Currently the game allows for someone to be demoted to reap the benefits of cheaper bodyguards - my suggestion is simple in that if you are demoted, the price for protection remains the same as the rank you were demoted from. It makes absolutely zero roleplay sense to be able to benefit in somehow from a punishment which was designed as the less severe cousin of death.

I disagree in part with your suggestion, i think it should stay as it is now for costs, because every fish of the boat wants a bg. it is the 'in social thing' that every tries to attain.

My suggestion would be that they dont stop at 60% health. Why have more bg's then you can maintain? This would have multiple effects.

Less people wanting bg's, and if they do buy them and cant maintain them then they walk away and you lose the bg instead of it sitting at 60%, which would then take money out of the game. (something that is always trying to be accomplished).

It would also put a damper on needing 9 hundred billion (yes thats not realistic) kills to hit people with god knows how many bg's. So may even up the wacking side of it. too.

My other suggestion would be instead of a BG being chepaer at a lower rank and dearer at a higher, make it a flat rate of 5million a BG, like why should it be chaper at thug and dearer at GF for the same amount of protection? It then wouldnt be as commonplace as it is now to see associates with alot of bg's. it would something that would take time and maybe some hard work to accomplish, and be something that is worth aiming for.

but thats just my random thoughts, i have no problem with how it is now, but if it was to change then their are my ideas for how it could be.

My other suggestion would be instead of a BG being chepaer at a lower rank and dearer at a higher, make it a flat rate of 5million a BG, like why should it be chaper at thug and dearer at GF for the same amount of protection? It then wouldnt be as commonplace as it is now to see associates with alot of bg's. it would something that would take time and maybe some hard work to accomplish, and be something that is worth aiming for.

While I partially agree with you there, my point is that a punishment that was designed to be used for someone to reflect on their own mistakes, earn their boss's trust back and serve as a very serious warning is open to profit on cheaper protection. A demotion should never have a "benefit" to it - simple as.

I have to agree with the idea that a BG should be more exspensive at low rank and cheaper as you rank up. Thugs, gangsters and goomba's would never have that much protection anyway. I like the idea that they deplete and resort to desertion. (without being maintained) The way it is now works however, it is a bit unrealistic and less chalenging. Demotion has a place and I do not feel it should be for the purpose of benefitting someone. The fact that they get less expensive as you rank up would be accomidated by the upkeep costs involved in terms of money being used.

I do not feel that a flat rate would be a good idea at all. Training your BG's at a flat rate makes sense as it is all the same to them. They aren't ranking up or down. Training is training whether your a made or a Don.

The point is that demotion is a punishment that should not have any rewards. It's the alternative to death along with removal of gun and perm auth. Why should those demoted reap the benefits of cheaper bodyguards? It's becoming too common that people are demoted for the sole purpose of getting cheap bodyguards. Yes, it has gone on since the beginning of time, but that does not make it right. This is an abuse of the function in the eyes of many. In order to deter this when one is demoted they should not be able to benefit in any way and that includes cheap bodyguards.

Look, this is pretty simple.  As you rank, your BG prices go up.  If you get demoted, those prices should remain the same.  They should not go down with your rank.  From a RP aspect, if a Made Man in the mafia were demoted back to a Wise Guy....his bodyguards are probably going to cost him more as the risk to the family has just gone up by being so leinient and some of his constituates may not like whatever action forced him to be demoted. Then again, in the REAL mafia, there is no demotion...only death.

All in all, what Lacy stated what pretty much what I had to say.   Except that I feel that if you get demoted, your BG's should cost you more, not less.

here are my thoughts on all this, when demoted you losse 1. your gun, which you get back fairly quick if you acctuly give a shit, and if you don't you shouldn't be buying body gaurds. 2. you losse your units..... and that sucks. Demotion is punishment, I think more should be added to what you losse. Like say a certain percentage of your posting points eaned for every rank you are demoted, and after a demotion your training ranges should stay the same from the rank you were demoted from and still increase 25k as you rank back up. With body gaurds I think 5.5mill should be a set price for them, I think also you like timers you should be able to buy body gaurds with credits, like 11 credits for 1 bodyguard. That would also help keep funds rolling keeping the game operating, and anyone has acsese to credits, and if you find them as low as 160k a pice you would get a discount on your BG cost.

if prices need to stay the same, and continusly increase as you rank, I do think deturants should be added to encourage people not to demote for cheeper BGs. To get around that I would just eaither take a loan, or save up money, send it to someone, get HQ'd and start over. No matter how the sittuation is solved there will always be loop holes to get around things.

On the note of BG bought with credits, yeah it would be nice, but that would enable someone whos loaded with money in RL
to coquor thsi game in short time. You can already 1. sell cedits for money.... but that money is still worked for from another player, and they can only make money so fast. 2 you can aleady tain you gun with them and get it to pro wacker, 3 shoots with in 48 hrs, and 3 you can do jails and rank so fast all you gota do is wait for min time to come around.

So the credits idea deffinatly has it's bad sides

I hate posting multipul times, but I have forgoten 1 key feature. I think no matter how the Body gaurds and demotion topic of discusion is alltered, it should be made so if not maitenced your Bgs don't stop at 60% rather they drop all the way down to 25%. I think that should be the way because any gun that can hit, even if it's just a wound has potential to kill a BG at 25%.

Honestly, I think this is a good idea.  I've always had a problem with the roleplaying aspect of demoting for BGs.  I'll echo what others have said by saying that demotion should only be used as punishment--and it's possibly one of the less-used punishments out there.  You know, you can charge people money or kill them, but they'll usually earn money back and killing them could mean that they can just BG up after sending off their money.  But a demotion forces the player to keep their character (barring suicide), lose the opportunity to earn money, and lose a lot of effort put into the character.  With this addition, it would also ensure that the player wouldn't use demotion as an opportunity to beef up their defense with bodyguards.

Why should there be a feature to enable a user to completely go against the way the game was designed to be played? To even compete at that level, you would have users having to perpetually play against what the system intended in the name of cheaper protection. Taking cash out of the game seemed to be a large priority for most of the features that were/are suggested, but I question why the biggest money drain on the game is open for having its price reduced in margin by hundreds of percent - with little to no effect on the actual account itself spare a few weeks of regaining your rank. Throwing in a feature that will basically do the same thing under a different name, but used for the same purpose doesn't solve the issue. When you're demoted, or lose xp, it's supposed to be used as a punishment - sometimes it is. But under no circumstances should said punishment be used - or even available - as a gateway to pocket the extra $30,000,000-100,000,000+ that you would normally be spending by playing it by the book, as we should be.

Squishy was being a bit sarcastic Nujabes. As I posted before, the only way I see around that loop-hole (which is all it is) would be to re-structure the pricing-to-ranking aspect of the bodyguards. Making them Insanely Exspensive at low ranks. (A Reversal) if you will, and as I stated before, the money difference would still be accounted for by the training aspect of having all those BG's.

As an example:

Say you are a GF and your cost is a mere 500k per BG. You've earned it! Your a GodFather. Now, spend big to train them all...

On the flip side, your a gangster... You cant afford BG's at that level, nor would anyone afford them for you at that Insane price!!

Problem solved and all is well in the player/BG world. You earn and work your way to cheaper BG's just like you earn everything else.

And my other suggestion was in an effort to balance out the obsurd amount of BG's one may have at that level, you simply allow them to drop to Zero and dissapear if they are not trained in X amount of time.

The main problem with a change such as this is the state of the players currently in the game compared to the players who would be subject to the change. A huge impact and an imbalance that would be unfair.

Personally, I think since everyone is shot and killed instead of demoted these days, just toss the demotion out for anyone except your RHM/LHM or allow it to be a GF feature only..

That's all I can come up with as for resolution's. Hopefully Squishy will return once more and offer up some more of his witty humor!! :P

There are five possibilities I can think of that would allow for the current pricing to remain intact.

1) Limit the number of BG's you can have based on Rank 1 at Gangster and Thug, 3 at Goomba, 5 at Earner, 8 at WG, 10 at MM, 15 at Capo and so on, thereby again rewarding higher rank with more BGs. From a RP perspective this is slightly more realistic as a BG is more likely to want to work for a Capo or Boss than he would an Earner.

2) A finite amount of BGs in the system, like the DFP based on the amount of mobsters in a city. You can only hire BGs from your own city... lets face it, if you are a Capo in NY why would you hire a BG from LV who could possible be a spy or assassin from an LV family? That way Gangsters etc who are EWP, OWP etc would detract from available BGs from higher ranks. You would soon find CLs and Gfs enacting rules about lower ranks in their cities buying BGs when they can't buy one for their RHM etc. Again from an RP perspective this is more realistic as if we take NY as an example, what are the chances that there are 5,000 Bgs for hire in that city? With the GF, his RHM, LHM and his Captains and their RHM and LHM there is around 700+ BGs just for the upper structure.

