TrixxieTriss Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 I’ve notice that once again it doesn’t “feel” like you need to have alacrity set to use specific break points to get 1.4, 1.3 or 1.2 GCD. Yes you still need them to be exactly at those, but it seems the 0.1 decimal points aren’t rounding up or down anymore. As an example, if you have an activation time of 18 with zero alacrity and 17.7 with 1.15% alacrity, it seems to actually activate correctly. I could be completely wrong, but has any of our number crunching members tested this out yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

dipstik Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 (edited) i thought it was only instant abilities that were affected by a floor function rounding of gcd... channels and activations etc should reflect alacrity to .01 seconds.. you should be able to test with diagnostic scan and kolto probe and compare apm at different alacrity levels. you should be able to get a good estimate based on around 30 activations of each ability at each alacrity level. Edited September 30, 2019 by dipstik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Psyotic Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=966583 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

phalczen Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=966583 That’s not what Trixxie is asking. She is asking if the GCD is actually still rounded up, or if it is to three significant digits instead of two like on LIVE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

TrixxieTriss Posted October 1, 2019 Author Share Posted October 1, 2019 That’s not what Trixxie is asking. She is asking if the GCD is actually still rounded up, or if it is to three significant digits instead of two like on LIVE. Pretty much. I have a feeling the rounding has been entirely removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

ottffsse Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 Only way to make sure is test on a instant hit abilitiy class like deception or concealment or auto attack dummy for many many minutes straight which is tedious to do. If channeling abilities were rounded/ affected they were always so in more minute steps...probably at .01 steps instead of .1 steps. 1.3 GCD is not realistic for dps with limited tertiary stats in 6.0 anyways except for lightning, maybe carnage and arsenal merc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

TrixxieTriss Posted October 1, 2019 Author Share Posted October 1, 2019 (edited) Only way to make sure is test on a instant hit abilitiy class like deception or concealment or auto attack dummy for many many minutes straight which is tedious to do. If channeling abilities were rounded/ affected they were always so in more minute steps...probably at .01 steps instead of .1 steps. 1.3 GCD is not realistic for dps with limited tertiary stats in 6.0 anyways except for lightning, maybe carnage and arsenal merc. You still take a massive hit in damage with lightning or arsenal because you lose so much crit to get there, I guess you could stack Augments, but I didn’t bring any kits over to test it out. Edited October 1, 2019 by TrixxieTriss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

KhazadSanci Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 Haven't tested on the most recent PTS patch, so more testing may be needed, but as of a patch or two ago, the GCD appeared to still round up to the nearest tenth of a second. Google sheet for testing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Hawkebatt Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 I have 1307 Alacrity on one of my sets and my cast times are 1.39 seconds. Crit at 3161 which gives 42./13% and 69.41% Accuracy at 1612 110.1% 3258 gives you 15.55% alacrity but only 1147 crit at 27.2 and 59.75% Haven't tried to get any closer to the threshold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

dipstik Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 (edited) here are results for gcd casts. would be nice to have this data for channels (diagnostic scan/ lightning strike) using data from https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QDQ-kZ_fo5Em_lZLh1pQRXdcDRnLLphwFZjR0wDP9HQ/edit#gid=1526455495 summary: https://pasteboard.co/IzZn0PG.png Two-Sample T-Test and CI: 0, 862 Two-sample T for 0 vs 862 N Mean StDev SE Mean 0 20 1.5465 0.0500 0.011 862 20 1.4988 0.0170 0.0038 Difference = mu (0) - mu (862) Estimate for difference: 0.0478 95% CI for difference: (0.0233, 0.0722) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 4.04 P-Value = 0.001 DF = 23 Boxplot of 0, 862 Two-Sample T-Test and CI: 0, 755 Two-sample T for 0 vs 755 N Mean StDev SE Mean 0 20 1.5465 0.0500 0.011 755 21 1.50029 0.00901 0.0020 Difference = mu (0) - mu (755) Estimate for difference: 0.0463 95% CI for difference: (0.0226, 0.0699) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 4.08 P-Value = 0.001 DF = 20 Boxplot of 0, 755 Two-Sample T-Test and CI: 0, 1293 Two-sample T for 0 vs 1293 N Mean StDev SE Mean 0 20 1.5465 0.0500 0.011 1293 22 1.4120 0.0366 0.0078 Difference = mu (0) - mu (1293) Estimate for difference: 0.1346 95% CI for difference: (0.1069, 0.1623) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 9.88 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 34 Two-Sample T-Test and CI: 0, 1294 Two-sample T for 0 vs 1294 N Mean StDev SE Mean 0 20 1.5465 0.0500 0.011 1294 22 1.4133 0.0341 0.0073 Difference = mu (0) - mu (1294) Estimate for difference: 0.1333 95% CI for difference: (0.1062, 0.1604) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 10.00 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 33 Two-sample T for 0 vs 1724 N Mean StDev SE Mean 0 20 1.5465 0.0500 0.011 1724 22 1.4030 0.0213 0.0045 Difference = mu (0) - mu (1724) Estimate for difference: 0.1435 95% CI for difference: (0.1187, 0.1683) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 11.90 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 25 Two-sample T for 0 vs 2155 N Mean StDev SE Mean 0 20 1.5465 0.0500 0.011 2155 22 1.4012 0.0222 0.0047 Difference = mu (0) - mu (2155) Estimate for difference: 0.1453 95% CI for difference: (0.1203, 0.1703) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 11.97 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 25 Two-sample T for 862 vs 755 N Mean StDev SE Mean 862 20 1.4988 0.0170 0.0038 755 21 1.50029 0.00901 0.0020 Difference = mu (862) - mu (755) Estimate for difference: -0.00149 95% CI for difference: (-0.01027, 0.00730) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -0.35 P-Value = 0.732 DF = 28 Two-sample T for 862 vs 1293 N Mean StDev SE Mean 862 20 1.4988 0.0170 0.0038 1293 22 1.4120 0.0366 0.0078 Difference = mu (862) - mu (1293) Estimate for difference: 0.08685 95% CI for difference: (0.06912, 0.10457) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 10.01 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 30 Two-sample T for 862 vs 1724 N Mean StDev SE Mean 862 20 1.4988 0.0170 0.0038 1724 22 1.4030 0.0213 0.0045 Difference = mu (862) - mu (1724) Estimate for difference: 0.09575 95% CI for difference: (0.08378, 0.10773) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 16.17 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 39 Two-sample T for 862 vs 2155 N Mean StDev SE Mean 862 20 1.4988 0.0170 0.0038 2155 22 1.4012 0.0222 0.0047 Difference = mu (862) - mu (2155) Estimate for difference: 0.09757 95% CI for difference: (0.08527, 0.10988) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 16.05 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 38 Two-sample T for 862 vs 3017 N Mean StDev SE Mean 862 20 1.4988 0.0170 0.0038 3017 22 1.3983 0.0139 0.0030 Difference = mu (862) - mu (3017) Estimate for difference: 0.10048 95% CI for difference: (0.09070, 0.11027) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 20.82 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 36 Two-sample T for 1293 vs 3017 N Mean StDev SE Mean 1293 22 1.4120 0.0366 0.0078 3017 22 1.3983 0.0139 0.0030 Difference = mu (1293) - mu (3017) Estimate for difference: 0.01364 95% CI for difference: (-0.00350, 0.03078) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 1.64 P-Value = 0.114 DF = 26 Two-sample T for 1724 vs 3017 N Mean StDev SE Mean 1724 22 1.4030 0.0213 0.0045 3017 22 1.3983 0.0139 0.0030 Difference = mu (1724) - mu (3017) Estimate for difference: 0.00473 95% CI for difference: (-0.00625, 0.01571) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 0.87 P-Value = 0.388 DF = 36 Two-sample T for 2155 vs 3017 N Mean StDev SE Mean 2155 22 1.4012 0.0222 0.0047 3017 22 1.3983 0.0139 0.0030 Difference = mu (2155) - mu (3017) Estimate for difference: 0.00291 95% CI for difference: (-0.00843, 0.01425) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 0.52 P-Value = 0.606 DF = 35 Two-sample T for 2155 vs 3448 N Mean StDev SE Mean 2155 22 1.4012 0.0222 0.0047 3448 23 1.3080 0.0270 0.0056 Difference = mu (2155) - mu (3448) Estimate for difference: 0.09327 95% CI for difference: (0.07843, 0.10811) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 12.68 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 42 Edited October 1, 2019 by dipstik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

