Point 1.

Point 2.

more of your hoard disintegrates ($2) than you can replenish it ($1 from the central bank)

Point

2a.

Point 3.

Point

4.

Point

5.

net resource transfer per raid

Point

6.

Point

7.

Point

8.

Rebuttals Index

As long as the loot I raid and the league bonus I get exceeds my army and league costs, I accumulate resources. What's the problem?



Rebuttals Response

Rebuttal A.

Rebuttal A(i) - Related:

As long as the loot I raid and the league bonusI get exceeds my army and league costs, I accumulate resources. What's the problem?



Take this example. Assume you are with 19 other players in CoC, and everyone has 5 elixir. Total elixir in the CoC economy is 20 x 5 = 100. Now assume you raid all the other 19 players with armies costing 3 elixir, and you gain league bonus of 1 elixir each raid. Therefore, you accumulate an additional 19 x (5 - 3 + 1) = 57 elixir, and everyone else now has no elixir (because you raided all of them). While yes, you accumulated elixir,the total elixir in the economy is now your starting elixir of 5 + the 57 net elixir you gained from raids = 62, which is lower than the starting total elixir in the economy!





Why is this? Because the 5 elixir from the other players' storages from raiding is just loot transfer from them to you. There was actually no loot inflow. The inflow in this example is the 1 elixir league bonus, and the outflow is the 3 elixir in army costs, resulting in a net outflow of 2 elixir. Therefore, every raid, though you yourself are gaining and accumulating elixir, you are actually removing 2 elixir from the economy. Sanity check to show you that this makes sense: 19 raids x 2 net outflow = 38 net outflow of elixir from your raiding all 19 other players. Initial total elixir = 100. Ending total elixir = 62. Difference = total net outflow = 38.



Now further imagine other players can then raid you for 5 elixir, with same league bonus and army costs. Since their net outflow per raid is also 2 elixir, you can see that eventually, there will be no elixir left in the game. Of course, this is a simplified model since there are other sources of inflows and outflows. Point is: it doesn't matter that you see yourself accumulating elixir because that is from your local perspective. It's all about global inflow and outflow.

Rebuttal

B.

Rebuttal

C.

see rebuttal A



Rebuttal

C(i).

Rebuttal

D.

the pickpocket in the example in #2

see example in #2

Rebuttal

E.

Rebuttal

F.

Rebuttal

G.

Rebuttal

H.

Rebuttal

I.

Rebuttal J.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck. Sure I don't know for certain that the evidence is there, and I (nor you) will ever know unless SC decides to release that information. In this situation though, you estimate based on observations and hold that as true until you find significant contrary evidence to indicate otherwise. From rudimentary statistics: say out of 100 people, 2 are psychopaths. Unless God tells you the true ratio of psychopaths, you will never know. All you can do is estimate: 2/100 = 2%. That is what I am doing based on the large sample set of "personal anecdotes" from other and logical consequences I laid out. Meanwhile, what you are doing is arguing that oh, how do you know those two people are actually psychopaths? How do you know there isn't another psychopath? How do you know if those 100 people even exist? etc...

Rebuttal J(i).

Rebuttal J(ii).

Reasonable Solutions (Needed to delete because I hit word limit...)

Further Readings

