The last few days we've spoken about raising the BG cap. That idea has been shot down already by the admin staff even though the masses seem to support it and also not support it.

However, thanks to Cato an intellectual outgrowth has taken place that seem to be something many are taking a liking to. The idea is quite simple. All Made Men and above who are set to loyal must die before a leader dies. 

My input was that 50% of the Made Man and above family members must die before the LHM can die. 75% of the Made Man and above members must die before the RHM can be killed. Lastly, 100% of the loyal members Made Man and above must die before the crew leader can die. 

Pros to this:

Defense for the leader.

More active warring from lower members.

Eliminates pro deaths of the top three.

Forces a leader to be more organized and better in his members eyes.

Cons to this:

Eliminates pro deaths of the top three.

Smaller cities more vulnerable due to having less members. 

Rogues cannot take out leaders, RHM or LHM. Which in turn could lead to less new people getting opportunities as hands as current players in power may give priority to friends. 

Ideas and thoughts on how we can make this idea grow more?

so to clear this up, the crew leader becomes invincible if he only has 1 made man in his crew and gets the rest of the crew to pro him? what if the 1 made man is his RHM by this theory the RHM will never die due to a pro or 1% because he is essentially the 100% status of made men in the family, smaller cities and families will become powerhouses in this theory

lets get realistic here, if i walk up to a crew leader and put my gun to his temple and pull the trigger my gun wont be "hold up he has a made man alive, get back to me when hes dead then we can kill his leader"

this is a very un-thought out idea

Well if the leader is shit then the Made Men can set their loyalty to Disloyal. It would allow for rogues to be effective or other leaders to remove bad leaders. That is if they really are a bad leader.

Perhaps the %'s can be lowered to 20%, 40%, 60%. 

I'm simply trying to find a solution to the problem that much of the userbase has agreed exists. 

Again, I'm going to ask this. Please, if you have a negative, provide a solution. Anyway can simply say "that won't work" but not everyone can say "this might fix why it won't work" which I realize you're doing Squishy by suggesting politics and so forth. However, the other thread was filled with "this won't work" type responses without any real suggestions on how to make something else work. 

I'm really glad Asylum has brought this up in concise form. I'd like to respond to each of the arguments against it individually (so you can pick/chosoe what you respond to).

I'm a little leery about ensuring the death of every high ranker just to remove a shitty CL.

This is actually one point that I'm rather adamant about. If you're a Made Man, that is supposed to mean something. If you're a consigliere and have no intention of protecting or supporting your crewleader, then I fail to see why you're even working for them. And if you have chosen to work for a shitty CL, I'd take that as a condemning decision for your character. I'm leery about killing Associates, as they're not "full members" yet, but I fail to see why we should be concerned about threatening the "upper echelon" "circle of trust" players when their CL is threatened.

Many times the attacking crew just wants to kill off the offending upper structure, not lay waste to pretty much an entire crew.

Unfortunately, this is a consequence of authing a shitty crewleader. If you let them build up more and more Made members, you're making it harder on yourself later. I think it's pretty well-founded in RP that Made Men ought to die with their CL. At least, that's how I learned it. The rejection of this principle is largely due to the OOC "I have fwends in other cities" problem. I think this is a great way to finally say "Look, being a Loyal Made Man means something. You die or jump ship."

I think this would just cause much needed unnecessary deaths in cases where neither side wants it.

I don't really see where we draw the line on necessary and unnecessary deaths, I guess? People who aren't loyal, who are willing to jump ship to save themselves, seem to me to be quite deserving of death. I mean, this game is practically musical crews where a takedown stops the music and you have to jump to a new one before you get killed.

On a side note, this pretty much is the nail in the coffin for rogues and small groups who want to attempt to take down a large crew.  Any thoughts into this?

Because of how brutally ineffecient BG wacking is, this may actually encourage small rogue groups as the "group" element is no longer completely useless. For instance, if we coupled this change with a drop in the BG cap (as a CL doesn't need both this change and a massive army of BGs), you'd see rogue groups that do the required effort, but divide it among the group instead of requiring one individual to amass the kills. Because, it's easier to shoot a 100-BG Boss than it is to kill two BGs on your intended target. Dropping loyal crew members instead of BGs actually makes rogue groups more potent.

You have stated that your goal is to inolved the little guys - I think forcing little guys to kill off other little guys where the death isnt warranted is not really the right direction.

I actually disagree here. First, these aren't "little guys". These are potentially IWP Dons and Consigs. It also includes the Made Men, sure, but the fact that they aren't "hardcore players" shouldn't excuse them (in my opinion) from their loyalty as a Made Man. Second, having a target respective to your rank/gun is a lot more exciting than proing or wounding BGs. Plus, you're entirely crucial for your crew's pursuit to succed at any stage of your gun training, not just the tippy-top.