3) BG Availability again based on rank to reflect your connections. Such as 2% chance at Thug of finding a BG who would work for you, up to 100% for Don and GF. Again this reflects higher ranks position, power and connections and the liklihood that a BG would want to work for a DOn before he would want to work for a gangster.

4) A maximum amount of BG's that can be hired per day or per 48hrs which would mean that a mobster would have to be demoted repeatedly to take advantage of OWP at the price of 750k per BG. For instance if it where 3 in any 48 hr period like the 'Take on a contract' then it would take at least 34 days to hire 50 BGs... Again from a RP prospective this is slightly more realistic as what are the chances of there being 50 out of work BGs at any one time?

5) Base a BG's strength on the rank he was purchased at to signify that cheaper BGs are less effective. Lets face it, if there are 2 BGs for hire, 1 at 750k and one at 5 Mill +, which one would you think would be the more effective? A Bodyguard like Kevin Costner in the 'Bodyguard' would be a lot more expensive than a burned out alcoholic ex-presidental BG.

I'm probably boring some people by posting in these, as I'm boring myself, but this is now only such a major issue because of the other problems within the game it ties in with.

Traditionally this wasn't such a problem because not many people ever survived long enough with their new bodyguards to get back to Don or get back to Godfather, so it really didn't have much impact. On the old game - mafia.org, it was pretty much a certainty that you would be dead before you managed to rank back up with your 10 BGs.

Even in the early days here, most demoted accounts died before they ever really reached the top rung again, meaning that it wasn't such an issue. Now, however, due to account length, it is entirely feasible that accounts can be demoted and make it back to Don without much of a hiccup. I'm talking from experience here as I had Don points when I got demoted to buy BGs and now I'm back at Don again. I barely even felt the demotion as I'm sure others can attest to.

The pricing of the bodyguards, assuming that they don't increase in ability with price, has always been used as a way of disallowing the more money you gain as you rank, bleeding over into more bodyguards. The practice of demotion for cheap bodyguards and ranking back up is commonly used, which suggests to me that this ideal it isn't really fulfilling its purpose.

My main concern however, as with most suggestions like this is just how unfair it would be to implement a change of this magnitude on a live game. I bought in excess of 50 bgs for $750,000. How is it right then for another Don to decide they want to do the same, only for this change to have been implemented and instead them having to spend the extra $225,000,000? I believe therefore that anything of this magnitude would require a reset of the game in order for it to introduced fairly and prevent the gap between old and new accounts, which is already massive, widening any further.

Assuming this was to be done at a level playing field (otherwise I'm resoundingly against it) then Chris's suggestions are worth exploring.

1) Limit the number of BG's you can have based on Rank 1 at Gangster and Thug, 3 at Goomba, 5 at Earner, 8 at WG, 10 at MM, 15 at Capo and so on, thereby again rewarding higher rank with more BGs. From a RP perspective this is slightly more realistic as a BG is more likely to want to work for a Capo or Boss than he would an Earner.

This would make more sense than the unlimited system. It would involve a permanent cap on Bodyguards, meaning that once you've reached your limit, you couldn't purchase any further BGs. In my opinion, this would be a good idea, it would prevent accounts spiralling out of control in terms of defence and therefore plunging wack required to kill accounts straight after it. However, I guess as we used to have a cap and this was removed, the Administration believes that no cap is the way to go.

2) A finite amount of BGs in the system, like the DFP based on the amount of mobsters in a city. You can only hire BGs from your own city... let's face it, if you are a Capo in NY why would you hire a BG from LV who could possibly be a spy or assassin from an LV family? That way Gangsters etc who are EWP, OWP etc would detract from available BGs from higher ranks. You would soon find CLs and Gfs enacting rules about lower ranks in their cities buying BGs when they can't buy one for their RHM etc. Again from an RP perspective this is more realistic as if we take NY as an example, what are the chances that there are 5,000 Bgs for hire in that city? With the GF, his RHM, LHM and his Captains and their RHM and LHM there is around 700+ BGs just for the upper structure.

