Capping Capture Range
Forums › Suggestions & Feedback › Capping Capture Range-
We need to put our personal biases aside and think about what is reasonable regardless of mob size. Nick is not trying to ruin anyone's fun. He is just trying to keep the game equalized, so everyone has fun. Whatever the change, we will all have to adjust how we play the game. Some will like it and some will not. If the game remains equalized, it will maintain its longevity.
-
I've thought about this before and I think the max cap range should be set at approx 2m based on the largest mob (it should be linked and constantly change) and the lowest should be 100m regardless of mob size this should start at a nominal figure so all players under say 2k have a range of 100m.
All other players will then fall in between the 100m and 2m range the range will then depend on the mob sizes competing or the average of the v.
This is a fair solution IMO...........
-
Beim Saufen👊🔨💀 wrote:
We need to put our personal biases aside and think about what is reasonable regardless of mob size. Nick is not trying to ruin anyone's fun. He is just trying to keep the game equalized, so everyone has fun. Whatever the change, we will all have to adjust how we play the game. Some will like it and some will not. If the game remains equalized, it will maintain its longevity.
-
Just to mention that outside of v's cap range is still relevant due to the def penalty.
I often range the larger mobs and aim to stay around 40% lower with the purpose of ranging and capping should they enter a v 👍
(I would try and catch but a lack of codes prevents this 😂)
-
The"Accountant" wrote:
I've thought about this before and I think the max cap range should be set at approx 2m based on the largest mob (it should be linked and constantly change) and the lowest should be 100m regardless of mob size this should start at a nominal figure so all players under say 2k have a range of 100m.
All other players will then fall in between the 100m and 2m range the range will then depend on the mob sizes competing or the average of the v.
This is a fair solution IMO...........
👍 Well said
-
DAS HYENA™ wrote:
Crying sour grapes Das? Cali Boss isn't a mule lmfaoмīм wrote:
Mim wasn't saying anything like this when his crew (Baic) used and uncappable mule account that jumped in 4 different Vs in one night to wipe out 4-500 turf approx a yr ago in Half Moon Bay, CA. Nah. They just all posted thumping their chests like they did something. Just go and look at the data Nick. & their posts'.Change is good if it makes the game better, I haven’t seen anything proposed so far that will accomplish that. Contrary to some big guys complains, or as nick put it, “good feedback”, large mob players have ways to trump snipers as we have seen in the LA battle, those players have efficiently used them. Change for the sake of change is pointless.
The social aspect and the different roles you can play in this game is what makes it interesting to a lot of people
nick. -
Ok, lets keep the capture distance growing with mob size linearly but not with such a sharp slope and let fix the minimum capping distance to be at least bigger than area of a turf so that micro mob (< 20) can be capped.
-
★Λubergine★ wrote:
And while Groucho does point out the reason people complain in the first place... (✂ snip)
That was my whole point. Counter Vs work for everybody. Not joining a V to counter the attacks is a choice. Like mobbing up or not mobbing up... All choices.
To say there is NO defense afforded in this game and we need to change the rules is an exaggeration. What is being discussed is the same as saying "since the big guys don't want to be in a V, let's change the game so they can have their cake and eat it too."
Don't like being capped? Counter the V. Don't like being on discount? Don't complain about being capped.
Smaller mobs fighting other smaller mobs use Vs against each other to settle differences. Why should the big guys be given any benefit when everybody else in TW fights V to V and accepts the hits that the ankle biters (er, I mean discount cappers) dish out.
-
This topic isn't about defensive options for countering sniping. It's about fixing the cap range differential. The current calculation needs updating. Nick is looking for feedback on how to close that gap. Like it or not, it sounds like he is looking to make a change. He must have received enough feedback to warrant the thread. Just because someone does not speak up in this thread doesn't mean they haven't provided feedback already. Let's try to stay on topic.
-
just read everything from the last few pages. its nice to see some players from both sides (not DAS) putting aside their differences to try to solve this problem.
as groucho stated, the defense against any v is a counter v. this gives bigger players a chance to defend against snipers, which has also been attempted in the LA war.
and just because a method has been effective at winning wars does not make it an exploit. both sides are more than capable of utilizing snipers and counter v's.
but other than that, it is true that the cap range difference has gotten quite large and isnt benefiting those that have put in the time to mob up as much as it should. i take back my earlier suggestion of not changing it at all. the accountant had a good suggestion that would also solve the uncappable "mule" problem. however the maximum cap range would create problems down the road as more people reach the max range
-
i honestly dont see what good could come from taking away sniping. the only reason its gotten so prominent in war fighting is because more smaller/newer players are getting and staying active in the game because they can actually make a difference. new players keep the game alive
one suggestion is to make the cap range growth more logarithmic instead of linear (assuming thats what it is now). this would shorten the difference between big, mid, and small mob's cap ranges
the decreased cap range turf loot idea would also be quite interesting if used correctly. however instead of having the loot apply to all players in the game, id suggest having it apply either:
1. the people in v's (current and future) targetting the player
OR
2. the targets of the player's v -
Just to clarify the point made by Yomama above regarding my suggestion I would update the cap range based on the largest mob. If the largest mob keeps growing then the 100metres - 2 miles stays the same.
For example MD is currently 80k approx and he will have the largest cap range (2m) if he gets to 90k this will stay at (2m). If Random is currently 70k and he didn't mob his capable range would then reduce as he has gone from 7/8 of MD's mob to 7/9.
Basically the larger the top mobsters get the further the range would have to strech so cap ranges would be ever changing (slightly) with the min staying at 100m and the max at 2m.
-
The"Accountant" wrote:
I do not like the thing about bigger mobs for longer range, it takes away the only + for having a small to medium size mob.Just to clarify the point made by Yomama above regarding my suggestion I would update the cap range based on the largest mob. If the largest mob keeps growing then the 100metres - 2 miles stays the same.
For example MD is currently 80k approx and he will have the largest cap range (2m) if he gets to 90k this will stay at (2m). If Random is currently 70k and he didn't mob his capable range would then reduce as he has gone from 7/8 of MD's mob to 7/9.
Basically the larger the top mobsters get the further the range would have to strech so cap ranges would be ever changing (slightly) with the min staying at 100m and the max at 2m.
-
2/8=(1/4)2 correct, according to your ideas.. Meaning that I would have a cap range of slightly less than half a mile, while a 40k would have a mile, and so on.
Increasing the range by fractioning the largest mob against your own is rather ingenious.
Eventually the range would increase meter per mob, Which seems like it would please everyone, while keeping the max and min within reach. -
🔰ℬཞüęℵǿཞ🔰 wrote:
2/8=(1/4)2 correct, according to your ideas.. Meaning that I would have a cap range of slightly less than half a mile, while a 40k would have a mile, and so on.
Increasing the range by fractioning the largest mob against your own is rather ingenious.
Eventually the range would increase meter per mob, Which seems like it would please everyone, while keeping the max and min within reach.Exactly. The exact cap range set would obviously be the crucial part.
At current levels it around 5 mob would increase or reduce the range by a metre.
I know some large mobs can be capped from 2.5m+ maybe more as I can cap from around 2m and I struggle to cap a 3-5k mob from about 600/700 metres so god knows how bad it is for larger mobs............
-
The"Accountant" wrote:
🔰ℬཞüęℵǿཞ🔰 wrote:
2/8=(1/4)2 correct, according to your ideas.. Meaning that I would have a cap range of slightly less than half a mile, while a 40k would have a mile, and so on.
Increasing the range by fractioning the largest mob against your own is rather ingenious.
Eventually the range would increase meter per mob, Which seems like it would please everyone, while keeping the max and min within reach.Exactly. The exact cap range set would obviously be the crucial part.
At current levels it around 5 mob would increase or reduce the range by a metre.
I know some large mobs can be capped from 2.5m+ maybe more as I can cap from around 2m and I struggle to cap a 3-5k mob from about 600/700 metres so god knows how bad it is for larger mobs............
👆👆👍👍
-
in that case, it sounds like a good idea 👍
-
Hoping this gets implemented soon. As someone here said the vendetta already allows a smaller player to battle a larger player when they normally wouldn't be able to do so. Why do they also need the advantage of having indefensible range. Would love to see this fixed sooner than later.
-
👍👍👍lets do it up. Sick of being captured from half way across the map.
-
I think that to change this integral part of the game is fundamentally wrong.
Mob size vs capture distances..... This is the great leveler within the game and gives everyone an active role that they can take on.
Now, I did previously say that it was a great leveler.... However I will grant it as fact that larger players have the propensity to to spend considerable $$ on their account, whilst the rangers will not.
Turf wars should not be about " He who has the biggest mob and deepest pockets wins.
-
Is it possible to make it so that in densely populated areas cap ranges are larger and in not so they are smaller in addition to the above suggestions ( only a small difference).
Or based on how much turf I.e if a large player spams his cap range increases slightly if it is more targeted I.e one turf here and there its slightly less.
Either way mob is the main factor........
-
§ UИCLΞ § wrote:
So you think, he who puts the least effort or work into their account should win against someone who does more? Maybe a new account with "just enuff" mob to start a V should win? Whats the purpose of punching codes then? There are many levels of competion in turf wars, not just pitting the smallest mobster against the largest. Just because you chose not to mob up or put work into your account and yet still want to fight the biggest mobsters doesnt mean you must be granted a constant advantage in range to compete against them.This is the great leveler within the game and gives everyone an active role that they can take on.
Now, I did previously say that it was a great leveler.... However I will grant it as fact that larger players have the propensity to to spend considerable $$ on their account, whilst the rangers will not.
Turf wars should not be about " He who has the biggest mob and deepest pockets wins.
-
Thanks again to everyone who offered feedback on this proposed change. This is the kind of thoughtful feedback that really moves the needle when it comes to working out changes to core gameplay.
After a careful review of capture activity, we've found that bigger mobs tend capture more turf than they lose – the bigger the mob, the better the capture/loss ratio on average. As a result, we will not be adjusting the capture range at this time, though we're open to doing so in the future if the need arises.
However, several players raised some good points that affect the edge cases, i.e. accounts with low Influence joining vendettas and being able to capture without fear of capture, due to the 10% Influence rule. As a result, we will be suspending the 10% Influence Rule for players who are involved in a vendetta. We believe this is a valid tradeoff for players to consider when joining a vendetta, and will hopefully cut down on the usage of smaller players as a tool for capturing big players' turf.
-
Thanks again to everyone for the feedback!
-
👏👏👏Thanks Nick👍
-
Thanks nick! The suspension of the 10% rule for players in Vs is fair 👍
-
The amount we cap vs lose means absolutely nothing when it comes to capture range. This is retarded. Add this to the update, and nicks screwing us again. Thanks nick.
-
℣ȉ₭ȉ₦Ǥ👹 wrote:
I can understand you're upset, but I'd really appreciate it if your didnt just through that word around. ThanksThe amount we cap vs lose means absolutely nothing when it comes to capture range. This is retarded. Add this to the update, and nicks screwing us again. Thanks nick.
-
⌖🔥ωⅇɢṡɪⅇṣ🔥⌖ wrote:
Throw. Not through. App Store has a few dictionary apps for free.℣ȉ₭ȉ₦Ǥ👹 wrote:
I can understand you're upset, but I'd really appreciate it if your didnt just through that word around. ThanksThe amount we cap vs lose means absolutely nothing when it comes to capture range. This is retarded. Add this to the update, and nicks screwing us again. Thanks nick.
As for range issues, I'd like to see the loot idea implemented if no range changes are going to take place.
-
Good decision nick.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC