keeping hyper triggers at the bottom prevents waits from blocking until the next NEO (3 days with 4 triggers IIRC). If Hyper triggers are above another wait, then that wait will never end. Player 8 runs triggers last, so putting them on player 8 will make all waits able to end, though this is just precautionary. Since only one wait per player is allowed, if the hypers on player 1 and player 1 is a computer with no other waits, the rest of the players should theoretically be fine vs nearly permanent wait blocks. You can safely use 1 wait at a time with hyper triggers at the end (if you use all players).

*sigh* I just explained in detail what the business with moving hypers to the end is and when and why you give them to All Players. Why are you messing it up with inaccurate details?

Quote from rockz

keeping hyper triggers at the bottom prevents waits from blocking until the next NEO. If Hyper triggers are above another wait, then that wait will never end.

First off, NEO doesn't create a wait block. The NEO is the Next Ending Occorrence which is just a fancy name for the event when all waits (4x63) have been processed, so the hyper effect is disabled for 1 regular trigger loop (2 ingame seconds) until the hyper triggers are restarted again (if preserved).
And to make it clear: The specific order doesn't prevent the waitblock altogether. It just moves it from a disastrous one (normal trigger containing a wait is blocked forever) to something that can be compensated for (hyper trigger is blocked for a short while). That's why you have it for All Players, so the other players keep the hyper effect alive.

Quote from rockz

Player 8 runs triggers last, so putting them on player 8 will make all waits able to end, though this is just precautionary.

This is just useless because what is important for single player hypers is that this player owns no other waits at all. Player number is of no consequence since wait blocks can't happen cross-player.

Quote from rockz

Since only one wait per player is allowed, if the hypers on player 1 and player 1 is a computer with no other waits, the rest of the players should theoretically be fine vs nearly permanent wait blocks.

I just don't like the blurry meaning here. *clarifying*
Player 1 or any other single player.
Not only theoretically.
It's correct that the hypers from that player won't block other player's waits. However improper triggering can still lead to a wait block (when a player executes 2 waits the same time).