Make it against the tos to cap inactives.

Forums › Suggestions & Feedback › Make it against the tos to cap inactives.

BAT SMURF Apr 10, 2012

I'm talking more than three turfs, it should be against it and this will get rid of people like brass flamingo.
Nalfaria Apr 10, 2012

No thats stupid
BAT SMURF Apr 10, 2012

A〽NESTY wrote:
No thats stupid

I think you may cap inactives with a very insightful comment like that.
🔥zUntamed🔥 Apr 10, 2012

BAT SMURF wrote:
A〽NESTY wrote:
No thats stupid

I think you may cap inactives with a very insightful comment like that.
Too bad he's correct
🔱ADD🔱UILO🔱 Apr 10, 2012

BAT SMURF wrote:
A〽NESTY wrote:
No thats stupid

I think you may cap inactives with a very insightful comment like that.
It's called turf wars
You can cap anyone you want
BAT SMURF Apr 10, 2012

🔱ADD🔱UILO🔱 wrote:
BAT SMURF wrote:
A〽NESTY wrote:
No thats stupid

I think you may cap inactives with a very insightful comment like that.
It's called turf wars
You can cap anyone you want
Its not good caping inactives ( ask any vet) and it's a way to get rid of brass flamingo and pasta kid.
Nalfaria Apr 10, 2012

We know it's not good, but do you think nick is going to ban/reset someone because they slightly disturbed someone's income?
thegame add BF Apr 10, 2012

no you can cap anyone.
〓 Ⓑ Ⓛ 〓 Apr 10, 2012

Finding people that cap inactives and smashing them is all part of the fun of the game. Capping inactives is a crappy thing to do but it's a good excuse to war with someone right? And that's what the games about really.
Ғųℵƙψ ☣ ℐøƙヨƦ Apr 10, 2012

Capping inactives isnt intrinsically wrong. It is socially and economically wrong. That is why it shouldnt be bannable. Intrinsic wrongs are like : cheating, rl threats. Social/economic would be: leveling noobs, capping inactives. Nick should never ban over social/economic ettiquette
Ғųℵƙψ ☣ ℐøƙヨƦ Apr 10, 2012

Society should punish those who break societal etiquette, similar to how we level anyone who uses the r word
Ꭱ3V Apr 10, 2012

Z👿 wrote:
Capping inactives isnt intrinsically wrong. It is socially and economically wrong. That is why it shouldnt be bannable. Intrinsic wrongs are like : cheating, rl threats. Social/economic would be: leveling noobs, capping inactives. Nick should never ban over social/economic ettiquette

👍
Primo Loco Apr 11, 2012

Ꮹཞ།ཀཀ wrote:
Z👿 wrote:
Capping inactives isnt intrinsically wrong. It is socially and economically wrong. That is why it shouldnt be bannable. Intrinsic wrongs are like : cheating, rl threats. Social/economic would be: leveling noobs, capping inactives. Nick should never ban over social/economic ettiquette

👍
Plus sometimes an inactive's turf can save you
You're getting capped out in a war and everyone else I stronger but there's an inactive with a group of turfs nearby that is out of the other players reach
Well there ya go now you don't have to go hopping from your other rest point, which is most likely miles away, again
Ϯµཞƒ💀ℒøཞÐ🔫💀🌄 Apr 11, 2012

That would get rid of another strategy in the game, and in a mob based game strategies are hard to find. It would eliminate the scorched earth strategy, even though I think this is frowned upon, it's still nice to have these last resort options. And also, unless you cap them out if an area, capping an inactive isn't going to effect your income.Personally, I think they're over protected.