Overall I liked the idea, as it was discussed on IRC. What I realize now wasn't clear however, was what about a person who can hit through the 175 BGs normally? So say someone with a 2000 kill gun wants to shoot a capped out GF. They would be able to hit normally. Would they still be able to hit after this was implement? Or is your idea that they'd need to get their smaller guns to wipe out some BGs first, no matter how big their gun? 

+1

I like the idea a lot!

" Shots coming from inside your own crew bypass this and goes through as a regular shot to allow pro shots? "

No, I believe they should still shoot through BGs if the requirements are met for that. What difference does it make if you're standing there shooting at the target, or someone from their crew is? Do the BGs step aside for the crew member and allow for a direct shot?

Got it Squishy, thanks for clarifying! I like the suggestion, adds a new twist on things. 

My immediate reaction to this is that it'll just make the strongest even stronger as it protects them from cap killers killing them outright.

I will use Disorder as an example as he is very popular. 

I want to kill Disorder.

Under the current system, I build my gun to cap killer and fire at Disorder, he dies.

Under the proposed system, I build my gun to cap killer and fire at Disorder, he loses 4 BGs and then I die.

I'm not sure how this really improves the dynamic much?

I really like this idea. This has the potential of forcing some wider cooperation within cities. 

Maybe make the pro shots possible when they come from the district and not just the crew? 

Although, limiting them in the crew, would probably force leaders to try and win loyalty and activity from their members.

Either way, it will bring activity and bonding, within crews, up and it's certainly a positive change as i see it.

Granted, this is essentially a rogue killer change as Larry points out but i think the game has more to win than it will lose from it.

We have seen in the recent past crew leaders acting like rogues. Completely ignoring their crews (with the exeption of a few) and just going for it. This change would change that. A crew leader would have to use his crew if he wanted to attack and bring some result. And to use their crew, they would have to actively train it too.

I don't have the stats in front of me, maybe you do, but how many wars occur where both A and B have numerous people with 96% equivalency of the BG cap? I wouldn't have thought $277,812,500 was that common an investment in too many accounts, so I would imagine it is a relatively infrequent occurrence.

More often than not, I would assume side A has 10-15 people with 96% equivalent and side B has 0-1 person in that remit.

To be safe, side A make allowance for more than just the 0-1 person on side B having the 96%, so rather than shooting 2-3 Consigs, they now BG wack prior to the first wave on the 4 top targets; all the big targets die instantly. The 2-3 Consigs might survive, but they can't really do anything as they need to BG wack the big players from side A first before they even have a shot at killing them.

I mentioned this in another post about shortening wars (which this wouldn't achieve by the way), but having a few people running around after a war who can't change the outcome won't make it more exciting.

I don't think this will have the effect you're looking for. I think it'll just cause slightly fewer initial casualties, followed by more protracted casualties in the longer term.

-1

This removes the purpose of having a cap gun and also rewards pay to win more.

To be safe, side A make allowance for more than just the 0-1 person on side B having the 96%, so rather than shooting 2-3 Consigs, they now BG wack prior to the first wave on the 4 top targets; all the big targets die instantly. The 2-3 Consigs might survive, but they can't really do anything as they need to BG wack the big players from side A first before they even have a shot at killing them.

That would probably be the new style of game play. As a friend said "Will just make the strongest accounts even stronger".

I understand why this change is suggested, in effort to improve communication. This I don't think is the route. 

I bet there are other ways to up the communication. Im with Larry on this one. 

Like Dutchess and the others -- I like that the issue is being recognized and discussed but I would think this would make things worse. I do feel like it would more firmly embed the powerful.

If the idea of uncertainty is the underlying idea -- why not just reduce the visibility of protection levels. Just make it say 'Protected' for anyone who owns bgs? This would at least force crews to do a little more research and not just some simple math when ordering up a war sheet. Cap killers will still hit obviously but maybe some lower down hitters will miss their shots?

I have a few comments to make. I believe wars in this game will eventually be hitters vs. BGs rather than hitters vs. proers. And that the purpose of the protection mechanic has been made obsolete by the shift in how defense grows actively over time. That being said, this suggestion moves us closer to that reality. So before I list my concerns, I'll say this is a nudging step in the right direction. BGs should eventually replace proers. I don't know yet in what form or capacity.

My first concern is that this additional protection is afforded exclusively to those at the top- those that have wiped out every threat that has risen in the past 6 months. In my humble opinion, I don't believe they need or deserve any additional protection, as the dynamic of the game's character progression allows them to strike down any perceived or potential threat at any time with no recourse.

My second concern is that BG wacking is still mathematically problematic. I can either get five more kills to shoot over a BG or have another player get 150 more kills to kill the BG for me. It's a no-brainer. The risk of trusting someone else with your plans to shoot someone and the risk of that person dying after taking the BG shot make it even more unappealing. If having five people train guns offered any bonus over a single hitter and four proers, we'd again be moving in the right direction. Hitters vs. BGs rather than hitters vs. proers.

My third and final concern is really just an echo of those of LarryLongNeck. Wars these days are top vs. bottom and strong vs. weak. After a group/city is killed, they'll often say "we could've struck in x days or x weeks". The threshold across which leaders would feel comfortable engaging in a war grows considerably with this change. Meaning those at the top are afforded even more time than they presently enjoy.

I don't want the purpose of any suggestion to be to favor the top OR the bottom exclusively. But this is one of those suggestions.

oh has a point about the math (which was raised in the other thread as well). why is it so cheap to shoot over BGs but so much harder to directly kill one? That doesn't really make any sense at all.  BGs should be made much easier to kill, so us filthy casuals can actually take shots at them :P Especially if a change like this is made. 

The strong v weak thing is always going to exist. If people put in the work and have power they are going to throw their weight around -- and rightfully so...they earned it. The issue is that these dynasties have become much more ridiculous to unseat. Even with the absurd amount of free kills -- 900-1000 kills still takes a lot of time and dedication to get. 

If you want to make wars longer, and to make them more consequential - BGs should be weaker to wack attempts, pro time should be restricted or eliminated as discussed in the other thread - and there should be a legitimate home city advantage (forts offering way more protection, vision decrease for visitors, something like that.

Want to make wars last longer? Reduce the BG cap, allow bigger guns to still shoot through several BGs (number up to you, math on that isn't my strong suit), and make it to where people have to have either no protection left or a small % of protection before they are exposed and can be killed. 

I don't think we necessarily want to make wars longer or shorter, just better for more people, really.

At first I was indifferent, but given some thought I'm really not a fan of this idea. It'll just make it harder to make changes, and give the wealthiest players in the game an extra layer of protection they don't really need.

I have read some of the replies here to see what other people were thinking about the suggestion.

I really like the idea tbh. Even though some people put the "stronger" will get stronger in favor, I do not believe so. Usually the stronger in this game is not the one with the most BGS, but the highest gun. There is and will always be capkillers, and there is and always will be full IWP people. 

If we then do as Izzy suggested, the "weaker" will not be weaker imo. Takedowns usually only focus on the highest guns-people. Usually CLS + hands + a bit extra. In a relatively large city that could be for instance 15 people. Lets say people save up a lot of money for this new system and thereby is fully suited. It would take in theory 30 shots (depending on how many the bgs gets taken down) to kill all of them(The 15 people on the weak side).

In order to do a takedown, the big guys either need MORE potential capkillers (to make sure they hit) or to involve other members of the crew to do bg shots. Having to get more people involved poses a risk for leakage, or simply not being able to hit all of the other side, which can lead to possible retaliation. This involves more strategy instead of a purge, selecting will very like be done. I hope it makes the war longer, since "war" in this game currently is a joke. It is basically takedowns over and over again, which IMO is boring whether I am on the winning or losing side. The fun part about wars is the adrenaline rush from the planning, flying, and coordination. 

And tbh... The weaker side has usually a lot of people with lower guns capable of shooting BGS, which means possible damage can still be done. Those players that will now shoot bodygards, would NEVER shoot at higher people and hit anyway... 

Feel free to roast me but with logical reasoning please. 

it will be great if something changes.. no point in this game unless your super rich