a

[DeletedUser31498]

Anyway, the post I was responding to was trying to make the point that defense boost didn't matter, that it was merely the placing of a current era, 8 member defense army that would deter attackers. Which is simply not true in most cases.

Ok I agree with you (eeeeeek) in that 0% defense is not right for 100% of people 100% of the time. But the meat of this thread has morphed I hope into a reasonable discussion, and for MOST people I agree with OP 0% defense is optimal.

But for the quoted section, I don't know. I think that really does deter a decent % of would-be plunderers. Some have weighed in here agreeing that's what they do. In my youngest city during GE that's what I do. Dedicated plunderers will only give up for a horrible matchup I assume, and a lot of plunderers are casual or DC-related and just don't want to lose units? A lot of people here I'm sure have seen the insta-retreat. Sal chalks that up to his massive defense, I am guessing over half just are on auto-retreat if they see real defensive units.

Idk I guess you problem is you assume "most" people won't retreat from seeing 8 current age units, whereas I think a majority will. Seems to be a big factor in estimating the proper defense %.

 

[Snarko]

Anyway, the post I was responding to was trying to make the point I that defense boost didn't matter, that it was merely the placing of a current era, 8 member defense army that would deter attackers.

Incorrect. I stated that it would cause many attacks to fail. Defense boost matters when anyone competent attacks you. My point is that you will often be wrong if you attribute the surrender of incompetent attackers to your defense boost, at least in lower ages. They usually surrender to any resemblance of a defense, boosted or not. So if you think "oh my defense boost stopped him" you would be wrong in those cases.

All it proves is that there are a couple of rather incompetent attackers in his hood.

Exactly. I have a couple of rather incompetent attackers in each hood. Are you seriously telling me you're not being attacked by people who seem to throw together an army of random units, sometimes even damaged or lower age? That then proceed to instantly retreat? And often attack again and again? I was last attacked today by someone using one knight, three berserkers and four heavy infantry (current era troops). 7 of them injured at the start. He has 12% combat bonus. Instant surrender. That person has attacked me several times before, also instant surrenders. I have not changed my defense army in all that time.

 

[DeletedUser29218]

I am shocked...shocked, I say, that you think my response is not valid. Some day I'll figure out what you would accept as a valid response. (Never mind, I know the answer. "Yes, gutmeister, you're right.") Anyway, the post I was responding to was trying to make the point that defense boost didn't matter, that it was merely the placing of a current era, 8 member defense army that would deter attackers. Which is simply not true in most cases. And yes, I am a more sophisticated player than I was 3 years ago when I started. However, I was never a "casual" attacker in the sense that I would take one look at a current era defense army and tuck my tail and run. And the fact that he has seen a couple of players do that means precisely nothing in the grand scheme of things. It proves nothing about defense boost. All it proves is that there are a couple of rather incompetent attackers in his hood.

You are still missing the point of last few posts you replied to. I'll help:

Idk I guess you problem is you assume "most" people won't retreat from seeing 8 current age units, whereas I think a majority will. Seems to be a big factor in estimating the proper defense %.

Maybe in higher ages it means nothing where anyone who wants to plunder will have attack boosts. In lower ages it matters. They didn't attack by accident. They are looking for people with even weaker armies, of which there are plenty in lower ages. I seem to have people like that in my hood almost every week. So as I stated, in lower ages, having a current age army can and will prevent attacks. Not all of them of course but many of them.

I won't lie, I'm really lazy. Like REALLY lazy. I don't fight my neighborhood, and I rarely aid them. I'm usually top 10, so I don't get bothered.

When I get a quest to win X amount of fights, and GE isn't available (literally today), I go and attack my neighbors. If they have any sort of army at all, I just retreat. I don't have time for that mess. I don't care that I'm using Industrial Age troops against Colonial Age armies, with me having nice attack/defense GBs.

It's just too much button clicking. So I back out and find the guys with 2 spearfighters as a defense army and fight them. That's much better.

Of course, I had no intention of plundering the people I fight anyways (unless it's an Alabaster Mason, can't get enough Alabaster), so there's that. But their army does stop me from attempting (though, again, wasn't gonna plunder anyways). Could I win? Yes. Do I bother to check or try? No.

But maybe I'm the odd ball out here....

Edit: there to their. I'm embarrassed...

 

[DeletedUser]

Are you seriously telling me you're not being attacked by people who seem to throw together an army of random units, sometimes even damaged or lower age?

