Some stats from one of my current societies.:Ħ28 wonders levelled at an average of 1.7 wonders a day. I have rune this program in numerous fellowships/worlds over a number of years now and I have never seen a person never get a chest reward. The society makes the KP reward absolutely predictable for every person for every wonder. So if they never earn a chest they would still earn the 20% reward due to the society and therefore level their wonders faster. Person B donates 100KP and gets no prize, the society recalculates this asġ00 KP (donation) + 20KP (20% of donation) = 120KP (in society).Įvery person gets an equal KP reward based on the reward offered by the game. While this appears less, the person has 30kp in instants so 90 + 30 = 120KP received for top prize. We know wonders give approx 20% of research cost as rewards so the society recalculated this asġ00 KP (donation) - 30KP (reward received) + 20KP (20% of donation) = 90KP (in society). Person A donates 100KP and gets top prize for 30KP. In the society the redistribution of KP means the person who never got a chest still gets a reward and that reward is equal to everyone else. It is possible in other options to donate KP and never get a reward chest and therefore never get a reward. It is actually this scenario that sets the society apart compared to some of the other options. Am I just confused over a matter of semantics? Or is there something big/obvious that I'm missing? And not being completely 'fair' does not mean the system is not a good one. I CAN see how it could be an equalizing/stabilizing factor, preventing sudden changes. Take the case of a schlimazel who never gets a chest despite donating roughly the same amount as other members: not only do they not get an instant to put them in better standing with donations for the next target, but the redistribution would seem to give them less standing to BE the next target. something that may be clearer if/when I investigate the spreadsheet itself. I guess I'm not seeing yet how this precisely correlates with a given contributor's balance, pile-on, etc. It's regarding the KP redistribution and how this constitutes 'fairness'. My fellowship is currently investigating other Wonder donation options (we currently have a swap thread and a rotation group) and after reading your post here and your slides on the Gems of Knowledge website I still have an area of confusion and/or concern. These are not a wonder society but a spreadsheet assisted KP pool and are unique to the variations applied in that pool. Katwijk Explanation of a spreadsheet methodĮdit: Please note that some fellowships use a spreadsheet but change the rules for a wonder society, like penalising people for self-donation. Katwijk Analysis of KP clubs - This also includes an explanation of a spreadsheet method Please avoid comparing this to other types of programs, that can be done in a different thread, This thread is about how someone would run such a program and the merits of posts explaining how a spreadsheet system would work. For the groups I have been in this is normally only a couple hours. People willing to record donations and rewards or willing to wait for someone to record them.Only a short wait depending on timezones, hours of play and helpers.Members willing to join - works with 3 to 4 people but is better with at least 6-8.Guaranteed KP bonuses for all participants.Can donate even if you have no wonder or your wonders are at rune stage.Not effected by time zones or hours of play.Easy for members of the group to participate.His original posts are at the bottom of this post. The concept originally comes from Forge of Empires with an even longer history there and thanks goes to Katwijk for bringing the concept here. This system has been used for years by various fellowships on different servers so it has been tried and tested many times.

Elvenar gems of knowledge orcs