Nature's Grace is weak. Nourish will clip the GCD, and you never spam Regrowth anymore. I dropped Nature's Grace myself and don't miss it.
Living Seed may be dropped in favor of Imp. Barkskin for specialized hard mode specs where you need the extra burst mitigation while at the same time you aren't healing tanks, but rolling hots full time.
I have gone between having Nature's Grace and not having it, but have resigned to using it for lack of substantially better talents. To pick up NG I lose 2% crit and 4% less mana cost to nourish, which is hardly game breaking. Having a 1 sec spammably nourish has saved the tank and random dps on occasion.
We are just getting into 25 hard modes, but I can't see 10% less dmg on very rare occasions being that helpful either. When is imp barkskin that helpful to have?
As for Subtlety, it's useless. That tiny amount of extra -threat will not prevent adds from gibbing a healer, it will just mean it gibs another healer instead of you. Adds that spawn will always go for healers and the only thing that is going to stop that is the tanks picking them up. A dead healer is a dead healer, you or someone else really doesn't matter much unless you carry everyone else really hard.
After reading Vyks post I went and picked up imp. Barkskin right away. Giving up some tranq. spirit for it was an easy choice. As for how good barkskin is? It's awesome. XT tantrums, static disruption on IC, frozen blows on Hodir, nearly all the time on Freya, Mimiron napalm or generally in P2 or a fervor+blessing combo in P1 Yogg. It's only a one minute cooldown so not using it is stupid and constantly saving it for "a better time" just means it'll never get used.
Why hit food is bad
"You have to spend 10 seconds to apply it, you have to fish it and you cant use the feast."
As for Subtlety, it's useless. That tiny amount of extra -threat will not prevent adds from gibbing a healer, it will just mean it gibs another healer instead of you. Adds that spawn will always go for healers and the only thing that is going to stop that is the tanks picking them up. A dead healer is a dead healer, you or someone else really doesn't matter much unless you carry everyone else really hard.
After reading Vyks post I went and picked up imp. Barkskin right away. Giving up some tranq. spirit for it was an easy choice. As for how good barkskin is? It's awesome. XT tantrums, static disruption on IC, frozen blows on Hodir, nearly all the time on Freya, Mimiron napalm or generally in P2 or a fervor+blessing combo in P1 Yogg. It's only a one minute cooldown so not using it is stupid and constantly saving it for "a better time" just means it'll never get used.
The only argument I have for subtlety is that if another healer dies instead of me I can Brez them. If I die, we just lost a Brez or have to waste an extra Brez.
I don't disagree that barkskin is worth using in all those situations, but 10% less dmg is not exactly game breaking (the normal BS does the trick).
I have gone between having Nature's Grace and not having it, but have resigned to using it for lack of substantially better talents. To pick up NG I lose 2% crit and 4% less mana cost to nourish, which is hardly game breaking. Having a 1 sec spammably nourish has saved the tank and random dps on occasion.
We are just getting into 25 hard modes, but I can't see 10% less dmg on very rare occasions being that helpful either. When is imp barkskin that helpful to have?
Off the top of my head XT hard mode (its up every single Tantrum) and Hodir to help cut healer count.
Originally Posted by JamesVZ
Yes but you can't guarantee that every 10 man raid would have Party Grenades available right now, so giving this effect to Disco Priests I think is a worthwhile endeavor.
I have gone between having Nature's Grace and not having it, but have resigned to using it for lack of substantially better talents. To pick up NG I lose 2% crit and 4% less mana cost to nourish, which is hardly game breaking. Having a 1 sec spammably nourish has saved the tank and random dps on occasion.
We are just getting into 25 hard modes, but I can't see 10% less dmg on very rare occasions being that helpful either. When is imp barkskin that helpful to have?
