The problem we have at the moment Typhon is that people are aware of the relationship between number of kills and bodyguards. This was previously unknown, as was the number of bodyguards, so there was nothing to say that X with 500 kills couldn't kill Y with 8000000 BGs. People had to try their luck and see what happened which led to failed assaults, wars which people were unprepared for and generally a lot more 'things' happening.

Currently though, we know that X number of kills means you can hit someone through Y number of BGs and you can get a measure of the number of BGs have from their status. This means that you can work out, to at least within a handful of kills in most cases, what number you require to hit which person. That means that until you get to that number, you won't even consider trying.

Personally, although it is off topic, I would like to see us discard with the protection levels all together.

Alright so with the taper system and losing the ability to know what you are getting for each kill will change the game to more strategic play which is personally fine with me I love strategy. Sounds Good count me in.

With a possible huge durden spawn coming which was announced in the sales thread do you not think it would be a good idea to make sure this is implemented first? Do we really feel that it is right to give people with 800-900 kill guns possibly another 50-100 kills dependng on the durden size?

I appreciate that WB is currently disabled, but voting to permanently remove it from 99% of shots is not something I will be doing.

I think 99% is a bit of an exaggeration. While real accounts do not make up a large majority of the shots, they do make up more than 1%.

There are actually quite a surprising amount of players you race for on a daily which are real accounts. If these real accounts were added with the fatal WB and a pure 1 percent chance past 500 gun would you vote for that Grin?

Based on the kills so far today, at the time of my counting, there have been 148 deaths. Of these, only 11 are real players. Taking this as a standard day without Durdens, we are looking at approximately 7% of all shots being on real players, be they real accounts that are active or real accounts that have gone inactive.

So, 99% was a bit of an exaggeration and the actual figure is actually 93%. Based on that and my own belief that WB is worthwhile, eradicating it from 93% of all shots is not something I would support.

A pure 1% chance past 500 is much, much higher than what was not acceptable previously Typhon. The figure upon being disabled was around 0.05% of all shots resulting in WB.

Alright so then what does it take to get this in effect. The longer we go on about this the more time it gives guns time to build which alot believed is not acceptable so there has to be some kind of terms that works out.

From my own perspective, I feel WB death served a valuable purpose. I don't dispute that this may not have been the original purpose of the feature, but with the development and evolution of accounts and other features over time, this has been what it has come to encompass.

WB death has been removed until a suitable replacement can be found and whilst an appropriate form of tapering will be successful in slowing down the progression of larger guns, all the other effects and benefits of WB are removed. There will be risk-free gun development on 93% of shots, there will be no landscape altering deaths, there will be no lost guns and lost bodyguards and I suspect, some players will be able to forever cement their legacy at the top with no deterrent. It is as much the fear of death as the death itself that has impacted upon our game and that will be eradicated 93% of the time, which will undoubtedly be 99.99% of the time when the big guns only shoot actives in war as they are smart and limit their risk accordingly.

So, for me, I don't think I'll agree with the removal of such a feature with no suitable, worthwhile alternative being suggested in it's stead.

I agree with you that fatal WB did its job. I have argued this in here I believe already so then if its just the percentage then why are we not allowing Fatal WB's on Durdens? These spawn what every 2-3 days and will raise the percentage you are looking for.

I believe the intention is to only remove fatal wb, not gun loss, bg loss and jail as well. So there are still reprecussions. And again... Fatal is not being removed completely. There have been several compromises on the supporters end, yet, no solutions being offered from the other side, except for all or nothing. We're never going to reach a decision that way.

Grin.... The top guys are not going to be dying of WB.
You're silly comment about "some players will be able to forever cement their legacy at the top with no deterrent." is completely false.

Your top guy is more likely to die from a 1% than a WB.

With the current system, you would be lucky to have 1 out of the top 10 guns in the game continuing their gun building.
The only real shot of those people being killed is if they either war each other, or are 1%ed. Not WB.
Stop with your completely incompetent theory of WB killing top people. WB did nothing with cementing people at the top, which you have clearly complained about as it is.

Accounts have been living in excess of 1 year while WB existed. Why? Because they weren't shooting.
All WB is doing is harming those building up a gun, not those who have already established one.

Mind you, when I said Current System, I was referring to the system with WB being enabled.... Not this temporary state we're in.

Phil_Steak, please don't be so ridiculous.

The top guys are not going to be dying of WB.

Please direct me to where I said "the top guys are going to be dying of WB".

You're silly comment about "some players will be able to forever cement their legacy at the top with no deterrent." is completely false.

This is not "completely false" nor a "silly comment". I do not think it is difficult to perceive a scenario where a player with the wrong mentality elevates themselves to the top and simply removes any potential threat before it becomes one. This is a situation I've seen rinsed and repeated on many other similar games where WB or an equivalent did not exist.

Are you really denying that there is a possibility of that happening?

Your top guy is more likely to die from a 1% than a WB.

Obvious and never refuted by me at any point. Death wackback was affecting approximately 0.05% of shots. 1% is larger than 0.05%.

With the current system, you would be lucky to have 1 out of the top 10 guns in the game continuing their gun building.
The only real shot of those people being killed is if they either war each other, or are 1%ed. Not WB.
Stop with your completely incompetent theory of WB killing top people.

Once again, please point me to where I said, WB is going to kill all the top people. You appear to be operating under the incorrect assumption that I have either said or believe that to be the case. As I have never said that, it is woefully apparent that my "completely incompetent theory of WB killing top people" is actually just complete invention on your behalf. Please stick with what I'm actually saying rather than just making things up to suit your own narrow view.

If you had bothered to engage your brain before your fingers hit the keyboard, you would have noticed that I've said WB has an impact on the landscape of the game because significant people have died and would continue to die due to WB. History has proven this to us, because WB of certain accounts has caused regimes to fall. Even ignoring the obvious examples of JesseJames and Marston, this is a fact. Mikado and Scarin WBing played an important role in the removal of Deimne from New York, which at that time, was the strongest regime in existence. It is not just the top people dying due to WB that makes an impact, it is big accounts around them.

What you also continue to disregard is that it is not the size of the gun that dies which is the only important factor as to why an account dying makes an impact. It is the account itself, their defence and the influence they have as well as the gun. Had someone been planning an attack on Philly for example, would Sandor dying with 150+ BGs not be relevant? Of course it is.

WB did nothing with cementing people at the top, which you have clearly complained about as it is.

I assume you mean that WB had nothing to do with cementing people at the top and I don't believe I've suggested that it did, so I'm not sure how I've complained about it. What I've suggested is that WB and the fear of WB stopped the big accounts from shooting, something that you've also agreed with.

All WB is doing is harming those building up a gun, not those who have already established one.

To use something you've said, completely false.

WB harms both those building up a gun and those who have already established one who continue to shoot. Did Marston not have an established gun? Didn't JesseJames? Didn't a whole host of other people who have died because of WB? Yes. Yes they did. Why? Because WB used to affect every shooter equally, from those taking their first shot to their 1500th.

As above, previously and always, important accounts WBing will always have an impact on the landscape of the game. History has proven, repeatedly, that this is the case. This has now been removed and I think the game is lessened for it.

To bring us back around to the point of the thread; I can understand that WB was not intended to kill the lowly. Therefore, as my opening post here suggests, having death WB kicking in after a certain amount of time would make sense and prevent those who shouldn't be dying from doing so.

Grin,

There will be risk-free gun development on 93% of shots, there will be no landscape altering deaths, there will be no lost guns and lost bodyguards and I suspect, some players will be able to forever cement their legacy at the top with no deterrent.


Your statement right here implies that removal of WB will allow users to forever cement their legacy at the top with no deterrent.

So, clearly, you referenced TOP players.. (legacy at the top).
So, clearly you referenced that WB deters those people at the top.


By removing WB, you are giving accounts like Sandor the ability to build up their gun.
With the ability to build up their gun, they are then able to take out those who are actually at the top.

Your argument that "Sandor was helping Philly" is irrelevant, as we are not speaking about game politics. We are speaking of building up accounts.

