admin efficiency

just a thought, don't know how hard it would be to code. could your admin efficiency be decided on players with 5 pages (or however many) each way. so if your account is ranked on page 10 your efficiency is compared with those on pages 5-15. know that the current system is to slow the growth of bigger players but was just a thought as i say.
let me know what u think

no, rank means too little to be worth in considering AE

Have to agree with Admin, most could drop rank by 5 or 10 pages easily, and if it meant halve the AE, they could prolly drop even more.

I take my statement back, this is a very useful suggestion. linking AE to average arnysize around your rank does have potential.

It'd be an incentive to increase rank for everyone.
If large players drop rank they are more likely to be around weak players which means taking another hit in AE and hence less income and growth.

If small players increase rank they are more likely to be around powerful players which means their AE will increase, which means more income and therefore more growth.

Everyone has more incentive to spend more on military, which this game is about.
Your workers know they are protected well so they are more motivated to give their best at work

However there's a number of practicality issues involved which would need solving.

In that case people with a low army size, but with high rank become very impopular, very quickly with their neighbours.

glad it wasn't a terrible idea

Admin wrote:It'd be an incentive to increase rank for everyone.
If large players drop rank they are more likely to be around weak players which means taking another hit in AE and hence less income and growth.

If small players increase rank they are more likely to be around powerful players which means their AE will increase, which means more income and therefore more growth.

Everyone has more incentive to spend more on military, which this game is about.
Your workers know they are protected well so they are more motivated to give their best at work

first I was not fond of it either, but if it means that it will give an incentive for players to have a better rank, then take it, but make sure strong players wont be even stronger than before,

however if this update ever takes place, it should be clearly defined and easy for everyone to understand so that anyone can calcultate the cost benefit ratio.

being rank 1 or rank 100 should make too much of a difference.
maybe +10% administrative efficiency.

maybe +0.1% admin efficiency per 1 rank (from rank 1-100) (+10)
maybe +0.05% admin efficiency per 1 rank (from rank 100-300) (+10)

meaning you can increase your admin efficiency by a total of 20%

Glory work incentive = That's how it can be called on the income page, should be a separate line below Admin Efficiency.


IT DEFINITELY HAS TO BE AN ABSOLUTE VALUE, SO THAT ITS CLEAR FOR EVERYONE HOW MUCH THEY GAIN PER RANK.
MAKING IT A RELATIVE VALUE WILL MAKE IT LESS UNDERSTANDABLE FOR OTHER PLAYERS.

Ranges could work, maybe have averages of the 10 or 20 ranks within your range? And include an average army size per page posted somewhere on the attack page? (Think about this..., if too many people drop rank, the administrative efficiency for that range would change the balance, and the originally stated problem with the idea could become active once again. )

The biggest trouble I have with this idea has to do with the fact that it could very much advertise stat building, and punish people for choosing not to build pure stats. If one stat becomes too over powering after an update such as this comes out, consider a stat scaling update to reduce the power of the stat everyone chooses to stack, so total power doesn't become the only method of account growth, due to the interest in higher rank through stat increases.

Hmm, i like the idea of admin efficiency being linked to average army size per XXX range of a person's rank.

Regarding rank - admin please can you include a daily economic generation into the rank system:

Daily economic generation = (Total Unit Production x ingame market UU price) + daily income from turn income - then rank it much like you do with stats.

This should mean to get higher ranked someone need's to have BOTH a good military and effective economy - if they have a low economy and large military, the economy's rank would drag the overall rank down - if they have a large economy, and next to no military - the poor military rank would drag the overall rank down etc...

Space2050 wrote:The biggest trouble I have with this idea has to do with the fact that it could very much advertise stat building, and punish people for choosing not to build pure stats. If one stat becomes too over powering after an update such as this comes out, consider a stat scaling update to reduce the power of the stat everyone chooses to stack, so total power doesn't become the only method of account growth, due to the interest in higher rank through stat increases.

no need to do any scaling on that though. If it's cheaper to gain rank than to upgrade up or buy uu's then people will gain rank. If it's cheaper to buy uu's, then people will buy uu's


and no ian, i wont add a rank to economic growth. Increased growth is enough of an incentive to focus on income and up i think. However it might be worth considering buffing the income stat boost a bit should this be done since putting points into the other stats will indirectly allow you to raise your income too, which is right now not considered in the boost values.