I think you're misunderstanding my stance.  I do agree that taking out potential threats is part of the game though.  Not wiping out every crew member, but upper levels and threats.  It needs to be done sometimes.

I agree 100% that there should be more strategy involved, especially when going after someone of higher rank.  Introducing a gun upkeep requirement will level the field to some degree.  If a GF goes after another GF, assuming they are both at 95% plus, it should be nearly 50/50 give or take who is closer to 100% at that second. 

If any rank under GF wants to take out a GF, it should ONLY be possible if there is a wave of BG wacks first.

The gun strength could vary based on your target.  If you are a GF at max gun, you can kill anyone and the only risk you have is another GF.  

If you are a Consig, have a max gun and want to shoot a Don, your gun drops in accuracy from 100% to 90, or whatever number you want.  I will probably get him, but not for sure.  

If you want a guaranteed kill, you have no choice but to send a wave of BG wackers first.

This would show more respect to the rank, which is something that has been lost in many ways to begin with.

I can see that being a possible solution. However, you can't punish users for not being given authed or a district. There's only so many of those positions available while anyone can build a cannon.

They already offer a defense difference though so that's not exactly new. A wack boost is all still there. Though some people aren't meant to be leaders and not everyone can be a leader.

Also, there's already a gun upkeep situation in play. It's just that the game hasn't experienced enough opportunity for it to go into effect. Once a certain % of guns hit a certain point, the CAP on bgs goes up and the need to train is there to remain as effective.

If people aren't given a chance to build anything except for select people then we'll never see that feature actually in effect.

But I'm not a long time player and don't have many high ranking, "old friends", but I can still build a monster gun.  It's then up to my CL to figure out how to use me in time of war.  If that means a BG squad needs to be deployed before I get my shot, so be it.  

There is  your request for strategy.

There are a lot of Don ranks out there for players who are not LH/RH/CL or GF.  So ranking a gun is easy to do.

The other reality is that there is a big difference between someone who is connected, but just not leader material having a big gun, and a new guy having a big gun.  The new guy may get wacked because nobody knows him or trusts him.  Even if he's the most loyal guy in your crew, fear of the unknown will get him killed in many scenarios.

Of course, what has been brought up here makes valid points and some that are not too interesting. I actually like this idea because you have to plan out wars more and prepare more and be even more ready than before. 

However, if this 10 - 20 BG above cap killing gun is in effect, there should be a special price to them and not just 1'250$ more each time. Also, to point out a side effect that some people may like and others not, say someone buys the 20 BGs and maxes them and the top killer gets 50 more kills in that time period, the number of BGs purchasable will rise even more, that person will have to buy more, but is getting out of reach of other shooters until one day, he just has too many bodyguards and the wars may last weeks, depending on how much time he has been investing in these new bodyguards. Also, this is just an example, so there could be easily 40 people in the game with, say, 400 bodyguards.(Sounds exaggerated, I know, but if this is put into order, it has a chance of happening.) It'll even go way more up because a select few people can get 1500 kills and if they do, then this system is overpowering people with bodyguards. 

Of course, that's why I think implementing another cost to these bodyguards would have to be put in place instead of the regular augmentation of 1'250 each time. 

MrManson the point is that there isn't a need for a BG squad. Not when you have cap killing Godfathers and even Dons roaming around. Killing people because they're new is..... unnecessary. It also forces new users out.

I could see a special price I suppose but it'd already be extremely expensive. To hire and train 10-20 more bodyguards you're looking at 20-50 million as is just by how the cost goes up for each BG you hire.

I have... problems with this suggestion. 

1.) One of the pleasant parts of the BG cap is that once an individual reaches the cap, they then can BG up others. I think if we made BGs a continuous hole to throw money into, we'd almost never see anyone other than top guns getting BGs. Simply because they'll be too afraid to get killed to do otherwise.

2.) The BG cap is, in my opinion, inherently good. It's the point where the game says "ok, you've done everything you can to keep yourself safe, now you have to interact with people to stay alive." Whether that's alliances, takedowns, wars, sabotage, etc. the game forces you to move past the numbers to succeed. Otherwise, you get killed. You can't rely solely on numbers to save you.

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

BG wacking is effectively useless. I can elaborate on this, but to put it simply, BG wacking should be substantially more effective than it is now. To shoot over a bodyguard, it takes 1/20th (or less) the gun strength that it would take to kill a bodyguard. So, I'd suggest coupling this with a more potent BG wacking change. You could keep the math to kill a single BG the same, but make it require less gun strength to kill additional bodyguards. It's a bit absurd that it takes only 10 kills to shoot over 2 BGs in one shot but over 40x that to kill two BGs.

4.) This, predictably, creates an untouchable group of players. This goes hand-in-hand with point #1, there's basically no point where a leader says "I can stop BGing myself up". So the leader never has to trust anyone enough to BG them up (unless they're OOC friends, as is often the case). So as a consequence of having fewer people BGed up (see #1), we create a class of players that are continuously catching up with the new cap.

5.) This creates a positive feedback loop of buying BGs, training, buying BGs, training, etc. among the top players, widening an already-enormous gap between those at the top and the average player.

6.) It's unrealistic as fuck. Realistically speaking, it's not that weird to die to someone trying to kill you. Requiring a thousand kills and months of training is absolutely absurd from a realism point of view. And to say that "no one should die from a single shot" is woefully unrealistic.

7.) This really adds nothing to the game. You say this would "create more strategy," but I'd say it does the complete opposite. Rather than making it a rat race to BG cap or a BG-cap-hitting gun, it's an endless mad dash where players have no incentive to interact with anyone else. Rather than staying alive due to working with/against other players, you're relying on credits, money, whatever to keep you above danger. And that's the opposite of what I think we need now.

To be honest, this really is a pretty bad suggestion for the game. Apart from self-interest, I can't think of a single reason why this is a good idea or how it could possibly improve the game. If we really think, as a community, that people are too easy to kill right now (which is ludicrous as far as I can tell), then we should take ANY possible route that doesn't bring in more BGs or make this more of a endless toiling nightmare.

For instance, (as I once suggested a long time ago), you could require would-be attackers to kill all Loyal Made+s from a crew before they target the leader. Now that would require more smaller guns to remove Mades before targeting the crewleader. That way smaller guns have an absolutely crucial purpose and don't have to use the abysmal BG wack feature, CLs can't be one-shot, CLs have a real incentive to earn their members' dedication, and the BG cap doesn't rise (and therefore does not widen the gap between the top and average players). Plus, accidental 1%s would drop off completely as the CL wouldn't take pro shots to stay alive, he would rely on his Made+s.

Put simply, there are a number of possible resolutions to "smaller guns aren't getting enough love and top players are too easy to kill," without increasing the BG cap.

I'm going to ignore the 3 pages of responses beyond the first post and say that I really do think something has to be done to make wars less of a fucking snooze fest. Hell, I'd almost rather you had to shoot ALL THE BGS down before you can take a shot than see every war ever be over in about 32.4 seconds barring wackback, force fail or whatever.

If Asylum's suggestion is the answer then Asylum's suggestion is the answer.

I still think that if you are going to make wars more strategic, the best way is not by adding BGs  (we have way too many already), but by making Rank mean something.  A max gun in the hands of  a GF is the ultimate power.  If you have a max gun at a lower rank, your ability to hit ranks higher than you drops.  

Puts pressure on the higher ranks  to keep their BGs up.  

Limits the ability of rogues

Puts  pressure on the CL  to only rank players they trust

Makes a lower rank hitting a higher rank more realistic  cause they need help to make it happen.

Rogues can be annoying little fuckers, MrManson, but they are still a part of our world. Even in the last 12 months, at least 1 rogue that I can think of changed the whole balance of power and livened things up a little.

I'm not saying that rogues should be eliminated, but making it harder for ANYONE to hit a rank over them... that's something that would make wars far more interesting

Cato

1) Most leaders don't BG people up period. Most people get BGed up by themselves or friends. Families often don't generate enough income to cap someone fast enough before these wars come.

2) If the cap is good then it should be enough to at least even the playing field to the biggest gun. You always have to interact with other people. Even if you have 330 bodyguards like users have had in the past. If people want you dead you'll die. Which is what has happened before.

3) To shoot someone standing behind a tank is far easier than shooting through a tank, yes? It wouldn't make sense to make it as easier or easier to kill a tank simply because you could shoot around it.

4) No one is untouchable. See #2. At most this would force people to BG themself up more so because the leader becomes the higher priority as it should be. 

5) The gap doesn't get wider. People who needs BGs always get them especially if a leader feels it's necessary. There used to be no cap and people utilized that. They were able to demote and buy massive amounts of bodyguards at a fraction of the cost. So keep the upkeep charge, but lower the cost of BGs. Boom, you suddenly get more people with bgs. 

6) Anyone who has studied warfare knows months on end and thousands of shots to become proficient is not abnormal. To be one of the best shots it takes a lot of work. However, if a threat is posed the opposite side always combats that with more defense. 

7) You would have to interact a lot more. You'd have to be closer to Wise Guy and below, get them to train because you need them to survive. Also you need them to pose a better threat. 

Every system has pros and cons. However, the cap in place and the new purchase method for bodyguards has blocked the ability to acquire defense in a cheap manner. Which requires more in game money to do but is needed because this is a business. If time has proven anything, adapting and finding a way to make a new system work always happens. 

2) If the cap is good then it should be enough to at least even the playing field to the biggest gun. You always have to interact with other people. Even if you have 330 bodyguards like users have had in the past. If people want you dead you'll die. Which is what has happened before.

Uhh... No. It shouldn't be enough to "even the playing field" to the biggest gun. That would, quite literally, defeat the purpose of a cap. The "level playing field" for BG caps is the gun tapering math. And no, just because someone want you dead doesn't mean you die. I mean, eventually all characters die, but to simply say "just because x number of people want you dead, you'll die" is both technically incorrect and realistically misleading. In most cases, people quit the game before they bother to put in the months of effort it takes to remove someone with an absurd number of BGs. That's why we see spikes in the player base when big wars topple the top players.

3) To shoot someone standing behind a tank is far easier than shooting through a tank, yes? It wouldn't make sense to make it as easier or easier to kill a tank simply because you could shoot around it.

I completely understand that it should take more than 5 kills of gun strength to kill a BG. But BG wacking is absolutely fucking useless in its current state. I don't really see how you can want more BG wacking in wars yet not see how absolutely abysmal that is.

4) No one is untouchable. See #2. At most this would force people to BG themself up more so because the leader becomes the higher priority as it should be.

I don't even see how this rebuts my point. Just because characters can die doesn't mean that we don't evaluate whether or not it should take half a year to get to that point. Immortality has never been the problem, it's the fact that it takes so much fucking time and effort that I'd be better of quitting the game, waiting for someone else to do it, then coming back when things are more level.

5) The gap doesn't get wider. People who needs BGs always get them especially if a leader feels it's necessary. There used to be no cap and people utilized that. They were able to demote and buy massive amounts of bodyguards at a fraction of the cost. So keep the upkeep charge, but lower the cost of BGs. Boom, you suddenly get more people with bgs. 

Ok, this is one point that you quite literally can't refute. If you're making the BG cap higher, it necessarily puts greater distance between those at the top and those in the middle. If it didn't, this suggestion would be entirely useless. You're looking to make top players harder to kill, but then you're saying that it doesn't make them harder to kill? And you said earlier in your response (#1) that leaders don't BG up anyone other than themselves. So make up your mind, because you can't use two contrary arguments to support the same point.

6) Anyone who has studied warfare knows months on end and thousands of shots to become proficient is not abnormal. To be one of the best shots it takes a lot of work. However, if a threat is posed the opposite side always combats that with more defense.

I'm not saying its abnormal, I'm saying it's boring and unrealistic. You gonna tell me that members of the 1930s Mafia had over 1,000 kills in order to go after a rival? No. They didn't. It's unrealistic.

I think the best idea out of all of this so far, is to have all made+ members in a crew needed to be killed before a CL goes down. This will put more strategy into wars than the current suggestion, and like Cato has said, still emphasize the need to interact with others. Communication and making connections is massive in this game. If this change goes through that is suggested, it makes it more about numbers and less about interaction and networking. Not a fan of the current suggestion, yet would a fan of making takedowns more strategic if it's the right change.

You lost me at the point of cap. The point of the cap was so that people who could drop tons of cash into the game couldn't buy an endless supply of bodyguards. There use to be players with 300+ bodyguards at a time when there were maybe two 1,000 kill guns in the game. Now, they're far more common.

Quitting the game just to wait for someone to die is one option. Being a part of removing them is the other. Or you can just hang out and do your thing until they're gone. Politics now don't effect players like they use to. Mostly because the game is a shell of what it use to be in a sense.

There wasn't a contrary argument. CLs rarely BG people up. Or at least everyone that deserves it. It use to be that people would BG themself up for a fraction of the cost using the demote method. Demote, buy bgs at $750,000 a piece and no upkeep. Now, you do it progressively and upkeep. Which ultimately makes it more expensive. So changing it back to that would close the gap between the middle players and the upper players. 

No one had over 1,000 kills. However, most higher ups also didn't do a lot of killing. Their lower ranks did. Or specified people did them. Head mafia leaders weren't ever the best hitter in their family.

Which by the way. I've already discussed this with Squishy. My idea has been scrapped. So we gotta find an alternative solution. I still don't think having to kill all Made Man before killing a leader is exactly the best method. Maybe a certain amount of their members depending on how many they have? I.E. You have to kill 50% of the families Made Men or higher before being able to kill the LHM. 75% for the RHM. 100% for the CL. That idea I could get behind. Or maybe 40, 60, 80. Seeing as they'd be running low on guys to protect them you could go after them. However, maybe your gun gets nerfed a bit too. The more they have the less likely your gun will hit? Boost the defense Made Man and above gives. 

You have to kill 50% of the families Made Men or higher before being able to kill the LHM. 75% for the RHM. 100% for the CL.

I like this.

A defensive boost on top though I don't think is necessary. You already wont be able to take any shots at the upper structure, so it's technically already a defensive boost.

I think 40%, 60% and 80% might be better to be honest. However, I do like the 50%, 75%, and 100% still.

but this would make made man a joke ppl would just get promo all the time just so cl keep themself alive and ppl could just move ppl around who are made man to keep themself alive to i just dont know if i like it really