Can anyone tell me how many people are in tapering as of now?  And then list how much each place earns?

Afaik, tapering is top 10. The catchment ranges are 0-550, 550-900, 900-1250 and 1250+.

Your position on the shooting totem pole dictates the severity of your taper within the catchment of your gun.

The 10th slot in the 550-900 catchment gives 0.95 per kill, whereas the 1st slot in the 550-900 catchment gives 0.5 per kill.

The 10th slot in the 1250+ catchment is 0.55 per kill, whereas best shooter in the best catchment gets 0.1 per kill.

Lots of variables basically.

I've heard theres one cap killer in the game, who will be getting 0.1/kill.

According to the game stats, there are 10 accounts over 70 days. I would assume the majority of the big guns are in the 70days+ range, so I'll guess half of the 10 are shooters (less the top gun), and I'll put them in catchment 2 - mostly carrying a penalty of between 0.3 - 0.45 between them.

All the smaller guns will be in catchment 1, I would assume.

Therefore I would imagine taper looks something like this currently:

1 - 0.1

2 - 0.3

3 - 0.35

4 - 0.4

5 - 0.45

6 - 0.75

7 - 0.8

8 - 0.85

9 - 0.9

10 - 0.95

But theres a LOT of assumption there, mostly based on hearsay and account ages.

Crap! Knew I'd forgotten something. Heh. Interesting though Izzy, thanks.

And yeah, as with everyone else, I think tapering serves a purpose - once you understand it properly, so -1 to removing taper.

-1 to removing tapering.

Tapering is helping the little guy catch up. If tapering were to be removed, than the people at the top would remain at the top and the little guy won't have a chance to catch up. It would also make some leaders hungry for war if they know for certain if they can kill or not. At least with tapering, it introduces a certain thinking and reflection on whether or not they can hit anyone. Meaning that tapering also does help push back wars in regards to not knowing for certain how many on one side can take down a certain number of people on the other side.

I think your reasoning and disregard for tapering comes because of the wrongful math that you've tried to apply and your lack of understanding when it comes to tapering. For example, your first explanation said that it keeps the powerful in power, which is inherently false. It slows down those in power from achieving defining power in regards to gun strength. 

Your next example tries to explain a little guy training so well that he becomes subjected to tapering. You have to realize that if someone is subjected to tapering, they aren't the "little guy" anymore. They are amongst the most powerful in regards to shooting. You give an example that his +25 is counting as a +15, before hitting 900, which means almost half of his progress is tapered. 

The first spot of the 1.5% = .50 (From 550-900) (.25 From 900-1250) (.10 From 1250+)

**this area scales with even distribution from 1st to last***

The last spot of the 1.5% = .95 (From 550-900) (.70 From 900-1250) (.55 From 1250+)

As you can see above, that means that that "little guy" is most probable the 2nd or 3rd biggest hitter in the game as almost half his progress is tapered (+12.5 a day is half of 25, so +15 is very close.). Your interpretation of the math is wrong. In reality, he's one of the most powerful guns in the game and can't be considered as the "little guy" anymore. However, if you still consider him as the "little guy" at this point, then by definition, he can't be part of any upper structure, which increases his odds of surviving quite a bit.

I understand your frustration caused by your death, but tapering is not the cause of it by any means. However, if you do still believe that it plays a factor in keeping the powerful in power, then please find other proof or explanations as your current examples are false. I hope you come to understand the usage of tapering by reading this reply. 

This section is just to give an accurate representation of where this person would be in the current standings of hitters if he is tapered to +15 a day, instead of +25 a day before hitting 900 kills. Izzy said in a reply that about 7 or 8 people are currently subject to tapering, but usually top 10 is a safe pick, so let's go with that. The difference between 0.95 and 0.5 is 0.45. That means, from 10th place all the way to 1st place, guns are tapered by a bounce of -0.05 per each standing, as they are scaling evenly from 1st to last. Because the person is seeing a reduction of 10 kills a day, that means that he is currently the 3rd biggest gun in the game (25*0.6=15 and 25-15=10, so a reduction of 10 kills).

I’ll get this first bit on the table, I am fine with tapering.  If guns aren’t big enough to do something in one hit then we have seen multiple examples in the past where strategies are altered to ensure a victory where the need is desperate enough.
 

Because the figure is presumably a top 1.5% rather than a top 1.5% within say 10% of the top gun, the outlier does have an oversized effect. Left’s premise and argument isn’t flawed.   If someone has a 1500 kill gun and everyone is at 100 then once the next (say for arguments sake) 7 hit 550 kills their progress is throttled. This then allows the bunch behind to catch up and jostle around the top 1.5%.  Whether people move around in that tapered zone, they are still being slowed down while being nowhere near the gun at 1500. They will catch up eventually but it would take an extended period. 

THAT'S A GOOD DOGGO, Squishy

Charles_Barkley you are using way too much of an extreme to even try and support Left's argument. Even in the war where Lust and West survived as well as...what...2 other crews? There still were about 3 relevant guns that remained maybe even 4. That war was huge, if you recall correctly. That war was an extreme compared to other wars. And yet, even in that extreme, your extreme didn't exist. So, is it even possible your example can come to life? If at all possible, then you have to see how hard it's going to be to have to get to your extreme. 

Honesteh - of course it’s an extreme example and I’m just playing devils advocate. Even if you have a 1500, 1200, 1000 and 800 (none of them insignificant) then once the next however many hit 550 then they will hit tapering. Not as much tapering as the 1500 obviously but the tapering at that point has to cause active builders to bunch in a blob popping in and out of tapering arbitrarily.  I’m only saying that if (and who here really knows the mechanics) it is only a set percentage of the user base then this example surely has to happen.  

Anyway, any tapering system will cause the same effect just at a different level. Historically, we have always found ways to overcome one or two dominant accounts no matter what the gun stat differences.

Charles_Barkley

Let me ask you this then: Do you think that someone who has worked hard to keep his account alive and hard to build a strong gun should be rewarded? Do you think it should take someone who has 550 kills and is subject to tapering a far less amount of effort than the guy, like West, who had to kill loads more and be tapered even harder than that other guy? Let us say that your answer is yes for the last question, just for the sake of argument. Let's pretend tapering does not exist.

Wars would be easier as capped guns would be seen more often. Strategies of BG waving and the like would happen a lot less as more capped guns would roam around. If tapering were to be removed, do you not think it dumbs the game down at least by a fair margin? I understand you are taking part as the Devil's advocate, but do you think tapering should be removed to make wars easier to execute and have more capped guns roaming around? Or do you think that tapering is healthy for the game as it adds more complexity and intrigue to the game?

Honesteh - I would like to point out the first statement I made in my first post:

I’ll get this first bit on the table, I am fine with tapering.  If guns aren’t big enough to do something in one hit then we have seen multiple examples in the past where strategies are altered to ensure a victory where the need is desperate enough.

I only entered the debate to point out that Left’s premise about having one large or even four large guns unbalancing the tapering is correct. I don’t think it should change, having large guns just makes going to war too simple and clinical.