I don't think that anyone would leave a large amount of defense on a castle for an extended period of time - that would not be very smart simply because if someone cannot liberate all they have to do is ask a higher level player to break the siege for them & if that is not possible then the person that holds the siege can be fireballed relentlessly and lose troops without the castle that is under siege losing any troops at all

Others have already stated some of the bigger reasons why we won't be likely to see the change you're asking for, but here's another consideration:

Putting restrictions on what level players you can hit will not stop bullying.  All it would do is change the form it takes.  Players would try to slow their leveling so they can stay in a level bracket where they have advantage.  Players already high up, but not as strong as the tops, would suddenly get farmed hard because the previous targets are suddenly off limits.  Players would get pushed to a level where they can't compete and they would have the option to be everyone's farm while trying to get stronger or quit.  It does not seem like a change that would benefit longevity of the game since its a formula almost guaranteed to push free players to quit when they get too high level and would cause the "whales" to get bored when they get so high up they're not allowed to fight more than a handful of other players.

It would also cause some odd issues with mechanics.  I see the siege icon is used on battle reports for beacons and forts.  If you put level restrictions on castle sieges and some of the same code is used for fort and beacon sieges, then you suddenly have a new mechanic to exploit:  Keeping only low level player's def in beacons and forts so that the high level hammers can't hit.  Then that would get countered by the whales creating alt accounts at low level but with huge bought hammers so they can smash those low level defenders.  Wait, that's brilliant!  Plarium, here's your new way to milk the whales!  Force them to constantly have to create new accounts and buy like crazy to be able to attack anyone =P

Hello.

First of all, thanks for the suggestion you sent :)

I agree with the comments of other Lords and Ladies posted above. 

Plus, I would like to add that we don't accept suggestions that will benefit a certain group of players at the expense of another group. If implementing a suggestion may cause a negative reaction among players, it will be declined.

More information regarding the suggestions we don't accept can be checked on this topic:  https://plarium.com/forum/en/stormfall-age-of-war/suggestions/31546_which-suggestions-we--do-not--accept/

If you are going to implement restriction of how higher level players play then I suppose you have to restrict the lower levels also - personally I don't think that a lower level player should be "safe" so they can hit higher levels without any recourse

I personally don't often hit lower level players but if someone is being a nuisance then I will make a point of hitting them.

Dear Plarium

Good day, as a game improvement recommendation please consider program/game improvement that sets in place a designated time limit that a high ranked Lord or Lordess' can hold another players castle. A good example is castles in the 80 or above should only be able to hold ones castle for 14 or 30 days max them must release it permanently. 

Higher level say in the 90's to 100's holding castles in the 50's, 60 even up to the level 80's deeply affects the game and the bully factor comes into full play. Sieges should be limited to 10 levels up or down by levels 80 or 90 & above. The map reflects several level 100's plus holding not only BOTs but occupied active castles much lower than their levels that cannot break out of the siege and self liberate therefore quit the game. As a minimum go idle for long periods. 

Many player avoid these certain players because it creates retaliatory attacks and unwanted attention should one try to raid castles held by the extremely higher players.   The game would force levels 90s especially 100s and above because of stronger fighting capabilities to stay within equals in offense and defense. Theirs nothing fun about getting attacked by a level 100 plus who has amassed for example 10,000 dark dragons or 15,000 Imperial Seekers against your level 85 castle. It becomes impossible to protect, defend and fight against. All raid and sieges should have the appearance and ability to be defended against rather than place all units in the catacombs and take the resource losses.

Many players are discussing this in league chat rooms and offline league meeting rooms such as skype and team speak. Please put this change into heavy consideration. Nothing would be more fair for game development then to limit these higher level to battle like levels and reduce the amount of time they can occupy verses indefinitely.

