Revised Turf System

[Donald]

Defending unowned turfs is completely legit and definitely has flawless logic behind it. This is a game where you limit enemy factions power and influence via turfs.



@Bee; you clearly have no idea. Nino himself said it that resetting to take = war proof. Why involve yourself in matters of illegal when you have no clue XD?

[Sly]

They wanted to avoid a war not gunfights. It's all same anyway, leads to war slower than direct attacking.

[Bee]

Defending unowned turfs is completely legit and definitely has flawless logic behind it. This is a game where you limit enemy factions power and influence via turfs.



@Bee; you clearly have no idea. Nino himself said it that resetting to take = war proof. Why involve yourself in matters of illegal when you have no clue XD?

Err, that's what we were doing.
You remember when tatt used to own all the turfs, right?

So, we were trying to make it onowned first and later take it.
But yeah, i dont know about the current illegal stuff but when i was in lynch, that's what we did.

[Donald]

They wanted to avoid a war not gunfights. It's all same anyway, leads to war slower than direct attacking.

Our section is flooded with Paterno resetting and taking our turfs, but its sad they got wiped coz there'd been definitely war with that amount of proof we had including the so called not legit proof by some people.

[Bee]

They wanted to avoid a war not gunfights. It's all same anyway, leads to war slower than direct attacking.

Our section is flooded with Paterno resetting and taking our turfs, but its sad they got wiped coz there'd been definitely war with that amount of proof we had including the so called not legit proof by some people.

nonono
I'm talking about the times when paddy was leading it.
We almost had a war but paddy later paid you up.

[Donald]

They wanted to avoid a war not gunfights. It's all same anyway, leads to war slower than direct attacking.

Our section is flooded with Paterno resetting and taking our turfs, but its sad they got wiped coz there'd been definitely war with that amount of proof we had including the so called not legit proof by some people.

nonono
I'm talking about the times when paddy was leading it.
We almost had a war but paddy later paid you up.

Your point; resetting and taking = not legit war proof


I said the opposite with the confirmation of Nino.

[Sly]

I said it's proper proof just not considered as strong and promising as direct take overs. noob donald

robbing in turfs to make it unwed is practically fighting off that faction's influence and swapping it with your new established influence.

[Donald]

I said it's proper proof just not considered as strong and promising as direct take overs. noob donald

robbing in turfs to make it unwed is practically fighting off that faction's influence and swapping it with your new established influence.

theres def no strong or weak proof in IM. XD


proof is proof, it doesnt have a meter-o-strongness.

[Luigi Tattaglia]

If you attack someone who's taking an unowned turf, you're obviously DMing.
It's not your turf, thus you have no right to 'defend' it.

There is notoriety. Our enemies rob in our turfs to reset them. Everyone does it to everyone and this is why its crucial to defend unowned turf.

If our turf gets reset because of notoriety and someone tries to take it afterwards, then why doesn't it make sense that we fight to preserve what was ours?

tell me u quit then i do it now

the best thing about it is that we both know its true

[Green]

If a player gets shot on sight when entering a turf, that's indeed DM in my opinion. Not everything can be explained by the fact that you were in the wrong place at the wrong time as the definition is inaccurate and lead to situations which can not be solved.

Just wondering.. what if you'd try to stall the player who you think is turfing by having a brief chat with him/her and see what he/she is up to before taking any actions, instead of just going bang bang right away?

[Luigi Tattaglia]

Just wondering.. what if you'd try to stall the player who you think is turfing by having a brief chat with him/her and see what he/she is up to before taking any actions, instead of just going bang bang right away?

"Hello, are you here to shoot me for takin this turf?"

"No." > takes his deagle out, his you twice with it and kills you afterwards because he had an advantage of shootin first

Well, that makes sense.

Why doesn't the PD then ask every individual that exits a business that got robbed wether they're robbers or not.

[Donald]

Just wondering.. what if you'd try to stall the player who you think is turfing by having a brief chat with him/her and see what he/she is up to before taking any actions, instead of just going bang bang right away?

"Hello, are you here to shoot me for takin this turf?"

"No." > takes his deagle out, his you twice with it and kills you afterwards because he had an advantage of shootin first

Well, that makes sense.

Doesn't even respond back just shoots you while you wait. XD

[Green]

Just wondering.. what if you'd try to stall the player who you think is turfing by having a brief chat with him/her and see what he/she is up to before taking any actions, instead of just going bang bang right away?

"Hello, are you here to shoot me for takin this turf?"

"No." > takes his deagle out, his you twice with it and kills you afterwards because he had an advantage of shootin first

Well, that makes sense.

