Is it really that bad to cap an inactive?

Forums › General Discussion › Is it really that bad to cap an inactive?

El Chubaneebre Sep 17, 2012

Areas seem to be becoming more densely populated, is the argument that inactives don't build new turf really valid anymore? What is the harm of swapping an inactive turf with an active one?
Alexei Sep 17, 2012

The fact that you can freely tax an inactive without any issues
ℒƬ. ʗøℒʊℳℬɵ Sep 17, 2012

Alexei wrote:
The fact that you can freely tax an inactive without any issues

And lower the hourly income of yourself and others by capping...
El Chubaneebre Sep 17, 2012

As long as the inactive is below 86 inf or you need to add loot and only makes your turf more attractive to others.
〓 Ⓑ Ⓛ 〓 Sep 17, 2012

In built up areas it isn't as important but in areas with 8 or less different players it can effect peoples income. As long as they don't get capped out of the area it isn't too bad but as said above, it's better to tax.
Demacia Sep 17, 2012

But if there are lets say 30 players and every turf is at 86 in the area. Capping 3 player that are inactive shouldn't affect turf income, right
El Chubaneebre Sep 17, 2012

Taxing a turf with 86 inf requires loot, why not just cap it? As the game becomes more popular and more turfs are built, surely the 'save the inactive' argument becomes obsolete?
Demacia Sep 17, 2012

El Chubaneebre wrote:
Taxing a turf with 86 inf requires loot, why not just cap it? As the game becomes more popular and more turfs are built, surely the 'save the inactive' argument becomes obsolete?

And putting loot on a 86inf turf becomes risky when other big players are around.
ＴＨＥＪＯＫＥＲ Sep 17, 2012

Think of it this way. You cap that inactive in an area and someone in the area needs to get under limit and tears down their turf. Now ur down 2 turf. Better to jus leave them be. It's not always about taxing, but keeping ur turf at the max income possible. That's how I see it anyway
El Chubaneebre Sep 17, 2012

How many different players do you need to get max income? I have some 53k turfs in some pretty sparse areas. Also keep in mind capping is a heap cheaper than building ...
Ғųℵƙψ ☣ ℐøƙヨƦ Sep 17, 2012

No do it. Cap all inactives and smalls
El Chubaneebre Sep 17, 2012

Smalls is just bullying, but if that gets people's rocks off ... an inactive has given up on the game, a small player is just that, everyone was one once.
ＴＨＥＪＯＫＥＲ Sep 17, 2012

Not too sure. I believe 8+ but others would know more. The more the better. Gives u that "safety net" for income
Old Azz Santos Sep 17, 2012

Ғųℵƙψ ☣ ℐøƙヨƦ wrote:
No do it. Cap all inactives and smalls

This funky player haha
☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ Sep 17, 2012

I don't see a problem with it as long as somebody isn't taxing them and it's a really crowded area.
🇮🇱Tinea🦶Pedis🇮🇱 Sep 17, 2012

Simple answer: whatever floats your boat but beware their are possible repricutions to your actions depending on the views of the other players around you.
★MΛΥΗΞΜ★ Sep 17, 2012

Sabasaul wrote:
Simple answer: whatever floats your boat but beware their are possible repricutions to your actions depending on the views of the other players around you.

👆👍
As with any situation in TW
El Chubaneebre Sep 17, 2012

Very true. To what degree however are the views of players influenced by tradition? Even in the short time I have been playing I have noticed a remarkable increase in turf densities. I'm not advocating a mass capping of inactives, I'm just suggesting that as the game gets older there may be too much weight placed on inactive turf. Especially if that inactive turf is 86 inf. Even now there may be too much weight.
℞ơ₲ʊӭ Sep 17, 2012

There is nothing wrong with capping inactives. There are not any rules for this game. If capping them improves your gaming experience, then so be it. Happy turfing and get funky!!
teeman92 Sep 17, 2012

fƲɴκϓ- ƈεɴΘτε wrote:
There is nothing wrong with capping inactives. There are not any rules for this game. If capping them improves your gaming experience, then so be it. Happy turfing and get funky!!

This
aidan two times Sep 17, 2012

Ғųℵƙψ ☣ ℐøƙヨƦ wrote:
No do it. Cap all inactives and smalls

I agree joker most big players have billions anyway so what if there 50k turf turns to 40k it's a war game not a let's see who makes the most money from a single turf game
💙ⒶⒹⒹ🅢🅦🅐🅖🅖🅔🅡💙 Sep 17, 2012

Sabasaul wrote:
Simple answer: whatever floats your boat but beware their are possible repricutions to your actions depending on the views of the other players around you.

Always this. Do what you want, simples.
༎།SཛཀᎢཇΧ།༎ Sep 17, 2012

El Chubaneebre wrote:
Smalls is just bullying, but if that gets people's rocks off ... an inactive has given up on the game, a small player is just that, everyone was one once.

⚾You're killing me, smalls!! ⚾
🎸Ꭲ✯ℌ༏ננβ༏ננƴ🎸 Sep 17, 2012

Ғųℵƙψ ☣ ℐøƙヨƦ wrote:
No do it. Cap all inactives and smalls

fƲɴκϓ- ƈεɴΘτε wrote:
There is nothing wrong with capping inactives. There are not any rules for this game. If capping them improves your gaming experience, then so be it. Happy turfing and get funky!!

Listen to the funkies
whette fartze Sep 17, 2012

༎།SཛཀᎢཇΧ།༎ wrote:
El Chubaneebre wrote:
Smalls is just bullying, but if that gets people's rocks off ... an inactive has given up on the game, a small player is just that, everyone was one once.

⚾You're killing me, smalls!! ⚾
The sultan of swat!