Background

This idea came to me when discussing the current Associate system, specifically the way that dead or suicided associates remain on the profile page of their sponsor. Many people were saying that this is good, for it creates an incentive to take only promising mafiosi as associates, i.e. to recruit associates carefully so as not to have a list of dead ones on your profile. I agree with this entirely, and see no reason why the same rationale shouldn't apply to crews. Hence this suggestion.

The Problem

There has been much debate about crew recruiting policy. The problem seems to be that new players do not have to 'work' for an invite or impress a more senior player in order to get one. This results in crews dishing out invites left right and centre, to boost numbers, earnings etc, and to provide cannon fodder for senior crew members when those recruited cheaply inevitably turn inactive. There is no disincentive to do this as a crew, and I think there should be, just as there is for sponsors of associates (the having of a dead name on your profile).

The Solution

Next to the number of family members in a CL's profile (say, 30), or perhaps in a new box on the profile, there should be a % of those players recruited who make it to earner. So say a crew recruit all comers, without asking for decent requests and so on. Only 1 in 10 recruits make it to earner, and so their percentage is 10%. Another family recruit carefully, choosing only those who will remain active and are promising at the gangster/thug stage. Half of their recruits make it to earner, so their ratio is 50%.

This is not only a way of enforcing good and careful recruiting, but it adds an element that I feel is lacking - direct competition between crews. At the moment, only crew size, and rank/BGs etc of CL/RHM/LHM are the main markers of a crew's prowess. This idea would allow a direct comparison of crew 'quality' without giving away too much info about the exact nature or makeup of a crew. It would give crews something to compete over, it would give newcomers something on which to base their decisions over who to join, and it would reflect more accurately the competitive nature of families in the 1930s mafia. It would have been obvious back then if a crew's recruits all died at 'gangster', and the crew would have looked stupid because of it: this ensures the same will happen in MR.

Please post ideas, criticism, etc.

Cato.

Well, I see how this could judge a crew a lot better, there's other reasons that a Crew might recruit any punk off the streets.

Now I'm not sure if anyone does this, but for those guys who do turn inactive, they are perfect free targets for the hitters in the Crew, hence allowing that Crew to gain an edge over other hitters.

Sounds brutal, but whatever the cost, eh?

Getting off track, but to close it off, would be a safe way to allow other Crews to talk a little smack.

I think it gives a bit to much information away about the family to the public.

If a Civilian come this world he will not know about how many members of all families have made it past Earner, so really am not a fan of the suggestion sorry.

I think it gives a bit to much information away about the family to the public.

If a Civilian come this world he will not know about how many members of all families have made it past Earner, so really am not a fan of the suggestion sorry.

I see your point, but the intention isn't really to tell you how many of a family make it past earner, it's to tell you if the vast proportion of new recruits die - which would be obvious in the mafia world. People would know about the crew that has shit members. Maybe an alternative to the percentage would just be a more ambiguous 'level', like the one which describes levels of BG protection.

I'm not so sure.

I am quite tight on recruitment, I don't approach people and ask them to join so everyone in my family are here because they approached me or they are an associate of one of my family. Though I am selective, if I meet someone who is new to the game, I'm more lenient as I appreciate that they are new and will need guidance.

If I take in alot of new members and of those (I don't know the stats), half decide it's not for them and leave, going IA and eventually getting killed - should my family "Quality" be diminshed? I don't think so, this game isn't for everyone and as such, you will lose new members.

If I decide to only recruit friends and experienced people, my "Quality" would be higher as they'd know the game, know how to rank and stand a much higher chance of getting to the higher ranks. Though my "Quality" would be high, I wouldn't be encouraging new members to learn the ropes, a part of this game I enjoy.

In the line of thinking of ways to keep new people playing the game, I'd rather not feel the need to give every new member a 50 question quiz that takes 2 hours to answer. Not to mention, my point of view is that every new player of the game deserves a chance to prove themselves to me from within the family. I'd say that I'm technically a selective recruiter as I can usually tell a genuine moron from a mile off, but if someone is slower on the uptake, but willing to make an effort then I am usually more than happy to let them in.

Based on this, I would say around 50-60% of the new members that join my family will give up on this game because they believe there isn't enough clicky clicky to do. That doesn't mean that I'm a poor RH, or that my CL is a poor leader. That means that the individual has the attention span of a fish. I don't know how I'm supposed to know that from an exchange of say - 5 mails or so.

Can't say that I agree with this. Tagging someone's family based on their lower ranked associates isn't what I'd call ideal.

