No real issue with the hustle hangover repeat use length, but would not object to it being shortened. However, how does tapering, which only impacts upon the top 1.5% of guns in the game, cause frustration to the little guys building?

It would be nice to have, as a reward, hustle hangover cures in varying amounts - e.g. untradeable tokens that can only be used yearly that covers 7 days or the like, or a token that can cover a weekend that can only be used once every 6 months. 

Definitely against the idea of removing tapering though.

I don't understand why this is an issue; it affects less than 2% of the users (based on current userbase figures) - those most able to afford the penalty, and only once the lowest of those shooters reaches +650, which isn't a kick in the tits away from being a cap killer.

Other than the hassle of an extra calculation on my spreadsheet, it didn't really bother me. I'm not sure how others feel, but it was kind of a target for me to reach tapering cos that meant I was one of the top 10 shooters.

Honestly, as a shooter, the addition of the 'heat' timer was more of an inconvenience to me, cos whilst I've been pinched for a kill when still 'hot' a few times, I've only hit taper once in 7+ years...

The regime who survives a site-wide war is always going to be dominant after winning that war because everyone else is dead. Remove the taper and that is still going to be the case.

In most circumstances, the top 1.5% (which based on 557 users at the moment is 8 people) of the survivors are going to be allied to that regime, meaning they are those most tapered, thus allowing everyone else to catch up to them.

As for the other issues you raised, which add a bit of ambiguity into who is where; great. That unknown element has been lacking since Anubis disgracefully shared the wack code and the game is all the better for the fewer of the internal mechanics becoming public knowledge. 

In most circumstances, the top 1.5% (which based on 557 users at the moment is 8 people) of the survivors are going to be allied to that regime, meaning they are those most tapered, thus allowing everyone else to catch up to them

Extremely happy people are replying, however most people who survive a big site wide war dont build its normally the inactive accounts who make it. Sure they are the top 8 for the first 3 or so weeks. However once they are passed which happens most of the time the cycle of being punished for hard work begins. 

There is nothing competitive about tapering . It's a clusterfuck of guessing as it's impossible to tell the order of top 8/10 after a site wide war. 

Seth appreciate you taking the time to write a reply. How do we determine who deserves the penalty?  Based off the amount of work put in? That simply does not make sense. In my 4 years here I have been in tapering 3 times. A cooldown on a shooting timer is more detrimental than the speed at which you can build your gun? I call bullshit. After a site wide war it all about speed. Who gets there first to make the next move. Tapering literally stalls time for the regime in charge after a large war.  Heat has never been an issue for anyone with a good flow of connections to other gunmen. Simply put there are work arounds get your other guns involved what is the workaround for tapering dont build until everyone is so far ahead its impossible to hit top 10? 

Well, since we're discussing work arounds... Rogue(tte). Literally a full +1 with zero time limit whenever you win a race. Completely disregards taper iirc.

You still taper in those kills. Those are also rewards for activity if i am not mistaken. 

/me sneaks off to amend my spreadsheet again

DougRoss,

Prior to your arrival here, which you mentioned as being 4 years ago, it is worth noting that I was vehemently against the idea of tapering because it was used in lieu of removing wackback death.  During the days of the Player Commission I in fact voted and vigorously spoke against it when it was brought up as a suggestion feature by Squishy; I believe I characterized it as a "risk-free ride".  I was no friend of the feature when it was introduced and was no friend for many years later.

Still, with wackback death all but gone, I have come to view tapering as a necessary evil that levels the playing field in the rare situations where large swaths of the site are killed in a war; this is obviously a gameplay mechanism advantage, and obviously the outcome of this can be changed by the survivors continuing to kill new competition.  It should also be noted that this feature, at its best utilization when it is a considerable factor, prevents the site from ripping itself apart in scenarios where a rebuild would be onerous or entirely burdensome on the survivors.  I think that is a good thing.

Similar to the arguments of stealth being "overpowered" despite stealth rarely affecting the outcome of a war or hindering a war effort, I do not see the immediate need or justification to essentially bail out a very small group of players who are obviously proficient enough to have tapering apply to them, and if it is removed, it would reason that the BG cap should be adjusted accordingly to account for the change.  The scenarios where this feature would adversely affect these players are small, specialized, and practically - beneficial to the little guy.  I also think that adding a degree of mystery to a player's wack in these end-game situations is a good thing.

Additionally, I would also counter that the somewhat-newly introduced feature of distance factoring in to a player's wack on another player has a far greater effect at changing the outcome of a success or a fail on the vast majority of players in a wartime situation, and if I'm lobbying to change a feature on the perceived "fairness" for work put in, distance would likely be at the top of my list.   

Lastly, and, respectfully, over the decade I've run the gamut between accounts that have done less than fuck all to accounts that would qualify me in the "no-life" category, so I am pleased to provide this reply with some experience about the feature that we're discussing today.

Wackback death was removed (and then reintroduced in a vastly limited way) and replaced with tapering.  In lieu of young or medium-term accounts that were likely to catch up with the big guns of the day being unceremoniously felled by wackback death (RIP Sprozza x4), something quite common before you started, tapering was introduced.  Today, it now serves the dual purpose of serving as a buffer to compensate for the large amount of Durdens, RIA's and MIA's that are readily available; things that were not nearly as bountiful back when tapering was introduced, and serving a similar role to distance in slowing the progression of a user or particular group's end-game.

"Too much peace" and hand holding is a symptom of the powers that be working with each other for extended periods of time, typically well beyond what would be required to build an adequate hitsquad, and you would be hard pressed to find a situation where tapering directly resulted in a period that would extend beyond the length of your average regime churn.  After a certain point, that's a people problem - not a game problem. But if you are taking issue with the fairness of a feature, it logically follows that removing the artificial upper limits on wack should also go hand in hand with removing the artificial limits on bodyguard purchasing. 

Regarding distance, you mischaracterized my statement; distance is far more likely to affect the vast majority of players in a wartime scenario than tapering, which affects only a handful of accounts. 

Despite having previous accounts that were subject to tapering, my bloodline's history is irrelevant to this discussion, as would yours; while you are an excellent builder yourself, I am unsure of how many accounts you have had that have lived sufficiently long enough to begin taking tapering into account.  We are not off limits to discussing the subject in any case, and we still play in a landscape that is affected by this feature nonetheless and thus, it affects us as well, directly or indirectly.

In any case, having seen the game from a pre-tapering and post-tapering landscape and having watched wars from small hiccups to the catastrophic, as a passenger, driver and road casualty, I have simply come to a different view of the feature, having first opposed it, and do not see a pressing need to change it at the moment.  I still appreciate you bringing the discussion in any case, as these things should, every once in a while, be held to the light and questioned.