I don't, because it's always me :<

**This is from DonnieBrasco. For some reason he's so noobish and his computer/phone won't let him post**

To: EricLassard
From: DonnieBrasco
Sent: Oct 03, '12 12:48
Subject:


I hope i am not late on saying my opinion about this.

As far as i understand death wb will be removed and little compensation will be given. I will say that i dont really like removing of death because i see wb as thing that balances the game, you can say that people lose their hardworking accounts because of death wb but if i look back and remember people like thedean,roman,premeir,odin,tanda,snip,shocker,tita and others who had big guns managed to build with death wb around they just played smart instead of just clicking button thus why i dont think death wb is obstacle for building good and strong character. Still if coders decide to remove death wb i dont see why 1% should be here because in las few months if i remember well more people died from that 1% than death wb, lets just remember shocker who lost his gf account and other people in last war who were unlucky.

I also noticed thread in pc forum about bgs and demotion although it cant be implemented now because of already high number of bgs in game maybe in future coders will get chance to make that idea happen, removal of death wb will have bad effect then, players will be able to train guns without any limits and bgs will be more expensive thus players wont own as many bgs as people own these days or they will need much more time to buy bih number of bgs.

Thats just my opinion, looking forward to see what people thing about it.

Now saw others opinions and arguments, if you say that middle guns die by death wb more than top guns and if you say that top guns wont shoot anyway lets remove wb just for those middle guns and make it to "turn on" once you get to XXX number of kills

Donnie has a good idea.

Why dont you turn on WB death at a simple number such as 125 kill stat gun?? or 100 or something as the concern was a person with a gun of 33 shooting and wb dying. A person who reaches a gun stat of 100 is usually not just your lazy player and understands the risk of shooting and what can happen.

In terms of the number being fluid and moving up and down - We currently review bg cap #'s once every so often.. this could be easily included as it a very important number or just kept at a basic number but then again removing it completely until X makes things complicated..maybe removing it until X for mia's, ria's and durdens or some idea there.

Whilst wackback death is seen by many as a game changer, that isn't the purpose of it. Alot of people including PC people like the idea of wackback death because it can change regimes.

As much as this happens as a bi product it isn't why it was put into the game. It was put into the game as a mechanism to slow down gun progress. The feature hasn't had the desired effect hence why the coders want to change it.

The current proposition being voted on is a tapering process which WILL slow down the progress of the top guns in the game by reducing the value of kills in real terms.

The tapering hasn't been finalised yet but based on the first example Izzy processed the top gun would need to shoot 10 targets to equal what an untapered person would get from shooting an MIA. We have seen a lot of people failing to grasp the basic mechanics of the situation that tapering puts in place. We have seen people say the top guns will work harder and get further and further away whilst shooting with impunity.

Now just consider that for a moment. At best you can shoot 24 times a day once an hour, throw in a few procs and that is 26 shots a day. That person needs to be getting up and finding a target 26 times a day. Im sorry that isn't physically possible. I will go out on a limb and say never in the games history has a person over a period greater than 1 week been able to shoot 24 times a day. It isn't physically possible to hit that many targets through the sleep deprivation let alone their being the targets perfectly lined up to be able to shoot.


As for regime changes, all that will happen is you have to work a little harder to change stuff, is that a bad thing? I would say no but then there are people who play this game who prefer things to be handed to them on a plate. The majority I am fairly confident want to look back having changed the landscape and be satisfied they did it through hard work as opposed to "I got lucky this one time"

Squishy has said he favours the second form of tapering, which features a +0.5 lowest point. That would make it 2 targets to equal an "untapered person", rather than 10; a huge difference.

Disregarding the now irrelevant statement about hours in a day and shots possible, this tapering system would mean these tapered accounts would get +1 kill a day purely from MIAs. Do those top 1.5%/top 10 accounts currently shoot their MIAs? If they don't, this system would make them +1 kill per day stronger, not even factoring in other kills they accumulate on top.

It isn't that people are "failing to grasp the basic mechanics of the situation that tapering puts in place", it is that this lower form of tapering will not be effective in slowing down the progress of top guns.

That is only true assuming the top guns are not taking a single shot at all a day.

Whilst they are getting 1 kill a day, others are getting more.

Getting half a kill for a shot compared to getting one kill for a shot is a slow down the progression of a gun. Wackback was a chance you might die it has been proved time and time again it didn't slow down a gun, factor in BG shots being effected by tapering as well and the guns will have slowed down.

I don't know for certain if the top 1.5%/top 10 are shooting their MIAs, but I would guess the top accounts aren't. Even if they are at the moment, I'm sure at some point they will stop because history tells us they will. Or rather, would have stopped at some point out of fear of WB.

Therefore, they would get at least 1 kill per day more with this system than they would get on a WB system. That will make their guns progress faster, not slower. Getting half a kill for a shot, where you are previously getting none is not going to slow down the progression of a gun.

I think WB did slow down guns, you think it didn't. I think the knock on effects of WB were significant and worthwhile, you think they are irrelevant. We will see in the fullness of time whether guns grow faster or slower as a result of WB death being removed and whether those knock on effects had merit.

Personally, I suspect we'll regret removing it.

From what Squishy said, WB is not removed only disabled until something is voted in as a replacement. WB in its current form seem to be his problem, not WB all together. WB is only removed if the PC doesn't vote for anything else or if the PC votes for something only with tapering. He has said he hopes it is just a few days before there is a replacement I beleive.

hmmm. i have a little issue here. 7 poeple voted yes in favor of this change, 4 voted no. If two people can match the power of seven, or three, so that with effectively half the number of people, the the votes are tied or different from the majority, I think there is an issue.

Discounting Flash-Fire's vote that was reversed after WB was removed and Squishy's vote as he's a coder and only temporarily part of the PC, it would actually have been 5-5 anyway, ignoring the weighting of the votes.

Considering PC-Asylum was one of the original sponsors of this idea I would imagine that he would have voted yes on this, making it 6-5.

5-5, 6-5 or 7-4; what is indisputable is that it was quite divisive.

Ultimately, Squishy/enkindle coded the votes to be weighted, so I guess it doesn't matter anyway.

rofl, it is always funny to see the looser explain why they did not really lose.

Shame

I just hope something is figured out as still is no system in place since removed last week or whatever.. turning out to be worst than an election

It is quite worrying.