I have an idea based on the game that Squishy indicated we should play just the other day, mafia pay day or something. It had one great idea. It charged me money to invite someone else into my crew.

What about setting a cost, something like $100,000 to send an invite?

The sponsor will make money due to the fact that they earn a percentage of the associate's earnings(petties) and they will have to make sure that whoever they invite will cover the expense of their loss. This will once again put the power back into the hands of the person sending the invite and will ensure that the potential associates make an effort when requesting an invite.

Hairbaby, I see the logic of that but have some issues with it.

a) it's unrealistic in an RPing/Mafia sense - it would never happen in the mafia that CLs would have to pay to invite

b) it's a financial punishment, but is punishing exactly the same thing that my system - the recruitment reputation 'quality' label - does, i.e. sloppy recruiting. It's simply another way of doing the same thing, but I think a reputation-based 'punishment' is much more realistic, and effective, than a financial one. Moreover, when people are superrich, 100k means nothing. Whereas the beauty is, you can't buy your rep like you can BGs, or in this case, invites - you actually have to work for it.

In reply to Cryptic, I see your point too, when you say

Tagging someone's family based on their lower ranked associates isn't what I'd call ideal.

. But that's not really what the tag is doing - it's tagging your conversion rate of new Mafiosi into good/experienced ones. If you worry because you think that you're quality will suffer even if you recruit carefully as seems to be the content of your objection, then the answer is simple. All crews are being ranked in the same way - your score, whatever the percentage, or label will be - matters not absolutely but relatively to other crews. So all crews may be between 10 and 20 percent 'conversion' because, as you say, a lot of people leave and even careful recruiting can't eliminate that. But some crews will be 18% and others will be 11%, and therein lies the difference.

This system won't punish crews based on the fact that many new signups leave, despite careful attention. Its objective is not to label crews outright but differentiate between them. It's the differentiation that leads to competition, and gives grounds for bragging.

The only remaining issue is the one Rhuarc brought up - you could 'up' your quality by only recruiting 'safe bets', i.e. ex-family members, RL friends etc - which would flaw the system and discourage new recruits since they would be deemed too 'risky' to invite. Well, the straightforward answer to this is that this wouldn't happen, because then there'd be an advantage in scooping up all the unwanted new players in order to increase numbers and earnings. The clever CL will sacrifice his 'quality' for numbers and earning power, if those around him are only recruiting family and friends, and thus are liable to be small operations.

C

Cato, I appreciate your arguments - but I have a couple of issues with them ;)

a) It would be easy enough to think of something from a roleplay point of view that would deem it necessary to invite, from the rental of a premises with which to impress your invitee, to paying for security so as to ensure your invitation reaches its intended target, or paying off the local cops whilst you show the civilian the ropes.

b) It is quite similar to your own proposed idea, but hopefully covers a couple of the small holes therein. I believe it would be too easy to create absolutes in your system, so, something could occur where a crew with a conversion rate of below 50% would be deemed as doing a piss poor job and then taken out on the back of this figure. It has the potential for being too black and white for my liking.

c) The main point is that people think twice before sending an invite out to every new member. It is not a huge amount unless of course you are sending out a lot of invites, in which case the amount does become restrictive.

Thanks for your reply.

I believe it would be too easy to create absolutes in your system, so, something could occur where a crew with a conversion rate of below 50% would be deemed as doing a piss poor job and then taken out on the back of this figure. It has the potential for being too black and white for my liking.

I understand what you mean, which is why I suggested changing from a specific percentage to a system more like the descriptors for levels of protection - i.e. protected, well protected and so on. Keeping the levels vague like this makes it less absolute, and also gives away less info about the crew.

I mean, the financial system would be fine. But my system adds something lacking, i.e. intercrew competition and the ability to brag on tangible grounds. Merely making it financial removes this addition, which is really the whole point of the thing. Saying to another crew 'mine is richer than yours' is ok, but means little. Saying 'we have ace quality whereas you guys cocksuck new invitees to boost your numbers and they all die at gangster' is a little more forceful and would reflect how families competed in the real mafia. Family pride, building a 'quality' organisation and so on.

I think this is a great idea. It is extremely difficult to find out how a family works when you first join them - the only real way to find out is to become a member. i do think it's important you belong to a family that suits your character and method of working.

I guess this idea has been rendered obsolete by the new system whereby only made men show up in a CL's profile.

I believe that either suggestion, be it Cato's or my own, would augment an already improved system.