Wouldn't that also have to be changed for the Durden crew, then? Collectively, the entire site essentially pays for a Durden crew to appear and then has a killing spree - should wackbacking and dying on them be disabled as well? I've always been under the impression - even after they started introducing artificial accounts - that shooting at accounts should always come with some kind of consequence.

The retort will be that it isn't fair for people to die for what they paid for. Or, it isn't fair that we aren't seeing more massive deaths from wackback than we would like to, and that instead, it's affecting the middling users who are trying to train their gun. That comes with the territory of using a firearm.


With that said - people want a risk-free venue to catch up with the larger guns. While I have large reservations considering the irony of the request to make it risk-free to kill accounts, why can't the training range fulfill this purpose by just expanding it to all users, regardless of how much experience they have? If tapering is implemented for the top users, (wackback is untouched) I can't see how that wouldn't fulfill the purpose, while meeting both sides of this argument in the middle.

Accounts need to have dual checks because neither one nor the other are completely effective. The objective is being achieved already as WB death does slow down the development of huge guns, doesn't it?

If it isn't doing what it should be doing, would introducing tapering alonside WB death increase our effectiveness in achieving that objective? Absolutely.

Would replacing WB death with tapering increase our effectiveness in achieving that objective? Absolutely not. We would see guns increase at a greater rate than they are currently doing because there is only a finite number of BGs available. By enabling the top guns to gain +0.5 and above from each kill, which are substantially easier to come by now that they can't die from the shot, their guns will actually grow faster. How is that a good solution to the problem?

I would hate to see WB death removed, but if it is, I see no problem with the shooting range also becoming uncapped as another risk free way of building your account.

And paying to fill jails isn't paying for 2 different stat increases? Rank & jail stat.

Durdens are far from risk free even if wackback was removed from them, no one person pays for them so they should contain the risk still.

I think death WB should only be removed from MIA's and not the rest. If people at the top still want to pay 1 credit for half a kill less then let them, but range should not have the limit removed at least not without a substantial rise in cost.

Would replacing WB death with tapering increase our effectiveness in achieving that objective? Absolutely not. We would see guns increase at a greater rate than they are currently doing because there is only a finite number of BGs available. By enabling the top guns to gain +0.5 and above from each kill, which are substantially easier to come by now that they can't die from the shot, their guns will actually grow faster. How is that a good solution to the problem?

I have to disagree with that, a lot depends on how you chose to taper the guns and the effectiveness of the taper. You have also failed to factor in there is a finite number of shots someone can take in a day.

The shots that they can obtain will not change, the number of targets available will not change. Hitters hit, no matter what level of kills they are at. I have never once stopped shooting in circa 5 years of playing. People I have known with cannons haven't stopped shooting even when asked to by their peers.

Tapering is a fully effective way of reducing a persons ability to increase their wack stat. Every shot that they take will have a reduced effect, they may decide they want to take 24 shots a day, good on them, they have to win all 24 shots for it to go up and I can tell you now they won't be physically capable of keeping that up over a prolonged period of time.

If you compare to ultimate situations bearing in mind the target is to slow down the progression of large guns.

Joe Bloggs was taking circa 15 shots a day, wackback is a 1% chance on each shot, there is no dynamic attribute to it in that if you take 100 successful shots you have a better chance of wacking back and dying. It is an axe hanging over your head, a 1 in 100 chance that something might go tits up. Joe Bloggs can continue in this vain of form for months and months it doesn't effect his ability to get build a gun at all.

Now replace wackback with tapering. Bear in mind that the suggestion is to remove wack back on durdens, MIAs, IAs, and RIAs only.

Joe Bloggs can still take 15 shots a day, however as he rises to the top those kills are becoming less and less valuable to him, it isn't physically possible for him to build a gun at the same rate as under the wackback system. As he kills more the +1 to his gun falls to less than +1 so the only way to increase that is increase his rate of shooting, but he is running out of hours in the day so that wont be possible and if he manages to live without sleep his rate of advancement continues to slow down.

I didn't fail to factor in anything and Squishy has suggested his second set of tapering figures which degrades to a +0.5 at the lowest so lets assume that is the effectiveness being used.

Hitters do not hit no matter what level of kills they are at, that is completely untrue. Hitters stop shooting after reaching their own perceived point in time where they switch to BGs out of fear of WB. At that point they do not keep killing their MIAs and RIAs. There are the exceptions to that rule, but I cannot accept the premise that the top 10 guns in the game do not switch to BG wacking at some point, because they do. That has been proven time and time again.

