Talk:Combat system

Didn't you want \cdots and not Xs? Spaces are also much easier to read. VANKRASN39 (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2016 (CDT)

I tried a few ways of formatting these formulas and prefer this over the alternatives, and it has to do with the multi-word variable names.

• While $a\cdot b+c$ is better than $a\times b+c$, I don't think $\mathrm {VeryLongVariableName} \cdot \mathrm {AnotherVariableName} +\mathrm {YetAnotherVariableName}$ is necessarily more intuitive, and since the reader won't mix up $x$ with $\times$ if all the variables are long words it's fine to let stand.
• Subscript scoping makes more sense in non-spaced variables. Compare: $\mathrm {ShieldSizeModifier} _{\mathrm {Ranged} }$ vs. $\mathrm {Shield\ Size\ Modifier} _{\mathrm {Ranged} }$: it's more obvious in the first case that the subscript applies to the entire variable name.

ZHOUY1 (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2016 (CDT)

How about only bunching when there's a subscripted part? It's really rough to read. I also really prefer brackets instead of double parentheses [( ... )] vs (( ... )). VANKRASN39 (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2016 (CDT)

Is it better with brackets around the variables? $[\mathrm {Shield\ Size\ Modifier} ]_{\mathrm {Ranged} }$ ZHOUY1 (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2016 (CDT)

Yes, that's much better. VANKRASN39 (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2016 (CDT)

I'll make the changes and also restore the \quad spacing edits. ZHOUY1 (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2016 (CDT)

Sure :) I put the \quads in there because I was trying to figure out why there was an extra space before Base Value. I have no clue. VANKRASN39 (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2016 (CDT)