I do understand most of your post YDOOM, except your use of proxy=proximity or proxy=using someone else to do your bidding.

If what you are saying is level isn't an indicator of power you are correct. It is an indicator of coin spent and time invested performing exp related task's. These 2 things are what one looks at when determining a players level as well as time spent playing the game as well as how their stats are distributed.. off, def, bg addict etc..

You cannot reach level 132 without spending a lot of time doing exp intensive actions or without coining. Not the kind of player someone who has never seen an ice dragon should be faced with. A player that hasn't broke the 1m powerpoint barrier yet.

Hi, I agree that it can be frustrating to be attacked from much higher levels. I personally am raided at least 2 times a month, from higher levels than me, without giant armies but with friends, so if I leave out of the units, I defeat him but if I don't play then I will destroy myself much more powerful players. It has been happening for a year. I haven't stopped playing and I won't stop. It is not a problem to be raided, even if it takes 50k of food, with all the castles to be raided that are near me it is not a problem. The real problem is if you forget about the units. My advice (obviously personal, I don't expect anyone to approve, but that's what I will do / would do) is to always keep all the units in the catacombs, if you are in a large coven then get along and go and raid it. If, on the other hand, to good friends who do not want to look for problems, you decide one day (it has already been recommended to you) to prepare a "trick" for your opponent. Remember that every 100 defense points of the castle you have 1% more, so hurry up to a good percentage. Remember also that you can revive up to 30% of the defense that dies by defending yourself. Infone I agree that the level does not necessarily represent the power of a player, but in my opinion it is still a good indicator. I hope I have helped you.

I must agree here, no reason for an arbitrary cap like the silly hamlets have.

So all you can do really is create a thread for discussion, point said player out to the community and once the thread gains traction send the link to their Marshal so they know exactly how this player represents their league on the battlefield. 

How funny, this is exactly what I have done. 

Sticky said:

Get used to putting your troops to bed every time you go away. You can load up your battle groups to fight from the same window. Make it a habit, especially if you are going to be away for a while. Spend your rez. Don't leave them much. The biggest drag is your Weor's temple getting down graded if you don't have a lot of 12 hour boosts. If that happens, you can use your help button too to have your league mates shorten the restore time. Keep your Paragon active and level it up as much as you can. At different levels it gives you the option to have your trained units go directly to your cats. Me personally, I don't really attack anybody. If I want a few PvP points for a tourney or quest, I throw some troops into the Hamlets. For raids I stay away from badged castles and watch their levels for a bit, doing my best to only raid NPCs. Bottom line it's a war game and as such, we really have no real right to expect to go unmolested by anyone, regardless of their rank.

And how does all that relate to the original question? Sure you and the other guy saying "it's a war game" base your claims on anything else than subtile of the game?

You know....your "truly unlimited internet connection" isn't really meant for spamming forums....

Just catacomb troops and quit whining about level, level is nothing in this game, if someone raid you every day save up some saps, build some CDB, join a big league and trap them, plenty of big leagues around that will help you. Or you can always play farmeville instead, this is the most hardcore game in the world, take it or leave it.

And there are plenty of saviors of the galaxy around wanting to trap these bastards, cause that is what they are, crying about it will do nothing though, work hard and kill them.

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 

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 !

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....

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

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 ;) 

Wesley Pringle said:

The major trouble with limiting the ability to attack troops under 20 levels it that will allow those with many Alt accounts to harass higher accounts with impunity if they are at a low enough level.  I think that if players learn to catty their troops and Keep their Resources spent down before you log out it will take away incentive to be attacked. Don't  get too aggressive at the start and provoke castles above their ability to compete against will have a positive result.  

This is a war game and using bad strategy at the start will attract bad outcomes. 

I do not see server 1 as ready to collapse or as Being a Huge mess.

But that's a completely different topic and maybe should be discussed in it's own Topic rather than to talk about it here and Hijack the Topic the original poster started 

I am just giving an output from what I observed. I started some castles to complete that house of unity thing, and I  interacted with new players who told me their experience. This is concerning, new players are actively hunted down. I didn't mean to hijack the post. But I think many have failed to grasp the real issue here. A syndicate is hunting down new players.

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.

The major trouble with limiting the ability to attack troops under 20 levels it that will allow those with many Alt accounts to harass higher accounts with impunity if they are at a low enough level.  I think that if players learn to catty their troops and Keep their Resources spent down before you log out it will take away incentive to be attacked. Don't  get too aggressive at the start and provoke castles above their ability to compete against will have a positive result.  

This is a war game and using bad strategy at the start will attract bad outcomes. 

I do not see server 1 as ready to collapse or as Being a Huge mess.

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.

Sticky said:

Get used to putting your troops to bed every time you go away. You can load up your battle groups to fight from the same window. Make it a habit, especially if you are going to be away for a while. Spend your rez. Don't leave them much. The biggest drag is your Weor's temple getting down graded if you don't have a lot of 12 hour boosts. If that happens, you can use your help button too to have your league mates shorten the restore time. Keep your Paragon active and level it up as much as you can. At different levels it gives you the option to have your trained units go directly to your cats. Me personally, I don't really attack anybody. If I want a few PvP points for a tourney or quest, I throw some troops into the Hamlets. For raids I stay away from badged castles and watch their levels for a bit, doing my best to only raid NPCs. Bottom line it's a war game and as such, we really have no real right to expect to go unmolested by anyone, regardless of their rank.

And how does all that relate to the original question? Sure you and the other guy saying "it's a war game" base your claims on anything else than subtile of the game?

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.