My suggestion is taper the top 10 guns in the game (or top 1.5%? so its dynamic) and taper them off like the 2nd set of numbers in the example. Remove wackback on MIAs, Tylers, IAs, RIAs, so you can only wackback on real live humans, who are active in the last 7 days. To compensate with the lack of wackback, introduce jail where you cant get busted from, for a time like 30 minutes.

My question is why not introduce this in conjunction with wackback?

I believe he's still keeping wackback death, just removing it from fake and inactive accounts. Which I think is a fair compromise. I would still like to see the tapering without the wb death, but I can still support this with the RIA's, MIA's, IA's and Durdens being removed.

RIAs, MIAs, IAs and Durdens are like 99% of the shots. That isn't really much of a compromise.

Why do we need a compromise though?

The issue we face is wackback death was put in to slow down the progression of huge huge huge guns that would be unstoppable in most realistic situations.

It doesn't work.

Therefore they are looking at something new.


I am tempted Izzy to say taper the guns from the moment you Professional Wacker, let the person know where they stand in the top x guns of the game so they can plan accordingly.

It does work.

It doesn't always kill the biggest gun, although there are examples of it doing so, but it definitely kills others around them and many big guns in the process that enable other things to happen. How many people switch to BG wacking out of a fear of WBing to death? Virtually every sane person. That is a player decision that they make based on their own feelings. This dramatically slows down the advancement of the colossal weaponry. Why is there a sudden need for that to change?

This idea is solid and logical for inclusion on its own merits. It doesn't need to be introduced alongside a WB change which is not required.

It's not that we need a compromise, I supported this 100% with the full removal. I was just pointing out that he is willing to compromise on the issue and not remove wb death completely. I agree completely El-Nino, it doesn't work, as Squishy pointed out in his suggestion. Which is why the sudden need to make the change. Tapering will do more for slowing down people building an actual cannon than wb has ever done. Why not change it? Because it's the way it's always been? Why not try a new method and rid ourselves of one that has cost the game users?

It does work, for the reasons I said above.

Why not change it? A WB death does have a huge impact even when it is only a trusted lieutenant dying and not the Don themselves. The idea that it is predominantly the so called "little guys" being killed is all a matter of perspective. Sandor's Don, 150+ BG account, to me, is not a "little guy", nor are many of the other names that have been thrown out in the thread. Sure, compared to a JesseJames or Roman they are pretty small, but compared to the newest account on the list they are enormous.

It is a nightmare when you die to a WB death, just as it is to a 1%, but this is a part of the game that adds an element of uncertainty in an increasingly certain world. Even the most accomplished of hitmen could still succumb to a mistake or quirk of fate that could cause their untimely demise. It isn't likely of course, but then neither is WB death.

WB death provides hope to those who are not amongst the ruling power and tempers the ruling power's mentality as a result. I've been on both sides of this, as I'm sure have many of you, and I can say absolutely that I would not see it changed. It is not going to be as encouraging for anyone knowing that the element of doubt that affects everyone is now replaced with a tapering system that will never see anyone die as a direct result.

WB death affects everyone; the best of gunmen right the way down to the lowliest. Isn't there something kind of poetically just about that? Wackback is one of the things that makes MR, MR. It is a known consequence that is readily accepted by everyone when they start shooting so why is it justified to condemn it when you're struck down? You knew about it from the get go and still decided building your gun was a worthwhile pursuit. I don't see the problem now that you've fallen victim to it.

Did those users leave the game because of WB death or because they lost their account? I suspect the latter and of those people who have left as a direct result of WB death, why not leave because of a 1%? Why not leave because of a legitimate wack? The outcome is the same regardless of the circumstance and when that circumstance is one that you knew and accepted as a possibility, why hold the game responsible for your own decision? Nobody makes you wack, you can glide through the game pretty comfortably without ever firing your weapon.

Those are just a few reasons off the top of my head as to why WB death shouldn't be removed. Yes, taping will slow down people building a gun and I'm in favour of it as it is a logical method of stat development which I've suggested in the past. However, there is no reason to eradicate WB death to make an allowance for tapering.

Instead, why can't tapering be introduced in conjunction with WB death?

While I wouldn't mind voting for combining tapering with WB death, (I'm not in favour of removing wackback death in the least) I'm not sure this really needs much change. Wackback death serves an important purpose in the game in regards to the legions of users who decide to take hitting upon themselves - it forces people to think twice, after a certain point. Everyone who hits knows the risks of continuing to shoot. Over the years there have been numerous measures added to prevent you from dying from a wackback - voting, bodyguards, bribing, your defense level - which makes your odds of dying from a wackback vastly less than is advertised if one is utilizing all of these measures, frankly. Simply tapering guns will only make the ones being tapered work harder to maintain their edge - and, why not? They'd now have an absolutely risk free way to train outside of bodyguards.

As the whole idea of this is to bridge the gap between older accounts with huge guns and those just starting out I think death wack back would have to be removed as it won't bridge the gap if it's the weaker guns trying to catch up keep getting a death wack back.

