Land spread!!!!!!

[Firetooth]

I just gathered 100k and wasted half my run, but I swear that by tommorow everybody will be back down to under 60k. Why is it so hard to drill it into everybodys skull that the more land you have, the more productive you are? I may not usually agree with Sevz, but as one of the better players in the site, he usually runs on above 100k. That is for a reason.

It's not even difficult to gather the same amount each run. I'm on 100k, volk is on 70 and plenty of other people are on decent amounts between 30-50k.

[Holby]

I just gathered 100k and wasted half my run, but I swear that by tommorow everybody will be back down to under 60k. Why is it so hard to drill it into everybodys skull that the more land you have, the more productive you are? I may not usually agree with Sevz, but as one of the better players in the site, he usually runs on above 100k. That is for a reason.

It's not even difficult to gather the same amount each run. I'm on 100k, volk is on 70 and plenty of other people are on decent amounts between 30-50k.

I see it as a cost/benefit issue

Most of the time, I'm making more loyalty than I can spend. Spending an extra 200 turns gathering up more land isn't going to help my ratio all that much, because I'm likely to get attacked very soon after I run anyway.

If I am at close to a 100 ratio with 70k, it's much more beneficial to me to use my remaining turns creating resources, rather than adding another one or two million leaders by attacking, till say,100k. I won't get to use those leaders to my advantage before I lose my land. More than likely, in 12 hours time, I'll have a ratio of 300 leaders/land. Then what?

There is a valid argument in terms of defense, and to some degree, the rate of filling up. The closer you get to filling up, the slower leaders come. So if you are building more huts all the time, it will take fewer turns to get to the same amount of leaders as someone who stopped attacking once they got to 70k.

But I'm not convinced this outweighs the benefits of creating resources right away, unless it's purely a loyalty run, or preparation for being attacked.

Sevz, if you're reading this, can you give any more insight into your reasoning?

Just to clarify...

Back in the day, leader players used to spend all 450 turns attacking and scraping land. Because people were less aggressive, it's likely that when we logged on, we'd be at close to 175 ratio, so using turns then made the most sense.

These days, people are a bit more vicious, and it's rarely productive to wait until being attacked before feasting/looting, as too many leaders would be lost. So, for me , it's something I  do in the course of a run. Unless there are other circumstances, obviously.

[Firetooth]

I build fewer huts all the times.

Besides, if everybody gathered more land, it would not be so hard to obtain land. On valhall, each run there is actually more land gathered compared to less. I'm not saying either community is superior, but I'm jsut saying that you can run at least as effectively on more land, and in my experience more so.

One advantage of high land, high leaders, low ratio is getting knocked to lower land with still high leadersr and a good ratio.

[Firetooth]

I gathered 100k, then revelation 110k, then Shadow 130, and now we're back down to everybody lower then 80k! Most are on 40-60k. *shakes head*

[Holby]

One advantage of high land, high leaders, low ratio is getting knocked to lower land with still high leadersr and a good ratio.

That's a fair point.

But how often do you (realistically) get to use those leaders after being attacked?

I'd wager that even if you get to 110k, you're going to be left on less than 30k. Again, not really ideal.

[Shadow]

Depends if you are clanned. Scraping has a much bigger return if you are not.

[Holby]

Depends if you are clanned. Scraping has a much bigger return if you are not.

Oh yeah, 22 attacks.

Excellent point, matey. That could work.