Difference between revisions of "User talk:Exasperation"
From SpiralKnights
Exasperation (Talk | contribs) |
(→Data analysis: okay then) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Exasperation, thanks for doing this work. It's great. In your expression for the bonus, are you missing a set of parentheses? If not, then 0.94 * 100 simplifies to 94, right? [[User:Jdavis|Jdavis]] 15:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC) | Exasperation, thanks for doing this work. It's great. In your expression for the bonus, are you missing a set of parentheses? If not, then 0.94 * 100 simplifies to 94, right? [[User:Jdavis|Jdavis]] 15:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
| − | The .94 is a parameter that depends on the depth. I left it as .94 * 100 because the same parameter (.94 at depth 28, .9 at depth 27, haven't gotten around to other depths yet) seems to also show up in the calculation of base damage after adjusting for depth. So it's actually K * 100 (where K = .94 at depth 28), and the same value K shows up elsewhere without the "* 100". --[[User:Exasperation|Exasperation]] 02:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC) | + | :The .94 is a parameter that depends on the depth. I left it as .94 * 100 because the same parameter (.94 at depth 28, .9 at depth 27, haven't gotten around to other depths yet) seems to also show up in the calculation of base damage after adjusting for depth. So it's actually K * 100 (where K = .94 at depth 28), and the same value K shows up elsewhere without the "* 100". --[[User:Exasperation|Exasperation]] 02:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC) |
| + | |||
| + | ::Thanks for clarifying. Things like this often indicate a missing set of parentheses, but now I understand why it was intentional. [[User:Jdavis|Jdavis]] 13:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 13:40, 1 February 2012
Data analysis
Exasperation, thanks for doing this work. It's great. In your expression for the bonus, are you missing a set of parentheses? If not, then 0.94 * 100 simplifies to 94, right? Jdavis 15:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- The .94 is a parameter that depends on the depth. I left it as .94 * 100 because the same parameter (.94 at depth 28, .9 at depth 27, haven't gotten around to other depths yet) seems to also show up in the calculation of base damage after adjusting for depth. So it's actually K * 100 (where K = .94 at depth 28), and the same value K shows up elsewhere without the "* 100". --Exasperation 02:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. Things like this often indicate a missing set of parentheses, but now I understand why it was intentional. Jdavis 13:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