Well, here's one example. XT normal and hardmode does Tympanic Tantrum once every minute. Tympanic Tantrum deals 10% of your health in damage every second for 8 seconds, which multiplied by the Heartbreak bonus means he deals .1*1.4*8*(health pool)*10 damage total over the fight with Tantrum. Since we know it's coming, we can use Barkskin every Tantrum, and with an assumption of 22500 health, that means that Improved Barkskin's effect over the fight is .1*1.4*8*22500*10*.1 = 25200 damage prevented, which is almost certainly more than 2% crit or 4% Nourish mana reduction would do, and at 0 mana cost. This is without including any other incidental damage (Light Sparks) or the chance that it might save your life outright!
Additionally, with a one minute cooldown Barkskin is hardly "very rare"- it can be up as much as 20% of the time.
I prefer to lessen the chance of random adds killing me at will when we are not blessed with an AoE tank in the raid.
Every tank is now an AoE tank. Paladins and Death Knights have an easier time with consecration and Death and Decay, but if you have a problem where you are constantly getting ganked by adds, fire your off tanks. Adds generally spawn at predetermined locations. A good tank will position themselves between the healers and the add spawn location.
That being said, there really arent any great places to throw those talent points. In order to get to the 3rd tier we have 2 points that can either be throw in Furor (no benefit at all for PvE resto Druids), 2 Points into Naturalist (.2 seconds off our Healing Touch Cast time), or 2 Points into Subtlety (20% reduction in our threat).
If someone is going for a Glyphed Healing Touch build, I could see the benefit for putting 2 points into Naturalist. If Healing Touch is not glyphed however this is a huge waste, as Healing Touch will only be used with Nature's Swiftness, making it an instant cast.
@ Rij
I agree. However, for the record, does anybody know at what point Nature's Grace actually starts to clip Nourish? I know there was a discussion as to when this would happen in the Resto Itemization thread, but was an consensus ever reached? From a pure throughput based standpoint, might it be better to limit the amount of haste on your gear to just under this 'Nature's Grace Softcap'.
*disclaimer, the claims I am about to make run opposed to claims I have made in the past*
My own napkin math had this around ~330 haste, but I think I may not have the formula correct. Perhaps we should (as a resto druid community) come to an agreement on this. After doing some thinking today, i'm starting to become convinced that the Nourish/NG softcap might be a more important number to focus on than then GotEM softcap.
Here is my logic: even if the NG softcap is just under the GCD softcap, we aren't losing much. At 330 haste we should still be looking at a ~1.01s GCD, an amount of time that is nearly indistinguishable to human reaction times. To the best of my understanding, most druids will only cast Regrowth once every 27s per tank that they are healing, so the addition of haste to this spell is minimal, Healing Touch will either be glyphed (already haste capped) or used only in conjunction with Nature's Swiftness (instant). This leaves Nourish.
Nourish can get very close to a 1s cast timer with Nature's Grace. Has a high crit chance (North of 45% raid buffed, while not stacking for crit), This high Crit proc's BOTH Nature's Grace and Living Seed. When you are near the NG cap, its possible to cast 3 Nourishes in that time frame. That should lead to an 84% chance that Nourish will crit on at least 1 of those 3 casts (1.0 - [.55]^3). That also means that you have an 84% chance to give the tank a Living seed in that 3 seconds time frame. If you can only fit 2 casts into that time frame, that percentage drops to 70%. I'm getting side tracked. I could go on as to why a ~1s cast timer on Nourish is amazing, but I feel as if you get the point...
Baseline. Nourish is our only direct cast spell that matters as either it or Rejuvenation outside Regrowth in nearly every circumstance. 1 cast every 27s is hardly worth taking into account. By limiting our haste to just under the NG-Nourish cap we are still keeping our HoTs very close to 1s. This itemization that would would/could have spent on haste can now be spent elsewhere, on Spirit, mp5, or Crit, Spell Power. While I have said before that even after the soft cap haste is still more valuable then crit, this way of thinking might change that. Since haste past the NG cap would be completely 'wasted' our choices for increasing our throughput might be crit and Spell Power. More crit would help assure a permanent NG uptime, as well as lead to more crits and living seed procs.
Also, just so it doesn’t seem like I’m all 'pie in the sky' about this theory, I have some early arguments against this. Questions that i asked myself.
