I agree completely. Wackback death in this game is an outdated concept that made sense when guns were not so big. The way things are set up now with the sheer volume of kills it takes to be competitive it actually detracts from activity and puts people in fear of losing all their hard work over a bad dice roll.

I understand a need for checks and balances and this graduated tier system of experience earning makes perfect sense to me. One should not lose everything by simply trying to strengthen their account, especially considering all the months that go into it. Instead people should live on to enjoy the result of all their hard work and to see the epic battles they have all worked so hard for.

I vote taper and keep wackback death.

Quite frankly, it's only that, and the ~1% chance, that seem to have an effect on killing these SuperGodAccounts anymore, so if you take that away... EvenMoreSuperGodAccounts. Bleh.

I think the WB chance should just be lowered a little or make it where there is a 3/4 chance of getting the WB save? I don't know, I just don't like the idea of changing the whole concept of the guns and taking the WB out. I feel that everyone knows the chances when they shoot that they could have the punishment of the WB fatal. However, if it just happened less often then there wouldn't be people finding death by it once a week. Benefits everyone if the percentage is down, that way the new accounts will have just as much as a chance to grow.

I think you should leave it alone. Wbs are apart of the game and have been for many years. Also people won't know how much they are getting per kill because you usually don't know who the top so many guns are.

Jerusalem, these SuperGodAccounts you speak of switch to BG shooting so they are the ones least at risk of wackbacking. It is the mid range gunslingers struggling to build a gun capable of toppling these SuperGodAccounts that wackback hits the hardest.

I know a lot of people say it's the best weapon against these monsters that become part of the furniture, but how many of them have we actually seen defeated by a wackback?

Were Marston or JesseJames "middling" accounts? Kurtz, when he was Marston's RHM? Lights? Coco? Caius, any of the... however many times he's wackbacked?

Wackbacking is not something simply for "middling" accounts. It is a measure put in place to make wacking have some form of risk, even when you have a God Gun. It is one of the checks and balances in the game and I do not want to see it removed.

And if it WERE to be removed, then quite frankly, several other things would need to be adjusted as well. Enough things to, in my mind, necessitate a complete starting over of everyone in the game (credits not included, obviously, but everything else... wiped).

If wackback death is removed, then:

1. There needs to be a hard cap on BGs. ~100-150. No more.

2. There needs to be a stop on demoting people so they can buy BGs. Whether through making them only available for MM+, or price based on account age... something.

3. Increase the chance of wackback: loss of gun, and wackback: go to jail. Take the wackback: death percentage, divide it in two, and add that to the other two. That way there's still SOME risk involved, even if it is mostly meaningless.

Unless and until we are wiling to discuss those changes as well, I remain FIRMLY against the removal of wackback: death.

...Possibly one of the only things that man has ever said that I agreed with ^

"Were Marston or JesseJames "middling" accounts? Kurtz, when he was Marston's RHM? Lights? Coco? Caius, any of the... however many times he's wackbacked?"

No, Marston and JesseJames were not. The others - yes. Trust me, there are a hell of a lot more 'middling' accounts that die from wackback death than what you call 'SuperGodAccounts' - which is precisely why wackback death fails. I even once had an account that wacked back to death on it's very first shot, now surely wackback death isn't there to stop people from getting just over max?

Wackback death is supposed to be a deterrent from training your gun to a too massive size - Did it stop JesseJames? No. Did it stop Marston? No. Both already had super guns, and carried on shooting regardless of the fact. They are also the only two 'SuperGodAccounts' that I can think of that have suffered wackback death in a long long time.

This change stops you from getting too far ahead of the pack in a much more effective way - one which you have no choice about, and quite frankly could bring back some people who have quit the game because of wackback death. Not only that but people might be more likely to invest in their accounts if there isn't a chance that they will die 'just because its a risk you have to take'.

This could also make 'Wack Answers' viable again as a choice, since you won't be more likely to die just for picking an answer set that starts you ahead of the field gun-wise.

And don't get me wrong here, if this suggestion was simply 'remove wackback death' I would be entirely against it. But this suggestion has come up with a way of taking out what is essentially something that is very, very annoying for those who suffer it on a 'middling' or less account - And it also slows the top people's guns down (just like wackback death does), without screwing over the little guy in the process.

I like it.

