After a lot of recent discussions with many users I feel this topic should be revisited. A change was made so that there would be a bodyguard cap. Which in reality is a good idea. It keeps the more well off users in real life from being able to buy hordes of bodyguards making them virtually unkillable on a first shot.

However, since this change there have been other changes that render an unbalanced system to take place. It use to be a 5 kill a day average was considered good for the average hitter. Nowadays we're seeing people averaging closer to 10 kills a day due to the likes of being able to purchase Durden spawns and such.

My idea is that we change the BG cap so that you can always purchase above a cap killing gun. Wars use to take multiple waves or even days. I'm no fan of 3 and 4 days wars. However, I'm not a fan of seeing dominance in a wave or two either. Although that has always been possible it hasn't been quite as likely as it is now.

The suggestion is merely to allow 10-20 bodyguards be purchased and trained past the most effective gun in the game. Or the top three or so guns as a law of averages. This would create the dynamic of more strategy instead of the simple math equation of wack math. It would give those that are on the receiving end the chance to at least defend themselves instead of hoping a cap killer has to 1% them to miss via wackback, force fail and such.

This would also make people with a smaller gun more effective. Utilizing them to BG wave before a first shot and so on.

There's something I don't quite grasp. If you buy 10-20 Bgs above what the top gun can shoot, then how can you kill the person that maxed those 10 - 20 BGs? Because if the person with the most kills gain a lot more kills, than you can purchase more bodyguards in comparison to that person's level...

Maybe what I understood is not what you meant, but then that means that multiple people will have BGs that are out of reach to the top killer in this game....

That person's gun level***

Not level. :|

Thats the point Honesty to make things a bit interesting, then wars would involve a bit of bg wacking and planning and not just clicking wack button.

Omg....

I completely forgot BG Wacking was a thing. XD

Thanks Donnie

I like it the way it is. I would hate this change.

While I somewhat like this idea I have some concerns.

Someone shouldn't be able to sit there and train for months on end and just shoot anyone they choose. 

Why not? They've spent, as you said, months building a gun. Surely they must be allowed to use that gun to shoot something, right?

Think about it, you have capped all your bgs and spent hundreds of millions of dollars. Well there's still multiple users that can shoot you in one shot no problem. You have no defense against it except for the possible rolls of wack back or force fail.

This is why, instead of simply buying more bodyguards, you should then clean out your own backyard and eliminate possible threats, instead of sitting on your ass and buying more bodyguards

I would love this change. Might actually make for some fun wars instead of just 'oh....we have the number of cap hitters we need...ggwp'.
 

However, I do have a concern....won't this just mean that the person in charge could just keep getting stronger? By in charge, I of course mean the person who controls the majority of the game. He/She will a need max of 10-20 BG wacks to  kill anyone in the game while anybody who wants to take him/her down would need to start from a disadvantage. Might make for a LOT of stale months if someone actually manages to reach the 'Roman' levels of power.

So...what you are saying is the moment you are the only cap hitter in the world....you shoot anyone who 'might' be close to you? Sweet. Sounds like a lot of fun.

Your first point. Most people with tons of bodyguards have also been training a gun for months on end.

Second point. Simply killing off threats is what Duplicity did. Look at where that got her. Although there was more to it than that for why she died, she had an entire hate group trying to 1% her because she killed people before they posed an actual threat.

So my first point still stands as valid. My second point would prove for a more competitive and less paranoid approach to game play.

Eliminating possible threats would still be part of the game without the paranoia.

If you want to stay up there, yes.

AlexMoran. 10 people shooting twice or maybe a few more times to bring the big dog in range of your gun? Not exactly that difficult. It's more strategic. It would also require the big dog to rely on people bg wacking. Thus bringing lower people in the family in on it instead of the top 10-20 players on a take down.

Eorati, why wouldn't you like this change? There needs to be some input to constructively and concisely find a reason why this should or should not take effect.

You can stay on top without paranoia Mosley. Countless people have done it.

Your first point. Most people with tons of bodyguards have also been training a gun for months on end.

So? I was just saying that their efforts and dedication should give them some sort of reward, in this case the ability to be able to kill anyone in the game.

Second point. Simply killing off threats is what Duplicity did. Look at where that got her. Although there was more to it than that for why she died, she had an entire hate group trying to 1% her because she killed people before they posed an actual threat.

Of course, but anyone who is 'up there' and wants to stay there will have to do that at some point. And let's not pretend like the people Duplicity killed weren't threats, eh? Small threats perhaps, but why risk it? 

You can stay on top without paranoia Mosley. Countless people have done it.

There is nothing wrong with a bit of paranoia. I don't see why this is relevant to the discussion though. Would paranoia disappear with this change? It wouldn't. And perhaps 'countless' people haven't been paranoid but I would think they would still take out any possible threats? I don't think they'd last long on top otherwise.

Alright so say RandomPlayer decides to create an account. RandomPlayer builds a cap killing gun. Decides he doesn't wanna play anymore. RandomPlayer says "I'm gonna start shooting people" and shoots accounts that have put in all this hardwork non stop for months on end simply because RandomPlayer doesn't wanna play anymore. The user that died has sank money into the game and his family. All lost simply because a user decides they don't wanna play anymore. RandomPlayer kills another person. Same reason, same circumstance. Oh well, he gets the *reward* for his hardwork of clicking a wack button whereas the person whose sank hours on end in training new players, writing threads and so forth dies.

Makes very little sense. Especially considering if someone thinks someone is more powerful than they are but they can't kill them would look for an alternative defensive strategy. In this case, bodyguards.

At some point they will have to war someone. But every few months just killing off cities because they're getting close to where they could pose a realistic threat is paranoia not eliminating a threat. Especially if they haven't done anything to justify hundreds of users losing their accounts.

Taking out possible threats for realistic reasons is one thing. Taking out a threat because they could one shot you with no reason is pure paranoia.

As much as I don't like the easy kills and scores of BGs...this makes some sense.

I'm just remembering the take down of Silk when she was GF of Los Angeles...they had to BG wave her and Phil shot early and missed (i think it was Phil_Steak...). This at least made for an interesting war. Even the may war that killed most of the game required serious planning and bg waves.

These are just the two examples that stick out to me, but in both cases the take down decisions required planning...and those plans failing even slightly had massive consequences.

RandomPlayer has worked very fucking hard to build a cap killer and usually when you have a cap killer, you're not just some random. You have to be friendly with other people who would KNOW you're a cap killer. If they didn't trust you, they wouldn't allow you to have that gun on someone that "might rogue".

Who cares what player 2 did? He could have been a saint, a great man, a teacher to all, and the best godfather ever. That doesn't give him the right to survive.

Everybody dies.. Some just need a little help.