1. As a Resto Druid, I'm rarely called on to heal only a single target.
This might be completely true for you, it might not be true for others in the resto druid community. I raid with an abundance of resto druids (3). I view myself (and all druids for that matter) as our flex healer, able to do what needs to be done. On one fight I might be raid healing, in the next I might have to keep a tank alive by myself. It all depends on your guild make up, and what assignments you generally receive.
2. Even if I am single target healing, should I really be spamming Nourish Mindlessly?
No, you shouldnt. This is actually where I feel my 'plan' is now the weakest. While there is only a 16% chance that one of my 3 casts wont reset my NG timer in a constant spam situation, that number falls all the way to 0 if I fail to cast a heal that is able to crit in that time frame. Due to this and this alone, the old way of thinking (skipping NG, stacking haste) might be better in real life scenarios. However, in high damage hard hitting fights the scales tip more favorably to having to cast 1 or 2 Nourishes in that 3 second window than not.
3. Assuming what you say is true, why would I stack crit instead of haste? It doesn’t work with any of the spells I do cast (Lifebloom, Rejuvenation, Wildgrowth)
For the reason I posted above, haste shouldnt be a concern. The haste needed to softcap NG is very close to the softcap you need on your hots. Haste wouldnt have any effect on any of the spells listed, and neither would crit. Since the next highest used spell on the list, Nourish also wouldn’t receive any benefit from haste (it would actually be a decline in performance) any other stat then becomes more desirable. Your specific choice will depend on your gear and play style.
4. Even if I am single target healing and spamming nourish, as a druid i'm forced to weave other spells into the mix in order to maximize my HPS from Nourish. (Lifebloom, Regrowth, Rejuvenation). Shouldn’t this have an effect on the numbers you posted?
The short answer, yes. However, Lifebloom needs to be refreshed every 8 seconds, Rejuvenation every 18s, and Regrowth every 27s. Most of the time this should only require you to spend 1 out of 3s that NG is active. You still have a 70% chance to refresh NG with your two Nourish casts.
So I will pose the question to everyone else…at what exact value for haste that makes NG start to clip Nourish. After that is found, is there a real reason to NOT shoot for this as a hard haste cap?
So I will pose the question to everyone else…at what exact value for haste that makes NG start to clip Nourish. After that is found, is there a real reason to NOT shoot for this as a hard haste cap?
Because Nourish (and other spells) still gain some marginal benefit after that haste amount. So it is not a hard cap. Beyond this number you're proposing, additional haste will still allow you to cast nourish more often in Y seconds, for some values of Y. For example a single nourish still casts faster with more haste, so it's not a hard cap.
So I will pose the question to everyone else…at what exact value for haste that makes NG start to clip Nourish. After that is found, is there a real reason to NOT shoot for this as a hard haste cap?
This strictly depends on your server lag as the larger your lag is, the more forgiving the GUI and servers are to spell queuing (to the point where you can even get away with spells with cast time in Malygos' vortex and similar situations - done that myself).
Mathematically, it's when your Nourish cast time goes sub 1s = your haste from NG + gear + possible CF + outside buffs exceeds 50%. Since 20% haste on Nourish is the same as 20% haste on GCD for rejuvenation from GotEM, you can lookup the values in "Restoration Itemization" thread on the front page.
EDIT: Also, considering that most of the gear gives you choice between crit and haste in equal amounts, the main problem I have with stacking crit is that point-for-point you need ~33 haste for 1% of haste, while you need ~46 crit for 1% crit, and crit affects <15% of my total healing done in a typical raid scenario. If you find yourself tank-healing way more and your direct heals account for ~50% of your total healing done, then 1% of crit will roughly equal to 0.25% increase in your total heals. Haste is much more difficult to estimate as it strictly depends on your skill in queuing spells and your Internet connection, but up to certain level 1% haste = ~1% total heals. If you have so much of it that NG becomes a problem, all you have to do is drop points from balance tree and put them into resto tree and your stats are good again.
Besides, the problem with stacking crit as resto druids is, that you can't really get too much of it, you get a lot of it from the talents without using a single piece of gear (at least for the spells that matter), and 1% of increase in crit over the base 45% on the spells in question doesn't really amount to that much increase in useful procs (NG, LS).
Okay, So my original thinking was correct. The softcap should be the same @365 (not what I posted, but it is what I was thinking when I first looked at it). I wasnt sure if there was a different mechanic (if it was added a different way, pre/post haste on gear) that would change this.
@ Red
If my Nourish is already at a 1s cast (and cannot get any faster) then haste is only a benefit to my Regrowth. Since I stated that Regrowth is only being cast once every 27 seconds, Marginal is a generous word to describe the benefit I could see from haste. Haste then will only benefit me when NG isnt active and/or on my Regrowths. I'll have to sit down and look at numbers/situations, but in a pure Nourish spamming situation NG only has a 16% chance of dropping. Therefore anything over the cap is much less beneficial. Also, since going over the cap guarentees us not being able to que Nourish, in practical application going over the 365 cap might make things harder on us.
@Ezarg
So because of server lag there is no perfect number to shoot for, simply the 365 soft cap. I agree with your edit that crit only factors into a small amount of the healing we are able to do. However, when compairing values very near or over the haste soft cap, we are looking at stats which will only benefit the same 15% of your healing done. Haste doesnt help your HoTs once the 365 value is achieved.
Let me take a second to state that I've always been fairly anti crit. Its inconsistant, and leads to a higher variance. I try to do what I can to keep worst case scenarios from happened. However, in the situation i've described above, where you can assume that haste will only effect roughly 20% of the spells that crit would (due to a high NG uptime, it seems that stacking any more haste than 365 would be a large waste. To get the most out of my stat budget, it seems to me that any other stat would be more useful. Sadly, the only real option throughput option we can trade haste for is crit (unless i'm missing something)
This strictly depends on your server lag as the larger your lag is, the more forgiving the GUI and servers are to spell queuing (to the point where you can even get away with spells with cast time in Malygos' vortex and similar situations - done that myself).
This doesn't match up with what I've read in the past, unfortunately I don't remember where I read it. I'll look around when I get more spare time.
In a chain cast situation, it was said that any changes in latency would alter gaps between spell casts, but your actual latency value has no effect as long as you are pounding the spell cast key. The difference between 30ms and 600ms made no difference for chain casting.
When you chain cast a spell, you don't wait for the spell to complete to cast another spell, it completes a bit before the spell bar actually shows this. You can see this by casting a mount and then moving when there is .2s left in the cast. At a certain indeterminable point you can queue up your next spell, but there is no way of knowing exactly when it will be. This is why Autokey is such a popular program, it fixes blizzard's cast system by spoofing key presses every millisecond to catch the spell queue as soon as it opens up.
Lag definitely plays a role in healing, but instead its linked to health updates, debuffs, etc. To counter this I've found this registry change that brought my latency to 1/5 of what I ran before.
Oh! Don't forget Quick Health mod to bypass blizzard's API for updating unit health, it updates health roughly 4 times the rate.
Finally, I've noticed that my cast rate goes down when my computer is working hard and my FPS is low. It makes sense to me since my computer is to busy drawing deadly triangles on my screen to pick up key presses right away. So what I've done is try to run with bare minimum amount of mods and lower spell graphics.
So does anyone else like Imp Barkskin for PVE these days? Funkychicken (another Fusion druid) and I have been playing around with it. I find that I like the first point of it way better than 1% crit on spells, and perhaps the second point of it more than the 3rd point of Nature's Grace. On any fight where large bursts of damage occur at predictable intervals, being able to shave 10% off of incoming damage is pretty nice. I particularly like it for Freya hard mode and Mimiron hard mode. The build looks something like this.
I have been very happy with imp barkskin for PVE. I find it more useful to take pressure off my own life and get heals out to others.
If my Nourish is already at a 1s cast (and cannot get any faster) then haste is only a benefit to my Regrowth.
