Very interesting casting speed test.

[Sobek]

http://yaba.ath.cx/daoc/castspeed/castspeed.html

i found this quite interesting, since ive heard countless of people saying 400+ dex was very noticeable..

 

[kirennia]

So basically it showed that he lagged? For the graphs to be that random, there is something not quite right.....

 

[Ging]

395 + 10% speed is enough for me.

 

[Maeloch]

Standout point I see from that, if you take out data as given, is cast time on all spells seems to plateau out after 400 dex. But yeah lots of variability.

(and I know I haven't finished with the little testing I was doing but, like hoovering the car or changing your duvet cover, it's something that hard get motivated to do unless you've really got nothing better on )

 

[Amaru-Synergy]

if you aim for 390dex... that should be dex3 or 4...... anything more - means you should be spending points in group RAs

 

[Loverman]

I did some testing on my own before going with aug dex3 instead of aug dex4.

Casted dark specnuke (RM) for 1 minute with 10% castinspeed.

Results 385 dex: 48 casts
Results 397 dex: 50 casts

Conclusion, it -felt- like I was casting way faster, but 2 more casts during 1 minute of casting = Not worth 10 points in aug dex.

Only reason to go higher in dex is for faster nuking when dex-debuffed.

 

[Docs]

I think just about every test done so far on this subject have missed the real issue at hand.

Will I land the FIRST spell faster.

We all know it is about getting away spells between interrupts and getting them off first.

To know how fast you can cast 120 consecutive spells is actually irrelevant.

Now comes the problem of determining IF there is a gain and how large it is on the first cast.

Thats a real nut to crack.

 

[Ashala]

if you aim for 390dex... that should be dex3 or 4...... anything more - means you should be spending points in group RAs

depends on what class you are...."ashy whine inc!"


....WHINE!

having 350dex+10% and casting 3.2 sec heals is just bliss...no wait

 

[Megarevs]

I think just about every test done so far on this subject have missed the real issue at hand.

Will I land the FIRST spell faster.

We all know it is about getting away spells between interrupts and getting them off first.

To know how fast you can cast 120 consecutive spells is actually irrelevant.

Now comes the problem of determining IF there is a gain and how large it is on the first cast.

Thats a real nut to crack.

Agreed. Another point is the psychological of it. You play better if you believe your template/char is adequate and can compete in RvR. So for me having augdex 4 is must as I "believe" I can actually feel the extra dex (though I in fact might not be able to) so it gives me a boost.

 

[Belomar]

I think just about every test done so far on this subject have missed the real issue at hand.

Will I land the FIRST spell faster.

We all know it is about getting away spells between interrupts and getting them off first.

To know how fast you can cast 120 consecutive spells is actually irrelevant.

Now comes the problem of determining IF there is a gain and how large it is on the first cast.

Thats a real nut to crack.

I'm sorry, what's the problem here? This test is not about how many spells you can cast in 3 minutes, that is merely a statistical construction to gain some robustness when calculating the average cast speed for a single spell (be it the first spell or whatever). Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see how the two are different.

 

[Storankan]

I'm sorry, what's the problem here? This test is not about how many spells you can cast in 3 minutes, that is merely a statistical construction to gain some robustness when calculating the average cast speed for a single spell (be it the first spell or whatever). Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see how the two are different.

Unless the first spell takes longer to cast than subsequent spells. Unlikely, but not impossible. Due to lag, pretty much impossible to prove though.

But as the author says, 400+ dex looks faster but really isn't. Guess the cast animation hasn't got caps

 

[Ging]

I'm sorry, what's the problem here? This test is not about how many spells you can cast in 3 minutes, that is merely a statistical construction to gain some robustness when calculating the average cast speed for a single spell (be it the first spell or whatever). Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see how the two are different.

god u know how to make a man moist belo

 

[Gazon]

I think the weird graph is caused by spamming the button. I don't know for sure ofc. Food for another test!

On the other hand I think one can safely say aug dex 3->4 (10 points) is VERY expensive for what it gives you.

 

[Muldini]

I think the weird graph is caused by spamming the button. I don't know for sure ofc. Food for another test!

On the other hand I think one can safely say aug dex 3->4 (10 points) is VERY expensive for what it gives you.

Depends on where it gets u, if u reach 400+, ye maybe 10 points arent worth it, if it gets u to ~360 on a cleric ...

 

[Maeloch]

I think the weird graph is caused by spamming the button. I don't know for sure ofc. Food for another test.

Well, you would think, according to common sense, the relationship between dex and cast speed would be a simple linear one which stops at a hard cap...and that the wierd results are just due to some margin of error in measurement.

But there's no evidence for that and who knows, mebbe it's some incredibly convoluted polynomial which takes into account your birthday, the day of the week, how much gold you have in ur inv, irs stats, and whether you've emptied your bladder in the last 15 minutes.

 

[Cromcruaich]

More data required.

Also simultaneously run a simultaneous short interval pingplot and plot it against the data, see if any correlation can be observed possibly allowing for normalisation of data.

 

[Svartmetall]

One thing it does prove is that magic damage needs to reduce as casting gets faster, just like melee damage does. To be able to cast at Mach 5 for full damage every cast is ridiculous, and one of the main reasons casters are so overpowered at the moment.

 

[Alexandrinus]

playstyle ,skill ,reflex >+-10 points in stats

 

[Andrilyn]

382 dex on my Cleric seems nice enough though if they ever release aug dex6 I'd take it
Noticed quite some differance between 350 and 380ish dex though impossible for Clerics to get 400 dex

 

[Ashala]

382 dex on my Cleric seems nice enough though if they ever release aug dex6 I'd take it
Noticed quite some differance between 350 and 380ish dex though impossible for Clerics to get 400 dex

aug dex5 on a cleric, auch

edit : well auch dex 5 in general

 

[Elrandhir]

playstyle ,skill ,reflex >+-10 points in stats

yeah, well thats is true until you face equally skilled players, then those extra 10 or whatever points could make the difference.

 

[Andrilyn]

aug dex5 on a cleric, auch

edit : well auch dex 5 in general

Yes I played around with some aug dex3 and 4 and it just doesn't cut it with my play style.

 

[Gazon]

One thing it does prove is that magic damage needs to reduce as casting gets faster, just like melee damage does. To be able to cast at Mach 5 for full damage every cast is ridiculous, and one of the main reasons casters are so overpowered at the moment.

Only the STYLING part of the damage reduces if you swing faster. STYLE damage stays the same over time, so more swings, less styling damage per swing.
The BASE damage part of melee attacks stays the same per swing, no matter how fast or slow you swing the weapon, like casting.

 

[Leel]

Yes but......are you saying spells should get style bonus then for low dex?

 

[Baron]

Cromcruaich

More data required.

Also simultaneously run a simultaneous short interval pingplot and plot it against the data, see if any correlation can be observed possibly allowing for normalisation of data.

Ermm...
I must be the dumbest guy in the room
but I've no idea what this means

PS No flame intended

 

[Maeloch]

Yes but......are you saying spells should get style bonus then for low dex?

Dex/qui debuffed firbie animists bombing for huge damage, HO wizzies with 0 dex on template 1 shotting with bolts!

 

[kirennia]

playstyle ,skill ,reflex >+-10 points in stats

Same person with 10 more dex > Same person without.

 

[Puppet]

Same person with 10 more dex > Same person without.

Variance and random-number generator > that to be honest. Atleast for things like melee.

And when I see on my druid, he has like 330-340 DEX, and Im RR11 on that druid. I *KNOW* for a fact a MOC3, BOF3 RA-dump >> your casting-time increase. Active > Passive at the moment in NF with their 10 mins reuse.

 

[Belomar]

More data required.

Also simultaneously run a simultaneous short interval pingplot and plot it against the data, see if any correlation can be observed possibly allowing for normalisation of data.

Good point. However, provided spellqueue is on and the roundtrip time is at most half of the cast time (which it should comfortably be on a decent connection), a new spell can be initiated anywhere from when the current one starts and finishes casting, causing network latency to have a minimal impact.

And why do you need more data anyway? Looks okay to me.

 

[noaim]

I think just about every test done so far on this subject have missed the real issue at hand.

Will I land the FIRST spell faster.

We all know it is about getting away spells between interrupts and getting them off first.

To know how fast you can cast 120 consecutive spells is actually irrelevant.

Now comes the problem of determining IF there is a gain and how large it is on the first cast.

Thats a real nut to crack.

Why would the first spell take longer or be faster than any other? What you test is if your castspeed improves, if it does, your first spell will land faster.