Having seen the list of the victims of "wackback" over the last 6 months I cannot help but notice that it repeatedly hits the most dedicated members of our community and often sparks the biggest changes in game dynamics. (Kurtz, Animal, JesseJames, Marston, Coco, Scott-Weiland, Lights, BergaGandor, possibly others I cannot recall)

With the exception of JesseJames, and debatably Marston, all of these guys were rightly training and increasing their gun capability, as it is/was critical for the survival of any family to do so, to stand any chance in a war scenario.

Now I'm not suggesting removing wackback altogether like some may, because it is one weapon we have against a leader securing a strong position and annihilating anyone that approaches the ability to remove them. But I think a compromise should be made and an extra 50/50 wackback save roll should be added for all RIAs, MIAs and NPCs.

This in turn will help stop these dedicated players from leaving these shores, because at the moment this feature seems to hit the same few time and time again, who have invested allot of time, and sometimes money in their accounts. So it is no surprise that some of them feel cheated when they die by a fluke miss, on a target they paid 1 credit to create, and we never see them again.

(P.S. I would not like to see the chances of wackback to be decreased on "real accounts"... Increased slightly... Maybe?)

I'm all for this. I really don't see the realism of the wackback feature and would happily see it removed entirely - but an additional 50/50 roll for MIAs, RIAs and NPCs would be a good middle-ground.

Given the chance of getting a wackback is all based on odds (i.e. higher number of kills/shots means a greater risk), it's basically a feature which discourages the training and continual use of wacking.. which I don't like :(

Yeah, I'd definitely have to agree on this one as long as it's kept to MIA's, RIA's, NPC's. It seems a bit harsh to lose so much work on something you did some good work on, either found a durden, won an RIA race or paid $1 for an MIA.

Whilst it is harsh to die this way, I'd really hate to see any more protection implemented for this. Given that the highest attack and highest defence usually belong to the same accounts, I think it is a suitable way of keeping people "honest". You might be nigh on unkillable, but your own greed could still chop you down.

I like that element to be honest. It levels the playing field. And as you have said, for the people who are victim to this "unfairly" shall we say, there are those who are deservedly struck down too. A fair accompaniment to building your gun in old Grin's eyes.

My personal belief is (and has been for a long time) that everything is scaled to the extreme already. This is evident from the fact that it is only considered debatable that someone with a gun strength equivalent to more than 1000 kills is justified in being wackbacked. 1000 kills is madness. But, I suppose that isn't the matter at hand.

I must agree with Grin on this one, although Wackback is one of the less than desirable features of the game it does keep the game turning.

How many of you sat there wishing Roman, Premier etc would wackback so there could be some change in leadership. Yes it's going to hit people who are our friends and "oh, so cool" but that's just the game.

To touch on a few points:

Given the chance of getting a wackback is all based on odds (i.e. higher number of kills/shots means a greater risk), it's basically a feature which discourages the training and continual use of wacking.. which I don't like :(

I don't believe wackback completely discourages wacking as there are other ways of training your weapon. What it does do is force you to think of your actions, maybe slow down? Maybe change target? In the real world someone with 1000kills would slow down on the amount of people they're killing because as history tells how, the more bodies you leave behind, the more likely we are to get caught and since there is no death row or life imprisonment in this game, wackback death maybe a fair trade off?

Although, I must say the only issue I do find (forgive me for sitting on the fence here) is that roll of death you may get on a MIA you've bought, that must hurt pretty bad. But other than that I do feel wackback death is a necessary evil, and must be kept if only just to keep the game turning.

Reaper... I know what you're saying about waiting for these guys to wackback... But they stop hard training and switch to BG shooting so it never happens anyway. How many of these big guys wackbacked on an MIA, RIA or NPC? None... (JJ wackbacked on a real account) How many people died of wackback working their asses of to build a gun that could defeat them? A fuckton!

But I think a compromise should be made and an extra 50/50 wackback save roll should be added for all RIAs, MIAs and NPCs.

RIAs, MIAs and NPCs stand for over 90% of all kills, correct me if I'm wrong.
An additional save roll on these would mean a huge change to the overall WB chance.

Given the chance of getting a wackback is all based on odds (i.e. higher number of kills/shots means a greater risk), it's basically a feature which discourages the training and continual use of wacking..

Which is exactly the purpose of this feature.
People who train their guns know the risk and know the odds. The further they want to push their gun skills, the higher the risk of WBing. Being aware of the risk, they can choose how far they want to go. And to be safe, they can restrain themselves to shooting BGs - and still train the gun, just slower.

I think the fact that people reach and exceed 1000 kills proves best that the WB chance doesn't need to be decreased right now.

One person in the last 6 months achieved that many kills, and that still isn't enough kills to hit someone at the cap, how many died of wackback trying? With the amount of money in game and protection levels all this is doing is the complete opposite of the reason you are giving...

The question is whether the WB chance is the real issue here and whether making the gun easier to train is the way to go. There are many other factors to be considered like the BG cap, the amount of money in game and the ability to shoot bodyguards (in waves and 2 at a time). These are constantly discussed and tweaked.

