Where are you getting 360 hp from?
Are you healing in bear form?
belt difference is 6 and 12 where haste is 6 stam
cloak is 4 and 8 haste being 4
mace + oh and staff are on par or mace and tome falls behind with 1 stam I'm not 100%
But I do know that 10-11 stam is not gonna give you 360 hp
If you read the thread, just before I posted my calculations I asked what pieces of equipment were necessary to reach the 20 haste that you need in order to get the .06s speed increase we are talking about. The answer was that that included one haste trinket, at 7 haste. If you're gearing stamina instead of haste, you can replace that with an AGM for 13 stamina or 130hp. And, again if you read the thread you'd know this, I said if you're human and therefore can equip two trinkets, the tradeoff becomes even starker: an additional 7 haste which doesn't get you near the next break point, or an additional 130hp from another AGM. That's 260hp in trinkets alone, plus my calculated 100hp from the other slots. Now you claim the numbers on those other slots are inaccurate, but you haven't proven it, so until you do the work and prove your argument, that 360hp number is going to stand.
If you read the thread, just before I posted my calculations I asked what pieces of equipment were necessary to reach the 20 haste that you need in order to get the .06s speed increase we are talking about. The answer was that that included one haste trinket, at 7 haste. If you're gearing stamina instead of haste, you can replace that with an AGM for 13 stamina or 130hp. And, again if you read the thread you'd know this, I said if you're human and therefore can equip two trinkets, the tradeoff becomes even starker: an additional 7 haste which doesn't get you near the next break point, or an additional 130hp from another AGM. That's 260hp in trinkets alone, plus my calculated 100hp from the other slots. Now you claim the numbers on those other slots are inaccurate, but you haven't proven it, so until you do the work and prove your argument, that 360hp number is going to stand.
If you replace 2 agms for 2x haste trinkets then yes 360 would be accurate but I do not support the use of haste trinkets unless you are without the option to get an agm.
If you replace 2 agms for 2x haste trinkets then yes 360 would be accurate but I do not support the use of haste trinkets unless you are without the option to get an agm.
It's really not, though. The times that you perceive your cast bar finishing but the target dies anyway are attributed to latency normalization, which fluctuates greater than the different in cast time that 20 haste makes. It is a flaw of human perception that they know that they have an additional .06s per cast, and believe that therefore every time a heal barely lands, it must be attributable to that extra .06s and not a multitude of other factors that make a much greater difference than that haste.
Additionally, don't keep repeating that 100hp propaganda that that troll put out there, it's a gearing difference of approximately 230 to 360hp. If I as a rogue see one character at 1600 health, and another at 1960 health, who do you think I would try to ambush? Especially if one also has a ~750hp bubble on?
I appreciate the fact that we're at least back to debating the relative merits of 360hp increased survivability vs 6/100ths of a second of increased latency compensation, but again as I've said, this is a rehash and a repeat of what's already been said in the thread. Most people have fallen quiet because they have already decided which way is the better way for them personally. Neither side is WRONG, just one sees the benefit of marginally increased survivability and the other sees the benefit of marginally increased cast time. We could debate all night over how significant 360hp is, or how significant .06s is, but we've for certain reached a point where no one's mind is going to be changed, so let's talk about something else.
First of all, I'm not saying everytime a heal barely lands, it means that 0,06sec faster cast would have saved him. I said that these close calls of only fractions of seconds happen all the time on pretty much every bg I play in, and like I said this "0,06sec faster cast wont make or break if a heal lands before your target dies even once a year" is absurd, and sounds like bullshit you just pulled out of your ass to back up your point that you think stam stacking is more efficient. And when I think about it, that's what it probably is since you don't seem to be able to give me an answer.
I'm not repeating any propaganda.
Tome 7stam
Hammer 3stam
haste belt 6stam
haste cloak 4stam
--------------------------
20stam
staff 11stam
stam cloak 8stam
stam belt 12stam
--------------------
31stam
Reaching this 0,06sec faster global / flash heal is manageable with swapping these items. I wouldn't swap agm for haste trinket anyways, like I said it's better not to go full retard, no matter what stat you're going to stack. It's a 11stam difference as you can see, my bad with that 100hp. Also, even if you have haste items equipped and not stam in all slots,you won't be 1,6k hp, more like 2k. Also, if you can't survive a rogue who picks his targets by healthpool... Finish the sentence yourself.
Please tell me where you got this 360hp vs 6/100ths of a second? Also, explain how latency degrades the benefits of haste, please.
Wrong. I never said it makes casts longer, that's ignorant. I said latency has a greater effect on the variability of the window in which a cast lands. In other words, if there were no such thing as haste, the standard deviation caused by variation in latency normalization effects an individual cast's recognition time by the server by a greater margin that +/-0.03 seconds. If you don't understand this, please take a basic college-level statistics class.
