Commander/officer ratio

I had an officer at

25.82 %

. I then brokered him for the exact amount listed as missing payment. When he accepted he immediately went to

62.5 %

.

Is that correct?
(seems that when you go from a 1 you don't go to 100 but to 62.5


Also I think your tool tip is backwards or I have completely misread it as it says to do the opposite of what I did.

If missing payment is negative, decrease your officer pay or let the officer pay you the required amount through a broker

If missing payment is positive, increase your officer pay or let the officer pay you the required amount through a broker

Shouldnt it be is its negative that you increase pay or broker your officer, and if its positive you decrese pay or have them pay you?

if you're in the red, the missing payment only shows how much you need to send to get into the green.
If you're below 62.5% then you get up to that value.
If you're above 100% then you get down to that value

I've double checked and I am pretty confident that it shows the proper text.
The commander can receive more than they pay to the officer.
But the officer should not receive more than the commander. (since then the commander is buying units at higher than market price which then equals to a direct transfer of resources)

You do realise that units received from someone being an officer are not the same product as units bought on the global market and thus may have a different fair price?
Do you have any indication how the suggested commander rate relates to the average/mean/median commander rate for active officers?

Jiro wrote:Do you have any indication how the suggested commander rate relates to the average/mean/median commander rate for active officers?

what people end up paying is their choice and this update doesn't force anything on anyone.

i've said it repeatedly i'll say it in this topic again but only once.

Pay more than the suggested ratio and the game will simply interpret it that you're sending regular kuwal transfers to your officer.
Pay less than the suggested ratio and the game will simply interpret it that you're receiving regular kuwal transfers from your officer.

see updated news page.

bottom line: you can pay whatever you want, as long as you keep an eye on your personal transfer ratio
can someone tell me if the news page text is more or less idiot proof with respect to commander rates?

There is no such thing as idiot proof. They are always building better idiots.

Keep in mind admin, just because it appears easy to understand to you, doesn't mean it is for those not on the same train of thought as you. It really isn't as easy to understand as you think when you don't have all the background information and discussion on the topic.

What you don't understand is how it appears from our side. Simply put, pay what admin wants you to pay or get redlined. Yes you say we can pay what we want and it wont effect you but it does. Some are OCD about things and want them perfect, yes thats a personal problem but it still effects peoples decisions. Also by effecting your personal ratio it can block trades you would normally make because it redlines you to much. I think in time people will start to understand and the system will adjust to what it was before.

Nomad wrote:There is no such thing as idiot proof. They are always building better idiots.

Keep in mind admin, just because it appears easy to understand to you, doesn't mean it is for those not on the same train of thought as you. It really isn't as easy to understand as you think when you don't have all the background information and discussion on the topic.

What you don't understand is how it appears from our side. Simply put, pay what admin wants you to pay or get redlined. Yes you say we can pay what we want and it wont effect you but it does. Some are OCD about things and want them perfect, yes thats a personal problem but it still effects peoples decisions. Also by effecting your personal ratio it can block trades you would normally make because it redlines you to much. I think in time people will start to understand and the system will adjust to what it was before.

Then let's say it like this. As long as you are in green, your account is in perfect standing!

WOW really kenzu?


You just don't get it do you?


OK real simple here. You CAN NOT pay what you want to pay your officers without an ill effect PERIOD.

Example

You do ALL trades perfectly on the "fair trade" rates. But you pay your officers 500k per, so over time you redline your commander/officer ratio. This inturns eventually over time redlines your personal ratio, this over time gets you banned even tho EVERY trade you ever did was perfectly fair and legal and within the "fair trade" rules.

Yes it is an extreme example but it proves what you "claim" to be true in fact is not true, and you just wont admit it.

Instead of saying it can't or won't happen, say unless you go to an extreme for a very long period of time then it shouldnt happen.

And some will never see green for months BTW Kenzu, so they are to live in fear until they do? pfffft

/epic rant

nobel wrote:/epic rant

yeah, but it proves the point. Officer and commander relationships are about more then kewal and UU. Many take officers to help them and to carry on what they teach. It is very hard to help officers now with monitary donations anyway.

Nomad wrote:OK real simple here. You CAN NOT pay what you want to pay your officers without an ill effect PERIOD.

if you pay too much you feed them. If you pay too little they are feeding you.
I hope that's an inescapable fact that everyone agrees upon.

If you get feeded by other people too much then you are indeed breaking the rules about fair and acceptable playing.

Admin wrote:

Nomad wrote:OK real simple here. You CAN NOT pay what you want to pay your officers without an ill effect PERIOD.

if you pay too much you feed them. If you pay too little they are feeding you.
I hope that's an inescapable fact that everyone agrees upon.

If you get feeded by other people too much then you are indeed breaking the rules about fair and acceptable playing.

so you finally agree with me that you can not pay an officer what you want?


and the "inescapabable" fact isnt the issue. its YOUR interpritation of fair and acceptable playing. Not everyone feels helping an officers is not fair and is not acceptable.

Inactives feeding an account is a heck of a lot different then a fully active player growing and striving to compete.


I'm fine with the update still, its your wording thats causing the problems. You can't say you can pay what you want in one breath and

if you pay too much you feed them. If you pay too little they are feeding you.
I hope that's an inescapable fact that everyone agrees upon.

If you get feeded by other people too much then you are indeed breaking the rules about fair and acceptable playing.

in the next.

forgive me as my copy/paste doesn't seem to be working so I will have to do this by hand...

Admin wrote: What people end up paying is their choice & this update doesn't force anything on anyone.

first we get the above statement in this thread... Then we get the following statement...

Admin wrote: if you pay too much you feed them. if you pay too little they are feeding you. I hope thats an inescapable fact that everyone agrees upon.

now me being the type who likes to set it & forget it; to get 2 totally opposing statements from Admin in the same thread worries me... I understand that I may pay an officer whatever I want for a short time "until" my personal ratio starts to redline, then I have to change it... this means that my set it & forget it playstyle gets canned... no problem that I understand, what bothers me is the first quoted statement, & why it was issued in the first place, when it is obviously not the way it is set up now... i.e. I cannot set it to pay my officers 180,000k per unit & walk away from it & basically forget it, as if I did this , I would soon redline, then redline my personal ratio, then if unchecked & uncorrected I would be punished... this is if I am understanding everything correctly... If I am reading all this wrong then please someone explain it to me...

Nomad wrote:and the "inescapabable" fact isnt the issue. its YOUR interpritation of fair and acceptable playing. Not everyone feels helping an officers is not fair and is not acceptable.
I'm fine with the update still, its your wording thats causing the problems. You can't say you can pay what you want in one breath

Fine, I'll correct my statement

You can pay whatever rate you want to whoever you want to exactly the same extent as before

You are correct, I should not need to remind everyone that there are rules in place that forbid feeding.
So the above statement is just as true as the following:

You can send any resources to anyone anytime you want to exactly the same extent as before

Now obviously whoever opened up the banned users page and found those who got banned for feeding will realize that there's an addendum to those two claims. There is one, there has always been one and there will always be one.
You send too much, I notice it, and you get into trouble.
The only difference between now and then is that people just found out they lost half their army size, or got permabanned.
Now they will know long in advance that they are threading into dangerous territory and have something to point their finger at.

Additionally anyone trying to claim that before payment to officers was completely unregulated is being ridiculous because
a) There was a minimum payment amount put in place, and everyone knows this who has tried to benefit unfairly from officers
b) When judging and punishing people who have feeded, I also looked at if they were feeding themselves through the commander/officer channel.

Point a) alone validates my claim, point b) is just there because it just is part of my equation, I dont expect anyone to have known it by default.

kingkongfan1 wrote:forgive me as my copy/paste doesn't seem to be working so I will have to do this by hand...

Admin wrote: What people end up paying is their choice & this update doesn't force anything on anyone.

first we get the above statement in this thread... Then we get the following statement...

Admin wrote: if you pay too much you feed them. if you pay too little they are feeding you. I hope thats an inescapable fact that everyone agrees upon.

Kong explain to me please why you think that the second statement hasn't been part of the game since day one as mentioned in the rules

only then will I be able to respond to your question
But a short reply will be as follows.
You can be sending away resources away each day or keep getting resources each day and you will never even get past 20%
If you send away 20 and end up with an account value of 100, then your ratio will be 20%. within the limit
Then if you send away another 20 (total 40) and grow to account value 200 then your ratio will still only be 20%
Because 40 sent away is compared to your account value of 200 is 20%
Congratulations, you doubled your sent resources amount but you ratio hasn't moved a single %.

thing is you also just proved us right again.


