Cellspread/Range

[Renegade]

ROFL so now it's my fault I'm not guessing your test setup?

The fact that you said you used the Grizzly and changed its warhead neither tells me that you didn't change weapon or projectile, nor does it tell me on what targets you measured the damage.

As for PercentAtMax, given the vast amount of information you didn't tell us, and given that you were testing Damage propagation, it was very possible you set it to PercentAtMax=1.0 and just neglected to tell us. So spare me your "I told you..." tirades. If you posted all test data + media up front, people wouldn't endlessly have to inquire about the exact circumstances of your test.

The fact of the matter is, you would get vastly better results if you set PercentAtMax to 1.0, the damage to 5, the health of the tanks to 10, and ensured all other "weird" factors like crates, bonuses etc. were gone as well. Shoot straight into the middle, see which tanks have half strength and which have full strength, select all, make screenshot. Simple. It's not my fault I assumed you might actually go and simplify your test scenario. So sorry I overestimated you. I'll assume less smart scenarios from now on.

Your explanation of what x is supposed to be actually made it harder to understand for me. I thought you were making weird assumptions about the tenth column of the graph before, but now I don't even know which cells you're talking about anymore. "Across horizontally from that radius"? The radius is all around. The line I drew in the graph is horizontal, and for the large majority of cells in the graph, going horizontally from the edge of the circle would either lead far out of the circle, or deep into it. So the only logical explanation is that you used some sort of tangent to the circle, which makes your instructions all but impossible to follow without active measuring and a ruler.
All of this, of course, could be avoided if you just used the coordinates in the graph, alas, that would be too easy, would it?

To answer your question, no, it's not obvious that you referenced that cell for any purpose. I'm guessing now, from what I said above, that we may be talking about totally different cells, but I still don't know what you're trying to tell us? Should 10,4 be hit? Should it not be hit? Is it hit, but shouldn't be? What is the significance of 10,4? Why is it important enough to be pointed out for reference?
Because your explanation makes no sense at all, on multiple levels: "(10,4) should be the max y value that can still meet the distance formula, sqrt(100+16) < (121)" - for one, (10,4) is a point, not a y value, at least not in that formula. For two, in the distance formula used by the game, cells don't even appear, so cell coordinates are irrelevant. For three, I have no idea what the hell your formula is supposed to be there - a single cell has 256 leptons, so the cutoff value at CS 10 would be 2560, at 11 2816. That is important. Not, what I assume you meant, the square root of 121. Lastly, if you say something is the max y value of a formula, and then provide a formula, it makes sense to provide a formula that actually includes y.

I am guessing, from your fascination with Pythagoras, and after reading it for the fifth time, that that formula is meant to tell us that the result of 10² + 4², that is, "the distance", is supposed to stay below 11² - how the hell you figure that, I don't know.
10² + 4² equals 116, the root is 10.7703296, times 256 is 2757.20438, which is above the cutoff for CellSpread=10, and below the cutoff for CellSpread=11. How the hell 121 factors into that, I still don't know. Maybe it's a weird attempt to calculate the reach of CellSpread in cells, figuring out the furthest cell reachable, after you've been told multiple times that cells don't matter, leptons do. Why exactly you need to do that, when the graph is showing you exactly which cells could potentially be touched by CellSpread, I don't know. I don't even know if that's what you're doing, because whatever you're doing there seems to not make any sense at all.

So would you please enlighten me what exactly you are calculating, which exact cell (10,4) is, and what its significance is? Because as far as I can tell, your math is making no sense at all, and even if it did, it wouldn't tell me why (10,4) is important.

And the irony of telling me that you do know that there can be multiple InfantryTypes in one cell, not centered, and yet, a few lines before, go on some ranty tangent about whether I had illusions about the weapon using scatter is hilarious.
Think long and hard about infantry getting attacked, and maybe you'll know why I considered it a possibility your shot was off-center. Had you provided information about how exactly you conducted your test up front, I wouldn't even have had to ask.

And, in fact, given that you still didn't specify under what conditions your shot impacted the ground, I still can't be sure it was centered on the impact cell.


So, for another round: You have claimed the graph is still wrong. Would you tell us, in simple terms, what exactly is wrong with it, and provide the simplest possible complete explanation of how exactly you determined that, and how to reproduce your results?
If you choose to use math for that, please provide an explanation why you are using the functions you're using, what the individual parameters are, and what the results are telling us, so we'll all be clear about what exactly you're calculating and why.
Same goes for cells - if you reference cells, and your coordinates differ from the ones in the graph, please give a simple, unambiguous explanation of where exactly those cells would be located.