Influence loophole
Forums › Suggestions & Feedback › Influence loophole-
I know this has been talked to death but maybe this angle has not. Rather than basing cap restrictions on overall influence what if it were down at a more manageable level, say based on influence in that city or state. We've already seen players like thug and the new Daveylife are willing to drop to levels that we cannot self police in the game as players. If it were based on a more local scale of influence then it would be much more realistic for the larger players to help smaller players. These rules will be exploited by someone no matter how they are setup but this would at least aid in our ability to deal with exploiters without intervention from on high.
-
I am cuemrrently using the low inf tactic to take down big players. This tactic is not always exploited against small players and vendettas are there so that there is a way the big players can help out in low inf battles. Taking away all strategy would ruin this game there is no need for this IMO.
-
Think about how this wouldn't work. If you counted just the influence in that city the low influence strategy would benefit the low influence strategist. They could get away with having HUNDREDS of turf in a city and still be uncappable. Sorry mate bad call
-
I think the 10% influence rule needs to go away as a player progresses in the game. There is no reason that a level 100 player should be protected by the 10% rule for example.
If you have not found a way to play the game without needing a rule that was supposedly set up to protect new players by that time, then you deserve to be capped to oblivion.
I have reached a point in the game that upgrading turf is pointless, other then for hopping that is. Why should I want to raise my influence any more then it is? All it does is take me out of the game more and narrow the pool that I can interact with and cap from. Also makes it less likely for someone to buy limit IMO. I know I've held off on limit purchases lately because of it anyway.
There has to be a better way. I don't consider buying and selling upgrades to be fun and a game is supposed to be fun.
That's just my .02
-
I disagree why should some lvk 100 bullied to the point of extinction not have any chance of making a comeback? It sounds to me like the strategy doesn't suit you personally. Just deal with it. There are loads of ways round this it makes no one invincible trust me
-
\\// 👊🔨💀 wrote:
I concur. Now you have .04I think the 10% influence rule needs to go away as a player progresses in the game. There is no reason that a level 100 player should be protected by the 10% rule for example.
If you have not found a way to play the game without needing a rule that was supposedly set up to protect new players by that time, then you deserve to be capped to oblivion.
I have reached a point in the game that upgrading turf is pointless, other then for hopping that is. Why should I want to raise my influence any more then it is? All it does is take me out of the game more and narrow the pool that I can interact with and cap from. Also makes it less likely for someone to buy limit IMO. I know I've held off on limit purchases lately because of it anyway.
There has to be a better way. I don't consider buying and selling upgrades to be fun and a game is supposed to be fun.
That's just my .02
-
My point was that if by level 100 you have not made enough allies, and or learned enough about the mobsters around you to be able to survive without this rule, then your doing it wrong.
I personally feel that calling the move a strategy is debatable. For a top mobster to hide behind it and torment other players with no repercussions from other players seems unfair. If you have a large mob then you should not be protected from other players your size.
-
If I were to drop influence and go after small new players. At least they could reach out to another large player for help. Currently if a large player uses this move and a small player reaches out to me, all I can do is say sorry dude.
Small players can't just pack up and move all their turf, they simply don't have the bankroll. It was my understanding that the 10% rule was to prevent larger players from bullying smaller ones. Essentially the current set up enables them to do it with no recourse.
Also for the record I am dealing with it. While debating other options. -
\\// 👊🔨💀 wrote:
There are repercussions. There's lots of ways to stop mobsters that do this. It also costs me 11mill an hour. It's a strategy not an exploit because nick has made ways around the tactic. And given it BIG downsides. So if you can't combat people who do this it's not them that are doing it wrong it's youMy point was that if by level 100 you have not made enough allies, and or learned enough about the mobsters around you to be able to survive without this rule, then your doing it wrong.
I personally feel that calling the move a strategy is debatable. For a top mobster to hide behind it and torment other players with no repercussions from other players seems unfair. If you have a large mob then you should not be protected from other players your size.
-
\\// 👊🔨💀 wrote:
use a vendetta, the small mobster can have you complete protection. Job doneIf I were to drop influence and go after small new players. At least they could reach out to another large player for help. Currently if a large player uses this move and a small player reaches out to me, all I can do is say sorry dude.
Small players can't just pack up and move all their turf, they simply don't have the bankroll. It was my understanding that the 10% rule was to prevent larger players from bullying smaller ones. Essentially the current set up enables them to do it with no recourse.
Also for the record I am dealing with it. While debating other options. -
Well, you can either have hundreds of thousands of influence, or you can cap turf. Simple.
-
The Rhino wrote:
Not that easy. A small player usually does not have the bankroll to compete with a large wealthy player constantly rebuilding all around him. Usually doesn't have the experience needed to fight back with a V properly either.\\// 👊🔨💀 wrote:
use a vendetta, the small mobster can have you complete protection. Job done.
-
And yes it can cost money to drop influence. But even if I were to drop to one inf on all my turf and still keep my upkeep weapons. I could go on a tear for a year if not longer without going broke. And with 10k + mob you wouldn't even need upkeep weapons to go after most people.
-
Does it matter? Really. There are ways round it. If someone is capping noobs only I'd have a problem. What would you say to a high influence low mob player. Mob up. So I don't see what the difference is
-
randombloke wrote:
Does it matter? Really. There are ways round it. If someone is capping noobs only I'd have a problem. What would you say to a high influence low mob player. Mob up. So I don't see what the difference is
Just picture for a minute if I were to tear down all my turf but one in each major city. Then decided to cap my way back up the ladder using my low influence and high mob to get there. Lowering each turf to one inf along the way. That combined with my obscenely high turf limit would leave almost no one safe and make me near invincible.
