Is this looked down upon?

Forums › Help & Strategy › Is this looked down upon?

____ Feb 10, 2011

If you are 100% sure that someone is inactive are you allowed to cap them?
👿Belial Feb 11, 2011

Cap anyone you like. I'd try not to lower income though
____ Feb 11, 2011

Ok thanks
mikeysee Feb 11, 2011

you sort of have it backwards. The capping of inactives is frowned upon generally. But if you can do it without lowering income.....👍👍👍
Shibby420 Feb 11, 2011

You'd probably be better off just reaping the protection money from inactives.
🔥zUntamed🔥 Feb 11, 2011

Shibby420 wrote:
You'd probably be better off just reaping the protection money from inactives.

👍
McMackTwins Feb 11, 2011

What ia capping?
wreckingcrew Feb 11, 2011

Slang for capturing another players turf
💙ⒶⒹⒹ🅢🅦🅐🅖🅖🅔🅡💙 Feb 12, 2011

Belial wrote:
Cap anyone you like. I'd try not to lower income though
Zanderaw Feb 13, 2011

I think of inactives as legitimate businesses that you take money from.
ɮʟօօɖṭɦօʀռ Feb 17, 2011

Shibby420 wrote:
You'd probably be better off just reaping the protection money from inactives.
XeroRyder Feb 20, 2011

mikeysee wrote:
you sort of have it backwards. The capping of inactives is frowned upon generally. But if you can do it without lowering income.....👍👍👍

But why, pray tell, is it frowned upon? If someone doesn't and will never play again, why shouldn't you cap them?
BellaItaliana Feb 20, 2011

XeroRyder wrote:
mikeysee wrote:
you sort of have it backwards. The capping of inactives is frowned upon generally. But if you can do it without lowering income.....👍👍👍

But why, pray tell, is it frowned upon? If someone doesn't and will never play again, why shouldn't you cap them?
When there are many different players in an area, the value and income of the turfs goes up. When you cap an inactive player out of the area, everyone's income will drop. Some players are pretty anal about people not disrupting the income.
XeroRyder Feb 20, 2011

BellaItaliana wrote:
XeroRyder wrote:
mikeysee wrote:
you sort of have it backwards. The capping of inactives is frowned upon generally. But if you can do it without lowering income.....👍👍👍

But why, pray tell, is it frowned upon? If someone doesn't and will never play again, why shouldn't you cap them?
When there are many different players in an area, the value and income of the turfs goes up. When you cap an inactive player out of the area, everyone's income will drop. Some players are pretty anal about people not disrupting the income.
Yes, I understand that. But if there's already a good amount of people in the area, I just cap most of the inactive's turf (because I'm gonna need a LOT more to sustain my weapons in the future). Thank you, though.
🇺🇸EMP🇺🇸 Feb 21, 2011

Does it affect somebody's income no matter what? I would think if you didn't tear the turf down, as long as it made $ for you too, then protection money would still be paid.
Add: KOZY Feb 21, 2011

Scroll down and read "number of players/turf income correlation"
Mystery Feb 23, 2011

XeroRyder wrote:
BellaItaliana wrote:
XeroRyder wrote:
mikeysee wrote:
Capping inactives is frowned upon.

Why?
Many different players in an area increase the income of your turfs. When you cap an inactive player out of the area, everyone's income drops.
But if there's already a good amount of people in the area, I just cap most of the inactive's turf.
Inactive people are great for using loot upgrades on; paying protection doesn't bother them! By capping them you lose that advantage & take it away from everyone else too. What does "a good amount of people in the area" mean? For example, IMO, 11 isn't enough; if 2 reset then you may not be making the max income per turf anymore. If you concentrate on making the most you can, per turf, then you will need fewer turfs to support you.