WB causes those training their gun to die. Are they top accounts, VERY rarely.

What WB does do, is remove a POSSIBLE THREAT to a top account.

Grin, you yourself state:

Attack is greatly outweighed by defence, falling foul of one of the fundamental balances of the game. The strategy is to place your account beyond harm's reach and empower a single account with several hundred bodyguards. This results in a near unassailable defence that can never be overwhelmed by any one individual. This in turn allows people to act in ways that would never otherwise be tolerated, enact policies that are largely unpopular and generally treat the game as their playground. Whilst the option exists for the users to communally rise up and slay some of the stronger accounts by BG wacking them, this practice would flout the fundamental principles of Cosa Nostra, primarily loyalty to the family and require divergence from this, rather than fulfilling their obligation to defend their Godfather and Don.


Now you're switching stances and wanting to stop the progression of offence?

Power makes the rules within the game and that is how it should remain. However, power that is gained or furthered through external influences, such as masses of bodyguards purchased via credits and accumulated over a number of years, presents a very real deterrent to playing the game, both to casual and hardcore players.


Why are you trying to prevent the power, where you clearly specified "it should remain" provided it was not fained through external influence.

Because someone built a powerful gun without any external influences, shouldn't they be allowed to remain?

Your first post;

My statement means exactly what it said.

I didn't say top players, I said that some players will be able to cement their legacy at the top with no deterrent. As I said last time, I do suspect that some players will be able to do that. It just needs someone with the wrong mentality reaching the top and I think it'll happen because that deterrent is gone.

Legacy at the top means their reign. I didn't reference "TOP players", all I said was some players and at no point, as I'm sure from your lack of direction you also have now realised, did I say that "the top guys are going to be dying of WB", did I? No.

WB deters those people at the top. I think it did, don't you? What's the relevance of this? Is this your acknowledgement that your previous post which stated "stop with your completely incompetent theory of WB killing top people" was completely inaccurate and pure invention by you? I'm still interested to see your evidence to support that.

The reason I referenced Sandor was because he was an example of someone without a top gun, whose WB death still has an impact. How is that irrelevant? I think it is extremely relevant. The game politics are only pertinent in terms of understanding the significance of his account dying, but for you, I'll do it again without mentioning his name.

Imagine I am a Godfather. Imagine my trusted lieutenant with 155 BGs dies to WB. Does this make me stronger or weaker? Obviously it makes me weaker. This is the impact WB can have in influencing the fall of regimes. Is that easier for you to understand?

Your argument is flawed as it assumes that every account is going to attack the top account at some point in time, which just isn't true. I don't know why you're failing to acknowledge that not every account is a threat to a top account and could only be classified as a potential threat in the loosest possible terms in that they have the ability to wack anyone. Potentially, they have the option of attacking a top account, but the reality of the situation is that they never will as many accounts in fact aid and support the top account and enable them to progress. The death of these staunch supporters, despite their own account not being the top account, then has a knock on effect as it weakens the top account. Are you denying this?

Your second post;

Once again, poor research on your behalf.

My stance has not changed. Here is my stance from that document you're quoting a paragraph from, out of context:

Stats are too high, and both attack and defence are off the charts, needlessly. There is no benefit to anyone of increasingly moving the finishing line further and further away. It is a deterrent to both new and existing players as they realise that they must continue to strive for a point that is so far into the future, requiring so much effort, that this effort exceeds the enjoyment to be gained from actually achieving it. This is extremely counterproductive and needs to be addressed and rebalanced.

There is nothing to be gained from increasing stats into perpetuity and I have seen no argument put forth by anyone that can demonstrate that it is. Why require 1500 kills to kill the strongest account and require this to take 1 year to accumulate, when you could achieve the same result with 250 kills in 2 months? A far greater proportion of the market for this game would be prepared to invest 2 months at a time rather than 1 year. This is common sense.

I would love to see tapering incorporated for defence and offence. Funnily enough, a little further into the document you're quoting from, out of context, I said that:

I can't code and I don't know the difficulties involved, but I would have thought a system that incorporated tapered benefits based on your existing ability would be a far more balanced way to operate. It prevents a huge imbalance arising between those who put more of their lives into the game than is particularly healthy and those who play casually. It does this whilst not hindering them - they will still be stronger which reflects their increased workload, but a new account should never be faced with the thought that, 'no matter what I do, I'll never be able to reach the top.'

The same I believe should be happening for defence. Each new bodyguard adds 1 divided by the total defence. Therefore if my defence is ten, a new bodyguard would add 0.1, but if it was 100, it would only add 0.01. I still get the benefit, but it is less beneficial.

I suppose you could say I want to restructure both offence and defence and see them brought back to a realistic, achievable level, but that's how I've always felt, so definitely nothing changed there.

Why are you trying to prevent the power, where you clearly specified "it should remain" provided it was not fained through external influence.

What exactly am I supposedly trying to prevent "the power" from doing? Your sentence doesn't go anywhere. I can't explain why you're probably wrong again until you finish it.

Because someone built a powerful gun without any external influences, shouldn't they be allowed to remain?

Who is saying they shouldn't be allowed to remain?

Grin,

How about you provide some responses with substance, and not filled with content that go nowhere.

You flat out said, removing WB will allow someone to cement themselves in the top, which is ludicrous. WB has absolutely zero role in someone cementing themselves.

As for your example without names, what makes you think that person benefits the Godfather?
What makes you think that person would not eventually make a move on his so called Godfather?
Would Prem and Roman have fallen if most of their own cities and hitters didn't turn on them?


Point is, the WB effects accounts directly. It senselessly takes out people of the game. People who are trying to build up. People that could be a factor in large scale wars.

I would much rather these people be killed by actual other players. I would rather see these people be killed because someone decided to take a shot at them, or a war broke out, or they did something wrong which is punished by death.

What is the benefit of someone dying randomly from the game itself.

It's like a drive-by shooting who kills a by-stander. Nothing good comes out of it for anyone.

I'm pretty sure my responses have all been substantive up to now. They have directly answered questions posed by you, despise their largely irrelevant nature. They have highlighted the numerous inaccuracies and flaws in your thinking, despite your ability to accept the obvious. They have addressed your attempts at attributing statements to me which I never made and are entirely your creation. On the whole, I think they have valid, pertinent content.

To your latest, I said "and I suspect, some players will be able to forever cement their legacy at the top with no deterrent". The reason I think that is because if someone with the wrong mentality gets into the top position, having likely invested a lot of money in their account along the way, I can definitely foresee a scenario where they try to remove everyone. That seems a logical progression and a natural response to me. I think WB previously kept those people in check and made them reconsider their strategy, ultimately leading to their tolerating someone who potentially killed them. I've seen it happen on other games like this one where there was no WB or fear of WB, and it happens. If you think that's ludicrous, that's up to you. I definitely don't.

This person benefits the Godfather as they are his trusted lieutenant.
This person will not make a move on his so called Godfather, like hundreds of other people haven't in the history of MR. Not everyone tries to kill the top account, do they?
I thought we weren't talking specifics anymore or about game politics? Regardless, I don't think Roman would have died without many of the Chicago families warring him. People lived largely in fear of him and the reputation he had built for himself. Prem? Who's to say? What relevance does this have to WB?

As I've already said elsewhere, I see WB as an accepted risk of shooting. People know, or knew, the risks of shooting and decided it was worth it anyway. This wasn't something that one day was tacked on whilst no-one was looking. You can easily glide through MR without ever firing your weapon. It was a conscious decision that players made knowing the potential consequences and decided to proceed anyway. It served the game well for years.

WB takes people out of the game who are trying to build up and could be a factor in a large scale war - on either side. Not all WB work in favour of the top account, even if it isn't they themselves who fall victim to it.

Fundamentally we differ on the value we perceive WB to hold, so I doubt we will ever agree and I'm not sure what either of us has to gain from this conversation anymore. You see it as holding no value, where as I value it pretty highly. I believe it adds a worthwhile and valid dynamic to the game. Nothing you've said thus far has caused my opinion to deviate from that belief.