Why are you not supposed to cap Inactives?
Forums › General Discussion › Why are you not supposed to cap Inactives?-
These days, I see a lot of people being condemned for capping inactive turfs, and I was wondering why.
-
Because it lowers the income in the area and they can't rebuild to keep the income up
-
But what if you don't tear down the turf? Would people still get angry?
-
Yes. The income in and area is based off of diversity of players in and area. So if there is 1 less player in the area the income drops
-
To acheieve max income in an area of turf you need 5 different players close together. (It may be different than 5 I couldn't find it in the help forum anymore)
-
It's still one less person in that small area. Try building 50 turf close together by yourself as in nobody else is close. Do this and see how much your making an hour.
-
mathamatics wrote:
It's 10 players.To acheieve max income in an area of turf you need 5 different players close together. (It may be different than 5 I couldn't find it in the help forum anymore)
-
Mystery says:
PSA: I want to clarify why it's a bad idea to cap inactive people. First you must understand, 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 or move their turfs if you collect protection $ from them!) Always check if a player is inactive before capping (go to turfwarswiki.com & look up Inactive). -
👆There it is Mickey found it
And thanks razor I wasn't sure if it was 5 or 10 -
predator1999 wrote:
Since you are active there is always a chance you tear it down later. I'm pros and cons about the inactive capping. All depends for me.But what if you don't tear down the turf? Would people still get angry?
-
3 years ago there were a lot less players and a lot less turf. Capping inactive turf would effect an areas income. Now not so much in most areas.
I've always capped inactives and will continue to do so with the exception of Texas outta respect for mystery.
-
ZRAYGO wrote:
👆 Also I've noticed a lot of players have 2nd accounts that are "inactive" so they can tax them. These players cry like little girls when you cap their second account.3 years ago there were a lot less players and a lot less turf. Capping inactive turf would effect an areas income. Now not so much in most areas.
I've always capped inactives and will continue to do so with the exception of Texas outta respect for mystery.
-
Because sometimes they aren't active but have notifications set and can come back and equip weapons and kick your ass.
-
Dant cap man get some loot and 💰TAX'EM💰remember wars cost money😉
-
Well what if there if is like a crap load of other players in the area and it wouldnt matter if u capped it. The income area would stay the same
-
🎸Ꭲ✯ℌ༏ננβ༏ננƴ🎸 wrote:
It's really funny when this happens. 😂Because sometimes they aren't active but have notifications set and can come back and equip weapons and kick your ass.
-
If it's a really crowded area it doesn't matter so much - unless someone else is taxing them. Then the taxer will likely get pissed. But never cap inactives in sparsely populated areas.
-
Also, never cap 84 inf turf! They are rare treasures from a bygone age and should preserved for posterity (and taxed).
-
Cap away in crowded areas. Just don't tear it down if a bigger player is taxing it. They might get mad.
-
If you cap to many inactive players turfs it cost you 14% residents off your turfs income that you cap, you might as well just tax em instead to make more money off of it
-
Because we come back pissed off.
-
₲øㄥⓕョཞ ⛳⻏яօ wrote:
This kid caps a shit load of inactivesWell what if there if is like a crap load of other players in the area and it wouldnt matter if u capped it. The income area would stay the same
-
ZRAYGO wrote:
👏👏👏👏 I do as I please.3 years ago there were a lot less players and a lot less turf. Capping inactive turf would effect an areas income. Now not so much in most areas.
I've always capped inactives and will continue to do so with the exception of Texas outta respect for mystery.
-
Benny DaBOSS🔫💀🌄 wrote:
It doesn't matter to anyone anymore I lost 3000 turf when I went inactive so who cares cap and be happyZRAYGO wrote:
👏👏👏👏 I do as I please.3 years ago there were a lot less players and a lot less turf. Capping inactive turf would effect an areas income. Now not so much in most areas.
I've always capped inactives and will continue to do so with the exception of Texas outta respect for mystery.
-
Demacia wrote:
If it's really crowded, capping inactives doesn't affect income in the area.₲øㄥⓕョཞ ⛳⻏яօ wrote:
This kid caps a shit load of inactivesWell what if there if is like a crap load of other players in the area and it wouldnt matter if u capped it. The income area would stay the same
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC