Income Fluctuation

I have been training civilian units every day and have noticed that my income was lowered then raised now lowered again. I think it started a couple of days ago when i started lowering my motivation level before bed.

Don't worry. It has to do with the fluctuating admin effinciny. There are now several new accounts created every day lowering the average army size, and admin also sent out a email to all inactive accounts to which some would have re activated their account and that also lowering av army size.

o i see thanks.

yeah it kinna stinks to keep losing 5% of your income every day or two LOL

be glad mate, it means that, hopefully, game is getting new players some of whom might return and/or stay

I am glad, honestly.


Still hurts tho LOL

lol, i m glad the game is growing very fast, its gonna be very very very fun to play in the coming years if it has a large memberbase... dune got/ is stagnant in the end due to it just being the same old players, and same old alliances

Admin fluctuations is a bit annoying though lol, but hey, we ll just have to adapt!

One possible change i d suggest to admin efficiency is maybe modifying it to take into account average income, rather than average army size. Simplest way to do that would be to assume the average army size is all trained as farmers (so right now average army size is 157,705 - so average income = 157,705 x 50 = 7,885,250).

As the main beef i have with admin efficiency is that it is based on army size... which is pretty much worthless in on itself - its what the players do with that army size which matters i.e. training as farmers, workers or miners. Army size doesn't decide on how fast a player grows, its how they use it which does.... So perhaps modify the admin efficiency to take into account average income, rather than on army size?

This would also mean having farmers is more worth while/ more balanced vs. the other income types. I.e. 1 miner = 1.4 farmers. Reality is thus 600,000miners would be the equivilant of 840,000 farmers.... but when admin efficiency comes into play, you d probably need closer to 1million farmers to match the 600,000 miners.... and that imbalance will only grow larger over time. Players will simply need more farmers to match miners/ workers (which is fair enough) - but in turn this extra population will massively impact admin efficiency.. meaning more farmers are needed to compensate (thus even more admin efficiency).

Adjusting admin efficiency to take into account income, rather than army size... means a person with 840,000 farmers who will have the same income as someone with 600,000 miners, will have the same admin efficiency as that person with 600,000 miners...... Which is i think the fairest and most logical way, since the objective of admin efficiency is to slow down players growth... thus should be based on something to do with growth (income), rather than army size... which has nothing to do with growth in itself.

People who take the "risky" strategy of having workers/ miners would still have a HUGE advantage in the above example since the person with the farmers would still have to find an extra 240,000 Untrained Units to train into farmers to match the person with the miners income... but basing admin efficiency on income, rather than army size, just means people with the same growth potential (income) would recieve the same admin efficiency handicap, as oppossed to potential situations like the above where people with the same growth potential, have different admin efficiencies due to it being based on army size...

is it possible now for someone who is smaller and not taking as big of a hit on AE to actually have more overall income then some of the biggest players who are taking huge hits due to AE?

ian wrote:lol, i m glad the game is growing very fast, its gonna be very very very fun to play in the coming years if it has a large memberbase... dune got/ is stagnant in the end due to it just being the same old players, and same old alliances

Admin fluctuations is a bit annoying though lol, but hey, we ll just have to adapt!

One possible change i d suggest to admin efficiency is maybe modifying it to take into account average income, rather than average army size. Simplest way to do that would be to assume the average army size is all trained as farmers (so right now average army size is 157,705 - so average income = 157,705 x 50 = 7,885,250).

As the main beef i have with admin efficiency is that it is based on army size... which is pretty much worthless in on itself - its what the players do with that army size which matters i.e. training as farmers, workers or miners. Army size doesn't decide on how fast a player grows, its how they use it which does.... So perhaps modify the admin efficiency to take into account average income, rather than on army size?

This would also mean having farmers is more worth while/ more balanced vs. the other income types. I.e. 1 miner = 1.4 farmers. Reality is thus 600,000miners would be the equivilant of 840,000 farmers.... but when admin efficiency comes into play, you d probably need closer to 1million farmers to match the 600,000 miners.... and that imbalance will only grow larger over time. Players will simply need more farmers to match miners/ workers (which is fair enough) - but in turn this extra population will massively impact admin efficiency.. meaning more farmers are needed to compensate (thus even more admin efficiency).

Adjusting admin efficiency to take into account income, rather than army size... means a person with 840,000 farmers who will have the same income as someone with 600,000 miners, will have the same admin efficiency as that person with 600,000 miners...... Which is i think the fairest and most logical way, since the objective of admin efficiency is to slow down players growth... thus should be based on something to do with growth (income), rather than army size... which has nothing to do with growth in itself.

People who take the "risky" strategy of having workers/ miners would still have a HUGE advantage in the above example since the person with the farmers would still have to find an extra 240,000 Untrained Units to train into farmers to match the person with the miners income... but basing admin efficiency on income, rather than army size, just means people with the same growth potential (income) would recieve the same admin efficiency handicap, as oppossed to potential situations like the above where people with the same growth potential, have different admin efficiencies due to it being based on army size...

I was thinking about the same thing when the AE code was changed... lol
Was not sure if to propose it or not because i was scared of bitching, some people thinking that i'm biased. Good thinking i will support this 100%.

there's a myriad of problems with your suggestion ian three important ones just to take directly from your post.
1) I think someone with 600k miners is risking it quite a lot should they get into a war so hence it makes sense that you'd need as you said maybe around 1 mil farmers to make up for it.
2) Makes therefore also miners and workers even less worth the risk than it is right now
3) since if incomes get lowered on one day, then on day 2 a lower average income is detected causing AE to go closer to 100% for everyone, increasing incomes, meaning average income increases again, etc.

Possibly a better suggestion would be to base AE on army size but only on the portion that is trained farmers, workers and miners. Dont have time to write any more but will maybe do so later whne i got time