Time for me to go & my parting feedback


As far as Guin, have a bad board against her and you can not do anything, have a bad board for example against Justice, which is one of the best regular tanks and that also shares color, and you can probably fix it. I saw another thread that recently closed that says that as F2P you get in the top10 many times. You have Alby probably the biggest game changer there is, and Hel. Probably if they told me that I can ask for 2 of the heroes from last month and give them to me, it would be those two, maybe I would only doubt with Athena. Now, can all of you have those heroes? yes. In two ways, having an impressive luck, or supplying the lack of luck with money, which is rather what usually happens. In my post, you have to answer me if you think that an F2P can be as competitive in events as a P2W.


How much of them have Guin? I’m speaking about trio: Ze, Guin, GM,- not only Guin. Also you shouldn’t categorize effective/ineffective effectiveness is not a dichotomy. Grade is more suitable. For example, the relation of a successful raid to an unsuccessful


You’d say Zeline, Guin and Gravenaker are top tier defensive heroes? I think you’re right about Zeline and Guin, though I disagree about Gravemaker - he’s a victim that I find impossible to lose to. But I’d add Ares, Delilah and Aeron to that list, without even getting into two-hero combos.

So you think there are at least three great defensive heroes and I think there are at least five, plus some nasty two-hero combinations. Any F2P player can get lucky and summon one of these or train a nice combo, and no P2W player can guarantee summoning any of them unless they’re willing to spend a fortune.

This all seem like an excellent F2P environment.


Statistic of utility not at your side.

I’m talking about tree heroes in the center: Guin as a tank flanked by Ze and GM.

I’ve said nothing about F2P. But I doubt that at least one F2P player have this trio.


That’s a genuinely interesting report you linked to - thank you. But utility does not measure efficacy. All the report tells us is that lots of players use Gravemaker. We’d expect this for two reasons:

  1. He’s relatively new. (We all love new stuff.) And,
  2. He became available when the player base was at its largest, so we’d expect many more players to have him than, say, Hel.

I’m not unhappy with his popularity. He fills my chests.

That’s a good defensive mix, and I’m sure you’re right that few, if any, F2P players have it. But few P2W players will have it, too, and those who do will very likely have paid a lot of money to get it. Good luck to them if they’ve managed it - I’m sure many have spent quite a lot of money and not managed to summon those heroes.

Does it bother you that some players may have paid enough to get these three heroes? Why?


I’ve said nothing about donators. Why are you trying to get this personal? It’s forbidden by forum rules, please read Forum Rules - Please Read

You may provide any other data to confirm your opinion, otherwise it’s too subjectively.

Gregorian suits these requirements, but we can’t see him in defence in same quantity.

You are telling that F2P teams are compete with P2W teams. But statistics refutes this.


Thanks for the link to the forum rules, but I’ve read them. I’m not sure what makes you think I am “trying to get this personal” - I am asking you if there is something that bothers you about the idea that some players might have spent enough to field Guin, Ze and GM together. If it doesn’t bother you, then what point exactly are you trying to explore by suggesting that we should consider how many top 100 defences field that trio? While I’m happy to chat with you, I can’t discuss this seriously if you’re unwilling to state your case.

I don’t have any data to confirm my impressions about defensive efficacy, which is why they are just opinions. But you, presumably, also do not have any data about defensive efficacy, otherwise you would have posted it. The utility information is really interesting but not directly on point. It just enables us to confirm what I’ve already pointed out - that defences in the top 100 utilise a wide variety of heroes.

I was positing those “requirements” as necessary, not sufficient. Gregorian is a very poor defender even at face value, which obviously disqualifies him.

Really? What statistics? I’d be fascinated to see them.


Great original post. It basically is everything I feel about the game. I find it harder and harder to want to play. Everything you accomplish has little to no real reward. You win AW, you get 2 gems and a practice sword… you lose and it’s 1 gem and a wooden shield…


Point is that you need to pay for top defence. And I don’t understand why I should be bothered by other player’s spends by claiming this?

Statistics of utility is enough.

  1. Players could use all possible teams.
  2. We observe that team Ze, Guin, GM (ZGG for future uses) are more common in top then others.
  3. We confirm that team ZGG is inaccessible for most players.

