So if I demote to thug I can only have a certain limit now? Or like if ThomasRourke can drop an Extremely Well Protected Don then I can still buy like 200 to counter act his gun?

There may be a flaw in my understanding of this, but from my interpretation of what you're saying if you're already above the cap, you don't need to worry you won't be hindered in any way?

Is this not therefore just going to obviously widen the gap even further between established and new accounts?

On this logic it would be impossible for someone to build a character that has the defence of those which are already established.

~T~

But let us say that there are awesome guns in the game, and so someone can buy up to 100 bodyguards. Then, those with the awesome guns are killed. Everyone has less-awesome guns, and the limit is 50. These people who can only get up to 50 might find themselves working harder than the person who (still) has 100, but can never get that many because they're being held back by those who are training to be hitters. It would be like your hard work only pays off if others are putting in hard work as well, which wouldn't be the case for the person who managed to get 100 bodyguards before the cap decreased.

I just can't see how this is going to hinder anyone other than new accounts.

Let's be realistic, by mid October there is very little the majority of the user base can do to negate this being a punishment and restriction on them. What is worse is that 'you can't buy anymore' is barely going to be a problem to those who are already rocking 60, 70, 80 etc. bodyguards.

I can understand the reluctance to harm the established accounts, but this is going to widen the gulf between them and everyone else. If I have 100 BG and can't buy anymore, but the cap is at 50, no matter what you as an individual do, it is impossible for you to reach my level. How can this be anything other than an enormous and unfair advantage?

The only fair way this could be introduced would be to implement it onto a level playing field. I really hate changes that do not affect everyone equally and this is one of those.

I imagine a cap has been suggested in the first place as the established accounts are getting too strong comparative to new ones. The only option other than a reset, if we are certain about this feature, which I hope we are not, would be to refund the money used to purchase BGs that would exceed the cap limit. This would at least ensure that everyone could reach the same level and nobody would permanently exceed it.

~T~

I am not suggesting that a 1 day old account should be able to match the account of a 1 year old account. That would be stupid. My point was that if there was no way for a new account to achieve the same as an existing account, assuming they put in the same effort, then this would not be fair.

As I made quite clear, I would prefer not to hinder anyone at all. There was no cry from me to remove anyone's BGs (in fact in every suggestion of that nature in the Suggestions forum you can clearly see I'm a strong advocate against it) I only offered what I believe would be a more fair solution.

However, as you have since clarified that nobody exceeds the cap then nobody is unfairly hindered.

~T~

Until, of course, the cap lowers, in which case new accounts, no matter how hard they work, even if they work harder than the older accounts do, or even did, will not be able to match them. Their hard work is hindered by the lack of work from others (in terms of training as a hitter), allowing for those who were not hindered by the game's code to retain their high status.

I agree. Although currently no one is above the cap, it is easily feasible that the top person (let's say they have 50 bgs) will be at an advantage when the cap lowers and the max becomes 40 (for the sake of argument).

Personally, I see the only way around this is to replicate what happened when BG prices were changed. As soon as the cap falls, any person above the cap should have the bgs removed and the amount they paid for them refunded to the account. This way, the older people who have worked harder are not at any disadvantage, yet it is still physically possible for the newer accounts to catch up.

Honestly after you change soemthing that could change the game quite a bit I'd see a reason for a reset. If you impliment all these new ways to make things harder but even it puts the people at a disadvantage who are effected.

When I first read this, I was against it.  However, when Squishy said that nobody is currently above the cap, I had to get on board.  I realize that, as so many of you have stated, the BG cap will probably at some point be lower because of poor guns.  What you're forgetting, though, is that it will be raised again at some point after that, so if you just keep working hard until that time comes, you can get more bodyguards again.  Also, if the calculation for the max BG is proportional to how good the gunners are, more shootings might occur, which would be good for new accounts (assuming they're not the only ones being killed.)