The problem is a lot of the same accounts wacking back several times in a row. Marston wb's as Godfather. Very next account, CL, hardly has anywhere near the kills he had as Marston, wb's again. Same with Caius' accounts. Same with Curtis' accounts. So, no I don't believe they are quitting because they are losing accounts... True not every single one of those has quit specifically because of wb, but some have and it's because, why would you invest time, money and effort into something you're going to lose because you've wb'd on every account you've had? Now you not only have the same people wb'ing over and over, you've also got the little guys. I don't know about you, but when I had my first account, if I had wb'd on my first ever shot, I would have quit. Sure it's a risk I take when using my gun... But the risk is not the actual point of wb... The actual point of wb is to keep guns from turning into cannons and it's obviously not working.

You are always throwing up at people... "You don't want to make this change cause that's the way it's always been." But here you are using that same exact argument. Why not give something else a try and see if it is more effective and at the same time, bringing back players that might not play otherwise?

And as far as 1% goes... I would definitely rather die from 1% than a wackback, at least someone is actually shooting at me in that instance.

Marston knew there was a risk he could WB, shot anyway, died. Sandor knew there was a risk he could WB, shot anyway, died. Same with Caius and same with Curtis. This is a known risk that they readily accept in playing the game. If they don't want to accept the risk they leave which, even if it was the sole reason seems like a reasonable step to me, before returning when they can handle the risk again. I don't see a problem with that and I definitely don't think we should change the game for the sake of three people who seemingly have shitty luck in how they die. How is that a rational response? People quit for all sorts of reasons. If we propose to change the game to compensate for this tiny minority of the userbase, what about those who have left over other perceived faults with the game? Are we going to make changes for them too? I hope not. Hell, I've died to numerous 1%s; should we change the game for my run of bad luck? Absolutely not, because the game is bigger than any one player.

The time/money/effort argument is applicable to any account. Why would you invest any one or all three when you could die to a 1%? Because it is a valid part of the game which you knew about from the get go. Why would you invest any one or all three when you could die to a perfectly legitimate shot? Because it is a valid part of the game which you knew about from the get go. Why would you invest any one or all three when you could die to a WB? Same response. Players decide that the benefit from having a trained firearm is worth the risk of dying to WB otherwise they wouldn't shoot. This isn't something that has been tacked on to the game which nobody knows about; this is a known potential outcome that people acknowledge and decide to invest time/money/effort in regardless.

Based on the current stats this has happened 1 time in 1950 shots. 0.05% of shots currently result in WB death. This crazily small percentage requires a radical overhaul of the whole system? And, who do you know who has WB'd on every account they have ever had? I would like to see some evidence of that before I take that anywhere near consideration as the 3 people you've listed here have definitely had accounts that haven't WB'd.

Next to the much purported death of the little guys. How many little guys die and quit because of WB death? If the argument is that losing all the effort, money and time invested into an account causes you to quit, how does losing next to nothing also make you quit even if you are actually one of the unlucky 0.05% of users shooting who die this way? That just doesn't add up to me and if you could supply me with evidence of how many brand new accounts die to WB on their very first shot, I will consider that too. Otherwise, we will be here all day conjuring meaningless and highly unlikely scenarios out of thin air and asking what if, when the factual reality of the situation is that 99.95% of shooting users are not wackbacking to death.

The purpose of WB as defined by Squishy most recently is "to slow down the progression of huge huge huge guns that would be unstoppable in most realistic situations". I don't follow how WB death is not achieving that. With every WB death, a whole bunch more people switch over to BGs and thus their cannons take considerably longer than they otherwise would without it. I don't see how that is failing to achieve the purpose of slowing down the progression of huge, huge, huge, guns, because isn't it doing exactly that?

I use a diverse range of reasons to substantiate why I support or don't support certain things, trying as best as I can to consider the ramifications, potential consequences and advantages of any change before doing either. I think you'll find I suggested that people didn't want to see the RH/LH positions changed from being awarded to any rank to a more logical setup because that is how it has always been, despite that system being blatantly flawed as you can have the second and third in command of a family they aren't even in. I hardly think that constitutes "always" and I'm not suggesting to keep WB in purely because it is part of the game; I'm suggesting to keep WB in because it is effective and serves an important purpose that does not necessitate removal. There is a significant difference.

WB stops the biggest guns from continually building. When big accounts die to WB death that has an impact on the userbase. When big accounts with big guns die to WB that has an impact on the userbase. WB has directly been responsible for the change of formidable regimes. WB has indirectly contributed to the change of formidable regimes. No tapering system is going to achieve all of that. Instead, as I've said from the beginning, rather than removing WB death, which they is no need to do, simply supplement it with the tapering system. Surely that would be the most effective method of achieving the goal of slowing down the progression of huge, huge, huge guns as you would have the benefit of both rather than one or the other.

So, for the third time, can someone tell me why it is not viable to bring a tapering system in together with WB death?

I don't think any amount of discussion is going to change anybody's view on this. It's such a big aspect and potential change that everybodies mind is already made up.

You can type out a 5000 word reply, or simply just say you're going to vote yes, neither is going to persuade another person to convert to your way of thinking on this subject.

Personally, I think removing WB for non-real accounts is only going to give massive rewards to the game. With no WB on MIA's, for example, think about how much the MIA purchase amount is going to rise, and with it, credit purchases. For any new players that would've been unfortunate enough to WB on their first account (I think you took it too literally when Cassiopeia said first shot) they won't be likely to now quit.

I think WB'ing on your first account, whether it be 5 shots in or 100 shots in, is going to greatly deter a lot of potentially good players. It's not healthy for the game to be detering players just because of something like WB death, which gun tapering can more than make up for.

Whether the player is new, or old, they are still going to be more likely to quit the game, after being killed by WB death, than in for example a war. The game has practically killed your account off, rather than another player simply being better than you.

What other game can you think of that pretty much kills your account and hard work? Any? No.

There's a lot of attributes someone can point to to explain multiple wackbacks on the same account line - answer is one of them. And, quite frankly, if you're making the argument that some people have quit over wackback - how many more have quit from being killed randomly in a war? "They might quit" isn't really relevant to the topic and it doesn't really pertain to what the purpose of Squishy's suggestion is.

And, as for wackback not working - one can point to the numerous evasions one can enjoy to avoid getting killed from a wackback - as Grin mentioned.

37 1 0.05% (0%)

Before all of these added saves were implemented - most of those 37 would (likely) die. If it isn't working, don't blame wackback - blame the added rolls people are getting that are saving their account. Tapering guns along with keeping wackback would work exponentially better than completely closing an avenue that has been partially responsible for shaping our landscape.

So basically you're saying, everyone that trains a gun should be punished by losing their account. That is ridiculous. In no other aspect of the game are you punished for pursuing it. I've answered your question every time you've asked it. Tapering and wb death combined are not ideal because wb death isn't doing what it was created to do per the owner/coder of the game.

Sure I threw out a few names, off the top of my head, so it really does no good to call me out on saying because 3 people quit the game. Those are just 3 immediate names I could think of. And yes Pratster, I literally meant first shot (maybe not on a brand new first time player account) but Sparkles died of a wb, came back and her very first shot on her new account, she had a wb death but was saved by her bg. How is that keeping a gun from growing? She took one shot!!! And as far as quitting from 1% or dying in a war... At least those people are actually getting shot at. Dying from a gun malfunction? Unrealistic. A 1%? Even presidents with secret service agents have been shot. As I've said before, as many others have said... In a 1% at least your name was put in a wack box and someone took a chance. Much better than dying strictly for training a gun.

We are starting to get off focus of the argument. The purpose of the wb death is to separate the gap between the top accounts and the people working up and unfortunately it's not doing that. People like Sandor dying is making the gap bigger. Tapering their guns, without using wb to punish them for building a gun, will be the most effective way to slow the gun building.

I don't think it's that unfair to warn people that they risk losing their lives for attempting to take other people's - in this case, for the most part, whether it's computer generated or not.


Your argument seems to be that the bridge between the largest (the Godfather and Don accounts that have racked up hundreds or, collectively, thousands, of kills) and those of the average haven't been bridged. That's true. Out of the few hundred accounts, they've managed to get lucky enough (no doubt, with the help of the added save rolls that have been implemented over the months) to avoid death. If your complaint seems to stem around the fact that they aren't dead yet, that question has been answered previously. What was once a general 1% chance of death is now 0.05%. Adding that to the fact that the average shooters far outweigh those of the former group that seemingly haven't died yet - and have probably stopped training for ages, now - it's not that surprising that what few wackback deaths there are will tend to favor the group that, over time, and with numerous more accounts than the top dozen or so wackers will affect them more-so.



This isn't about fairness in terms of accounts being killed. I would reckon to bet most wars in the eyes of users aren't fair, yet it happens on a routine basis. Just as in real life, when you shoot a gun, you should be aware of the ramifications of doing so. You can miss, your target could turn around, and shoot you in the head, and that would be the end. If you're worried about bridging the gap between the large and the small, why not just expand the usage of the shooting range so that it can be utilized by all users, with tapering also implemented for the extreme margins?

Ralph I think you are reading the statistics wrong there, 37 is the number of total wackbacks including jail, gun & death. The 3 wackback saves which rarely seem to save anyone would show in the brackets, for instance if 2 people got death wackback and 1 was saved & 1 wasn't it would show:

2 (1)
0.05% (50%)

I have rarely seen wackback saves and considering there are 3 50/50 death wackback mathematically we should see more wackback saves than wackback deaths. The chances of getting a death wackback are actually less than 1% then failing 3 50/50 dice rolls in a row seems almost impossible yet with both of Luca's WB's I'm fairly sure he had all 3 fail safes (bodyguard, votes above 60 & police bribe).

I would say keep death wackback but I think the saves need be looked into. Also death wackback should be removed from MIA's & MIA's alone, there shouldn't be a risk of dying on something you have paid for with credits, especially since you no longer loose you CA when you die.

If WB death is removed, you're buying a stat increase.

So, for the third time, can someone tell me why it is not viable to bring a tapering system in together with WB death?


Why punish someone twice to succeed at the objective. If you feel the need to tax them twice then the first really isn't working.

I think it speaks volumes that a coder has said wackback death isn't doing what they want it to do.