With the new chain update, the reputation gain from standard jobs has been greatly improved. With all bonuses applied, one can get up to 800% as much rep as one could before. And this is a great change for anyone who can't get their rep from attacks.

However, there is a balancing issue. Currently, all bonuses are equally weighted despite requiring very different amounts of effort.

For reference, here is the current formula: base_rep * 2 * (1 + prestige_bonus + uni_bonus + cartel_bonus) as taken from Vaelin

I'll use the Arson job as an example, since it's the job I spent the most time on.

With the current formula, Arson can make up to 75 * 2 * (1 + 1 + 1 + 2) = 150 * 5 = 750 rep per job. This is great, but with each component having the same effect towards the total, every individual bonus is only responsible for 150 (or 300) extra rep. However, not all bonuses take an equal effort.

• The uni bonus requires 84 days of taking courses for a total bonus of 150 rep. It applies to all standard jobs.
• The cartel bonus adds a total of 300 rep and it also applies to all standard jobs. The effort is hard to estimate since the wiki doesn't have all the rep costs yet and it depends a lot on the cartel size. But lets just assume 100 days in a somewhat active cartel is enough.
• The prestige bonus adds 150 rep in total, but it only applies to a single job. In terms of effort, it requires about 3,700 jobs for the first 5 prestiges (which would take 30min each) or 7,400 jobs total for P10. Let's be generous and say it only takes 3,700 jobs at 15min per job. That is still 925 hours or 92 days of playing about 10 hours each day. And that's with time prestiges already done.

Here's the text in a table instead:

Bonus Name	Bonus Gain	Applies to	Time Required	Daily effort
Uni Course	150 rep	All standard jobs	84 days	almost none
Cartel Perk	300 rep	All standard jobs	100 days	low to medium
Prestige	150 rep	Just one job	100 days	high

So, the job prestige takes a lot of effort for comparatively little reward. Therefore, I propose the following new formula instead:

base_rep * 2 * (1 + prestige_bonus) * (1 + uni_bonus + cartel_bonus)

To keep the same maximum value, the effect of both the uni course and the cartel bonus would need to be halfed. However, I very much advocate for smaller debuff, since taking advantage of the bonuses now requires a lot more effort. For instance, 75% for the uni courses and 125% for the cartel max would keep the max rep at 900, but fully realizing the old 600 "free" max would require 2 prestiges or ~1500 jobs.

That way, the prestige bonus has a much bigger impact on the overall result. See this table for comparison (using max uni and cartel bonus):

Prestige Level	Old Formula	New Formula	better rates
0	600	375	450
1	630	450	540
2	660	525	630
3	690	600	720
4	720	675	810
5	750	750	900

This would also make the effect of the time reduction and reward bonus prestiges equal, as the time reduction already acts independent of the bonuses.

I know this change might come off as controvertial as it debuffs the job rep with ultimately no added benefit. However, currently there's almost no incentive to go towards the reward prestige as the effect is only minimal. From my understanding, the goal of the update was partially to make the reward prestiges for standard jobs more attractive. This formula change could be a way to achieve that.

Also keep in mind that all the values are subject to change. The core point of my suggestion is to make reward prestiges worth it and on par with time reduction prestiges. So maybe the debuffs to the other rewards don't need to be as harsh, since it now requires more effort to fully realize them.

From my understanding,

I have just a slight edit to your calculation(s);

the parentheses alone would meaning you're multiplying the sum of the integers within the parenthese by the prior integer, thus, and following is an example, your calculation below would come to: 

75 * 2 (1+1+1+2) = 750. -- if one is reading it from a purely mathematic view. (PEMDAS/BEDMAS).

Not only is your base calculation incorrect by mathematic standards, but your notation of " ..2 * (.." would be erroneous, and redundant. 

 

Example from your text in post below:

"With the current formula, Arson can make up to 75 * 2 * (1 + 1 + 1 + 2) = 150 * 5 = 750 rep"

For those who do not wish to do these calcs mentally, plug "75*2(1+1+1+2)" into any calculator and you'll see what I mean.

While I do understand the point behind the parentheses, as they give insight to the code from which your calculations are based off, perhaps not including the explanatory parentheses within the same colour scheme as the rest, so as to separate them from the core maths themself, would be more appropriate to the calculations, and their clarity.