I quite like this idea, mainly because a lot of the time it is a particular city that is coughing up the credits to spawn them.

I like it, but you'd have to make it so that only people who are apart of a family in that city can kill them, otherwise everyone would just fly in to that particular city and kill the durdens.

I would support this idea but only if they still can be killed by everyone.

I would support this idea but only if they still can be killed by everyone.

Why? everyone would just fly to the city and then this update would be pointless. It would be just how it is now. 

Then I could argue that my MIA's are mine only and it shouldn't be possible that someone else can kill them. This suggestion would just make it much easier for someone to build a gun, or for a city to build a powerhouse. 

If a city is coughing up a bunch of credits to set off a spawn those credits might be better pooled to buy a big spawn. Coughing up a bunch of credits to quickly spawn the durdens reduces the number in the spawns (last I knew). 

Are durdens not spawned in cities according to number of residents or is my memory just shot?

I don't like the idea of a city specific spawn as that would allow a city loaded with credits an unfair advantage to build their guns.

I disagree entirely with Sneaker. I love the idea of City specific spawns. However, I wouldn't see any reason that ONLY those residents could shoot the Spawn, anyone currently visiting the city should be able to shoot just like a regular spawn. This would simply be used as a means to have high traffic in your city.

This works well for Godfathers as allows them to reap the benefits of those in their city (if they even get benefits now? What with lack of tax this probably doesn't actually matter now)

It would also be a very useful tool in a war. Do a pre-war spawn in a certain city so that your enemy all fly and use timers, the two most important tools in any way and you could have removed both from the enemy right away.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

TonyStark's modifications to this are solid.

A big spawn in a specific city could also become a strategic move.  Draw as many people in one direction as possible, so you can move in another direction with less resistance.   Could possible require a little more coordination with your family to make sure you don't all end up with 12 hour timers lol.

I'm gonna have to be against this. I'm slightly bothered by the pay-for-kills systems existing with MIAs and Durds primarily due to my appreciation for realistic gameplay. I'm yet to hear a realism-based argument for why spending an out-of-character currency grants you an in-character kill, so I remain skeptical when changes are suggested that work along similar lines.

Durdens' original implementation seemed intuitive and realistic to me. Not that the same guy comes back with the same crew every few days, but that your life was at risk if you shot at them, making them more than just IAs. Plus, since they were only indirectly caused by MIA purchases, I saw no good reason to dislike it and welcomed TD's coming.

That being said, it bothers me that bought Durdens are just farmed free kills. It seems ludicrous to me that we've been given a feature that grants 4-6 targets per credit, mapping to find the targets, and a slew of BGs to go with them, and yet we still think it should be easier. And frankly, that's all this suggestion is built on. You want it to be easier to find and kill Durdens.

Realistically, it makes no sense that you're paying TD to only "attack" your city instead of leading his Fight Club revolution in every city. Plus, you're "paying him" in credits anyways, so any appeal to realism is shoddy. Strategically, this would almost never be used in the fringe cases suggested here; "drawing as many people to a city as possible." It is just a gun-training mechanism. Pretending it's a strategic feature is disingenuous. 

I think good changes can be made to the game's pay-for-kills system (or perhaps move away from paying for kills with credits), but this is the wrong direction. It's contrary to any sense of a realistic Mafia scenario and built on an OOC currency. And it honestly just makes kills easier to accrue by getting around the MIA limits and localizing your targets. So I don't see any benefit to the proposed change, expect perhaps increased revenue from more purchased credits.

While I agree with most of what you said Cato, and I personally am not a fan of the idea of city specific spawns, I think there is a reality to the scenario that 300 Durdens are spawned in LA, so many players fly there and have 6 - 12 hours before they can leave (unless they pay full fare).  Drawing a large number of active players to a specific location COULD be strategic.  I have no idea how effective it would be in all reality, and I agree that using a gun training tool in this way makes the game far less realistic, but there is no doubt that a well organized attack on a certain city while many of their active crew members are "trapped" elswhere is a possibility.

Cato and Big Al 

It is no less realistic than having 200 BG's - Gun training needs to be easier to balance the absurd defense you can build. To be honest BG's should be max at realistic levels and your defense tied much more to your HQ and members and fellow crew members activity than anything else. At most a GF would travel with maybe 5 guys not 200 - If even that. I mean really you are talking a Driver and one other muscle guy. Perhaps you had soldiers protecting your house or hanging out at your business etc. 

Lets stop the realism discussions when it comes to defense and attack because the entire system is flawed in that aspect. But then again us as a user base make everything unrealistic and then ask Admins to recode or change it to make our unrealistic approach less difficult to manage. For example switching Hands around which was most recently suggested.  

I'm well aware of the many many components of this game that resist any explanation in realism (I mean, why should I only be able to shoot once an hour? Why am I only in jail for ten minutes? How can I give a speech in the Streets while I'm in Philly and immediately hear a response from someone in Los Angeles?). However, I would argue that wacking is one of the core features that is central to MR and its community and therefore should own up to at least a semblance of realism. Otherwise this isn't a Mafia RPG; it's just a shoot-em-up with a couple RP-based forums for the minority of players who give a damn.

