So far, we had multiple ways to describe this phenomenon. Each time, a new variable was introduced to include the different crit ranges (>100% up to 200%, >200% up to 300% and so on).
One way was to devide the given crit chance by 100 and round the result down (which I found irritating since you don't really need a formula to do that). Another way was described here where you just define the crit level by the crit range it falls in (as mentioned above). In a recent edit, this was changed so that the crit level starts at 1 for yellow crits which I find rather confusing since you would never neither use nor need the given formula to calculate your yellow crit multiplier in the first place.
I feel the abstract topic of red crits was further alienated by the ("now" more accessible) possibility of different "(red) crit levels" and needs a didactically more solid explanation. It's rather hard for me to find an easily understandable form since I busied myself with this stuff too much already to see what the more difficult aspects are (plus I'm generally bad at explaining things).
So, the questions that arise by all this incoherent mess would be:
- How should the "crit levels" be expressed (and should they include yellow crits)?
- Is the formula for red crit multipliers already in its "best" form (regardless of whether to include yellow crits or not)?
- Is it better understandable with the "above 200%" situation explained separately rather than having everything combined?
- Or should the whole paragraph be rewritten anyway to better include all cases?
Let me know how you think about this stuff or if all this is unnecessary and the paragraph is more or less fine already. Though, a consensus on how to handle the general expression of red crits would most certainly be helpful.