>>>>>
This alone should tell you that your test is flawed, how can the cast time go UP with MORE dex?
<<<<<

One second on 100 casts isn't really meaningful. That's well below the noise threshold, considering the technique.

On the other hand, changes of as much as fifteen seconds on 100 casts are large enough to be significant. I guess the thing to do is to turn his test around - see how many casts can be made within a specified period.

Note, by the way, that it's extremely unlikely that Mythic uses a millisecond tick in this game. It's more likely to be on the order of 20 milliseconds, or even longer. And those breaks in the pattern aren't terribly inconsistent with a 25 millisecond tick.

Oh, and for those who aren't all that into programming, a "tick" is the interval that you update your outputs based on the inputs. In this case, "outputs" might be things like spells hitting the target, messages to both caster and recipient telling them they've had a spell-effect occur, damage, that sort of thing, while inputs might be spells cast, swords swung, etc.

So if an event were to take barely longer than X ticks, then it will actually take (X+1) ticks. And incremental changes in event timing would all be subject to that "rounding up to the next tick" behaviour that we may be seeing here.

 

-----signature-----

Edit (again): Ding 4000 posts


Btw, i actually did use a larger sample for my original 2.8s test.

I did my second and larger test for all spells after I figured out there were breaking points, so I didn't bother getting as many samples, I just wanted to locate the breakpoints.


Here it is, each is 100 casts with 10% cast speed:


405 dex (18 at creation, 101 gear, 155 buffs, aug dex 5, 8 mythirian)
405 dex = 110.7 sec
405 dex = 110.2 sec
405 dex = 110.4 sec

402 dex (15 at creation, 101 gear, 155 buffs, aug dex 5, 8 mythirian)
402 dex = 110.4 sec
402 dex = 110.7 sec
402 dex = 110.6 sec

398 dex (11 at creation, 101 gear, 155 buffs, aug dex 5, 8 mythirian)
398 dex = 110.9 sec
398 dex = 110.8 sec
398 dex = 110.6 sec

394 dex (15 at creation, 101 gear, 155 buffs, aug dex 5)
394 dex = 111.4 sec
394 dex = 111.0 sec
394 dex = 111.3 sec

392 dex (13 at creation, 101 gear, 155 buffs, aug dex 5)
392 dex = 111.5 sec
392 dex = 111.7 sec
392 dex = 111.4 sec

--------------------------- Breaking point ---------------------------

391 dex (12 at creation, 101 gear, 155 buffs, aug dex 5)
391 dex = 126.0 sec
391 dex = 125.6 sec
391 dex = 125.9 sec

390 dex (11 at creation, 101 gear, 155 buffs, aug dex 5)
390 dex = 125.6 sec
390 dex = 126.0 sec
390 dex = 126.2 sec

388 dex (15 at creation, 101 gear, 155 buffs, aug dex 4, 8 mythirian)
388 dex = 126.1 sec
388 dex = 126.0 sec
388 dex = 126.0 sec
388 dex = 126.2 sec

388 dex (9 at creation, 101 gear, 155 buffs, aug dex 5)
388 dex = 126.1 sec (no myth)
388 dex = 126.1 sec (no myth)
388 dex = 126.2 sec (no myth)

386 dex (7 at creation, 101 gear, 155 buffs, aug dex 5)
386 dex = 126.5 sec
386 dex = 126.6 sec
386 dex = 126.5 sec

380 dex (15 at creation, 101 gear, 155 buffs, aug dex 4)
380 dex = 126.5 sec
380 dex = 126.5 sec
380 dex = 126.6 sec

379 dex (14 at creation, 101 gear, 155 buffs, aug dex 4)
379 dex = 127.3 sec
379 dex = 127.2 sec
379 dex = 127.0 sec

375 dex (10 at creation, 101 gear, 155 buffs, aug dex 4)
375 dex = 127.1 sec
375 dex = 127.1 sec
375 dex = 127.3 sec

370 dex (5 at creation, 101 gear, 155 buffs, aug dex 4)
370 dex = 127.1 sec
370 dex = 126.8 sec
370 dex = 127.2 sec

365 dex (0 at creation, 101 gear, 155 buffs, aug dex 4)
365 dex = 126.3 sec
365 dex = 126.7 sec
365 dex = 127.0 sec

360 dex (12 at creation, 76 gear, 155 buffs, aug dex 4, 8 mythirian)
360 dex = 127.0 sec
360 dex = 126.9 sec
360 dex = 127.2 sec

356 dex (8 at creation, 76 gear, 155 buffs, aug dex 4, 8 mythirian)
356 dex = 127.1 sec
356 dex = 127.0 sec
356 dex = 126.8 sec

--------------------------- Breaking point ---------------------------

355 dex (7 at creation, 76 gear, 155 buffs, aug dex 4, 8 mythirian)
355 dex = 139.6 sec
355 dex = 139.5 sec
355 dex = 140.0 sec

355 dex (15 at creation, 76 gear, 155 buffs, aug dex 4)
355 dex = 141.2 sec

340 dex (0 at creation, 76 gear, 155 buffs, aug dex 4)
340 dex = 142.3 sec


Didn't go any lower than this for that test...

