It's shocking, simply shocking, to me that the people with the SuperGodAccounts right now would be in favor of making a change to make their SuperGodAccounts even MORE utterly unkillable.

That, right there, is why this change cannot be made to the game in its current state. If you're going to make a balance change to SUCH a big degree, then you need to at least do it with a fresh start.

Doing it now, live, would just make people like DeadlySin and SammyGarcini even more hilariously immortal.

Yes, doing a reset has its drawbacks, but at least it makes the first few months exciting again. Immortal SuperGods? Ugh. In the words of Scott Pilgrim: "This is... this is... boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooring."

I hope at least one of the people suggesting Death WB is to be removed completely has taken into consideration that the 1% kills a whole lot more people than the death WB ever has, and by asking for the death WB to be removed you're allowing the people who want to try their luck on the bigger accounts to do so without the risk of ever catching a death WB, and we've seen how long rogues can last in this game, so do you really want them to keep shooting at you without ever risking dying in the process when failing, or do you just want them to 1% your hard worked account?

The way I see it, this game has two necessary evils, Death WB and the 1%. The latter has killed a lot more people in its time since it was implemented than the Death WB ever has, game stats alone right now is proof of that, all the hitters dying when taking pros in wars is proof of that, great accounts have been lost to that as well as Death WB, and fact remains that people WILLINGLY risk catching the 1% when taking pros, how is the death WB any different when people train their guns knowing full well what can happen if they are unlucky?

I see no reason whatsoever for it to be removed completely as I suggested in my first post, but if Death WB is to be removed the 1% should go with it. That is if you're really trying to make this about skill Vs bad luck, then someone who has BG's to protect them should never die to a "lucky" shot, especially not someone who is IWP, that shit is just crazy, but we've seen it happen plenty of times, where's the outrage there if Death WB is such a big deal when 1% kills more people in real wars than WB ever did?

By the same logic Flash, couldn't they just put in a change giving similar notice and then a reset isn't required?

Reply by: PC-Grin at Sep 27, '12 14:50

I don't believe so as there would still be those around that have benefited prior to the change, hence the change would have to be done along side a reset (which I do not want to see).

Phil_Steak, whilst I accept and understand the needs for the game to generate income, I don't think we should compromise one of the integral checks within the game to achieve that. I don't know or even want to know, the financials of MafiaReturns as I believe that generating income for the servers or salaries is beyond the scope of a user or a member of the Player Commission and is firmly in the realms of the directors of the company.

I don't think that enabling the biggest accounts in the game to get even stronger than they already are is a good idea. I think it is a terrible idea because the life cycle of an average account is already much too long. The elimination of WB death will enable the MR Lifers to rack up thousands more kills than they ordinarily would as it would be risk free stat development and widen the gulf between a new account and an established one. This would only affect the top 10, meaning that the other 20-30 people who would switch off wacking to BG wacking could just keep going.

WB death is a nuisance, but it is a constant nuisance, for everyone. Anyone who pulls a trigger, be it 1 time or 1000 times, can be killed and I like that element.

Jaqen, MIAs and RIAs make up the majority of kills accumulated by players. If you removed WB from MIAs and RIAs you would be virtually removing it all together anyway.

Pratster, the well organised/high skilled Godfather argument is redundant as there is no way a Godfather would be getting their hands dirty in the first place.

Tapering stats isn't about punishing anyone, it is about setting realistic levels for accounts to achieve that can be hauled in with reasonable effort by new accounts. Sure, in this example the top 10 accounts would get less benefit per kill than a new account, but they are much further along in their development anyway.

Jaqen#2, spot on in terms of 1% analysis being a necessary evil of the game. I still don't want to see WB or 1%s removed though as the luck element is what at least keeps some excitement/unpredictabliity in a game that is increasingly predictable.

Flash, there will never be a reset and disparity between new and old accounts arise with every change.

Honestly, I really don't have time for a long reply as some of the others have done, but I just want to be another voice of reason asking... please, do not remove WB death from the game.  I have died from WB death before. Please leave it in the game for all the reasons that Grin and Jeruselum and whomever else is against making this change have already laid out.

I am in favor of the suggestiong only along with, not instead of. 

It's shocking, simply shocking, to me that the people with the SuperGodAccounts right now would be in favor of making a change to make their SuperGodAccounts even MORE utterly unkillable.

Doing it now, live, would just make people like DeadlySin and SammyGarcini even more hilariously immortal.

As far as I know, the size of their guns have absolutely no determination on the amount of kills it would take to kill them. I believe this would have to do with the bg discussion...

Squishy, maybe the percentage rather than the hardcoded top 10 would be a good idea.

1%'s have killed far more SuperGodAccounts than wb and no one is arguing to remove that aspect. Were it the other way around and wb was consistently actually doing it's intention and removing guns that were were too powerful, then maybe we wouldn't even be supporting this. But someone taking their first shot, on a brand new account dying from a wb? Come on now. That's not the intention of the wb. Tapering the top x% would be a better form of gun control here, in my opinion.

Maybe we should not be susceptible to wb for X amount of shots depending on our answers rather than eliminating it. We know the additional risks when we choose our answers. Removing the chance of WB would favor people on wack answers. That seems unfair. Frankly, if you taper guns and have no wb no one will ever be able to build a gun comparable with the top guns in the game now. That seems wrong as well.

"Frankly, if you taper guns and have no wb no one will ever be able to build a gun comparable with the top guns in the game now."

I have to disagree entirely with that statement. For the top gun getting 0.1 for each kill, it would take them 100 kills just to get +10 to their gun. 100 kills by someone not in the top 10 gets them +100. I think this will give the middling/lower accounts MUCH more chance of catching up, and they won't die trying to do it.

Still very much in favour.

I can understand why all current long life top guns would be in favor of this. This eliminates part of the purpose of using certain answers. Why would anyone bother with defense answers anymore when they can just bg up? You choose your answers, you take the risk.

You can disagree with one part. Frankly, I believe considering the length of time it takes people to get to 100+ then 200+ etc .. never might have been the wrong word but my opinion overall still stands. Attaining a gun to take out an IWP would be that much more difficult as well with this system especially if they are above basic IWP. What if we have a rogue with the max bg's and very very few people who can shoot at it, if anyone, because not a single person can build that cannon anymore? consider the damage it could do before we can kill enough bg's to kill it ...

Grin,

Then you agree that you comment about "I have long been a believer that shorter life cycles will generate more money in the long run for the site." should be completely ignored then, since it is nothing that any user should be concerned with.  

He is just stating his belief.  Maybe that isn't important, but surely many of us saying that we believe the game is more FUN with shorter life spans is important to this debate?

Sure. I've deleted it for you.

"Attaining a gun to take out an IWP would be that much more difficult as well with this system especially if they are above basic IWP."

I am kinda confused by your stance at this point. On one hand you're saying that it's bad because nobody will catch up with the top accounts (which in my opinion is inaccurate, people are much less likely to catch up to the top guns when they're training hard and being plagued by wackback death), but then you're saying that the top accounts should be able to train more to be able to hit capped rogues...

Removing wackback death will allow more people to train big guns, and the tapering stops the already big guns from galloping too far ahead of the herd. For example: Top gun in the game is at 1000 strength, a middling account is around 300. Even if the top gun kills twice as much per day as the middling account, the middling one will still gain a lot faster on the top guns - without being hit by wackback (and as already stated with numerous examples given, wackback death hits the "up and comers" more often than it does the "SuperGodAccounts").

Answer sets don't matter to a huge extent, to be quite honest I have wacked back to death more times on pure defence answers than any other set, even though pure defence is supposed to have the least risk of it occuring.

What is wrong with making wack answers viable again? Defense answers still give you more defense than any other answer set, whereas wack gives you more wack... there are benefits to both answer sets and drawbacks.

And if you're in favour of shorter life spans, surely removing wackback death will actually have that effect anyway? With more people able to train without fear of wacking back, you'll see less people who are up and coming falling to it, leading to more big guns in the game, which surely all points to people feeling more confident making moves against other people? Maybe I am missing something here, but that's the way I see it.

Why not implement this and leave wackback unchanged?

Because I can guarantee that the top guns who aren't training anymore still won't train... so the tapering would have no effect. Yet the little guy would still get fucked over by wackback.

The top guns don't shoot at all? That's news to me. I thought that they still shot BGs and killed during wars. I'm also pretty confident that at least one of the top 10 would still shoot at least occasionally.

And when these top accounts eventually die, the next top accounts will probably train so the tapering would certainly come in to effect eventually even if none of the current top 10 took another shot.

Can we at least be honest here? You're not looking out for "the little guy", you just don't want to be Marston'd.

BGs have nothing to do with this discussion to be fair since they aren't affected by wackback... Maybe they do shoot in wars, but really, how many shots does one person take during a war? 5-10 in a big war? 1 or 2 in a small one? When was the last time you saw a "SuperGodAccount" wackback to death in a war, because I honestly can't recall the last time that happened.

Actually... I am looking out for "the little guy". Do you see me dead from wackback? Nope. Every time I have died of wackback it has been whilst training to attempt to get to this point. Not afterwards. Call my motives into question all you like, but you're wrong.

I wasn't going to say anything here, but I think that DeadlySin and Phil_Steak have both made arguments to make your statement completely false. The two of them are not showing any bias towards this suggestion except for in the public's eye because they are big accounts and showing support. What are they really gaining by implementing this? What advantage would it really give them at .1 of a kill?

As it has been said numerous times in this thread... WB death affects "the little guys" more often than it affects the bigger accounts. By asking to do away with WB death they are already looking out for "the little guys." Why not have both tapering and WB death? Because the tapering is doing what the WB death SHOULD be doing but isn't. Mind you, had this been implemented before the current guns got to where they are now... They wouldn't be where they are. Eventually they will die, everyone does. And maybe this tapering will actually slow down the top guns from reaching these SuperGodAccounts. And then you have this reasoning...

And if you're in favour of shorter life spans, surely removing wackback death will actually have that effect anyway? With more people able to train without fear of wacking back, you'll see less people who are up and coming falling to it, leading to more big guns in the game, which surely all points to people feeling more confident making moves against other people?

Not to mention the fact that the tapering may also lead to a drop in the bg cap, which means... More guns, less bgs, so more wars.

I think something like this is a good idea. People have WB'd on their first shot before, that isnt doing anything to prevent/remove "SuperGodAccounts". Its the people who are building guns that are being hit by the WBs not the people at the top that go months without taking the risk.