That fact would no longer exist without WB death as people would not make the switch, meaning they would keep shooting their MIAs and RIAs where as they previously switched to BG wacking. Even at a minimum +0.5, this is +0.5 that they wouldn't have taken before out of fear of WB death and gained from targets that they previously ignored. Assuming that they don't get a RIA or IA and purely just their MIAs, you're effectively giving the top guns another kill a day in just MIAs that they wouldn't get before.

This could not be implemented alone in the current format as it would just make the currently established guns more powerful than they already are. If the tapering was introduced before accounts accumulate large totals then it would work in slowing down the development of guns, but at the moment it would be counter productive.

The most effective and sensible option would be to introduce tapering in conjunction with WB death. The top gun development would be slowed and they wouldn't be able to pick up MIAs and RIAs that they wouldn't currently pick up without fear of WB.

Hitters do not hit no matter what level of kills they are at, that is completely untrue.

I for one have never stopped wacking for fear of wackback, Marston never stopped when he more than likely had the biggest gun in the game if not top 3, JohnGalt never stopped for fear of wackback when he had biggest or 2nd biggest gun in the game & I'm sure there are many other examples of top hitters who do not stop for fear of wackback.

Are we really denying that people switch over to BG shooting? Are you serious with this?

No I'm not denying that at all, but it's not 100% one way or the other. Some will choose to switch over to bodyguards & some won't, it's entirely down to the individual.

Most people will switch to BG wacking, it's just a fact, maybe 90% will switch, with the other 10% not really caring about WB Death and just going for it anyway.

I don't think that's really worth discussing though.

Will tapering the guns slow progression? Yes. Will it do a better job than WB Death? Yes. Will introducing tapering with WB Death be even better? Possibly, but it will affect such a small number of people that I hardly think it's worth doing this at all. Say if the top 10 guns switch to BG's, then this will not affect a single one of them. If just one of the top 10 guns carries on shooting, it will only be affecting this person, and punishing them for taking the risk. I hardly think that's fair in the slightest.

In my opinion, it either needs to be one way or the other. Remove WB Death on MIA's, RIA's, IA's and NPC's, and add in tapering, or, leave it the same way and let those that wish to risk it, risk it.

There is no logic in punishing those that are risking it with a further reason not to bother. "Oh, I'm carrying on shooting, risking WB, and not even getting a whole kill for it? Nah, fuck that."

Tapering will do a 100% better job of slowing the gun progression than WB Death.

While for the main part I agree with Pratster I don't feel that WB death should be removed from NPC's.

How best do we feel this should be approached? I think multiple votes. We will start with an initial vote on the idea as it is. If that fails, we will vote on the integration of WB death and tapering?

Could a coder clarify the latter will be considered if the former fails?

We can do that grin.

The problem with this is those who want to vote against it in both forms will vote against it in entirely which would then take it to the second vote where people who wanted it without death WB would now vote for it with as they'd rather see it go in with WB than not go in at all.

Where as I would probably vote against both forms I'd rather see it go in without death WB so due to the order of the vote it won't actually reflect what we want.

I'm not sure I'm following Flash.

The first vote will be to see tapering introduced and WB death removed (the idea as it is).

Should that fail, a second vote would then be called to consider tapering and WB death introduced together.

If you don't want both forms, vote yes on the first one. If you do want both forms vote yes on the second one. If you want neither, vote no on both. If you want either, vote yes on both.

Have I misunderstood what you mean?

I think maybe what he is saying is that either way it's possibly going to fail. If all those that want it in it's original form vote and those that don't vote and it fails, what is to keep the second from going through as most that support the original are not going to support wb and tapering. So basically it's going to go... The people that vote yes the first time will more than likely vote no the second time and the people that vote no the first time will more than likely vote yes the second time and it will basically be a vicious circle. That is what I gather anyway.

I don't really see another solution.

If the vote fails, the suggestion fails.

I've suggested two votes to give it the maximum chance of succeeding in some capacity.

Does anyone have another option that I've missed?

A suggestion has been posted in the forum that would have met both sides in the middle towards their goals, but seeing as it has received absolutely zero feedback, these votes will have to do.

I would suggest we vote on if the suggestion is wanted then follow that vote with a vote for keeping death wackback.

So we'd vote on if the suggestion goes into the game & if it passes we voting on keeping/getting rid of death wackback (I hope this makes more sense).

What I don't get though is... When a deadlock vote was made on the empty cities generating no revenue, in order to get another vote it had to go back to suggestions if it was to be altered. That's the only downfall I see to this.

The other suggestion that is a compromise, is still not a compromise, as it still includes death wb. This also still includes death wb, just those arguing are not satisfied with the accounts that are left to wb on.