Haste Breakpoints

[Veiled]

Thanks to Binkenstein and others who helped tweak these numbers. (original post at http://www.totemspot.com/vb/entry.php?b=41)

[Veiled]

Please note that Sanctuary and Divine Hymn values on this need to be recalculated.

[bobsurdaddy]

also divine hymn is not on the list for goblin priests is that intentional or just an oversight

[derevka]

I'm just going to leave this here...

http://talesofapriest.com/resources/haste-breakpoints/

Sanct is obnoxious given the changes to 30 seconds, and results in some interestingly easy breakpoints. That said, for holy 4717 will be a critical point for us (well really 4716, but one more gets you the next one... so why not) due to the insanity that is Lightspring.

[derevka]

Bink was notified of the errors and the image was updated.

[Blackmorgrim]

it always makes me laugh when I see numbers like (16.65%)4717 and (16.66%)4721... since it pretty much means someone tried to copy the general formula but probably coded a > instead of >/=. Either that, or they're rounding in a slightly different way.

[derevka]

I'm confused as to what you're saying Black...

Rounding on these is tricky but if your excel is using a Ceiling function amd tou backed out to the Millisec you should be spot on.


Or at least that's what I did with my SS.


Long and short of it, given how insane LSpring is we'll want that added tick.... And pick up the others along the way. Of course, provided your gear CAN hit it... And if you can't... It also swings if you want to glyph Renew or not. Haste is so fun this expac.... So much to consider!! :-)

[Blackmorgrim]

Talking about the programming end on blizzard's side. Reminiscent of the inconsistencies with DP in cata.

Basically just something that's bound to happen whenever you have more than one person doing code for things that have the same functionality.

As both renew, lightwell, and sanc all have base ticks that are a multiple of 3, that 16.6X% breakpoint should be the same value. However, somewhere along the way in the coding process (again on Blizzard's end, not the calculations) the one who coded renew is rounding differently for the haste scaling than for lightwell or sanc.

[derevka]

The funny thing is they try to make stuff easier (ie the mastery changes on the char sheet--- granted all the conversion math is still there. Or the stat:1% conversions being much easier whole numbers)... But stuff like this is just irritating rounding. ;-)

[Binkenstein]

it always makes me laugh when I see numbers like (16.65%)4717 and (16.66%)4721... since it pretty much means someone tried to copy the general formula but probably coded a > instead of >/=. Either that, or they're rounding in a slightly different way.

Nope.

HW:Sanct: 3rd tick at 16.65% haste, requires a tick speed of 1621.50 ms
Renew (Glyphed): 1st tick at 16.66% haste, requires a tick speed of 2571.50 ms

So you can see from the start there are different values in the equation, which just happen to arrive at similar points.

It takes 425 rating at level 90 to produce 1% haste. That's 0.00235% haste per rating point, so 4 points difference is 0.009411%, which gets rounded up to 0.01% for display purposes.

If you want to look at the specific example, we take the rounding off haste values and get HWS at 16.6520919589877 while R(G) is at 16.634305527292. Next we take the ceiling function out, which gives 4716.32293614071 & 4720.91236658086 rating. Obviously you can't have fractional rating points, which is why they are rounded up.

There is consistency in the way all dot/hot calculations occur with regard to haste, but it is complicated. Each break point requires a haste figure to be calculated in milliseconds to 2 dp, rounded using banker's rounding (depending on the tick count) to the nearest half millisecond, generating a haste value on that & converting it into a rating number while taking into account any other haste buffs.

Talking about the programming end on blizzard's side. Reminiscent of the inconsistencies with DP in cata.

Basically just something that's bound to happen whenever you have more than one person doing code for things that have the same functionality.

As both renew, lightwell, and sanc all have base ticks that are a multiple of 3, that 16.6X% breakpoint should be the same value. However, somewhere along the way in the coding process (again on Blizzard's end, not the calculations) the one who coded renew is rounding differently for the haste scaling than for lightwell or sanc.

The base tick speed is only part of the calculation. Haste actually affects the entire duration of the dot. It works like this:

1. Divide hot duration by 1 + haste % to get the new hot duration
2. Divide the new hot duration by the base number of ticks to get the new tick time
3. Divide the base hot duration by the new tick time, using banker's rounding to round the tick count to the nearest whole number

This is why the first tick for Lightwell (6 second duration) is higher than Divine Hymn (8 second duration) and both are higher than HW:Sanct (30 second duration) even though all have the same base tick speed of 2 seconds. (Renew, glyphed or not, has a base tick speed of 3 seconds)