From what I see, almost everyone has a valid point for or against, and like William, I'm really digging the fact that this is seeing so much discussion.

Whilst in discussion with another person, I was thinking to myself, what minor changes could be made that would undoubtedly help 'the little guy' in a scorched earth scenario like we see so often.

1. Both of Squishy's suggestions are viable, being more voided pro, and auto auth for a dead CL's members. While I *do* see the con's mentioned for voided pro completely understandable, this still allows for more 1% shot opportunities, and, let's be real, only a handful of people can legitimately shoot at cap, so these 1% shots are what we are aiming for, as well as keeping younger, mainly newer, players alive instead of running them off.

The auto auth after CL death adds to these 1% chances, assuming those still alive want to take these shots. If not, then nothing we do will change anything, because the opportunity to shoot does nothing if no one takes said opportunity.

I propose one step further: CL dies, all hands and Made+ die, only folks left are the 'little guys' (admittedly, maybe not little guns). These remaining members get an automatic 30/60 minute pro..to either take that 1% shot, or run with their tails between their legs to another family. Worst case scenario, nobody shoots, they all find homes. (The protection thread need not be mentioned, as we all know nobody is following the rules for this anyway) Best case scenario, somebody gets a 1% off, there's some sort of vindication.

I get it that somebody who only has a few hours in on a character should not be able to take out someone with hundreds or even a thousand+ hours in...but, this can already happen now, without any changes. We need to keep and enlarge our player base, killing everything in sight during a war is a bit counterproductive to this.

Having said all of this, if I'm Disorder and Co, I'm doing the same damn thing he is, I put all this time and effort into a character, I'm still alive, stop me if you can. But, short of the regime retiring, or a full reset, which will never happen, scorched earth will keep happening, and we will continue to lose players who don't quite get the concept that dying is what we do. We all need to find some medium ground to agree on, and get and keep some new blood on our shores.

I can see some of Duchess concerns. I still think it would make attackers have to take some more risk during a take down.

The more I think about it, the more I think that pro should just be eliminated altogether. I'm not sure I've ever heard the reason for having it -- the only thing i can think of is to prevent someone from going to sleep and getting spammed by shots until they get 1%? Even in that circumstance, the number of w/s flying around should alert the family? Big accounts really wouldn't have to worry more than they do now -- as there are still rank limits for shooting...someone would still have to either rank up and rogue - or set up and take the shot. I'm not sure it would increase the amount of random wack attempts.

Without pro - small guns would be able to just pop off shots at the other side and hope to get lucky. I would feel a lot more useful doing this than shooting at my own crew (which as others have stated makes no sense). 

I think instead of protection - we should just increase the effectiveness of the forts. From a realism perspective it would mean the crew could actually hole up in their HQ. Generally curious -- has a fort ever saved anyone from getting shot? I'm sure they have I would just be curious to know how frequently it happens. Right now they seem like a giant money suck...and no one really uses them. Occasionally you'll get told to fly home if there is a rogue but I feel like that is more to control your crew (prevent or identify pro'ers) than to protect them. In all the wars I've been in I've never once been told to stick in my home district. Increasing their effectiveness would give a real home turf advantage.

I propose one step further: CL dies, all hands and Made+ die, only folks left are the 'little guys' (admittedly, maybe not little guns). These remaining members get an automatic 30/60 minute pro..to either take that 1% shot, or run with their tails between their legs to another family. 

I think thats a plausible addition to the auth that Izzy was speaking about. Allowing the low level soldiers to decide how they want to proceed.

The more I think about it, the more I think that pro should just be eliminated altogether.  

As much as I am concerned about keeping a level playing field. We cant throw this one away. The pro-shot is almost a cornerstone in our world. Without it, some of the battles our history has seen, would have never happened. Pro shots or lack thereof have changed the momentum of wars before. Im against taking away the pro shot in its entirety. 

However I am for the baby pro that Outcast was speaking about. And Id second the conditions Pratt and Izzy were proposing to break pro. The only addition I want to that is; when the attackers refresh, it should break their pro's. Otherwise its like a lamb surrounded by wolves, with no where to go. 

And one question here. Izzy when you said jail breaking, breaks pros. Would looking inside jail break pros? Or does the act of actually busting people out break pros? 

yeah I guess I was just thinking about it from a realism standpoint. I still feel like its a bit silly for members to be shooting at their own crew during a war. If we are going to be used as fodder, at least let us shoot at the enemy a few times before we die :P I just feel like it would make wars a lot more fun for more people.

No doubt it's been a cornerstone, but that's just because its a built in feature so people had to use it to survive.  wackback death was also a cornerstone until it wasn't :P

I may get some flak for this, as it is evident views go to the extreme in both directions, BUT the proing mechanic has been one of my biggest pet peeves since I started playing this game. I understand why it was introduced, but it has been 'exploited' for lack of a better word.

My idea/solution would be to make shooting your gun COMPLETELY void the possibility of receiving a pro for the length of your shot timer. Long as you do NOT shoot, it will work, but the very act of shooting, would then be risky, and also give everyone the chance to gang up on the shooter. Rogues taking out several high ranking accounts would no longer be a thing, they'd get one shot, then be riddled full of holes, like in reality.

Bodyguards would make a ton more sense then, although I think they should have a cap per rank, as its a little ridiculous to have a gangster just as protected as a godfather, but that would be for another thread.

 wackback death was also a cornerstone until it wasn't :P

 

Thats kinda sad in it self. No risks, all the benefits. 

On the face of it, I don't think this will achieve all that much. Instead, I think this needs to be taken back a few steps and we ask ourselves "what is the problem we are trying to fix?"

To me, the length of wars right now seems to be quite short, holistically speaking in terms of what has come previously in MR, so why is this needed now? I can't really see any reason as it doesn't really seem to be an actual problem. Most people play their entire account for the opportunity to be useful in a war, so making the most enjoyable aspect of the game happen for shorter periods of time seems to be counterproductive.

I think then we need to consider a different question which is probably the thinking behind this suggestion; "how do we make wars more entertaining?"

To me, this is certainly an issue. Currently, most wars follow the pretty basic pattern of a stronger side attacks a weaker side and renders the result obsolete within the first few seconds. The side who moves first nearly always wins and the survivors, if they exist, then do their best to draw things out as long as possible. Quite fun for the individual survivor, not really for anyone else as they take protection shot after protection shot, shooting people who don't influence the outcome until all the pro wackers are dead and they take their last hurrah. 

My dream war scenario is that two roughly equal factions attack each other, with them both active, in a hail of bullets, with lots of casualties on both sides and it being something that is akin to vday. Unfortunately, players have evolved and are much smarter than this, so they do the exact opposite of what I have outlined above; they attack a weaker faction, whilst they are inactive, typically during the middle of their night time and unable to defend themselves.

That is a much more difficult problem to address and would likely require a whole new outlook on the entire PvP system. Happy to engage in that conversation, but not unless there is any probability of things changing.

I've addressed this numerous times and it's been dismissed each time. BG wacking needs reworked badly, especially in game periods like the present where the existing regime is not allowing any rival to live past the age required for cap-killing. And why should they? Why should the crux of character development hinge on your rivals allowing you to live long enough to become a threat?

I don't mean to be a dick here, but why not address the gargantuan amount of time one must spend to be a meaningful contributor to a war effort? Why focus on "speeding up wars" (which are one-sided takedowns 95% of the time) when we could make wars more accessible? More intuitive? This suggestion just ends up feeling really tone deaf in light of how often related issues are brought up and ignored.