Here is the original suggestion:

Tapering only kicks in past 500, this allows scenarios where most die in a huge site war, except for a few, this allows the dead to "catch up" within reason.

The top 1.5% of guns in the game or top 10, which ever has the greater number, have their guns tapered

The #1 gun in the game gets .5 of a kill
This scales equally until the next person outside of top 10 or 1.5%, which gets a full kill per kill.

(This is the same as 2nd chart in the first tapering thread, although accounting for possibly more than 10 people by using the 1.5% number if the population grows)

Wackback death is disabled on all non real players, with the exception of IAs (RIAs, MIAs, Tylers, IAs)

Wackback is enabled on accounts made by real life people ACTIVE people (Active Players)

I would still prefer to see this implemented with the first tier where it ends with the #1 getting .1 of a kill. I believe we should also see bg tapering included with this, otherwise they can just continue building the same gun they were before tapering was introduced. I'm not adverse to wb being added back in on real accounts. I did some calculations myself and not even counting the real accounts in one day that had suicided or died turning gangster after 48hrs there were about 14% of the ia's for the day being real accounts. Figuring that figure in with 2 mia's a day, it's a pretty good amount of accounts there for wb. And like anything else in the game... If this doesn't progress the way we envision it, we can tweak it further and figure out other options.

While i'd honestly prefer the shooting range as an outlet for people wanting to train their gun in a risk-free way, I'd rather see wackback be removed just for MIA's and kept intact for the rest of the lot. I can understand the logic behind getting what you pay for, but I'm still not keen on removing them for the whole lot, sans real accounts.

The 'WB on Real Accounts' suggestion hasn't got the sponsors to be considered though. Instead of modifying this suggestion to basically be that one, I'd say it'd be better to take this suggestion as it is, for all the other countless reasons that were posted in the threads before this one.

That is what 'wackback on active accounts' means... And it is fully sponsored, which is why it is here in the PC awaiting discussion. So it does have the sponsors to be considered and needs to be fully discussed. I don't think wb on everything but MIA's is going to go over, because then the players are only going to be able to buy their kills. Durdens already shoot back and some players have lost some pretty big accounts due to that, so in a sense, you already have the risks when shooting at Durdens. Maybe we could suggest a raise in their defense a bit as well to even out the loss of wb on those types of accounts. But whatever we decide, we need to decide it. It's not as if whatever decision we make is going to be set in stone and be unable to be changed in the future should we find it not be working the way it's intended to.

This suggestion is purely for WB on active people. It discounts real accounts that are inactive.

From my previous example, there were 148 deaths, 11 of those were both active or inactive "real" accounts. However, this suggestion does not consider WB on inactive real accounts, only active real accounts, of which there was only 2. This gives us WB being a possibility on just 1% of shots. Of those 1% of shots, WB is only a 1% probability anyway, so we are dealing with a really tiny chance of this occurring.

My question, given that the previous 0.05% percentage was too high and we're effectively lowering that to 0.01% on some shots and 0.00% on others, what happens when some unlucky bastard rolls out? Are we going to eradicate this all together?

My personal feelings on this have been made clear before and I still don't think this is the way to go. But, I don't see a lot of options being available as WB is already disabled and tapering is in place.

I like the idea of WB still being enabled on real accounts but I think it needs to be a true 1% again not 0.35% (don't quote me on that %), however I like the tapering numbers that are currently in place where it lowers further when in a high kill bracket.

Is not some wb better than none at all? Those that have wished for wb to be eliminated have already compromised to have wb reintroduced on some accounts. Those that are for wb have offered no viable solution that isn't all wb or nothing, aside from the MIA suggestion that I don't think will work as I don't think the admins would like the players having to pay for their kills as their only real option to get kills, so surely there is a middle ground there?

Cassi, this suggestion is advocating for WB to be virtually removed. You may call it a compromise, but that is really doing a fair amount of dressing up of what is effectively the removal of WB death from the game. I'm not sure how middle ground it is to remove WB as a possibility from 99% of the shots being fired.

At this point, given the measures that have now been implemented and the steps that have been taken, I really don't see this as making much of a difference either way. It is only going to affect 0.01% of very few shots and 0.00% of others. If someone does die to WB from this, I strongly suspect it'll be removed all together or they will be compensated anyway.

I am ready to call the vote whenever everyone else is.

The compromise was on all real accounts. And instead of offering a solution that both sides could agree on, all that was said was no. I doubt we will see wb on every account along with tapering. Then tapering would be pointless as most would continue being safe and I've seen nothing to offer bg tapering. The original suggestion was absolutely no wb and several people sponsored it and then said they wouldn't be adverse to adding in some wb. There has been compromise, I'm sorry that it hasn't been what you wanted, but you have offered no alternating compromise.

The "compromise" was for WB to removed on 99% of shots because that is the suggestion that has been sponsored through to the Player Commission, where as the other option of "Taper Guns, Wackback on Real Players only" didn't get a single sponsor. How can that be considered a compromise when it is this one that you and others are seeking to push through? If you prefer that one, vote no to this and sponsor that and we can consider that one instead.

Numerous alternatives have been offered, just because you can't see those happening doesn't mean they haven't been suggested. In addition to the suggestion of tapering + WB, which I've advocating from the very beginning; in this thread over in suggestions, I compromised and suggested WB being brought in after X amount of time coupled with a tapering system. I appreciate that might have been buried beneath Phil_Steak making things up and claiming I said them, but it is there. Similarly, Solastalgia has suggested that the shooting range is expanded and used as a method of risk-free training rather than it being the case for 99% of shots.

This "compromise" isn't what I wanted nor is it what I think is best for the game. Evidently no solution has been offered that both sides could agree on, by either side, as there isn't agreement. However, as I've said in each response so far, given that action has already been taken in disabling WB all together as part of this "compromise", I don't see many other options.

There is a lot of flawed info being dangled around based on statistics. There is a well known staying

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics"

In times of peace then yes the % of live shots which incur wackback will be low however on each of those shots you will have a 1% shot of wacking back to death. Those shots will still be taken by the big accounts because they are punishment shots and that will give the "Game changing element" some people so seem to desire.

As a suggestion and a potential coding note to be implemented into the game to do what the games team want it to do I think this ticks all the boxes.

It will slow down the advancement of the top 1.5% of the games guns compared to everyone else on a totally level playing field.

Actually the other suggestion that you are referring to is the same suggestion that failed voting, why would we sponsor it again?

I have seen absolutely nothing offered that isn't full on wackback plus tapering. Even still introducing it at x amount of kills is still full on wackback plus tapering... And Solastalgia's suggestion again, still included full on wackback plus tapering. And while we all sit here and argue and refuse to reach a compromise together, there continues to be no wackback whatsoever.

This suggestion isn't a "compromise", it's a compromise, as the majority of us that sponsored no wackback at all have sponsored to include some type of wackback, even someone who voted against real accounts being the only wackback accounts, sponsored this one. I understand that you don't want this compromise, that's why I'm pushing you to suggest a compromise that you would be accepting of, not continuing to push for full on wackback plus tapering. If we could come up with something better than this suggestion that still met in some sort of middle I'd be more than happy to sponsor that.

You may have sponsored it if you felt it was better than this one. Or, we could have called for another vote on the existing one given the steps taken in the interim period.

The reason for my inverted commas on "compromise", is that leaving us with no wackback on 99% of shots, where previously it was 100%, is not a compromise in the sense that anyone is really deviating from their view. One side is being asked to move 99% on their stance, whilst the other is moving 1%. That to me isn't much of a compromise and certainly a long way short of some sort of middle.

I accept that as El_Nino says, these figures will change when real shots are fired on a larger scale, which occurs every few months, but for the majority of the time it will stand at approximately the figures I've quoted.

As for suggesting an alternative that isn't wackback on all shots, I don't really know what to suggest. Wackback on all shots made the most sense to me, otherwise you have an option of risk-free gun training, which I'm totally against as I believe there should be some risk involved in killing, albeit a small one. Perhaps more pertinently, given that WB is now disabled and tapering is in place, I'm wondering if there is any point changing that at all. Is WB on only real active accounts going to make people less likely to shoot at real people? Probably. Is that therefore going to make some form of WB counterproductive? Probably.

So, with the changing circumstances, maybe it is better to have no WB than some WB, which may make people even less likely to attack other users.

Any further thoughts on this or ready to proceed to a vote?

Proceed to vote, Im thinking more and more people want a feel of replacement for WB Death.

Do Durdens count as "Active Players"? I think the should as they certainly shoot back at you if you shoot at them.

Lets get a vote on and something in place.

In this suggestion, Durdens do not count as "Active Players".

"Active Players" are accounts that are made by real people that are active.