Failed Vote Potential Co-playing method

[Coefficient]

Let me start by saying - I realise Co-Playing is not officially supported by tribal wars. This is NOT an plea to start supporting it - its actually a suggestion on a method on how tribal wars could build in support for two people playing the same account WITHOUT having to access any other players "main account" - ever! In essence its a way to completely DO AWAY with the current - unsupported - method of several people directly accessing an account (and the associated risks that come with it) - Hopefully this is enough of a concept to not have the idea shot down in flames

THE PREMISE

Two players agree to "merge" on a world. In our idea, this is an option in game that both parties have to enter each others names to and agree. There is a 3 day period during which any party can withdraw from the arrangement. After the 3 days, players accounts are "merged" on the world - there is no need to conquer villages.

THE METHOD

The player who is now hosting simply logs into their own account. Using the structure already in place for account sitting, the player who is now co-playing logs into his OWN account (which has no villages) and uses the Account sitting style interface to access the other account. Neither player will ever enter the other players account directly. If one player logs in, the other player will be kicked off - strictly only one player at a time. Only 2 players can ever be on one account - it is not possible to have giant merged accounts, helping to keep the game balanced. Direct account access between players becomes forbidden in the rules.

A DISPUTE

If the players have a dispute, they can go their separate ways in a very similar way to how they started playing the account. Both players agree to separate and the co play ends. Players keep their original villages, and split all new villages 50/50 completely randomly (sure it sucks, but they agreed to coplay!) Both players are also barred from co-playing again for one month (to prevent abuse of this system)

SUMMARY

This method completely eliminates the need to share account information, allows tribal wars to support co-playing and uses infrastructure (account sitting interface) thats already there, speeding up development and implementation.

 

[JawJaw]

Hello!

Thank you for your suggestion. This has been approved for voting. Note however that it might be difficult to implement because of several concerns (such as an enemy would no longer be able to pick a part too, which still is part of the game), nevertheless I am interested to see other people's opinions on this matter!

 

[bobertini]

Honestly, to me, its a bad idea and breaks a massive chunk of the game mechanics

IF it were to be somewhat considered, during the 3 days, neither account can attack, only support.

The amount of nobles from the account gaining the villages must have the capabilities to gain the extra villages before the merge.

If there's a dispute, shiz happens, the account that was agreed to gain the villages keeps 100%. That's the way of life, not everyone is going to get along.

But ye, too much netty grittyness so I voted no.

 

[ALessonInPointWhoring]

This is a game breakingly bad idea.

It takes a minimum of 10 coins to reach 4 villages, but 45 to each 10 villages. This would let 2 people each reach 5 villages and then merge and have the equivalent of a 45 coin account. They also wouldn't have to lose all the troops in the villages they obtained. It's a monumental advantage, people merging is already overpowered and competition-ruining, this would just take it to a whole other level.

Obviously 25 coins isn't that big of a deal, but the later you merged the bigger the advantage would be. ie. It takes 4950 coins to reach 100 villages, 19,900 to reach 200 villages. You'd merge two accounts with 100 villages and have an account that should have required 19,900 coins while having only having needed 9,900. Technically, yeah you'd need over 10,000 coins for your next noble, but you'd still have 200 villages to make troops in and mint from in the meantime.

People would also un-merge to gain morale advantage. It's just a really, really abusable idea.

The current KISS (keep it simple stupid) method is a much better solution.

 

[saad748]

I think this is a horrendous idea. Co playing an account should actually be banned, as it really leads to unfair advantage. There is already an account sitting option available, and that should be it!

 

[JawJaw]

Idea did not reach the required amount of votes and has been rejected.