Additive or Multiplied Bonuses?

Alright... I have a question that deals with game mechanics. I need to decide how I am going to manage something, but whether or not it ends up better or worse, is something I need more than just two opinions on. So, I am bringing it here, so you guys can give your much wanted opinions.

There are two ways that a formula for damage bonuses can reductions can be worked in my map, but I can't decide which way I want it... My question is: Which do you prefer? Additive bonuses, or multiplied bonuses? I would appreciate if you could also explain why you chose what you did.

I will explain both. But first, I want to explain the terminology I will use for the game mechanics.

Passives that increase spell damage the caster deals are called Boosts.
Passives that decrease spell damage the caster deals are called Weaknesses.
Passives that increase the target's spell resistance are called Resistances.
Passives that decrease the target's spell resistance are called Frailties.
For the sake of easiness, damage that is dealt in full is 100%. Therefore, double damage is 200%, no damage is 0%, and so on.

Do note that this only concerns spell damage, and not physical damage. That's how important it will be.

Additive Bonuses for a game mechanic will work where Boosts, Weaknesses, Resistances, and Frailties become bonuses that directly affect the initial spell resistance of the armor type. In other words, we will add and subtract from the total damage output as necessary.

For example: We have an armor type that takes 100% damage from Fire.

Now, let's assume that the caster has Fire Boost III, which increases the caster's fire-based spell damage by 30%. So:

100% + 30% = 130%

Now, let's say that the caster also has Fire Boost II, which adds 20% more.

130% + 20% = 150%

Now, the total damage output is 150%. Or, the Fire spell deals 50% more damage. Alright, so let's assume that the caster also has Fire Weakness I, which decreases the total damage by 10%. So,

150% - 10% = 140%

Now the fire spell deals 40% more damage.

Let's move on to the target. Let's assume that the target has Fire Resistance II, which increases the target's resistance by 50%. We'll be subtracting, because we want the damage to go down, not up. So,

140% - 50% = 90%

Now the fire spell deals 10% less damage. And, just because, the Target has Fire Frailty I, which decreases its spell resistance by 25%. Now it's taking more damage, so we want to raise the number:

90% + 25% = 115%

With all of the passives worked in, the target takes a total of 115% damage.

---

Multiplied Bonuses for a game mechanic doesn't make Boosts, Weaknesses, Resistances, and Frailties give a solid amount based on the armor's initial damage percent. That is what additive bonuses do. Instead, like the term, all of them are multiplications of the subtotal. This makes a drastic difference.

Let's take the same sample as above, and put it through multiplied bonuses. So, the target's armor type initially takes full damage, so 100%. Now, if the caster has Fire Boost III, then:

100% x 130% = 130%

See how we're not adding, but multiplying percents? It doesn't make a difference now, but let's add Fire Boost II.

130% x 120% = 156%

It's not 150%, like it is in additive bonuses. Yeah, 6% is subtle, but watch when we add that Fire Weakness I in there...

156% x 90% = 140%

That's a lot more than just 10%, isn't it? A 10% reduction took out more than half of what a 20% increase put in. I find that pretty drastic. Watch how Fire Resistance II (-50%) works:

140% x 50% = 70%

Wait a minute. But in additive, we were at 90% at this point. Finally, the Fire Frailty I:

70% x 125% = 87.5%

At the end, additive had 115%. It's a 27.5% difference. That's a lot of damage lost.

---

In the case of additive bonuses, all of the passives just fall through.

However, in the case of multiplied bonuses, the farther it goes down to calculate all of the passives, the more the numbers jumble. Whereas in additive bonuses, it doesn't matter at all when a Boost, Weakness, Resistance, or Frailty comes in. However, when it comes to multiplied bonuses, what comes near the end does the most change. The Resistances and the Frailties of the target become extremely important in determining how strong (or weak) the spell will be. I also could even say that reductions do tons more harm than additions.

So, back to the question: Which do you like more?

no, additive bonuses are just more transparent for the players..

Huh? What are you saying, "No" to? No to additive bonuses, or multiplied bonuses? I think you're saying no additive bonuses, but that's just me.

Multiplicative bonuses are how it'd look like in a process of damage count, reduction and bonus, dealt however it can spew out stupid looking numbers at times.

Additive bonuses are straight forward.

you edited your post ...my anwser was valid ...
you asked "do i want that" (that was refering to multiplied bonuses) in your first version ...

a * x :: b vs. a + x :: b
c = b - a || c = b - a

('c' is relation between valuations of a and b)

when x is a certain value,
1st 'c' relation (w/e you want to call it) varies according tovaluations of a and b.
2nd 'c' relation doesnt vary at all.
-a is more 'intimately' related to b in 1st; a and b are independent of each other in 2nd; or 'x' in 1st in some internal operation between a and b, while 'x' in 2nd is just some operation that is itself done with a and b.

i didnt read ur post but use multiplicative bonuses with quantities that are supposed to scale with another attribute (ex. damage scale with level of the hero, w/c makes sense); use additives fro things that dont. so use additive for stuff that are like constants... 'themselves'; and multiplicative for stuff that are relations.

edit: expounded example of damage:
the magnitude of bonus damage from hero's own ability is proportional to the hero's strength (not the hero attribute); while the magnitude of bonus damage from some sword item that grants bonus damage is constant according to the swords own strength, independent of the hero's strength.

so as the hero gets stronger, he deals x times more damage (2 times strong himself, 2 times damage dealt). in contrast, anytime he uses the sword, the sword gives him (SWORD : HIM) some fixed amount of damage.

note that whether the sword may have its own 'internal stuff' going on, or whether it imparts some effect on the hero's own internal stuff, are another matter.

I'd go for additive increases, multiplicative negatives, applied in that order.

You're making the wrong conclusions. The order doesn't matter: a*b*c is the same as a*c*b. So no, resistances and frailties are not more important just because they factor in later.

What is going on is that you have a 50% reduction in there, which would be the counterpart to a 100% bonus, just like a 75% reduction would be a counterpart to a 300% bonus and a 90% reduction would be a counterpart to a 900% bonus. The relation isn't linear, like in the additive scheme where a 50% bonus and a 50% reduction cancel each other out. That's why an additive scheme is probably better sine it allows players to more easily compare bonuses against reductions. Ath the end of the day, though, bonuses will still have diminishing returns while reductions will get more and more powerful. At some point a mere 10% extra reduction could take you from taking a tenth of the damage to taking no damage at all, something that can't happen with multiplied bonuses.

@Anitarf: Yeah... I remember someone telling me that. What did he say... (goes to bury some old posts) There it is:


But then he said:


Although, I like your explanation of it a lot better. I understand; when something is halved, the only way to get it back is to double it. When something is split in thirds, the only way to return it to normal is to triple it, when split in ten, it can only be returned by giving it back tenfold, and it keeps going. However, there's nothing in my map that gives some 200% bonus to spell damage after it's suffered a 50% reduction. I could either fix that- which would cause me to go with some unnatural multiplication bonuses, or keep it toned down with additive bonuses, which is something I'm starting to prefer, when I look at it at a glance. I know that players wouldn't want to do the math, especially because it deals with percents being multiplied by percents.

@Captain Griffen: Considering that benefits are applied before losses (which makes the losses more extreme), it would be better for it to be the other way around. However, then bonuses might become game-breaking, which is what I don't want...

@ fx_: Oh, wow, fX_. It's not really related, but you just gave me a grand idea... Thank you!

@akolyt0r: Yeah, I did edit my post, but it was because I thought it was my fault that you didn't seem to understand what I was talking about. I did say, "What do I want that?" but 'that' could have been referring to additive and multiplicative. So- yes, it's my fault. Sorry about that.

@Tide-Arc Ephemera: Uh-huh, I realized that, too. When the initial spell resistance is an odd number, like 25 and 75, the percents at the end are extremely ugly, so I round down... Wait a minute. Doesn't Warcraft III round (down) in the Trigger Editor, anyway?

---

Grr... I'm frustrated.