Oracle said:

Andromeda said:

Real warriors fight with troops.

Only players who cant play waste their money on mass FB attacks.

Real warriors fight to win. There is no honor in winning. Valor is for the timid. These is the truth. You can have 500 million offence, and have all those funny rules like I don't hit castles lower i level than mine, ect ect those are your imaginary rules. There is no fun in following rules.

Or you can have 100 FB and fight like a true Lord killing

My Dear Oracle,

Well, in server 3. The server you don't care about and know nothing about. The server YOU said we should all be "put in line" and server 3 is only a foot note to KT when kabam players first commented here. There's a league called "Great Fireballs".

It's made up of one player with 10+ alts. Yes, yes alts are a no no in Plariums eyes, but he spends hundreds of thousands of saphs on FBs. Spends money on each alt so Plarium ignores the "imaginary" rule. Now, players spend thousands of $$$ on castle walls and a strong defensive army. You leave them out over night because you are expecting a raid from a totally different player. Time zones often don't line up with many. You wake up the next day and...... 100 x10 fbs have been dropped on you from 10 different accounts. Over 1/2 your D is gone (very large numbers). All those saphs spent on walls were for nothing. Oh and bug.ger all pvp for losing your D. He's gone click click click and that's it. Real expert gameplay.

Eventually no-one even bothers "playing" against him because he has no troops and only FBs in extremely large numbers. It is proven here that players who only FB kill the game. Your ideas on FBs are game killers to say the least. I'm sure your perfect realm full of lords who do nothing but fb each others alter of weor all day would be very entertaining :/

True Lord you say?

Yeah, like you're a true mod who knows what he's talking about.

Andromeda said:

My Dear Oracle,

Well, in server 3. The server you don't care about and know nothing about. The server YOU said we should all be "put in line" and server 3 is only a foot note to KT when kabam players first commented here. There's a league called "Great Fireballs".

It's made up of one player with 10+ alts. Yes, yes alts are a no no in Plariums eyes, but he spends hundreds of thousands of saphs on FBs. Spends money on each alt so Plarium ignores the "imaginary" rule. Now, players spend thousands of $$$ on castle walls and a strong defensive army. You leave them out over night because you are expecting a raid from a totally different player. Time zones often don't line up with many. You wake up the next day and...... 100 x10 fbs have been dropped on you from 10 different accounts. Over 1/2 your D is gone (very large numbers). All those saphs spent on walls were for nothing. Oh and bug.ger all pvp for losing your D. He's gone click click click and that's it. Real expert gameplay.

Eventually no-one even bothers "playing" against him because he has no troops and only FBs in extremely large numbers. It is proven here that players who only FB kill the game. Your ideas on FBs are game killers to say the least. I'm sure your perfect realm full of lords who do nothing but fb each others alter of weor all day would be very entertaining :/

True Lord you say?

Yeah, like you're a true mod who knows what he's talking about.

No one like to have his defense killed. I understand your frustration. 

But that doesn't make FB's bad. It make the players using them to kill your defense bad.

If you get bullied a lot, FB's are the only way you can retaliate. There are players out there who are hated, forced to quit, constantly raided day in and day out, sieges send their way every day. FB's are perhaps the greatest measure against bullies. 

Your hate for FB's is entirely based on the fact that you hate to lose. And my love for FB is based on my experience in these game, particularly S1. We have a league there that has been bullied so many times, its now practically dead. Thier marshal is a level 80 something and I think they're French. They are basically everyone punching bag. They get their revenge through FB. Taking away FB's will be taking away the only way a bullied person can get justice. 

I too get FB'ed

 http://prntscr.com/g1qbs4

On a side note. Its OKAY you know, to have different opinion than other people, That doesn't make you BAD it just give you a different perspective on things. 

djmoody said:

Funnily enough I was thinking about that the other day too. A blacklist feature for the forums. It would solve a lot of problems to simply not see posts from people you don't particular like or respect, rather than end up in arguments. 

I suspect Plarium would entertain the idea if it weren't for the fact that they are actually paying the person who most of us would blacklist to make posts. So I doubt it will come soon.

I am afraid Plarium is not going to introduce such a feature. I see such a feature as  one that gives people freedom to express/harbor hate and lack of respect, something that the forum rules doesn't promote. HATE after all is Plarium greatest obstacle, it can destroy their player base. They produce a platform that serve to promote fun and attract as many people as possible. And fun can't exist in harmony with hate and lack of respect. 

But you can always make a suggestion in the thread. The developer are currently working on improving the forum, and they might incorporate your suggestion. 

Oracle said:

Andromeda said:

My Dear Oracle,

Well, in server 3. The server you don't care about and know nothing about. The server YOU said we should all be "put in line" and server 3 is only a foot note to KT when kabam players first commented here. There's a league called "Great Fireballs".

It's made up of one player with 10+ alts. Yes, yes alts are a no no in Plariums eyes, but he spends hundreds of thousands of saphs on FBs. Spends money on each alt so Plarium ignores the "imaginary" rule. Now, players spend thousands of $$$ on castle walls and a strong defensive army. You leave them out over night because you are expecting a raid from a totally different player. Time zones often don't line up with many. You wake up the next day and...... 100 x10 fbs have been dropped on you from 10 different accounts. Over 1/2 your D is gone (very large numbers). All those saphs spent on walls were for nothing. Oh and bug.ger all pvp for losing your D. He's gone click click click and that's it. Real expert gameplay.

Eventually no-one even bothers "playing" against him because he has no troops and only FBs in extremely large numbers. It is proven here that players who only FB kill the game. Your ideas on FBs are game killers to say the least. I'm sure your perfect realm full of lords who do nothing but fb each others alter of weor all day would be very entertaining :/

True Lord you say?

Yeah, like you're a true mod who knows what he's talking about.

No one like to have his defense killed. I understand your frustration. 

But that doesn't make FB's bad. It make the players using them to kill your defense bad.

If you get bullied a lot, FB's are the only way you can retaliate. There are players out there who are hated, forced to quit, constantly raided day in and day out, sieges send their way every day. FB's are perhaps the greatest measure against bullies. 

Your hate for FB's is entirely based on the fact that you hate to lose. And my love for FB is based on my experience in these game, particularly S1. We have a league there that has been bullied so many times, its now practically dead. Thier marshal is a level 80 something and I think they're French. They are basically everyone punching bag. They get their revenge through FB. Taking away FB's will be taking away the only way a bullied person can get justice. 

I too get FB'ed

 http://prntscr.com/g1qbs4

On a side note. Its OKAY you know, to have different opinion than other people, That doesn't make you BAD it just give you a different perspective on things. 

It didn't happen to me, it happened to a friend of mine. Fbs are the only way to fight back? Rubbish. I've seen non coiner kick a coiners butt. You have to know your enemy and be at the right place at the right time. Tactics and use your imagination. Also there are other ways to get revenge on bullies. It may take weeks or even months. It just makes the victory so much sweeter. 

FB are spells, and I believe any kind of limitation or timbering with the nature of FBs will greatly upset the balance of the game, 

After all They 're Weors-Wrath, God-revenge. Its supposed to be like that, calamitous and not inimical. Otherwise they should just name it Oberon Blessings. 

We need more FB's like attacks. 

Like one that Kills Legendary units in catacombs, one you can send in the fort or beacon. 

Maybe group FB attacks. These game right now is, heading in the league-wide aspects of things, maybe we should have a league FB attack. With 40% of leagues having players with 250 mil + defense, I don't see why not. 

Oracle said:

FB are spells, and I believe any kind of limitation or timbering with the nature of FBs will greatly upset the balance of the game, 

After all They 're Weors-Wrath, God-revenge. Its supposed to be like that, calamitous and not inimical. Otherwise they should just name it Oberon Blessings. 

We need more FB's like attacks. 

Like one that Kills Legendary units in catacombs, one you can send in the fort or beacon. 

Maybe group FB attacks. These game right now is, heading in the league-wide aspects of things, maybe we should have a league FB attack. With 40% of leagues having players with 250 mil + defense, I don't see why not. 

So less stradegy in a stradegy game. Just when you think you have heard all the crazy Oracle has to offer, he replies again.

There are pluses and minuses to using FB's and to a low 40+ level user, a possible way of retaliation and to a high end level, the use of a strategic attack before a raid.... and so on.

I would however, like to suggest a compromise in that users can purchase FB's, but this is restricted to a fixed number of FB's purchased in a month. (The amount purchased IMO, would be relatively small and would need further discussions)  

This creates a purchasing cap and if a person eagerly uses their maximum FB purchases in a month, then they are unable to buy more until the next opportunity.

