Very interesting casting speed test.

[Elrandhir]

Well casters have it rather easy atm, but I can live with most of them really, but those mages with lifetap, Especially Sorcs should be nerfed alot, that a class with so much utility can do that kind of damage is just silly.

I would really want to know what the person who decided that the class should get all this was thinking "Unbelivable tbh"

More or less the same with Bonedancers, but tbh I think Sorcs are the worst.

Anyone that would disagree on this aint really thinking atall, there are some other classes that could need to be changed abit, but these classes are just Insane.

 

[Docs]

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.

I dont know what you are sorry about but I think there is a difference in casting time when casting the first spell and the consecutive spells.
If I am correct then testing 120 consecutive casts for an average cast speed per spell is in fact a waste of time.

 

[Belomar]

I dont know what you are sorry about but I think there is a difference in casting time when casting the first spell and the consecutive spells.
If I am correct then testing 120 consecutive casts for an average cast speed per spell is in fact a waste of time.

It is hardly a waste of time, why would it be? Using this test, you can deduce the "pure" cast speed, factoring out network imperfections. However, you are probably right, when casting the first spell, network latency plays a role--it takes a certain time for the message of you hitting the spell button on the client to reach the server before your character actually starts to cast. This is a function of your network connection and is thus not invariant, whereas the cast speed is (given fixed dexterity and +cast% bonus).

So, in conclusion, while the first spell is indeed slower than subsequent spells (due to network latency, which should be factored out for the following spells if spellqueue is activated), this only plays a role for things like initial CC spells, and not for repeated nuking. By the same token, of course, instant spells are not really instant, since network latency must be factored in.

 

[Crocky]

the first cast is indeed slower imo, i think there are alot of test in Mythic code before the caster is able to cast his first spell. (caster not moving, caster has target, caster has los, caster has power,target not dead + netlag,...)
maybe it's just a feeling.

 

[Cromcruaich]

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.

More data is always a good thing, and the points variance looks a bit suspect, so more data, less variance, more accuracy.

Suggested ping plot just to see if it was having an effect. I agree with you're argument, but some people dont.

 

[Pirkel]

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.

Already look forward to having a lively discussion with you about this in vent this weekend

/me starts thinking of counterarguments

 

[Svartmetall]

Already look forward to having a lively discussion with you about this in vent this weekend

/me starts thinking of counterarguments

I blame GOA for cast speeds

 

[Belomar]

maybe it's just a feeling.

No, it is most definitely not just a feeling. The Internet is not perfect, so it will take some time for your DAoC client to tell the server that the player has started casting a spell. This will naturally have an impact on the cast speed (depending on the player's Internet connection). Since the spell queue seems to be server-side, this effect does not appear for subsequent casts.

However, using that as a motivation to say that the whole test is a "waste of time" is at best a misguided assumption.

As for the caster moving and having to stop before casting, it appears to me (from my admittedly unscientific testing) that /face tells the server that the player has come to a complete stop, allowing the next spell casting message to proceed directly. Thus, I'd say that actually stopping to cast using /face adds only a diminuitive overhead which is significantly dwarfed by the player's reaction time.

 

[Herjulf]

Well tbh just show that dex above 390 dont do anything mindboggling.
It still do work on damag spells as one could expect.

Who cares if self af shield cast speed raise by smt like 0.1% could aswell be test inconsistency.

 

[Docs]

It is hardly a waste of time, why would it be? Using this test, you can deduce the "pure" cast speed, factoring out network imperfections. However, you are probably right, when casting the first spell, network latency plays a role--it takes a certain time for the message of you hitting the spell button on the client to reach the server before your character actually starts to cast. This is a function of your network connection and is thus not invariant, whereas the cast speed is (given fixed dexterity and +cast% bonus).

So, in conclusion, while the first spell is indeed slower than subsequent spells (due to network latency, which should be factored out for the following spells if spellqueue is activated), this only plays a role for things like initial CC spells, and not for repeated nuking. By the same token, of course, instant spells are not really instant, since network latency must be factored in.

I dont think that network latency is the only thing affecting the first cast.
I might be wrong but if I am not then testing the average speed on consecutive casts is not what is the really interesting part.

Why not make a test where you factor in your network latency into the equation and see if there is any difference in casting just 1 spell with different levels of dex. The only problem is measuring it in a correct way.