Pay for protection

Forums › Suggestions & Feedback › Pay for protection

Buster Taint Nov 21, 2009

I think it would be a great feature if players could agree to cease fires where the weaker of the two player could pay a predetermined amount to the stronger player for a predetermined number of days/hours in exchange the stringer player can't attack weaker player until said period of time expires. This would add a new level of social interaction to the game...especially in crowded territory!
LuX  AeternA Nov 21, 2009

I agree with your idea👍👍
The Noise Nov 22, 2009

That's a really good idea but what if the weak guy don't have alot of income then he won't be able to pay much and the string guy might as well keep attacking
The Noise Nov 22, 2009

Sorry That was meant to be strong not string
Buster Taint Nov 23, 2009

Then if the weaker players can't make a payment the cease fire is broken and the stronger player can begin attacks again. I guess that's how I'd work around it.
✯МяΛиоиγмоυs✯ Mar 10, 2012

I think not👎
This would promote mules and it would ruin this WAR game. The point of this game is to go to WAR, not to be peaceful and see who can make the most money. If you don't like the concept, I hear Tiny Pets is now out on the app market.
GabeE Mar 14, 2012

✯МяΛиоиγмоυs✯ wrote:
I think not👎
This would promote mules and it would ruin this WAR game. The point of this game is to go to WAR, not to be peaceful and see who can make the most money. If you don't like the concept, I hear Tiny Pets is now out on the app market.

The tiny pets comment made me laugh.
Hyena Mar 28, 2012

chill16 wrote:
Mules...

+1 someone will work out a loop hole to gain an advantage.
I could also see that all the bigger players would hit up all the smaller players for protection. The mid sized would then have to also tax the smaller players to offset what they are paying the bigger players. Smaller players would not be able to grow because 100% of their income would be being taxed.

Sorry thumbs down from me.