He may have a point that the most powerful players have a need for a cross-world GBG. However, his estimates of the difficulty/ease of fighting 150 to 500 battles are far off. How can we rationally consider the need for cross-world GBG based on claims that players can win 500 battles per day?
Let's get some real numbers and credible estimates on the table. Let's hear from players who have actually fought against attacking penalties in the thousands. Then we can discuss the possible need for cross-world GBG.
To accomplish that, we must do away with the misconceptions that have been spread. So
I read it. It still doesn't make sense. You can't know that 500 battles are possible, or that 300 is easy, or how fast you can finish 150 fights, if the most you've ever tried is 100. Multiplying with one in a formula is objectively bad math. Formulas are meant to be simple, so you eliminate needless factors. Multiplying by one will never affect the result, so it's needless. No lengthy lecture can change this. No single province can accommodate 4 siege camps. The most is 3, and the mean is 2. Having 4 siege camps will be the exception.
To do some of that amazing math: 500 battles with 4 supporting siege camps will on average give an attrition of 158. That should result in an attacking att/def penalty of about 9,000% (the formula for attrition is unknown; I'm making quick-and-dirty projections from known values; give or take 1/10). With a more likely scenario of 2 siege camps, the attrition will be 289, with a penalty around 25,000%. If he really does fight mostly with 4 siege camps, mostly fighting 90 battles per day, he will rarely have experienced an attrition above 30. That's a penalty of 203%, which isn't very special, at all. Now he wants to fight with a penalty of 25,000%...
To put it into perspective, the highest attrition level currently reported on the
unofficial Forge of Empires Wiki is 106, with a 2559% attacking penalty. None of the contributors have been able to report on higher attrition than this. These aren't incompetent players, ignorant of how to use the various elements of the game. What they are, is the kind of players whose experiences we need to know, if we're to have an enlightened debate.
