• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

a

DeletedUser31440

My metric only being used by myself and someone who shares my point of view so how about you go to fight some cult members or prove that string theory is wrong instead keep hanging around here?

That's the problem though, it doesn't seem that you actually use the metric you posted. And what did these cult members do? String theory is well above my pay grade to prove or disprove, if it was within my realm itdi be a collosal waste of my time being on these forums.
 

DeletedUser31498

Because you made a blanket statement that disregards way too much pertinent information and continue to defend it by adding in new parameters that were never even close to being mentioned in your original statement. That and it's generally useless to try and characterize someone as being a good player or a bad player when you don't know what their personal goals are within the game, instead you decide that their play style is bad because it doesn't conform to your goals in the game.
Dude, chilllllllllllllllllll before you melt. He's making a generalization. Yes, of course, if a horrible player played for five years he would have high GBs and lots of points. In the absence of better information (time spent, money spent, etc), of course higher ranking points +higher GBs would indicate a better player. With all the details, we can ascertain efficiency, which is the ideal here.

But just relax, geez louise.
 

DeletedUser31440

Dude, chilllllllllllllllllll before you melt. He's making a generalization. Yes, of course, if a horrible player played for five years he would have high GBs and lots of points. In the absence of better information (time spent, money spent, etc), of course higher ranking points +higher GBs would indicate a better player. With all the details, we can ascertain efficiency, which is the ideal here.

But just relax, geez louise.

Relax?!?!?! But someone on the internet is wrong, there can be no relaxing until this is remedied!!!
 

Cycloppps

New Member
To get back to the original topic, I agree with the o.p.

I don't think it matters much what your goal is, you will get there faster if you don't waste any space, forge points or event tokens chasing defense.

There might be exceptions but I doubt it.


That being said, if you get really mad when someone plunder you and you can't take emotion out of it then maybe you should try for higher defense. You will still get plundered. Just less often.
 

DeletedUser

Yes, of course, if a horrible player played for five years he would have high GBs and lots of points. In the absence of better information (time spent, money spent, etc), of course higher ranking points +higher GBs would indicate a better player.
Contradict yourself much?
 

DeletedUser31440

If it makes anyone feel better I don't confine my trolling to just these forums. Just got off a nice phone call with a telemarketer from Loan Service Division, he offered to loan me anything. I asked him to confirm that he did in fact mean anything, and he doubled down to confirm that yes, he did mean anything. Being a bit lonely in the Arctic I asked him how much it would cost for him to loan me his wife for the night, he didn't really respond to well to that for some reason. Wouldn't even give me a price, just tried to keep talking about interest rates, so I kept cutting him off asking about the price for his wife and whether or not she knew that he was willing to loan her out. Kept it up for about 5 minutes before he decided to hang up on me, rude much?
 

DeletedUser

No?

GB+Rank points: It's called a "heuristic." Look that word up and lmk what you think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic
In the first sentence, you state that a horrible player who played long enough would have high level GBs and lots of (ranking) points. Then you contradict yourself by stating that the logical assumption about a player that has high level GBs and lots of ranking points is that they are a better player. I don't have to go to the dictionary to know that those two statements contradict one another. The logical assumption, given your first statement, is that no logical conclusion can be drawn from a players GB levels or ranking points. Especially when you know that many players have been here for 4 to 6 years. Without further information, as you say, no conclusion can be drawn.
 

DeletedUser30900

In the first sentence, you state that a horrible player who played long enough would have high level GBs and lots of (ranking) points. Then you contradict yourself by stating that the logical assumption about a player that has high level GBs and lots of ranking points is that they are a better player. I don't have to go to the dictionary to know that those two statements contradict one another. The logical assumption, given your first statement, is that no logical conclusion can be drawn from a players GB levels or ranking points. Especially when you know that many players have been here for 4 to 6 years. Without further information, as you say, no conclusion can be drawn.
I mean, if someone decides to compare players without considering how long each individual played the game, there is not much people can help him. It’s like.... natural disadvantage.
 

DeletedUser30312

Just to illustrate the uselessness of ranking points & GB's as a way to determine if someone is "good" at this game (obviously good in this game is subjective, more likely someone just has a different set of goals, so what may be bad for you could be a goal for them).



HMA player - 450,000 ranking points and a level 16 Arc. Looks like they might have an idea what they're doing based off those metrics. Ok, well lets take a look at their city.



View attachment 9807



So much wasted space, but hey they've got an Inno to save space, but then they just waste it. Going with a not very good player rating on this one after looking at the city. Granted they could be in the middle of a rearrange, but there aren't any buildings being built so not likely.

That city illustrates the point I was trying to make oh so very well.

So the player's got an Arc and an Inno, two excellent GBs that will provide a lot of ranking points even with modest levels. But there's a lot of suboptimal choices made in the city's setup. First of all, the player kind of jumped the gun on the Inno, IMO. I would generally say that it's good to get an Inno early to eliminate the need for houses, but only after ensuring that the city can meet the necessary coin income and happiness needs. This city does both poorly.

I'd say that an Inno requires a happiness GB first to balance out the population, but this city doesn't have one. It's got the happiness covered by Culture buildings, most of which are outdated: Theater, Ampitheater, Triumphal Arch, Inn, Market, Gallows and a Church. Almost all of them should have been discarded by now except for the Church, and maybe some Marketplaces if he can't afford more Churches yet. He probably has Churches available to him since he has a Knight Stable. The others should be dumped where possible. In any case, using Culture buildings to meet the needed happiness is using up space the Inno should be saving.

He needs to produce coins and he's got just 2 SoKs here. The SoAs are passable as space holders for now. There's a low level PoH and Canal Bridge, which probably are helping a bit, but they're both no higher than level 3, and are not meeting their full potential. I suppose that lone Brownstone House is probably helping to make up the slack, but doing an Inno right should make that house totally unnecessary. I certainly hope he isn't using the TF or Dock Market to make his coins. The Maypole is boosting coins a little, but he should have gone with a St. Mark's before putting that Inno in.

He has three goods producing buildings for HMA: Salt, Glass, and Bricks. Unless he's stupidly far ahead on the map, at least one of those buildings is making unboosted goods. I wouldn't be surprised if none are boosted either.

Some bad choices in military too. He's holding onto Archers and Mounted Archers when he has two Crossbowman barracks. Those Legionnaires are outdated by now. And he's wasting space and population on Horsemen when he has a far superior Knight Stable. Maybe he's in a GvG guild, but a player shouldn't be trying to make GvG troops without a Traz, and that doesn't explain the Horsemen.

His roads meander about and he doesn't make efficient use of his space.
 

DeletedUser31498

In the first sentence, you state that a horrible player who played long enough would have high level GBs and lots of (ranking) points. Then you contradict yourself by stating that the logical assumption about a player that has high level GBs and lots of ranking points is that they are a better player. I don't have to go to the dictionary to know that those two statements contradict one another. The logical assumption, given your first statement, is that no logical conclusion can be drawn from a players GB levels or ranking points. Especially when you know that many players have been here for 4 to 6 years. Without further information, as you say, no conclusion can be drawn.

Ok I'll make it more clear for those who aren't able to follow along.

Ranking points + GB levels is equivalent to judging a book by it's cover. There's a reason humans are programmed to do this. It's EXTREMELY efficient. You see a dark abject running toward you, you do the quick math and GTFO.

Upon inspection, it's a nice samaritan trying to return your wallet you had dropped getting off the bus. Was the person wrong to run? In retrospect, yes. But of course they were correct GIVEN the information at hand.

Hypothetical: ALL the information I can see is ranking points + GB levels, and Player One has 5M points and level 80 of a couple things. Other has100k and some level 3s.

Which player is "better." Of course I'd wager you 50/50 the first player is! Now we learn first player spent 100k and has played every day for 3 years, 2nd player started a month ago. Now we have more information, so possibly I change my vote.

And here was my initial quote:
He's making a generalization. Yes, of course, if a horrible player played for five years he would have high GBs and lots of points. In the absence of better information (time spent, money spent, etc), of course higher ranking points +higher GBs would indicate a better player. With all the details, we can ascertain efficiency, which is the ideal here.

How in the world did I contradict myself?

Then you contradict yourself by stating that the logical assumption about a player that has high level GBs and lots of ranking points is that they are a better player.

You miss when I wrote: "With all the details..." which was the entire point of my post.

I'll hold my breath for your apology...
 

DeletedUser31882

4/24-Present
City Defense is 10%.
~Big Data Point Caveat/event: My first run-in with a daily attack/plunderer. Due to recognizing my defense setup would never result in a single casualty for them, I switched to a 1 spearfighter defense for 1-3 days to deny them Battle points. More unique attackers came in, so I have gone back to normal rotating defenses to attempt managing lesser attackers.

Anywho data:
9 attacks -- 8 breach -- 5 plunders(yay!) -- 5 unique attackers -- 2 unique attackers pillaged
[4 pillages from the devoted attacker & 1 pillage from someone who probably has a GF]
~The usual: Retribution attacks were expected due to my yoho habits.

Plundered goods (My losses): Residential (162 coin), Brewery(1708 Supplies), 2 Terrace farm hits(180/306 coins, 1556/2601 supplies or some combination. Sorry for the 'weak' data here), Lvl 2 Emperor's Entrance(5994 coins, 10 medals, 2FP).

Totals: 6156 coins (6768 Max), 1708 supplies (6910 Max), 10 medals, 2 FP.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this data accumulates, especially when hood rotation comes around.
3/21-3/30: 5 attacks -- 2 breach -- 0 plunder -- 2 retreats
4/5-4/10: 3 attacks -- 2 breach -- 0 plunder.
4/11-4/17: 5 attacks -- 2 breach -- 0 plunders -- 4 UAs(Unique attackers)
4/20-4/24: 7 attacks -- 1 breach -- 0 plunders -- 7 UA
4/25-4/30: 9 attacks -- 8 breach -- 5 plunders -- 5 UA -- 2 UAP(Unique attackers who pillaged me)

A/D% tracker
4/25-4/30: ATK1:52A/48D (No casualty); ATK2: 0/0 (No casualty, 1SP defense); ATK3: 8/0 (No casualty, 1SP); ATK4: 52/48 (No casualty, 1SP); ATK5: 24/24 (No casualty, 1SP); ATK6: 52/48 (No casualty, 1SP); ATK7: 3/3 (3 casualties. 2 attached); ATK8: 8/0 (No casualty, retreated); ATK9: 52/48 (No casualty).

ATK53/48: 4 pillages
ATK 3/3: 1 pillage

Notes/Observations:
~Breaches increased by +100%
~Yay! Pillage data!
~Do I secretly have a life, or did I let that FP plunder go through to skew data as part of my Machiavellian scheme? I plead the former.
My Totals:
34 days tracked
29 attacks -- 15 breaches -- 5 plunders

Total Actual Loss = 2 FP & assorted others(coins/supplies/medals)

Below numbers are a slap-dash estimated comparison (For defense investment versus FP berserker play styles).
[One TF (5FP/24hrs & 30 squares) versus 65 squares(GB and WF/RoF) & 2,100 FP investment]
34 days = 170 FP
29 attacks = 145 FP threat potential lose
15 breaches = 75 FP potential lose
???
Profit = +95 FP (Previous was 105FP) versus -2100 FP, peace of mind & not needing to collect on time.

Now to see if I can keep up the added load in my data collection. Maybe refine my comparisons to be more instructive for players weighing the pros and cons of which play style they wish to pursue long-term.
 
Top