Talk:Casting speed
General Cooldown and Casting Speed
I had some experience, when i cast spells with some spell haste rating it modified my general cooldown with the same amount.
For example, when i cast an instant spell, i can cast it faster, and when i cast 1,5 sec base cast time spells, the general cooldown didnt setback my repeated casts.
This is only my experience so please try to verify this or tell if you tried it and didnt work for you.
--Vidinufi 14:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Spell pushback resistance is additive in my experience, though I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has found otherwise. Ligur 07:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
DoT effects
Don't Spell Haste shorten the duration of DoT effects (without reducing the damage) like it does for channeling spells?
Heard this somewhere but not sure on the truth...
Ramperkash, 70 Tauren Balance Druid 13:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- You most likely heard people suggesting it, because that isn't how it works, making spell haste useless for DoTs. Zurr T ∙ C 05:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- That doesn't make it useless for DoTs. you still cast them faster (including GCD as of 2.4) so you can put more on before they expire, or get more time for (hasted) direct spells while they tick before the refresh. DoTs would be OP if haste worked on the ticks too. Remember on boss fights you count the effective DPS of a DoT by total damage divided by *cast* time. This is why warlocks can put out damage comparable to mages, they are firing shadowbolts while their DoTs tick. mes (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Losing casting speed
Combining earth shield with the shaman talent healing focus does, in fact, prevent any pushback from damage. I tested this by pulling every mob in RFC, casting earth shield and spamming healing wave. Unless concentration aura behaves differently (and there is no reason to think it does), it is very possible to completely avoid interruption caused by damage. I have reverted this page back to the correct version.
- You are wrong, you have chosen to low Mobs to get interrupted. Try the same in Zul'Aman, fifth Boss, Hexlord or so was his name. Even with earth shield and aura you will experience pushback. I'm sure about it, as I was there with my Sham healing: no way not to get interrupted.Regards, Wosiu.
- Level Difference has effect on mobs hit chance. If you choose low level mob, chance that it will hit you is so low that, together wit your 80,5% chance not to be interrupted, it can give you a feeling that there is no push back at all. It's not true. Please test it before changing it over and over again. And do your test on real opponent, not on mobs/player that have nearly no chance to hit you. And no, Hexlord has no special abilities to interrupt spells, it's just a source of constant damage that hits you. As I'm playing Arcan Mage, I know what I'm talking about: my Arcan Missiles have no push back at all when fighting Hexlord.
- Start properly signing your entries on talk pages. Dodge, parry and block are disabled while casting, making it much more likely that low levels will hit you, it is already easy for NPCs to hit you if you are casting. Back when I was holy, I would solo cap enemy GYs in AV by spamming consecration and heals to kill the guarding NPCs and I never got any push-back. You just went and changed it without any kind of post on the talk page when hundreds of people have witnessed no spell push back with with a combination of 2 antispell pushback abilities/talents. It should be changed back until some kind of proof is presented other then "this one time in ZA against this one boss". Zurr T ∙ C 04:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Casting speed calculations with spell haste
On the page is written:
- "As you can tell by the chart above, a spell with a 2.0+ second base cast time can not be reduced to 1 second."
I cannot tell this by the chart above at all. The formula is hasted_cast_time = cast_time*1570/(1570+spell_haste)
A 3 second spell can be reduced to 1 second with 3140 spell haste by this formula.
- 3 * 1570 / (1570 + 3140) = 1
If 1570 is a cap on spell haste, I would need to know that separately, the table and formula do not imply any such cap mathematically. I'll check back here in a while, and if there is no response, I will remove the above quoted line (the table itself is accurate). Obviously there may be no practical way to achieve 1570 or even 785 spell haste with current gear (I haven't done the survey to know what's possible). mes (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
ProblemReport copy
Copied from Special:ProblemReports/10027
The part with "Loosing casting speed" is wrong.
With 70% chance of not being interrupted, you have 30% chance to be. Paladins Aura will decrease this 30% by 35%, so its gives you just 10,5% extra, not whole 35%.
Prove: Just go to Zul'Aman :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.247.224.123 (talk · contr).
- One fight fails to prove this, especially with holy paladins being able to spam heal themselves with multiple mobs on them with concentration aura up.. Zurr T ∙ C 16:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Spell Haste cast time formulae
I have been investigating the casting time forumlae provided on the page, and while I have confirmed that there is indeed 15.7 haste rating per %, the formulae do not seem to scale properly between 0 and 200 haste, and by the time haste rating has reached ~250, the formulae appear to be around 50 haste rating points off. Has anyone else found this? and if so has anyone found more accurate formulae? WoWWiki-Stewart 01:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The formula seems to be wrong. New Casting Time = (Base Casting Time)/(1 + % Spell Haste )
I found this to be more accurate. New Casting Time = (Base Casting Time)/(100 + % Spell Haste )*100
However I am certinly no expert on this stuff so will not be surprised if I turn out to be missing something very obvius. Morzella (talk) 00:52, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
Changed Windfury Totem to Wrath of Air Totem
Windfury Totem adds melee haste. Wrath of Air totem adds spell haste. Non-spell abilities cannot have their GCD reduced, so Windfury Totem is inaccurate. ♥sunsmoon talk & cont 04:54, August 11, 2010 (UTC)