Turf limits
Forums › Suggestions & Feedback › Turf limits-
How about instead of limiting number of turfs over all it's limited per city? Once you've reached your limit and there's no one around to capture or you're not so inclined the game can slow way down.
-
I'm really disapointed that once you take a turf and you're bigger/smaller number. You don't get more when u level... Ex: if you had 27/26 then leveled and got another turf slot, ya can't use it
-
agree
-
I hope they fix this soon, I'd have to tear down 40 turfs if I wanted to build one, it sort of ends the game.
-
Maybe you should steal so many people turfs😉
-
Trisha, I agree and you can read more of my thoughts on this under the "technical problems" topic, thread titled, turf glitch.
This turf limit seriously fetters the game and it has also compromised my enjoyment of this game.
Nick has said he will look into this but I don't sense it will be a priority for him until more players express strong concerns, which sorta makes sense.
So any players with concerns of these "turf limits" need to speak up.
-
Nick needs to make money somehow.. We play the game enough that i don't mind giving him $50 in exchange for a bunch of turfs. My limit is 50 and growing. I think the most important part of the game...
-
Eli, we agree that this game is all about "turf wars" and Nick should make money.
My suggested improvements could augment both.
Read my next entries below for full explanation. (these text boxes have unspecified character limit so I will partition my explanation).
-
Current turf problem: say I have 20/20 turf and want another turf. So I decide to attack and capture another turf. Now I am 21/20 turfs. On my next level up I change to 21/21 turfs. See what just happened, instead of getting my level up turf I lost it b/c I had captured a turf.
If I had not captured the turf then I would have leveled up to 20/21, and received a free turf without spending effort on capturing a turf.
Hence current system can discourage "turf wars".
-
Another example: say I have 20/20 turf and capture a turf to become 21/20. But now I realize I will fail to gain my free turf when I level up (as explained above).
So what I can do is purchase a turf to become 21/21 and now when I level up I become 21/22 and get my free turf, seems ok now but keep reading.
I now realize that if I had just purchased and built one turf I would have gotten to the same end result of 21/21 without all the effort of a capture.
Hence again, the current system can discourage turf wars.
-
Another problem: say my turf is 20/20 and I want to build a turf in a specific spot. I need to acquire a new turf and my choices are purchase or capture.
If I purchase A turf I become 20/21 and can put that turf in my select spot.
If I decide instead to capture a turf I will become 21/20. To put it in my select spot I will need to tear it down and rebuild it. But...once you tear it down you become 20/20 and "poof" that turf diappears.
Hence, once again the current system can discourage turf wars.
-
Here could be counterpoints to the above scenarios:
1) capturing turf can sometimes be more about defeating and diminishing an enemy than about gaining turf, so true! And my suggested changes would not affect this.
2) Captured turf do not increase max turf because it is encouraging you to purchase turfs. Makes sense except Trisha, that, joeydee, I and perhaps others do not feel encouraged to purchase turfs we already captured. Further explanation continues below. -
So maybe I just want to play for free and not pay anything? Nope. Nick can confirm that I have already put $11 into this game happily. But paying to KEEP turfs that I captured does not make sense to me and also appears to not make sense to several others.
Do I have a suggestion that will increase potential for "turf wars" AND possibly increase the revenue stream of this game?
Yes. Read below.
-
The solution: when someone is 20/20 and captures a turf, instead of going to 21/20 they go to 21/21.
Now reread all the problematic scenarios above and you will see that none will have the problem I initially highlighted if my EZ fix is implemented.
This also encourages more "turf wars" and therefore captures the true heart of this game.
So how does this possibly increase the revenue? Read below.
-
The revenue answer is the balance of:
1) how much revenue could be lost with my suggestion? Nick knows this answer already, and if moola is pouring in from players that are increasing their turf limits after capturing turf then he should not change a thing. Seriously. But if incoming revenue via those players is not substantial then the next question is appropriate:
2) how much revenue could be gained by my suggestion? See possibilities below. -
Remember, with my suggestion there will be a probable increase in "turf wars". This shifts the revenue stream from the "offenders" to the "defenders". Defenders may respond with increased purchases of henchmen, game cash, skill points, etc.