I'd also like to point out that many (if not most) hitmen die of other reasons than WB, e.g. get killed in wars.

Honestly?! Another person calling for more Wackback protection!

Stupid. Plain and simple. There's already so many things out to protect you when a wackback rolls up at your door. Another is not needed. If you luck out when your time comes and nothing saves you.. tough. Not everyone can live forever. The only next thing for wackback I'll call for is wackbacking on Bodyguard shots.

Why? Because quite simply.. you get 800+ kills. Then just shoot BG's for the rest of your life. Wackback is not even a single worry anymore other then taking the big shots at war times. You don't see Godfathers with 800+ stat taking out the lower shots in wars. Their excuse?

Saving it for the big shots. When they know theres a good chance they won't get that shot in till the end of the war because their enemy is out of their reach slightly because of their 100,000,000 BG's. They still don't shoot because of 'wackback'.

So.. unless it's wackback on BG's that's being suggested, there's no need to change anything with WB. We're already protected enough.

Personally I hate the fact after paying a credit that I have a chance to die. I believe if you implement this that this extra roll should apply only to MIA's. If a person shoots an ria or a durden then sorry they should have full chances that their gun malfunctions.

One person in the last 6 months achieved that many kills, and that still isn't enough kills to hit someone at the cap, how many died of wackback trying? With the amount of money in game and protection levels all this is doing is the complete opposite of the reason you are giving...

And why should one person be able to point and shoot at anything, that would make war boring, that would make the game boring, that would drive people away.

The way it is now, it prevents people from being able to point and shoot at anyone and calls for a need of tactics, with the use of BG shooters. Are you suggesting we make wars even easier? I don't think that would be fun for anyone.

As PC-Tosca stated

I think the fact that people reach and exceed 1000 kills proves best that the WB chance doesn't need to be decreased right now.

I'd have to agree completely. If you keep an eye on the stats page, you'll see how many people actually get struck down by WB death is way lower than 1%

Well now you are contradicting yourself reaper... You said you like WB because it keeps the game turning. If wackback stops people from achieving a gun that can hit through the cap, then it gives leaders more time to set their roots, get themselves and their closest supporters to the cap, thus becoming immovable objects. Getting someone capped on BGs is soooo damn easy, getting an 1000 gun is fucking difficult...

Yes I said WB is good for the game because it keeps it turning and still believe that, I don't see where I contradicted myself, so please point exactly where I contradicted that.

If wackback stops people from achieving a gun that can hit through the cap, then it gives leaders more time to set their roots, get themselves and their closest supporters to the cap, thus becoming immovable objects. Getting someone capped on BGs is soooo damn easy, getting an 1000 gun is fucking difficult...

What is your point? That more people get a chance of getting BG'd? That more people would have to be involved in a war?

And believe me, NO ONE is immovable. Deimne circa 2010 proved this, organisation and effort took him down. Roman of 2011 probably had the best HS and undoubtedly the most IWP'd hitters. By your definition he would of been immovable, right? Wrong! Organisation, tactics, heart and a bunch of other stuff Chuckle related, meant that he could be moved.

And your assumption that it is "soooo" easy to BG people to the cap is wrong. Assuming the cap is over 240 BGs (as I believe Marston died somewhere round this number) and the cap has been increased since, we would be looking at $180,000,000 per individual, one does not come across 180mil every day. And since you seem to believe one could BG all their strongest hitters to the cap, to make the example easy, we'll say 10 hitters you'll be looking at £1,800,000,000. Not so easy now, is it? Not impossible don't get me wrong, but not very easy.

Back to the matter at end, WB is needed for the game it is a necessary evil. Should one be able to have a run away account, let's take Marston for example ~240BGs, 1000+ kills in 7 months, that is approximately 142 per month that is 1700 kills if he had been able to live for a full year. What would be the point in playing (assuming 240 was the cap)? He'd be able to hit that easily. We'd definitely be stuck in another state of stagnancy and we'd have to wait for people to become disenfranchised and actually grow a sense of disdain with the current power before any type of change would even occur. If that's the type of game you'd like to play, I'm pretty sure you would be in the minority, where you can have 2 year old accounts.

Deimne allowed that to happen to himself, he didn't fight back... It could have easily been a whole different story if he was not tired of this life of ours... (Wackback didn't stop Deimne)

Roman was killed by an overwhelming number of people and it took gun of 1180 strength, which defied the current odds of wackback to get there, to finally drop him... (Wackback didn't stop Roman, but it could have easily stopped those that worked so hard to stop him)

I have it on good authority that a city with 4 decent crews easily makes 100 million per week while maintaining the training of their already large number of BGs. Or a credit merchant could just sell 400 at the current rate...

Marston achieved 1038 kills in just over 5 months, do you understand the kind of work ethic involved to achieve that? Do you honestly think that, that level of training is being achieved by anyone else? I think you'll find that 110-120 is the current monthly rate of a good/great hitter. Which would mean they'd have to survive for just short of a year to be able to topple anyone at the cap. Given the amount of wars, wackbacks, accidents, 1% pro mistakes, what is the likelihood of that happening?

