Race weights and heights

[Draon]

Great guide, but I just noticed some flaws in the calculations.

Draenei

Male:
0.9: 6'7" [2.04 m]. from 0.9 to 1.0 there's a 10 inch difference.
1.0: 7'5" [2.26 m].
1.1: 8'1" [2.48 m]. from 1.0 to 1.1 there's a 9 inch difference. Yet the metres are the same.

Female:
0.9: 6'3" [1.91 m]. There's 12 inches to a foot. Yet the metres stay the same.
1.0: 7'0" [2.13 m].
1.1: 7'7" [2.34 m].

If you see what I mean? The author, understandably, mistook how many inches there are in a foot. Its no biggie really but I thought it should be mentioned.

[Nikodemos]

Great guide, but I just noticed some flaws in the calculations.

Draenei

Male:
0.9: 6'7" [2.04 m]. from 0.9 to 1.0 there's a 10 inch difference.
1.0: 7'5" [2.26 m].
1.1: 8'1" [2.48 m]. from 1.0 to 1.1 there's a 9 inch difference. Yet the metres are the same.

Female:
0.9: 6'3" [1.91 m]. There's 12 inches to a foot. Yet the metres stay the same.
1.0: 7'0" [2.13 m].
1.1: 7'7" [2.34 m].

If you see what I mean? The author, understandably, mistook how many inches there are in a foot. Its no biggie really but I thought it should be mentioned.

Having just poured over this height guide and the corresponding wiki guide due to raised concern, I felt that it might be beneficial to explain a few things about the relationship between character height and the .scale function in-game. Those who are not familiar with the way in which the scale is determined or others who might wish to more accurately depict their character's height in-game may find the following quite useful. I would begin however by assuring you that that calculations provided by Reigen in this guide are quite accurate (Within one inch, a direct result of the degree to which one rounds the decimal.) and will illustrate this through example, particularly through the mathematical exploration of the post quoted above. Before we begin, however, I would lay out a few points of note about this guide, the guidelines on the wiki and the best way to utilize this neat little function for both profiled and un-profiled characters.

First off, I would note that the the 1.0 scale is based off the average height of each playable race, both male and female. This average is available both in this guide and on the wiki. The server-suggested height range for each race is a direct calculation of this average based on the .scale parameters allowed, and serves quite accurately in its capacity. To simplify, the 0.9 and 1.1 scaled heights listed above are good indicator of the range in which your character might stand among his peers.
Secondly, I would mention that there are two ways to begin determining your character's height/scale and each is more suitable for either a profiled or un-profiled character. If you have already profiled your character and are comfortable with the height detailed within, base your in-game scale off of this number. It's a lot easier than submitting a rewrite just to gain a few inches. If, however, you are in the process of creating a character's profile, I highly advise first finding a .scale setting that you are comfortable with and then determining your character's profiled height based off of this parameter. Next I will explain the equations used to do so, though I will focus on the American Standard notation for this is where people generally make mistakes, as you will soon see. Metric on the other hand is based upon units of 10, 100, etc. and requires less translation to balance against our .scale parameters which are also based on units of ten. I myself suggest using metric, and then translating to standard through the use of an online conversion application. Anyone who uses the metric system regularly already knows this so I will not need to explain it's use here... we go!

Lets take a look at the post quoted above. Within, the author suggests that there is a discrepancy of nearly ten inches, give or take, yet also makes mention that the metric notation is correct. Though I will reveal now that this is false, feel free to use the conversion app. above to check the standard vs. metric measurements. You will find that they are nearly the same. The problem lies not with the original values but instead with a very simple mistake on the part of our friend's own equation. Below I will illustrate the equation required to determine a character's height using the Male Draenei from above.

Male Draenei: 0.9 Scale (Ex. A)

We begin with the average height for a male Draenei, 7'5". Now as there is very little we can do with this at the moment we shall proceed to write our average in the form of inches, there being 89 of them in total. Next we multiply this average by the .scale function we intend to use, in this case that scale is 0.9 (Do this in with the assistance of your handy-dandy calculator to save time.). We come up with 80.1, now to translate this back into feet. As you might guess we simply divide our new length by 12, providing us with a pretty little 6.675. As simple as it might seem from the look of it, this is where most people make a mistake. While quite close to the 6'7" listed as the low end range of a Draenei male, the accuracy is skewed because we have neglected a tiny little calculation. Decimals are measured in multiples of 10 and feet, as we all know, are not. Time for a little cross multiplication. (Ex. B) If we divide our remaining decimal (I prefer to round to the nearest hundred for accuracy.) by 10 as shown below and then multiply our product by 12 we arrive at 8 in. 6'8 is hardly a great discrepancy and the fault for the difference likely lies in either a translation from metric or by rounding to a different decimal point. So how did our friend come out with such a great variation from the accurate 0.9 scale of 6'8"? Well, instead of multiplying the average height by the chosen scale, try dividing instead and the solve the equation as usual. What did you get? Below I will attempt to write out the equations in a mathematical format for ease of use. Feel free to practice with 1.1 scale setting as well as the Female Draenei height range. This becomes ever more useful should you wish to create a character with perhaps a 1.04 or 0.96 scale ratio.... or you can just blow them all up to 1.1 anyhow and maybe look into acquiring a...


[4. LookingForGroup] [Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker]
[4. LookingForGroup] [Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker]
[4. LookingForGroup] [Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker]
[4. LookingForGroup] [Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker]
[4. LookingForGroup] [Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker]
[4. LookingForGroup] ENOUGH ALREADY! YOU TROLL!
[4. LookingForGroup] [Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker]

Oh, what did you say? You're sick of seeing that spammed in the chat box as well? In that case perhaps we should all heed some attention to the accuracy of our IC scale function. See what I did there? See what I did. Class dismissed.


(Ex. A)

((in.) x (Scale)) / 12 = (ft.)+(Decimal)

(Ex. B)

((Decimal) x 12) / 10 = remaining inches (r-in.)

(ft.) + (r-in.) = Character's .scale setting!

[Memnoch]

@Nikodemos: ...is this why you've been hanging out in this thread a bunch? Too much free time, man :P

Anyhoo, great post, though I'm not sure I -did- see what you did there....

Also, there's an easier way to determine this, even using a simple calculator that determines that there -is-, in fact, a slight discrepancy. I'm going to completely ignore the metric system for a moment (sorry!) because I want this simple. Using the female Draenei default/average/1.0 scale height of seven feet (7'), I'm gonna make this easy: first, multiply by 12 to get inches. There's 84 of them. Meaning 84 = 1.0. Knowing that, take your new-found 84 and multiply it by .9 and get 75.6, yes? Easy enough: 75.6 = .9, right? Now, just put "-12" into your calculator, and get ready to hit the "=" button a few times. Keep track of the number of times you hit equals, and stop hitting it when you get a number less than 12. In this case, it's 6 times, with a remaining number of 3.6, so what does this mean? Number of times hitting equals = number of feet. Remaining number = remaining inches. You get left with 3.6 inches, plus the 6 feet is 6'3.6", and rounding like I was taught in math class meaning rounding up, so 6'7". However, an inch is't really that big of a deal, and technically, it .6 in, so even less so.

So, to recap:

7' x 12 = 84 = 1.0 scale
84 * .9 = 75.6 = .9 scale
I hit "-12" six times = 6 feet
Remaining number = 3.6 = remaining inches
Total scaled height = 6'3.6"

Doing the same thing for the 1.1 scale is easier, now we know what to do and what each part does and means, so we'll just breeze through it.

7' x 12 = 84 = 1.0 scale
84 * 1.1 = 92.4 = 1.1 scale
I hit "-12" seven times = 7 feet
Remaining number = 8.4 = remaining inches
Total scaled height = 7'8.4"

Now we hit a small snag, because the posted height at 1.1 is a full 1.4 inches less, more than double the error of the opposite scale. Bear in mind, I didn't bother with keeping track of conversions or anything because that is potentially lost data in the form of rounding during the middle of the equation. If, halfway through, you're using a number like 1.8465 and you round to 1.8, you're gonna get a wrong answer at the end. In this case, it's kinda jarring because you can't even claim that someone rounded the wrong way, as was seen in the .9 scale.

As was stated, using the metric system is much easier, no keeping track of how many times you hit a button or dealing with converting one thing to another. However, even here, there's a very small discrepancy in the .9 scale. Look at your calculator and put in 2.13*.9= and you get 1.917, which if rounded correctly would give us 1.92m, not 1.91m, though admittedly, a centimeter is rather small and unlikely to cause bedlam. When you go the opposite way with the 1.1 scale, you get 2.343, which has been rounded correctly.

All-in-all, there -are- mathematical errors here, and I'd like to know others' thoughts on the matter, especially after using such a simple way as mine (not to toot my own horn or anything /preen :P).

EDIT the first: By the way, the conversions of my new-found numbers aren't going to match up because 2.13m converts to 83.85827 inches, not 84. There's gonna be problems there, but they should be minimal.

EDIT the second: Also, figuring out a character's scale (going the opposite way as the one described above) is equally as simple. Once you have the height number in mind, in this example, we'll use 7'2", you just convert it into inches. 7 ft = 84 inches, add the remaining 2 to get 86. Set that against the average 84 in fraction form (dividing) gives us 86/84 which is ~1.0238. Since the .scale command only goes two decimal places, we round down to 1.02, giving us our scale. Simple!