Elemental Forums
Isnt this backwards?
I edited it to +20 in the xml and now it works correctly! -3.8
Also they both say takes away 20% resistance but one takes twenty points away and one adds 20%!
Empire magic resistance weakness adds 20%
Sov magic resistance weakness takes away 20 points
I observed this as well. It is a weird multiplication, where if you spell resistance is already negative, adding more negatives makes it a little more positive. haha clear as mud.
I guess two wrongs do make a right.
It's magic. man. It ain't done by them numbers. Here, pass the reefer...
Er so your saying it is working as intended?
Probably not. 
Just some wonky effects of algebra.
Some effects confuse me whether they are additive or multiplicative. Like I wasn't sure if lucky was +25/25 or +25%/25%. And when stacking bonuses, say EXP Bonus. Does it work as +10+15+20+30 = 75% bonus. Or. 1.1x1.15x1.20x1.30 = 97% bonus? (Correct me if my math is wrong)
Ugh someone needs to fix the math. Seem like a mess to me...
I do not see a problem.
If someone tells me 'implement a 20% reduction of magic resitance" I will multiply the MR by .80
If someone tells me 'decrease the magic resistance by 20' I will subtract' 20.
Combine the two, and you get an effective -16. Just what it says on the tin.
Given that the chance to resist a spell is (100 + targetResistance - casterPenetration) / 100 is seems to me everything is fine.
If it looks wrong to you, it's because the two traits are subtly different, and you did not stop to consider the difference between them. On the other hand, if this many people are confused, I'd change it. Unclear rules are bad rules.
So it makes sense that if you choose vulnerable to magic you get more magic resistance? Makes no sense to me
Simple mathematics: -20 - -20% = -16. You are subtracting a negative number with a negative number.
Simple solution: first apply the % penalty, then the additive/substractive one.
Example:
Start value = 1
20% Penalty -> 0.8
-20 Penalty -> -19.2
Now you have effectively 20.2 less magic resistance than before. The drawback is that it's easier to get better MR with items, because:
Start value = 50
20% Penalty -> 40
-20 Penalty -> 20
as opposed to:
Start value = 50
-20 Penalty -> 30
20% Penalty -> 24
It's just a matter of what you want to do, but I guess the "first % then absolute value" order makes much more sense if values may be negative (and they do regularly for trained units).
Alternatively you could invert % penalty when applied to negative numbers, so that -10 with a 20% penalty would be -(10*(2-0.8) -> -12 (10 is the absolute of the base value and 2-0.8 the "inverted" percentage penalty equivalent to 20%). Probably the perfect way to implement it this way, since that's the intent of the traits.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.