More actions
→Aggressor's security in the status change formula: new section |
m Add topic heading. Add unsigned by. |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Hey, can we include somewhere on this page a warning about the seemingly innocuous action of cap transfer causing one to become suspect. This is confusing, and possibly even a bug. | == Cap transfer warning == | ||
Hey, can we include somewhere on this page a warning about the seemingly innocuous action of cap transfer causing one to become suspect. This is confusing, and possibly even a bug. -- Previous unsigned comment by [[User:Voxulus Quar Un|Voxulus Quar Un]] ([[User talk:Voxulus Quar Un|talk]]) 23:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
: Hi :) Feel free to add the information to the page :) (you can sign your comment on a Talk Page by writing four consecutive ~) [[User:Arin Mara|Arin Mara]] ([[User talk:Arin Mara|talk]]) 10:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC) | : Hi :) Feel free to add the information to the page :) (you can sign your comment on a Talk Page by writing four consecutive ~) [[User:Arin Mara|Arin Mara]] ([[User talk:Arin Mara|talk]]) 10:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC) | ||
| Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
But according to the formula it is obviously the other way around. When aggressor's old sec status is higher, "10 − Aggressor's old security status" is lower, so is the "(10 - ...) × Modification%" part. More over, "(1+(Target's security−Aggressor's security)/100)" and consequently the value of Modification% are also lower when aggressor's sec is higher. | But according to the formula it is obviously the other way around. When aggressor's old sec status is higher, "10 − Aggressor's old security status" is lower, so is the "(10 - ...) × Modification%" part. More over, "(1+(Target's security−Aggressor's security)/100)" and consequently the value of Modification% are also lower when aggressor's sec is higher. | ||
Am I missing something? | Am I missing something? -- Previous unsigned comment by [[User:Aglaron|Aglaron]] ([[User talk:Aglaron|talk]]) 22:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC) | ||