You also stated that its too easy to kill someone who is IWP.  I disagree, out of the 500 some active players a day, at any given time there is probably only a handful of people who can kill anyone - I honestly believe the best line of defense is done by politics, communication, mutual interests, protection pacts, and knowing when to step down and when to step up.  I really don't want to remove the human element and replace it with button clicking :/

I 100% agree. As a matter of fact, I'd like to couple this with a drop in the BG cap to compensate for the increase in defense. Truly, this is one point that I'm glad we agree on. I think if you make people easier to shoot from a single gun, but require multiple guns (to remove their Mades), you're directly rewarding/encouraging that group play rather than lone wolf stuff. If you have groups, you have politics. Communication. Organization. Mistakes? Sure. But that comes with the territory. No longer is it the top 2% deciding how the game changes, everyone can have a role to play. Everyone matters, whether on offense or defense.

by this theory the RHM will never die due to a pro or 1% because he is essentially the 100% status of made men in the family, smaller cities and families will become powerhouses in this theory

I can't tell if you're joking. Proers aren't an unlimited resource, and if all it takes is killing a Made Man RH to get a shot at a CL, I'd say that's not too tough of a hill to climb. This suggestion has actually been very well-thought-out.

Unfortunately, this is a consequence of authing a shitty crewleader. If you let them build up more and more Made members, you're making it harder on yourself later. I think it's pretty well-founded in RP that Made Men ought to die with their CL. At least, that's how I learned it. The rejection of this principle is largely due to the OOC "I have fwends in other cities" problem. I think this is a great way to finally say "Look, being a Loyal Made Man means something. You die or jump ship."

Depending largely on your perspective, from an RP point of view within the game, Made Men and above usually die with their CL. But if we are to consider actual realism, how many times do we see a mob boss get shot, then everyone who is a made guy also get shot? The answer to this is basically, never.  

I can't tell if you're joking. Proers aren't an unlimited resource, and if all it takes is killing a Made Man RH to get a shot at a CL, I'd say that's not too tough of a hill to climb. This suggestion has actually been very well-thought-out.

I think you're kind of missing what he's saying, Izzy isn't stating that the RH will never die, he's stating that he will not fall to a 1%. When Credits and Rusty went rogue not so long ago, Rusty fell to a 1%. With the new mechanism in place, that would never have happened. Imagine the true carnage that would have occurred? Or will occur if people can no longer be killed by 1%. It has been the direct swing influence in countless wars/rogue efforts over the years. 

I also think this will go someway further to cheapening the rank of Made Man+. You talk of mades+ having total loyalty to their CL's, which i agree with, but at the same time, if CL's know it's in their best defensive interests to promote people to made+ regardless of what those people are putting in, that too, in my opinion is massively  negative for the game. 

I can appreciate the effort that has gone into devising these suggestions and shaping them but in all honesty, i'm not a big fan of  increasing defense anymore than it is. I very much agree with Izzy that people should rely on their people skills, diplomacy or outright power, rather than being able to hide behind hoardes of BG's or Made men. People spent way too long been able to hide behind huge defence, hence why the cap was brought in. Is it too still high? In my opinion, probably. But it's certainly a lot better than what we had before. 

When Credits and Rusty went rogue not so long ago, Rusty fell to a 1%. With the new mechanism in place, that would never have happened. Imagine the true carnage that would have occurred? Or will occur if people can no longer be killed by 1%. It has been the direct swing influence in countless wars/rogue efforts over the years. 

I don't think the "true carnage" should factor into it at all. I mean, think of all the decent/loyal people who have died to 1%s over the years. Should that factor into this? I don't think so. Because whoever's winning or dying shouldn't govern game changes.

Personally, I don't think 1%s should influence the game as much as they seem to do. I think it's a generally good thing to move away from pro-wacking CLs as that should be a last resort rather than something done persistently during wars. I mean, if a Made Man fell to a 1% pro wack instead of the CL, the 1% hurts them but doesn't completely eliminate them just because of those odds.

In truth, I don't see why anyone likes friendly fire 1%s. I mean, statistically it's counterintuitive as a single strong gun with a lot of proers can outlast 5-6 CLs just because they're taking 5-6x the number of pro shots. Is that worth the potential to "influence" the game? To let the smaller force win just as a numbers game? That doesn't seem intuitive to me.

I also think this will go someway further to cheapening the rank of Made Man+. You talk of mades+ having total loyalty to their CL's, which i agree with, but at the same time, if CL's know it's in their best defensive interests to promote people to made+ regardless of what those people are putting in, that too, in my opinion is massively  negative for the game.

