Discussion: Allowing 1 inf. turfs to be captured/destroyed
Forums › Suggestions & Feedback › Discussion: Allowing 1 inf. turfs to be captured/destroyed-
There's recently been some comments by Nick about changing the fact that someone can drop a turf to a very low influence, and basically that turf becomes invincible versus capturing/destroying. So I figured before Nick got too far along in making any of these changes, that it would be a good idea to open up discussions to the community to not only see what people think about this...but to propose suggestions on how it should be done if it is indeed changed.
-
If it is to be implemented it must be for both capturing and destroying. But I'm on the dense as to wether I like the idea at the moment
-
Fense^ why does iPhone auto correct words so much?!!! damn you apple!!!!!!
-
Some of us out there may not understand why this has worked within the current system...so I'll first explain that so we're all on the same page. The reason a low-influence turf can not be captured is two-fold. First, in order to capture a turf, you have to have the green light on all the checklist items...and one of those items is the "close enough" rule. "Close enough" means that the center of your turf has to be within 4x the radius of the turf you are capturing...or in other words, within the "build radius" of that turf. The problem comes about whenever you combine this rule with the fact that typically, each turf can only be built within a certain distance to another turf...and unfortunately, that required distance is GREATER than the "build radius" of very small influence turfs.
-
Rhino...I don't know if it's that simple...the question comes down to, what is Nick/the community trying to achieve by changing this. If the answer is, we don't ever want anyone to have a turf that can't be captured/destroyed...then you are right, the rules should be the same for both. However, if we want to give some leeway to players...and still allow them to maintain some aspect of "hiding away" their turf...then you could limit it to only being changed for Vendetta attacks.
-
If you limit it to Vendettas only, this forces the player trying to take out the 1-influence turf to destroy it only. And not only that, but in order to destroy that 1-influence turf, that player has to enter into a V, and therefore they gain the 30% defense hit...but they gain the benefit of being able to take out that 1-influence turf. In other words, they are giving up something (the -30% defense) in order to be able to do something they can't do under normal circumstances.
-
And beyond that...there's still the matter on how it could be changed. So here's some options:
1) Reduce the distance required for a turf built next to another turf. If you reduce this distance down to at least the build radius of a 1-influence turf, then you solved the problem right there. However, this may have implications to the programming side that Nick may not want to pursue...in other words, you could potentially end up with a whole lot more turfs all piled up in one space. Also, by changing this, you would allow 1-inf turfs to be both captured and destroyed. -
2) Increase the "close enough" distance, so that it's 2x the build radius, or 4x, or whatever it takes so that no turf can't be captured/destroyed. Or possibly just make the minimum "close enough" capture distance slightly larger than the distance required to build a turf next to another. That way, the larger-influence turfs wouldn't be affected, and only the small-influence turfs would see a difference. Once again, this change would affect both capturing and destroying.
-
3) If you limited it to V's only, you could completely remove the "close enough" rule...or make it so that it's really large, like a mile or something. I'm not suggesting this is a good way to go...but a possibility. You could also limit Option #2 to only come into play whenever you are in a V and only if the turf you are targeting is a target of your V as well.
-
The problem with allowing vendettas to destroy turfs whilst not allowing them to be captured under the same rules is it makes vendettas to powerfull. it would ruin the game, turf wars would become cuddle wars as as soon as you annoyed 3 people they could effectively hit a "you loose "button. I always thought vendettas were a bad idea. if this rule is implemented without a good means of defense for those targeted by vendetta, I and I suspect many other previously loyal happy customers will leave.
-
Vendettas need to be altered slightly, IMO. See my vendetta suggestion thread for details.
I support a safegaurd that prevents a turf from being capped/destroyed. Reducing to. 1 inf. Seems fair enough to me.
I can also see the 4x distance rule changing. But I would suggest a percentage based rule. For example, change the distance to something like 35-60 percent of the caturing turfs build radius or the target turf radius.