Whilst this is fairly logical, I would worry about the gap it would make between the established and the new. Assuming I was a Godfather in the busiest city, what would stop me from having every BG available and thus be permanently more powerful than everyone else? It would again involve a cap on the number of BGs available for each account. I agree that the idea of 700+ BGs in the upper structure of one city is preposterous - how would we ever meet to discuss anything? However, I'm not sure that this is the right way to go about tackling the problem. I would be concerned that a new Gangster could never reach the same level as an established account with a system like this, regardless of effort.

3) BG Availability again based on rank to reflect your connections. Such as 2% chance at Thug of finding a BG who would work for you, up to 100% for Don and GF. Again this reflects higher ranks position, power and connections and the likelihood that a BG would want to work for a Don before he would want to work for a gangster.

This could work. I would suggest though that rather than a percentage chance of succeeding, it was a hardcoded option either you can or your can't up to a limit. I realise that makes it similar to the previous suggestion of a cap, but I just don't think anyone would put money up for a BG then turn around and not hire one. They would at least do some investigate work before committing their cash.

4) A maximum amount of BG's that can be hired per day or per 48hrs which would mean that a mobster would have to be demoted repeatedly to take advantage of OWP at the price of 750k per BG. For instance if it where 3 in any 48 hr period like the 'Take on a contract' then it would take at least 34 days to hire 50 BGs... Again from a RP prospective this is slightly more realistic as what are the chances of there being 50 out of work BGs at any one time?

This would certainly act as more of a deterrent and seems a little more realistic. Even if you owned an agency that trained and sold bodyguards, it is unlikely that you have 100s available immediately. It would take time to replenish your stock and even to get all these people together in bulk.

5) Base a BG's strength on the rank he was purchased at to signify that cheaper BGs are less effective. Lets face it, if there are 2 BGs for hire, 1 at 750k and one at 5 Mill +, which one would you think would be the more effective? A Bodyguard like Kevin Costner in the 'Bodyguard' would be a lot more expensive than a burned out alcoholic ex-presidental BG.

As I stated earlier, it was something of a superstition that some people believed a BG purchased at Don was more effective than one at Thug. I don't believe that is the case, but I can't say for sure. It would seem logical that a more expensive BG would be more effective than a cheaper one. He would have to be far better at his job to be worth the extra money.

My suggestion:

I believe that a set price for bodyguards, regardless of rank, is the way to move forward. It would limit the ability of new thugs to tank themselves up with 100+ bodyguards and it would make demotions for any other purpose other than punishment redundant. It restores the practicality of demotion to match its purpose and it prevents nobodies, which has always been a little sketchy to justify, having 100 bodyguards.

I would also suggest that if bodyguards aren't going to be capped, the tapering of benefit suggestion is incorporated. For more information on that see: http://mafiareturns.com/comm/thread/93501/page2. I would also say that this should only ever be introduced onto a fresh start. It would be massively in favour of the established accounts who have already taken advantage of this vs. new accounts that could not if this was to be the case.

Thanks for the Feedback Gwarble, wel thought out arguments for and against the various suggestions I made. I have to agree with you that there is definately an issue in the game that is a result of lots of minor points all coming to a head - Money in game, spiriling attack and defence, and character longetivity.

However, part of the problem is Deimne, although its not intentional or deliberate on his part. Allow me to elaborate.

I started playing .org in 2002 I think, right after St Valentines day. I was introduced to the game through an article in FHM. I quickly made a lot of friends, and mostly stuck to the same few families. To cut a long story short, .org eventually turned into a steaming pile of monkey crap, and me and my friends bounced from game to game looking for alternatives, eventually landing in MR.

I stopped playing MMORPGs in June 2008. However as I was still in contact with many of my good friends, I was dragged back here kicking and screaming by BBH who had a crew and invited me to join him through facebook. Took me a while to pluck up the courage to come back, and when I did BBH was dead. So I joined a Family under one of Kenobi's captains. I got to Capo and died. I came back, joined another family, got to Boss, and Died. I came back again, joined another Family and died again. Now I'm back again. I joined a NY family for the first time, as I had been unwilling to use my friendship with Deimne to get me into his family previously, but I had seen a trend.

Chances are, at the moment, if you live outside NY you will die at some point. Usually far quicker than you would in NY. The reasons for this can be sumurised thusly:

1) Deimne is the most powerful character in game. Those who don't know him are generally afraid of him, or of what he can do. Only the truely mad or desperate attack him or NY families as a result.

