Thread: Re-balance Feedbacks

Originally Posted by MuljoStpho

Side note looking at their multipliers (15, 65, 215, 915, and 2665):
* 2nd value is x4.33 larger than 1st value
* 3rd value is x3.31 larger than 2nd value
* 4th value is x4.26 larger than 3rd value
* 5th value is x2.91 larger than 4th value

Why are the steps so uneven? It kind of seems like they should have picked values that would either climb at a flat rate (each one x3.5 larger than the previous one, for example) or that would climb at an increasing rate (x2.5, x3, x3.5, and x4, for example).

15 for star 1, an additional 50 for star 2 (15x3 + 5), an additional 150 (50x3) for star 3, an additional 700 (150x3 + 250) for star 4 and an additional 1750 (700*3 - 350) for star 5. It uses a x3 multiplier and a modifier for each step, so that's why it gets the results it gets. The growth of the values comes from a pattern in the between between stars rather than the total, it looks weird though.