360hp vs 6/100ths of a second is also false, as you can get that 6/100th cast time reduction for the cost of 11 stamina.
Again wrong, in order to get that 6/100ths of a second you need 20 haste, which means you need one trinket, which means you can't equip an AGM, which means it costs you 24 stamina, not 11. This has already been stated multiple times in the thread, as I said.
Soooo it appears you're just trying to get your point across by presenting false numbers and facts, am I right?
It appears to me that you're the one doing this, as well as ignoring the numbers and facts that have already been repeatedly stated in the thread.
Now, before your itchy reply finger twitches again, why not take a few minutes or an hour to actually read the thread so I don't have to repeat myself again.
Wrong. I never said it makes casts longer, that's ignorant. I said latency has a greater effect on the variability of the window in which a cast lands. In other words, if there were no such thing as haste, the standard deviation caused by variation in latency normalization effects an individual cast's recognition time by the server by a greater margin that +/-0.03 seconds. If you don't understand this, please take a basic college-level statistics class.
Maybe I should take a basic college-level english class, because I have no idea what you're rambling on about. Anyhow, will you explain it to me very simply with as little fancy words as possible so even an uneducated fool who doesn't speak english as his native language can understand. Thanks, greatly appreciated.
Again wrong, in order to get that 6/100ths of a second you need 20 haste, which means you need one trinket, which means you can't equip an AGM, which means it costs you 24 stamina, not 11. This has already been stated multiple times in the thread, as I said.
No I did not manipulate this to my favour, go see for yourself if you'd like to.
It appears to me that you're the one doing this, as well as ignoring the numbers and facts that have already been repeatedly stated in the thread.
Now, before your itchy reply finger twitches again, why not take a few minutes or an hour to actually read the thread so I don't have to repeat myself again.
It's almost 130 posts of bashing each other "this is what i do and its best" you being one of the people who post incoherent bs the most in this thread, do you seriously expect me to read through each and everyone of your posts? Now will you just explain what on earth has latency to do with haste (sorry for my poor understanding of english statistic-scientific vocabulary again), and explain how you lose 360hp in switching pieces around to gain 0,06sec reduced cast on flash heal, and I'll kindly stfu & gtfo.
Well I said the moment that I posted my math that if anyone sees a problem with my math, they should point it out. I'm not here to champion a specific cause, I'm here to get at the scientific truth. When I made my calculations I specifically asked how much haste the chart showed, and was told 20 haste. I asked specifically what items were needed to get that haste, and was told belt cloak book and one trinket. If you're saying that you can drop your cast time to 1.4 without using a trinket (and thus without sacrificing an AGM) I would have to believe you. You're the first person to point this out.
I'll leave this situation to consider for you haste/meh-to-haste folks (especially those who love the word "sooner"), quick preliminaries in spoiler:
Penance cd (9 sec=6x1.5, or exactly 6 1.5 sec gcds), as an instant cast, is unaffected by haste, while its channel (3 sec=2 gcd) is. GCD overall is affected by haste, though .06 sec less means a haste-priest will not see an extra gcd block until after about 30 seconds.
First:
A priest without haste will have a total of 6 gcd "boxes" before Penance is instantly off cd.
A haste-priest will have 6 gcd "boxes"+a incomplete (6x.06=.36 sec) gcd box left before Penance is off cd.
Consider this:
Suppose 9 secs has passed, and a hasted priest needs to heal asap, but has up to (1.44-.36=1.08) seconds left on his/her Flash of Light cast while his/her penance is fresh off CD.
If the priest needs to respond immediately, should the priest finish his/her 1.08 sec cast, or penance immediately?
If a haste-priest penances immediately, he/she has to consume an incomplete .36 sec gcd box to do so, consuming the incomplete-gcd gains of haste in that 9-sec span, and thus consuming incomplete-gcds that could otherwise be banked for an extra gcd in the relatively-distant 30 seconds.
Thus assuming a situation like the above, a hasted priest who responded immediately in that 9 sec span will have the same amount of gcds as a priest-with-no-haste, who "will have better healing gcd "boxes" thanks to negligible-int/crit/stam/etc" that was offered for haste.
So, if a haste-priest went for the immediately option, he/she will "heal sooner thanks to haste", but will nonetheless have the same amount of gcd "boxes" as a priest without haste.
Note: The above is also a ideal situation, primarily assuming all 9 seconds worth of gcds are used consectively (certainly not when needing to move, juke, etc.).
