Org wars in general.

[John Daymon]

What rule do you wish to Edit/Add: I guess adding a rule for org wars or changing 2.5 or something
Your version of the rule: ??.?? If an organisation is in war with another organisation it is completely fine for them to kill each other at any point of time till one of the parties give up, however a war has to have a meaning for it to actually be in place.
Why do you believe this rule should be Added/Edited: Because org wars now are lame as shit.

 

[Taylor]

What rule do you wish to Edit/Add: I guess adding a rule for org wars or changing 2.5 or something
Your version of the rule: ??.?? If an organisation is in war with another organisation it is completely fine for them to kill each other at any point of time till one of the parties give up, however a war has to have a meaning for it to actually be in place.
Why do you believe this rule should be Added/Edited: Because org wars now are lame as shit.

if this is a thing ill come on perp

 

[Walker]

ye good idea !!!!!

 

[JER]

bump

 

[Adrish]

Honestly,

This shit would be live af.

But it would need quite a lot of restrictions so that other people aren't affected and people would need to know for sure who is in the opposing org. I do see this bringing a lot of fun to the server, however I can also see a lot of problems being brought alongside it. This is going to be something that would require a lot of restrictions in terms of starting/ending a war where both sides agree to it and can only be stopped if a side surrenders. Perhaps the amount of wars an org can initiate? I say this because if we start a war against all orgs, the majority of the server would be in an org so I could technically kill a majority of people on sight. As well as this, some sort of restriction on who is allowed to help the organisation, such as people from outside the org as well as allies.

Currently, the organisation system is going through changes and updates, so perhaps this could be one of the things we see added? (@Ayjay @TinySlayer @Bolli)

 

[Mage]

Honestly,

This shit would be live af.

But it would need quite a lot of restrictions so that other people aren't affected and people would need to know for sure who is in the opposing org. I do see this bringing a lot of fun to the server, however I can also see a lot of problems being brought alongside it. This is going to be something that would require a lot of restrictions in terms of starting/ending a war where both sides agree to it and can only be stopped if a side surrenders. Perhaps the amount of wars an org can initiate? I say this because if we start a war against all orgs, the majority of the server would be in an org so I could technically kill a majority of people on sight. As well as this, some sort of restriction on who is allowed to help the organisation, such as people from outside the org as well as allies.

Currently, the organisation system is going through changes and updates, so perhaps this could be one of the things we see added? (@Ayjay @TinySlayer @Bolli)

Once org perks/levelling system comes out (hopefully), losing a war should be a force disband. I don't know what would classify you losing a "war", maybe how many narcotics you sell over X amount of time? This would give the incentive to compete against each other. And to stop people from bending over, they should risk losing their org and all their progress. Maybe a bit aids to lose months of effort after grinding so long and losing one org war, but I doubt org perks will be that significant so having to start from the bottom again shouldn't be too hard especially as experienced players, and again, I just feel like it makes org wars more valuable and makes people more competitive about them which is what we definitely need right now. Maybe even a leaderboard of orgs to see who has the highest level org/whatever.

 

[rogue]

this is one of those ideas that sound alright in theory but probably really terrible in practise

 

[John Daymon]

this is one of those ideas that sound alright in theory but probably really terrible in practise

Considering this was a thing back in V1, we who were involved know it was great.

 

[rogue]

Considering this was a thing back in V1, we who were involved know it was great.

well im afraid times have changed and people become more triggered than ever

 

[Hazza the Fifty-Sixth]

Hello agent daymon!
I would like to let you know that I fully support this suggestion because there's nothing to do on perp except grow drugs and troll police!

Kind regards,

 

[John Daymon]

@rogue I can underestand your point of view in this situation and yes people have changed quite a lot on perp, the reason for this in my opinion is because things have become so restricting. Back then people were finding new ways to roleplay on perp actually trying to have fun which they still are but, have to grow cus you literally get banned for bullshit reasons sometimes. I think it's a joke how things are sorted on perp sometimes.

I think that people like @nade @Husky agree with this

 

[Bnjemann]

In my opinion, a gang war should have a motive, such as dispute over major territory or control over a set district. Say for example, your org owns all the subs houses and you see a uniformed rival gang driving down Williams street, it should be clear under global "Gang law" that just by being there in your uniforms, you're liable to get attacked. It doesn't matter on what there intentions might be, if your gangs are at war then you should consider there presence in an area that you control an act of hostility and a threat to your business. Shouldn't necessarily happen in stupidly obvious places but districts lesser visited by the PLPD, such as the suburbs, church area, apartment blocks, etc. Should be free hunting ground when you're at war with a rival gang.