I'd say this suggestion is actually less realistic than having two hundred bodyguards. Paying an NPC a magical death-transcendent currency to invade your home as cannon fodder is as realistic as going overboard on protection? I agree with you and think there are too many BGs and that it's unrealistic, but we can't "stop the realism" and promote even more absurd features/changes simply because other features are equally absurd or unrealistic. Otherwise, there's virtually no basis for an appeal to realism because something else somewhere isn't realistic either.

I get that it's a game. I really do. And that means we make concessions in regards to realism. However, I think it's imprudent to "stop the realism discussions" simply because there's some other component to the game that's unrealistic. If we want to say "fuck realism" and code the features that lets you train a gun faster than ever before (because murdering twelve people a day for two months straight is certainly healthily realistic), then do it. Drop the wack timer to ten minutes. Who gives a shit? 

But I won't support the increasing dependence on credits, our woefully pathetic acceptance as a community of prioritizing gun strength and defense above even the very premise of the game, and our tacit (and in this case active) appreciation for disregarding anything that doesn't give us a measurable boost in one of our stats. One thing I do appreciate in your response, however, is that you're honest about the purpose of this suggestion; we really just want easier gun training.

But I'm not persuaded.

I didn't mean it in the sense of fuck it all Cato - just in the sense of needing to take a certain amount of "meh" when comparing realistic to game mechanics. 

I agree with you by the way anything that makes it possible for people to build with less effort I am against. 

I think there are some good and bad things about this suggestion. First off the entire idea of spawning durdens that only a certain city/district/crew/person can shoot is out of the question. If that was ever implemented it would turn MR into a pay to win game. The idea though of having durdens spawn and stay in a certain location though is actually a great idea assuming everyone in the game can shoot at them.

If durdens were spawned in a particular city this would open a whole new way of manipulating players. It would allow some cities to hold special events or to help highlight them. This though would only be the tip of the ice berg. I can recall quite a few time in the past when wars seemed to happen towards the end of durden spawn's if this is by chance or design can be left up to question, but this opens a whole new war for wars (and rouges) to implement action in the game.

You know that if you were to launch a 300-500 durden spawn most players would be flying to that city in a heart beat. Leaving there flight timers closed and their wack timers closed, easy sitting targets if you think about it. This could also be used by rouges as a way to further empty out already empty cities say LA/LV were they could even further increase there chance of killing someone and burning the WS. What I would find most interesting though is how players could use this with the way the hit list works to open up one last sneaky move. Let's say Crewleader A has a huge hit put out against him 200 million let's say. Now this hit is going down very quickly, even if his neighbor districts help him this would still take some time to buy off. It's been a few days the hit is far game for tyler durden to try and shoot at, and someone who hates him happens to know his location. So I spawn a bare minimum just so tyler can try and quickly put a shot in on him.

Truth be told by allowing us to limit a durden spawn to one city has advantages across the board for many players. This is something I think would be used many times and would justify the time spent programming it into the game. Now I know some will call some of this stuff abusive powers, but I see it as a whole new way to enhance the game for everyone and bring it to the new level of game play.

Here's how it should be done. The game tracks how much money each user has as is. I'm sure there's a way to track it by district/city as well. To keep anyone city from benefiting from this more than the other you could easily set an algorithm in place that doesn't allow you to spawn a durden crew larger than what the smallest city has economically.

Example:

Chicago has $100,000,000

New York has $80,000,000

Los Angeles has $65,000,000

Philadelphia has $50,000,000

Detroit has $55,000,000

Las Vegas has $47,000,000

Now, say Chicago, the largest city wants to launch a durden spawn. The largest they can launch for their city only is 94 credits worth. Credits go for roughly $500,000. It takes 94 credits to equal $47,000,000 the minimum cash amount a current city has.

Basically, it negates the idea that any one city benefits from it more than the other. Also you can limit the durden city/district specific spawns to once each week.

Furthermore, to keep any city from benefiting super heavy to the other while keeping it strategic. You could make it so bodyguards can be shot by anyone from any city. Thus, some people would still be drawn into the city launching it to shoot the bgs.

To me, this would level it out quite a bit. It would keep the economical indifference neutral and each city would be allowed one spawn per week. If a city is vacant it simply doesn't adjust the minimum. Los Angeles and Philly are vacant. So they have $0. However with no crew this removes those cities from the equation.

Another side benefit it would deter wars more often. By killing a city off you lose kills and so forth. It economically and statistically has ramifications that impact you. Although I'm sure this wouldn't be the main reason for not warring.

Another side benefit it would deter wars more often. By killing a city off you lose kills and so forth. It economically and statistically has ramifications that impact you. Although I'm sure this wouldn't be the main reason for not warring.

I disagree.

It could in fact encourage wars. Say for Example Philly has the lowest making the maximum anyone could spawn very low, then they could conceivably attack Philly to wipe them out, just so that the next lowest equivalent is another city that has a lot more money.

I quite like the idea in general.