I don't really see how we can cheapen it by giving it more importance. If they're disloyal, it counts against your defense and makes you even more vulnerable than if you had never promoted them. The only way this is "cheapening" is if you're promoting loyal Made Men (which seems to be exactly what you want to happen).

i'm not a big fan of  increasing defense anymore than it is. I very much agree with Izzy that people should rely on their people skills, diplomacy or outright power, rather than being able to hide behind hoardes of BG's or Made men.

That's why I offer a trade-off between BG defense and this suggestion. I don't think earning the loyalty of your Made Men is "hiding" behind them, and I don't see how making defense a player-based mechanic rather than a money-based one is moving away from skills, diplomacy, or power. If your defense hinges on being a good leader to your men, your people skills are a lot more important than if you have a shitton of credits and BG yourself to cap.

Depending largely on your perspective, from an RP point of view within the game, Made Men and above usually die with their CL. But if we are to consider actual realism, how many times do we see a mob boss get shot, then everyone who is a made guy also get shot? The answer to this is basically, never. 

I understand where you're coming from with a RP perspective, yet how many people roll around with 175 bodyguards or how exactly do a lot of profiles based on modern tv characters, or animals, or objects, also toe the line of being realistic? The answer is the same.

I think for the most part the game is open to roleplay interpretation. I use to really against this open interpretation, yet I've grown to be all good with it. For example, my current profile lol :)

What I'm trying to get at is this game overall isn't exactly realistic. It does a great job to allow users to roleplay in as realistic as a way as they want to, or they can kind of go in their own route. How this all relates to this new suggestion and your point is this: some of the game mechanics are simply game mechanics, and not exactly realistic. They exist to balance the game out, yet aren't exactly realistic, hence having a fuck ton of BG's. It's more a game mechanic to add to the game itself, and I believe this new suggestion here would do the same thing.

I also can see where people are coming from with the whole 'this will just mean leaders will make their members made for the fuck of it to better boost their defences'. This can be countered by authing the right people. If the current regime is he type to allow their fellow city heads to run their families this way, then that is up to them and will reflect upon them. Just as some already keep IA's around for certain reasons, and some already don't see the rank of made man as anything special and already just rank to rank.

With the 1% thing, we could simply make it that 1%ers still work regardless of this rule/suggestion/change. This made+ requirement would only work for the stock standard takedowns, and 1%ers would still be as they are.

With communication it would still be necessary to do exactly what we do now, with this new change.  Make connections, defensive pacts, alliances, mix and mingle. This change wont affect this at all. Leaders will still want to take down other leaders, it will just mean that more strategy will be needed to make it happen. It will require more effort in the takedowns, hence more involvement from more members. It will simply mean the way the takedowns are conducted will slightly change, and they will require more all out warring.

Overall I think some concerns are legitimate, yet then we must look at other game mechanics with the same eyes and see how some of them can be exploited in the same ways.

I'm all for this idea, if it's not already apparent.

Firstly, as an attack/defence suggestion, I don't think this is required. The BG cap seems fine to me exactly where it is.  

Considered as a general game change, I don't think this would be an improvement. Not only would it make Godfathers weaker than their Dons given crew size limitations, the premise that "all Made Man should die" which this is predicated upon is actually flawed as in the real mob, bosses died, not entire families. Many Made Men subsequently went on to work for whomever took charge and families became amalgamated rather than extinct because humans are a finite resource. It is a MRism that all Made Men must be exterminated and they should go down with the ship based on our own perception of loyalty so I would hate to see this mistake hard coded.

The reality of killing all Made Men+ is also virtually impossible for a rogue, as has been pointed out previously, which would effectively eliminate something which has only become viable again recently following an extended hiatus. I like rogues, they offer an alternative dynamic to standard game play and present a different problem for the ruling authority. That sounds like fun to me.

Which leads me to the final point; I think this would make things happen "less" and that would be boring. Aztec's crew has 17 MM+ people that would need to die if this change came into force before a shot could even be taken on him. 17! That is a lot of co-ordination just to kill one guy in the context of any regime and makes removal of the same a very slim proposition. 

This just leads to ensuring the deaths of little guys.

Imagine - war breaks out so you get as many made men as you can pro'ed. That leaves the uppers alive (without any need for them to have a pro shot at all) and all the made+ you had pro'ed whose only job is to sit and keep their pro. Now the uppers can sit and shoot every hour (or more often depending on perks), while all their little guys (below made and any mades that couldn't get a pro) die and they kill all the other people's little guys.

Now imagine - someone decides to rogue. They decide to bring two friends with them (one with unmaxed gun on info, the other a big hitter too like the one setting up) - the rogue is boss, he brings a made man and a capo along for the roguing. He sets the unmaxed info gun as his RH, and that person pros the other big hitter. This means the rogue has 4 hours of not being able to be hit, while he shoots as much as his timer allows and the RH pro'er can't be touched either. The rogue can't shoot the big guys because they all have multiple made men and he'll probably die before he gets the chance to even take one shot at them, so he shoots at all the ones who aren't in the upper structures.