I don't believe that yet another save must be added into the equation. Never before in the game has there been as many saves as we have now.

No one needs to build a 1000 gun kill to win this game, that's not how it's designed to be. You have other choices, you can count on your city for war, and a city is not comprised of only one gun. You can exercise sound politics and marshal allies to help you in your battles. You can build a gun to a certain extent and then focus on building it purely on BGs safely. You can also kill your opponents before they get strong enough to do massive damage to your city.

Never before has it been so easy to train a gun. Inactives have been increased, MIAs have been increased, Durden spawns happen more often and to top that off, huge Durden spawns are regularly around as well. If I'm already against the increase of an extra save, I am even more against a save for MIAS. Free, easy, kills shouldn't come with an added safety bonus. You simply can't have it both ways.

I have to disagree with you, Mysterion, and say that yes I do honestly think that this high level of training is being achieved by others as well, not only the late Marston. We have plenty of talented people around here; they perhaps just don't announce to everyone how many kills they are getting a month. But even in old Marston's city, there were more hitters achieving the same thing, over 200 kills per month, so your ratios are a tad off.

In the past couple of months the ratio of kills for great hitters has risen to 200 per month, at the least. Average hitters did 100 kills a month perhaps, if not more. You also mentioned that Marston's gun was the only gun in those numbers in over 6 months. You are absolutely wrong. In fact, Marston wasn't even the biggest gun in the past 6 months.

Godfather JeseJames who died literally 6 months ago, had over 1800 kills. After living for a long time, achieving everything someone can achieve and building a gun like that, who can really complain of a fatal wackback after 1800 kills? But even then, the leader PizzaTheHut, was also pretty close to a 1000 kill number as well, if not more. Stamina also died with more kills than Marston and currently, I'm sure we have some pretty high guns up there. Marston's gun wasn't the first and surely won't be last.

We are long past the time when only a few people can be truly good hitters; there are several options for keeping a family safe; there are choices to train on safe mode, so perhaps people need to realize that getting an extra 200 kills into a gun may be their downfall instead of thinking it may be the only thing that will save them.

If we were to compare our current state with the old .org, where most of us learned to become hitters, then we can really see a massive difference. Back on .org the most anyone could have was 10 BGs, however, the defense answers were really strong answers, and whoever was able to build up on a D account and become a Don with a full family, was always the hardest target ever. Back then, there was no way to bodyguard kill, there was absolutely no way to lower the defense of that character, even after killing some members, you still needed a high gun to get through that person, and back then there was absolutely no save for wackback at all. Back then, you did need to have the kills to shoot through defense.

Here, you can lower the defense to a ridiculous number that any low average hitter can kill them. You don't exactly need the uber huge gun. A leader who is already in a good position of power, with a strong city, can afford to opt for the safe route, it would be the smart thing to do. Until you get there though, there is a minimal risk, like everything else in life.

With all that in mind, I'm not sponsoring this idea as I don't believe is a necessary change.

After reading all the previous posts i would have to go against this idea. Simply for the reason that you can Kill BGs and not get a wb. If that didnt exist then maybe i would be all for this. But since you can level your gun with no risk pretty much on BGs. 

Can someone tell me why there's NO cap on wacking?

Wacking is necessary in this world, but after a certain point it's a bit selfish, I think.

Yes this is mafia, people want to be in a position of power.... race for Godfather... But it's still a community! Why pay for a '1000+'-gun if you can also strengthen your family with that cash?

Being able to build a gun like that, has put the emphasis on wacking and less on the community/ social part. Cause and effect!

I completely understand your points. I guess the thing I dislike about wackbacking is users being killed by anything other than other users. Maybe another possible idea to look at would be to have wackback chances based on the shooting capability of the intended victim? I'm yet to think this idea fully through though.

"Being able to build a gun like that, has put the emphasis on wacking and less on the community/ social part. Cause and effect!" I agree with you here, but as things stand with protection levels and now fortifications too, it is necessary for survival to have huge guns that can deal with these. Look what happened to cities like Detroit who epically failed in their preplanned attack, they had all the key ingredients for a successful strike, but had been lazy in the gun training department...

I think if we take Marston as an example, it is pretty simple. As pc-tita pointed out the game is set up to to allow for realistec mob behavior. At some point, Godfathers quit dirtying their hands, they order kills, they dont go out and do it themselves. So rather than require it, MR is set up to completely reduce the risk of WB (simulating the non dirtying of hands) while at the same time allowing these players to continue to build up (BG wacking) without risking the city head. Since BG dont make the obits they are not camparable, so it works well if used. A GF who dies to WB, isnt really being a GF after a certain amount of kills, they are still hitters and that is a risky business, as it should be. I would like to see some suggestions revolving around GF and their actionss so they can be more comfortable with slowing down the cannon training. I have some I will make new threads on.