Accepted Prevent multiple skullbreakers/marauders working together in gang wars

[Flames]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Edit rule 5.1 or add a new rule to prevent multiple skullbreakers/marauders from working together in a gang war.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Prevents unnecessary power creep, especially in gang wars.
Allows other players to win against big alliances with high leveled players.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
People won't be able to constantly win a gang war.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
As I've seen in a recent war I've seen a marauder and skullbreaker working together, Since they aren't a part of the same gang/org the rule didn't apply. (Unless I'm wrong). This suggestion would limit the powercreep in gang wars and allow other gangs the chance to actually win in a fight rather than having the triple entente of marauders/skullbreakers breathing down smaller org's necks in a gang war. This technically loopholes the rules as you can have multiple marauders/skullbreakers working together as well.

 

[Jason M.]

+Support

The fact that at this moment you can quite literally have 3 Skull breakers on one point and it not break any rules is literally criminal.
Please accept this ASAP.

 

[John Paul.]

+support

please accept this

 

[Lee Falzone]

+Support

 

[mwah]

How exactly do you enforce this rule who gets forced off their role? Better rule suggestion would be to just get rid of allies there is a cap on org member counts for a reason we dont need 50% of the active playerbase all under 1 umbrella of an alliance

 

[(1)Bonga]

+support

 

[Bubba]

+support

 

[sahns]

+ support

 

[Illidan Cyplenkov]

-Support

mait the only reason you're complaining about this is that you were trying to 1v15 a gang war. Obviously, you'll jump to the big denominator and be like 'le skullbreaker meh marauder bad!!'

Any alliance can get multiple marauders/skullbreakers, so how is it not fair? Literaly rule-mania.

 

[genoss]

+ support
this already applies for raiding parties as recently as well. good idea.

 

[Flames]

-Support

mait the only reason you're complaining about this is that you were trying to 1v15 a gang war. Obviously, you'll jump to the big denominator and be like 'le skullbreaker meh marauder bad!!'

Any alliance can get multiple marauders/skullbreakers, so how is it not fair? Literaly rule-mania.

I understand your perspective, however, the original intent of the suggestion was not because I’m mad about anything, I find 1v15ing enjoyable but if anything, it’s more of if a new gang tried to do anything they’ll get bodied by they marauder/skull breaker alliance combo. What if the alliance gets all 3 marauders/skullbreakers and it was against you? Then again it’s ultimately upto SL how they go about it.

 

[Flames]

How exactly do you enforce this rule who gets forced off their role? Better rule suggestion would be to just get rid of allies there is a cap on org member counts for a reason we dont need 50% of the active playerbase all under 1 umbrella of an alliance

Could just be an edit to the raiding parties rules but it’s ultimately upto SL

 

[Archsam]

+Support

I would like to see that only 1 marauder or skullbreaker is allowed per gang in a Gang War

 

[River]

+Support personally i feel like if there is two gangs in a war and are allied they should only be able to have 1 skullbreaker for their entire team not gang meaning that if there is 4 gangs that are allied fighting in a war against 4 other gangs that are also allied team A would only be able to have 1 skullbreaker and team B would also have one skullbreaker especially that the NLR rule do not exist alternative fix would be add NLR for the damn skullbreakers they're a behemoth

 

[Coolioo]

Suggestion Accepted​

---

Hi @Flames

Thanks for taking the time to make a suggestion.

The Content Team agrees that the absence of this, as a rule, bypasses the reason why Marauders/Skullbreakers are limited in gangs in the first place. I will be making a rule regarding this.

This will now be locked, moved, and marked as accepted.​