In short it all depends upon the best gunner in the game, I was thinking that in future result there will be more new families coming out in the streets recruiting random newly comers so that they can earn more for their family and also for the city, In result the city that has more income will be more invulnerable or more powerful it was more interesting, why? example lets say I'm a Godfather receiving a lot of money came from business and tribute and I already exceed buying bodyguards this means a lot of money will stack at my hand and waiting for the best gunner to kill more so that I can buy more bodyguards and also because of that I will also give my comrades or captains a handful of money to give them protection and also the captains can easily reach the limit of buying bodyguards and also there will be a payday I think that was fair enough so that some new comers can easily buy a bodyguards if there's a weekly payment let say, And also there will be more killings for sure and the rules in every city will be more strict, and also if I was a newcomer in the game, I probably stop killing and buy myself a bodyguards because I was thinking that there was a person working for us "the hitter" to acquire more bodyguards or max the capacity of it, so as a newcomer I will concentrate 1st on making a lot of money to buy bodyguards, In more logical players if you want to dominate the game before this will be implemented I believe around mid October I think, it all depends upon your bodyguards you will sacrifice your rank, giving your money to your most trusted friend in the game and giving it back to you so that you can buy or exceed the limit of bodyguards before October, I know it's impossible to a player to sacrifice his rank but also possible if a player is obsessed to a game if he or she was told to "Because your loyal to me I choose you to become my ascendant so step back and I'll give you a protection for the future of this city." and inviting back this person and to his or her well known family, I think "the hitter" in future would become a hero lol.

 All changes have pros and cons whatever is in the future of this game the changes is still at their hands.

 What if you were the hitter and also the most obscenely protected at the moment?

 If you ever knew that, I bet you would get all your time for now to buy bodyguards before the mid of October so that you can dominate this game lol, and become the Godfather of 8 cities.

 Lol hell insane that would be boring, I wish the hitter doesn't know that and also I wish the hitter was not the most richest mobster among the 8 cities.

I'd be onboard as well but no one knows what the best gun is. It could be a godfather with 500 kills in that case you could buy 500 bodyguards in the offset. I don't know I just don't think it helps cap the bg limit it just is there.

Wasn't there a scenario like this before? If memory serves me well, when bodyguards were first implemented many years ago, there was no restriction on how many could be bought. There was then a subsequent cap of twenty put into place. The people who had worked their butts off in the past were still subjected to 20 bodyguards however. They were simply refunded the cash they had spent.

Why is this solution no longer viable? Assuming of course any existing players do indeed infringe upon the cap in the future.

I think the best way to fix any issues with this is to allow them to keep the bodyguards that are above the cap, but have those bodyguards go on "vacation" when the cap gets lowered. This would mean that during times when the cap is below the amount of bodyguards they have they are maxed out on bodyguards, which would make them even with the rest of the site, but then when the cap gets raised they don't have to re-purchase the bodyguards that they already have.

This would keep things even across the site, but still not punish them when they have higher bodyguards then the cap, as they don't lose the bodyguards, they just stop working for the duration.

I think the best way to fix any issues with this is to allow them to keep the bodyguards that are above the cap, but have those bodyguards go on "vacation" when the cap gets lowered. This would mean that during times when the cap is below the amount of bodyguards they have they are maxed out on bodyguards, which would make them even with the rest of the site, but then when the cap gets raised they don't have to re-purchase the bodyguards that they already have.

This would keep things even across the site, but still not punish them when they have higher bodyguards then the cap, as they don't lose the bodyguards, they just stop working for the duration.

In my opinion, this would make the players worse off than Squishy's solution. Not only do they not receive the benefit of the bodyguards when their number exceeds the cap, but they also don't receive the cash that would usually accompany the tradeoff. What you're proposing is fairly lose-lose for anyone with bodyguards over the potential cap.

It seems like the very idea is slightly flawed. You're restricting those who have worked hard to earn the money to buy bodyguards, and then opposing the posts which suggest to trade excess bodyguards for money with the argument that it restricts those who have worked hard to earn the money to buy bodyguards.

But if having people with an extreme amount of bodyguards is the greater of two evils, then so be it. But again, this restriction only applies to those who are slower, or started earlier. And is directly relational to the effort put in by other players. I wouldn't like my hard work to pay of if and only if others had put in hard work. If they're putting in less effort then they have to accept that I'm going to be better than them.