Is it wrong to cap inactives turfs
Forums › General Discussion › Is it wrong to cap inactives turfs-
Is it cause I don't think so not like there gonna do anything to u not like they even care there inactives. Tell me ur thoughts
-
From someone who thinks long term economy, yes, it's a bad thing. That's hastle free residual income you'll never get back. ✊
-
A certain amount of players in any given area makes the income go up. If you are interested in income it's better not to cap them all at least.
-
"The Man" wrote:
Exactly.From someone who thinks long term economy, yes, it's a bad thing. That's hastle free residual income you'll never get back. ✊
You will tear down your income, and maybe get yourself in trouble with other TW players. -
Depends upon the density of turf the inactive has.
If they have 1 or 2 then it will make the local economy worse.
If they have loads the impact will be minimal and the person capping will get a significant income boost.
-
Well the inactive I have been capping has loads of turf in 1 area and that's all he has. I've already capped about 10-20 turf and I could cap 23 more but is this a bad idea.
-
Moderation is key then, take a few, leave a few.
-
Overlap them and make protection money. The only inactive turfs I take are the ones with upgrades like union boss on them. The rest I overlap and make extra cash. Make sure the turfs are at 84 influence or lower
-
👆what he said
-
It all depends with me. It really depends on the area. Some cities do better with a burnout and refresh. Others dont
-
It would be nice to be rid of the many inactives with low influence who are on the fight board.
-
You make more money by covering them & collecting protection money.
-
Mystery wrote:
Not always. And planting turf can cost way too much. I would make what an average of 2k an hour? It usually costs me 10m to plant in a city. That's what? 5k hours to break even as opposed to a free turf?You make more money by covering them & collecting protection money.
-
ßelial wrote:
hmmm... interesting point. so it depends.Mystery wrote:
Not always. And planting turf can cost way too much. I would make what an average of 2k an hour? It usually costs me 10m to plant in a city. That's what? 5k hours to break even as opposed to a free turf?You make more money by covering them & collecting protection money.
-
Few 84's covered with an 86 add as little as only 2k additional income per hr to your 86. I actually have never seen any that low, but that's just my limited experience. Most times it adds significantly to the income of your turf. Somewhere on the order of an additional 10-19k depending on "things." And in all likelihood you were going to plant that turf anyhow, and the 84 didn't cost you any additional planting costs. It certainly doesn't hurt you if you're hopping thru and have it around to park a turf on or if you're using the area for something else--even creating turf of higher than 86 inf. I'd much rather not have the income of all my 86 inf turf forever capped out at 53.6k. That recoups much slower even than your 55.6k. Money's money. Unless you're so scared someone might plant near you that you raze the countryside preventatively. That can be done whenever.
-
BҽӀӀɑԵɾí×🔨🔥💀 wrote:
Well often times I go for a lot ofturf in a city. That gets expensive quick when build costs go over the 50 m range. So capping becomes necessary.I'd much rather not have the income of all my 86 inf turf forever capped out at 53.6k. That recoups much slower even than your 55.6k. Money's money. Unless you're so scared someone might plant near you that you raze the countryside preventatively. That can be done whenever.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC