Can I say in my defence that I had forgotten how I had worked out the treasure adding bit, and had forgotten what I had been thinking (treasure like a lump sum, wealth like income so not entirely comparable). I will be sticking to my current relationship because it means the rich guys can afford to ignore treasure and I can be less worried about cheap stuff.
<< That's doubling every 10, though, rather than every mastery. (The former
seems more reasonable, though, anyway.)>>
I am using 10 as a mastery. Masteries remain equivalent, it was just the numbers in between that change.
<< Working that assumption through, though, we should get a table more like
the following:
X-Y =
0- 1: X+10 2- 3: X+9 4- 5: X+8 6- 8: X+7 9-11: X+6 12-14: X+5 15-18: X+4 19-24: X+3 25-31: X+2 32-48: X+1
Which is a reasonably simple table but I wanted to avoid including stuff that was 4 masteries apart having much effect on each other.
Keith
Powered by hypermail