10% rule.
Forums โบ General Discussion โบ 10% rule.-
Lol. Great idea about fortress๐.
I meant that only 1/10 of your turfs is safe compared to that of your opponents. Example you have 2000 turf. Your opponent has 200. Only 20 of your turfs are safe. (well until the asshโle drops a turf or two)
-
Viper โ wrote:
๐๐randombloke wrote:
Yes, but if you add to YOUR limit as well you are buying 1 out of 10 as well. if you have 10 turf as a limit 1 cannot be capped, if you buy 90 more for a total of 100 then 10 cannot be capped. You just don't get to pick which are impervious, or even add a twist and let us pick which 10% ARE bulletproof. Make it a turf upgrade that is non-removable and you are given 1 per each 10 turf you either buy or are rewarded for leveling. That would add strategy, how do you distribute your "fortresses"Viper โ wrote:
Not strictly true. Every 1/10 of your opponents TL is bulletproof. ๐... Who wouldn't buy a little more TL? For every 10 you buy essentially one is bulletproof.
-
randombloke wrote:
Actually bloke, if you have 2000 turf then 200 of yours are safe, if he has 200 then 20 of his are safe. My meaning was also basing this on overall turf limit, not the number of turf one has. EX: you have a 200 turf limit, but you have capped an additional 200 so you are at 400 turf total. Only 20 of your turf are safe, the over limit number is 100% vulnerable.Lol. Great idea about fortress๐.
I meant that only 1/10 of your turfs is safe compared to that of your opponents. Example you have 2000 turf. Your opponent has 200. Only 20 of your turfs are safe. (well until the asshโle drops a turf or two)
-
Viper โ wrote:
That's what I don't like. Too much reward for paid players. Not enough for near free players.randombloke wrote:
Actually bloke, if you have 2000 turf then 200 of yours are safe, if he has 200 then 20 of his are safe. My meaning was also basing this on overall turf limit, not the number of turf one has. EX: you have a 200 turf limit, but you have capped an additional 200 so you are at 400 turf total. Only 20 of your turf are safe, the over limit number is 100% vulnerable.Lol. Great idea about fortress๐.
I meant that only 1/10 of your turfs is safe compared to that of your opponents. Example you have 2000 turf. Your opponent has 200. Only 20 of your turfs are safe. (well until the asshโle drops a turf or two)
-
Viper โ wrote:
Problem is due to turf placement costs we can't take as big a hit as you'd think. It costs me 50m for placement now. So as is I could only rebuild the whole thing twice. Start sapping cash on top of that you're getting players very close to an end game. End game needs to be avoided. We dont need a portion of the vets being forced into a reset.And add a little more challenge to the game, tie portions of our banks to the turfs themselves. RL mobsters have their income reinvested, if someone caps a turf there should be a fair portion of that turfs value in cash transferred to the new owner as well. Our banks are ridiculous, put some risk on them as well. And yes B, this means us big guys would take the big hit but we have it to lose. I come back to the no holds barred server idea, let us get down and dirty once in a while.
-
I beg to differ again, if any vets were to truly reset it brings the specter of the huge mob numbers down and the smaller players would see it as more attainable. Right now we are sitting here with a 22k mob and a 21k mob debating the 10% rule. There should be some perks for actually sticking around, we are surrounded by literally hundreds of ghosts on the map that can't be touched because of this rule and yet we keep debating easily the most exploited loophole in the game. Sorry, I've fought against three people that used this to aid in their scorched earth tactics of active noobs and had to either trash my own inf and income to fight or just watch as they ripped apart level 30's with their 5-10k mobs compared to the 1-2k (maybe) that the noob had.
-
The 10% rule has the best intentions but it fails in that there isn't a sunset level for it to be used or a good answer to combat it if exploited. Tell me what the problem is with the 10% being changed from inf to turf limit count from your side, I'm looking for reasons not to like my own idea and you aren't giving me any. If anything I'm actually liking it more because there is an unknown element to it that gives everyone a little wildcard.
