Ok,so I didn't see this suggestion or anything near it,so I,Chaotic,present to you...Buddy Wacking!

Okay,think about,real life mob,in a war,would one guy bust into a Godfathers hideout to try and kill him alone? Or would he bring along a friend..or maybe even two!

A new feature,under the war menu,would give you the opportunity,to type in your enemies name,and your partner(s) names. Your partner would get something in his personals saying so and so chose him for a buddy wack,and he would have to accept/decline.

This would,

1) Make the game a little more realistic

2) Increase your chances of hitting the target.

I appreciate any ways to improve the idea and any constructive feedback you may have.

Chaotic

There'd have to be a significant haul to defense considering how well off some of the guns are that have been lurking for a while now. But, if this was implemetned, I'd opt, just as normal wacking, to have the chance of fatal wackback increased for all parties - to exchange for the higher success rate, anyway.

A converse suggestion would be that it only marginally improves the chance of hitting, but greatly reduces the chance of fatal wackback, after all, its harder for 1 target to take out 2 or 3 enemies at once, and less likely that something major would go wrong resulting in a fatal wackback.

I do however like this idea. I believe for realism it should be like this:

Like an MUC a maximum amount can be invited... say 5. Not like a team of 70 hitmen are gonna descend on you.

The wack chance would be equal to the highest wack in the group plus a set amout for each hitman whoo has higher than average wack. IE if the average wack of the wqhole site is x and you have x+1 you give a boost. If you have x-1 you contribute nada.

The chance of Critically wacking back is reduced slightly for each additional attacker, representing the strength of numbers and increased liklihood of things not going wrong or the target getting to shoot back.

more witness statements given out for each additional member. harder to be stealthy with 5 goons sneaking around guns blazing.

Just a thought

Wouldnt the percentage of Wackbacks will get higher because the number of hitters increase?

I mean, in reality, A person can just shoot blindly but in the direction of the attacker, wouldnt it be higher chance to hit when there are plenty of people he can wack at?

Less liklihood that he could draw and fire back if 2 or more people are shooting at him. it would also cut off cover and things like that which would allow the target to shoot back. Futhermore if the WB was because of police intervention for instance, there is more chance that the mobsters involved could shoot there way out of that too. There's also less chance of all shooters weapons misfiring/jamming too giving the target yet another opertunity to shoot back.

You have to remember, we are mafioso, not gangsta's we take aim and fire, we don't shoot wildly hoping to hit the target.

Also if you look into gun fight statistics, most gun fights take place at close range and involve large numbers of shots because those involved are such piss poor shots. professional gunmen are less likely to need multiple shots.

I know if me and 4 mates went to kill a boss, and I misfired, my mate droped his gun and ran, one was busted by the police, one was injured and one was shot and killed by the boss I'd be sorely disappointed. 5 guys go to kill a boss, if they are all trained shooters I'd say the boss is dead unless he has enough BGs to repell the attack.

I like it, but then you allow 5 wackers to get points for 1 kill. Or would that be divided up evenly? I do believe that this would be more realistic. As Chris said, we're mafioso not knights. We aim to kill, not fight fair!

I do think that there needs to be an additional drawback though. Maybe after completing a buddy wack, isntead of a 1-hour timer you have a 3 or 4 hour timer.

Sorry about the double post.

This would create a whole new element in warfare as well. You could fuck yourself by sending your top 5 hitters at the family head, but then your top 5 hitters are out for x amount of time (see previous post), leaving the other family able to get an extra 15 shots in (5 hitters * 3 hour timer). Or by sending your best hitter along with three or four rookies you may be able to take out the family head, leaving your other top hitters to wipe the ranks of the leftover crew.

Another possible drawback: If you commit a buddy wack and still fail, you are then left prone for retaliation (lower defense) for x amount of time. I'm not sure how you would fit that into real-world though..

I agree, the scenarios discussed are more realistic - but on the other hand, don't you think it would over complicate the wacking system?

Not sure about over complicating the wack system, as the original wack feature would remain unchanged, so the big guns out there could continue to murder the small fish all day long if they so chose.

I do like the idea of extending the time before you can shoot again as a counter balance, say doubl;ing it. In times of war using 4 hitters to assure a kill would be useful, but would have to be weighed up against loosing 4 hitters for 2 or 3 hours instead of only 1 as well as the extra pro shot planning required to kept these guys alive would stop wars from being completely one sided. However, it may allow a smaller family to get off 2 or 3 big kills before they were totally wiped out by their enemy.

Thanks everyone for the feedback and suggestions. Roor,this system would not usually be used to get 'points.' You and a friend aren't going to get together to shoot a bum on the street to go up the next rank. It would usually be used in times of war against the big guys.

This is an excellent idea, and I reckon it could add a whole new level of strategy to the game, picking which targets are of most value and eliminating them in a group. Excellent RP idea and it could turn some tables in a war. I reckon this should be given some serious thought...

cough

I highly agree with this idea. Mainly because I am used to it on another game that I play. However, it works very well over there for making wars a bit more hardcore. No one's safe, in all honesty. A buddy whacking system would stop the people sitting at the very top for months at a time, for it would make people a bit more braver when it comes to whacking. However, I say that instead of adding a set increment to the whack score per member, I say their whack stats should go into it in a way. So, if you have a guy with a really good gun, he would contribute more points to the whack stat than a guy with an average gun. That way, the leader will have a tough time choosing who to send. 

I believe this idea could throw wars on MR into a whole new generation. Besides, as stated above, it's highly unlikely that one soldier would go after a godfather. This is much more realistic.

There was once a time long ago when multiple kills happened but it fucks up the code so it was done away with. I do find that "buddy wacking" would be quite realistic but this is a game. It has restrictions to how real it can get otherwise many godfathers would die at the hands of wise guys and others.

how about giving no points to any of the buddy wackers?

Notice, McDermott, the supposed addition to the whack score in a buddy whack would not be a huge amount. It would make quite a bit of difference, but it most likely would not alter the outcome of a war. However, in the recent reign of Deimne, half of the cities he warred may have stood a tad larger chance if something like this were enabled. Would you rather wars be all one-sided? Sure, both sides lose some people, but when you can predict the outcome of every war that occurs, that's a bit much. There needs to be a wild card that can be drawn. 

I like this idea, it makes people think more.

This Idea is a good one. Especially from a RP'ing point of view. As Phiber_Optik mentioned, there should be some type of wild card that could be played so that outcomes become less predictable and less one sided. Also I think that it would help prevent wars for stupid reasons like " He PP'd me without permission and wont pay me back so I shot him." 

Phiber_Optik you obviously didn't pay attention when New York was torn to pieces like the Berlin wall.

I like the idea but if multiple kill someone then they should all get credit. No one would know who fired the kill shot, hell anyone could have.

You obviously didn't pay attention to the situation in which New York was "torn to pieces like the Berlin wall". By the time New York was attacked, they had lost most of their big hitters due to whackbacks and such. Then, New York's strongest hitter, Deimne was asleep and unable to get on. Also, when one city is trying to defend against multiple other cities, it's not that easy. The other forces had alot of luck and good planning on their side in that massacre. 

This idea would in theory, add one kill to each gun of the hitting team. For, that's how a normal kill works. Each of them took part in the kill and risked their lives, whether it has a smaller chance of whackback or larger.