Haste can bring Nourish's cast speed below 1s. Obviously the GCD is unaffected, but haste is definitely NOT useless for nourish past 365. Single casts are unlikely to be under the effect of NG and chain casts not 100% certain to be under NG (the vast majority of my nourish casts are not followed up by additional nourish casts; ones that are usually get cancelled mid-cast). Even during a chaincast under NG, each spell lands earlier for .9s nourish casts than for 1s. Haste beyond the 1s NG amount is beneficial. Period.
This should get some award for the most informative post on latency or something.
In relation to my note that the value of haste is affected by latency: I agree that if you use G15 or AutoHotkey and simply hold down something to chain cast a single spell, you'll get the effect you describe.
However, chain casting by holding a key is explicitly prohibited by Blizzard. You can technically use G15 or AutoHotkey to cast things faster as you describe, but that's really borderline with ToS.
If you chain cast instants, it seems that the spell queue generally opens when you fulfill GCD requirement from the spell before the previous one - that's how GUI can estimate when the queue should open, and that's the basis for addons like Quartz. I have my Quartz GCD bar directly above the cast bar, both the same size, so one doesn't dominate the view over the other, spell queue showing in red at the end of the cast bar. If you cast spells like Nourish which conveniently has cast time = GCD and watch the GCD and the cast sparks, you can see clearly that the GCD spark reaches the end exactly when the cast spark hits the queue. The queue opens sooner for the next spell if you have larger lag on the previous spell. If your lag is constant, your statement is true because your queue opens always the same amount of time before the end of the cast time. But if your lag is on the order of at least 150 ms, it will most likely vary quite a bit, and your spell queue will trail this by one cast time. If you cast your spells by hand, the higher your lag, the more variance you'll have and the less accurate your casts will be and the more you'll lose out on your haste.
Haste can bring Nourish's cast speed below 1s. Obviously the GCD is unaffected, but haste is definitely NOT useless for nourish past 365. Single casts are unlikely to be under the effect of NG and chain casts not 100% certain to be under NG (the vast majority of my nourish casts are not followed up by additional nourish casts; ones that are usually get cancelled mid-cast). Even during a chaincast under NG, each spell lands earlier for .9s nourish casts than for 1s. Haste beyond the 1s NG amount is beneficial. Period.
Agree to disagree. If someone was looking to not take NG because it would cause clipping, I would argue that that they should keep their haste just under the cap, as opposed to sacrificing a 1s nourish spam. Personally I'm not sure what I would do at this point, as numbers alone wont tell the entire story. This is a situation where you need to feel whats going on.
I have only stated facts. If you disagree then you are mistaken. What I said is indisputable.
Originally Posted by Allinone
If someone was looking to not take NG because it would cause clipping, I would argue that that they should keep their haste just under the cap, as opposed to sacrificing a 1s nourish spam. Personally I'm not sure what I would do at this point, as numbers alone wont tell the entire story. This is a situation where you need to feel whats going on.
I don't know what you're talking about with regards to taking NG as a talent or not; I haven't mentioned it previously.
Certainly any build with nature's bounty would benefit more from NG than anywhere else they could put the points. You don't actually lose anything by causing a spell to clip the GCD. You can still queue the spell, even with significant clipping or very low latency.
Last edited by red : 06/05/09 at 1:00 PM.
Reason: s/of/or
I have only stated facts. If you disagree then you are mistaken. What I said is indisputable.
I don't know what you're talking about with regards to taking NG as a talent or not; I haven't mentioned it previously.
Certainly any build with nature's bounty would benefit more from NG than anywhere else they could put the points. You don't actually lose anything by causing a spell to clip the GCD. You can still queue the spell, even with significant clipping of very low latency.
The world is bigger than you Red. In my original post (and my entire line of thinking) I was talking more directly to Rijindaels comment
Originally Posted by Rijndael
Nature's Grace is weak. Nourish will clip the GCD, and you never spam Regrowth anymore. I dropped Nature's Grace myself and don't miss it.
