|
|
(2010.May.03 08:58 AM)InPaceRequiscat Wrote: (2010.May.03 08:18 AM)peteycrack Wrote: its all multipliers so just increase everything as much as you possibly can. I personally think housing affects the trains alot more than Endurance.
Happiness does have a greater direct modifier, but at what price?
to go from a ranch to a midlan house, it is 3.2 mil and change... it boils out to $21406 PER POINT of happiness. this is equal to roughly 20 endurance points per point of happiness, and 3k endu points over all. Obviously, worth it... but what about more expensive houses?
midlan house to villa, 4.9 mil to get it, $32666 per point of happiness, 31 endu points...... a lot closer now, as 4.9 mil represents 4711 dev points of endu.
mid vil to dec beach, 5 mil, $32986 per point of happiness, 32 endu dev points, 4800 overall endu dev points.
those three all represent a better buy into happiness vs endurance. But as soon as you go to the next 5 mil upgrade, the arcology house, you only get 100 points of happiness. $50000 per point of happiness, 48 endu dev points. same 4800 overall dev points.
this is where it becomes better to buy the endurance, and each upgrade thereafter provides less and less benefit compared to endurance.
The issue here, and what I have been trying to explain, is that when bonus multiply together, then have a larger benefit than when they are simply added together.
In the case they add together, endurance will always be the better buy. But there is a point where increasing housing may be more beneficial. Allow me to try to explain it again.
This is all assuming housing and endurance multiply together when determing gym trains.
Say your housing boosted your trains by 50% (1.5), and your endurance increased your trains by 50%(1.5). We are ignoring trainers, gym days, and donator status for this.
1.5 x 1.5 = 2.25, or 125%
Now, lets say you had enough money to increase either, and the benefit, for the cost, would be equal. it wouldn't really matter which one you increased, so we will just do endurance for this. the net increase would be from 50%(1.5) to 65% (1.65)
1.5 x 1.65 = 2.475 (147.5%)
Now, lets say you had more money, and to increase either another 15% would cost the same. if you increased endurance again, it would play out like this...
1.5 x 1.80 = 2.7 (170%)
However, due to the way multiplication works, (I will not get into it here, just please go along with it) you would actually gain slightly more by increasing the housing.
1.65 x 1.65 = 2.7225 (172.25%)
I know they are not perfectly equal, but finding out the factors tthat determine which will investment will net the greatest gain, would be huge.
For everyone else, please don't just hijack my thread because you don't understand what I am talking about.
How did you come up with that calculation? |
|
Amend
|
|