That is correct most of the time. And when I am attacked like that, it is always a player I have attacked/plundered seeing if they can get cheap revenge. They can't.

Incorrect. I stated that it would cause many attacks to fail. Defense boost matters when anyone competent attacks you. My point is that you will often be wrong if you attribute the surrender of incompetent attackers to your defense boost, at least in lower ages. They usually surrender to any resemblance of a defense, boosted or not. So if you think "oh my defense boost stopped him" you would be wrong in those cases.

Then I would say your point is irrelevant to the discussion. To say that defense boost matters when anyone competent attacks you is merely stating the obvious. Well, obvious to everyone but the OP. And who cares about incompetent attackers, anyway. I don't work on defense boost to stop incompetent attackers.

But the meat of this thread has morphed I hope into a reasonable discussion, and for MOST people I agree with OP 0% defense is optimal.

The furthest I would go is to say that for SOME people it can be optimal, depending on the makeup of their current neighborhood. Thing is, our neighborhood changes every 2 weeks, so you can go from doing fine with 0% defense to getting mercilessly attacked and plundered in one day. But you can't build a decent defense in one day.

I guess you problem is you assume "most" people won't retreat from seeing 8 current age units, whereas I think a majority will. Seems to be a big factor in estimating the proper defense %.

Problems with this statement: I have a problem, but you don't? I "assume" but you "think"? The last sentence projects your reasoning onto everyone's decision-making process. I don't know about anyone else's thought process, but I never build a defense to stop incompetent/lazy attackers. I build a defense to stop competent attackers/plunderers. Going back to my analogy of auto insurance, I don't worry about competent drivers, I have insurance for the incompetent/impaired ones. Do I consider my insurance premiums as wasted money because I haven't been involved in an accident for decades? Would you?

 

[Graviton]

Thing is, our neighborhood changes every 2 weeks, so you can go from doing fine with 0% defense to getting mercilessly attacked and plundered in one day. But you can't build a decent defense in one day.

I'm not saying it's not a valid option for some players, but this is the best argument against it in general, IMO.

 

[DeletedUser32973]

But you can't build a decent defense in one day.

Sure you can, I bet people have 100's of watchfires and ritual flames rotting in their inventory .

 

[DeletedUser34800]

Too bad they can't give them to me. I would gladly take them off their hands.

 

[DeletedUser31882]

Understand the argument, instead of trying to change it. You'd have to prove in every situation defense is bad, since that's your thesis.

"Defense is bad" was proven when I compared myself to @Salsuero 's set-up. 'Bad' being the operative word that each player has to define for themselves. I am 'ahead' of him due to my ability to invest equal resources (Land use & GB FP investment) into something more 'profitable'. I use quotes because those are subjective on individual play style. Some players gain enjoyment from excellent defenses, but all things being equal, they would have more resources if land/FP were not invested into defensive buildings.

I believe your sentiment is that '0% may not work for some players that suffer from frequent plundering'. Nobody is arguing against that. I believe OP's data collection is to verify their hypothesis that attacks/plundering is rare. May be a flawed way to do science, since I think we are supposed to set a hypothesis that can be disproved? *shrugs* I should wiki that and refresh my memory. Regardless, all things being equal, space/resources spent on an adequate defense could be spent on something else. Defense %, by itself, does not grow a player's city. As long as 'defense bad' is defined as 'a building that retards the growth of a player's city in comparison to another in it's place', then defense is objectively bad if pillaging is minimal.

I'm hoping the discussion/data collection will help us aim players towards their optimal play style. So far, it has helped me!

However, I am concerned that when I move into higher ages, plundering will be more of threat. Can anyone offer information along these lines? Do attacking and plundering become more common in the ages above Colonial?

I'd assume so, especially when refined versus unrefined goods become a thing. I haven't gotten there myself to speak from direct experience, but projecting my current plundering habits tells me that the bigger the Goods building, the higher my priority in plundering it. Depends on the effort of the pillager and ease of plundering.

Sure you can, I bet people have 100's of watchfires and ritual flames rotting in their inventory .

Can confirm somewhat anecdotally: 3 Watchfires (12%)& 13 RoF (104%)in my inventory. (That's a a good data point I should track for myself!)

I'm not saying it's not a valid option for some players, but this is the best argument against it in general, IMO. [In regards to hoods switching every 2 weeks]

I suppose some data that needs to be collected for both sides of the argument is pillager demographics. How many, what ages they are in, what worlds, active raiders versus revenge pillagers, etc.

