Victory Tower lvl 2

[Dryke]

So you and your guild decide what is trash and what not?

There are playstyles that benefit from them. They would not agree with you.

Granted: There are playstyles that benefit from them. But to the extent that any of those playstyles involves a player who isn't brand new, I would issue the challenge that there are much more efficient ways to get medals, and thus much more efficient ways to use even the 1x1 space they take, and every additional VT only increases the likelihood that something else should be there. I suspect the only playstyle that couldn't have its approach to whatever goal it is reaching for improved by plowing under VT's would be 'aesthetics' for someone who, for whatever reason, just likes the way the things LOOK.

I see VT as very niche - something a brand new city might put up to quickly get those first easy expansions when donating FP to someone's GB just isn't an option. This makes the whole idea of actually going to the trouble to 'upgrade' them fairly silly IMO as you will want to dump them as soon as some of the many, many, MANY better options comes along.

 

[Emberguard]

And even when you DO need medals, the amount you get from a VT is pathetic and quickly outclassed by other methods.

VT being outclassed by other methods doesn’t make it a mutually exclusive thing. You’re meant to gather multiple methods of resource gathering to get what you need.

If it were mutually exclusive then why would anyone have anything other then a Arc for FPs or Chateau for goods?

Granted: There are playstyles that benefit from them. But to the extent that any of those playstyles involves a player who isn't brand new, I would issue the challenge that there are much more efficient ways to get medals, and thus much more efficient ways to use even the 1x1 space they take, and every additional VT only increases the likelihood that something else should be there.

I do agree on one thing. If when rearranging your city you have a big space something else can go in and only VTs left to place then it’s worth looking at what else can be placed as it’s more suited to smaller spaces

 

[Dryke]

VT being outclassed by other methods doesn’t make it a mutually exclusive thing. You’re meant to gather multiple methods of resource gathering to get what you need.

If it were mutually exclusive then why would anyone have anything other then a Arc for FPs or Chateau for goods?

It is, in fact, mutually exclusive; because the space you are using for a VT cannot be used for any other thing, including things that can increase your production of medals. Ultimately it is about what can you do to improve your efficiency at reaching whatever goal it is you desire. If that goal is 'more medals'...then it is wiser to get them from donating to other player's GB's, which will also bring you other benefits at the same time and easily more medals than you could ever get from an entire city full of VT's. Even just hunting down those 5th spots in GBs will bring you more medals. This suggests as a strategy using those spaces in your city for things that improve your FP production and/or your combat effectiveness (since combat can also lead to more FP, medals, etc). As well, long term you will absolutely reach a point where you no longer need to intentionally produce medals at all; wouldn't it be better to have been using that space in your city for some thing that will retain its value to you well past that point?

I'm not sure what you are suggesting by comparing this to the use of an Arc or a Chateau. Both of those GB's are excellent for their purpose; but you can only have one of them, ever, and so at some point if you want to get more of the things you can get using them, you MUST build some other building. The VT does not compare if for no other reason than it is practically the WORST way to get medals, whereas the GB's you mentioned are at the top of the game for their purposes.

 

[Agent327]

Granted: There are playstyles that benefit from them. But to the extent that any of those playstyles involves a player who isn't brand new, I would issue the challenge that there are much more efficient ways to get medals, and thus much more efficient ways to use even the 1x1 space they take, and every additional VT only increases the likelihood that something else should be there. I suspect the only playstyle that couldn't have its approach to whatever goal it is reaching for improved by plowing under VT's would be 'aesthetics' for someone who, for whatever reason, just likes the way the things LOOK.

I am not brand new. Have several diamond farms where I place as much WW's as I can. All I do is collect once a day. Don't play the game on those other than to get more WW's. VT's are great to fill up the 1x1 spaces and in the end supply medals for extra expansions. Extra expansions is extra space for WW's.

What would be a more efficient way according to you keeping in mind that I visit once a day only to collect?

 

[Emberguard]

I'm not sure what you are suggesting by comparing this to the use of an Arc or a Chateau. Both of those GB's are excellent for their purpose; but you can only have one of them, ever, and so at some point if you want to get more of the things you can get using them, you MUST build some other building. The VT does not compare if for no other reason than it is practically the WORST way to get medals, whereas the GB's you mentioned are at the top of the game for their purposes.

I'm bringing it up to illustrate a point that if you have more space it doesn't exclude you from using a lesser option

Very few players would have a 100% efficient layout with no holes that nothing can be placed aside from 1x1's. Most have the space to place VTs after filling up what they can with other 1x1 options

 

[Dryke]

I am not brand new. Have several diamond farms where I place as much WW's as I can. All I do is collect once a day. Don't play the game on those other than to get more WW's. VT's are great to fill up the 1x1 spaces and in the end supply medals for extra expansions. Extra expansions is extra space for WW's.

What would be a more efficient way according to you keeping in mind that I visit once a day only to collect?

I too have several diamond farms. I too wish to minimize the amount of time I spend on them. They are farms, not independent worlds, and I have no interest in burning my time on them beyond the bare minimum. I have never, and will never, plant a VT in them. There is ALWAYS something better I can do with that space.

Wishing wells themselves produce medals, at a rate well in excess of anything a VT can produce; it is difficult to imagine a scenario where a VT will improve upon that to any significant amount. More importantly, however, by strategic placement of your full-size WW's combined with the shrunken WW's it is possible to limit the number of odds-and-end spaces where you might consider a VT to a single digit number at worst - usually the single space at the end of a long road with WW's on both sides where you don't need the very last space (or two, if you are using full size 3x3 ww's). As well, at some point the cost of expansions is so high that the medals produced from any number of VT's is an insignificant contribution. I would instead suggest sentinel outposts. The better your troops do on offense, the easier it will be for you to progress through events (which give ww's and ww shrink kits) as well as through the continent map and storyline quests which will result in additional expansions gained.

TLDR, the benefit from a VT is insignificant. Put up a sentinel tower instead. Or even just sell the VT and any 'upgrade' kits at the antiques dealer and wait for something better (like a WW, shrink kit, or respective fragment) to come along.

 

[Dryke]

I'm bringing it up to illustrate a point that if you have more space it doesn't exclude you from using a lesser option

Very few players would have a 100% efficient layout with no holes that nothing can be placed aside from 1x1's. Most have the space to place VTs after filling up what they can with other 1x1 options

If they have enough holes to 'justify' placing a VT, then they have enough holes to place something better that will result in a better outcome for their city. I also agree that once you have used up the 'best' options, you must necessarily then begin to use 'lesser' options. I just happen to believe the VT is at the bottom of a very long list of options.

 

[DeletedUser31499]

I got rid of my VTs when I did the math and realized that it would take 5 years to get my next expansion if i relied on them and my event buildings. Aiding GBs at 1.9 is the best way to get s lot of medals. The problem is once you get a lot of medals and all the expansions there isn’t a lot of uses for them. I’ve got 126 million medals in inventory... and growing.

 

[Nicholas002]

I find it hard to believe there is such a passionate argument over victory towers of all things. Never would have thought.

 

[Emberguard]

If they have enough holes to 'justify' placing a VT, then they have enough holes to place something better that will result in a better outcome for their city.

Utilizing set buildings will often leave holes if you maximize the output with a custimized layout

 

[Dryke]

I find it hard to believe there is such a passionate argument over victory towers of all things. Never would have thought.

I would never have thought it myself. But here I am.

Utilizing set buildings will often leave holes if you maximize the output with a custimized layout

Not sure what you mean here. Set buildings? Which set buildings would you use in a diamond farm? Not that I have a problem with such, if you find a benefit in it, but I suspect they might detract too much from the mission of earning diamonds. With respect to the holes left, however, that's my point; if you're putting up WW's in horizontal rows, the fact that they are either 3 spaces or 2 spaces wide (depending on the use of a shrink kit) means you can optimize their placement and avoid any space at all at the end of a row; therefore the only remaining space would be one or two single 1x1 squares at the end of a road between two rows. And there...I would place almost any tower except a VT

 

[Emberguard]

With respect to the holes left, however, that's my point; if you're putting up WW's in horizontal rows, the fact that they are either 3 spaces or 2 spaces wide (depending on the use of a shrink kit) means you can optimize their placement and avoid any space at all at the end of a row; therefore the only remaining space would be one or two single 1x1 squares at the end of a road between two rows. And there...I would place almost any tower except a VT

If you're putting a 3x3 instead of a 2x3 then I'd hope it's because you don't have the shrink kits as it's a false economy to put a 3x3 WW just to avoid spaces if you are able to shrink it. If it's a wishing well farm why would you need the other towers?

 

[Dryke]

If you're putting a 3x3 instead of a 2x3 then I'd hope it's because you don't have the shrink kits as it's a false economy to put a 3x3 WW just to avoid spaces if you are able to shrink it. If it's a wishing well farm why would you need the other towers?

I've already explained the use of the towers previously. I also do not have enough shrink kits to shrink every single WW I have. For instance, in one of my farms I just counted 52 un-shrunken WW's and FoY (I count the FoY because although I am unlikely under the current mechanics to ever get a FoY shrink kit, if the need ever arose I could simply store one and replace it with a WW that I could shrink instead). On that same world I have an additional 66 'little wishing wells'. Given that every 3 WW's I shrink means another WW I can place, that means shrinking all of them and putting down more WW's, and then shrinking those, etc etc leads to needing another 25 shrink kits, for a total of 77 shrink kits. Not accounting, of course, for the additional space I will get later from new expansions.

Given the speed at which I can get shrink kits, and the competing interest of also obtaining additional WW's, I think it is unlikely this is a problem I will face for at least a couple of years.

 

[Graviton]

I find it hard to believe there is such a passionate argument over victory towers of all things. Never would have thought.

I think the argument is actually about some people presuming that everybody should play the same way, versus the reality that not everybody plays the same way.

 

[ODragon]

Victory tower is still meaningful for non-arc players

We'll have to agree to disagree. RR, buildings and GE all provide better medals per week than a victory tower...

 

[Dryke]

I think the argument is actually about some people presuming that everybody should play the same way, versus the reality that not everybody plays the same way.

I'm not sure where you see that in anything I said. If someone prefers to play in a way that is overall less efficient, they are free to do so. In fact I even pointed out some examples, one of which was simply 'because you like the way they look'. But if we're going to have a discussion about whether or not they are, in fact, more useful for the purpose of generating medals than other alternatives - or whether or not, on a larger scale, using them even for THAT purpose is efficient game play - there are objective truths to be discovered. Things can be true, or not true, whether we prefer those answers or not.

Frankly, I find your comment to be an oversimplified attempt to dismiss a viewpoint under the guise of pretending to be calling someone out for dismissing a viewpoint.

 

[Graviton]

Frankly, I find your comment to be an oversimplified attempt to dismiss a viewpoint under the guise of pretending to be calling someone out for dismissing a viewpoint.

I guess boiling something down to its essence could be characterized as oversimplifying. That's my impression of this debate: it's not about Victory Towers as Nicholas observed, it's about efficiency and wondering why anybody would want to do anything that somebody else might view as inefficient. In that regard it's not really about objectivity, it's about perspective. That was my point, and the point of several others. Forgive me if I'm cynical, I've been around for awhile and I've seen these discussions many times, in many different game forums: the minmaxers versus everybody else. I'm not dismissing any viewpoints; rather I think all viewpoints are valid because each viewpoint is based on a different perspective.

The statement "...the benefit from a VT is insignificant" is not objective because significance is not objective. Even the concept of efficiency isn't entirely objective, as it depends on what resources one can put toward that end.

 

[Agent327]

I too have several diamond farms. I too wish to minimize the amount of time I spend on them. They are farms, not independent worlds, and I have no interest in burning my time on them beyond the bare minimum. I have never, and will never, plant a VT in them. There is ALWAYS something better I can do with that space.

Like what?

I would instead suggest sentinel outposts. The better your troops do on offense, the easier it will be for you to progress through events (which give ww's and ww shrink kits) as well as through the continent map and storyline quests which will result in additional expansions gained.

Why?

I told you I only collect.

 

[DeletedUser]

This thread inspired me to go to my main city and place all my 1x1s, including VTs, in the free spots.

 

[Dryke]

I told you I only collect.

The fact that you choose not to do the things that would reach your stated goal more efficiently does not render those things less efficient. If you choose a play style that to some extent embodies inefficiency, so be it. I never advocated for the removal of VT from the game; I simply pointed out the objective fact that they are terrible at what they do and are only 'efficient' in very limited scenarios.

The statement "...the benefit from a VT is insignificant" is not objective because significance is not objective. Even the concept of efficiency isn't entirely objective, as it depends on what resources one can put toward that end.

This is a mathematically untrue statement. 'Significance' can absolutely be determined within a specific context. Here, if the stated goal is to obtain medals to get expansions to improve the setup of a diamond farm, the amount of medals that VT's produce will absolutely become objectively mathematically insignificant in short order.

PREFERENCE, now...preference is not objective. He does not prefer the alternatives. Fair enough.