If the person doesn't have much money on hand, and you're trying to push them to earn more, you can endlessly cycle through about 4 tutors, bumping them, and they'll never not be able to hire a tutor. But if you use 1 or 2, or sometimes 3 tutors, you'll find that, after bumping all the tutors to their max, they can't hire more. But with 4, if they've bumped all the tutors as much as possible, they'll be able to find another one of those 4 tutors and hire it.
Pls excuse my noob coding, thanky ? I'm gonna use numbers to prove so that it's easier. Assuming you have $2,000 Current tut value: $1,000 Cash remaining: $1,000 Someone hires that tut from u, New tut value (increase by 5%): $1,050 Ur profit (~1.58%): $15 Cash remaining + profit + original tut value: $2,015 Now, u hire the tut at: $1,050, so, Cash remaining: 2015-1050 = $965 % cash lost: [1- (965/1000)]×100%= 3.5% So yes, you'll lose approx 3.5% of ur tut value before u bump ?
I'm nt sure if I understood ur qn right so pls correct me if I'm wrong ? But I think that u earn more from the former simply because the player does not keep the tutor and thus the profit from volleying just stacks up? Since a 5m tut will get to 800m before it reaches 1b, there will be an additional profit from when the tut was hired from 5m to 800m compared to the latter ? It is approximately to that ratio yes. But one thing to note is that the value to dvp ratio starts decreasing once the tut value reaches around 120b or so iirc. So you're early getting less than 1b profit per 6b dv if the tut value is high
I'm bored and gonna prove to you that it ain't 5%. 1000*(1.05^400) = 299,033,351,248.8 or 299 billion. 1000*(1.05^401) = 313,985,018,811.3 or 314 billion. Go to the tutor hire list, count how many people are between these prices and how many are on them and you should see a roughly even distribution across the prices. Heaps of people are 300b, 301b, 302, etc. The only known/confirmed way to influence someone's hire value without volleying them (and keeping them on that 5% course) is to drop them. Dropping tutors is relatively rare and something that most players avoid. The number of outliers to the original hypothesis of 5% intervals far outnumber those actually consistent with it. and the number of tutors that have never been dropped outnumber those that have been dropped, so variation in value isn't caused by tutors being dropped.
Well my brain is on holiday so I can't think of a good way to calculate, so I guess the only way to do that is to calculate the profit for each hire value individually And that's just painful af Tbh, I have no idea why sry I just noticed it happening when I'm doing dvp
I see. So my calculations, assuming all percentage values OP has given are true, are correct. Thank you.
I haven't run a simulation or an experiment yet but I think I can safely say it's because you get to hire the tutor more when you start at a low hire value. More hires means more profit because you get the profit every step of the way. As an example: Assuming bumping a 1T tut to 3T takes like 10 bumps (10 hires on your part and the other 10 for the original owner), and bumping a tut from 2.8T to 3T takes only 1 bump (1 hire for you and another from original owner), and that it takes 8 bumps to bump a 1T tut to 2.8T. Assume also that profit for the bumps are as follows: 1T to 1.2T: a 1.2T to 1.4T: b 1.4T to 1.6T: c . . . . 2.6T to 2.8T: i 2.8T to 3.0T: j As you can see, bumping the tutor from 1T to 3T gives you all profits a to j every step of the way, whereas only bumping it from 2.8T to 3.0T only gives you j. They aren't real values and are just assumptions but I hope you got the idea
I get it. But that's how you find out how much it costs to give X amount of dvp. 6:1 sounds sort of arbitrary. Figuring out what the cost is, compared to a) the change in value/number of bumps, and b) the original value; would be key to figuring out what that actually is. If we could figure it out and compile it into an accurate formula, that'd help, and then we could just simplify it for general use. Also, figuring out exactly how much value inceases woth each bump would help to make that full formula more accurate.
It's looks like 5%. I did a little experiment and collected some data, and it looks like the calculator on PIMD doesn't store any decimals, and thus rounds down all the results... but this doesn't explain the evident variety in values.
Agreed. I also did some experiments of my own since my curiosity can't handle it. Here you can see the data I collected from experimenting with different hire values at a very close range. The discrepancies reach up to the 16th decimal place. In this, the dependent variable is the % Increase. In this photo, I used the same hire values but used the 5% increase as a constant and instead calculated for the resulting hire values. So the resulting hire values are only theoretical. In this, the dependent variable is the Price After Hire. Note that as Kefo mentioned, the 5% is only applicable when the resulting hire values are rounded DOWN (decimal places are truncated). So the theoretical values I calculated are accurate with the experimental values, given that their decimal places are removed. I hope this helps concretize the claims and clarify stuff. Still, I also wonder about the variety of values. In the photos I posted, you can see differences of $1 between and among the HVs and it is yet to be explained what accounts for these stuff. (If the images don't show properly I'm sorry for my nub BB coding skills)