Math problem with Sacred Skill Plotter.

[mik209 0]

Im working on v3 of the Sacred Skill Plotter, and I finally got the attribute calculator worked in (took a little while, had to write a total of 48 formulas... sheesh) and now its time to work on the skill progression calc. Using percentages of increase found in Myles guide in the FAQ section, I am going to make it possible to see when you should stop putting points into a skill, due to lack of return on investment. I have however hit a mathematical road block and have thus came in search of help as I know some people in here know there way around numbers. Say a skill from level 1-50 adds 2% per point, and then adds 1% every level from there. I need a way to write that in a mathematical formula, and I cant figure out how. It would be easy if there was a way of letting it know when the 1% per point kicked in, but since it doesnt recognize when it hits 50 it cant decide to halve the value of each point. Anyone who helps reach the answer will get recognition in v3 and later, as Myles already is, as well as Night Wolfe. Getting recognition is in essence useless, but its all I got to offer.

[griffman 0]

Are you sure there isn't a way to do something like:

 

if x < 50 then x*2 = result

else

x - 50 + 100 = result

(or simplified to x + 50 = result)

?

 

the 100 is for x=50 * 2, or the last 2% increase

 

 

Err.. this is assuming you're writing some sort of program for a calculator....

 

 

Still assuming the same thing.... wow I think I've edited this like 3 or 4 times now btw.

 

You could write a for;while statement, since that would be easier than writing a if;then;else for every time a skill decreases in output. That, my friend, is not my forte. I haven't been good at programming since high school.....

[gial 2]

I'm not realy certain what it is you want here - a general written formula or an implementation of some such, as in an Excel spreadsheet.

 

I rather suspect the ultimate goal is to construct the latter. I'll read Myles' guide and see if I can come up with something. After all, numbers ARE fun

[gogoblender 3,070]

. After all, numbers ARE fun

 

Surrrrrrrrrrrrrrre...

(lol, thats' just me jealous of everyone here who's good with numbers )

 

And awesome that a few peeps from here are able to help out with this.

Community FTW!

 

 

gogo

[Waaah 0]

This sounds like logistic growth, shouldn't you be able to create it from the basic formular of logistic growth? To my shame I don't remember it right now - but I have holidays! *bad excuse*

[mik209 0]

Are you sure there isn't a way to do something like:

 

if x < 50 then x*2 = result

else

x - 50 + 100 = result

(or simplified to x + 50 = result)

?

 

the 100 is for x=50 * 2, or the last 2% increase

 

 

Err.. this is assuming you're writing some sort of program for a calculator....

 

 

Still assuming the same thing.... wow I think I've edited this like 3 or 4 times now btw.

 

You could write a for;while statement, since that would be easier than writing a if;then;else for every time a skill decreases in output. That, my friend, is not my forte. I haven't been good at programming since high school.....

 

I believe you may be on to something there... I hadnt even thought about those little greater than/less than things. Thats just me, over complicating things. Im gonna play around with your idea a bit, but im pretty sure you got it. Now I just need someone in 2.28 gold to tell me the skill progression percentages, Myles said that his might be wrong since they were from an earlier version. For now however, his guide will suffice. Off to my laboratory!!

Edited August 18, 2007 by mik209

[gial 2]

Most of the reported formulas in Sacred are much simpler than this. I think that the skill formulas may be too, if looked at from the right angle.

 

Example, lets say a skill "adds" 2% to an ability for 50 levels, what have you got? Starting with an easy number, say 100, you get 100 + (50*2) = 200

 

Now, The skill adds 1%. 1% of 200 is . . . . 2. The actual value added is still the same, it just looks smaller in relation to the overall value accumulated.

 

I suspect this is the case here.