What's wrong with capping an innactive?
Forums › Help & Strategy › What's wrong with capping an innactive?-
I never knew that there was anything wrong with this.
-
In actives pose no threat to you
They increase the population in an area, hence the income goes up.
You can place your turf over theirs and collect protection and no one will moan.
The best are old 84 inf turf, stick an 86 on that bad boy and enjoy the money. -
Because they help the local economy.
If they all got capped out of an area what would you do for income then? -
Why it's a bad idea to cap inactive players: you need 10 different players in an area (defined as the diameter of 3 86 inf turfs) to make the max income for a turf (up to $53.6k per turf without protection or loot upgrades). So you want lots of different people all over. Inactive people will not plant more turf; by capping their turf you hurt everyone's income. Work on planting fewer turf strategically so they earn the most money, rather than having a lot of turf that doesn't earn well. This will also help keep you under your limit so that you aren't stuck in 1 area. (Plus, inactive people don't complain if you collect protection $ from them!) Always check if a player is inactive before capping.
-
How do u check if a player is inactive?
-
Dovely wrote:
Go to turfwarswiki.com & look up Inactive.How do u check if a player is inactive?
-
Ok I see your point but wouldn't you end up with more money in the end if you just got as many turfs as possible and maxed them out with upgrades? Taking out an inactive poses no risk for you, you get to exceed your build limit because you captured the turf, you stretched your boundaries possibly leading to more captures, etc. Seems counter productive to leave easy meat lying around.
-
How much difference in income is there when you decrease the diversity ,ie less people, of an area. Would be nice to own all of my neighborhood .
-
Once you are over your turf limit, you cannot plant your own turf anymore -- until you get back down under it. To have a neighborhood with only your turf in it is likely to draw attention of bigger players who will come break it up anyway. You won't be able to keep them out I assure you.
-
Mr Mooch wrote:
Ok say you go inactive, you are the only player in an area so your 84 inf turf is earning you 9.6k, I stick an 86 inf turf over it, now I'm earning 9.6k plus protection from you. Then some more players turn up, the local income goes up, I'm still earning more.Ok I see your point but wouldn't you end up with more money in the end if you just got as many turfs as possible and maxed them out with upgrades? Taking out an inactive poses no risk for you, you get to exceed your build limit because you captured the turf, you stretched your boundaries possibly leading to more captures, etc. Seems counter productive to leave easy meat lying around.
-
Go to turfwarswiki.com & look up Turf Income Tiers. There's a HUGE difference income when you decrease the diversity, plus you can't collect protection money from them. You also risk being being capped by larger players near you who understand the benefits of inactives.
-
Trust me I know from personal experience on here. DO NOT CAP INACTIVES! It will make the players around you pissed and it will only come to bite you in the ass in the end!
-
I get if there are 10 people in one area, each with one turf, and capping one of those would lead to a tier reduction. But this one guy has 16 in one area and all I want is 1-3 of his turfs. If he was inactive couldn't I capture those 3 and then slap on a series of 86 for the rest of them?
-
Wouldn't it still produce income as long as u don't delete the turf?
-
matt ross wrote:
Every noob just wants 1-3 inactive turf, which leaves 0 inactive turf.I get if there are 10 people in one area, each with one turf, and capping one of those would lead to a tier reduction. But this one guy has 16 in one area and all I want is 1-3 of his turfs. If he was inactive couldn't I capture those 3 and then slap on a series of 86 for the rest of them?
Why would you want 2 turf making $53.6k each, when you could have 1 turf making double that? Plus, if inactives are around, players are more likely to collect protection money from them. No inactives (or fewer inactives) means you get taxed instead.
-
ramirez wrote:
Yes and no. Yes you'll still make money but you'll actually be reducing the income in the area. So let's say you're making 8,000 a turf you and everyone else there only have one turf there. You cap one then your income will be lower per turf to like 7,600 or less (really depends on the amount of players in the area) but you get the idea. You think its fine cuz to you you're now making 15.2k in that area where as if you planted you wouldve been making 16k but you're not thinking of that so you cap more and it lowers more to the point you have 50 turfs making 2k but you're still lookin at the total income rather than the individual turf income. Hope you understand that exampleWouldn't it still produce income as long as u don't delete the turf?
-
Aubergine wrote:
Glad that whole situation is over and done with. I'm might come back out that way to help the 'economy' out there.Legend Kill3r wrote:
Trust me I know from personal experience on here. DO NOT CAP INACTIVES! It will make the players around you pissed and it will only come to bite you in the ass in the end!
Haha, yes. You are correct.
-
Ok if you have one turf making 53k and you cap a inactive you would get 53k but you changed your mind and jest got protection $ you would only make around 59k vs 106k with capping inactive that's what I don't get you make more money cappin then getting protection $
-
slinkys wrote:
Because the more players/turf in a region the more income that property will bring in. If you cap inactives your taking away players from that region which in end results lowers your hourly income per that turf.Ok if you have one turf making 53k and you cap a inactive you would get 53k but you changed your mind and jest got protection $ you would only make around 59k vs 106k with capping inactive that's what I don't get you make more money cappin then getting protection $
-
Legend Kill3r wrote:
Ya but I live in Vegas look around I'm not hurting any oneslinkys wrote:
Because the more players/turf in a region the more income that property will bring in. If you cap inactives your taking away players from that region which in end results lowers your hourly income per that turf.Ok if you have one turf making 53k and you cap a inactive you would get 53k but you changed your mind and jest got protection $ you would only make around 59k vs 106k with capping inactive that's what I don't get you make more money cappin then getting protection $
-
Bump for all new players
-
Ok i understand the method behind why not, Hears one then what if hes the ONLY playing in that area so his income does not effect everyone one else....
-
Hellscaretaker wrote:
So why cap him. By you joining the area you double the areas income. And you can tax his turf thereby quadrupling your income from being the sole player in the area.Ok i understand the method behind why not, Hears one then what if hes the ONLY playing in that area so his income does not effect everyone one else....
-
Here's why not. Cause some dumb noob caps a perfectly good 84 inf turf that everyone can tax (or caps a turf that is under my loot upgrade and later decides he doesnt want to pay the tax on it) and then tears it down. That pisses me off
-
Benjo wrote:
And then complains in the Vendetta Forum about being bullied...Here's why not. Cause some dumb noob caps a perfectly good 84 inf turf that everyone can tax (or caps a turf that is under my loot upgrade and later decides he doesnt want to pay the tax on it) and then tears it down. That pisses me off
-
Legend Kill3r wrote:
I say phuk em if capping turfs is part of getting back at players that took a money making turf from uTrust me I know from personal experience on here. DO NOT CAP INACTIVES! It will make the players around you pissed and it will only come to bite you in the ass in the end!
-
Airator's Bitch wrote:
That's a good way to ruin your experience in this game...Legend Kill3r wrote:
I say phuk em if capping turfs is part of getting back at players that took a money making turf from uTrust me I know from personal experience on here. DO NOT CAP INACTIVES! It will make the players around you pissed and it will only come to bite you in the ass in the end!
-
K what if u jus cap inactive turfs that hav no turfs around it
-
I can see why people get fed up with people capping out inactives but if your over your cap limit and passing through and not pulling down the turfs afterwards. Aren't you making turf income go up by introducing more varied players?. Why piss of an active player by capping them when you could cap an inactive and actually hurt no one.?
-
Flusher wrote:
So you'd rather players tax you instead of inactive players? I'm sure that can be arranged, but you'll have to live with it & not tear down any turfs that are being taxed.I can see why people get fed up with people capping out inactives but if your over your cap limit and passing through and not pulling down the turfs afterwards. Aren't you making turf income go up by introducing more varied players?. Why piss of an active player by capping them when you could cap an inactive and actually hurt no one.?
Besides, if you were already in the area (which you must be if you're over limit & capping), you aren't introducing a new player. You're removing the turf of someone that won't plant any more. Depending on how many turf & that person has & where they are, you may be removing an entire player.
-
You may get away with capping 1 or 2 if there are 6 close together. But capping the last few in an area can get you evicted from a city or a country. So be aware it is a dangerous risk to take.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC