"Silly" Level <30 Protection

[ElZud]

I've read the "READ BEFORE POSTING! FMR: FREQUENTLY MADE REQUESTS, ver. 3" and can't see this...

Can we have level protection removed once an account age reaches a certain point? For example > the average age for the server.

It seems silly that there are player bases (often with high JGs) that you can't attack yet their owner deliberately runs them poorly to remain protected (which is a status to protect newbies).

[Wlerin]

This isn't enormously different from removing level protection from inactives, which is in the FMR.

Probably should have read this thread too:

1: Before posting a new thread, search for your idea, or any variations. You must also read the Frequently Made Requests thread; if your idea turns up in the search or in the FMR, you must have a new, original take on the idea. If you do not, then do not post the idea. There will be more on searching farther down this post.

--notable threads with "level protection" in the OP--
time limited:
viewtopic.php?f=140&t=116659 (FMR Review on Level Protection)
viewtopic.php?p=2225922#p2225922 (from page 2, OP started with a different idea)
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=114481 (removal at 100 days)
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=111657
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=107692
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=97825

inactivity:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=116356
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=113388
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=109062
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=90908

jgs removing protection:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=113117

[ElZud]

Ok, dug further and people want stuff like this done (e.g. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=114481 (removal at 100 days)) (NB it is not about inactivity, that is what UCs are for)... goes way off-topic then locked, so why don't these small improvements get actioned?

[iamsmart00]

I agree, once an account reaches average age of server or over 100 days (whichever is greater) that account's protection should be removed, however I also believe that if a player breaks lv30 to attack someone then immediately drops below lv30 to become un-attackable then they also should have their protection revoked for 48 hrs.

[Winchester]

Ok, dug further and people want stuff like this done (e.g. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=114481 (removal at 100 days)) (NB it is not about inactivity, that is what UCs are for)... goes way off-topic then locked, so why don't these small improvements get actioned?

Because AE is not a democracy and Wizard doesn't care what the players want.

[ElZud]

And that is why the player-base has reduced so much...