# Difference between revisions of "Talk:Weapons"

The modification of damage formula for enchantments looks inconsistent with the the information in the distribution lib. Can the person who posted the formula cite their source?

The source was the mudlib I believe. Rehevkor 13:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed.
obj/weapon.c, lines 176-177:
`  tmp = val + (val * query_enchant()) / (query_max_enchant() + query_enchant());`
Subtract out the base damage:
`  extra_dmg = base * query_enchant() / (query_max_enchant() + query_enchant())`
Divide top and bottom by max_enchant gives:
`  extra_dmg = base * fraction_enchant / (1 + fraction_enchant)`
Then multiple top and bottom by 100 to use a percentage:
`  extra_dmg = base * (%enchant / (100 + %enchant)`
Which is what is in the article. --Chat 14:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's close. And probably close enough for _most_ integer math since the decimal bits get dropped off. But it's not right. Why not just leave it at the real formula so that it's right all the time?

The formula is as presented because:
• Percentage enchantment is a much more relevant figure to players than absolute enchantment and max enchantment - the enchantment level you see when looking at an object (as a magic user) is directly related to the percentage enchantment. In order to get the absolute current and max enchantment levels, you need to use a thaumometer and the post office balance (and know the relevant conversions from the mudlib).
• Presenting the data this way also highlights that the damage increment is (to all intents and purposes) independent of the weapon's maximum enchantment level, and thus, of the weapon's weight. See the text that follows the formula in the article.
• The error introduced by conversion from discrete to continuous calculation here is at most 1hp of damage, and I call that sufficiently small as to be disregarded.