Limit of turf planted in a airport
Forums › Suggestions & Feedback › Limit of turf planted in a airport-
YOU wrote:
135 infᎡᎯ༈ᏑᏲ wrote:
It's the first person to reach max inf (ie all 135 inf turf). Once somebody has capo, somebody else must overtake the capo's inf to take capo: which would be impossible if the capo already has max inf for the area.Ꮤıҡҡѧ Ꮤѧʜ wrote:
That's what I was thinking.If you limit the turf, how will the capo be decided?
*138 influenceOf course, the capo would lose capo if his/her turf was attacked and another player had max local influence.
-
✙Baron✙ wrote:
Well in case you Diddent read the fourm label than it says "suggestions".★Λubergine★ wrote:
Shhhhhhhh. If you bring in logic his head explodes.some idiot wrote:
I thought the more turf you had the more income you get. Why should you get less money for having more turf?If you look at SFO than you realize that it is impossible to plant a turf there or even see the ground because one person put 100+ turf. There really needs to be a limit or at least an extensive fine depending on the number of turf in an airport. The more turf that someone has the much more expensive it is to keep turf.
-
some idiot wrote:
I seem to say this every time I see one of your posts, but you really are some idiot✙Baron✙ wrote:
Well in case you Diddent read the fourm label than it says "suggestions".★Λubergine★ wrote:
Shhhhhhhh. If you bring in logic his head explodes.some idiot wrote:
I thought the more turf you had the more income you get. Why should you get less money for having more turf?If you look at SFO than you realize that it is impossible to plant a turf there or even see the ground because one person put 100+ turf. There really needs to be a limit or at least an extensive fine depending on the number of turf in an airport. The more turf that someone has the much more expensive it is to keep turf.
-
u guys could do things the old fashion way and hop 😊.
u can also mob up. if u can cap ur way into an airport controlled by someone or some people then u have earned the right to be there in my opinion.
-
Easy solution. Double or triple the radius of the 'landing area'. Makes it vastly harder to blockade and respects turf already in place.
-
Loco T-Bone wrote:
Easy solution. Double or triple the radius of the 'landing area'. Makes it vastly harder to blockade and respects turf already in place.
Fuck you, no more airports!!! 🔥🔥
-
"The Man" wrote:
This doesn't add airports. Just makes it so a few players can't thwart the design of the game.Loco T-Bone wrote:
Easy solution. Double or triple the radius of the 'landing area'. Makes it vastly harder to blockade and respects turf already in place.
Fuck you, no more airports!!! 🔥🔥
-
Loco T-Bone wrote:
Leaving airports unblockabke takes away from the war aspect of the game."The Man" wrote:
This doesn't add airports. Just makes it so a few players can't thwart the design of the game.Loco T-Bone wrote:
Easy solution. Double or triple the radius of the 'landing area'. Makes it vastly harder to blockade and respects turf already in place.
Fuck you, no more airports!!! 🔥🔥
-
☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:
They are still block able, it just takes a lot more turfLoco T-Bone wrote:
Leaving airports unblockabke takes away from the war aspect of the game."The Man" wrote:
This doesn't add airports. Just makes it so a few players can't thwart the design of the game.Loco T-Bone wrote:
Easy solution. Double or triple the radius of the 'landing area'. Makes it vastly harder to blockade and respects turf already in place.
Fuck you, no more airports!!! 🔥🔥
-
Loco T-Bone wrote:
☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:
They are still block able, it just takes a lot more turfLoco T-Bone wrote:
Leaving airports unblockabke takes away from the war aspect of the game."The Man" wrote:
This doesn't add airports. Just makes it so a few players can't thwart the design of the game.Loco T-Bone wrote:
Easy solution. Double or triple the radius of the 'landing area'. Makes it vastly harder to blockade and respects turf already in place.
Fuck you, no more airports!!! 🔥🔥
Your bung hole isn't block able, at least it wasn't last time I entered it.
Quit trying to make the game worse, douche. 😚
-
"The Man" wrote:
😂😂😂Loco T-Bone wrote:
☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:
They are still block able, it just takes a lot more turfLoco T-Bone wrote:
Leaving airports unblockabke takes away from the war aspect of the game."The Man" wrote:
This doesn't add airports. Just makes it so a few players can't thwart the design of the game.Loco T-Bone wrote:
Easy solution. Double or triple the radius of the 'landing area'. Makes it vastly harder to blockade and respects turf already in place.
Fuck you, no more airports!!! 🔥🔥
Your bung hole isn't block able, at least it wasn't last time I entered it.
Quit trying to make the game worse, douche. 😚
-
Loco T-Bone wrote:
Nick did this exact thing in a previous update. The result- players just filled up the new landing radius. The ap remains locked.Easy solution. Double or triple the radius of the 'landing area'. Makes it vastly harder to blockade and respects turf already in place.
Here's a thought, if one wants into a locked ap, maybe they could send a polite message to whoever seems to have a large amount of turf there. Ask nicely for a slot to fly in or out. And then be willing to have that ap turf capped. Now I'm no turf wars expert, but in my humble opinion, this is a viable suggestion. -
Why the hell was this bumped? Bad bad suggestion.
-
The argument against airport cap limits fly in the face of inviting more players to an area to increase income levels. What purpose does it suit for one player to establish 10 or more turfs at an airport other than to prevent use of said facility? It seems as though you find newer less established players lobbying for limits on specific activities and more established players advocating for "unrestricted" controls. This is fine but highlights a hypocritical stance that allows "gas day" capping of properties while banning the same practice against inactive players. It is entirely unfair to advocate for controls and strict ions that are punitive to the lower level players while allowing more established players to participate in the very same activities albeit under different names.
-
💵Big Jinx🔫 wrote:
The argument against airport cap limits fly in the face of inviting more players to an area to increase income levels. What purpose does it suit for one player to establish 10 or more turfs at an airport other than to prevent use of said facility? It seems as though you find newer less established players lobbying for limits on specific activities and more established players advocating for "unrestricted" controls. This is fine but highlights a hypocritical stance that allows "gas day" capping of properties while banning the same practice against inactive players. It is entirely unfair to advocate for controls and strict ions that are punitive to the lower level players while allowing more established players to participate in the very same activities albeit under different names.
You're right, it's not fair!!!
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC