Inactives overly protected? The debate
Forums › General Discussion › Inactives overly protected? The debate-
How do you feel about inactives. Should it be considered so wrong to cap them?
-
No not really. As lOng as someone else isn't earning protection off it.
-
Yes, they help everyone and
If someone caps them, the income for the community goes down. -
Inactives make great cash cows
-
Nope especially if you are the capo
-
🍟ßᎥ₲ ҡэṼчƝ🍟 wrote:
Yeah just don't cap them outYes, they help everyone and
If someone caps them, the income for the community goes down. -
If they hold a Capo or upgrades it should be accepted (possibly encouraged) to cap them. Honestly, in cities with clusters of turf together one turf from one player hurts income VERY little.
-
Of course, if they have less than 86 influence it's great to farm them.
-
🍟ßᎥ₲ ҡэṼчƝ🍟 wrote:
For a small town yes. For big cities the turf won't be missedYes, they help everyone and
If someone caps them, the income for the community goes down. -
Besises doesn't an inactive help an over limit player more by donating much needed turf?
-
DRAMABOT 5000 wrote:
YepBesises doesn't an inactive help an over limit player more by donating much needed turf?
-
🔥⚡κrᎥااᎧא🔥 wrote:
Especially if there's like 20 players in the area anyway.DRAMABOT 5000 wrote:
YepBesises doesn't an inactive help an over limit player more by donating much needed turf?
-
DRAMABOT 5000 wrote:
That is true, but people can still be earning protection money off them and I bet when someone caps it, the guy earning protection will not be happy. Unless he/ she is still earning the same or more.🍟ßᎥ₲ ҡэṼчƝ🍟 wrote:
For a small town yes. For big cities the turf won't be missedYes, they help everyone and
If someone caps them, the income for the community goes down.Capos shouldn't still be aloud to cap a inactive, their can still be players in the the same town happily earning good income from the amount of players. The capo can't just ruin it for the rest of the town.
-
I think it's okay to cap inactive turf, as long as you leave at lease one left.
-
I don't think a turf or two from an inactive in a city would make the slightest difference in a city. 1 inactive turf affects income just as much as 10 do.
-
🍟ßᎥ₲ ҡэṼчƝ🍟 wrote:
I agree there. But some players make a federal crime when the inactive turf didn't directly affect themDRAMABOT 5000 wrote:
That is true, but people can still be earning protection money off them and I bet when someone caps it, the guy earning protection will not be happy. Unless he/ she is still earning the same or more.🍟ßᎥ₲ ҡэṼчƝ🍟 wrote:
For a small town yes. For big cities the turf won't be missedYes, they help everyone and
If someone caps them, the income for the community goes down.Capos shouldn't still be aloud to cap a inactive, their can still be players in the the same town happily earning good income from the amount of players. The capo can't just ruin it for the rest of the town.
-
chill16 wrote:
Why Would you have to leave one? If I went inactive I would challenge the community to take everythin I haveI think it's okay to cap inactive turf, as long as you leave at lease one left.
-
Maybe it's because I'm old school. Back when I was fairly new inactives were fair game. This preservation of inactive came much later
-
Cap anything you want until someone bigger makes you stop. It is turf wars after all.
-
Tax Me Freely™ wrote:
I agree with thisCap anything you want until someone bigger makes you stop. It is turf wars after all.
-
Vigilante justice is the only justice in turf wars. If a larger force isn't present to make the rules then they don't exist.
-
I think if an inactive is capped to zero turf they should be reset.
-
@ DraMABOT5000/ belail
Because they know it is wrong. If they don't stop the player capping inactive right then, they will carry on capping inactices which could consequently affect them in the future. -
ΘиэЂuмвBαsтαя₫ wrote:
It goes deeper than this. A player over limit isn't likely to🍟ßᎥ₲ ҡэṼчƝ🍟 wrote:
Nailed it! End of argument. Please delete this thread.👍Yes, they help everyone and
If someone caps them, the income for the community goes down.
get any benefit from inactives other than free turf -
🍟ßᎥ₲ ҡэṼчƝ🍟 wrote:
Players put too much store in taxing players. IMO a city should be pruned every now and then to make room for new blood@ DraMABOT5000/ belail
Because they know it is wrong. If they don't stop the player capping inactive right then, they will carry on capping inactices which could consequently affect them in the future. -
DRAMABOT 5000 wrote:
Only if said city is crowded enough to "prune". Outskirts of citys and rural areas sometimes depend on an inactive player to help maintain a viable economy.🍟ßᎥ₲ ҡэṼчƝ🍟 wrote:
Players put too much store in taxing players. IMO a city should be pruned every now and then to make room for new blood@ DraMABOT5000/ belail
Because they know it is wrong. If they don't stop the player capping inactive right then, they will carry on capping inactices which could consequently affect them in the future. -
mr71vwbus wrote:
That becomes a seperate issue. In those cases they Probaby shouldn't be capping in the area at allDRAMABOT 5000 wrote:
Only if said city is crowded enough to "prune". Outskirts of citys and rural areas sometimes depend on an inactive player to help maintain a viable economy.🍟ßᎥ₲ ҡэṼчƝ🍟 wrote:
Players put too much store in taxing players. IMO a city should be pruned every now and then to make room for new blood@ DraMABOT5000/ belail
Because they know it is wrong. If they don't stop the player capping inactive right then, they will carry on capping inactices which could consequently affect them in the future. -
@Dramabot 5000/ Belail
Taxing is better IMO. People like me with a low turf limit can't get the money they need for their growing mob and capping inactives would last less than taxing them (which is better money in most cases for me). Also, some actives are not reliable to use because they can quit after a day and not have the level or turf inf required. While inactives are already their, you know what your getting. If anyone should go, it is the actives because they can build up again
-
But by capping actives you risk chasing someone from the game
-
DRAMABOT 5000 wrote:
Yes, that occasionally happens. I feel it is still better to cap actives because 1. There is a chance of them building back, and 2. They are unreliable and can quit at a low level compared to a inactive who is at a good appropriate level.But by capping actives you risk chasing someone from the game
-
Tax Me Freely™ wrote:
Cap anything you want until someone bigger makes you stop. It is turf wars after all.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC