As a response to Asylum's suggestion about the BG Cap (http://mafiareturns.com/comm/thread/744292#113984146), a past suggestion of mine came to mind (http://mafiareturns.com/comm/thread/621694#104984685) that I think would have a positive impact on the game.

This suggestion is the result of these problems:

1) Smaller guns feel useless.

2) Bigger guns/targets/players feel too easy to kill.

3) Wars are a "snooze fest" (as Anna pretty accurately put it).

Now, Asylum's resolution to this was to require more BG wacking to make wars more interesting and strategic. I think that's a step in the wrong direction (as I said in his thread), but I don't think the observations/conclusions that drove Asylum to post were in any way invalid. Smaller guns do feel useless. Bigger guns feel too easy to kill. Wars are over too quickly (or more accurately, wars are a result of reaching a critical point of gun strength rather than a strategic initiative).

My suggestion is simple. Before a crewleader can be killed, all of the Made Men set to "Loyal" in his crew must die.

I think this is a better alternative to Asylum's suggestion, because it provides the "shield" of protection for crew leaders without making them impossible to be shot. Basically, smaller guns are used to take out Made targets rather than Bodyguards (and those smaller guns would be absolutely crucial, otherwise they never get a chance at the big target). I think this suggestion has a number of benefits (many of which I outlined in the original thread 6 months ago). Last time I made this suggestion, we had 5 pages of exchanges refining exactly what the feature should look like, then the conversation ended.

I think this suggestion resolves the problems that prompted Asylum's suggestion and the problems that I had with his suggestion. Plus, if implemented intuitively, this could even result in bringing down the BG cap to a more reasonable level as the number of guns become as important if not more important than the size of the biggest gun. Thoughts?

I would like to give this idea my seal of "Less of a Snooze Fest" approval.

In war you can't say "You're not allowed to shoot him, he's too highly ranked." I don't see how that's more realistic rather than simply raising the cap. 

all of the Made Men set to "Loyal"

There is a "take a bullet" option. Which I think it should be set to. Not just loyal.

If you want to be loyal so your CL gets their bonuses but don't really fancy getting shot in the face to protect them because you're not quite *that* loyal. It should be an option to be loyal with out taking a bullet to protect them.

This will essentially allow for a greater chance the CL doesn't instantly fall, if a made-man willing to take a bullet is failed on, either because the shooter over estimated their skill or they force failed.

Seeing as the standard practice is to take down all made members (disloyal members excluded) it wouldn't change the style of take downs a whole deal, if this idea was implemented.

only problem I can see with this is if you need the MM member who's willing to take a bullet to die, them taking pro's to keep the CL able to keep shooting without needing pro shots of their own would be pretty OP, I think.

Also, this more closely removes the effect a Rogue would have. Shooting 10-20 bgs as I suggested would be far easier than wiping out a family just to kill the leader. People have clearly stated they don't want the effectiveness of rogues to be gone. This would get rid of them. Punishing the lower masses more so which you said you want to avoid. 

I'm generally skeptical and dismissive of any changes to wacking, bodyguards or defence. I like the way it currently is (if it ain't broken, don't fix it) and I don't think wars are a 'snooze fest' at all. In fact, I think it's the most exciting part of the whole game. Granted, I haven't been here for years and years, but in the roughly 1.5 years I've played MR I've always been stoked about taking part in a takedown/war or even being on the receiving end of it. But that might just be me. 

I would really hate it if this (or the other) suggestion was somehow implemented. I would find it acceptable however, if the following changes were made: 

1) The protection of ''Loyal'' Made Men only applies in the home city and will cease to be when all ''Loyal'' Made Men in the city are dead or otherwise leave.

2) The protection is only available if the Made Man:

• Has been online in the last 24 hours.
• Has been Made for more than 24 hours.

3) There is a ''gap'' in the protection of a few minutes after the leader shoots a non-NPC target.

4) The protection does not cover 1%'s.

(Mostly stolen from my old amendments in your last, similar suggestion :P)

All in all I would really hate it if this got implemented. Not in the least because it would severely curtail the potential of rogues, but also because it could possibly make wars happen less frequently, thus making the whole game more of a snooze fest.

In war you can't say "You're not allowed to shoot him, he's too highly ranked." I don't see how that's more realistic rather than simply raising the cap. 

I don't see how that's any different than "you can't kill him, he has too many Bodyguards" in the context of gameplay. I mean, we literally have a feature in place that requires you to have auth in order to shoot more than three ranks above you, anyways. This isn't unheard of. Plus, it's not about rank, it's about killing a crew vs. killing a crewleader. Which, I think is more intuitive than killing a crewleader's BGs vs. killing a crewleader.

Also, this more closely removes the effect a Rogue would have. Shooting 10-20 bgs as I suggested would be far easier than wiping out a family just to kill the leader. People have clearly stated they don't want the effectiveness of rogues to be gone. This would get rid of them. Punishing the lower masses more so which you said you want to avoid. 

Uhh... No. First, you're not wiping out a family you're shooting the loyal Mades. Second, shooting 10-20 BGs (in one wave, as you'd have to do) would require 5-10 people with over 500 kills (that's... 2500 - 5000 kills JUST on the BG hitters). Versus targeting Mades (which will likely have fewer than 100 BG effective, as you can't BG up everyone). I'm actually pretty confident that the system I've described is categorically easier for a rogue (with a group of trained hitters) than through the BG wacking feature. And I'm not "punishing" the "lower masses". If you're a Made Man in your crew, you should be willing to die for your CL. That's kinda how that rank was supposed to work.

If you want to be loyal so your CL gets their bonuses but don't really fancy getting shot in the face to protect them because you're not quite *that* loyal. It should be an option to be loyal with out taking a bullet to protect them.

This was the conclusion the last time I suggested this. I'm personally opposed to it, simply because I don't see how you can be loyal to someone and still be entirely content with them dying. Those seem like contrary sentiments.

only problem I can see with this is if you need the MM member who's willing to take a bullet to die, them taking pro's to keep the CL able to keep shooting without needing pro shots of their own would be pretty OP, I think.

This was a problem that came up last time as well. There's a solution to this problem (to prevent abuse), but it's useless to explore if this suggestion doesn't get enough support. I've put in the effort to resolve this problem once and nothing happened, so I'd rather see some actual traction this time before I put it together again.

To conclude, this was written up as a response to Asylum's suggestion of raising the BG cap. I'd sooner support this suggestion than anything that would raise the BG cap. I think the reality is, we're not going to see any substantial changes regardless of how well-thought-out or useful they may seem.

If it isn't broke don't fix it.
Personally I can't see why anything needs to be changed, why? Can't be bothered to explain on phone.

Rufino, I understand what you mean. We've been doing it this way for a long time, so for a lot of people they wouldn't see any problems with the current system. However, I do. I think the current system is boring, monotonous, and isolated.

It's boring because takedowns and wars involve only very rarely anyone other than the tippy-top. And even then, if it does involve them, it's after the big targets have fallen, and the top guns just need help cleaning up the stragglers.

It's monotonous because you do the same thing every day for months on end, just hoping you don't get killed before your gun actually matters. The only point where it isn't monotonous is when you can finally strike a target.

It's isolated because the game naturally values a single strong gun over many lesser guns. A single cap hitter can do substantially more damage than ten 500-kill guns, even though the ten have done substantially more work overall.

Now, my suggestion doesn't eradicate these problems entirely, but it helps. It's less boring during wars/takedowns because it requires a greater variance in gun strengths (valuing smaller guns), more organization (because more people have to be found and shot), or grants more time to the target of the takedown to mount a response.

It's less monotonous because group and crew play is rewarded rather than discouraged. Plus, this allows smaller guns to play a role in wars and takedowns much earlier in their character's lifetime, which I think is arguably the greatest part of this. What better way to "hook" players than by getting them involved in conflicts much earlier?

It's less isolated because rather than rewarding only a single strong gun, groups of hitters and hitsquads become necessary and very valued. Now you have to trust people with your takedown information, you have to manage their location and shot, keep them protected, etc. Wars would no longer be an activity for only the top 2% of the game. But at the same time, the top 2% of the game have a massive sway on how those wars are executed.

I think I do want to revise my suggestion, however, as I think I've made CLs invulnerable. Here's the revised version:

A crewleader's defense is increased proportional to the number of loyal, active (last 24 hours) Made Men in his crew.

That, if you have x loyal active Mades, you have x*y defense added. And this can (and likely will) push people past the BG cap of defense and require cannons to have at least a few of the loyal Mades to die before they take their shot.

Being useless during a war does kind of suck. Pro'ing an upper does get old pretty quick.