Right now, the smaller a turf is, the harder it is to capture. And that, IMO, is a very important and necessary safegaurd.
-
Agreed the game needs some level of strategy
-
How I'd do it if it was possible would be to make a rule that once a turf has been at 49 influence it can be captured no matter what influence it is. This keeps people from downgrading turf influence to keep from getting captured.
-
What is it that inspired this discussion, I wonder?
Honestly, the only reason I see to take away safegaurds for turf capture would be to let a bully run rough shod over everyone.
-
Seriously though... How greedy do you have to be to want to cap 1 inf. turfs?
-
Nick has been saying he is going to implement a change to vendettas that says that 1 influence turfs can be destroyed. Is what implemented the discussion.
-
Ok. It just seemed to coincide with a certain player making it another certain players territory.
-
Yeah...as Rhino said, this stemmed from a comment Nick made about "fixing" the problem with players being able to avoid capture/destruction by reducing to 1 influence. I wish I remembered where the original thread was, but funnily enough, I believe Nick's comment was directed at the so-called "unnamed" player who happens to be maximizing on that very fact/rule.
-
I want to make something clear here...I'm not suggesting that it should or shouldn't be done...what I'm trying to achieve here is to get the community's opinion/comments/suggestions on this before Nick moves forward with this change...and potentially turns the TW world upside down.
-
I do like Turfwarrior's suggestion about going above 49 influence making it always capturable/destoryable...this would allow a newcomer to still come in and plant a new 1 influence turf that couldn't immediately be taken. But it would also mean that if you came in and captured someone's turf...that you couldn't capture it and then immediately drop it to 1 influence to prevent it from being captured again.
-
Night wrote:
tje original comment was in Tom hagens v strategy thread I'll bump it up for anyone who wants to read nicks commentYeah...as Rhino said, this stemmed from a comment Nick made about "fixing" the problem with players being able to avoid capture/destruction by reducing to 1 influence. I wish I remembered where the original thread was, but funnily enough, I believe Nick's comment was directed at the so-called "unnamed" player who happens to be maximizing on that very fact/rule.
-
Thx Belial...here's the link for future reference...
http://turfwarsapp.com/forum/235/5414667/
-
Thanks guys
-
Nick, you could make this a little easier and maybe make some comments of your own about what your plan is regarding this issue.
-
I like the idea of being able to cap 1 inf turfs. There's quite a few inactive players near me who deserve to loose their turf.
-
Non sens !!! This is pussy bullshit ! Sorry to announce it that way...but if it wasn't for that option, I wouldn't be in this game anymore... You guys are not requesting this to make this game better: it's because you are on a personnal vendetta! That is also part of a game strategie and now you want to change it? Believe me guys: when your time
comes, and it will: you will ne glad to have to option of putting your turfs down to 1 . Cheers! -
I say build near the 1 influence turfs and steal their income. It's not much, but it's something. And really what does it hurt leaving them there?
-
DON TOMASSINO wrote:
nobody here wants it to change. This is something Nick said. We are just discussing how he could do it and keep thing fairNon sens !!! This is pussy bullshit ! Sorry to announce it that way...but if it wasn't for that option, I wouldn't be in this game anymore... You guys are not requesting this to make this game better: it's because you are on a personnal vendetta! That is also part of a game strategie and now you want to change it? Believe me guys: when your time
comes, and it will: you will ne glad to have to option of putting your turfs down to 1 . Cheers! -
I got lost within all the comments I need help rememberin what's the main issue. I'm hearin more things at once
-
The main issue was, what to do about 1-influence or low-influence turfs not being able to be captured.
-
Meta wrote:
If we're not getting rid of them, make someones income from one a negative amount. Even if it's -$500/hr, atleast it would make someone think about every single 1 inf turf they have.
Meta posted the above in another thread...it should probably be here to continue the previous discussion. btw...I think that's a great idea Meta.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC