Jump to content

Talk:Accuracy Formula (UFO2000): Difference between revisions

From UFOpaedia
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 22: Line 22:


- [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]]
- [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]]
Well, these can. My problem is the ones that come afterwards. Like (2/(1/wacc^2+1/sacc^2)) <- this looks real ugly. And I was wondering about maybe delving into the statistics of hitting, but without decent formula display, I really shouldn't. Gaussians and things like that. No good.

Revision as of 20:01, 18 June 2006

There seems to be some kind of problem with the latex math formula generating. Either that or a problem with me. I'd appreciate some feedback about this, since it would look nice to have actual pretty looking formulas. And there are some very ugly formulas coming.

- Arcozelo


I guess MediaWiki isn't set up here. But, couldn't those formulas be simplified somewhat?

 <math>hp &=& acc \times \frac{max.health - current.health}{\frac{max.health}{2}}</math>
 <math>hp &=& \frac{2 \times acc \times (max.health - current.health)}{max.health}</math>
 <math>mp &=& acc \times \frac{100 - current.morale}{\frac{100}{2}}</math>
 <math>mp &=& \frac{acc \times (100 - current.morale)}{50}</math>

Or, even down to non-TeX format:

 hp = acc * (max.health - current.health) / (max.health / 2)
 hp = 2 * acc * (max.health - current.health) / max.health
 mp = acc * (100 - current.morale) / (100 / 2)
 mp = acc * (100 - current.morale) / 50

- Bomb Bloke

Well, these can. My problem is the ones that come afterwards. Like (2/(1/wacc^2+1/sacc^2)) <- this looks real ugly. And I was wondering about maybe delving into the statistics of hitting, but without decent formula display, I really shouldn't. Gaussians and things like that. No good.