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.

I would, forever.  A little more is a little more, and it is something to do.. racing is fun... not racing sucks.  I might not buy mias if i were a top gun but I assure you, I would train forever.  No one is on the top forever, and so this isnt something that can be guarunteed.

You might, but most don't. Lets be realistic here. You're all ignoring the facts, and going on theory.
Fact is, more mid-range guns die from WB than top tier guns. Why? Because top tier guns don't shoot. Marston? Okay, he did. But look at all the other WB deaths. I can think of 3 off the top of my head in the last 5 months that were people with mid-range guns.

Fact will take 100 kills at +.1 to add +10 to a gun. How is this allowing the peopl at the top to grow? Let's be realistic. +10? Really? For one month of work for +10 to a gun...
Fact, every 300-400 kill gun that dies from WB trying to train it's way to take out the top people, strengthens the peaople at the top. So by removing WB death, you're increasing the number of viable threats to the top. 
Fact, this will eliminate money from the game. This will lead to people purchasing MIAs that otherwise wouldn't be purchasing MIAs. 

I am support this, because I see no negative in it. You may think this is biased because I am nearing the top 10, but lets be serious. I know that I will die eventually. I know that I will spend far more of my time in the mid-range level, than at the top. Why would I support something that would negatively effect me in the long term? 
I look at it as this increasing my chances of being viable on my next account. So that I don't suffer the fate of accounts such as Sandor, Lights, Coco, and even my own personal accounts who WB'd on a durden and lost a ~~200 kill gun. 



 

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.

They are relevant to this discussion as we are discussing tapering and you said it couldn't be brought in alongside wackback because nobody would shoot and thus it would not be effective. They would still shoot and thus tapering could easily be brought in alongside wackback and I don't know a good reason why that shouldn't happen.

I don't see a problem with anyone dying from wackback; I never have. Wackback brings with a risk and an element of uncertainty that the game largely lacks. You pull the trigger? There's a chance you aren't going to get to do so again. Sounds good to me, I don't see why it is suddenly an issue.

If we are being realistic Phil, not every 300-400 gun belongs to someone who is going to even try and remove a top dog from the game. In fact, I would guess only a small number of them do. Take Sandor for example, what is the likelihood that he would have tried to take out DeadlySin? Non-existent. Did that strengthen people at the top? Nope. Another fact for your list is that Sherminator and ScreamingButterfly WBing helped those who sought to remove Demine considerably as it took two good guns and two strong accounts out of play.

I think a fair conclusion is that it works both ways. It might not always be the headline name that drops, but just as many supporting pegs get removed by wackback as thorns in sides. That's the whole point, it is random. Everyone is affected equally and some people just have shitty luck. I feel sorry for them but it is part of the game and a valuable part as far as I'm concerned.

Wackback, to me, makes no sense. I still don't see why trying to improve your skills should result in you losing your whole character. Does it happen with any other skill? Nope. So why wack?

Let's say a new player joins up and gets taught how to shoot, they are told about the risk of WB, but decide to go for it anyway. 5-10 shots later, they WB die. Will they return? Probably not.

I must reiterate my previous statement too; Why punish the people that are putting the effort in to make their characters "unstoppable"? (even though not a single character is unstoppable, and the war on Roman that led to his death proved that) Take Marston for example, HE was putting the work into HIS account, HE was putting the hours in, putting the effort in, for it all the be wasted because of some bullshit wackback? Yep, seems fair to me!

Death WB doesn't help the game in anyway. I don't need to go into why, multiple people have already stated why, and backed up their statements.

Can you not leave Whackback in but only for real players? 

I'm just putting a few thoughts in, it has nothing to do with role play wise, new people wise, or anything. Purely my opinion and thoughts.

I quite like the risk of wack back. If you choose to train a gun, then you choose to play a game of chance. You know the risks and I feel that makes training even more exciting. That risk of maybe dying (granted afterwards you're like "this sucks" Or you're like me and would laugh and start over) is your choice.

Yet, if I was to somewhat think of this in a role play sense...gun malfunctions do happen. So it would make sense for that to be in the game. Wack back isn't so common that you see people dropping like flies. It is hit and miss, here and there, once in a blue moon. Now having said that, see you guys on my new character because I'll probably wack back now!

here are my thoughts, I appriciate that wackback is a somewhat outdated concept. also i like the idea of some kind of sliding scale to help balance the hand-cannons out a bit.

SO, I am now going to present an idea based on what i've read, and what makes sense to me. this is kind of an aggregate of what i've seen, put in the most consice format i could manage.

1.wackback death is removed, and the % chance of WB dying goes to losing your gun(not to jail: let's have it mean something)

2. a sliding scale be introduced so that when you enter the top 5% of guns, your kills start to count less.

3. the coders rewrite how the wack stat works, perhaps making the increase to your wack stat per kill vary by rank(of shooter and target)/defence/BG count.(i don't know how that would work, which brings me too...)

4. the players be informed that a change has been made to how wacking works, but ARE NOT told what the change is. We should not know the exact sliding scale of teh cannons, or how kills add to your wackstat.

I think those four items will help balence things out somewhat, and there is the added bonus of adding some of the mystery back into the game.

The risk of WB Death is a fundamental part of the game and of being a hitter. It shouldn't be removed imho. Although, this suggested system is interesting. If we kept WB death and introduced the suggestion in it'd balance things out a bit. I'm honestly curious to see what the WB death screen says. Never had the good fortune to come across it to date. Maybe one day I'll come across it, flip a table, then come back the next day.

Frank, the first time it happens you look at it, re-read it while your blood runs cold then you swear. 

I'm firmly in the "why not have both" camp.  Then, while tapering the guns at the top end why not taper the wb the other way and link it to player age?  Call it old-age, infirmity or whatever but it stops the young person feeling the pain as much.  Yes, older accounts will still go for bgs but will always be needed in wars so the risk is either take the shot, risk your old-age reflexes letting you down or say you're too old to risk it then potentially prolong the war.

I have no issue whatsoever about old accounts suddenly dying. How often are wars started because formerly loyal members are tired of bored old leaders no longer giving a shit?  How many old, successful players never come back even after a wb?

Hmmmm, jury is out for me. Although i hate to see people,s hard word desecrated by wb death, if this was implemented, i would simply, always go on wack answers.

One would assume that one of the main reasons not choosing wack is the higer risk of the wb feature, based on the number of kills you can reach, compared against the same total on an acocunt that uses, lets say info?

So wack, i assume, will mostly be the weapon chioce of answers? again i dont know if thats a negative point, it just will be a whole lot easier to build a "cannon", for the lack of a greater term because i dont have to range, or im not forced to, based on the fact that i can build quicker. Plus, the likes of info i can improve with being more active in the streets/business district etc. as i can my defense, with 6 hundred million bg's.

It would be interesting, to see if we could, or infact we need to adjust the wack answers slightly to bring them inline with others, if this change was to come in. again im just thinking outload really.

I've been on the fence about this since the suggestion was posted. Obviously I'd like to shoot without the chance of wb death. I'd rather see my character die in a war than die shooting an inactive. Despite those points I don't want wb death removed. I like the risk and mystery of wb death and the infamous 1%. The views of a gun malfunction or a skilled hitman dying from shooting a sleeping bum don't make rp sense, but the risk of dying by a small random chance does. Accidents happen. A race car driver is a skilled professional who faces the small random chance of dying every time he gets in his car. Our characters are skilled shooters. There should be risk involved working with guns.

As many people have pointed out wb death effects everyone. Taking away a risk to everyone and replacing it with something that will only effect the top 10 guns isn't an even trade. If wb death is removed I'd like to see it replaced with something everyone has to adjust to.

I agree with :

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.


---

With bgs.. longer accounts.. I just hope whatever changes doesnt change the chance of dying shooting - it is a gamble, risky and sometimes the best part of a day seeing an enemy wb die.

First and foremost.

I will be supporting this suggestion simply on the first line of what Squishy said.

The purpose of wackback is to slow down the progression of huge huge huge guns that would be unstoppable in most realistic situations.

I am supporting it because in all honesty wackback doesn't do what it was designed to do as per what Squishy has said. The simple fact a coder has made this suggestion means they aren't happy with how it has come about.

As for the suggestion of its replacement.

I am a fan of anything that takes pre existing knowledge away from shooting within reason. Far far far too many problems have been created in our community from people grasping on to small bits of information from coders and then them ending with game bans because they can't accept the consequences. In taking the information away from the player base you potentially remove these "incidents" occurring.

The principle behind tapering a gun is certainly a very interesting one, however I am not sure if it would be better served based on rank to target or a mixture of this. So that taking a bigger shot is a better skill boost than a small one.

Ugh. Of course this was going to pass. We all knew this was going to pass. But this is a BAD idea.

But since the prevailing "wisdom" of those who want this seems to be "It's not FAIR for people to lose all their hard work! *pouty face*" I humbly suggest that we just go ahead and remove wacking entirely. That way there's no wars, and nobody ever has to lose all their hard work.

We can replace it with "time outs". Make whoever we want to give a time out to have to go to naptime without their blanky and juice box.

I would like to nominate Jerusalem for a time out.

Calm down old man, just cause it goes to the PC Forum doesn't mean it has passed yet. They still need to vote :P

If I don't get my juice box I'm going to rage quit.

Jerusalem,

A WB takes the needs for wars out. I hate to stoop to your level of "whining", but I'll do it, just as you have.

"It's not fair that (insert name) is so big and strong and I don't want to put in the effort to kill him. Instead, cant the game kill him for me!? ** pouty face** 

I don't know about you, but I would personally prefer to KILL a person.  

Sure its fun to solve your problems yourself but its just so damn hilarious when the ruthless dice system handles it for you. It's like a game of Russian roulette except the gun has 100 chambers and only one .44 in it. On a side note, who seriously doesn't get a chuckle when someone WB dies. Let alone someone you loathe.