I would further suggest that people could bank these if they wished and if for example, a limit of 10 FB's a month was agreed on by whoever makes these decisions, then people could save them up and after 3 months, could send 30 FB's or whatever they had.

I personally don't like using FB's although confess to using them in attacks and therefore see some value to them but as mentioned in a previous comment, I would only buy them if they were reduced because of financial limitations.

Note: My suggestion has its flaws and accept comments both positive and negative, although I would appreciate feedback that is constructive either way.

Bear said:

There are pluses and minuses to using FB's and to a low 40+ level user, a possible way of retaliation and to a high end level, the use of a strategic attack before a raid.... and so on.

I would however, like to suggest a compromise in that users can purchase FB's, but this is restricted to a fixed number of FB's purchased in a month. (The amount purchased IMO, would be relatively small and would need further discussions)  

This creates a purchasing cap and if a person eagerly uses their maximum FB purchases in a month, then they are unable to buy more until the next opportunity.

I would further suggest that people could bank these if they wished and if for example, a limit of 10 FB's a month was agreed on by whoever makes these decisions, then people could save them up and after 3 months, could send 30 FB's or whatever they had.

I personally don't like using FB's although confess to using them in attacks and therefore see some value to them but as mentioned in a previous comment, I would only buy them if they were reduced because of financial limitations.

Note: My suggestion has its flaws and accept comments both positive and negative, although I would appreciate feedback that is constructive either way.

Thank you for your time in reading this

As a low level player, be careful what you retaliate against though.  If you're a level 40-60 player getting hit by a level 80+ player you've never seen before, they probably just hit you because you looked like an easy target and they needed easy pvp or resources, and would soon forget about you.  But if you go and throw a bunch of fireballs at them they'll probably come back and hit you again.  

BiohazarD said:

Bear said:

There are pluses and minuses to using FB's and to a low 40+ level user, a possible way of retaliation and to a high end level, the use of a strategic attack before a raid.... and so on.

I would however, like to suggest a compromise in that users can purchase FB's, but this is restricted to a fixed number of FB's purchased in a month. (The amount purchased IMO, would be relatively small and would need further discussions)  

This creates a purchasing cap and if a person eagerly uses their maximum FB purchases in a month, then they are unable to buy more until the next opportunity.

I would further suggest that people could bank these if they wished and if for example, a limit of 10 FB's a month was agreed on by whoever makes these decisions, then people could save them up and after 3 months, could send 30 FB's or whatever they had.

I personally don't like using FB's although confess to using them in attacks and therefore see some value to them but as mentioned in a previous comment, I would only buy them if they were reduced because of financial limitations.

Note: My suggestion has its flaws and accept comments both positive and negative, although I would appreciate feedback that is constructive either way.

Thank you for your time in reading this

As a low level player, be careful what you retaliate against though.  If you're a level 40-60 player getting hit by a level 80+ player you've never seen before, they probably just hit you because you looked like an easy target and they needed easy pvp or resources, and would soon forget about you.  But if you go and throw a bunch of fireballs at them they'll probably come back and hit you again.  

I don't see plarium doing a limit like that, because it would annoy a lot of big coiners who like to spam fireballs.  Plus it would just encourage alt accounts.  Somebody could keep a bunch of level 41 alts lying around, then when they want to fireball somebody they log into them and send 10 fbs from each one.  

Hello, my Lord.

First of all, thanks for your feedback and suggestions.

Unfortunately, we can't add this kind of limitation because as it was already mentioned by Biohazard, it can cause the increase in the number of alternative accounts.

As a part of the work against the activity of the players with the alternative accounts, devs always consider what advantages this or that update will give to them, and if there are any advantages, this features is not added.

Current issue is that the only protection you get from FB limits your game play. Make it simple and add that protection to the smolderstone keep and give us a 30 day purchase option similar to 30 day paragon activation. If this feature is implemented the protection from FB should also turn off your ability to FB others while using, if not thought through you can create a very bad situation if someone is allowed to FB at will while being protected from them himself, that would make our current situation worse. There should also be a requirement of achieving a certain level before being allowed to use FB or another limiting factor to limit the use of alts to FB. Whether that be a castle level a lost art or another clever way to stop a FB (alt) castle, right now if you have a handful of alts and cycle through them waiting to buy the largest discount package to get FB then move to next castle so the discount package has time to increase in value there is no control to such action. These castles never develop nor build troops they are useless to the rest of the game for raiding and they extend the map size so our travel times keep increasing and their only purpose is to buy FB and hide the true owners identity so they can FB anonymously. There is no fear of retaliation since there are no troops and no value to the person using them so they do not care about retaliation, the only way to curb this action is force that castle to achieve a certain level before allowing FB. Right now we have a section of hamlets only available to players under lvl 70 if I remember correctly for their protection from larger players but what is in place to stop the use of alt castles (low level non developing castles with no troops or actual game play stats) from being used as FB only castles which can FB any level even if they have never been attacked by that player. Certain hero items can't be used until you reach a level, same holds true with relics, why not FB??

Here is another thought, you don't get to use Weors protection immediately after attacking similar to having to wait between castle relocates. My suggestion would be a one hour cool down from your last attack before you can enable weors protection. Too many abuse the system of FB then hide immediately after the FB hits with weors, this is not playing a strategy game, this is people abusing a system and a game to irritate others because their real life is lacking

https://plarium.com/forum/en/stormfall-age-of-war/suggestions/35979_your-suggestions---2-2/?post=351703

i really don't like them either but I will use them since they are available but i buy them at discount if they were full price at all times I probably would not bother with them at all

the introduction of fireballs has taken away an aspect of the game that used to be common - I used to defend my castle at all times now I see it as pointless to defend as I am not willing to lose numerous defense units to fireballs - it takes 2-3 times longer to build defense as it does offense in this game so i would rather not waste it giving free points to people who are too lazy to raid and build their armies then actually USE them 

MENTAL said:

Current issue is that the only protection you get from FB limits your game play. Make it simple and add that protection to the smolderstone keep and give us a 30 day purchase option similar to 30 day paragon activation. If this feature is implemented the protection from FB should also turn off your ability to FB others while using, if not thought through you can create a very bad situation if someone is allowed to FB at will while being protected from them himself, that would make our current situation worse. There should also be a requirement of achieving a certain level before being allowed to use FB or another limiting factor to limit the use of alts to FB. Whether that be a castle level a lost art or another clever way to stop a FB (alt) castle, right now if you have a handful of alts and cycle through them waiting to buy the largest discount package to get FB then move to next castle so the discount package has time to increase in value there is no control to such action. These castles never develop nor build troops they are useless to the rest of the game for raiding and they extend the map size so our travel times keep increasing and their only purpose is to buy FB and hide the true owners identity so they can FB anonymously. There is no fear of retaliation since there are no troops and no value to the person using them so they do not care about retaliation, the only way to curb this action is force that castle to achieve a certain level before allowing FB. Right now we have a section of hamlets only available to players under lvl 70 if I remember correctly for their protection from larger players but what is in place to stop the use of alt castles (low level non developing castles with no troops or actual game play stats) from being used as FB only castles which can FB any level even if they have never been attacked by that player. Certain hero items can't be used until you reach a level, same holds true with relics, why not FB??

 

Here is another thought, you don't get to use Weors protection immediately after attacking similar to having to wait between castle relocates. My suggestion would be a one hour cool down from your last attack before you can enable weors protection. Too many abuse the system of FB then hide immediately after the FB hits with weors, this is not playing a strategy game, this is people abusing a system and a game to irritate others because their real life is lacking

Hello.

The protection against FB was already added to Castle Skin on Facebook. In the future, devs can add this skin to plarium.com as well.

> There should also be a requirement of achieving a certain level before being allowed to use FB or another limiting factor to limit the use of alts to FB. 

This limit already exists. Only players with the level 40+ can purchase FB.

Weor's protection is a temporary Item and a player can hide behind it forever. You need just wait when the Item will get inactive and then attack this player back.

Alina Phoenix said:

MENTAL said:

