The basic formulae behind the system kinda makes sense, but I think it’s a bit too heavy handed. It dramatically over-emphasizes single large bonuses, and renders smaller bonuses entirely moot by comparison. They might as well not be there in most cases.
Basically the curve of reducing returns is extremely sharp for each additional value, which heavily emphasizes large values.
This is easy to fix however by tweaking the exponents as desired.
Some values that might work decently are:
SUM(A^1.5, B^1.5, …)^0.666
or for an even gentler curve of reducing returns:
SUM(A^1.33, B^1.33, … )^0.75
These all still penalize stacking, but not as sharply, and not as much in favor of singular large bonuses. I find that in game design I rarely use straight up SQRT functions because they are so steep that they produce unsatisfying results.
|
V3 |
V2 |
V1 |
|
| Values |
1.333 |
1.5 |
2 |
Initial Exponents |
| 30 |
93.11135 |
164.3168 |
900 |
|
| 10 |
21.52782 |
31.62278 |
100 |
|
| 10 |
21.52782 |
31.62278 |
100 |
|
| 5 |
8.545294 |
11.18034 |
25 |
|
|
144.7123 |
238.7427 |
1125 |
SUM |
|
0.75 |
0.666 |
0.5 |
Sum Exponent |
|
41.72 |
38.34 |
33.54 |
Final Value |
| 30 |
26.84 |
26.39 |
26.83 |
Effective Contributions |
| 10 |
6.21 |
5.08 |
2.98 |
|
| 10 |
6.21 |
5.08 |
2.98 |
|
| 5 |
2.46 |
1.80 |
0.75 |
|
As you can see, in the original version (V1), the contributions of small factors are essentially meaningless unless they are the only factors, whereas in V2 and V3 these factors remain relatively meaningful.