Living Seed may be dropped in favor of Imp. Barkskin for specialized hard mode specs where you need the extra burst mitigation while at the same time you aren't healing tanks, but rolling hots full time.
You have also stated facts based completely on your playstyle. I have also stated facts based on mine. Lowering the cast time of Nourish under 1s does nothing to increase the effective HPS of the spell, due the global cool down contrant. Now, you may cast Nourish in isolation, which will make it continue to gain benefit from haste, but not everyone plays your way. Personally, Swiftmend covers 90% of the situations that I encounter where I could cast Nourish in isolation. For me its a 'fact' that additional haste on Nourish past the 365 cap is comparitively weak, as Nourish is very very rarely unchained. Is it worthless, no. Is crit going to be worth more? As a resto druid I try to balance the ability to do 2 jobs very well; Raid healing, and Single Target healing. Would haste past 365 be more helpful in raid healing than crit? Yes. In a single target setting would it? I don't beleive so.
Also, I would argue against your 'fact' a .9s Nourish is only marginally better than a 1s Nourish. Will it land faster for raid heals? Sure. Will it lead to a higher sustained single target HPS? No, we are capped by the Global Cooldown, they have the same effective HPS. In a single target setting a .9s Nourish is worthless, so I dispute your 'facts'. So much for being indisputable....
I could have said this earlier, however...It was easier to simply agree to disagree.
The tradeoff for dropping NG is pretty obvious, you lose single target throughput. I keep it for 10 mans and times when my lolrestodps actually comes in handy. We started using more rogues and DK's, so I grabbed 3/3 revitalize. They definitely do get a considerable amount of extra energy/rp on parses.
I wouldn't recommend dropping Living Seed for Imp Barkskin, although that's an excellent tradeoff for Nature's Grace / Natural Perfection on some fights. If you're having to choose between Tranquil Spirit and 3/3 Subtlety, I have to ask why you're running out of mana, and particularly why Nourish could be the culprit? Odds are you're just abusing Lifebloom or improperly geared.
You can blame tanks all you want, but if you ever ever flinch at the thought of catching aggro for all-out healing, the extra point can often make the difference between a kill or not. I guess not all druids do as much EHPS.
Mathematically, it's when your Nourish cast time goes sub 1s = your haste from NG + gear + possible CF + outside buffs exceeds 50%. Since 20% haste on Nourish is the same as 20% haste on GCD for rejuvenation from GotEM, you can lookup the values in "Restoration Itemization" thread on the front page.
That is not true. GotEM reduces the GCD by 20%, which is not equal to 20% haste.
GCD without any form of haste: 1,5sec
GCD with 5/5 GotEM: 1,5sec - 20% = 1,5sec x 0,8 = 1,2sec
GCD with NG (20% haste): 1,5sec / (1 + haste) = 1,5sec / 1,2 = 1,25sec
The right values for haste to get a 1 second nourish cast are (at least I will believe it, until I'm proved wrong):
New Casting Time = (Base Casting Time)/(1 + (% Spell Haste / 100))
You can only queue spells if the gcd for the spell you are casting has already finished and only during the last 300ms of the cast. This makes queueing spells with casttime equal to the gcd impossible. So you will be getting delays between nourish casts regardless of how much haste you have or what your latency is(assuming it's more than 0).
That is not true. GotEM reduces the GCD by 20%, which is not equal to 20% haste.
GCD without any form of haste: 1,5sec
GCD with 5/5 GotEM: 1,5sec - 20% = 1,5sec x 0,8 = 1,2sec
GCD with NG (20% haste): 1,5sec / (1 + haste) = 1,5sec / 1,2 = 1,25sec
The right values for haste to get a 1 second nourish cast are (at least I will believe it, until I'm proved wrong):
New Casting Time = (Base Casting Time)/(1 + (% Spell Haste / 100))
Interesting - didn't actually realize that little difference. OK. So apparently 20% haste is closer to 4/5 GotEM (20% haste brings GCD to 1.25, while 4/5 GotEM brings it to 1.26).