Doesn't even respond back just shoots you while you wait. XD

Be prepared, have someone watching your back. It's only 1 kill and you have successfully defend their attack.

[Luigi Tattaglia]

We've never taken a turf in this game and your advice on how to handle securing yourself in SAMP during a turftakeover will help out a lot.

Securing yourself is not the point of it though

[Green]

I am not trying to advise anyone. I just wanted to take to part in the debate and post something constructive by suggesting something different.

[Vederano]

Im glad im banned.
This is horrible.

[Fabio]

If you attack someone who's taking an unowned turf, you're obviously DMing.
It's not your turf, thus you have no right to 'defend' it.

Since when

Since logic.

But ok, it's IM.

Wow. How comes you're saying it now? That has always been allowed.

[mikeloff]

The fighting now spreads through the entire turf, not just one area. Seeing as players move about on their own to complete 'tasks', they're much easier to shoot as they can't risk getting shot first, because the death of just one of the members doin tasks will cause the turf to fail.

Covering a larger area & being on your own casues more preemptive shooting. The reason why all enemy factions' members(in the turf you're tryin to take over) should be legitimate targets is very simple; 1 or 2 of them are enough to make you fail your turftakeover as they can easily kill one player that is strolling from task to task. This is why preemptive killing is a must to secure the turf.


If that Leone from the report shot our members and killed them, it'd be like.. 'He used a clever tactic to kill one member and make the turf fail', but when you preemptively strike to avoid failing the turf, in the only area in which he shouldn't have been at the time, its DM lmao i

Its almost equal to hindering players to use their brains and strike before gettin struck. Let them shoot you first so you fail the turf, even though its obvious a turf is being taken over.

Well, you weren't there to see what exactly happened. I am not going through this all over again, I've said everything in the reports.
& yes, unowned turfs can barely be noticed if they are being taken over if you are not paying attention while driving through.

[MaOs]

last 2 pages and the new turf rules (lol) melted my brain

yes, unowned turfs can barely be noticed if they are being taken over if you are not paying attention while driving through.

what are you doing playing GTA or Second Life? pay attention to important things ROFL, if you don't notice it's not others fault, it's YOURS.

[mikeloff]

last 2 pages and the new turf rules (lol) melted my brain

yes, unowned turfs can barely be noticed if they are being taken over if you are not paying attention while driving through.

what are you doing playing GTA or Second Life? pay attention to important things ROFL, if you don't notice it's not others fault, it's YOURS.

Well, why would I check if an unowned turf is being taken over while I have an urgent backup at las venturas?

[MaOs]

last 2 pages and the new turf rules (lol) melted my brain

yes, unowned turfs can barely be noticed if they are being taken over if you are not paying attention while driving through.

what are you doing playing GTA or Second Life? pay attention to important things ROFL, if you don't notice it's not others fault, it's YOURS.

Well, why would I check if an unowned turf is being taken over while I have an urgent backup at las venturas?

Because due your IC decisions, for example, joining a MAFIA, you should take care of what places do you visit and when you do it, because other people consider you as an ENEMY -> possible threat to their illegal activities

If you want to chill around, be civilian.

really you were admin or its a joke

[Fabio]

It doesn't make sense to not be able to attack someone taking an unowned turf. Remove notoriety if this is actually a thing. Otherwise everyone can reset their enemies' turfs and retake them without having to worry about a war.

[Luigi Tattaglia]

last 2 pages and the new turf rules (lol) melted my brain

yes, unowned turfs can barely be noticed if they are being taken over if you are not paying attention while driving through.

what are you doing playing GTA or Second Life? pay attention to important things ROFL, if you don't notice it's not others fault, it's YOURS.

Well, why would I check if an unowned turf is being taken over while I have an urgent backup at las venturas?

The point is that I too would perhaps be annoyed, but upon realizing a turf was bein taken, wouldn't report as I didn't pay attention and accept it was my fault.

[Lui]

There should be a rule which states that you can only shoot your "suspected" checkpoint guy. Only if you see him going in or out the business.

It may fix shit, I guess.

[Darien]

There should be a rule which states that you can only shoot your "suspected" checkpoint guy. Only if you see him going in or out the business.

It may fix shit, I guess.

Based on reading the comments, seems like there is more of an issue then just DM

[Kody Vendetta]

Reset all turfs @ woot.

[Ninja-xXx]

Toyfight Everywhere

[DaoC]

Toyfight Everywhere

[Ayden]

we tried it yday and it was way too funny and none attacked, nice oke.

[mikeloff]

we tried it yday and it was way too funny and none attacked, nice oke.

how is it fun if noone attaks? :p