-
Viper โ wrote:
So you're saying that big players being forced to quit is good for the game?I beg to differ again, if any vets were to truly reset it brings the specter of the huge mob numbers down and the smaller players would see it as more attainable. Right now we are sitting here with a 22k mob and a 21k mob debating the 10% rule. There should be some perks for actually sticking around, we are surrounded by literally hundreds of ghosts on the map that can't be touched because of this rule and yet we keep debating easily the most exploited loophole in the game. Sorry, I've fought against three people that used this to aid in their scorched earth tactics of active noobs and had to either trash my own inf and income to fight or just watch as they ripped apart level 30's with their 5-10k mobs compared to the 1-2k (maybe) that the noob had.
-
So a new player with a turf limit of 5 could lose everything? You've actually reversed it from it's purpose. Now it protects the established players while leaving smaller players to fend for themselves. Plus it could make it nearly impossible to remove say you me or v from an area. We just make turf in critical areas UN cappable and we could do whatever we wanted with no sense of consequences.
-
And if your problem with it is that us paid players can buy up limit and keep a few more turf safe then you really are trying to win both sides of the argument and not making sense. Every answer will not sit with every player, someone will always gripe about it but the 10% rule is the most exploited hole this game has that I can see, only Nick and Beauty could tell us the real behind the scenes stuff. B, this is a mob game what is the harm in it if a player can truly be chased into a need to reset? The challenge of getting to the top would make attaining it that much sweeter, huge wars that essentially end stalemated due to no real way to hurt us?
-
Sorry, I'm tired of the "make games that you can't lose" mentality. I cut my teeth on games you COULD and DID lose and had to start over on, learning more each time and getting truly better. I also played on baseball leagues that kept score so you would KNOW when you got your ass handed to you, it taught me humility in defeat and how to win AND lose with respect. We are protecting ourselves even in our fantasy worlds now and it's a bit annoying.
-
To give an example. I have a limit of just over 1400. I am in 160 or so cities. I could put all my main interests under permanent protection and become if I wanted a huge bully that could never no matter how hard anyone tried ever be gotten rid of
-
A new player with 5 turf would still have 1 he couldn't lose, no not everything could be lost. And tell me how in all actuality if you or me or \V/ wants to stay in an area how are we really going to be chased out? I sit an average of 400 turf under limit at all times and have gotten quite used to dropping turf faster than they can be capped. By the time someone takes me for my whopping 50 limit I can drop another 75. In the next 24 hours I could swarm the area so even if an entire V took me for limit I actually GROW my number of total turf in the area.
-
Viper โ wrote:
Very true. But there's still a slight chance. And remember its not always players like us. Take mini. You wouldve never won that war with this. He'd just male Seattle impregnable and that would've been the end. Also most noobs get frustrated amd quit long before they get capped down to that last turfA new player with 5 turf would still have 1 he couldn't lose, no not everything could be lost. And tell me how in all actuality if you or me or \V/ wants to stay in an area how are we really going to be chased out? I sit an average of 400 turf under limit at all times and have gotten quite used to dropping turf faster than they can be capped. By the time someone takes me for my whopping 50 limit I can drop another 75. In the next 24 hours I could swarm the area so even if an entire V took me for limit I actually GROW my number of total turf in the area.
-
B, you could do that right now, who can really dislodge you even with a V if you really were watching the area? Drop your inf to nil and start beating the crap out of anything that moved, that what Thug, Rogue and others do. The only difference is you can only have 140 turf under total protection, these guys can do it with far more 1-pins. They can protect hundreds of turf at a time by lowering inf. How is that more fair? They can terrorize STATES, at 140 turf you could cover several cities, but very poorly indeed. And if you have an uncappable turf built somewhere they could leave a dead zone around you to kill your income, so by becoming the bully you theorize in this scenario you only hurt yourself.
