Change the 10% Rule
Forums › General Discussion › Change the 10% Rule-
True but as the player base grows so does the number of codes to enter. My gf joined last august when having 10k mob was ZOMG then I took over her account and now top players are around 25k. What if next summer top players are around 45k.
You can already see big players with super small inf so they can destroy smaller players.
Maybe a new stats called reputation as the product of inf and mob could be used to mitigate this issue...I don t know I am not a dev my gf is and she keep saying exponential code punching is not sustainable and the 10% rule can be abused so...
Anyway just my opinion I could be wrong
-
Euro✯ wrote:
True but as the player base grows so does the number of codes to enter. My gf joined last august when having 10k mob was ZOMG then I took over her account and now top players are around 25k. What if next summer top players are around 45k.
You can already see big players with super small inf so they can destroy smaller players.
Maybe a new stats called reputation as the product of inf and mob could be used to mitigate this issue...I don t know I am not a dev my gf is and she keep saying exponential code punching is not sustainable and the 10% rule can be abused so...
Anyway just my opinion I could be wrong
My point exactly.
-
Everyone always assumes that nothing is being done about an issue when it isn't done on their time table. Perhaps nick is working on it. Perhaps he hasn't found a solution yet. Considering the amount of players that whined about "needing" plane tickets, he probably thought he was doing a good thing.
If Groucho's idea is part of the solution, then I think players need to be inactive for at least 6 months. If the time period is too short, then everyone will have the same # of mob. That would make mob completely pointless.
-
I agree - six months is better. Some players just don't get on as often as us tw junkies. At six months, they probably don't even have the app installed anymore and are truly inactive as opposed to "less active".
Mystery has done a great job of tracking which players are inactive in the Houston area and probably has a better feel for that than I do, but the general premise remains the same.
-
Reaper💀 3 days ago Quote
I'm currently low inf. Defensive only. It's a shit rule that needs to be changed! Save money. Drop inf. Your a tactical genius🙎. No. Your a complete cock who can't play the game it was ment to be played.🚶ickle mobster🚶 3 days ago Quote
👆👆👆👆👆👆👍LMFAOoo now take a look at ickle's influance. Not good calling yourself a cook.
-
There is hardly a big mob who doesn't have low inf..
even the ones who say they are against it still have low inf.. its the only way that they can win??? So then everyone does it. Pfff...t Pointless in the long run.
-
Mystery wrote:
Then in 6 months time we all have the same mob? Still wont work.Everyone always assumes that nothing is being done about an issue when it isn't done on their time table. Perhaps nick is working on it. Perhaps he hasn't found a solution yet. Considering the amount of players that whined about "needing" plane tickets, he probably thought he was doing a good thing.
If Groucho's idea is part of the solution, then I think players need to be inactive for at least 6 months. If the time period is too short, then everyone will have the same # of mob. That would make mob completely pointless.
-
YOU wrote:
Youd just be prolonging prolonging the inevitable massive stalemate that would ruin the whole game. When all mins are the same then no one can capture turf.Mystery wrote:
Then in 6 months time we all have the same mob? Still wont work.Everyone always assumes that nothing is being done about an issue when it isn't done on their time table. Perhaps nick is working on it. Perhaps he hasn't found a solution yet. Considering the amount of players that whined about "needing" plane tickets, he probably thought he was doing a good thing.
If Groucho's idea is part of the solution, then I think players need to be inactive for at least 6 months. If the time period is too short, then everyone will have the same # of mob. That would make mob completely pointless.
-
With the addition of the mob range rule mob size isn't really an issue anymore. Just Jang back with a strong v and destroy them. Very simple. The mob argument is getting tired. Nick has already solved the problem. Tweak with mob too much more and you'd be destroying us solo players who can't join alliances.
-
Belial - you must not read very well, then spout off how something won't work.
The 6 months is only for players who are long since inactive. New players still need to be invited and accept your invite. You still need to punch temp codes and get those accepted and you would only get the inactives if they were long gone.
The issue is with the ever widening gap that will ONLY get worse as the number of valid codes continues to grow and the number of noobs, who get frustrated with the imbalance in the game start and then quit forever.
Contrary to your fuzzy math, this would not give everybody the exact same size mob - but it would sure help slow the rate that Turf Wars is dying.
-
(cont.)
If anybody, you should embrace a solution like this - you talk about, in a different thread how you want to create a different PAL room to help noobs learn effective code punching techniques and tips on how to grow -- for what? So they can enter 20,000 codes that you know only have a 30% chance of being accepted now?If you really wanted to help others grow and learn to love the game, you would support this plan. How else, can you tell a noob, with a straight face, that if they punch in all their codes, like a good little noob, that one day, they will grow a mob up to be big like you...
-
And what about the players right around me on the top mob lost Groucho? We've all punched every temp
Code. Wed all have the exact dame mob size and be in a stalemate -
And as mobs get bigger the stalemate gets worse. Essentially you'd have made it so no one on the top miblisy can lose turf at minimal. My guess is it'd still reach much lower than that. See my point? You're using one problem to solve another. Like I said we have attack range based on mob now. IMO that's enough
-
smasher35 wrote:
👆👆👆👆👆👆😱Reaper💀 3 days ago Quote
I'm currently low inf. Defensive only. It's a shit rule that needs to be changed! Save money. Drop inf. Your a tactical genius🙎. No. Your a complete cock who can't play the game it was ment to be played.🚶ickle mobster🚶 3 days ago Quote
👆👆👆👆👆👆👍LMFAOoo now take a look at ickle's influance. Not good calling yourself a cook.