 

-----signature-----

No offense but you seem like quite the fool Jocke. Slajzer see if you can repeat some of these results, they are quite surprising to me, and at least show that there might be much more behind the casting mechanic than we thought. Of course lag might have something to do with it, maybe it acts on the numbers in a way that would be hard to predict, though I don't know exactly how this would work. And until someone can prove that the numbers have a high variance in the same settings, then they will fail to make any significant argument against what you have found, unless maybe they can actually explain why your data would be flawed -- Someone doing it 6 years ago and finding different numbers with a higher sample size isn't any sort of proof against the numbers you have for cast times right now, even though you'd think its reasonable to assume the mechanic hasn't changed...

 

-----signature-----

Well yes (though I do sense your sarcasm), because computers never truthfully represent any sort of continuous mathematical function. Everything is rounded. And if they are using a small number of decimal places, then piling calculation on top of calculation will result in what appears to be a tier'ed system. So its not surprising at all to find that a certain small increase in dex seems to do nothing, and then 1 more point does a lot. Of course, its probably not easy to find the pattern in these numbers, but might be doable. I'd like to test them against what we previously thought about cast times. Perhaps its only a rounding error. I don't think Mythic made any changes to cast times, but maybe they did something small like changing the decimal place accuracy of a number which had much bigger effects than they thought. Or maybe someone with good programming knowledge could explain why lag might produce the odd looking pattern in the numbers...

Whatever the case, we need a better explanation than "Slajzer is an idiot, some guy 6 years ago did it with a bigger sample size so you suck".

 

-----signature-----

Tbh i dont care what you new and bad players think, If you think his tests are accurate then fine. Go after it, i already said i dont care if you do or not.
It is not a surprise for anyone exept ppl that never bothered with it before, for ppl that have played caster toons for years now it is no surprise that there is differences with diff dex values.

What IS surprising is that if you have a lower dex value you cast faster than if you have a higher dex value at some points, now THAT is new to me atleast.
Anyone that played a caster know that you get casting lag where you can cast a spell faster than 1s and then the next is way way slower than it is suposed to be, this is what screw your 100 cast sample size. But ofc you knew this if you had any knowledges of casters at all.

However most ppl that is obsessed with testing this NOW is archers, not casters, and stealthers never been famous for their patience. So i guess a sample of 25 and then multi it with 4 and think it is somehow accurate is what you can expect.

What is flawed is this: The cast sample is way to small. Making a few casts and then multi it with a number is extremly flawed. With the small amount of casting samples the lag casts dont recorded properly wich screw your results wich some of the cast tests showed clearly when a higher value of dex is SLOWER than a lower value, or are you guys seriously saying that higher dex makes you cast slower?

With regards to some sort of lag explanation...

Well I know for sure that the animation on a character frequently looks much faster or slower when chain casting spells. You would think that only the actual spell cast effects the animation, and not the other way around. In other words, though the animation of the spell cast goes faster and slower, the actual spell cast happening in the system should always take the same amount of time. Slajzer can you try testing with say 30, 55, 79, 111, and other random times and see if they produce a very similar time for average spell cast?

Can someone try to explain why chain casting 100 spells and then dividing by 100 won't give you an accurate time for casting 1 spell? (an answer other than that 1000 is better).

 

-----signature-----

Where exactly do you see this? Because I am not seeing this. Except that say at 356 dex you might cast 100 spells .1 seconds slower than at 355 dex, based on the numbers. I really hope you are not talking about that...

 

-----signature-----

His testing may be flawed, but at least he tried. Don't be such a wah wah.

 

-----signature-----

http://mortal.peril.org/jack/daoc/dmgcalc.html

That one is made based on the testing that was done back then, go nuts and have fun.

Again, I wasn't not looking for any exact cast times here, only taking one sample of 100 casts per value WILL give some variation (be it lag, human factor or whatever).

But after being stable at one point for 30+ dex and then suddenly increase/decrease up to 15 seconds (over 100 casts) in cast time after just one dex difference does seem a bit odd, doesn't it?


I did replicate some of these tests with different spells on different classes. The 392 breakpoint for 2.8s spells for example was confirmed with animist, mentalist and shaman on pendragon aswell as my animist on ywain.

Other people have confirmed these breakpoints on other classes etc aswell.


http://vnboards.ign.com/ywain/b23441/112615990/p1

 

-----signature-----