Current issue is that the only protection you get from FB limits your game play. Make it simple and add that protection to the smolderstone keep and give us a 30 day purchase option similar to 30 day paragon activation. If this feature is implemented the protection from FB should also turn off your ability to FB others while using, if not thought through you can create a very bad situation if someone is allowed to FB at will while being protected from them himself, that would make our current situation worse. There should also be a requirement of achieving a certain level before being allowed to use FB or another limiting factor to limit the use of alts to FB. Whether that be a castle level a lost art or another clever way to stop a FB (alt) castle, right now if you have a handful of alts and cycle through them waiting to buy the largest discount package to get FB then move to next castle so the discount package has time to increase in value there is no control to such action. These castles never develop nor build troops they are useless to the rest of the game for raiding and they extend the map size so our travel times keep increasing and their only purpose is to buy FB and hide the true owners identity so they can FB anonymously. There is no fear of retaliation since there are no troops and no value to the person using them so they do not care about retaliation, the only way to curb this action is force that castle to achieve a certain level before allowing FB. Right now we have a section of hamlets only available to players under lvl 70 if I remember correctly for their protection from larger players but what is in place to stop the use of alt castles (low level non developing castles with no troops or actual game play stats) from being used as FB only castles which can FB any level even if they have never been attacked by that player. Certain hero items can't be used until you reach a level, same holds true with relics, why not FB??

 

Here is another thought, you don't get to use Weors protection immediately after attacking similar to having to wait between castle relocates. My suggestion would be a one hour cool down from your last attack before you can enable weors protection. Too many abuse the system of FB then hide immediately after the FB hits with weors, this is not playing a strategy game, this is people abusing a system and a game to irritate others because their real life is lacking

Hello.

The protection against FB was already added to Castle Skin on Facebook. In the future, devs can add this skin to plarium.com as well.

> There should also be a requirement of achieving a certain level before being allowed to use FB or another limiting factor to limit the use of alts to FB. 

This limit already exists. Only players with the level 40+ can purchase FB.

Weor's protection is a temporary Item and a player can hide behind it forever. You need just wait when the Item will get inactive and then attack this player back.

apparently this new castle skin is double the price of the current temporary one and will cost you $20 per week if you want it

Jezebel said:

Alina Phoenix said:

MENTAL said:

Current issue is that the only protection you get from FB limits your game play. Make it simple and add that protection to the smolderstone keep and give us a 30 day purchase option similar to 30 day paragon activation. If this feature is implemented the protection from FB should also turn off your ability to FB others while using, if not thought through you can create a very bad situation if someone is allowed to FB at will while being protected from them himself, that would make our current situation worse. There should also be a requirement of achieving a certain level before being allowed to use FB or another limiting factor to limit the use of alts to FB. Whether that be a castle level a lost art or another clever way to stop a FB (alt) castle, right now if you have a handful of alts and cycle through them waiting to buy the largest discount package to get FB then move to next castle so the discount package has time to increase in value there is no control to such action. These castles never develop nor build troops they are useless to the rest of the game for raiding and they extend the map size so our travel times keep increasing and their only purpose is to buy FB and hide the true owners identity so they can FB anonymously. There is no fear of retaliation since there are no troops and no value to the person using them so they do not care about retaliation, the only way to curb this action is force that castle to achieve a certain level before allowing FB. Right now we have a section of hamlets only available to players under lvl 70 if I remember correctly for their protection from larger players but what is in place to stop the use of alt castles (low level non developing castles with no troops or actual game play stats) from being used as FB only castles which can FB any level even if they have never been attacked by that player. Certain hero items can't be used until you reach a level, same holds true with relics, why not FB??

 

Here is another thought, you don't get to use Weors protection immediately after attacking similar to having to wait between castle relocates. My suggestion would be a one hour cool down from your last attack before you can enable weors protection. Too many abuse the system of FB then hide immediately after the FB hits with weors, this is not playing a strategy game, this is people abusing a system and a game to irritate others because their real life is lacking

Hello.

The protection against FB was already added to Castle Skin on Facebook. In the future, devs can add this skin to plarium.com as well.

> There should also be a requirement of achieving a certain level before being allowed to use FB or another limiting factor to limit the use of alts to FB. 

This limit already exists. Only players with the level 40+ can purchase FB.

Weor's protection is a temporary Item and a player can hide behind it forever. You need just wait when the Item will get inactive and then attack this player back.

apparently this new castle skin is double the price of the current temporary one and will cost you $20 per week if you want it

can't see myself wasting my money on something like that

I can get 2 and a half month ESO+ for that, lol. fkn no... not worth it -)

Gadheras said:

Jezebel said:

Alina Phoenix said:

The protection against FB was already added to Castle Skin on Facebook. In the future, devs can add this skin to plarium.com as well.

apparently this new castle skin is double the price of the current temporary one and will cost you $20 per week if you want it

I can get 2 and a half month ESO+ for that, lol. fkn no... not worth it -)

Just keep building Pikes, save your money - https://prnt.sc/gzw2ol

315 Pikemen will absorb fireball damage

This is because plarium do not understand the difference between offense stats and defense stats - http://prntscr.com/gzvdh5

315 pikes x 40 offense = 12,600 fireball damage and only gives the attacker 53 pvp points

40 offense, not defense ... which should be only 6.75

I tested this on the other game and was told on pirate forum that this was deliberate, which sux
Fireship killed 315 of 500 marauders(pikemen)

https://prnt.sc/ghx77u

The only difference between pikemen and marauders is the 3 minute build time, so why do we have to wait 5 minutes? - http://prntscr.com/gzwm9n

Hello.

The protection against FB was already added to Castle Skin on Facebook. In the future, devs can add this skin to plarium.com as well.

> There should also be a requirement of achieving a certain level before being allowed to use FB or another limiting factor to limit the use of alts to FB. 

This limit already exists. Only players with the level 40+ can purchase FB.

Weor's protection is a temporary Item and a player can hide behind it forever. You need just wait when the Item will get inactive and then attack this player back.

Alina Phoenix said:

Hello.

The protection against FB was already added to Castle Skin on Facebook. In the future, devs can add this skin to plarium.com as well.

> There should also be a requirement of achieving a certain level before being allowed to use FB or another limiting factor to limit the use of alts to FB. 

This limit already exists. Only players with the level 40+ can purchase FB.

Weor's protection is a temporary Item and a player can hide behind it forever. You need just wait when the Item will get inactive and then attack this player back.

You didn't answer the question asked earlier about this skin:  Can you fireball others while under its protection?  Weor at least means you can't attack while under that protection, but will a castle skin work the same, or will this merely empower the biggest coiners to fireball at will while being immune to return fire?

Red said:

Alina Phoenix said:

Hello.

The protection against FB was already added to Castle Skin on Facebook. In the future, devs can add this skin to plarium.com as well.

> There should also be a requirement of achieving a certain level before being allowed to use FB or another limiting factor to limit the use of alts to FB. 

This limit already exists. Only players with the level 40+ can purchase FB.

Weor's protection is a temporary Item and a player can hide behind it forever. You need just wait when the Item will get inactive and then attack this player back.

You didn't answer the question asked earlier about this skin:  Can you fireball others while under its protection?  Weor at least means you can't attack while under that protection, but will a castle skin work the same, or will this merely empower the biggest coiners to fireball at will while being immune to return fire?

Hello.

Yes, in the way it's now on FB, players still can send Fireballs from their Castles under this Skin. 

Red said:

Alina Phoenix said:

Hello.

The protection against FB was already added to Castle Skin on Facebook. In the future, devs can add this skin to plarium.com as well.

> There should also be a requirement of achieving a certain level before being allowed to use FB or another limiting factor to limit the use of alts to FB. 

This limit already exists. Only players with the level 40+ can purchase FB.

Weor's protection is a temporary Item and a player can hide behind it forever. You need just wait when the Item will get inactive and then attack this player back.

You didn't answer the question asked earlier about this skin:  Can you fireball others while under its protection?  Weor at least means you can't attack while under that protection, but will a castle skin work the same, or will this merely empower the biggest coiners to fireball at will while being immune to return fire?

Hello.

Yes, in the way it's now on FB, players still can send Fireballs from their Castles under this Skin. 

But note that this Skin is temporary, and when the Skin is expired, you will be able to attack this player back.

Alina Phoenix said:

Red said:

Alina Phoenix said:

Hello.

The protection against FB was already added to Castle Skin on Facebook. In the future, devs can add this skin to plarium.com as well.

> There should also be a requirement of achieving a certain level before being allowed to use FB or another limiting factor to limit the use of alts to FB. 

This limit already exists. Only players with the level 40+ can purchase FB.

Weor's protection is a temporary Item and a player can hide behind it forever. You need just wait when the Item will get inactive and then attack this player back.

You didn't answer the question asked earlier about this skin:  Can you fireball others while under its protection?  Weor at least means you can't attack while under that protection, but will a castle skin work the same, or will this merely empower the biggest coiners to fireball at will while being immune to return fire?

Hello.

Yes, in the way it's now on FB, players still can send Fireballs from their Castles under this Skin. 

But note that this Skin is temporary, and when the Skin is expired, you will be able to attack this player back.

Unless they buy another one :P