So we confirm that the ratio of ZGG to others teams in the top is higher than the ratio of ZGG to all teams. And we confirm ZGG effectiveness.

Until you’ll claim that the top players are paying for refills so much, that effectiveness of teams doesn’t affect.


Ah! You’ll forgive me not understanding that this was what you were trying to say, because you haven’t provided any evidence of this.

What you have shown is that top 100 defences feature a very wide variety of heroes, including standard, event and HOTM. No one hero is necessary. Whether players obtained their wide variety of heroes by training them, buying gems to use for summoning, saving free gems to use for summoning, or using freely obtained epic summons tokens, we have no way of telling. Unless you can tell, in some way, but haven’t posted that yet. Can you tell? How?

Incorrect as a matter of logic. All this demonstrates is that top ten players have a predilection for fielding ZGG - it doesn’t tell us how they acquired these heroes or how effective they are, individually or in combination. Most importantly, however, whether these heroes are popular as defenders tells us nothing about whether players “need to pay for a top defence” - this, you will recall, is the point you are trying to make.

The impressive variety of defences in use within the top 100, as shown by your utility statistics, demonstrates that a whole lot of different heroes are being fielded as top level defenders, though again this tells us nothing about their efficacy. And if you think all of those heroes were acquired for cash, then I’d fascinated to see the evidence you have to support this contention.


Mostly event heroes and HOTM. And there’s no wide variety.

There’s not difficult to find minimal, maximal and average quantity of pulls to get HOTM or event hero. F2P have about 10 pulls (gems+tokens) per month. Also F2P can’t predict HOTMs, so they have low planning horizon. So you can count their chances.

Your quote is wrong. 1,2,3 in my phrase is facts.

Yes, it does, they are top.

There is no impressive variety of defences, please reread.

Could you not only arguing, but provide data to confirm your opinion.


There’s a shockingly wide variety. Did you actually read the report? Here’s the link, in case you lost it: https://titanmafia.com/Reports/Empires%20&%20Puzzles%202018-08-18_Rpts.html

Did I miss where you posted that? Would you like to post it again? I’d be interested in looking at the analysis and underlying assumptions. (As an obvious starting point, the minimal number of pulls to get an HOTM or event hero is 1. So the fact that you found it necessary to “find” a minimal quantity is worrying.)

Oh, really? Let’s review:

Incorrect. Players could use only those heroes they have trained or summoned.

It’s unclear if you’re referring to the top 10 or top 100 here. It is incorrect for the top ten - right now, this combination occurs in the top ten only once. I haven’t counted its occurrences in the top 100 and compared them to other combinations, but I certainly haven’t seen any evidence that it occurs more than others. I think we can safely call your claim false.

Correct, but true for both paying and F2P players, so not relevant.

So you made only three statements and two thirds of them were false. Even the one you got right wasn’t relevant to the issue at hand. More importantly:

No we don’t. Even if your premises were correct, your conclusion doesn’t follow from them (and as we have seen, your premises are largely false). It’s a bit like me saying:

  1. All cats have wings.
  2. All chickens are cats.
    So we confirm the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle equals half the sum of the squares of the other two sides.

Here, you are asserting that because a particular group of heroes occurs more than others among top teams (and remember, we have already seen that this assertion is false, for the group you have selected) this somehow proves that they are more effective at defence than other combinations. Of course, it does not prove this. If your assertions were true, all it would prove is that players whose attack is strong enough to get to the top choose these heroes above others for their defence. Why? We don’t know. Do they work well? We don’t know.

Most importantly, even if we could just ignore your false statements and flawed logic, your conclusion - that these three heroes are good defenders when combined - does nothing to support what you say is your larger point:

You have provided quite a large volume of evidence that all sorts of heroes form part of the top 100 defences, including event heroes, HOTM and standard heroes. You have provided no evidence that anyone needs to pay a cent to construct one of these defences. So you’re not helping your case at all.

You’ve provided a wealth of data to confirm my opinion - data which I hadn’t seen before, so I thank you for sharing it.

  1. No particular hero is needed for a top defence (confirmed by the utility report you linked to). (It’s especially notable that the one hero many would argue is crucial to a top defence, Guin, features in only 9% of top 100 defences.)
  2. Any long term F2P player can pull any HOTM or event hero; if they’re lucky they can pull multiple HOTM and event heroes (my own experience proves this, but I’m not an unusual story - F2P players commonly have multiple HOTM and event heroes).
  3. Any long term F2P player can train any standard hero (it hardly needs pointing out, but this is proved by the outcomes of TC20 trainings recorded in the forum).

So with only a little bit of luck, any long term F2P player can field a strong top 100 defence. With a decent serving of luck they can field a great top 100 defence. And even if they’re unlucky, they can still patch together a defence that would be perfectly acceptable in the top 100, based on the utility report you provided.

I guess it is not what you intended, but the report you provided has done a great deal to demonstrate how F2P is staying competitive in E&P.


Again, please write data. What is wide? 43/100 Guin tanks, is this wide variety? 40/100 GM flanks, is this wide variety? May be 45/100 Ze flanks is wide variety?

You’ve missed attempt to do your own calculation. I’ll calculate event’s hero for you. Let be odds to get any 5* will be same to TC20 =5%. Let be odds to get direct 5* is same for all 5*. So to get direct 5* with odds 80% you need 96 attempts, 80~1−(1−0,05÷3)^96. And we have got good introductory conditions. So it take 9 months of accumulation to have good attempt (not guaranteed) to get 5* event hero.

You may do same calculation to find odds of getting HOTM. With one exception F2P can’t predict what HOTM will be after 9 months.

Everything is correct. Player could use only those heroes they have trained or summoned. Players could use all possible teams.

I’m referring to statistics of utility.

Paying and F2P have different quantity of pulls. Paying players have better chances to get ZGG. Also it is doubtful that most paying players have a budget, so they haven’t direct limit of pulls. Also it doubtful that F2P have enough time to accumulate enough gems and tokens to get ZGG.

Totally wrong conception. Correct example:
We have n schools, k graduates, l successful enrollee. School n(i) is effective if l(i)/k(i)>l/k.

Wrong interpretation of data. 45/100 uses Guin, or Guin is 9% of 500 heroes included top 100 teams.

No, they can’t. I’ve already written about their odds.

More then 62% of top 500 heroes is HOTMs or events heroes. Odds to get them you can find upper. I really don’t understand how this demonstrates that F2P is competitive.


This is a fascinating dialog, but it has wandered extremely far from the thread’s original topic. Perhaps @Rook or @Coppersky might hive it off into a well-deserved thread of its own.


So you’re saying that none of these allegedly key heroes is in use in even a bare majority of defence teams? Yes, that is indicative of a very wide variety of heroes being in use. (Come now - that’s very obvious.)

Here, you’ve calculated the pulls required to summon a particular hero with 80% certainty. (Your pull probability is likely wrong and your assumption that we have “good introductory conditions” seems baseless so your calculation is flawed, but the principle underlying it is sound.)

Why, in the name of all things holy, would we care a fig for the number of pulls required to summon a hero with 80% certainty? Do we think we need to be able to summon any particular hero with 80% certainty to be competitive? Of course not - you have comprehensively demonstrated that top defences do not require any particular hero. Do we think that F2P players are prevented from summoning HOTM and event heroes because they don’t pay? Of course not, we know F2P players get lucky all the time. So what are you doing?

F2P don’t need to predict HOTM. They can either accumulate gems and wait for their ideal team addition to appear, or summon as soon as they can, regardless of who is on deck. Sometimes they’ll get lucky and sometimes they won’t. Similarly, sometimes a paying player will burn 300 summons and get nothing - this is the joy of E&P, it’s a lottery.

That is errant nonsense on both counts. Of course most paying players will have a budget, and of course any F2P player can accumulate enough gems and tokens to get ZGG (though as you have demonstrated, those heroes are not needed). To get ZGG requires precisely 3 summons, which is entirely the joy of E&P.

You really botched that. I think you are trying to suggest that if a given school has a higher proportion of graduates as a function of their enrollees than graduates as a proportion of enrollees for the total population, then that school is, by definition, effective. (This is not what you have written, by the way - I’m working pretty hard here to help you out.)

This would be true only if we defined ‘effectiveness’ as graduating a higher proportion of your enrollees than the population. This is arbitrary and obviously silly for a myriad of reasons. Just for example: one strongly performing institution (or contingent of institutions) could render all others ‘ineffective’, because effectiveness has been defined in relative terms, instead of using any sensible absolute standard.

And of course, your example has no bearing on our consideration of effective defenders, because we have no way of telling which heroes are effective defenders - there are no ‘graduates’ from this ‘university’.

Maybe you meant your example to express something entirely different. You might like to revisit it.

Yes, I misread the data. I was frankly shocked to see Guin at 9% - 45% is less extreme, but still fascinatingly low. Less than half the defences in the top 100 use Guin! If Guin was vital, P2W players had no budget, and players had to be P2W to be competitive, obviously almost all top 100 defences would feature her. So your argument fails by the very data you present.

Because you’ve shown that top 100 teams use a mix of HOTMs, event heroes and standard heroes, with none essential. Your typical long term F2P player collects all the standard heroes, plus a few HOTM or event heroes. You’ve shown that this sort of thing will fit right in with the top 100.

That doesn’t tell us what defences are good and what bad, of course, but it seems like you don’t have any data on that and neither do I. (Though I can tell you from experience, Gravemaker is built of jelly.)


Why they should be in use in a bare majority? They are used in their positions 2-4 times more than any other hero.

It’s still will be good if you provide some data with your criticism.

Which certainty you wish to have to spent all your attempts to summon hero?

They can’t. They don’t know who is ideal.

With which certainty?

What that? Please provide absolute standart of effectiveness.

Top 100

Data please.


Because the point you say you are trying to make is that you need to pay to get an effective defensive team. If you show that no hero features in even half of the defensive teams in the top 100, then you are showing that there are a huge variety of heroes that any F2P mug can luck into that will fit in perfectly fine. (Effectiveness is another question, but apparently you can’t help with that.)

SG have stated in the forum that the training rate for 5* heroes at TC20 (which we estimate at 5%) is better than any 5* summons rate. So your guess is probably high. As to “good introductory conditions”, I don’t really need to provide data - you’re making the claim, you need to justify it.

I don’t know what you are trying to say, here.

They don’t need to know who is ideal, because you have shown that top 100 defences don’t need any ‘ideal’ heroes. They just need to know that they could use, say, a gnarly yellow defender, and wait for that HOTM (Delilah, was it?) to come along. Easy.

Here, you are asking with what certainty a F2P player can summon ZGG. The answer is with extremely low certainty - even lower than a paying player, who will themselves have an extremely poor chance of summoning ZGG without spending a fortune. This, of course, is exactly as it should be - if you spend you should get an advantage over F2P. The low probability of summoning event and HOTM heroes is what limits this advantage and stops it being necessary to pay to be competitive.

An absolute standard of effectiveness, in the weird example you chose, might be to graduate 75% of enrollees - assessments of whether an institution was ‘effective’ using this metric would not be influenced by the performance of peer instritutions. But we’re really in the weeds now.

Top 100 appearances show utility, not effectiveness. As we’ve discussed extensively, you seem to have no way to measure effectiveness.

There’s no data available on aggregate F2P HOTM and event pulls, so far as I know. Anecdotally, though, have you ever communicated with an F2P player who has been in the game for a year or more and does not have at least a couple of HOTM or event heroes? I don’t think I have. So there’s that, for the little it’s worth.


What a useless back and forth. lol


To me this seems like the last posts of the other topic.

I wonder how many time will pass before the closure of even this one :man_facepalming:


45% is enough. And there is no huge variety, 3 heroes uses as a tank in 75%.

So odds to get event 5* even lower.

You are telling that F2P have odds to get direct HOTM or event hero. But really they haven’t. You don’t refute my way to count odds, but for some reasons you don’t like it. You may provide your, if you have one.

And they spent gems to Delilah, and won’t have enough gems to GM.

It’s mean F2P players (not player) can’t get ZGG.[quote=“Brobb, post:103, topic:38200”]
An absolute standard of effectiveness, in the weird example you chose, might be to graduate 75% of enrollees - assessments of whether an institution was ‘effective’ using this metric would not be influenced by the performance of peer instritutions. But we’re really in the weeds now.

There’s nothing absolute in this. Assessment, metric, all this is abstraction.

Including team in top 100 make it effective. Or you are telling that players are irrational and use ineffective teams?

@Rook for example.