@
Fer15
, so you're saying that increasing the Hill curve value from 0.25 to a higher value helps countering the negative effects of using a lower starting value? In that case, starting with Neo's suggestion, maybe something like this would make sense?
Low: Hill, min: 750, range: 750, mid:0.25, S: 1, strength: 100
Medium: Hill, min: 600, range: 750, mid:0.30, S: 1, strength: 100
High: Hill, min: 450, range: 750, mid:0.35, S: 1, strength: 100
Very High: Hill, min: 300, range: 750, mid:0.40, S: 1, strength: 100
Or alternatively:
Low: Hill, min: 750, max: 1500, mid:0.25, S: 1, strength: 100
Medium: Hill, min: 600, max: 1500, mid:0.30, S: 1, strength: 100
High: Hill, min: 450, max: 1500, mid:0.35, S: 1, strength: 100
Very High: Hill, min: 300, max: 1500, mid:0.40, S: 1, strength: 100
In any case, it seems Neo-XP and Fer15 agree on the "Low" curve. So we only need a good way to scale up to higher strength. I'd prefer a logical way (e.g. like I suggested above), to improve the chances that a higher strength curve actually produces a higher visual strength in most cases.
Edit: Your "ratio" approach stops working as the "min" value approaches 0. Because obviously with a min value of 0, the ratio will always be infinite. So I think it might be better to scale up by either keeping the range or the max identical, and just lower the min value?