Either way I'll just say we are both right (me and you) and be done with it. You did just say there were limits in place before which debunks your statement that you can pay what you want, plus this

I don't expect anyone to have known it by default.

Its things like this that make it hard for people like me to understand certain things.

One of those things is, how is helping someone, officer or not, who actively plays, grows, and becomes a part of the community and game as bad as an inactive account logging in 1 time a week to feed 1 account every time?


Answer is, its not, but you make it sound like it is.

Guess I'm just saying it sucks to not be able to help a smaller/newer player out because of feeders. But there is no silver bullet, and this system is the best I have ever seen for its intended pourpose.


EDIT****

Admin wrote: explain to me please why you think that the second statement hasn't been part of the game since day one as mentioned in the rules

only then will I be able to respond to your question

On my behalf, ill answer that.

Before you could help officers, and never heard a peep from anyone even if you doubled or trippled their account size, now thats not the case. Heck I would get hit by a 1 day old account I didnt know with 65 men and double his account and give him enough kewal to train them all and buy a few levels just for being brave. Now that gets them redlined and investigated. If your UP is 20K then 20K UU is 1 days production. If you gave that to a friend starting out its going to throw redflags everywhere and get them in trouble even if they are actively playing and growing and trying to compete.

Nomad wrote:Either way I'll just say we are both right (me and you) and be done with it. You did just say there were limits in place before which debunks your statement that you can pay what you want

Only to the exact same extent as anyone's claim that the update changed how much you're allowed to pay.

Just like before, I can set 600k into that payment rate box, nothing to stop me from doing that. Or even entering 4 million per uu.

Admin wrote:

Nomad wrote:Either way I'll just say we are both right (me and you) and be done with it. You did just say there were limits in place before which debunks your statement that you can pay what you want

Only to the exact same extent as anyone's claim that the update changed how much you're allowed to pay.

Just like before, I can set 600k into that payment rate box, nothing to stop me from doing that. Or even entering 4 million per uu.

*Walks away thinking about the entire redlining issue aready mentioned where you get banned for overpaying a fully active officer*

Admin wrote:

kingkongfan1 wrote:forgive me as my copy/paste doesn't seem to be working so I will have to do this by hand...

Admin wrote: What people end up paying is their choice & this update doesn't force anything on anyone.

first we get the above statement in this thread... Then we get the following statement...

Admin wrote: if you pay too much you feed them. if you pay too little they are feeding you. I hope thats an inescapable fact that everyone agrees upon.

Kong explain to me please why you think that the second statement hasn't been part of the game since day one as mentioned in the rules

only then will I be able to respond to your question
But a short reply will be as follows.
You can be sending away resources away each day or keep getting resources each day and you will never even get past 20%
If you send away 20 and end up with an account value of 100, then your ratio will be 20%. within the limit
Then if you send away another 20 (total 40) and grow to account value 200 then your ratio will still only be 20%
Because 40 sent away is compared to your account value of 200 is 20%
Congratulations, you doubled your sent resources amount but you ratio hasn't moved a single %.

the second statement is fine; I have no issue with it...

this is not meant to sound as it does; I just do not know any other way to say what I am trying to...

the first statement is a boldface lie... it does force a player to do/take certain actions, ( I previously gave an example). & you cannot pay what you choose, remember my set it & forget it playstyle that I previously mentioned? If I had an officer I would have to moniter very closely what the going rate is & change it as needed. instead of setting it at whatever, because I would eventually redline. do you understand now?

Nomad wrote:Now that gets them redlined and investigated. If your UP is 20K then 20K UU is 1 days production. If you gave that to a friend starting out its going to throw redflags everywhere and get them in trouble even if they are actively playing and growing and trying to compete.

Why would he get into any trouble at all since they would clearly be rapidly improving their transfer ratio after spiking it once extremely.
I think it was clear by now that getting a particular value for the ratio isn't the thing anyone, or at least me when considering punishment, is looking at, it's how you work with it over time.

Nomad wrote:
*Walks away thinking about the entire redlining issue aready mentioned where you get banned for overpaying a fully active officer*

people got banned in the past for feeding, one of the ways how they feeded was overpaying an officer.
I fail to notice the difference to the current situation

kingkongfan1 wrote:the first statement is a boldface lie... it does force a player to do/take certain actions, ( I previously gave an example). & you cannot pay what you choose, remember my set it & forget it playstyle that I previously mentioned? If I had an officer I would have to moniter very closely what the going rate is & change it as needed. instead of setting it at whatever, because I would eventually redline. do you understand now?

No I dont, your argument is that you need to watch the ratio. I dont consider updating that value once every few months to qualify as watching.

Suggested rate is 140k, that gives you a rate of 75%. You get redlined if you go above 100% or under 62.5%
So let's imagine you set it to 90% since the uu's are more likely to grow in price than drop, so you better want to pay more than less for now.
Set it to 168k then, and unless the suggested rate gets up to 201k (the uu's would need to go for about 269k a piece) or under 118k, then you will never have to worry about getting redlined.

besides chances are people will be using the payment somewhat to adjust paying more during the night and a bit less during the day, not all but some or many.

Admin wrote:

kingkongfan1 wrote:the first statement is a boldface lie... it does force a player to do/take certain actions, ( I previously gave an example). & you cannot pay what you choose, remember my set it & forget it playstyle that I previously mentioned? If I had an officer I would have to moniter very closely what the going rate is & change it as needed. instead of setting it at whatever, because I would eventually redline. do you understand now?

No I dont, your argument is that you need to watch the ratio. I dont consider updating that value once every few months to qualify as watching.

Suggested rate is 140k, that gives you a rate of 75%. You get redlined if you go above 100% or under 62.5%
So let's imagine you set it to 90% since the uu's are more likely to grow in price than drop, so you better want to pay more than less for now.
Set it to 168k then, and unless the suggested rate gets up to 201k (the uu's would need to go for about 269k a piece) or under 118k, then you will never have to worry about getting redlined.

besides chances are people will be using the payment somewhat to adjust paying more during the night and a bit less during the day, not all but some or many.

I give up,

BTW - the suggested rate for officers per unit WAS - 139,703. 2 hours ago. IS NOW - 139,140

hopefully you understood by now that almost all of your worries were unsubstantiated

more like 6-12 hours ago but k

Admin wrote:

Jiro wrote:Do you have any indication how the suggested commander rate relates to the average/mean/median commander rate for active officers?

what people end up paying is their choice and this update doesn't force anything on anyone.

i've said it repeatedly i'll say it in this topic again but only once.

Pay more than the suggested ratio and the game will simply interpret it that you're sending regular kuwal transfers to your officer.
Pay less than the suggested ratio and the game will simply interpret it that you're receiving regular kuwal transfers from your officer.

I think you're missing my point and it has nothing to do with a failure to understand that the game will interpret deviation from suggested rates as sending resources to or from a CO/officer. My point was that the UU rate at the global market is not a good measure for a fair CO rate because UU bought through someone being an officer is basically different from UU on the global market. There are lots of advantages to the officer relationship for the CO that justify a substantially different price.
What this leads to is that the system detect resources being sent to officers for completely fair rates and feeding being not detected. Assuming a transparent CO rate market, the average commander benefit (set rate + resources sent to officers) is a better measure for a fair price compared to UU price on the global market.
I know I can balance my trade balance by increasing UP, but I should not have to.

[quote="Jiro"]I think you're missing my point and it has nothing to do with a failure to understand that the game will interpret deviation from suggested rates as sending resources to or from a CO/officer.

Jiro wrote:My point was that the UU rate at the global market is not a good measure for a fair CO rate...

I think it's a very good starting point, hence also a measure, because if one could buy uu's for 100k, then one would not get officers and pay them 500k.

Jiro wrote:...because UU bought through someone being an officer is basically different from UU on the global market.
There are lots of advantages to the officer relationship for the CO that justify a substantially different price.

I agree that it justifies for someone to be willing to pay another price, hence the reason why there's such a wide spectrum of acceptable payment rates.
There's plenty of factors that justify this difference.
Reduced chance of getting farmed for commander
Increased chance of getting farmed for officer
Potentially increased profits for officer due to increase in production

However I do hope that you'll realize that trying to claim that honest CO payment rates fulfilling their intended purpose have little relation to the current UU rates is very far away from the truth.

Jiro wrote:Assuming a transparent CO rate market, the average commander benefit (set rate + resources sent to officers) is a better measure for a fair price compared to UU price on the global market.

I would tend to agree somewhat with that in an ideal world, however because the CO rate market is something too easy to manipulate it cannot be relied upon.