A possible solution to HQ Dumping

I still haven't gotten a response as to whether this tactic is officially allowed, but regardless of that, I think most reasonable people can agree that it is against the spirit of the game. The game should be about attacking, defending and maintaining turf - not about leaving the gang to create headquarters and re-joining with them. Which is becoming way too common.

This solution may not be popular (especially with the people now gaming the HQ system), but I think it is fair - and is needed if we want to return to the style of play that was originally intended.

First, remove all HQs from every gang currently in the game - with the possible exception of that gang's FIRST HQ (if that information is still available)

From that point on, when the chief of one gang joins another gang, all of their properties come over just as they currently do - EXCEPT ALL HQs ARE CONVERTED INTO NORMAL PROPERTIES using the procedure detailed below.

HQ Conversion Procedure
- Remove HQ Status (the x10 multiplier) from the tile being transferred
- Remove any defenders from the tile over the normal limit of 200
- The value of the tile will not change during the transfer (but it will start to decrease to the new minimum every night just as other tiles do.)


Everything else would work exactly as it does now - deputies of a gang would be able to place a new HQ every 5 days, HQ status would multiply the property value by 10 and allow up to 2,000 defenders.

This would allow all of the benefits of the HQ system as I believe it was originally intended while stopping people from gaming the system to artificially boost point values. I understand some people may not like the idea of losing all of their HQs - but that step is crucial to make sure that the playing field is level and that all of the dumped HQs are removed from the game.

Hopefully, if this change were put into place, they would run an event similar to when Multi-HQs were first introduced that allows a new HQ to be placed every few hours for the first few days (or 1 per day for the first week, etc) to allow gangs to gain back some of the lost HQs quickly.

So what your saying is a gang still can place a hq every 5 days and have more then one. But when a merge takes place, the team joining doesn't get to keep the Hqs and transfer them over. Making a gangs age potentially more valuable... As the older the gang the more Hqs they could have. I like the idea! It'll make merging less popular. But even out the playing field. I do believe something like this needs to be put in place as well as the new building system Nicorr talked about.

What a merge?

Saturn wrote:What a merge?

If you're asking what happens when gangs merge, I answered that in this section of the OP:

ScrobDobbins wrote:From that point on, when the chief of one gang joins another gang, all of their properties come over just as they currently do - EXCEPT ALL HQs ARE CONVERTED INTO NORMAL PROPERTIES using the procedure detailed below.

HQ Conversion Procedure
- Remove HQ Status (the x10 multiplier) from the tile being transferred
- Remove any defenders from the tile over the normal limit of 200
- The value of the tile will not change during the transfer (but it will start to decrease to the new minimum every night just as other tiles do.)

ScrobDobbins wrote:

Saturn wrote:What a merge?

If you're asking what happens when gangs merge, I answered that in this section of the OP:

ScrobDobbins wrote:From that point on, when the chief of one gang joins another gang, all of their properties come over just as they currently do - EXCEPT ALL HQs ARE CONVERTED INTO NORMAL PROPERTIES using the procedure detailed below.

HQ Conversion Procedure
- Remove HQ Status (the x10 multiplier) from the tile being transferred
- Remove any defenders from the tile over the normal limit of 200
- The value of the tile will not change during the transfer (but it will start to decrease to the new minimum every night just as other tiles do.)

That's how it was before. I doubt they will regress the game because you want to rage quit.

Saturn wrote:That's how it was before. I doubt they will regress the game because you want to rage quit.

No one is rage quitting. That would require someone to be mad.

Once again, if you don't have anything constructive to add to the conversation, you probably shouldn't post your nonsense on the forums.


Edit: No one on my side is mad at least. Judging from the personal attacks against me in the public chat and the private messages I've been getting from you guys, some of you seem to be pretty heated.

Why not simply base the amount of HQs on the amount of henchmen a player has down on the map? First, that would require the game to differenciate everyone's land in the game, and not just by gang. My territories should be separate from my colleague's territories. He worked for that land. Not me.

However, if he has a certain amount of henchmen, he should be eligible for an HQ. As should I. Probably moreso since I've been in-game much longer than him.

If, however, I decide NOT to use an HQ, as gang leader, I could turn around and offer that to a possible recruit. Join me, and I'll allot you an HQ to use on top of what you've already earned. This could be useful for a gang like mine, where I work on local territory, but my colleague works on international territories (he flies a lot. We're currently HQ'ing airports). Sure, I earned the HQ but why not let me give that HQ away to my deputy or a potential recruit?

Now... if my colleague decides to quit the gang, that's not good. Currently, I keep all his territory as the founder of the gang. However, if he quits, and the game differenciates the territories, I SHOULD lose those territories. It SHOULD be a burden. If all of Scotland left the UK, wouldn't that have hurt the UK? Same principle. The HQ's I give away, either stay with my colleague's account ( I did give it to him after all) or could simply cease to be an HQ (site an internal conflict or whatever for the storyline). Regardless, there should be both a benefit AND a penalty for people coming & going from gangs, as well as gain & loss of HQs.

Walt Johnston wrote:Why not simply base the amount of HQs on the amount of henchmen a player has down on the map?

That might actually be a decent way to handle it. It seems fair to both larger gangs (I'd imagine under the current system, many players in those gangs never get to place HQs under the 'normal' "every 5 days system" so their only option is to leave and do the HQ shuffle.) And smaller gangs would still be able to benefit - if they put in the work, that is.

They could even reset that number when you join/leave a gang so that you'd have to have placed those henchman while you were in your current gang in order for them to count toward your HQ total - so you wouldn't be able to just leave and join placing all the henchman on one square to reach the total.

I like it.

Dislike Walt johnston's idea. A gang or member shold be dedicated to a gang when joining and if they leave they loose out on their work they have don't, or it will just all us all to join and exit a gang at will without regret.

However I like the topics idea. Reason being is that it is all my idea from the other topic. I dislike the "everyones HQ's turn to normal landay at first though.

DevilsNipple wrote:Dislike Walt johnston's idea. A gang or member shold be dedicated to a gang when joining and if they leave they loose out on their work they have don't, or it will just all us all to join and exit a gang at will without regret.

Yeah actually, I didn't notice the last part of his comment that the properties would leave with the player.

If they stay with the gang, I'm fine with it. I have mixed feelings about properties staying with a player.

I don't think a player should loose all if they leave their gang. They should get to keep 1 area they placed for that dang for them self when they leave as a kind of starting income and area for hq as it will likely be there home spot.

If IRL, the Hong Kong Triads suddenly split into two factions, would each faction NOT have loyal areas and loyal henchmen?  That's how I see it happening in the gang.  

I reckon the idea scares the shit out of large gangs.  But it may also add a bit more competition in CD as well. If my colleague left the gang to start his own, HE is the one who got all that territory in Europe. Not me. Would those territories not remain loyal to him, rather than me, someone who's never been there?