2008-07-19, 07:34 PM
Yes, what he said.
That's also the reason why I assumed 4.8 and 1.2 for the Heal INT multipliers, even though my data never said anything other than 4.783 and 1.219 at first. (Later on, I'd find that 4.8/1.2 fit all the data, while 4.783/1.219 were a couple points off here and there.)
I always try to find clean sensible numbers (-looks at Nekonecat's old Heal formula-), since they're much more likely to be implemented compared to random arbitrary ones.
Thanks for the sticky, [whoever's responsible].
That's also the reason why I assumed 4.8 and 1.2 for the Heal INT multipliers, even though my data never said anything other than 4.783 and 1.219 at first. (Later on, I'd find that 4.8/1.2 fit all the data, while 4.783/1.219 were a couple points off here and there.)
I always try to find clean sensible numbers (-looks at Nekonecat's old Heal formula-), since they're much more likely to be implemented compared to random arbitrary ones.
Thanks for the sticky, [whoever's responsible].