No CF, no outside buffs: ~825
No CF, SRA/IMA: ~700
No CF, WoAT: ~625
No CF, WoAT, SRA/IMA: ~511
CF, no outside buffs: ~700
CF, SRA/IMA: ~587
CF, WoAT: ~511
CF, WoAT, SRA/IMA: ~401
So you can take numbers for 4/5 GotEM, and subtract 30.
You can only queue spells if the gcd for the spell you are casting has already finished and only during the last 300ms of the cast. This makes queueing spells with casttime equal to the gcd impossible. So you will be getting delays between nourish casts regardless of how much haste you have or what your latency is(assuming it's more than 0).
From my experience the game seems to account for latency on GCD by starting the GCD timer the moment the spell cast starts in GUI rather than waiting for the confirmation from the server. Easy to see when you are getting disconnected since you can queue however many different spells you want and it will do GCD for each of them in the GUI.
From my experience the game seems to account for latency on GCD by starting the GCD timer the moment the spell cast starts in GUI rather than waiting for the confirmation from the server. Easy to see when you are getting disconnected since you can queue however many different spells you want and it will do GCD for each of them in the GUI.
I haven't yet in any of my tests on this managed to get 1.5 base speed spells to chain perfectly like slower spells do. I will run a few more tests today with different specs and different amounts of haste equipped and will edit this post as I get some results.
Clientside gcd should be mostly for preventing exploits such as the one with arcane charges in isle of quel'danas where you can fire off several charges before the cooldown activates since it doesn't invoke a clientside cooldown.
It seems reasonably plausible that wow has both a clientside and serverside cooldown, clientside cooldown activates when you cast a spell and locks all your spells until server actually responds with a "gcd finished", which is probably corrected for latency by either direct measurements or timestamping. In addition to that, client also releases the lock on spells when you stop casting, in which case it is done clientside, which is the reason /stopcasting macros (used to) work.
In fact, stopcasting macros should still work, so it is probably possible to get 1.5 spells to chain perfectly(as perfectly as you can time it, that is) by using them.
Also, hypothetically, if your spell casting start packet takes longer to reach the server than the gcd finished one to reach you, it should be possible to queue 1.5 spells, but this highly depends on how the latency correction is implemented into the netcode.
Edit: Some data. Removed most of my haste gear so got down to 1.41 gcd.
The sample size is pretty low, however the results very strongly suggest that nourish is not getting queued while regrowth is even with this low amount of samples.
It seems reasonably plausible that wow has both a clientside and serverside cooldown, clientside cooldown activates when you cast a spell and locks all your spells until server actually responds with a "gcd finished"
That's the thing - GUI doesn't lock your spells for any longer than GCD from when the GUI thinks your spellcast started. Also, if I recall correctly, since something like patch 2.4 or so you don't need stopcasting macros anymore - the GUI has been patched to behave as if you used /stopcasting if you just intend to queue spells - which makes it easier for people to chain casts by hand without actually cancelling their previous cast.
That is not true. GotEM reduces the GCD by 20%, which is not equal to 20% haste.
GCD without any form of haste: 1,5sec
GCD with 5/5 GotEM: 1,5sec - 20% = 1,5sec x 0,8 = 1,2sec
GCD with NG (20% haste): 1,5sec / (1 + haste) = 1,5sec / 1,2 = 1,25sec
The right values for haste to get a 1 second nourish cast are (at least I will believe it, until I'm proved wrong):
New Casting Time = (Base Casting Time)/(1 + (% Spell Haste / 100))
So if I understand this right, this is the same amount of haste required to reach 1s GCD, since Nourish and GCD are both 1.5s base. The GCD on Nourish will always be the same as the casting time, because it isn't affected by GotEM. So theoretically it is impossible to perfectly chain Nourish. You don't have the 300ms grace time at the tail end of the spell when you can queue it, because the GCD is still active. I'm sure with addons or superb timing you can come close to perfect chaining, but the game won't help you with queuing so any latency will disrupt your timing.
06/04/09, 11:43 AM