Maybe someday when I'm bored I'll go that route as it is apparently a valid strategy.
If the 10% rule was not made up to protect smaller players then that is fine by me. If it is in place to be used as part of game strategy then I have no prob with that. However if it was intended to protect smaller players then it is and can be exploited for other reasons.
-
randombloke wrote:
yeah you loved it didn't you random. Don't worry rhinos not dead yet we can play again soon 👍Does it matter? Really. There are ways round it. If someone is capping noobs only I'd have a problem. What would you say to a high influence low mob player. Mob up. So I don't see what the difference is
-
Ok. Say you Only counted the turf in that city as influence do you see how that would bias the game and then make your point true \V/? That question (raised in my first post) has not been addressed. Everyone has taken their eye off the ball
-
Yeah I'm with you on that random, the city influence isn't the answer. There should be something that works. Maybe a combo of level and mob size? Some formula combining the two and the level of protection you get? I honestly don't know.
Or maybe the 10% influence rule is a legit bonafide strategy and is not in fact currently in place to protect new or smaller players. I don't know anymore. Someone keep me posted.
-
\\// 👊🔨💀 wrote:
I'm totally with u there bro it's a pussy tactic used by big players to bully smaller ones or in the case of rhino to hide from all the big players who dislike him ie most of the leaderboard!My point was that if by level 100 you have not made enough allies, and or learned enough about the mobsters around you to be able to survive without this rule, then your doing it wrong.
I personally feel that calling the move a strategy is debatable. For a top mobster to hide behind it and torment other players with no repercussions from other players seems unfair. If you have a large mob then you should not be protected from other players your size.
-
Add Britfury wrote:
I'm totally with u there bro it's a pussy tactic used by big players to bully smaller ones or in the case of rhino to hide from all the big players who dislike him ie most of the leaderboard!
you only dislike me coz im bringing life back to the uk. Twfc made the game boring. I made it interesting again. Your entire alliance is based on bullying the little guy, if anything in the uk, this tactic saves people from bullies, not the other way around.
-
The Rhino wrote:
errrr its the other way round I think !!! TWFC destroy big players only unlike ur silly little band of jokers . U hit noobs to find ur 1 infl turfs . Tell u what let's have a uk electionAdd Britfury wrote:
I'm totally with u there bro it's a pussy tactic used by big players to bully smaller ones or in the case of rhino to hide from all the big players who dislike him ie most of the leaderboard!
you only dislike me coz im bringing life back to the uk. Twfc made the game boring. I made it interesting again. Your entire alliance is based on bullying the little guy, if anything in the uk, this tactic saves people from bullies, not the other way around.
-
shaggly razors wrote:
The Rhino wrote:
errrr its the other way round I think !!! TWFC destroy big players only unlike ur silly little band of jokers . U hit noobs to find ur 1 infl turfs . Tell u what let's have a uk electionAdd Britfury wrote:
I'm totally with u there bro it's a pussy tactic used by big players to bully smaller ones or in the case of rhino to hide from all the big players who dislike him ie most of the leaderboard!you only dislike me coz im bringing life back to the uk. Twfc made the game boring. I made it interesting again. Your entire alliance is based on bullying the little guy, if anything in the uk, this tactic saves people from bullies, not the other way around.
shag I left twfc because they intentionally hit low mobs till they reset. So don't talk crap your an asshole accept it
-
Ok, new thought. What about a penalty for turfs under max inf. If you have (x)% of your turf under 75% of the possible max inf you incur an attack penalty. If by having your inf so low you lose 90% of your attack power then it takes away the reason to attempt it. This would encourage max buildup as quickly as possible and strongly discourage the up and down inf rides we all have to take.
-
Just a curveball suggestion. Why not have your mob divided by your turf count. I.e. I have 10k mob and 100 turfs. That means that each turf has 100 mobsters attacking or defending from it. Players with massive turf counts would have weaker attack/defence per turf. This would balance the playing field and overcome the current moans about the 10% rule and huge turf counts. I would appreciate comments for/against to assess the pros cons of this please.
-
randombloke wrote:
Now thats an interesting idea....how would it work when it came to attacking players?entire mob still counts?Just a curveball suggestion. Why not have your mob divided by your turf count. I.e. I have 10k mob and 100 turfs. That means that each turf has 100 mobsters attacking or defending from it. Players with massive turf counts would have weaker attack/defence per turf. This would balance the playing field and overcome the current moans about the 10% rule and huge turf counts. I would appreciate comments for/against to assess the pros cons of this please.
-
Player to player attacks would be As they are now.
-
randombloke wrote:
It would change the Entire game! I think it's a great idea. 👍 although people could exploit it. We could have jokers running around with 2 turfs and all the no upkeep weapons, destroying everything... Might need a little ironing outJust a curveball suggestion. Why not have your mob divided by your turf count. I.e. I have 10k mob and 100 turfs. That means that each turf has 100 mobsters attacking or defending from it. Players with massive turf counts would have weaker attack/defence per turf. This would balance the playing field and overcome the current moans about the 10% rule and huge turf counts. I would appreciate comments for/against to assess the pros cons of this please.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC