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:
I also think that a player should try to play the game with zero defense and see how it goes for him. If it does work for him, he can use the space for other needs (MOAR FP production buildings!). If it doesn't work for him, he can unload most of his defense quite fast. Most of the defense is build around large number of Ritual Flames and Watchtowers, those can be saved in the inventory till the day they are needed.
This is what I did. I have around 500% defense waiting in my inventory to the Plunder-Armagadon-day. So far I had minimal plundering, and this is with 10+TF and 4 palaces. So all this defense still await in my inventory and I can plant even more TF's.
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.
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.
Your first point is a good argument to ignore defenses altogether until a player is plagued by pillagers. It also made me realize that an early break-point for defense planners should compare an assumed ~90% attack bonus that serious GvG/GE/Pillagers will be gunning for.
To break down why the first point is a good argument to contemplate eschewing defense:
[SBC 5x5/20 squares 3-30+%, DC 7x7/49 squares 3-30+%, WF 4% per square, RoF 8%/2squares]
If 116% is inadequate, Then a player has invested 29+ squares for no reason against serious pillagers.
SBC & DC will never break-even space wise with WF/RoF when comparing raw defense%. The upshot being they give the defenders a chance to crack the 80-90+% defense serious pillagers will have. I specify serious pillagers, because comparing casual pillagers to serious defenders is fruitless for the long-term investment strategy.
Unfortunately, Attackers will always have the advantage.
Squares:
[SoZ 2x3/6 squares, CoA 4x6/24 squares, CdM 5x5/25 squares versus SBC 5x5/20 squares 3-30+%, DC 7x7/49 squares: total 55 versus 69] FP investment:
[SoZ 2500FP for lvl10, CoA 2950FP -> 10, CdM 3410FP -> 10: Total 8860FP. SBC 3410FP -> 10 & DC 3630FP Total: 7040FP. 1820FP in favor of Def for full comparison, 1590FP difference in favor of atk when comparing 60 vs 60%] Versatility: ATK GBs benefit GvG/GE military clears, C-map fighting & Attacking Players in the Neighborhood. FP generation from CdM. DEF GBs Guild support for GvG & Bonus to city Defenders when being attacked from players in the Neighborhood. Medals.
The question becomes, is the investment worth it? That's up to the player to decide, but the numbers show that passive defenders get the short-end of the stick while active players (Be they pillagers and/or collect on time defenders) will come out ahead.
Reflecting on this data, I think a new Def%/FP GB should be released. Too bad current GB balancing makes that impractical. Proposal idea: Inno releases a new GB for each era. Slip the Def/FP one in EMA to compliment CoA?
As for your second point: I find it to be a bad example. Plunder Progress is hyper-skewed data in favor of pillagers sharing their stories of casual/bad defenders. The carnival event further skews more recent posts when it comes to people being trapped. Regardless, luck is the flaw that weakens your argument. Luck works both ways. So one person could be stuck, for months, with serious pillagers, while another is safe, for months, from any plunderers. Fear shouldn't be the prime motivator of a thought out long-term strategy. You & I have helped enough forum goers to know that the smart ones will adapt and absorb information, while the ignorant will continue to wail and bemoan that pillaging exists in the first place. In the end, I interested in arming players with the knowledge of fishing rather than 'here, have a fish'.
(1)You guys advance anecdotes like facts, and base broad assumptions on them.
(2)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.
(3)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.
1) You argue that 'us guys' (?) are advancing anecdotes as facts. Incorrect. I've stated what is anecdotal and then have used the little data we have to develop potential outcomes. I have, at no point, stated that "0% is the best and everyone who uses defense is wrong". Please stop straw-manning my arguments and actually engage with them.
2)You just advanced anecdotal evidence as a fact and are basing broad assumptions from them. This strikes me as hypocritical.
3)Again, you are using anecdotal evidence as facts and basing broad assumptions from them. This is hypocritical.
I'm not against using anecdotal evidence to open a discussion, but your intent doesn't appear to be of jovial sharing of FoE experiences. I'm unsure if you are just here to argue, while ignoring my arguments (What specifically are you trying to prove or disprove?) or if you are having trouble understanding my point of view. I'm assuming the later, because I am not arguing against players who want a strong defense. I will argue against anyone who says that every player MUST have a strong defense. I'm mostly interested in investigating if 'people with lives' need a strong defense, or rather, what factors differentiate a 'strong' defense from an 'inadequate and thus wasteful' one. What do you think about my city comparison with Sal? How many people hammer on your city to no avail? Would you be willing to share data & stories instead of arguing anecdotes?
One Way: My TF farm out FP produces your SBC. Another way: If we started with the exact same resources and you built/leveled an SBC and I built/leveled a CdM, I would be generating more FP per day and have an advantage in GE/C-map/attacking hoodies. Obviously there are many variables, so feel free to posit a metric of your own. I like running comparisons.
The multi-millionaire analogy is weak. To fully encapsulate the comparison, you would need to point out that I am richer than you, but can be more easily robbed. This is why I like this thread, if we compare numbers, stories and the like, we can get closer to understanding the middle ground between a underground bunker vault filled with security teams, traps, etc to protect an apple (200+% defense investment & passive collection) versus the white picket fence surrounding a house and armed occupant which is defending two apples (0% defense & active collection). The beauty of FoE is the amount of variables that go into how we develop our strategies.
My intent isn't to measure our or anybody else's egos/cities/etc and declare a winner. I'm interested in comparing and generating a knowledge framework. Maybe turn that framework into a guide, so new players can decide which defense stance they wish to pursue based on their play style. A good defense clearly requires a big, long-term investment.
Your first point is a good argument to ignore defenses altogether until a player is plagued by pillagers. It also made me realize that an early break-point for defense planners should compare an assumed ~90% attack bonus that serious GvG/GE/Pillagers will be gunning for.
To break down why the first point is a good argument to contemplate eschewing defense:
[SBC 5x5/20 squares 3-30+%, DC 7x7/49 squares 3-30+%, WF 4% per square, RoF 8%/2squares]
If 116% is inadequate, Then a player has invested 29+ squares for no reason against serious pillagers.
SBC & DC will never break-even space wise with WF/RoF when comparing raw defense%. The upshot being they give the defenders a chance to crack the 80-90+% defense serious pillagers will have. I specify serious pillagers, because comparing casual pillagers to serious defenders is fruitless for the long-term investment strategy.
Unfortunately, Attackers will always have the advantage.
Squares:
[SoZ 2x3/6 squares, CoA 4x6/24 squares, CdM 5x5/25 squares versus SBC 5x5/20 squares 3-30+%, DC 7x7/49 squares: total 55 versus 69] FP investment:
[SoZ 2500FP for lvl10, CoA 2950FP -> 10, CdM 3410FP -> 10: Total 8860FP. SBC 3410FP -> 10 & DC 3630FP Total: 7040FP. 1820FP in favor of Def for full comparison, 1590FP difference in favor of atk when comparing 60 vs 60%] Versatility: ATK GBs benefit GvG/GE military clears, C-map fighting & Attacking Players in the Neighborhood. FP generation from CdM. DEF GBs Guild support for GvG & Bonus to city Defenders when being attacked from players in the Neighborhood. Medals.
The question becomes, is the investment worth it? That's up to the player to decide, but the numbers show that passive defenders get the short-end of the stick while active players (Be they pillagers and/or collect on time defenders) will come out ahead.
Reflecting on this data, I think a new Def%/FP GB should be released. Too bad current GB balancing makes that impractical. Proposal idea: Inno releases a new GB for each era. Slip the Def/FP one in EMA to compliment CoA?
As for your second point: I find it to be a bad example. Plunder Progress is hyper-skewed data in favor of pillagers sharing their stories of casual/bad defenders. The carnival event further skews more recent posts when it comes to people being trapped. Regardless, luck is the flaw that weakens your argument. Luck works both ways. So one person could be stuck, for months, with serious pillagers, while another is safe, for months, from any plunderers. Fear shouldn't be the prime motivator of a thought out long-term strategy. You & I have helped enough forum goers to know that the smart ones will adapt and absorb information, while the ignorant will continue to wail and bemoan that pillaging exists in the first place. In the end, I interested in arming players with the knowledge of fishing rather than 'here, have a fish'.
Your arguments are specious.
1) You argue that 'us guys' (?) are advancing anecdotes as facts. Incorrect. I've stated what is anecdotal and then have used the little data we have to develop potential outcomes. I have, at no point, stated that "0% is the best and everyone who uses defense is wrong". Please stop straw-manning my arguments and actually engage with them.
2)You just advanced anecdotal evidence as a fact and are basing broad assumptions from them. This strikes me as hypocritical.
3)Again, you are using anecdotal evidence as facts and basing broad assumptions from them. This is hypocritical.
I'm not against using anecdotal evidence to open a discussion, but your intent doesn't appear to be of jovial sharing of FoE experiences. I'm unsure if you are just here to argue, while ignoring my arguments (What specifically are you trying to prove or disprove?) or if you are having trouble understanding my point of view. I'm assuming the later, because I am not arguing against players who want a strong defense. I will argue against anyone who says that every player MUST have a strong defense. I'm mostly interested in investigating if 'people with lives' need a strong defense, or rather, what factors differentiate a 'strong' defense from an 'inadequate and thus wasteful' one. What do you think about my city comparison with Sal? How many people hammer on your city to no avail? Would you be willing to share data & stories instead of arguing anecdotes?
One Way: My TF farm out FP produces your SBC. Another way: If we started with the exact same resources and you built/leveled an SBC and I built/leveled a CdM, I would be generating more FP per day and have an advantage in GE/C-map/attacking hoodies. Obviously there are many variables, so feel free to posit a metric of your own. I like running comparisons.
The multi-millionaire analogy is weak. To fully encapsulate the comparison, you would need to point out that I am richer than you, but can be more easily robbed. This is why I like this thread, if we compare numbers, stories and the like, we can get closer to understanding the middle ground between a underground bunker vault filled with security teams, traps, etc to protect an apple (200+% defense investment & passive collection) versus the white picket fence surrounding a house and armed occupant which is defending two apples (0% defense & active collection). The beauty of FoE is the amount of variables that go into how we develop our strategies.
My intent isn't to measure our or anybody else's egos/cities/etc and declare a winner. I'm interested in comparing and generating a knowledge framework. Maybe turn that framework into a guide, so new players can decide which defense stance they wish to pursue based on their play style. A good defense clearly requires a big, long-term investment.
Obviously, you're self-absorbed since I don't even remember responding to you before this. So what the heck are you even talking about?
You obviously don't know the difference between an anecdote and the broad generalization. But here's the part you're apparently incapable of understanding, I COULD use an anecdote to prove my point. Why? Because I only have to prove that defense is useful in some situations, even one would count. When you're saying something ALWAYS applies, anecdotes are useless, because we've conceded you don't always need a strong defense. We're saying sometimes you do. And that is something I've experienced. And I've pointed out situations where that's likely to happen. But, broadly, what I said is obviously correct. In the wrong hood, with the wrong defense, you're going to get killed without a defense. I didn't give a specific example of where I was in a hood, and I got attacked x amount of times in three days, and from that extrapolated that everyone needs a defense. I'm explaining broad situations where you will need a defense, that many people have experienced.
If I can't make statements like that, how can I argue a point? Just say I think sometimes you need defenses, without giving scenarios where it's going to matter? Or do you want me to say that I've never experienced a situation where it was needed, but I think it could be? Think! Or at least try to.
There really is no need to be as condescending and insulting as you have been, in every single thread you've posted in. It's incredibly frustrating and makes people not want to bother responding to you.
I'm talking about, what I consider to be, your self-absorbed specious posts in this thread.
TA152H said:
You obviously don't know the difference between an anecdote and the broad generalization. But here's the part you're apparently incapable of understanding, I COULD use an anecdote to prove my point. Why? Because I only have to prove that defense is useful in some situations, even one would count. When you're saying something ALWAYS applies, anecdotes are useless, because we've conceded you don't always need a strong defense. We're saying sometimes you do. And that is something I've experienced. And I've pointed out situations where that's likely to happen. But, broadly, what I said is obviously correct. In the wrong hood, with the wrong defense, you're going to get killed without a defense. I didn't give a specific example of where I was in a hood, and I got attacked x amount of times in three days, and from that extrapolated that everyone needs a defense. I'm explaining broad situations where you will need a defense, that many people have experienced.
I have no problem with you explaining broad situations where a player would want a strong defense. What I have a problem with is your hypocritical criticism. You also talk in circles. "I COULD use an anecdote to prove my point." You did in your previous post. You then use that fact to say that some players would want a defense. I agree with that, but boggle at your criticism.
If you are going to quote me, speak to my arguments. Don't posit that my arguments are flawed due to anecdotes & broad generalizations and then make yourself a hypocrite by arguing your point with anecdotes and broad generalizations.
You did not speak about the arguments I made or the questions I asked. I assume you are ranting. As a fellow ranter, how can we help you focus on what you want to argue? This is how I understand your current arguments: 1) You don't like some of the arguments being made in this thread. 2) Defense is good sometimes and depends on the situation. I & others agree with #2 and my brain hurts from filtering through the first. Can we move onto to the topic of thread?
TA152H said:
Not understanding that comes off as dull-witted to me. If I can't make statements like that, how can I argue a point? Just say I think sometimes you need defenses, without giving scenarios where it's going to matter? Or do you want me to say that I've never experienced a situation where it was needed, but I think it could be? Think! Or at least try to.
That, nearly, confirms my suspicions. You are either a troll or unwilling to have a discussion, preferring to yell or rant your opinion. I've highlighted your subtle ad-hominems. This tells me your primary intent isn't to share, but to win. If your intent is to derail and distract, Kudos. Now that I have sanctimoniously given my opinion of you and your argument, I'll see if you have anything of substance to add. I have my doubts, but I encourage you to prove me wrong. [Take note how dull it is to read someone else using a lot of words to say very little]
Would you be able to contribute to the thread with screencaps & information similar to @Salsuero 's? More data will give us a better idea of the variables involved with defending one's city. It will also vindicate your anecdotes.
Feel free to skip this post if you are not TA152H. My apologies for adding to the glut of non-sequiturs.
I'm talking about, what I consider to be, your self-absorbed specious posts in this thread.
I have no problem with you explaining broad situations where a player would want a strong defense. What I have a problem with is your hypocritical criticism. You also talk in circles. "I COULD use an anecdote to prove my point." You did in your previous post. You then use that fact to say that some players would want a defense. I agree with that, but boggle at your criticism.
If you are going to quote me, speak to my arguments. Don't posit that my arguments are flawed due to anecdotes & broad generalizations and then make yourself a hypocrite by arguing your point with anecdotes and broad generalizations.
You did not speak about the arguments I made or the questions I asked. I assume you are ranting. As a fellow ranter, how can we help you focus on what you want to argue? This is how I understand your current arguments: 1) You don't like some of the arguments being made in this thread. 2) Defense is good sometimes and depends on the situation. I & others agree with #2 and my brain hurts from filtering through the first. Can we move onto to the topic of thread?
That, nearly, confirms my suspicions. You are either a troll or unwilling to have a discussion, preferring to yell or rant your opinion. I've highlighted your subtle ad-hominems. This tells me your primary intent isn't to share, but to win. If your intent is to derail and distract, Kudos. Now that I have sanctimoniously given my opinion of you and your argument, I'll see if you have anything of substance to add. I have my doubts, but I encourage you to prove me wrong. [Take note how dull it is to read someone else using a lot of words to say very little]
Would you be able to contribute to the thread with screencaps & information similar to @Salsuero 's? More data will give us a better idea of the variables involved with defending one's city. It will also vindicate your anecdotes.
Talk about being hypocritical! You criticize me for ad-hominems, and then in your blundering way, go far further.
But, I'll say this for other people. When you say something always works, anecdotes don't matter. The other side has admitted it sometimes can. You have to prove it always works. When the other side states sometimes you need something, an anecdote will suffice, because they have to prove one example. Now again, I know you're not capable of understanding this, so don't even try.
So, you make personal attacks, whine about them, and then want to focus on an argument? The argument is clear, but you can't understand it, so how can I help? You can't understand I'm saying there are some situations where a defense works. An anecdote would be me giving a specific example of a situation I was in, and giving made up numbers, and then saying that's proof. Giving a broad description other people have also experienced is NOT an anecdote. It's an explanation of the types of situations where you'll need a defense. No comprende? They aren't personal to me, they're pretty global. Many people I know have had these experiences, they are not alone. If you ever get to be a better player, and spend some time in the top hoods, you'll also experience this. But, I don't think you have to worry about that. So, 0% defense probably will be fine for you, but for others, it won't work. That's the point.
I'd say it's enough now man. You've derailed the thread with your attacks and insults. Good job.
If you don't have anything else to add here, then get out already. You have been nothing but nasty and condescending since you started posting, and it's old now. Just like in the Alcatraz thread, and every other thread you post in. Your attitude is terrible.
