What I find very odd Deimne is why it has suddenly been changed now, there are a lot of things from an RP pov that don't stack up at all within the game.

Lets take bodyguards for example, do you honestly believe that people surround themselves when walking around with 100 bodyguards? Your talking like a company of people surrounding you it would be a logistical nightmare in the late 20th century let alone the early 20th century. Yet they remain in the game. A more realistic thing would be for a bodyguard to have a skill level with a cap on the maximum number of bodyguards and the training of them to improve their skill.

If you're going for realism as far as that aspect....nobody who's OWP or EWP should be able to get shot without their BGs being taken down some in advance.

I don't see why an issue in another area would have provide any reason for this change not to be made. It's a subjective matter, I'm not saying I'm 'right', but I personally disagree and feel that someone who's participating in a war getting 'magical' protection is far more of an issue than the number of bodyguards someone can have. The real issue here, is the work required to resolve either/both issues, which is the only reason that this one jumped the line to be coded first.

If it's a case of 'bigger fish to fry'? Not really. This change took Squishy no time at all to code. It was a negligble effort to remove something that was never intended to be the case. It was a glitch that was never intended to be a 'war tactic'. It's as a direct result of previous changes made to both the demotion system (which now resets start dates) and the way ia's are auto turned. Trying to change/resolve either of those systems would require a dramatic recode. So by making this simple and quick edit it resolved an unintentional side effect of other changes.

It has been changed now as it finally got a lot of support against it. I personally had raised the issue numerous times in the past. It's extremely unrealistic and has no justification in the game in either an OOC or in character point of view. In previous wars, it was a minor issue (potentially only noticed by a relatively small number of players who pay close attention). In this war, with a number of very high ranking members ending up at thug, and it being used to such a large extent, it was noticed and commented upon by everyone. So finally, the complaints put forward by a small number of players got backing from a very large number (including many of those who were responsible for its recent use) of players and found agreement with the admin team.

I'm not keen to get into a debate on bodyguards here and derail the discussion of the change at hand... but my own thoughts on "we've too many bg's" has always come down to one simple problem. You say it's not realistic for us to have 100 bg's around us? Well, how many bg's have I got? All you, or anyone else, can see is "OWP". Nowhere does it obviously state "100 bg's" (or far more or far less) other than behind the scenes in my personal information. To suggest that the number causes a major RP issue, something I personally don't agree with.

If the issue then becomes 'how many shots it takes to remove them', fair enough. In order for the gameplay benefits of bodyguard shooting to remain (e.g. allow the younger/smaller players to play a meaningful part in wars) we need to allow more than just a few bg shots (in my mind is the recent '10 for 1' super bg change proposed by Kates). If this were to be coded, it means that 1.) young members with untrained guns get totally removed from war strategy other than as pro shooters and 2.) it makes it far easier for a 'top dog' to become unkillable (if all it takes is 10 gangster bg pro'ers for me to remain out of range of a shot, a huge negative imho).

It is possible that the wording of bg buying/shooting could be tweaked to make it more like you're upgrading a current bg with better protection (so 10 bg's = 1 bg that's kitted out in bodyarmour etc) and that each shot on them (currently a 'bg kill') is simply a wound or removal of protection. However, if it isn't changing the gameplay and instead just a lot of effort to tweak the semantics of it... I personally don't feel it brings any benefit to justify the thought or effort required. Does it really make a big difference if it says "Bodyguards: 10" or "Bodyguards: 100" if the protection provided is the same, the cost to buy them is the same and the effort to remove them is the same? In my mind, no.

Whilst I agree with that the issue of demoting to thug to protect someone from being shot needed fixing, imo the crucial point of the problem was the not the overall action of demotion but the change from gangster to thug.

Unless I am barking up the wrong tree totally any demotion now results in the removal of the gun this has in effect removed a massive part of war strategy of demoting people to gangster to in effect reduce the likely hood of them hitting you when they take a pro shot at you. This has been part of war strategy for as long as I can remember and is a massive consideration when deciding if you wish to go to war.

Whether this was a deliberate consideration when fixing the bug or not maybe a potential solution if it was not what was intended is to make it that you can not obtain a gun until you are a gangster and the demotion from gangster to thug triggers the counter to obtain a gun.

I feel this change was 100% necessary, as the tactic of demoting to civilian demonstrates a clear and knowing exploitation of the code (in my opinion). Ultimately, I feel the factor of losing the possibility of demoting from, say, Wise guy to gangster to take the pro shot is a frankly negligible side effect.

I've ran a few wars, and I've never really held with the idea of demoting someone to a lower rank as possible to affect his success rate. Frankly when an untrained below-made character is shooting at a Leader/High ranker who has in excess of 20 bgs, the demotion will not effect chances of success/failure significantly enough to warrant the demotion.

The fact that this is no longer even possible due to gun loss clause of demotion is bye-the-bye really, and a far greater loophole has been well closed.

Personally, I don't have a strong view on the side issue of 'any demotion' being effected.

I like the idea of any demotion, regardless of the rank, having a significant impact. I actually believe that it's still too positive a move in certain situations. Having a demotion shave off a (large) % of skills such as jb'ing/wacking/pp'ing would be a good move imho. Having a bg price flagged and retained at the highest cost that characters has been at (e.g. if it's an earner, even with a demotion to thug the cost of bg's remains the earner cost) would be another move I'd be in favour of. I just can't agree that demotions should ever lead to positive results.

Having said that, if you or others feel that the gun loss should only occur on demotion to thug, I wouldn't feel strongly enough to fight against it. Go nuts! :P As long as a thug demotion triggers it, it's a big step in the right direction.

Oh thank God.

The main issue I have with the demotion for pro'wacking is, if the demotee was up at a nice rank like Made, it is/was HELL to re-rank and then gain rank, i.e. get to capo or boss. This makes being ranked or demoted even more important because now, ideally, demotions will be used for punishment only and not as a war tactic or way to get cheaper bodyguards.

I think this is an extremely good idea.

Demotions should be used for punishment and not war tactic. 

Good decision .