Hades said:
You guy's are correct, once you hit the ceiling on max levels it's game over for Persians. I have seen it time and time again on Facebook how many players get maxed out and the next payout is equal or lesser in value and resources paid back are far greater.
Payout 1
then the next payout:
Bank was paid back with interest and the payout was 21 million resources less than the 1st but he was able to save 3,000 mounted pelts from the previous payout (according to him) which makes up for the 21 million resource shortfall of the payment. It's clear to see the payouts are capped. There is no point in him continuing to play unless he manages to squeeze a decent payout like this using the least amount of troops possible with the most amount of resources but at what cost and how much time?
Thanks, at least some information.
OK, so my data above level 104 are not precise, as they're a projection.
I've been working on data collected by players over time up to level 104 and consising into a collection of minimum and maximum values.
I've copied all of them in a spreadsheet, then cacluated the average value for all of them and drew a graph (x=level, y=average payout value) from all this.
The graph shows a very precise exponential curve. The maximum and minimum values are always exactly 7.5% below and above the average value.
Unfortunately, I had no data above level 104, so, since the upper levels were in the quasi straight part of the curv, I used a linear regression using the last 3 data.
This gave an approximate value for the next levels, that I recently extended up to level 140, of course.
The approximation is in the use of a straight line, where the real exponential should raise faster, meaning the values I got over level 104 are actually inferior to the real values.
However, your post does give interesting information :
- Your payout from level 136 is superior to the estimated maximum for this level, which is never supposed to happen, BUT remember my sheet uses a projection and may not be accurate enough.
You got 184 365 000
from that level 136, which is tremendous, and far above the estimated maximum, which equals 164 170 798
according to my projection, with an average value of only 152 717 021
for that level.
I can still guess it comes from the linera regression inaccuracy, but 13.22% more than the estimated average value, or 12.30% above the estimated maximum is still gigantic and can hardly be explained by just the difference between the expential asymptote and the linear regression (until I've understimated the exponential increase in this area).
- However, your payout from the level 140 fits right in the middle of my estimation, with a value of 164 726 677
, where my projection gives an average value of 163 246 201
, a minimum of 151 002 736
and a maximum of 175 489 666
.
So yes, your first screen really seems to prove you could earn more than allowed, and your second screen shows you earned a nice payout located in the top tier of the expected payout range.
The second one is a normal and rather good payout, while the first one appears totally twisted, especially towards other palyers who were not informed and playing "normally".
In the end, from what I've understood, Plarium should now have made the payouts fair for everybody : either you finish the positions or not, you're now paying back the bank the same way. I mean, actually, you did, but because of some bug, it looks like it made the payout larger.
Actually, +13% is gigantic at level 140, but probably much less noticeable at lower levels, so it mostly made a difference at those higher levels.
Note that you can still play that way if you want : it's only you won't get an unfair advatage over players who just finish off positions on the go.
Now I'm actually wondering if it really made it larger. Maybe it just gave you the partials at the same time, explaining the difference.
Except you could ALSO get those partials a second time by finishing off the chipped positions. That's probably where the bug was. And it was a bug, not a function. It probably came with the introduction of systematic partials in 2015. I guess they didn't expect this and forget a loophole there...
Anyway, thanks for having allowed me to understand. :)