Linux Core Scheduling Nears The Finish Line To Avoid Flipping Off HT

[Weasel]

Not really sure what you mean by "instead of multiplying", both numbers are calculated by division ( (new-old)/old for the one and (old-new)/old for the other ), the only difference is that some people have a hard time understanding the difference between "decreased by" and "improved by".

No idea whatsoever how games calculate damage and defence, I always thought that they performed simple addition like D&D did (at least the rpg:s that I have seen seams to use the D&D logic).

Well you missed the point. Calculating the values is beside the point. What matters is what you do with the values themselves.

The simplest way to describe is that a x% improvement in one should be equal to x% improvement in another. For example, you can measure the time it takes for a clock cycle, or you can measure the frequency (how many clock cycles per second). Both tell you the same information, but for the first one, less is better, and so you divide.

As for games, it's kinda simple, most times they just put out a flat % modifier they multiply damage with. +100% damage doubles your damage, but obviously stacking +100% defense makes you immune to damage (which is equal to an infinite amount of damage boost), and since the developers are brain damaged and fell out of school, they code workarounds such as capping defense to 90% or some other retarded shit.

Instead of, you know, +100% defense merely halving your damage taken. Damage is multiplied by boosts (+100% means base 100% + 100%), defense divides incoming damage (base 100% + 100% = divide by 200%, which means half damage and cancels out +100% damage boost, sounds perfectly balanced to me).

[Jaxad0127]

And? You just forgot to add the base 100%. That's your problem.

e.g. when something is 5% faster, it's the speed 100% + 5% of the original, aka 105%.

That has nothing to do with what I said, which is that for things where "less is better" (such as latency) you divide instead of multiply when it comes to improvement.

That still means 150 -> 50 is a 200% improvement, because of the 100% of 50 left over. Otherwise you're saying that any number is a 100% improvement over itself.

[Weasel]

That still means 150 -> 50 is a 200% improvement, because of the 100% of 50 left over. Otherwise you're saying that any number is a 100% improvement over itself.

Yeah, the numbers are off because they included the base for some reason.