Thank you,

Lord Dauntless

Knights Templar IV

Others have already stated some of the bigger reasons why we won't be likely to see the change you're asking for, but here's another consideration:

Putting restrictions on what level players you can hit will not stop bullying.  All it would do is change the form it takes.  Players would try to slow their leveling so they can stay in a level bracket where they have advantage.  Players already high up, but not as strong as the tops, would suddenly get farmed hard because the previous targets are suddenly off limits.  Players would get pushed to a level where they can't compete and they would have the option to be everyone's farm while trying to get stronger or quit.  It does not seem like a change that would benefit longevity of the game since its a formula almost guaranteed to push free players to quit when they get too high level and would cause the "whales" to get bored when they get so high up they're not allowed to fight more than a handful of other players.

It would also cause some odd issues with mechanics.  I see the siege icon is used on battle reports for beacons and forts.  If you put level restrictions on castle sieges and some of the same code is used for fort and beacon sieges, then you suddenly have a new mechanic to exploit:  Keeping only low level player's def in beacons and forts so that the high level hammers can't hit.  Then that would get countered by the whales creating alt accounts at low level but with huge bought hammers so they can smash those low level defenders.  Wait, that's brilliant!  Plarium, here's your new way to milk the whales!  Force them to constantly have to create new accounts and buy like crazy to be able to attack anyone =P

We were all lower levels at some point in the game - we were taught to catacomb troops to keep them safe and play smart - perhaps Leadership in leagues need to go back to basics and start teaching their members how to play rather than just letting them get into the pay to play game 

You can build your castle and your army by playing smart there is no need to spend a lot of money on it - it is after all just a game

Maybe now that people are not spending as much (I am fairly certain this is true) things will go back to what the game should be raid for resources & build - play smarter and only risk what you are willing to lose :)

We as Leadership of leagues should be taking our own good advice :)

We were all lower levels at some point in the game - we were taught to catacomb troops to keep them safe and play smart - perhaps Leadership in leagues need to go back to basics and start teaching their members how to play rather than just letting them get into the pay to play game 

You can build your castle and your army by playing smart there is no need to spend a lot of money on it - it is after all just a game

Maybe now that people are not spending as much (I am fairly certain this is true) things will go back to what the game should be raid for resources & build - play smarter and only risk what you are willing to lose :)

We as Leadership of leagues should be taking our own good advice :)

Jezebel said:

We were all lower levels at some point in the game - we were taught to catacomb troops to keep them safe and play smart - perhaps Leadership in leagues need to go back to basics and start teaching their members how to play rather than just letting them get into the pay to play game 

You can build your castle and your army by playing smart there is no need to spend a lot of money on it - it is after all just a game

Maybe now that people are not spending as much (I am fairly certain this is true) things will go back to what the game should be raid for resources & build - play smarter and only risk what you are willing to lose :)

We as Leadership of leagues should be taking our own good advice :)

I guess we'll see, that would be nice but I have a feeling there will always be somebody willing to just throw money at the game to be the biggest.  

Jezebel said:

BiohazarD said:

Jezebel said:

We were all lower levels at some point in the game - we were taught to catacomb troops to keep them safe and play smart - perhaps Leadership in leagues need to go back to basics and start teaching their members how to play rather than just letting them get into the pay to play game 

You can build your castle and your army by playing smart there is no need to spend a lot of money on it - it is after all just a game

Maybe now that people are not spending as much (I am fairly certain this is true) things will go back to what the game should be raid for resources & build - play smarter and only risk what you are willing to lose :)

We as Leadership of leagues should be taking our own good advice :)

I guess we'll see, that would be nice but I have a feeling there will always be somebody willing to just throw money at the game to be the biggest.  

True story - I do send frequent mails to remind people the best way to build your castle and army is to raid for resources and build and discourage peeps from spending - from personal experience I can confirm it is not worth it!! lol

Damn, you threading dangerous grounds now. The ban hammer is close!

Jezebel said:

I don't think that anyone would leave a large amount of defense on a castle for an extended period of time - that would not be very smart simply because if someone cannot liberate all they have to do is ask a higher level player to break the siege for them & if that is not possible then the person that holds the siege can be fireballed relentlessly and lose troops without the castle that is under siege losing any troops at all

Some players allow others to siege their castles to avoid being attacked by higher level castles & there are plenty of leagued inactive castles that are under siege - so unless you are messaging these castles to find out if they are indeed active and under a hostile siege then you don't really know

bhagya_anne said:

Jezebel said:

I don't think that anyone would leave a large amount of defense on a castle for an extended period of time - that would not be very smart simply because if someone cannot liberate all they have to do is ask a higher level player to break the siege for them & if that is not possible then the person that holds the siege can be fireballed relentlessly and lose troops without the castle that is under siege losing any troops at all

Some players allow others to siege their castles to avoid being attacked by higher level castles & there are plenty of leagued inactive castles that are under siege - so unless you are messaging these castles to find out if they are indeed active and under a hostile siege then you don't really know

Might be a better idea to limit the amount of seized castles a player can hold for more than 30 days.  Some players especially on the bot lines like to hold every castle along the line and attack anyone regardless of the size of the castle.  Everyone has a right to raid for resources

You're right, everyone has a right to raid for Resources. But everyone also has a right to attack other players no matter what level the player is.

Alina Phoenix said:

bhagya_anne said:

Jezebel said:

I don't think that anyone would leave a large amount of defense on a castle for an extended period of time - that would not be very smart simply because if someone cannot liberate all they have to do is ask a higher level player to break the siege for them & if that is not possible then the person that holds the siege can be fireballed relentlessly and lose troops without the castle that is under siege losing any troops at all

Some players allow others to siege their castles to avoid being attacked by higher level castles & there are plenty of leagued inactive castles that are under siege - so unless you are messaging these castles to find out if they are indeed active and under a hostile siege then you don't really know

Might be a better idea to limit the amount of seized castles a player can hold for more than 30 days.  Some players especially on the bot lines like to hold every castle along the line and attack anyone regardless of the size of the castle.  Everyone has a right to raid for resources

You're right, everyone has a right to raid for Resources. But everyone also has a right to attack other players no matter what level the player is.

It's a war game :)

So, when will Oberons castle  be available for raiding, and siege? I think the players would make a statement in that regard :p

Gadheras said:

So, when will Oberons castle  be available for raiding, and siege? I think the players would make a statement in that regard :p

Oh yeah, give us Oberon.

Lvl 1 walls and the strongest troops he can build is paladin and dwarf respectively.

Gadheras said:

Alina Phoenix said:

bhagya_anne said:

Jezebel said:

I don't think that anyone would leave a large amount of defense on a castle for an extended period of time - that would not be very smart simply because if someone cannot liberate all they have to do is ask a higher level player to break the siege for them & if that is not possible then the person that holds the siege can be fireballed relentlessly and lose troops without the castle that is under siege losing any troops at all

Some players allow others to siege their castles to avoid being attacked by higher level castles & there are plenty of leagued inactive castles that are under siege - so unless you are messaging these castles to find out if they are indeed active and under a hostile siege then you don't really know

Might be a better idea to limit the amount of seized castles a player can hold for more than 30 days.  Some players especially on the bot lines like to hold every castle along the line and attack anyone regardless of the size of the castle.  Everyone has a right to raid for resources

You're right, everyone has a right to raid for Resources. But everyone also has a right to attack other players no matter what level the player is.

It's a war game :)

So, when will Oberons castle  be available for raiding, and siege? I think the players would make a statement in that regard :p

When he won't be a Lord Regent of Stormfall and I don't think it will happen in the any near future :)

Alina Phoenix said:

Gadheras said:

So, when will Oberons castle  be available for raiding, and siege? I think the players would make a statement in that regard :p

When he won't be a Lord Regent of Stormfall and I don't think it will happen in the any near future :)

You know in the medieval times, it was not uncommon at kings got overthrown and deposed. A king is only king because he got the support of his subjects and lords. 

At current time many "Lords" in Stormfall would like to see Oberon fall on the sword.... tbh :p

I think Lord Oberon is in continous battle against the enemy of the realm, the evil balur

seems that the green hordes have no end and the king is going to be defeated, may be this can make Balur the new Lord of the Realm

then Balur wont can be raided and problems wiht bgs will finish

the peace will arrive to new realm