-
B, you confuse me sometimes buddy. Are we looking for a way to end wars with a winner or as they are now? Mini used the 10% rule to his advantage, I dropped to combat him and in his own way he did make his Seattle turf uncappable because he was below 10% of what I was willing to go to. He didn't "lose" and I didn't "win", he found terms that were acceptable to the locals and was allowed to build back up and keep things peaceful. Under the new theory he would have been just as restricted if not more so because he had about 100 turf scattered around and I don't think he had a 1000 turf limit (I could be wrong) so in this scenario the rookies around him could have given his fortresses a deadzone around them and kept him somewhat in check that way, instead he was able to hop like a bunny and torch a few cities along the way.
-
The way I view it from my side and using my stats as a gauge I would be able to protect a good number of turf but I am in a lot of major areas. How would I strategically disperse my fortresses? Do I heavily invest in any one city or do I keep a small presence protected in each city? If I use all my fortresses to flag turf I currently have how do I account if I spread to a new area? I won't be able to move the fortress designation from an existing turf to a new turf, how many fortresses do I leave in my inventory unused for if/when I do expand? Is the new expansion worth buying 10-20 new turf from the Don so I get a new fortress or two? On my upcoming trip I'll be in AZ, do I leave 3 or 10 fortresses open for my hops to LA and SD? What is the best dispersal? It adds flavor from my point of view, and I do emphasize this is strictly my POV.
-
โ ๐RENO๐โ wrote:
CMS Reno...?iamcanadian ๐จ๐ฅ๐ wrote:
That's not very CMS...๐ถickle mobster๐ถ says:
Ain't payback a bitch. That's the problem with going low inf and being a cocky little shit, you run out of money then have to face reality, fuck you loser๐๐๐๐๐5 days ago
nuff said!!!
-
Viper โ wrote:
Thing os online games dont work that way amd never willSorry, I'm tired of the "make games that you can't lose" mentality. I cut my teeth on games you COULD and DID lose and had to start over on, learning more each time and getting truly better. I also played on baseball leagues that kept score so you would KNOW when you got your ass handed to you, it taught me humility in defeat and how to win AND lose with respect. We are protecting ourselves even in our fantasy worlds now and it's a bit annoying.
-
And seriously viper if you were forced to reset would you keep playing? Would you really type
In all 15k codes again? Would you invest all that cash all
over again? Hence why games like this dont and can't have an end game. The game would go out of business. -
But I do agree that battles need to be more decisive which is why I asked for increased cap limits for higher level players to male it possible to remove said players.
-
B, if I were reduced to 10% of my turf there wouldn't be a need to reset, that is the point I'm trying to make. If someone whoops me bad enough to get me that low and I don't have to worry about losing more I dump weps and sit tight for a while. I don't lose the mob I've built but I sure as heck have been beaten decisively. At best I am reduced to the level that I am hardly an impact player in the areas that I still exist in at worst I lose outposts on the east and west coasts and just exist in the Midwest.
-
Oh I agree with you. The largest players would be ok. Buy what about the mod levels and those slightly under mid?
-
๐ฅGOD of WAR๐ฅ wrote:
Who could be completely run out of the game if you have a gauranteed 10% of your turf to fall back on and you have the sense to ditch upkeep while you gather your wits? People start from 0 in this game so it's a way to decisively lose without losing everything.Oh I agree with you. The largest players would be ok. Buy what about the mod levels and those slightly under mid?
-
Amd you never answered my noon question. Many leave because they lose a couple turf. Dont you think more would leave making attrition rate horrible?
-
I don't think it would change that any. If you go back to my original notes I was for keeping the 10% inf loophole until 50, after that it expires to the 10% turf count rule regardless of inf. That would give the small players the same protection they currently have but it sunsets to give the longer term players a bit more freedom.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! ยท Support ยท Turf Map ยท Terms ยท Privacy
ยฉ2021 MeanFreePath LLC