safelisted (and therefore can set themselves to "disloyal" to avoid being shot).

And even then, WGs and below aren't included so it doesn't even affect whether or not they die. Therefore, this change cannot "force" attackers to kill everyone. I worry that you're simply being overly dramatic about the effects of this change. Others have come and voiced their concerns, and we've incorporated those concerns into a better suggestion.

Damn you Aleks, you quick-writing fiend.

Squishy, you have any thoughts on this?

I have not been playing this game for very long but i have a noticed a few things that can be greatly improved.

1) wars for one are mostly 1 sided and its normally the 1st ones to strike that always win, the Chicago wipe is 1 example, where several family's were killed from Chicago and over 100 died from Chicago, but from my knowledge none of the other side got killed in backfire, and other cities had similar outcomes. From what i know of in mafia is there are always casualties on both sides, so for example 150 from chicago are killed, i would expect at least 25+ of the attackers to have been killed trying otherwise its not really realistic and its saying to people, if you strike 1st (as long as u have the numbers) you will always win and you pretty much wont lose anyone. so maybe an increase in the backfire rate in relation to the skill of the guns, so if someone has a gun skill of 150 and the one they are killing has 130, there should be a bigger risk in killing them.

2) the taking out of a family is way too easy, in the mafia family's were not always removed when the leader was taken out. either other family members would take over the family or their rhm/lhm would take over. So we have noticed rogues who dislike someone, they kill the crew leader then the entire family is in a way removed. So why not make it harder for family's to be removed and give more meaning to the rankings in the family and give a bigger purpose to the rhm/lhm, when the crew leader is killed the rhm or lhm automatically takes control of the family, this way it makes wars a little more interesting and makes it harder for single rogues to wipe out family's.

I really really like this idea. And with the updates that was added to the original idea it's become even better.

but if I may I wanna suggest a bit different mechanic to the same end: The CL naming a few ppl as his protection, limited number of made men and above. If those chosen have set"loyal" and are in the same city as the CL, they must be shot first.​

​I suggest this because if ALL made men become protection for CL, then CLs would appoint made men just for that reason and after a while you'll face a CL with even 30 made men.

Squishy, I see plenty of "gains" (as I've listed in my original post). CLs dying to rogues and pro-wack 1%s would cease (which I think makes more sense RP-wise). Wars wouldn't be over in a heartbeat unless orchestrated very well (which I think also makes more sense RP-wise). The "Loyalty" feature actually indicates whether or not the member is loyal (which... I think you get the point).

I see a lot of things that improve with this change (and it shows considering how many have expressed support for the idea); so I'd prefer to discuss any perceived drawbacks.

We've done a lot of things that make it a lot more difficult to rogue now days, so I would like to consider how it effects them in theory, then in actual practice.

I don't really think rogues should be able to kill CLs. That's just an opinion of mine, but I think since we've indirectly made it nearly impossible for rogues to be effective that it doesn't seem like much of a jump to directly make it impossible. In theory, we don't have any more rogues shooting CLs with loyal Made Men in their crew. And I'm okay with that.

I think it adds a whole lot more stability to the old CL who everyone wants to get rid of, but now its near impossible to do with a smaller group, its a suicide mission which ends up prolonging the natural cycle of things which .. isnt always for the better.

I think you're right; the natural cycle could/should lengthen. However, this change could go either way. For instance, this may result in getting better defenses for Made Men instead of BGing the CL to infinity before ever considering anyone else. Perhaps leaders will revel in their new buffer zone and be less afraid/concerned to die because they know they won't die in a single shot. I think there's ways that this change could lengthen the cycle, and ways that this change could shorten the cycle; and that would be predicated upon the players. Just like most suggestions, the game will change more by how the players respond to it than the suggestion itself. And considering the support it has gotten thus far, I think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

I still think the drawbacks outweigh the benefit. Solely on it only benefits the players at the top.

Which yet again isn't a huge majority of players. Anything that is suggested should benefit most people, rather than the fewest.

Yes, JadedButterfly, I'm aware that you don't like it. But you said it best; "there is no sense in arguing it" with you. No sense at all.

Yes I am aware but I have been reading the other comments as well. So even with your changed up version I wanted it to be said again that I still don't like it.

I am paying attention to everything written even after I stopped originally speaking.