#11
|
|||
|
You're still fixated on haste decreasing delay.
think of haste as increasing damage. Ignore the spam. Every % is a % of damage. Your dps, aggro etc will scale in linear proportion to haste percentage. Your delay is irrelevant except for getting munched by DS's | ||
|
#12
|
|||
|
More attacks per few seconds is equivalent to a lower delay...it just depends on the frame of time you are going by, nobody is wrong. 20% haste isn't 20% delay reduction is what you are trying to say.
The game truncates delay values. An equivalent delay of 14.49 is 14, while a delay of 14.51 is 15. This is where larger delay weapons would benefit more from haste than a low delay weapon as each percentage of haste will be more significant.
__________________
Rejuvenation <Divinity>
60 Cleric | ||
|
#13
|
|||
|
ummm
so you have 100 dly weapon and 100% haste by all logical conclusions your new delay should be 50 (or 1/2 reduction) which atches 100/(1+1) formula if haste is 50%, following same logic as above your new dealy should be 75 (or 1/4 reduction) but per formula 100/(1+0.5) = 66.6(6) why doesn't math match? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] | ||
|
#14
|
||||
|
Quote:
The math adds up just fine. To take 100 delay to 75 delay you would need 33.333...% haste. 100/1.333...= 75 The logic you're trying to apply doesn't work. Think about it, according to the logic you tried to use, 200% haste would be 0 delay, but unless you'e increasing the amount of attacks you get in a period of time by infinite percent, you wont get 0 delay.
__________________
Zalmo AFK - 57 AFK Shaman
Youre Atowel - 48 Towel | |||
Last edited by soup; 06-24-2011 at 07:07 PM..
Reason: corrected something
|
|
#15
|
|||
|
ok i got it now - you right, i have to look at it in number of attacks, cause 0 delay in fact is ridiculus =)
it just happens to be that for perfect 100 dly and 100% haste the number matches =) thanks! this has been bugging me since year 2000 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] i was given formula but never explain how the formula was derived | ||
|
|
|