I'll leave this situation to consider for you haste/meh-to-haste folks (especially those who love the word "sooner"), quick preliminaries in spoiler:
Penance cd (9 sec=6x1.5, or exactly 6 1.5 sec gcds), as an instant cast, is unaffected by haste, while its channel (3 sec=2 gcd) is. GCD overall is affected by haste, though .06 sec less means a haste-priest will not see an extra gcd block until after about 30 seconds.
First:
A priest without haste will have a total of 6 gcd "boxes" before Penance is instantly off cd.
A haste-priest will have 6 gcd "boxes"+a incomplete (6x.06=.36) gcd box left before Penance is off cd.
Consider this:
Suppose 9 secs has passed, and a hasted priest needs to heal asap, but has up to (1.44-.36=1.08) seconds left on his/her Flash of Light cast while his/her penance is fresh off CD.
If the priest needs to respond immediately, should the priest finish his/her 1.08 sec cast, or penance immediately?
If a haste-priest penances immediately, he/she has to consume an incomplete .36 sec gcd box to do so, consuming the incomplete-gcd gains of haste in that 9-sec span, and thus consuming incomplete-gcds that could otherwise be banked for an extra gcd in the relatively-distant 30 seconds.
Thus assuming a situation like the above, a hasted priest who responded immediately in that 9 sec span will have the same amount of gcds as a priest-with-no-haste, who "will have better healing gcds thanks to negligible-int/crit/stam/etc" that was offered for haste.
So, if a haste-priest went for the immediately option, he/she will "heal sooner", but will nonetheless have used the same amount of gcd "boxes" as a priest without haste.
I've got a situation too: A healer runs to middle in the start of wsg, spams bubbles on his whole team as a priest would do. Everyone is bubbled now, it took him 14,4 seconds. By the time a priest with no haste starts casting his first heal, a priest with haste would already be 0,6 seconds into casting his first heal. Damn, that sounds pretty beneficial!
(It is not too hard to pick out scenarios from a battleground that makes it look a given stat outweighs others.)
Implying that DD need to survive, lol.
Exp/Hit>Agi>Crit>Haste>Sta/Arm/Res
If let's say there is a 4v4 battle (usual for any BG) and DD dies it basically mean nothing, group can still at least if not defeat enemy but to stand its ground and wait for support. On the other hand if healer dies whole group falls back and so "frontline" is pushed forward. While I totally agree that there're good points in haste or spirit sets (depending on situation) I give you healer-killer POV, my first goal is to kill enemy healer and only after I can switch to other targets and only big HP pool can save healer from silence/stun/incacipate lock.
Implying that DD need to survive, lol.
Exp/Hit>Agi>Crit>Haste>Sta/Arm/Res
If let's say there is a 4v4 battle (usual for any BG) and DD dies it basically mean nothing, group can still at least if not defeat enemy but to stand its ground and wait for support. On the other hand if healer dies whole group falls back and so "frontline" is pushed forward. While I totally agree that there're good points in haste or spirit sets (depending on situation) I give you healer-killer POV, my first goal is to kill enemy healer and only after I can switch to other targets and only big HP pool can save healer from silence/stun/incacipate lock.
Implying that DD need to survive, lol.
Exp/Hit>Agi>Crit>Haste>Sta/Arm/Res
If let's say there is a 4v4 battle (usual for any BG) and DD dies it basically mean nothing, group can still at least if not defeat enemy but to stand its ground and wait for support. On the other hand if healer dies whole group falls back and so "frontline" is pushed forward. While I totally agree that there're good points in haste or spirit sets (depending on situation) I give you healer-killer POV, my first goal is to kill enemy healer and only after I can switch to other targets and only big HP pool can save healer from silence/stun/incacipate lock.
are you serious? 4v3 should mean that the enemy team will exterminate the rest of you within 10 seconds ESPECIALLY if they managed to kill one of you 4v4. healer should not be in range for any of the enemies casts (unless the opposing 4 consists of atleast 1 24 rogue then its just impossible as i've stated before countlessly). a DPS dying could be almost as crucial as seeing a healer go down.
also not sure if serious with "my first goal is to kill the enemy healer and only after can I switch to other targets"
are you serious? 4v3 should mean that the enemy team will exterminate the rest of you within 10 seconds ESPECIALLY if they managed to kill one of you 4v4. healer should not be in range for any of the enemies casts (unless the opposing 4 consists of atleast 1 24 rogue then its just impossible as i've stated before countlessly). a DPS dying could be almost as crucial as seeing a healer go down.
also not sure if serious with "my first goal is to kill the enemy healer and only after can I switch to other targets"
>4v3 in 10sec
>healer not in DD range
>only 24 rogue can get to healer
>DD as crucial as a healer
Ok guys, I'm leaving this thread, things here are from someone's dream world. Continue to discuss ideal battles where healers are 40y away from their target, DD are attacking only from behind and palas with wars taunt enemy to kill them. View attachment 3679
