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.

So why wouldn't RandomPlayer be able to do this? After all, he too spent a lot of time building a cap killing gun. So yes, he kills accounts that have put in hard work, non-stop, for months. But he put in a boatload of work too! Or time! Or both. I don't think that argument hold up, at all. Death is part of the game. Simply because someone wrote more threads, made a better family or spent his money on this game doesn't mean that he can cheat death.

How does it not make sense? If RandomPlayer has as cap killer, has invested that time and/or effort, and decides to go on a rampage, why can't he? He too is throwing away his efforts. He too will die. We mustn't restrict player freedom.

Death and paranoia is part of the game. If you're killing of cities out of paranoia, you have earned the right to do so.  

Everyone can die, I get that Mint. But yes, people with guns like that live all the time that shouldn't have been trusted. Look at Credits. He had a massive gun, was trusted and still rogued.

Mosley how many times have you built a massive gun? Because I've done it quite a few times. My hours played are always lower too when I'm more focused on a gun than users working and role playing. Hell out of both my Godfather accounts the one with the most hours is only 800. That's childs play compared to some users.

There's also no cheating death. It's called strategy, not just clicking. Instead of roguing out and shooting anyone he needs to shoot some bgs or get some people to shoot them first.

I'm not sure you realize this game is about strategy not having the right to do something. You're not restricting player freedom either. You're forcing them to be more strategic. I don't understand how making the game more strategic when that's the basis of the game in its entirety is bad.

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.

Nobody will be much stronger its just 10-20 bgs above "best gun range" so instead of having cap killer shooting anyone, it will be "best gun"+10 of his crew/district/city buddies to kill someone

I don't get what you're saying now. Here you give a perfect example of why it is better to wipe the threats to your position on the top, instead of sitting on your ass and buying bodyguards. 

800 hours is still a lot of time and dedication, I would say. If you decide to focus on the gun building aspect of the game instead of the other aspects, then you should be rewarded with a gun that you can actually do something with. Don't you agree?

People (with cap killing guns) going rogue have made a huge impact on this world. I wouldn't want to remove that aspect at all. It add some dynamic and surprise to the game.

I'm just saying that if you spend a considerable amount of time to get a gun on that level, you should be able to kill anyone with it you like. For whatever reason. I don't see why you need strategy for it. If you just want to do a suicide attack, why the hell shouldn't you be able to do so? So in a way: Yes, this change would take away player freedom.

Mosley, both those accounts still required strategy because they existed before the increase in kills and ease of building a gun. The bodyguard cap wasn't set in such a manner that you could just shoot anyone without worrying. It took planning. 800 hours is a lot of time, but I know there are users who have thousands of hours invest in one account.

I think the reward of being within 10-20 bodyguards of killing someone whose worked equally as hard is more than enough reward. Imagine the dynamic it would change.

Also you're forgetting it'll cost a lot for another 10-20 fully trained bodyguards. It's not like everyone would run out and buy them then be capped within hours.

It doesn't stop player freedom or really take anything away. Strategy is what this game is based on. It's why so many people enjoyed playing it previously and why there is a growing disagreement with how it is setup now. Anyone can easily train 5 or more kills a day hardly trying at all. So you live four months, only sign in to shoot and get a 1000 kill gun capable of shooting through cap. All you've done is click wack 1000 times. Not much else. That doesn't justify the ability to end someone whose put in hours upon hours of work simply because you want "dynamic" or "surprise." A rogue that's well strategized could still do the same damage, it would simply take more effort and strategy.

Also you're forgetting it'll cost a lot for another 10-20 fully trained bodyguards. It's not like everyone would run out and buy them then be capped within hours.

Those that matter will have it within no-time, I'm sure.

 Anyone can easily train 5 or more kills a day hardly trying at all. So you live four months, only sign in to shoot and get a 1000 kill gun capable of shooting through cap.

You're playing it off like a boatload of people that hardly try make it to 4 months and beyond, like 200+ days. And again, I would argue that people need to watch any possible threats and then shoot these threats, instead of just opening the bodyguard tap. 

 All you've done is click wack 1000 times.

Which still takes plenty of time to do. Perhaps not in time of actually shooting, but in the time it requires to get to 1000+ kills.

Not much else. That doesn't justify the ability to end someone whose put in hours upon hours of work simply because you want "dynamic" or "surprise."

 I don't get why you still cling to this. Even if you gain 5 kills a day, you've still done that for several months. Surely that is still dedication? And you've managed to survive for a good time, which wouldn't be possible if there really was rampant paranoia around here. So, really, I don't get it. I don't get why someone, who also has invested a portion of his time on here, building a gun, shouldn't be able to shoot someone else? You don't need to justify a death. They just happen. A 1% can kill someone who has invested hours upon hours and thousands of dollars on his character. Is that justified? 

Mosley point is training guns is so easy atm a lot easier than it used to be so if training gun is easy why not make using it a bit harder? just to get things a bit interesting during wars. with bg cap above best gun in game it would mean that people would get chance to defend their work because some poeple would survive first wave

I can't say I have any great solution to how this should work, but I do agree that making the game more strategic would be great and more interesting to the newer account or weaker player by giving them functional roles in a war.  But this is far more complicated than just BGs and gun size.

The game changes constantly.  While there have been several "wars" over the past few months, they have all been pretty one sided and the masive size of CH / DT and more recently the power of NYC, has protected many players well past 100 days, more than enough time to build a big gun.  Some players have a shit ton of credits in savings and funding BGs is not very hard for them to do.  

Now why were these wars so fast?  A big issue was that a lot of information about gun strength and BGs was being shared on some level between these cities, which is something I disagreed with (Omerta comes to mind... my crew and family information is not to be shared).

When the cities are operating as individual families, and not one massive family, it's possible to keep the details private.  Other crews don't know exactly what the gun rank is or if all your BGs are trained.  But recently all the leaders knew everything (or at least far more than they would have otherwise), so it was much easier to line up your biggest gun with the most protected target etc. etc.   There were very few "mistakes" because there were very few secrets.

I've often thought that it would be interesting to change the way a missed shot on a player works.  Right now, you shoot at the player OR the BGs.  But if you miss on the player, nothing happens.... I thought BGs were the reason the shot didn't make it through?  Why are there not dead BGs at your feet?  Or at least the wounded BGs should cause a drop in protection?  One of your big guns is now on a 1 hour cool down and you have to decide if your next gun is big enough, or if you need to start BG wacking?  

Now to your point.  The big difference between guns and BGs is that a gun doesn't get weaker.  We can BG wack protection until they are in range of our guns, but once a gun is maxed, there is no way to drop that players level.  Maybe a maxed gun should drop like BGs?  We pay upkeep on BGs, why not make a max gun average 5 or 10 shots a day in order to keep his level to a point where he can kill anything.  If he drops below max, a fully protected player is in fact, protected.  

Just a thought.

If building a gun is really 'so easy' then why haven't we seen a load of cap killing rogues? Or why haven't we seen supposedly underdog cities lashing out with a surprise attack of several cap killers? I am convinced it has become a lot easier, but not to the point where it's a massive problem. At least I see no reason or evidence to see it as such.

Mosley, those that matter still rely on lower ranks for cash. Just because there's more cash needed doesn't mean it'll be produced. Not only that but there's not just one hitter that needs protected to some extent.

I made it 8 months barely playing on a Boss account with around an 800 wackstat at the time the war happened. I was killing IWP Dons with less than 250 hours played. All I did was sign in, shoot a bg or gangster and sign out. I ranked to Boss, never played past clicking wack again. IWP Dons being killed by a largely IA Boss. It sucked for them, I even felt bad.

You could get 1000 kills with less than 50 hours played if you just sign on, shoot and sign out.

When does clicking wack 1000 times equal anywhere near the dedication hundreds/thousands of hours of actual roleplaying, training new players and building something?

1% is far different than 95% so that argument is a completely and unrealistic argument. An almost guaranteed kill versus an almost guaranteed miss is nowhere near similar.

You forget, someone could easily sit under the "big dog" and do what I'm saying exactly and sign on one day and say "time to quit this game, let's kill people for laughs." Versus the alternative "time to quit this game, let me get some people on and see if I can take a few people out." Same outcome, more effort and strategy needed. Weird. It's almost like a little hardwork and effort is too much to ask.

Capping a gun to 5-10 shots a day would defeat the purpose of having one in wars largely when you have 24 hours to shoot. That's pretty much like making it a requirement that between shooting player accounts you have a wack timer of 3 or 4 hours instead of one. Which I guess could be the change to be made. Only allowed to kill one actual user account every 3-4 hours. Though that would piss the masses off far more than simply expecting them to do a few bg wacks then kill their intended target.

If building a gun is really 'so easy' then why haven't we seen a load of cap killing rogues? Or why haven't we seen supposedly underdog cities lashing out with a surprise attack of several cap killers? I am convinced it has become a lot easier, but not to the point where it's a massive problem. At least I see no reason or evidence to see it as such.

It didnt become easier to the point of massive problem i didnt say that it just got easier but it did get easier than it was before and why would somone with 1000 kills gun rogue? those people are pretty much cls or gfs they dont rogue, they war others 

I wasn't saying cap shots to 5-10 a day.  I'm saying if you've built a max gun, you HAVE to shoot at least 10 a day or your gun drops.  Just like BGs need upkeep, force the big shooters to upkeep their guns.  Right now, they max out and coast.

Donnie, I don't think they realize how one sided that last war was. It was literally one wave and over. Everyone that died after the first wave posed 0 threat. Whereas with this change, that war probably would have required multiple waves or at minimum bg wacks to go through before the big guys could shoot first. Thus possibly tipping off the ones being warred and forced a different more strategic game plan. Which most wars go that way now where it's a wave or two and over.

MrManson, I know what you meant. However, 10 kills a day is a pretty decent pace. 5 a day to maintain? I could see that. Much more realistic. In fact, I think it's even fair considering shooting is something that requires lots of training and practice in real life to remain effective at. However, I also know if someone has good fundamentals that they can still be an effective shooter. Plus almost everyone with a gun that big continues to shoot to some extent similar to 5 kills a day.

I'm still more of a fan of the BG change. Or maybe even incorporating that idea with the BG change. Someone shouldn't be able to just kill anyone in the game at anytime. Every pro has to have a con. Building a gun to 1000+ doesn't have a con anymore. There's no risk of wackback death unless on user accounts so people train relentlessly. There has to be something to counteract that.

How about making it a sliding scale.  Again, trying to balance the constant upkeep of BGs with that of a gun.

Once you hit 95% plus on BGs or a gun, the upkeep requirement should be quite hard to maintain.  You can't drop below 95% again, but that top 5% could make all the difference.  

If I have a 95%+ gun and you have 95%+ BGs, it comes down to who is closes to 100% at the moment the shot is taken.  If you didn't upkeep your BGs today, maybe you die.  If you did, and I didn't get X number of new kills in the past 5 days (same as the upkeep timing for BGs), then I may fail.  If I shoot and fail, there are ways to use player performance to decide what happens.  

If my target has a gun as big or bigger than mine and I miss, wack back risk goes up to X%

If I have as many or more BGs than they do, it offsets the wackback risk.

Either way, our BGs should have a shoot out.  If you have a lot more BGs, my protection can get decimated.  But we both lose some BGs.  This puts pressure on us to come up with a strategy.  Get more people involved etc.

If you are one of the strongest players in the game, you should have to work harder than most to maintain your level and strength.  If you get lazy other strong players who are still busting their ass should be given an advantage if they choose to take a shot at you.

There's already a BG wack feature in place for BGs to die. Having them die another way would still reward you for a miss. Kind of defeats missing or BG wack.

However, how would this work with rank difference? Would the sliding scale compensate for Godfather wack boost in their % or do they automatically get the heads up over the other guy? The purpose of BGs is defense. The purpose of wack is offense. Defense versus offense is the argument here.

And I see it the other way.  Yes, I missed, but the ONLY reason I missed is because you have so many BGs. So I'm not saying dozens of BGs drop, but wasn't it the BG that saved your life??  It's more realistic that the BG took the bullet for you IMO.

Defense vs. Offense is exactly it.  You're saying you don't like that a strong offense will make a strong defense completely useless.  And I agree that there should be more to it than that.  That's what I don't like about a "max" gun.  When you max BGs, you still have to upkeep them at a huge cost as long as you're alive.  But not only is the gun stronger, but it has ZERO maintenance cost once it's built.

There is an inequity in that concept.  Even if you have max BGs, you are never at max training on all of them.  They get weak daily.  Your gun should too.

As for the rank scale.  That is something your crew needs to sort out.  Hiding big guns as low ranks could end up being a mistake.  If you have a max gun and are not a Don or GF, you better get promoted so your rank boost is in place when you need it.  If not, people will notice when you go from Capo to Don in 30 seconds and get moved to RH.  A sign that something is about to happen.

A Don, CL, who is protected and has a 95%+ gun should be VERY close to capable of killing a GF, but only if his gun is at 100%.  If not, the risk of failure or being killed as a wackback should be quite high.  

MrManson there is one thing we've left out. Once the highest 1.5% of guns hits a certain point, the BG cap does move up. However, they can still shoot over the cap as long as they continue to train. Which means there kind of is a sliding scale in place that requires them to move up. If they don't others behind them will and can push the cap out of their range.

However, that would still allow for guns capable of shooting through bgs.

Perhaps, if we make the 10-20 bg change. If someone misses because of defense from a bg then the bg would die. Kill one bg instead of killing the user. Still counts as a normal bg shot. Would be kinda cool.

And that is where I start to agree with Mosley.  If your crew is strong and you look around and see other crews with players who's names are coming up on WS several times a day.  You have an idea that they are strong and getting stronger.  At that point you may need to make a move and take out the threat before it becomes something you can't handle on your own.

Recent history and the speed at which wars ended is reality, but it's not the norm.  90% of the crews were in one family.   You couldn't go to your CL with information, put together a plan and take out another crew.  You needed auth from another city because the threat of everyone coming down on you was too great.  These wars ended quickly not because of gun rules or BG rules.  The wars ended because it was easy to organize an attack when you have these two things:

1 - A high number of big guns at your disposal.  Not in your crew, or city, but among 3 cities.  You can easly put together a squad of big hitters when you are drawing from such a huge pool of players.

2 - They knew everything.  Shot Reports told them where the guns were.  Who had BGs.  etc. etc.  It was easy to wipe out entire districts or cities because far too much information was being shared for far too long.  

Even with subtle rule changes, this will happen again if 3 major cities are controlled by a handful of people working together.

There's something you're both overlooking and I'm not going to point it out because I don't feel like dying over trying to improve the game.

What you're both failing to see is there's no strategy involved at this time. You click wack a bunch of times and essentially you can kill anyone as long as you sit under the "in" crowd long enough. That is if you aren't already in the "in" crowd to begin with.

Next, you both ignore the fact that this is a business. The owner would make more money while backing the need for a strategic aspect of game play. More bodyguards means more killing. Both of which are partially funded by credits. Credits that are purchased by users with cash that supports the staff and game itself.

You can't justify not making a change because of the fact that "you could see a threat coming anyway, might as well kill them regardless." That is how tyrants and blood lining occurs. The people that build massive guns are usually a select group that dedicate their time to it. Anyone is capable of it, but only a select few probably 20% of the userbase choose to. There's also feuds between said players.

I don't see why it's so bad to have to bodyguard wack someone to get them in range. Why using strategy to incorporate more members of a family in a war instead of 10 or so people is so bad? Wars are suppose to effect families and take a collective whole. Not a small handful that know "hey one shot and we're done." Unless a wackback occurs which is less than five or six percent.

You're literally rewarding one person for hardwork but not the other. There has to be a balance that keeps one form over powering the other. The game is lacking that. Once you can kill cap, you're essentially unstoppable especially if you're in the "in" crowd.

I'm beginning to wonder if you guys ever played the game before it was simply just wack versus bgs. I have more wacks, you die. Like.... this game had strategy. Now it doesn't. Not sure why you guys don't see that.