OK then. But keep in mind this is not theoretical and you can model it and the likely outcomes for yourself (this is me not trying to hard to convince you now that prop pools are on their way out and I'll have to hop the less hoppable pools)
There will always be poolhopping, every system has it's drawbacks.
No, not every system is hoppable. Normal PPLNS isn't if you do it right. It's just time based PPLNH is.
But unless someone points out that there is more then a few percents more profit you can make due to the payment system chosen, I don't think neither me, nor most people will loose any sleep over it. In the end there are other considerations such as transparency and ease of use which have to be considered too.
What's hard about vanilla PPLNS?
Maybe showing how your miners will be negatively affected by PPLNH *without* pool hoppers it might make more sense for you.
PPLNH is a drawback for your miners if the pool hashrate drops. Think about it. Your non-poolhopper hashrate is about 30Ghps. On average that would be a block solved every two days, so already your PPLNH|H=24 is equivalent to PPLNS|N=1/2. If your hashrate drops to 20, PPLNH|H=24 is equivalents to PPLNS|N=1/3. A week? PPLNS|N=1/7.
This is a huge increase in variance for your miners. Variance doesn't change with hashrate under PPLNS. As your miners see their variance increase, they'll leave since the whole reason to be in a pool is to decrease variance away from solo mining variance, not tend toward it.
And if you're thinking about varying H if the hashrate reduces, then you're halfway to PPLNS anyway.
Edit: and if you want a low variance method that doesn't mean keeping track of 24 hours worth of miner submission history, try the
double geometric payout method. It's not as scary as it looks on first blush, it's being used at a few other pools already, and your miners get reduced payout variance.