10% cap restriction should work both ways
Forums › Suggestions & Feedback › 10% cap restriction should work both ways-
The bet way or nick to deal with the issue of these bigger players selling up and being untouchable is simply to make the cap limit work both ways so anyone under the 10% can't cap you either. I worked hard to get on the leaderboard and was thinking I would sell up to compete but no why should I, it is not good for the game please deal with this nick?!
-
Hmm. That was my answer once. Problem is someone could be right at that thresh hold. Buy an upgrade. Cap the crap out of you and sell back down.
-
Why are all the untouchables moaning? So they can be MORE untouchable?
-
Belial wrote:
well then there would be no difference in that case to how it is now . The issue in the uk at the moment is a lot of the bigger guys have shrunk from say 80k to 3k and are terrorizing the communityHmm. That was my answer once. Problem is someone could be right at that thresh hold. Buy an upgrade. Cap the crap out of you and sell back down.
-
shaggly razors wrote:
yep somones stopping twfc from fucking up the uk. Stop this rule now!Belial wrote:
well then there would be no difference in that case to how it is now . The issue in the uk at the moment is a lot of the bigger guys have shrunk from say 80k to 3k and are terrorizing the communityHmm. That was my answer once. Problem is someone could be right at that thresh hold. Buy an upgrade. Cap the crap out of you and sell back down.
-
It should be 10% of mob size not influence. Or some sort of combination of both.
-
Kozy wrote:
Combination of both or you've no chance of survival if you get capped to oblivion.It should be 10% of mob size not influence. Or some sort of combination of both.
-
Kozy wrote:
no. It woupd make it too hard to expand territories. I soy go the route of cartel. One newbie week with immunity. After that you're on your ownIt should be 10% of mob size not influence. Or some sort of combination of both.
-
I used to play a game way back called earth 2025. Attacking was dependent on net worth if I remember correctly. Anyways the rule was you could attack a player with 50% your net worth or 2x your net worth. The game was actually incredibly balanced because it stopped the big players from picking on smaller players but allowed smaller players to gang up on the larger players. The way it worked was that your weapons would be destroyed in battle. So smaller players could suicide on larger players knocking them down and essentially actually winning the battle. This rarely happened though. Usually a larger player wouldnattack the large player until they had a lower weapon count then the next player that could just beat them would take over the attack until you "killed" them. Essentially putting them in the negative cash flow or having 0 food for upkeep until their "mob" members were dead. Although the game did reset every 3 months so it worked for them.
-
I think the biggest problem in this game is that it is so static. Once you have weapons and mob you have them until you decide to sell them or reset.
-
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.
-
Viper 👊🔨💀 wrote:
Not bad idea but players can still tear down a load of turf rather than reduce them to 1 infl. If u have a 500 turf limit does it really matter if u tear down 400 of them and rebuild them later on ??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.
-
Everything hinges on mob in this game. There is a slight moderating factor in that influence can limit who you can attack, but apart from that mob is the main factor in the dynamics of the game. How large mobs are handled is an issue, as it is ultimately an arms race to get the largest mob to "succeed" in the game. If larger mobs (ie above a certain threshold count) are damaged in combat when used and then need to be healed afterwards, as per the stamina, health and other stats, this would moderate their use and break the deadlock at higher levels.
-
It also allows smaller players to group together (without a V) to wear down a larger player and see them out of an area ... Vs can be used to augment attack/defence, but it would unlock the game from the mob deadlock. We need some other factors to influence game dynamics to freshen up the game and introduce more variety in the game play and player strategies. There seems to be woefully few strategies available today. Don't get me wrong, I really like the game, I just wish there were more options in gameplay than simply V-ing up and smashing opposing forces together.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC