I think this assertion is the source of confusion. I think the multiplier ends up being worth way more than 28.5%.
The exact number depends heavily on the order that the kingdoms are included in the computation.
At worst (lowest values first), I have it at 48.9% (326 glory). At best (highest values first), I have it at 113% (467 glory). I also got 219 glory as the baseline.
You can check my math and let me know if I messed anything up:
I agree, the way I approached the multiplier was way too simplified. I assumed it’s entirely separated from the tribute amounts until the very end. The way you presented in the table makes a lot more sense (especially in the light of those screenshots showing tributes above what my “idea” could explain) and creates new questions like: do the tributes always follow some specific order in the formula (alphabetical, or from the smallest tribute, or from the biggest, or according to which kingdom was leveled first) or it’s entirely random (that alone would add a whole new layer of RNG on the overall tribute reward numbers).
Thank you for sharing that. That’s an interesting idea, that it’s possible to get 500’ish glory from tributes if the stars align (your example used the data specific to the case we were talking about, the actual potential is still a bit higher - as I wrote before, 237 glory from 12 kingdoms, instead of 219), fun fun.
A13 is =ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(A1*$E$1+A2)*$E$1+A3)*$E$1+A4)*$E$1+A5)*$E$1+A6)*$E$1+A7)*$E$1+A8)*$E$1+A9)*$E$1+A10)*$E$1+A11)*$E$1+A12))
A14 is =ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(A12*$E$1+A11)*$E$1+A10)*$E$1+A9)*$E$1+A8)*$E$1+A7)*$E$1+A6)*$E$1+A5)*$E$1+A4)*$E$1+A3)*$E$1+A2)*$E$1+A1))
A15 is =SUM(A1:A12)