Nihility42 wrote: »Well, first of all, you're math is multiplicative. It makes more sense that it would be additive. So adding 50% of the original each time, which doesn't make the actual so weird. Though I'm not sure why it adds 1284 each time instead of 2093.
JonnytheKing wrote: »Nihility42 wrote: »Well, first of all, you're math is multiplicative. It makes more sense that it would be additive. So adding 50% of the original each time, which doesn't make the actual so weird. Though I'm not sure why it adds 1284 each time instead of 2093.
how did i not do additive , and my math is not multiplicative so *** knows what u are talking about
s7732425ub17_ESO wrote: »JonnytheKing wrote: »Nihility42 wrote: »Well, first of all, you're math is multiplicative. It makes more sense that it would be additive. So adding 50% of the original each time, which doesn't make the actual so weird. Though I'm not sure why it adds 1284 each time instead of 2093.
how did i not do additive , and my math is not multiplicative so *** knows what u are talking about
Your on paper testing is wrong.
The damage goes like this:
Base number
Base number * 1.5
Base number * 2
Base number * 2.5
Base number * 3