2) Deimne controls the largest, most populous City, NY. Again people are afraid of NY. If you mess up chances are 200+ mobsters with a bazillion BGs and RPG-7s for guns will decend upon your city and level it in short order. Within an hour or two only one or two people with super defense will be left to fight for their lives.

3) People's fear of NY and Deimne allows people in NY to live longer. All my previous CLs made a mistake somewhere along the line. They attacked someone they shouldn't have, or pissed someone off, or they got involved in a war that wasn't sensible. As they weren't NY families Deimne didn't feel oblidged to come to their aid... and neither should he have done so (I'm not blaming Deimne for their deaths - I blame the individual CLs and GFs)

What this all means is that NY is a breading ground for monster accounts. How do I know this? Well I'm the perfect example. My recent street post offending another GF. It wasn't my intention to offend anyone, maybe just do a Gwarble and raise a few laughs, but the GF was offended. he demanded an appology, but I was a consig, in a powerful NY family, and I stuck by my guns. Deimne, Tryion, hoopi and SpaceMountain all publically backed me, and as a result the GF in question backed down. I have no doubt that if I were a consig in say LA I'd have been shot at and a war would have errupted, probably resulting in the deaths of many of my friends, and associates. Alternatively, had my CL been a weaker CL, I'd have been ordered to appologise to save the family, or just executed, or demoted... which wouldn't have been so bad as I'd just have bought another 50 Bgs at 750k.

As I said, this all comes down to Deimne, and his amazing run of luck which has resulted in him being perhaps the most powerful character ever in MR or .orgs history. I don't blame Deimne for this, he was just playing the game to the best of his abailty. It is as Gwarble suggests in his post in http://mafiareturns.com/comm/thread/93501/page2 (which is a fantastic post and well worth a 15 minute read) a culmination of several small glitches all combining to create a hugely unbalanced playing field. Unlimited defence, unlimited BGs, Pumping RL money into game Money, and Mobsters living well beyond the originally anticipated lifespan. I remember a day when living a month or two was a real achievement, I've managed it 4 times since I returned here in October and made Capo at least every single time.

I was never the greatest MR player in history. I've been a CL a few times, and made a anme for myself a few times, but I was never a MeM, Anita, FlyingPig or Deimne. I only ever played to have fun with my friends. people like me where never intended to live for months on end accumulating power and wealth just because the game technically allows it. DOn't get me wrong, I'm proud as hell that I got Consig, and I'll be even prouder when SM promotes me to Don some day 4 months from now... just never thought I'd ever see the day though where I lived this long with so little effort.

Apologies in advance for my longwinded and rambling post :D

It's great to wake up and see a few suggestions - by far this one being my favorite:

4) A maximum amount of BG's that can be hired per day or per 48hrs which would mean that a mobster would have to be demoted repeatedly to take advantage of OWP at the price of 750k per BG. For instance if it where 3 in any 48 hr period like the 'Take on a contract' then it would take at least 34 days to hire 50 BGs... Again from a RP prospective this is slightly more realistic as what are the chances of there being 50 out of work BGs at any one time?

This would, as Gwarble said, act mostly as a deterrent from the sheer amount of time it would take for someone to load up. My only tweak would be to make the cap on the bodyguards higher as your rank progresses - because I'd like to assume that as the higher you go in the world, the easier it would be to find protection.

I compleatly agree with both combining Al's idea and Chris's on this matter. As you rank you should be able to buy cheeper BGs, and it deffinalty would cut down on all the thugs that are OWP. I also think it is true that, if you hier a BG at say Capo, then you buy 20 more when you hit boss, the BGs bought at the rank of Made should deffinatly not be are great and strong that the ones bought at the Boss rank. Having a set amount of BGs you can but in a certain time period is a little iffy in my mind.

Gwarble I disagree with you solely for one reason:

It would limit the ability of new thugs to tank themselves up with 100+ bodyguards

So basically those with a lot of money (those who are already tanked up) will get their friends all (tanked up) then pretty much be impossible to kill. Plus by putting that kind of restriction on younger accounts you take away the ability for older accounts to die. Which get's money out of the game and stagnance from happening.

If this was done then a reset would only be right to me. Why is it fair that 10-40 other players can get the benefits but those that come along after or die can't have the same? I mean that would literally make a see saw effect. Almost as if you put Nicole Richie on one side and Andre the Giant on the other.