Rejected: Player Contract

Discussion in 'Old Ideas' started by c0mpr3h3nsi0n96, Apr 11, 2010.

  1. Why don't you add a feature where you can buy players with resources and they have to stay in the tribe for how ever long it was decided and cannot leave. And I know you could do this anyway but you could add it as a feature so that people don't lie and take the resources and leave again. It should be binding in the game.

    Another suggestion that I have is that you make it so that you can't attack allies. It says "The settings are non-binding within the game" but I think that its stupid and should be binding within the game
     
  2. d4m0

    d4m0 Guest

    The game is called Tribal Wars, not Tribal Hugs.
     
  3. The Lewder

    The Lewder Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2010
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    1
    ^ this.

    No to both ideas.

    First idea would be stupid; if you can't trust a player to join then leave, don't invite him at all.

    Second idea would be even more stupid; what if a cross-nobling occured? Also, there can be one-sided allies - alliances which are only marked by one tribe. How would this work out?

    Both ideas = fail, play the game more.
     
  4. Crosility

    Crosility Guest

    I also agree both ideas are very much ignorant, do say the least.

    The game is SUPPOSE to have spies, deceit, and so forth. Just like the real world.
    You are suppose to get stabbed in the back here and there by members who are undercover.

    Binding them to non ability to attack, or leave, that's just.. ridiculous. Also, what if a member goes completely red, and never get's kicked. Can they NOT farm them? Lol? You wouldn't kick them.. SO the farm stayed within the tribe, do you not agree?

    Yes, you need to play the game, much much more than you have.. apparently you are lost by what it means to be in control.