admin efficiency based on income

by Kenzu Sun Aug 09, 2009 3:02 pm

I recommend basing administrative efficiency based on income. The more income you have, the more inefficient the production of income should be.

Currently, if there are 2 players, who would earn same income, but one having only farmers and the other one only miners, the one who has only farmers will prouce much less than the miner one, which drives people to train more miners or workers since the income is much lower.

It should not be based on income alone, since someone who has same income but at the same time 10 times more military units, should have less admin efficiency.

Also, someone who has 100 farmers

Administrative efficiency should be based on a special average, which can be calculated in the following way:
Total incomes of active players / amount of active players (average income)
Total military units of active players / Total population of active players (military proportion)

average income * military proportion = special average

All players who have less than special average will produce at 100% efficiency.

This means that player A who earns as much as player B, but has a bigger proportion of military units (thus having bigger armysize) will have lower income

ALTERNATIVELY

consider only total income.
If income is lower than average, produce 100%
high income shall lower administrative efficiency

military units dont need to be considered, since they are unrelated to income. the point of administrative efficiency is to lower income of the biggest players so that they don't earn 100 times more than others.

part of ians message

ian wrote:...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...

by Admin Sun Aug 09, 2009 7:29 pm

no
https://aderanwars.forumotion.com/bugs-f21/income-fluctuation-t663.htm#5175

only thing that would be POSSIBLE to consider is that instead of army size, only income units would be looked at. (so taking the amount of income units you have vs average amount of income units per player)

by Kenzu Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:59 pm

Admin wrote:no
https://aderanwars.forumotion.com/bugs-f21/income-fluctuation-t663.htm#5175

only thing that would be POSSIBLE to consider is that instead of army size, only income units would be looked at. (so taking the amount of income units you have vs average amount of income units per player)

no, makes no sense to change anything if the income isn't considered.
military units should be considered

by Sponsored content

admin efficiency based on income

admin efficiency based on income

Re: admin efficiency based on income

Re: admin efficiency based on income

Re: admin efficiency based on income