I don't think this needs to be an either/or option - this is something that should definitely be brought into the game anyway as it is totally logical and how stat development works in most games.

Wackback death is a pain and very few players will go through the course of their accounts without encountering it. It does keep the bigger accounts honest whether they actually die from the wackback death or not; it adjusts the way they play the game out of fear of it. That prevents things from getting even further out of hand than they otherwise would and I wouldn't want to see it removed or replaced.

Both of these concepts could and should have a place here.

The only account you named there that was over 5 months old was JesseJames...

Wackback did not defeat the likes of Deimne, Roman, TheDean, ThomasRourke; accounts that really did seem to have cemented their places here as the 'top dog'...

So really what purpose has it ever served? Personally I'd rather kill my enemies myself than watch them get sucker punched by a wackback.

I'm not sure this suggestion is the ideal solution to the problem, but I think better ideas may come of this.

Wackbacking is not something simply for "middling" accounts. It is a measure put in place to make wacking have some form of risk, even when you have a God Gun. It is one of the checks and balances in the game and I do not want to see it removed.

I couldn't agree more. The balance Jeru says there is to stop the big guys continue shooting like mad. This helps give people the chance to catch up already but as many have said.. it takes a very long time. However.. if you introduce the decline in stat for the top 10 guns.. then this gives people that chance to catch up even quicker. This makes things even more interesting then.

That way.. people can shoot and keep killing all they want as the top X amount in the game. However they still have the factor in the risk of wackback death (which could also be reduced even more. Not completely removed) and the fact that they might not be getting a full +1. Therefore it's then up to them to balance the risk vs reward still.

Of course the logic would be to just stop shooting and go for BG's as it is now. However.. if you reduced the chance of wackback death EVEN further that might give them a little nudge to give shooting a try unless they know for certain they're X biggest gun in the game.

Also.. If I had to pick which stat set Squishy. It would be the second set. It wouldn't be logical to have first one as then people would just continue to still shoot BG's knowing they grant X amount of stat which is more then what a normal kill gets them. If you had the second set then if you're the top gun.. you can choose to wack normal but still with that very very small risk.. or just shoot BG's with no risk. Still getting the same stat. Of course.. you wouldn't know whether you're the top gun or not. (Some may but..)

In other words, what PC-Grin said to an extent. (Yes I agree with him for once)

You agree with me all the time, understandably so too.

I would imagine a BG kill would also be tapered in line with a standard kill.

I like Squishys idea, but would want also like to know if we can confirm something;

Also.. If I had to pick which stat set Squishy. It would be the second set. It wouldn't be logical to have first one as then people would just continue to still shoot BG's knowing they grant X amount of stat which is more then what a normal kill gets them. If you had the second set then if you're the top gun.. you can choose to wack normal but still with that very very small risk.. or just shoot BG's with no risk. Still getting the same stat. Of course.. you wouldn't know whether you're the top gun or not. (Some may but..)

Surely if shooting a target is impacted, then shooting BGs should be also? Meaning, if the shooter is the no1 gun in the game and only getting .1 per kill, he still gets only half of that for BG shots? Thus removing the fact that the shooter still strides further ahead by shooting BGs.

Giving it some thought, I think I'd rather see all accounts immune from wackback for the first 6 months of their life, than have this idea implemented.

I would definitely be against that.

Wackback only works effectively whilst it is a constant threat and users have to determine for themselves when to switch off BGs. Some of the lifers on here would acquire thousands of kills within 6 months if they knew they wouldn't come to harm.

I dislike this idea simply on the basis that the people who have worked hard to build 1 of the top 10 guns in the game are being penalised for the effort they have put in.

They aren't being penalised, Flash. Their hard work will still put them above everyone else, but the rate at which their stats develop will slow down thus bringing the game back towards realistic levels and timescales.

Think of how any actual skill development works. After a certain point, doing the same thing in exactly the same way reaps no benefit. If I continually dominate the same opponent, I'm not learning anything by doing that and I won't improve. This is how the leveling in most games works too, where the initial crappy enemy you can kill helps at first but then you'll get virtually no benefit from killing it and have to go elsewhere to get worthwhile experience.

I would like to see this tempered with MIAs and RIAs giving little to no benefit after awhile, but killing a Don will still give you a +1.

Going by that theory those not in the top 10 should get more than +1 for a high ranked kill as you'd be killing someone strong & harder to kill therefore learning more.