DJ Moody said:

Ultimately this is a war game. Have to remember that.

I know plenty of people who will leave low level players alone. It's not in anyone best interest for long time player to annihilate new players. If we kill off all the new players then we will kill off the game as no one new will be around to replace the long term players leaving. And I think quite a lot of long term players would look down on a big player who only roamed the map looking to kill small players.

On the flip side the game is set up so you can avoid PvP if you want to. You can just stick your troops in the catacombs and no one can ever touch them. I guess your troop production can get killed but if you are active you can log in frequently and put it away. And losing a bit of resource is not a huge issue.

So the game somewhat covers the issue already. Also the game mechanics already have anti-bully build in given raids yield the same power loss to both sides. 

My conclusion would be that I would hope big players wouldn't bully new ones. But I wouldn't go as far as putting arbitrary level caps in the game to prevent it. As someone already pointed out, level isn't a great proxy for troop power.

All this is On Point ! 

All I could add is if a low level castle is being a pain I just save in contacts for future farming reference.

While Veal is sweet to eat  you can live on a Full grown Beefer for a lot longer ;) 

DJ Moody said:

Ultimately this is a war game. Have to remember that.

All this is On Point ! 

All I could add is if a low level castle is being a pain I just save in contacts for future farming reference.

While Veal is sweet to eat  you can live on a Full grown Beefer for a lot longer ;) 

i love ur reasonings,and now this proverb they make sense even to someone like me whose language isnt even english 

Oracle said:

Now to explain the point I raised about server 2. What happens is that a player is not allowed to attack a player who is 20 level below him. For example, a player of level 80 can't attack a player of level 59. When provoked, all bets are off. So if a level 59 attacks a level 80 settlement, for example, the level 80 can attack back. This restriction do not apply once a castle in past level 80/85. 

I think leagues in server 1 should consider this. It's not a perfect system as you mentioned but it did wonders in server 2. It should be given some thought in server 1.

then what about defense :p iv reinforced against players 140+ ... and iv been doing this even when i was lvl 80 till now... no matter how u look at it,there are always problems with any solution u think would solve a problem ...

or just as wesley pointed out some lower lvl players could use alts to do nothing but harass.. 

in the end noone would attack a player for nothing,remove these factors,and they wont be attacked

1.pvp ,units out

2.trolling,or being a pain,lets say in my eye

3.resources (this one not so much,i mean its just like 200k resources or something

absent these factors,the attacker him/herself has some kind of an issue.thats neither fair game nor understandable.i wouldnt like a player like that,and dnt think anyone would either

Oracle said:

Now to explain the point I raised about server 2. What happens is that a player is not allowed to attack a player who is 20 level below him. For example, a player of level 80 can't attack a player of level 59. When provoked, all bets are off. So if a level 59 attacks a level 80 settlement, for example, the level 80 can attack back. This restriction do not apply once a castle in past level 80/85. 

I think leagues in server 1 should consider this. It's not a perfect system as you mentioned but it did wonders in server 2. It should be given some thought in server 1.

then what about defense :p iv reinforced against players 140+ ... and iv been doing this even when i was lvl 80 till now... no matter how u look at it,there are always problems with any solution u think would solve a problem ...

or just as wesley pointed out some lower lvl players could use alts to do nothing but harass.. 

in the end noone would attack a player for nothing,remove these factors,and they wont be attacked

1.pvp ,units out

2.trolling,or being a pain,lets say in my eye

3.resources (this one not so much,i mean its just like 200k resources or something

absent these factors,the attacker him/herself has some kind of an issue.thats neither fair game nor understandable.i wouldnt like a player like that,and dnt think anyone would either

Reverse Midas said:

I guess the broader point being made is that there's no real chance of new players staying the course if they're going to get smacked before they've even joined a league or figured out all the new crap that we're still figuring out. 

YAP. This seems to be the message here. Unfortunately, there is nothing a new player can do to stop a veteran player from making him quit. 
FB used to be a deterrent, but they took that away with spirit wardens, FB protection skins ect.

First, FireBall's had nothing to do with deterring anything in this regard.

More to the point for new players, yes some sort balance or equalizer was never implemented for various levels/abilities.

 But also, mechanics/graphics do play a large role in deciding to stick with a game. This version is quite dated in those regards. Part of this is shown in Plariums rapid deployment of app games, not only for the 'eye candy' effect but also the quick flash of monies. This is also partly attributable to shortened attention spans of those style games.

Not many games are geared towards long term play, and even fewer can keep their base active while enticing new participation.

So back on topic, the answer is provided by Plarium for new players who wish to actively play the game more than 1-2 weeks, spend wisely...

Personally as to attacks on lower players, not my kind of gameplay, but I can see it as an alternative to all the boredom of incessant clicking.

fURY said:

Oracle said:

Now to explain the point I raised about server 2. What happens is that a player is not allowed to attack a player who is 20 level below him. For example, a player of level 80 can't attack a player of level 59. When provoked, all bets are off. So if a level 59 attacks a level 80 settlement, for example, the level 80 can attack back. This restriction do not apply once a castle in past level 80/85. 

I think leagues in server 1 should consider this. It's not a perfect system as you mentioned but it did wonders in server 2. It should be given some thought in server 1.

then what about defense :p iv reinforced against players 140+ ... and iv been doing this even when i was lvl 80 till now... no matter how u look at it,there are always problems with any solution u think would solve a problem ...

or just as wesley pointed out some lower lvl players could use alts to do nothing but harass.. 

in the end noone would attack a player for nothing,remove these factors,and they wont be attacked

1.pvp ,units out

2.trolling,or being a pain,lets say in my eye

3.resources (this one not so much,i mean its just like 200k resources or something

absent these factors,the attacker him/herself has some kind of an issue.thats neither fair game nor understandable.i wouldnt like a player like that,and dnt think anyone would either

I didn't see your well thought out response. 

If a lower player attacks a castle reinforced by a higher level player, that is not seen as an attack on him. 

The higher level player can only attack the lower level player when the lower level player attacks him directly. Once a lower level player reach level 80, any player can attack, even if the player is level 130. After level 30, its free game. 

Oracle said:

Server 1 is a huge mess, and it could collapse if this issue is not addressed. I do understand that this is a war game. But the lifeblood of every game its new players. When a major league sees nothing wrong with actively hunting down new players for PvP points to a point of actively defend this activity.

Server 2 instituted this policy of not attacking players that are 20 levels below your level. Maybe this could help.

Points of view  my Lord...

In my opinion server 1 is the best , and i saw so many epic battles which i didn't ever saw them on the other servers...just saying 

Michele said:

Hello and I understand you

For my part I recommend to my players not to attack levels below 25 or 30 levels (and that above levels 60) below we do not attack.

I think Plarium could do something about preventing it from attacking a level below 30 levels (unless this level attacks you first, it exists in hamlets)

The only concern is the level above 110 to 140 otherwise they have no one to attack LOL.

Admittedly, now, Plarium is not a philatropic enterprise and does everything to earn money :) therefore no interest for them to limit the attacks :))

Hello Michele , 

i'm sorry you think that about Plarium , 

they don't make everything just to earn money ,and always there are free gifts for everyone ... sure there are some advantages which you can have them just buying ...

but back to the topic of this post...i saw too a lot pvp hunters , big levels attacking low levels ...but i saw too some big VIP which lost a lot against a low level well defended by his friends and his league mates...and since there is a 250.000 limit force for the attack on a castle... 

  you can set very nice traps for the pvp hunters....just saying 

I wish you a good day and good game !

fURY said:

Oracle said:

then what about defense :p iv reinforced against players 140+ ... and iv been doing this even when i was lvl 80 till now... no matter how u look at it,there are always problems with any solution u think would solve a problem ...

or just as wesley pointed out some lower lvl players could use alts to do nothing but harass.. 

in the end noone would attack a player for nothing,remove these factors,and they wont be attacked

1.pvp ,units out

2.trolling,or being a pain,lets say in my eye

3.resources (this one not so much,i mean its just like 200k resources or something

absent these factors,the attacker him/herself has some kind of an issue.thats neither fair game nor understandable.i wouldnt like a player like that,and dnt think anyone would either

I didn't see your well thought out response. 

If a lower player attacks a castle reinforced by a higher level player, that is not seen as an attack on him. 

The higher level player can only attack the lower level player when the lower level player attacks him directly. Once a lower level player reach level 80, any player can attack, even if the player is level 130. After level 30, its free game. 

I am a player of Sparta: War of Empires (starting SF in a few moments). I would like to point out that attacking an active player is barely beneficial, as they'll both keep everything in their Acropolis (the place where units can't be killed, whatever the SF counterpart is), and have 0 resources at all times.

Uranato said:

I am a player of Sparta: War of Empires (starting SF in a few moments). I would like to point out that attacking an active player is barely beneficial, as they'll both keep everything in their Acropolis (the place where units can't be killed, whatever the SF counterpart is), and have 0 resources at all times.

Hello Lord Uranato, 

yes , Stormfall and Sparta are very similarly , so the strategies are almost the same (99,9%)   and that one to protect your units in catacombs (in Stormfall) / acropolis(Sparta) is a good one ! 

I wish you a good day and good game ! And hope to see you also in Stormfall, why not....