But why would defenders be more likely to spend real money than offenders? Great question and this is the keystone of my augmented revenue theory:
1) offenders were being coerced to purchase something they already earned, whereas defenders will be gaining something new with their purchases
2) offenders don't "have to" purchase anything to progress in the game, defenders would have strong incentive to purchase things to progress in the game.
3) offenders would be less likely to get bored and leave game, and instead may need to make purchases to continue in game as they begin to turn on each other. -
So how prevent new players from leaving game due to this increased aggressive play? Tighten up attack requirements, if most players are fighting others of a similar level then they will probably get into an "arms race" (weapons, turf, henchmen, etc) that involves real cash.
-
All the above are just my suggestions, perspectives, and theories. Feel free to share your viewpoints.
Bottomline: I want this game to live up to it's name (Turf Wars) AND "reward" Nick et al appropriately for their efforts.
That is all (for now).
-
It still comes down to the fact that I cannot move into a new area without selling a bunch of stuff.
-
suberb posts PK (especially if you typed that all on your iPhone)
-
wow pk
-
Lol what dexterity! 🍻
-
Yep, pecked all that on my iPhone. 😋
DJmayhem can correct me if the following is incorrect but here is what I believe he is saying above: say he had 20/20 turf and then captured 5 turfs to become 25/20. Now he wants to build a new turf, probably next to a distant enemy turf so he can attack and capture it.
To do this under the current system, he would need to tear down 6 turfs to become 19/20 so he could build one new turf to execute his attack and capture.
Hence, DJmayhem has demonstrated again how the current turf system actually can hinder "turf wars".
-
I still disagree that this is any sort of bug or bad thing. If your limit rose as you captured pretty soon the cities would be full. Also there would be no disentive to just take everything.
The only diwside is it slows the game down once you're over your limit. If the limit was pure city instead it would solve the problem with out creating new ones. IMO your solution would create more problems in the long run.
-
Per city*
-
Some excellent points by all sides of the debate. I agree that a global turf limit acts as a pretty quick brake on gameplay for the dedicated players and it sucks to run up against it.
The main purpose of the turf limit is to prevent cities from being completely taken over by the bigger players. Therefore a per-city limit makes sense - your turf in Seattle shouldn't limit what you can build in Miami.
We are going to update the system to limit turf based on city instead of per player. When this happens you'll be able to apportion your turf increases (if you purchased any) among the cities you have turf in. I can't give an ETA on this yet, so watch this spot :).
Thanks to all for your feedback!
-
Superb! 😺
-
Bumped so you can see more backstory behind joeydee's recent post on turf limits.
-
Soooo what if you don't travel? I have an itouch so I can't just go anywhere and magically get more turf. But my $43 was just as good as anyone else's... Why should I be punished if I can't move out of town? If I start capturing turfs, I won't be inclined to purchase more points because I would basically be paying to capture turf. As PK said, this is turf wars! I didn't think it was called "everyone's equal so play nice!" from a business view point, Nick wants to present every incentive for people to spend their cash without making new players lose interest from being beat. I thought the don was already accomplishing this by giving new players help in defending.
-
The problem then becomes how does Nick keep the revenue stream up from the players already spending?
I think the limits are perfect the way they are, aside from captured turf. A captured turf shouldn't count towards your limit.
Perhaps limiting people to two captured turf a day ( similar to the 24 hour rule and the increasing point cost rules at the don) would allow competition without limiting members willing to spend $$. -
Then no one could get too big too fast by spending $500 but they would want to spend gradually.
Speaking of which, I'm sure this is an Apple limitation, but why can't I buy the same amount of points twice? I'll never buy the $60 app (way over my price point) but I would Probably buy the $10 one once a month if I could...
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC