Hey /tg/, game design brainteaser for you. So I'm building

>>49630216
If A > B then C=0?

Otherwise I don't think you'll get a nice function because
>positive integers
just make a table.

Alternatively you could have B always greater than A and use B - A = C, or take B/A rounded to the nearest integer

>>49630399
>Alternatively you could have B always greater than A
This would be really hard to accomplish, because of the range of what A can be (like 2-8). So if I pump up B to be huge to accomodate this, and someone has an A value of 2, then they end up with a much bigger C than I want to be possible.

And C can't be 0. I can try giving it a minimum but I'm not sure how that would work

>>49630461
B+8-A=C

>>49630506
Fuck I'm drunk
(B+8-A)/2=C Round to nearest integer value

>>49630461
>>49630506
Yeah if you give us the ranges of A, B and C that'd help. I'm assuming you want a linear scaling.

Whatever function you end up with definitely put a table in your homebrew or players' eyes will glaze over. You don't really expect them to do basic algebra do you?

>>49630520
That failing, just make a sliding table. For example
A____C
8____1
7____2
6____3
etc

>>49630216
Use 10*B/A or something like that if A and B are close together.

Or, have C be more complex than simply A+-B. It can be like:
5 + 10*(B/A) + miscs
10 + B - A/2 + miscs
B*5 - A*2 + miscs

You can play with these easily, as long as you know the order of magnitude of A, B and C. That's something you'll have to tell if you want a fitting formula. Are the average A and B huge? Close to each other? Way bigger than the average C? Around the same size as average C? We need more man.

>>49630520
>>49630536
>>49630563
I was just about to add some ranges. And no, they won't need to do any algebra. Something as simple as A + B = C, for example.

I've also played with making C just a static stat to replace C, but it doesnt make sense if A can increase. The in-game logic doesn't quite work out, and I want some downside to having more A.

Anyway

A can be anything from 1 to about 7 (potentially a little more).

B can be whatever it has to be.

I want C to be anywhere from 2-8.

I hope this helps.

>>49630587
I suppose B can't be negative and has a range of 1~10. Also I suppose B is usually smaller than A. Sure no one will have a 0 in a stat, right?

I suggest either of those:
C = 5 + 2*B - A
C = 5 + (B-A)/2
A can vary wildly. If you have A over 10 and B below 1, you're plain bad at this game. Change the fixed number as you wish to deal with B.

>>49630587
Well then 9-A=C works fine for
A in [1 ,7]
B = 9
C in [2 ,8]

Changes in your B will change your potential range of C accordingly

>>49630662
>>49630216

Also you haven't said there's any relation between B and C. So why was it even in the formula in the first place?

>>49630656
>I suppose B can't be negative and has a range of 1~10. Also I suppose B is usually smaller than A. Sure no one will have a 0 in a stat, right?
This is all correct

>>49630687
C is a separate final stat that comes out of a relationship between B and A. A will be used for a few different things, while B exists just to work with A to find C.

>>49630706
>B exists just to work with A to find C
How's >>49630662 then?

>>49630752
So effectively, B- A = C? That's what I had originally. OR are you saying ti should stay static at 9?

>>49630807
The latter. Though if you change B it will change the range of C.

If B is 9 and A is in [1, 7] C will be in [2, 8].
If B is 9+x and A is in [1, 7] C will be in [2+x, 8+x]

>>49630851
I think I see. I'm gonna try this out