also, Warrior voted yes when he should have voted, because his comment said that he doesn't agree with WB being removed.

Warrior sponsored the original suggestion with wb being removed... Why would he vote no?? His comment didn't say he doesn't agree with wb being removed... His comment said though he'd rather keep it... That doesn't mean he is completely against it or he wouldn't have voted yes.

Yes they weighted for a reason, but there is also a sense of majority and when it's 6 or 7 against 4... Well, to me that says more people agree this is a good idea.

yeah, the majority of votes that count, currently say no.

Seriously? Every vote counts, otherwise what is the purpose of the PC?

I'm seriously having my mind blown at the lack of respect and trust some of you are having towards the admins and coders. You trust them with so many things in the game, until they want to make a change that you don't agree with. Do you not think they have the game and players as a whole's best interests at heart??? Seriously. Would they get rid of wackback death if they thought it would seriously upset the balance of the game??? Get a grip honestly. Let the change happen and guess what... If it doesn't work, then *shock gasp horror* we can change it again! Imagine that! And we can even change it again after that, that's the beautiful part of this game. But let's stop punishing people for using a game feature and find a constructive way to keep guns from becoming these huge cannons.

Fair play about finding an alternative.  I am just fine with whatever ends up happening, eventually, be it tapering, or 80% wackback.  If that is what yall decide, sounds good to me.  My issue is the complete disrespect shown by the admins who put a player commision together, then made a suggestion that the player comission decided to sponsor, is actively involved in the discussion and voting on said issue, and then a couple days early, just completely bypasses that process, and removes a long standing feature without waiting for a vote to be completed, and a decision to even be made.  WB Death was removed early, without a replacement implemented yet.  There is literally no reason at all for this to have happened early. 

Of course Izzy has the best interest of the game at heart.  But he made a player commision for a reason.  Honestly... if Izzy had on his own decided that he wanted to get rid of wb death, and add tapering, and set everything up at the same time, I wouldnt have said a word.  Instead he submitted a suggestion, and went through the motions of allowing the PC to decide.  I am sure most in PC assumed that when/if the vote passed, then everything would be implemented at the same time. Instead of trusting in the process that he created, and has trusted in thus far, it seems to me, that he just completely bypassed that, but didn't actually fix the original issue. For a few days, a few weeks, or 5 minutes... I feel allowing this break in ny check on the upper gun growth is needless, and bad for the game.

End of the day Cassi, I am a customer.  I will comment on any change that removes a huge risk in the game.  I am sorry if that blows your mind. 

I don't recall saying you couldn't comment on anything Pumpkins. You certainly do like to blow things out of proportion. I said the lack of respect and trust. Izzy made the change because it was obvious that it wasn't going to pass and he doesn't want anymore people to die in the meantime while the change is being figured out. How terrible of him wanting to spare more lives. Shameful. Maybe instead of arguing with people here, you could be coming up with a suggestion that could lead to a better solution.

Pumpkins, from my understanding, the Player Commission was formed mainly to look @ suggestions offered by the users, weed through the useless ones, evaluate, discuss, and improve good suggestions, before presenting it to the Admins.

Admins can still ultimetly veto anything suggested.

The player commission is not the electoral college. It is the popular vote. 

I would point out that there was another significant suggestion forwarded by a coder that was voted on and rejected that was mostly based on the real-world applications of enabling such a feature, backed by the lack of necessity for said feature. If someone doesn't vote in favour of a suggestion by a coder, it doesn't mean we don't have the best interests of the game at heart. The current suggestion as it stands has most people supporting a tapering measure, and the reason why it is failing is that there is a disparity between whether or not we should keep wackback in the process.


I'm not going to argue about the merits of keeping or removing wackback as my two cents have already been exhausted in the appropriate thread for the suggestion - but I'm slightly taken aback at why people are as aghast as they are over a few of our members being hesitant to vote for a suggestion that would essentially change the entire landscape of how every account handles their guns. The player commission is comprised of people who are supposed to be objective - there isn't much of a reason for a Player Commission if every one of our votes outside of the obvious, near-unanimous approval votes on cosmetic/player convenience features follow the same path, is there?