There really is no need to be as condescending and insulting as you have been, in every single thread you've posted in. It's incredibly frustrating and makes people not want to bother responding to you.
I'd say it's enough now man. You've derailed the thread with your attacks and insults. Good job.
If you don't have anything else to add here, then get out already. You have been nothing but nasty and condescending since you started posting, and it's old now. Just like in the Alcatraz thread, and every other thread you post in. Your attitude is terrible.
Your first point is a good argument to ignore defenses altogether until a player is plagued by pillagers. It also made me realize that an early break-point for defense planners should compare an assumed ~90% attack bonus that serious GvG/GE/Pillagers will be gunning for.
To break down why the first point is a good argument to contemplate eschewing defense:
[SBC 5x5/20 squares 3-30+%, DC 7x7/49 squares 3-30+%, WF 4% per square, RoF 8%/2squares]
If 116% is inadequate, Then a player has invested 29+ squares for no reason against serious pillagers.
SBC & DC will never break-even space wise with WF/RoF when comparing raw defense%. The upshot being they give the defenders a chance to crack the 80-90+% defense serious pillagers will have. I specify serious pillagers, because comparing casual pillagers to serious defenders is fruitless for the long-term investment strategy.
Unfortunately, Attackers will always have the advantage.
Squares:
[SoZ 2x3/6 squares, CoA 4x6/24 squares, CdM 5x5/25 squares versus SBC 5x5/20 squares 3-30+%, DC 7x7/49 squares: total 55 versus 69] FP investment:
[SoZ 2500FP for lvl10, CoA 2950FP -> 10, CdM 3410FP -> 10: Total 8860FP. SBC 3410FP -> 10 & DC 3630FP Total: 7040FP. 1820FP in favor of Def for full comparison, 1590FP difference in favor of atk when comparing 60 vs 60%] Versatility: ATK GBs benefit GvG/GE military clears, C-map fighting & Attacking Players in the Neighborhood. FP generation from CdM. DEF GBs Guild support for GvG & Bonus to city Defenders when being attacked from players in the Neighborhood. Medals.
The question becomes, is the investment worth it? That's up to the player to decide, but the numbers show that passive defenders get the short-end of the stick while active players (Be they pillagers and/or collect on time defenders) will come out ahead.
Reflecting on this data, I think a new Def%/FP GB should be released. Too bad current GB balancing makes that impractical. Proposal idea: Inno releases a new GB for each era. Slip the Def/FP one in EMA to compliment CoA?
As for your second point: I find it to be a bad example. Plunder Progress is hyper-skewed data in favor of pillagers sharing their stories of casual/bad defenders. The carnival event further skews more recent posts when it comes to people being trapped. Regardless, luck is the flaw that weakens your argument. Luck works both ways. So one person could be stuck, for months, with serious pillagers, while another is safe, for months, from any plunderers. Fear shouldn't be the prime motivator of a thought out long-term strategy. You & I have helped enough forum goers to know that the smart ones will adapt and absorb information, while the ignorant will continue to wail and bemoan that pillaging exists in the first place. In the end, I interested in arming players with the knowledge of fishing rather than 'here, have a fish'.
Your arguments are specious.
1) You argue that 'us guys' (?) are advancing anecdotes as facts. Incorrect. I've stated what is anecdotal and then have used the little data we have to develop potential outcomes. I have, at no point, stated that "0% is the best and everyone who uses defense is wrong". Please stop straw-manning my arguments and actually engage with them.
2)You just advanced anecdotal evidence as a fact and are basing broad assumptions from them. This strikes me as hypocritical.
3)Again, you are using anecdotal evidence as facts and basing broad assumptions from them. This is hypocritical.
I'm not against using anecdotal evidence to open a discussion, but your intent doesn't appear to be of jovial sharing of FoE experiences. I'm unsure if you are just here to argue, while ignoring my arguments (What specifically are you trying to prove or disprove?) or if you are having trouble understanding my point of view. I'm assuming the later, because I am not arguing against players who want a strong defense. I will argue against anyone who says that every player MUST have a strong defense. I'm mostly interested in investigating if 'people with lives' need a strong defense, or rather, what factors differentiate a 'strong' defense from an 'inadequate and thus wasteful' one. What do you think about my city comparison with Sal? How many people hammer on your city to no avail? Would you be willing to share data & stories instead of arguing anecdotes?
One Way: My TF farm out FP produces your SBC. Another way: If we started with the exact same resources and you built/leveled an SBC and I built/leveled a CdM, I would be generating more FP per day and have an advantage in GE/C-map/attacking hoodies. Obviously there are many variables, so feel free to posit a metric of your own. I like running comparisons.
The multi-millionaire analogy is weak. To fully encapsulate the comparison, you would need to point out that I am richer than you, but can be more easily robbed. This is why I like this thread, if we compare numbers, stories and the like, we can get closer to understanding the middle ground between a underground bunker vault filled with security teams, traps, etc to protect an apple (200+% defense investment & passive collection) versus the white picket fence surrounding a house and armed occupant which is defending two apples (0% defense & active collection). The beauty of FoE is the amount of variables that go into how we develop our strategies.
My intent isn't to measure our or anybody else's egos/cities/etc and declare a winner. I'm interested in comparing and generating a knowledge framework. Maybe turn that framework into a guide, so new players can decide which defense stance they wish to pursue based on their play style. A good defense clearly requires a big, long-term investment.
You've failed to mention a very simple fact - defensive pieces give much more per square (4% is easy) than offensive, so no, attack doesn't necessarily have the advantage. Although, certainly with regards to only GBs, it does. But, the actual real buildings strongly favor defense. But, then, there's the AI... Even so, you can stop attackers very often, moreso now since units are beginning to ignore rogues more than they did, particularly special units.
Oh, now I'm in the wrong because I asked you to stop? Of course. Point out how my last 2 posts add nothing to the topic, because they are asking you to stop insulting other members, being condescending, and having a nasty attitude in here.
Yep. Good one. Add this to the list as well. I'm done responding to you at all now. There is no point in engaging with anyone who acts like you.
The forum tells me (the alerts thing) that you posted again while I was typing this. Hope it's on topic and less angry.
Oh, now I'm in the wrong because I asked you to stop? Of course. Point out how my last 2 posts add nothing to the topic, because they are asking you to stop insulting other members, being condescending, and having a nasty attitude in here.
Yep. Good one. Add this to the list as well. I'm done responding to you at all now. There is no point in engaging with anyone who acts like you.
The forum tells me (the alerts thing) that you posted again while I was typing this. Hope it's on topic and less angry.
You keep saying you're not going to respond to me, and why you shouldn't, and then you do. I'm not angry, more curious that you say one thing, and then do exactly what you're saying you won't do. And criticize me for posts, then have three zero content posts.
Fix thyself, doctor. Then worry about me. But, I'm a lost cause. Maybe you're not?
One Way: My TF farm out FP produces your SBC. Another way: If we started with the exact same resources and you built/leveled an SBC and I built/leveled a CdM, I would be generating more FP per day and have an advantage in GE/C-map/attacking hoodies. Obviously there are many variables, so feel free to posit a metric of your own. I like running comparisons.
Sal, any chance you want to take down your WF/RFs, though leaving your SBC, and see how many goods/FPs you lose to being plundered? My guess is almost zero, and you have tons of TFs (and probably SSWs?) in inventory, so can definitely use the space for something meaningful in the interim.
And by what metrics do you think you come out ahead? Peace of mind is totally acceptable btw as a metric, but it's "sub-optimal" from a game advancement standpoint, while utility maximizing for yourself. I think that's probably the most confusing part for most people here arguing for more defense.
This thread has inspired me to run a bit of a test of my own in a new city. I plan on only allowing myself to build one of any unique special building. (One sok, one ssw, one watchfire, etc.) As well as a few other limits I'm putting on its development in order to see how things go. With such limitations my defense will be at or near 0% for a very long time and I will be testing to see how often I get attacked and plundered once I reach the PvP stage in tech ( which will be some time yet.) I am curious as to what it may yield.
True that it won't stay at 0% for the duration. But with the way things are setup for this test it will likely be some time before I get anything that could be considered a significant defensive boost, it will be fairly minimalist in that regard. I will probably not be able to keep as accurate and detailed information as the OP has here but once I reach my first checkpoint and can setup camp I'll take note of where I begin and keep notes on what I can as advancement continues.
0% defense also benefits people who follow that Heavy Questing Guide that's here on the forums. I know they don't bother with defense, because they advocate having nothing to plunder, getting all their resources needed from the recurring quests.