To slightly counter-argue that argument: That also means there is only 2 weeks a player must suffer through a pillager. That's 13(14 is impossible right? *shrugs*) pillages per week. Looking back at my comparison with @Salsuero 's land space usage (420 pillages on my T.Farm before 'breaking even'): one pillager would need to pillage my TF for 30 hood rotations (assuming 14 pillages each rotation) before we could debate if my space allotment would have been better used for a Deal Castle or SBC. I do have two Terrace farms, so instead of waiting 420+ days to verify if TF versus DC would have been better for me... it could be only 210 days.

Speaking of data.
Main City (G world, Def still 32%. I will vaporize my RoF right now to assist in data collection. Def next week should be 8%. Close enough to the 0% sentiment that it shouldn't pollute the data we are collecting.)
Confirmed zero plunders on

4-11-2017 till present.
5 attacks, 2 breaches, 0 plunders, 4 Unique attackers.

The 3 breaches came from the same person. They are most certainly seeking retribution. I plundered their palace 3-5 times in a row before I got lazy and lost their collection time.

I'm certain another attacker was also attacking in retaliation due to the messages they have sent me expressing their distaste with my attacks on their city.

For those who are interested in defending their defensive defense arguments, submitting data like @Salsuero would be helpful and/or fun to compare.

Sal's stats (so I can reference/track them going forward)
Mar 31st: 2 attacks, 0 breaches 1 unique attacker (Attacker appears to be... derp?)
Apr12: 6 attacks, 0 breaches, 4 unique attackers

Self
3/21-3/30: 5 attacks -- 2 breaches -- 0 plunder -- 2 retreats
4/5-4/10: 3 attacks -- 2 breaches -- 0 plunder.
4/11-4/17: 5 attacks -- 2 breaches -- 0 plunders -- 4 UAs.
I should probably get my data reporting streamlined.

 

[DeletedUser]

Can confirm somewhat anecdotally: 3 Watchfires (12%)& 13 RoF (104%)in my inventory.

That would be a decent defense in ages up to about Colonial or so. Maybe. Definitely not in CE and above. When I was in CE on S world, 116% defense would not even slow me down. And that 116% is really woefully inadequate in CE and above if not accompanied by a decent attack boost from a Deal and/or St Basil. No teeth.

That also means there is only 2 weeks a player must suffer through a pillager.

Only? Yeah, if you're lucky. Check out the Plunder Progress thread and any thread complaining about plundering for many, many examples of players getting stuck in a hood with a plunderer for months on end.

 

[Ta 152H]

"Defense is bad" was proven when I compared myself to @Salsuero 's set-up. 'Bad' being the operative word that each player has to define for themselves. I am 'ahead' of him due to my ability to invest equal resources (Land use & GB FP investment) into something more 'profitable'. I use quotes because those are subjective on individual play style. Some players gain enjoyment from excellent defenses, but all things being equal, they would have more resources if land/FP were not invested into defensive buildings.

I believe your sentiment is that '0% may not work for some players that suffer from frequent plundering'. Nobody is arguing against that. I believe OP's data collection is to verify their hypothesis that attacks/plundering is rare. May be a flawed way to do science, since I think we are supposed to set a hypothesis that can be disproved? *shrugs* I should wiki that and refresh my memory. Regardless, all things being equal, space/resources spent on an adequate defense could be spent on something else. Defense %, by itself, does not grow a player's city. As long as 'defense bad' is defined as 'a building that retards the growth of a player's city in comparison to another in it's place', then defense is objectively bad if pillaging is minimal.

I'm hoping the discussion/data collection will help us aim players towards their optimal play style. So far, it has helped me!



I'd assume so, especially when refined versus unrefined goods become a thing. I haven't gotten there myself to speak from direct experience, but projecting my current plundering habits tells me that the bigger the Goods building, the higher my priority in plundering it. Depends on the effort of the pillager and ease of plundering.



Can confirm somewhat anecdotally: 3 Watchfires (12%)& 13 RoF (104%)in my inventory. (That's a a good data point I should track for myself!)



I suppose some data that needs to be collected for both sides of the argument is pillager demographics. How many, what ages they are in, what worlds, active raiders versus revenge pillagers, etc.

To slightly counter-argue that argument: That also means there is only 2 weeks a player must suffer through a pillager. That's 13(14 is impossible right? *shrugs*) pillages per week. Looking back at my comparison with @Salsuero 's land space usage (420 pillages on my T.Farm before 'breaking even'): one pillager would need to pillage my TF for 30 hood rotations (assuming 14 pillages each rotation) before we could debate if my space allotment would have been better used for a Deal Castle or SBC. I do have two Terrace farms, so instead of waiting 420+ days to verify if TF versus DC would have been better for me... it could be only 210 days.

Speaking of data.
Main City (G world, Def still 32%. I will vaporize my RoF right now to assist in data collection. Def next week should be 8%. Close enough to the 0% sentiment that it shouldn't pollute the data we are collecting.)
Confirmed zero plunders on

4-11-2017 till present.
5 attacks, 2 breaches, 0 plunders, 4 Unique attackers.

The 3 breaches came from the same person. They are most certainly seeking retribution. I plundered their palace 3-5 times in a row before I got lazy and lost their collection time.

I'm certain another attacker was also attacking in retaliation due to the messages they have sent me expressing their distaste with my attacks on their city.

For those who are interested in defending their defensive defense arguments, submitting data like @Salsuero would be helpful and/or fun to compare.

Sal's stats (so I can reference/track them going forward)
Mar 31st: 2 attacks, 0 breaches 1 unique attacker (Attacker appears to be... derp?)
Apr12: 6 attacks, 0 breaches, 4 unique attackers

Self
3/21-3/30: 5 attacks -- 2 breaches -- 0 plunder -- 2 retreats
4/5-4/10: 3 attacks -- 2 breaches -- 0 plunder.
4/11-4/17: 5 attacks -- 2 breaches -- 0 plunders -- 4 UAs.
I should probably get my data reporting streamlined.

You guys advance anecdotes like facts, and base broad assumptions on them.

I've been in hoods where I was attacked mercilessly for days on end. Luckily, they failed almost every time. If they hadn't, I'd have lost a ton of forge points, whereas my defense more than paid for itself. I have a life, and this game is a nice distraction, but if it comes down to my gal or this game, I'll have to choose her. So, believe it or not, I have left 5 FP Terrace Farms unprotected in the past, and no one could get through to collect them. When you get into the big dog neighborhoods, people are more aggressive. If you stay with the poodles, you're probably OK with your weak defense.

But, if you're collecting every 24 hours instead of 8 on goods buildings, you've lost the argument already. In some hoods, zero defense, you're losing those 8 hour goods unless you're living your life around this game. I don't. So, basically, you've lost a 1/3 of your goods buildings (a little less in all fairness) because your limp wristed defense makes you afraid to go with 8 hour productions. Include also the population you spend on those buildings that work so inefficiently.

Yeah, 0% always works great. For the attackers. For the defender, not really. Not when you're in with the better players. Against weak players, in weak hoods, I'm sure it makes sense. But, I've been hammered in certain hoods, and I know a good defense is well worth it in those situations, especially as your city gets really large, and they represent a smaller percentage of your space, and protect a larger number of buildings.

 

[DeletedUser34800]

I've been attacked like 3 times in the last 2 months.

1 guy won but lost 7 of 8. Nothing to plunder, he never came back.
Other 2 guys lost.

I watch my event history every day. I rarely, RARELY get attacked. Now, I'm also almost always top 10 in my neighborhood and I have a solid defense, so those things play a role in how frequently I get attacked. I also use troops an age above my city to defend my city.

I'm firmly a believer in a strong defense. I love watching people fail when attacking. But that doesn't mean it's right for everyone.

If a person collects on time (it's not hard, just line up your productions. Toss a 4hr instead of an 8hr if you need to, or a 1d if you're supremely busy), then it doesn't matter if you have a defense at all. And if you can collect on time, and have no defense (doesn't matter if you get attacked, they can't plunder what isn't there) then you can (theoretically) put in more production buildings to produce more of whatever you want/need than if you were to have a lackluster city design but didn't care as much because you filled all gaps with defense objects.

Now, if you can't comleco on time, a city defense may be the right choice. As TA says, his city defends off attackers so he doesn't get plundered.

Of course, if your city produces (WARNING: EXAMPLE INCOMING. JUST AN EXAMPLE. THAT'S IT) 100 goods a day because of unoptimized space but using defense buildings, and mine produces 250 with no defense, it won't matter if I lose some. I'm producing way more.

Edit: Oh, and don't bother arguing about optimal 8hr production times. We know it's the best. My example was about scheduling and if you need to work around it.

 

[DeletedUser34800]

Like I said, I can see this as a viable way to play for some people. Just like having a ton of defense, higher aged army, and defense GBs is my play style (and others).

It's at least nice to playstyle options.

 

[Salsuero]

I am 'ahead' of him due to my ability to invest equal resources (Land use & GB FP investment) into something more 'profitable'.

What makes you think you are "ahead" of me? Based on what metric exactly?

Why should I work hard to become a multi-millionaire only to store my fortune unprotected on my lawn? This entire discussion makes so little sense to me. I'm not the only one in this game that believes in a strong defense. If you don't want a defense, don't have one. If I find myself in a hood with you, I will absolutely attack and plunder (if anything becomes available) daily. Happy forging!

 

[Ta 152H]

I've been attacked like 3 times in the last 2 months.

1 guy won but lost 7 of 8. Nothing to plunder, he never came back.
Other 2 guys lost.

I watch my event history every day. I rarely, RARELY get attacked. Now, I'm also almost always top 10 in my neighborhood and I have a solid defense, so those things play a role in how frequently I get attacked. I also use troops an age above my city to defend my city.

I'm firmly a believer in a strong defense. I love watching people fail when attacking. But that doesn't mean it's right for everyone.

If a person collects on time (it's not hard, just line up your productions. Toss a 4hr instead of an 8hr if you need to, or a 1d if you're supremely busy), then it doesn't matter if you have a defense at all. And if you can collect on time, and have no defense (doesn't matter if you get attacked, they can't plunder what isn't there) then you can (theoretically) put in more production buildings to produce more of whatever you want/need than if you were to have a lackluster city design but didn't care as much because you filled all gaps with defense objects.

Now, if you can't comleco on time, a city defense may be the right choice. As TA says, his city defends off attackers so he doesn't get plundered.

Of course, if your city produces (WARNING: EXAMPLE INCOMING. JUST AN EXAMPLE. THAT'S IT) 100 goods a day because of unoptimized space but using defense buildings, and mine produces 250 with no defense, it won't matter if I lose some. I'm producing way more.

Edit: Oh, and don't bother arguing about optimal 8hr production times. We know it's the best. My example was about scheduling and if you need to work around it.

You're confusing the argument, which seems to be common this thread. No one is saying a strong defense is right for everyone, we're saying a weak defense also isn't right for everyone.

Your example is horrid, and you don't get to excuse it by saying it's just an example. It's made to represent some kind of point, but it fails in the same way as if I were to say if my Defense saves me 120 FP a day, but only takes space that costs me 15 in defense spots, it's more than paid for itself. We can always make up numbers, but by making them up, they have no value. And even using anecdotes don't work, because situations change.

I've been in both situations. When you get into the top player hoods, you get hammered, especially if you do GvG, and you're in a rival guild. Hammered. Go with a weak defense, and you'd better have no life, or you're producing for 30+ players in your hood, and not for yourself. But, I've also been in hoods where I got attacked once a week, or even two weeks. But, I always had some kind of defense, even on my diamond mines. I still don't think they'd have attacked often without it, but certainly less than they did. So, it can work both ways. The ones saying no defense is the best approach are either making up numbers (cough), don't play in top hoods, or are just lucky so far.

The problem is, if your luck changes, you can't build a viable defense in time. Watchfires and Ritual Flames won't do it alone, you need something with attack, and that means at least St. Basil. Otherwise, the defense is not very difficult.

 

[DeletedUser30900]

What makes you think you are "ahead" of me? Based on what metric exactly?

Hmmm, higher aged cities?

 

[Salsuero]

Hmmm, higher aged cities?

That's "ahead" -- LOL -- ok. I'm done with this nonsense.

 

[DeletedUser29218]

What makes you think you are "ahead" of me? Based on what metric exactly?

Started playing noticeably later, same era, around twice the amount of combined lvls in GBs.

 

[Graviton]

It's a race?

 

[Salsuero]

Started playing noticeably later, same era, around twice the amount of combined lvls in GBs.

What does "noticeably later" mean to you?

 

[DeletedUser29218]

It's a race?

You should try Forge Kart. It is on beta, next to the advertisement feature (one of the 2 is fake, if I didn't know the truth, I would have never guessed which one).

What does "noticeably later" mean to you?

Dunno, that's a question you'll have to answer yourself, ~1 year here.
I took the "I have a million unused TFs" as a time reference, but of course luck is also a factor.