-No-City-
Forums › General Discussion › -No-City--
So, it looks like they fixed the No City turfs so that you can't claim a no city anymore... But what about those who already had no city turfs? They are still Capo of their states or provinces. They should fix that too!!!
-
Can't
-
No. People who have worked hard for that capo shouldn't lose it because of a new change. That's how riots can start.
-
Doux7 wrote:
We're going to be going through some of the states with large numbers of turf without a city and fixing them. In the meantime, if you want your turfs' cities to be refreshed, let us know through feedback.So, it looks like they fixed the No City turfs so that you can't claim a no city anymore... But what about those who already had no city turfs? They are still Capo of their states or provinces. They should fix that too!!!
-
VADAN wrote:
Refreshing the turfs without cities will actually create more capos, since a "blank" city/state combo is actually made up of several smaller towns/cities.No. People who have worked hard for that capo shouldn't lose it because of a new change. That's how riots can start.
-
nick wrote:
YES!!!! I can finally get the capo of San Ysidro again 🎉VADAN wrote:
Refreshing the turfs without cities will actually create more capos, since a "blank" city/state combo is actually made up of several smaller towns/cities.No. People who have worked hard for that capo shouldn't lose it because of a new change. That's how riots can start.
-
nick wrote:
Will this be happening in the uk, I'm in a few places without capo titlesDoux7 wrote:
We're going to be going through some of the states with large numbers of turf without a city and fixing them. In the meantime, if you want your turfs' cities to be refreshed, let us know through feedback.So, it looks like they fixed the No City turfs so that you can't claim a no city anymore... But what about those who already had no city turfs? They are still Capo of their states or provinces. They should fix that too!!!
-
Hmmm...some of us like the state capos...and have worked to get them...to see them go...would be frustrating.
-
Aww, that's a major bummer! :(
-
I don't want to lose my AZ & HI capos.
-
I don't want to lose my oregon capo.
-
nick wrote:
Yes nick but for the most part those are unpopulated cities that don't matter. The only reason we claim there is to get our states name.VADAN wrote:
Refreshing the turfs without cities will actually create more capos, since a "blank" city/state combo is actually made up of several smaller towns/cities.No. People who have worked hard for that capo shouldn't lose it because of a new change. That's how riots can start.
-
Belial wrote: Yes nick but for the most part those are unpopulated cities that don't matter. The only reason we claim there is to get our states name.
Agreed. Im okay with future "no city" turfs being gone. But I think just like with the first geocoder update it'd be best to let existing turfs (and capos) stand. I know I placed several turfs purposely in "no city" turfs for just that reason.And if you were going to "clean up" turfs for the purpose of adding more cities and capos then you'd have to go through every turf that no longer corresponds to the city it's located in, which would be a vast number of turfs.
PLEASE leave existing turfs left status' standing! 🙏🙏
-
It would def. make those turfs more coveted.
Heh. Imagine fighting over $9.5k turf.
-
Has anyone run into the problem of two cities with the same name in the state registering as the same city. In other words, Pa has two Hanovers, one near Wilkes Barre, the other in the south near the border. My Hanover is registering as capo the guy who has the most inf in the other Hanover, costing me police protection.
-
Rckningday wrote:
Has anyone run into the problem of two cities with the same name in the state registering as the same city. In other words, Pa has two Hanovers, one near Wilkes Barre, the other in the south near the border. My Hanover is registering as capo the guy who has the most inf in the other Hanover, costing me police protection.
^^Yes, I have
-
I'm against this fix; the "state" capos are definitely the coolest and ones I'll fight over. It would really suck if they were gone.
-
Havoc, I don't know about you, but I'm gunning for that other capo. I better not find his turf anywhere near me 💣🔫
-
This fix blows for two reasons.
1-State capos are fun to figure out.
2-Now, everytime I try to drop a turf that is clearly in Hilliard, OH it's now coming up anything between Columbus, Norwich, Prairie. Ugh. This one I hate most.Change it back.
-
I'm neutral on the update, we seemed to have gained some city's i was hoping for, but we lost some too (such as a small city near us called colonial heights) otherwise I like it
-
No differences in my local area...
-
Who wants a violin?
-
I don't see the plus in adding more capos anyway. More capos means less competition
-
Depends on how you feel about capo. Some folks think it means nothing.
And there doesn't appear to more capos. Just different capos. New towns were gained, old towns were lost.
SSDD.
-
I have been the Capo of _____(no name) for over 31 weeks. It's in Puerto Rico. And I luv the fact that it has no name. Out in PR, for an ex: major cities like Bayamon has like 15 other little cities. Hard to explain why unless u been out there. Where I have mine are actually on the top of the mountains.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC