# Is x9 in profits worth it if it takes half of my angels?

I am able to get the "Salivate-tion" angel upgrade on the Moon in which grants x9 to all profits. Right now I would have to spend half of my angels to get this upgrade (500 quindecillion angels), but whether or not it is worth it seems like it should be true regardless of what the relative percentage of angels would be. Correct? My Bonus Per Angel is 11% so it should only take 81 angels (9/.11) to achieve a x9 upgrade. So isn't it always a waste to buy these instead of letting the angels do their bonus?

Edit: I went ahead and did it! I ended up with a net 4.9x increase after giving up 45% of my active angels.

## 3 Answers

It's worth it (assuming you keep it running long enough to get your angels back, anyway) because the extra Angels aren't separate multipliers, they are addition to an existing multiplier.

What happens is your profits are:

``````<base value> x <N angels> x <modifier A> x <modifier B>
``````

Doubling your angels will change it to:

``````<base value> x <2N angels> x <modifier A> x <modifier B>
``````

Doubling your Angels is effectively doubling your bonus, regardless of how many Angels you had (or have). In your case, you would need another 1000 quindecillion of them just to see x2 profits.

On the other hand, if you trade in half your Angels for an extra x9 modifer, you get the following:

``````<base value> x <0.5N angels> x <modifier A> x <modifier B> x 9
``````

This is a 4.5x rise in your profits. Sacrificing half your Angels cuts your bonus in half; the new total is multiplied by another 9.

There is an enourmous difference between an additive multiplier (going from x20 to x21) and multiplicative multipliers (is that a word?) (going from x20 to x20x2)

Adding more Angels is always additive; everything else is multiplicative.

So once you hit the point where you spend less than 1 - 1/(multiplier) of your Angels, you'll earn. In this case, 1 - 1/9 is about 89%, you'll be fine with spending 50% of them.

Just keep in mind you should not reset until you've earned them back, which might take a while.

• Your prediction worked out almost perfectly, which is easily accounted for by the .5 vs .45 percentage of angels sacrificed. Dec 20, 2015 at 3:31

I'm no Math major but the formula provided on this page should give you the correct answer.

From the page:

With:

M: Multiplier
C: Cost
En: New Angel effectiveness
Ec: Current Angel effectiveness

• I'd upvote this answer more readily, if the forumla was also solved for this situation. Of course, this would require additional information from the situation. (Angel effectiveness.) Dec 17, 2015 at 8:36

The best way is to use the system they have designed in the game. If you purchase upgrades using angels, and it asks are you sure, hit no. If it does not ask, it's "Safe" or efficient enough not to cause a loss of profits. Think of it like this, if it asks 'Are you Sure?', it's because it isn't considered Safe when it consumes more than 1% of your angels. To prevent confusion, remember this doesn't mean it will never give you more profits than you currently have, but if you use their built in system, you won't ever waste angels.

This same things applies when you buy the quick buy manager (earth or mars), because with the quick buy angels, it will only buy the safe upgrades and leave any others alone.

• I disagree. It's rather rare, but sometimes I've gotten this warning even tough I've gotten a clear benefit. This often required the profit multiplier to be either 5x or 9x. Dec 18, 2015 at 12:40
• The bolded area is just a basic answer for those looking for a quick yes/no. As i said, the game does a calculation and determines whether an upgrade would be considered Safe. In this case, i'm sure the wording needs changed, because being considered "safe" doesn't mean it will never increase your income. I changed the wording, but does that make more sense? Dec 18, 2015 at 13:39
• While correct, safe does not always equal efficient. Dec 18, 2015 at 21:21
• Nope, but it's better than doing the math every time. Someone already posted the formula, so it's up to the user if they want to use the formula. My method is simple and works, and doesn't require anything special. So for the lazy gamer who doesn't care if they are efficient, it works. Dec 18, 2015 at 22:55
• If I'm already doing math in the question do I look like a lazy gamer? Dec 20, 2015 at 3:27