I can't think of any scenario in which people can choose to leave the 'little guys' alone, and that is why I cannot support this.

What if, in theory, we create a "shoot out" method. Basically what would happen is if you have 150+ bodyguards at a certain skill level and you shoot someone with comparable rank that has bodyguards, their bodyguards can in turn shoot your bodyguards back with the chance of killing them being rolled similar to dice. In turn, you have a "hot time" of 12 hours where you cannot purchase bodyguards to replace the ones you lost.

Example:

Squishy is a Don Insanely Well Protected RHM like myself. I shoot at him and kill him because I'm the tits. However, 25 of his bodyguards shoot at mine, 13 of them hit. I just lost 13 bodyguards.

Basically, this allows an opportunity to close the gap of those with bodyguards and those without. Keeps people from being untouchable and also adds risk to shooting at someone.

Example #2:

Godfather "Tyrant" wars cities often. He shoots at other Insanely Well Protected Godfathers and kills them. However, the bodyguards shoot back and lower his overall defense allowing lower guns a higher probability of hitting him.

This method has a possible punishment for tyrannical leaders and also levels the playing field a bit for those being attacked.

Imagine if someone were to miss a shot but lost 10 bodyguards. That alone could easily drop them in range to a number of guns.

(All numbers are subject to change, those were merely examples).

Dillon.... admins and many users have acknowledged there's a problem. Maybe you should read posts before posting?

Is that so Asylum? See I didn't catch that since the last post; which take note was just four hours before mine, was you still trying to force your ludacris idea down people's throats..

Hard to believe the problems have been acknowledged and addressed when you're still coming out spewing changes and possible fixes when it's quite obvious (especially after reading it all ) that this idea just isn't going to work, but please take out all your anger by talking down to me I just looooovvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeee it soooooooooooooooo much <3

I actually wasn't talking down to you at all Dillon. I simply stated that both users and admins have stated there have been issues. Then suggested that you may want to read posts so you know what's going on since you clearly admitted to having not read the posts.

The idea has now changed. Like other game suggestions the outcome is usually much different than the original suggestion. That's why we talk about them and I've asked people to be constructive. I'm sorry you're choosing to not participate in that but being mad at me or saying that I'm "talking down to you" is quite absurd. I don't need to talk down to anyone. If you don't want to read posts and formulate a thought that helps then so be it.

Also, we've had about five or six different ideas on the subject matter come up to fix the acknowledged problem. I wouldn't say that's forcing anything down anyones throats.

 I wuv you how can I be mad?

Really because that whole 'Maybe you should read posts before posting?' sounded pretty darn patronizing, but hey maybe I should make a suggestion for new fonts, like the sarcastica, ect.

 See I happened to be in a rush when posting from my mobile device, really didn't have the time or battery life to go through every post and reply, so I read the initial post, and with the help of algebra formulated an opinion, sorry it couldn't be a full thought because those are in short supply as the factory is out to lunch at the moment. None the less my opinion was that the idea was kinda really cray. I felt I kept things short and sweet. Why didn't I offer up a suggestion to how those could be fixed, and participate? Well simple, I don't think this whole idea should be implemented so why offer suggestions on how to fix it was the logic of the whispers. I think the outcome will be the same, it's going to be swept under the rug and maybe in a month or so someone else might come out here trying to pitch an idea similar (just like this one I would add) and that will be shut down too. Why? Because the game ain't broke so why fix it. Change can be good, but what you are suggesting will be some massive changes and I don't see many embracing them all so well because things have been like this, or similar to this for years, and might I add it works. Tyrants come and go, groups rise and fall, and at the end of the day people hop right back on the Ferris wheel.

Speaking of other suggestions, you're absolutely right. They start, get smacked a round a bit, then evolve, but the whole time stay true to the initial post to some degree, while this one seems to be all over the place. Is this about protecting the uppers by having made+ die before they can be shot, or is it now about trying to hurt them by having their victims bgs shoot back at theirs?

I'll go ahead and apologize for thinking it may have come off patronizing but I assure that wasn't the case at all. I was seriously suggesting for each post to be read. I understand if you don't agree with some or all of the suggestions, but I'm just throwing shit at the wall and hoping something sticks then taking that and building on it.

There have been a lot of massive changes over the years that people didn't initially agree with but worked out alright. This is more just revising and editing if needed. Some of us feel there needs to be changes and some admins have voiced similar concerns. The issue is we're not able to find something feasible. The post I made before your initial post was completely different than from where this started out.

We've agreed we can't raise the cap. We've also come to a semi agreement killing off all the Made Men isn't something feasible. Which has moved to a new suggestion that I posted in regards to bodyguards firing back at the attackers bodyguards depending on stats and such. Whether the victim lives or dies.