-
How about a 25% mob rule. This would work both ways. If I don't have 25% of you mob I can't attack you. But you also wouldn't be able to attack me. It would not be as flexible as the current 10% rule and would create a tier style mob system
-
@B, there are problems with that too. Let's say I want a certain capo. A player (with a lot of $ in rl) that is below my 25% holds it. They could flood it with turf & but I could never fight them for it. It just becomes a building war, not a fighting game.
You also have a problem with vendettas. You'd have to calculate the percentages on who you invited to start with. However, you'd have to constantly watch mob #'s & potentially drop mob (or add mob, if possible.) By everyone I mean the people attacking & being attacked. Once people start the drop mob game, then that can affect all kinds of people's mob. (Ideally you'd only drop active players that you could invite again later.) That gets terribly complicated.
-
While the 10% rule is a useful strategy for some, it would be nice to level the playing field to even the odds.
-
Very good suggestions / debates / conversations, thanks a lot everyone!
-
10%? Its more a 30% Rule! Change this Shit! Ich ppunchend more Codes, i saved more Money for weapons so i have to Win!!! Im Sick Of Loseing against 5k ppl with my 8k mob!!!
-
DirtyCry wrote:
...huh?10%? Its more a 30% Rule! Change this Shit! Ich ppunchend more Codes, i saved more Money for weapons so i have to Win!!! Im Sick Of Loseing against 5k ppl with my 8k mob!!!
-
CrackaMike wrote:
I think he is talking about the defensive advantage, that is about 30%.DirtyCry wrote:
...huh?10%? Its more a 30% Rule! Change this Shit! Ich ppunchend more Codes, i saved more Money for weapons so i have to Win!!! Im Sick Of Loseing against 5k ppl with my 8k mob!!!
-
🔥⌖ Renegade ⌖🔥 wrote:
Oh! LoL thanks for clarifying that. I saw the letters he threw together and couldn't piece a message out of it, a few words were recognized in there tho.CrackaMike wrote:
I think he is talking about the defensive advantage, that is about 30%.DirtyCry wrote:
...huh?10%? Its more a 30% Rule! Change this Shit! Ich ppunchend more Codes, i saved more Money for weapons so i have to Win!!! Im Sick Of Loseing against 5k ppl with my 8k mob!!!
-
Well It's been a few weeks, forums are slow, and I've seen people complaining about the 10% rule again more recently. I figure it's time to renew the topic...
To add to my original suggestion: 'Make 10% rule equal for both parties, if 'A' can't cap 'B' then 'B' shouldn't be able to cap 'A' as well, due to 10% influence difference' I think this would still allow players to take advantage of the 10% rule, but increases the ability for it to be equal by making the lower influence stay near 10% instead of extremely low. To rephrase: 10,000inf Vs 1,000inf. The 1,000inf would have to raise to 1,001 to be able to cap the 10,000inf. The 10,000inf would have to drop to 9,999inf to cap the 1,000inf. Get it? Let me know if I'm stating this incorrectly. -
I'm using the 10% rule to my advantage.
-
Add 10 wrote:
Interesting........😏I'm using the 10% rule to my advantage.
-
CrackaMike wrote:
This would be too easy for someone to stay below 10% then raise turfs just to cap, then drop right back down again. It would just make the lower person work a little harder to get a turf.10,000inf Vs 1,000inf. The 1,000inf would have to raise to 1,001 to be able to cap the 10,000inf. The 10,000inf would have to drop to 9,999inf to cap the 1,000inf. Get it? Let me know if I'm stating this incorrectly.
I have to say the low inf battle is starting to get old. I think if you can start a vendetta the 10% rule shouldn't apply. It would mean smaller mobbed players would be more useful because they can get in closer to their targets.
-
☢ⓋⓘⓡⓤⓈ☢ wrote:
great idea... Like when the don helps the noobs. 👍👍👍Belial wrote:
Maybe only apply the 10% rule to level 50 and below. In most cases the losers hiding under the 10% rule are level 75 and above with fairly big mobs. Atleast this way the newbies will still be safe from been wiped out.Agree but I see no possible fair way to do it.
-
Tony10Thumbs wrote:
That's not fair. Then players with 20k mob can cap 5-10k mobs with ease. Most people level quickly in this game. Level should not affect it. If level is going to affect it might as well make it so you can only attack people within 10 levels of you.☢ⓋⓘⓡⓤⓈ☢ wrote:
great idea... Like when the don helps the noobs. 👍👍👍Belial wrote:
Maybe only apply the 10% rule to level 50 and below. In most cases the losers hiding under the 10% rule are level 75 and above with fairly big mobs. Atleast this way the newbies will still be safe from been wiped out.Agree but I see no possible fair way to do it.
-
Then they should mob quickly instead of level quickly.
-
Mystery wrote:
exactly... And the peeps w/ 20k mob already can cap people w/ 5k mob. That's sorta the whole point of this thread...they just lower there infThen they should mob quickly instead of level quickly.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC