Haste Rounding Questions

[Yinikren]

So, I was doing some math equations for figuring out hasted damage/delays when I came across something I couldn't immediately figure out - since delay is based on 1/10 of a second, then there are no half delays (8.5 delay) correct?

For instance, at 100% haste, a Fayguard Parrying Dagger (9/17) would round to 9/9, the same ratio as a jade mace or lupine dagger at 100% haste. Am I correct?

[Buriedpast]

Ignore delay reduction.

People associate haste with hitting faster, dont. That is purely cosmetic and superficial except for calculating incoming damage shield per second, and riposts per minute.

Think of haste as damage increase.

Rename every item in game and spell in game from Haste% to DamageIncrease%. And it all makes sense.

Ignore the cosmetic of hitting faster and calculating everything from that, as it is purely cosmetic.

50% haste is unhasted damage x 1.5.
75% haste is unhasted damage x 1.75
110% haste is unhasted damage x 2.1

100% haste is not for any intents and purposes a reduction in delay for the purpose of calculating damage.

[Buriedpast]

In doing so, you can freely calculate damage bonus on a base unhasted delay as a DPM in a simple function. The haste is a tertiary increase in damage ontop of base models and should NEVER be considered as part of selecting a weapon, as it is totally irrelevant*

So a 10/20 with a CoF and 30% spell haste for example:
66% damage increase.
New delay (irrelevent and cosmetic) = old delay * (100/166) = 12.0. Whether its rounded up or down does not matter at all, because noone cares and it has nothing to do with a long term performance of a weapon.

*Except when calculating damage shield incoming damage, riposts damage percentage increase and mark of karn healing per minute increase.

To do so:
Percentage increase in hits per timeframe = (1-(100 divide by haste%+100) * original delay)/original delay)*100

So increase in riposts percentage on a 20 delay weapon with a CoF only:
(1 - ((100/(100+36))*20)/20)*100
= 26.47% more damage from riposts, more healing from mark of karn, damage shield damage taken.

Hasted delay value has absolutely no factor in it, and noone should ever care as there is no delay minimum that can be reached.

[Yinikren]

Nice mathy answer, I like that.

I do understand that haste is a rate of attack increase, not a delay decrease. I was simply wondering how a weapon with an odd delay would perform with 100% haste, since mathematically it wouldn't be attacking at an even delay number (in this case, I would assume 8.5 rounds to 9). This is from the simple formula of hasteddelay=weapondelay/1.(haste percent).

In this case, I was thinking that a 17 delay weapon at 81% haste (9.39 delay, rounds to 9?) would perform exactly the same as at 100% haste (8.5 delay, rounds to 9?) since the EQ combat system cannot break it down any further than 10ths of a second? Or am I mistaken on that regardless and there is no rounding?

[Buriedpast]

Originally Posted by Yinikren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nice mathy answer, I like that.

I do understand that haste is a rate of attack increase, not a delay decrease. I was simply wondering how a weapon with an odd delay would perform with 100% haste, since mathematically it wouldn't be attacking at an even delay number (in this case, I would assume 8.5 rounds to 9). This is from the simple formula of hasteddelay=weapondelay/1.(haste percent).

In this case, I was thinking that a 17 delay weapon at 81% haste (9.39 delay, rounds to 9?) would perform exactly the same as at 100% haste (8.5 delay, rounds to 9?) since the EQ combat system cannot break it down any further than 10ths of a second? Or am I mistaken on that regardless and there is no rounding?

Clearly not, you are misunderstanding the basic principle. Forget about time or speed.

Remember all divisions of 1, end up being equal to or above 1 at an interger higher than 1.

.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 still becomes 1 with enough repetitions. So your decimal, or rounding means nothing.

The only reason you ever calculate haste in regards to delay, is for damage shields, ripost and MoK and even then only as a percentage increase as the raw value means (in my best phrasing) Absofuckinglutelynothing

I said in my first reply, first line, first 5 words to ignore delay reduction, not sure how much more simple I can put it

Haste is damage increase, not delay decrease (or attack speed increase, or any other phrasing...this is plain english).

Forget the delay, damage is absolutely not calculated based on damage and delay and haste server side. It is a coefficient. It cares not for ticks, seconds or units of time. It's simply a model the server adheres to. RNG, is not RNG. It is a function.

Hence 30 hour parses are always almost identical down to a thousandth's of a percent, if there was really an RNG in EQ's code, it would be random and we would see huge streaks over long periods in the tens of thousands of parses done in eq's history. But instead, RNG is a function, and damage calculation is a coefficient, and they all add up to an average.

[Seredoc]

If haste is a damge increase, by what method does it increase said damage if per hit damage remains unchanged?

You seem to have a deep grasp of the concept, and I apologize for a potential derail, but please do explain the means of damage increase, since on a per swing basis(from observations and live experience only) when it comes to raw damage per swing there is no change with haste.

As a simple example, if it were a "damage increase" of %40 would not a person who swings for 100 damage max now swing for a 140 damage max? Versus having a %40 increase in the number of times that an attempt to attack can be made?



Note: don't take offense, I am simply providing the contextual understanding of haste for myself and hoping you can provide a more realistic contextual scenario to better apply and understand.

[kaev]

Originally Posted by Buriedpast [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ignore the cosmetic of hitting faster and calculating everything from that, as it is purely cosmetic.

Riposte would like a word with you sir. As would the many damage shield spells in the game.

[Buriedpast]

Yeah I covered that.

And I also explained it quite clearly. There is a delay reduction. Choose to read what you want to read, I dedicated two whole paragraphs to calculating a direct percentage increase of DS/Riposte/MoK

The delay reduction is cosmetic in terms of calculating weapons and damage increase.

I won't post any further on the matter.

[Buriedpast]

If you want a damage model formula I'll do one up in google docs for you. But remember that mob AC is an independent coefficient on output, as is weapon skill.

So can just add some generic coefficients for AC and Raw ATK.

[Buriedpast]

Originally Posted by Seredoc [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If haste is a damge increase, by what method does it increase said damage if per hit damage remains unchanged?

You seem to have a deep grasp of the concept, and I apologize for a potential derail, but please do explain the means of damage increase, since on a per swing basis(from observations and live experience only) when it comes to raw damage per swing there is no change with haste.

As a simple example, if it were a "damage increase" of %40 would not a person who swings for 100 damage max now swing for a 140 damage max? Versus having a %40 increase in the number of times that an attempt to attack can be made?



Note: don't take offense, I am simply providing the contextual understanding of haste for myself and hoping you can provide a more realistic contextual scenario to better apply and understand.

40% haste is 40% more units of damage over elapsed time. The instantaneous calculation is irrelevant obviously.

40% haste is not 40% more occurrences per measurement of time.

You are preoccupied with occurrence, rather than unit. Delay is irrelevant and I pointed this out contextually and theoretically.

I never said your damage per hit increases, or delay doesn't decrease. I'm just trying to change your perspective on the net effect and not the summary contribution.