Less Collectors?

[SinOfDusk]

I hope I'm on topic, here goes. I personally treat collectors as my defensive buildings. Here's why, in a raid a person can at most gain 200k-400k resources from you and usually not all of them. In the 12 (or 16) hr shield they provide me, I can produce 216k (or 324k) resources to fill that gap. So essentially I'm not losing resources to raiding because my collectors are filling up for me. And a personal reason for me is that knowing the collectors would fill in for me, it helps me stop playing and start studying

[241m]

Essentially your goal by having less is to prevent a 50%. I would argue that with less fluff around the outside its easier to get units to focus on defenses and destroy those first, before they get a chance to work on troops who are busy destroying non-essential buildings. Also they have to destroy a significant amount less of buildings to achieve 50%, so I think it would actually be detrimental

[Kix]

Essentially your goal by having less is to prevent a 50%. I would argue that with less fluff around the outside its easier to get units to focus on defenses and destroy those first, before they get a chance to work on troops who are busy destroying non-essential buildings. Also they have to destroy a significant amount less of buildings to achieve 50%, so I think it would actually be detrimental

Yes, you are correct. To prevent a 50% or to deter people from hitting the base at all. This of course wouldn't deter someone who is set to 100% you or lose their entire army trying. But I think it would be handy to deter farmers from raiding your base for stored collection resources and accidentally/intentionally 50%-ing you due to that alone. Your post does make sense, though, and I appreciate the input on the topic.

[241m]

Even if I can't raid, i log in to hit the collectors and leave constantly, even if I'm under shield I can't stand seeing those bubbles.

If you keep them low, a smart attacker who will look to see where your loot is wont hit your collectors if they can see there's nothing there. But I also run an unprotected TH so I get snipes mostly anyway and don't care about trophies

[Kix]

Even if I can't raid, i log in to hit the collectors and leave constantly, even if I'm under shield I can't stand seeing those bubbles.

If you keep them low, a smart attacker who will look to see where your loot is wont hit your collectors if they can see there's nothing there. But I also run an unprotected TH so I get snipes mostly anyway and don't care about trophies

I currently run a farming base too. But at some point, when I've farmed enough, or just want to see how high I can get on the leader boards with what I have, I'm not opposed to knowing as much about base design ins and outs as possible. That's just one point of base design I can see going back or forward on that I've never really seen discussed.

[Niles28]

Ok, so I went full nerd on this one and did some mathiness to better understand the idea here. After all of my calculations, it looks to me as if going without collectors doesn't help with avoiding 50% losses. It all comes down to hit points. I'll do my best to explain my reasoning.

I started off by listing all of the buildings available and their hit points at max level, using a TH7 as an example. I then determined the easiest path to 50% using the lowest damage needed to destroy a building (and yes, I realize this is an imperfect way to analyze the difficulty of getting 50% destruction, as you cannot just pick and choose which building to destroy, but I think the idea still comes through). I then compared the paths on a base that featured all 12 collectors to that on a base without collectors.

The first interesting thing I noticed is that the collectors are pretty strong buildings – 750 hp each, more than any of the defensive buildings aside from air defenses, which have 990 (mortars – 590, cannons, archers, and teslas – 660, wizard towers – 720). This shows that when someone attacks you and goes after your collectors first, they are actually making it harder for themselves to get that first star. They are doing you a favor, of sorts.

The second thing I noticed is that even if you have all of your collectors, the easiest path to 50% doesn’t involve them. Here is the easiest path to 50% for a base with collectors and the damage necessary to destroy the buildings:
TH7: 54 buildings, 27 buildings to destroy for 50%

5 builder huts – 1250
Barbarian King – 250
Dark Barracks – 300
Lab – 310
4 Barracks – 1560
Spell Factory – 400
3 Mortars – 1770
5 Cannons – 3300
4 Archers – 2640
2 Teslas – 1320

This adds up to a total of 13,100 hit points of damage.

Without collectors, you only need to destroy 21 buildings out of 42 for 50%. The archer towers and teslas are not needed, otherwise the path is the same. This adds up to a total of 9,140 hit points.

When comparing the numbers, a base without collectors requires 77% of building destruction of a base with collectors, but only about 70% of the actual damage. Not only is it less buildings to take out, it takes less damage per building than a base with collectors would. Yes, you can cover a better portion of the buildings with you defenses, but the buildings are going to be destroyed much faster.

All of this points to collectors being beneficial to bases in a defensive manner as well as resource collection. Note that all of this math doesn’t take into account all of the lost time used to upgrade a collector from level 1 to 11 when they finally are built, time that is usually spread out along with the development of the rest of the base. With that said, I don’t believe it’s ever been tried before, and there could be something I’m missing that I’m the math doesn’t account for.

I hope this helps, and I hope it wasn’t too much of a tl;dr.