I don't recall saying you couldn't comment on anything Pumpkins. You certainly do like to blow things out of proportion. I said the lack of respect and trust. Izzy made the change because it was obvious that it wasn't going to pass and he doesn't want anymore people to die in the meantime while the change is being figured out. How terrible of him wanting to spare more lives. Shameful.

You said that people questioning this was "blowing your mind,"  it was out of your realm of possible expectations that people might question this preemptive desicion. My response to that comentary, I feel was reasoned and measured appropriately.  I feel I am right on proportion.  Again, I am sorry if you do not agree. 

Maybe instead of arguing with people here, you could be coming up with a suggestion that could lead to a better solution.

I think a better solution, would be the one that grin proposes.  I said this in the original suggestion thread, and I continue to stand by it.  People agree with Grin.  Some of those people are in PC and have voted accordingly.  Which is why it wasn't going to pass.  Some of the people who voted no, and one of the people who voted yes, specifically said that they did not want to see wack back removed. Sooooo the solution that i would sugest, would be the one that is already being talked about, and isn't yet decided by the Players commision.

I think the fact that it started as a suggestion, and as you say "obviously wasn't going to pass" is a clear indication that maybe we should bide our time, and wait for a solution, instead of jumping the gun. 

The player commission is not the electoral college. It is the popular vote.

Yes sir, it is popular vote.  However, some people's votes count for more. Currently, the fact is that the number of votes for removing WB is 7 votes for yes, and 9 votes for no.  More people may have voted yes, but the vote is still not passing.  

It was obvious it wasn't going to pass at the state the current voting is in. What is the solution that Grin proposed exactly? And who agrees with it? I haven't seen him post a suggestion that garnered support. Sure a couple of others voted no, one voted no because he doesn't like the tapering idea... Which Grin is in full support of. One other person voted no because we shouldn't change the only thing that makes people scared to train a gun. Which I don't recall being a reason that Grin wasn't for this change. Why should anyone be scared to train a gun????? Are we scared to do jail busts??? Are we scared to petty?? Are we scared to sell drugs??? Why should anyone be scared or punished for playing the game? That is outrageous to me.

You said that people questioning this was "blowing your mind," it was out of your realm of possible expectations that people might question this preemptive desicion. My response to that comentary, I feel was reasoned and measured appropriately. I feel I am right on proportion. Again, I am sorry if you do not agree.

Please quote me where I said people questioning this. People have every right to question decisions, it's part of what makes this game and community wonderful. I said... again... for the third time... The lack of respect and trust. It's one thing to question decisons. It's another thing to approach people disrespectfully and without couth. You are obviously reading what you want into the things I am saying, so I see no point in continuing to respond to you.

Honestly these last 3 pages of commentary about the coders going behind the PC's back is a waste of all your guy's time and effort. As Squishy said in the second response to the thread, what the PC is voting on was NOT the removal of fatal wack backs rather what would be being put in its place. The decision for fatal wack back to be removed was not up for discussion.

Summary Being Voted On
Remove WB deathand counter with tapered guns.

[~] Remove wackback - counter with tapered guns Started by: Squishy at Sep 25, '12 18:40
The purpose of wackback is to slow down the progression of huge huge huge guns that would be unstoppable in most realistic situations.

I propose the removing of death wackback, and putting in a system that instead does the same thing but by tapering off gun growth much like the % tier in jails.



EJLee, I can assure you, that I was under the impression (as were others) that the suggestion as proposed would have removed wackback in the process as well as replacing it with a tapering system. There was no announcement (or post, until Squishy announced it) that wackback would be removed regardless of our decision. As I highlighted above, it's pretty apparent that the suggestion that was posted was a two-step process of replacing one feature with another - I, myself, was quite surprised that this was the response to what seems to be a vote against the measure.

I am one of not many left who remember org before wb, it was a glorious place but often things got more violent.  The streets at stages ran with blood and even those who never knew if they had a gun tried their shots knowing they would only risk being shot back by someone else who probably never had a gun.  I have worked for some people who had great influence on me, MKM, Kanada, Sonny D and Morbid Angel and helped me hone a skill.  As WB came in i worked alongside Uncle Nicky, after a session involving 18 kills in one day, i dusted myself and got back on and 24 hours later i was back killing again.  I dont see this big fear of wb scaring people off as i see a lot of people come back and do the same again in some cases. 

Just like on here i have had the dreaded blood dripping from my head and the sad grey screen in LV under Striphe, yet again i brushed it off, cursed my luck and this being the only wb i have had on this version of the game continued like a good keyboard zombie.  I believe in the risk of wb death as can happen to anyone however tampered it has been with, we have seen in the unfortunate past the bad luck LV had as a city with it whilst animal and then betsy poke were there.

It is not simply about the size of the gun, in a game where defence and defence is poured on top of each other through bgs, fortifications i believe it is needed but possibly at its previous levels.  I am one of the people who have previously stopped around the 500 mark kill wise to concentrate on bgs, limiting my risk of death but i knew what i was getting into from the start and have built nice guns on various answers info being my favourite.  I do believe this should have been left to the player council, however when a player council is just that players self interest can always be an interest.  Do i want to die?, do i want to continue building my gun with no risk? it is what you signed up to and that should be enough.  As for tapering as suggested, i have seen this own another game and all it did there is create paranoia as people approached certain stats however was attached to both defence and attack and since 2/3rds of the game has left.   I know many of our players have a level of maturity above a jaundies sharing neighbour but is an example.

WB being in place, does not stop you getting achievements it lets you choose the risk you will take for them and as izzy said with bg etc coming into player is a limited chance of death.  I also am one of these people who would of capped the bg level at not the biggest guns but the average gun as like me nowadays due to work, i dont get to sit around hunting.  I expect to see bg levels rise as guns do and things being even harder to dislodge people, where if these defences werent in place maybe we would of seen more changes of guards like old org.

I know these things bring in a lot of money and thats always going to be a factor, as you cant pick money of the trees but how long till we get rid of 1% or something else just to appease people.  I may only get to play 2-3 hours a day if i am lucky but i see no difference now to back when Roman held sway and why we never needed this then; so why now?

I don't want to spend too much time on this, but further to what ralph has said, it was also my understanding that the suggestion we considered was two-fold:

Part A: to remove WB death
Part B: to install a stat tapering measure instead.

I discussed the proposal and voted accordingly on the basis of that.

I was not aware that regardless of the outcome, WB death was going to be removed. Squishy posted saying that he would consider a second vote to consider WB death remaining intact alongside a tapering system. Although this was rejected by other members of the PC, the fact it was to be considered suggests to me that WB death being removed was not set in stone from the outset, rather a response to the PC vote not falling as intended.

If that is the case, I see little point in the PC being asked to consider suggestions made by coders. Maybe it would be better if they just proffered opinion in such circumstances rather than voting.

Phil_Steak:

Buying MIAs will help eliminate game money from the game.
It will help lower the price of credits in the marketplace as the credit demand increases.
It will create revenue for the game with more credits being purchased with $ to pay to support this game we all love. 

Yes

No - demand in credits will always increase the price.  Too drunk to patronise you with a simple economics lesson.

Yes

I don't like WB being dropped however I think the whole issue about gun size and whether you die 10 before max or 400 after max is just dodging the issue that the whole premise of the game is now solidly built around account longevity and defence.  When in the swoop of some swiftly transferred cash, you can put your character beyond the reach of all but the biggest guns will always make a mockery of any gun size discussion or tapering percentages.  

"It is clear that wackback death is not doing what it is designed to do and has been disabled until another method can replace it, which wont be forever, and depending on the speed of the PC, should be a few days. During those few days, I don't believe millions and millions of shots will be taken, so I don't forsee any dramatic events to happen during these few days, except maybe saving the life of an account that would have died of wackback"

Its been more than a few days now.  How many more days will everyone be able to accumulate kills risk free?

Until the PC acts... so who knows. It seems they have lost their spirit as of late.

well, PC didn't make this change, so I am looking forward to hearing from Squishy

"depending on the speed of the pc" ...

he put the ball in their court and they are in no hurry.