Less Collectors?

[Kix]

**Note: This topic has nothing to do with resource gain or building time. It has to do with base design strategy towards defending against raiders. I'm talking about forgoing collectors period. This topic is about if having less collectors is useful towards a better defended base.**

I've toyed around with this idea for a while. So, as I've been progressing through clash of clans, I've really only ever used my collectors as a buffer zone. I do collect from them here and there, but my primary resource is loot. Actually, that's about all I ever use for upgrades. The only time I really lean on the collectors is if I spent too much money on upgrades, and need to produce more troops or get more clicks in for finding the right base to attack.

Is there any logic behind not building the maximum amount of collectors to minimize trophy/resource loss at TH6+? I see a pro being less buildings that aren't as well defended as the core of the base. Also that it would make the base less appealing to farming attacks specifically targeting collectors. I've also noted the con that using less of these buildings would cause every other building to give a higher percentage of base destruction. But I see this as possibly being offset by better defense of those buildings. And of course, less resources from collection (Again, though, I've never heavily leaned on the collectors for acquiring resources).

I do understand that at high TH levels (9+) that you can make 400k+ a day from collection alone, which is a hefty amount. But what about until then? I only make around 150k a day in collection, but with proper raiding.. loot gives millions.

Anyone thought about this, or able to set the record straight for me? Your input is much appreciated, thanks Clashers!

[241m]

You can max collectors at th7, it makes a big difference if you plan on playing the game for at least an additional six months past that (say a nearly maxed th9)

[Kix]

Ah, I stand corrected. So you could max out collector levels at TH7. But again, the question is not maxing out the levels of the collectors. It's whether or not to hold off on even building collectors altogether. Or, as an edit to that question, to heavily curb building them (at all.. again, not upgrading, but building them in general) until at which point you could max them or later on down the road.

[241m]

http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...ector-Upgrades

Basically if you plan to continue playing through TH9 it's worth it to upgrade them sooner. The sooner you do the more you benefit

[Kix]

Thank you for the link, it was quite informative! Although, that analysis only pertains to the monetary return on a collector and getting the most out of obtaining resources via collection.

It does quite candidly point out how upgrading/maxing them early will save you idle builders, provide higher income, and reduce the amount of time raiding or the amount of gems you need to buy if you maintain your collections as a steady habit.

But that's not the the point that that I'm asking. For this topic, the amount made through collections or time saved due to it is meaningless to me. As I stated in my original post, I'm trying to determine if there is any logic (however remote) of not even building collectors at all. I probably should have made it more abundantly clear that I mean specifically during the course of being raided by another player.

I'm specifically wondering if this would help in defense of a base, so as to prevent a 100% win as easily or to deter people from attempting to farm the base, or if it would have a negative impact, causing it to become easier to fully destroy the base or make it an even more tempting target due to having less buffer buildings.

[Kix]

After going through the article again with a keener eye, I noticed one point made on this line of discussion:

Originally Posted by Camja11

Second, one also needs to consider additional benefits of the higher level collectors. They make great disposable buildings. And a level 10 mine has several hundred more health than a level 5 mine. That does make a difference in your bases defensive power, much like walls (to a much lesser extent).

Camja11 notes that it adds to the player's defensive power. I would assume that this is specifically in terms of slowing the enemy down. The user compared them to walls, but as we all know, walls do not factor in towards a base being fully destroyed*, although walls are a deterrent to possible raiders.. Collectors do factor in to the base destruction total, and are heavily eyed by people looking to farm your resources. Those with keen eyes will just skip a well guarded base with empty collectors, but some newer or less savvy players may not if they assume they might get something from them anyway. If they just weren't there, would they still be as quick to click if they don't see those high level collectors just milling about? On the base destruction note, if they can't get an easy 20-30% percent from destroying the less guarded collectors, do you readers think this would deter someone from trying to 50% a base if they don't believe they can get the TH down?

(*They do factor into it in terms of defending buildings from being destroyed, but if a wall is destroyed, it does not count towards the running total of destruction of the base*)

[Niles28]

In my opinion, keeping your trophy count up is only important in keeping yourself in a viable resource farming range. Unless you are going for a clan trophy push or whatever, the only thing that really matters is how much of your resources you lose in a raid. Whether you win or lose is irrelevant.

With that said, I think that building w/o collectors wouldn't provide a positive effect as far as defending goes, and it might even bring negative consequences. It's true that less buildings provide less targets for the opponent, but those buildings are now worth more of a percentage each. This will make your base easier to 50% and also easier to 3 star in the long run, simply because less troops will be needed to destroy a less amount of buildings.

[TheOutrageousPuffin]

I'm not sure you really appreciate how much collectors do for you. I find them quite useful. And also less collectors means less loot to steal. So im not sure if you want less collectors or you're just saying they're not necessary. Peace.

[RockTheRock]

Ah, I stand corrected. So you could max out collector levels at TH7. But again, the question is not maxing out the levels of the collectors. It's whether or not to hold off on even building collectors altogether. Or, as an edit to that question, to heavily curb building them (at all.. again, not upgrading, but building them in general) until at which point you could max them or later on down the road.

I'm just finishing up townhall 8. And honestly my collectors don't really help at all. My collectors are lvl 9+10. I get all my resources by raiding.

[Kix]

In my opinion, keeping your trophy count up is only important in keeping yourself in a viable resource farming range. Unless you are going for a clan trophy push or whatever, the only thing that really matters is how much of your resources you lose in a raid. Whether you win or lose is irrelevant.

With that said, I think that building w/o collectors wouldn't provide a positive effect as far as defending goes, and it might even bring negative consequences. It's true that less buildings provide less targets for the opponent, but those buildings are now worth more of a percentage each. This will make your base easier to 50% and also easier to 3 star in the long run, simply because less troops will be needed to destroy a less amount of buildings.

Thank you for staying on topic and not straying back to resources obtained/time saved building via collection.

Now to question your second paragraph, would that still hold true if you take into account that if you have less buildings to defend (By not having collectors), you have more walls to defend what buildings you would have otherwise? Wouldn't this theoretically provide enhanced defense? We're talking on the high end of removing 10-12 buildings from needing to be put inside walls. That is, of course, assuming that you are putting them inside walls to prevent them from being easily sniped without defenses being able to handle them, since that's an easy way for a raider to gain percentage (take out the buffer buildings with little damage to their army if they do it right).

I'm not sure you really appreciate how much collectors do for you. I find them quite useful. And also less collectors means less loot to steal. So im not sure if you want less collectors or you're just saying they're not necessary. Peace.

I do appreciate their value in terms of financial resource, but again, that's not the point of this topic. I'm inquiring if building less collectors has any logic behind it in regard to better base defense in the long run. It is obvious they aren't necessary to building a base in general. Not having a collector won't prevent you from acquiring any unit as long as you obtain resources in another fashion and don't mind whatever delays you may encounter due to not having as many of them. The question is, that if you chose to forgo building a collector, could this lead to a better defended base in general.


This may be a moot point, as I may just have to start a second account on another device specifically to attempt to test and quantify if this base design 'strategy' has any ground behind it or if it's just a bucket load of nonsense I happen to be spouting.