phalczen Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 So dipstik if I am reading your tables correctly, every time you compare an alacrity rating that is below and above our known thresholds for the 1.4s GCD (1212) or 1.3s GCD (3207) the p value is 0 indicating that the observation of different APM is unlikely to be the result of random chance. Every time you compare two alacrity ratings that are on the same side of a threshold I see the p-value much higher, suggesting the observed APM differences are much more likely to be the result of random chance. This suggests to me that rounding is still occurring to two significant digits, at least as far as GCD is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Lhancelot Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 here are results for gcd casts. would be nice to have this data for channels (diagnostic scan/ lightning strike) using data from https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QDQ-kZ_fo5Em_lZLh1pQRXdcDRnLLphwFZjR0wDP9HQ/edit#gid=1526455495 summary: https://pasteboard.co/IzZn0PG.png Two-Sample T-Test and CI: 0, 862 Two-sample T for 0 vs 862 N Mean StDev SE Mean 0 20 1.5465 0.0500 0.011 862 20 1.4988 0.0170 0.0038 Difference = mu (0) - mu (862) Estimate for difference: 0.0478 95% CI for difference: (0.0233, 0.0722) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 4.04 P-Value = 0.001 DF = 23 Boxplot of 0, 862 Two-Sample T-Test and CI: 0, 755 Two-sample T for 0 vs 755 N Mean StDev SE Mean 0 20 1.5465 0.0500 0.011 755 21 1.50029 0.00901 0.0020 Difference = mu (0) - mu (755) Estimate for difference: 0.0463 95% CI for difference: (0.0226, 0.0699) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 4.08 P-Value = 0.001 DF = 20 Boxplot of 0, 755 Two-Sample T-Test and CI: 0, 1293 Two-sample T for 0 vs 1293 N Mean StDev SE Mean 0 20 1.5465 0.0500 0.011 1293 22 1.4120 0.0366 0.0078 Difference = mu (0) - mu (1293) Estimate for difference: 0.1346 95% CI for difference: (0.1069, 0.1623) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 9.88 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 34 Two-Sample T-Test and CI: 0, 1294 Two-sample T for 0 vs 1294 N Mean StDev SE Mean 0 20 1.5465 0.0500 0.011 1294 22 1.4133 0.0341 0.0073 Difference = mu (0) - mu (1294) Estimate for difference: 0.1333 95% CI for difference: (0.1062, 0.1604) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 10.00 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 33 Two-sample T for 0 vs 1724 N Mean StDev SE Mean 0 20 1.5465 0.0500 0.011 1724 22 1.4030 0.0213 0.0045 Difference = mu (0) - mu (1724) Estimate for difference: 0.1435 95% CI for difference: (0.1187, 0.1683) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 11.90 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 25 Two-sample T for 0 vs 2155 N Mean StDev SE Mean 0 20 1.5465 0.0500 0.011 2155 22 1.4012 0.0222 0.0047 Difference = mu (0) - mu (2155) Estimate for difference: 0.1453 95% CI for difference: (0.1203, 0.1703) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 11.97 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 25 Two-sample T for 862 vs 755 N Mean StDev SE Mean 862 20 1.4988 0.0170 0.0038 755 21 1.50029 0.00901 0.0020 Difference = mu (862) - mu (755) Estimate for difference: -0.00149 95% CI for difference: (-0.01027, 0.00730) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -0.35 P-Value = 0.732 DF = 28 Two-sample T for 862 vs 1293 N Mean StDev SE Mean 862 20 1.4988 0.0170 0.0038 1293 22 1.4120 0.0366 0.0078 Difference = mu (862) - mu (1293) Estimate for difference: 0.08685 95% CI for difference: (0.06912, 0.10457) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 10.01 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 30 Two-sample T for 862 vs 1724 N Mean StDev SE Mean 862 20 1.4988 0.0170 0.0038 1724 22 1.4030 0.0213 0.0045 Difference = mu (862) - mu (1724) Estimate for difference: 0.09575 95% CI for difference: (0.08378, 0.10773) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 16.17 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 39 Two-sample T for 862 vs 2155 N Mean StDev SE Mean 862 20 1.4988 0.0170 0.0038 2155 22 1.4012 0.0222 0.0047 Difference = mu (862) - mu (2155) Estimate for difference: 0.09757 95% CI for difference: (0.08527, 0.10988) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 16.05 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 38 Two-sample T for 862 vs 3017 N Mean StDev SE Mean 862 20 1.4988 0.0170 0.0038 3017 22 1.3983 0.0139 0.0030 Difference = mu (862) - mu (3017) Estimate for difference: 0.10048 95% CI for difference: (0.09070, 0.11027) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 20.82 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 36 Two-sample T for 1293 vs 3017 N Mean StDev SE Mean 1293 22 1.4120 0.0366 0.0078 3017 22 1.3983 0.0139 0.0030 Difference = mu (1293) - mu (3017) Estimate for difference: 0.01364 95% CI for difference: (-0.00350, 0.03078) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 1.64 P-Value = 0.114 DF = 26 Two-sample T for 1724 vs 3017 N Mean StDev SE Mean 1724 22 1.4030 0.0213 0.0045 3017 22 1.3983 0.0139 0.0030 Difference = mu (1724) - mu (3017) Estimate for difference: 0.00473 95% CI for difference: (-0.00625, 0.01571) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 0.87 P-Value = 0.388 DF = 36 Two-sample T for 2155 vs 3017 N Mean StDev SE Mean 2155 22 1.4012 0.0222 0.0047 3017 22 1.3983 0.0139 0.0030 Difference = mu (2155) - mu (3017) Estimate for difference: 0.00291 95% CI for difference: (-0.00843, 0.01425) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 0.52 P-Value = 0.606 DF = 35 Two-sample T for 2155 vs 3448 N Mean StDev SE Mean 2155 22 1.4012 0.0222 0.0047 3448 23 1.3080 0.0270 0.0056 Difference = mu (2155) - mu (3448) Estimate for difference: 0.09327 95% CI for difference: (0.07843, 0.10811) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 12.68 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 42 I am sure this is a lot of important information but sadly it looks like an alien life form wrote it out to me. That or maybe Einstein, lol. I wish mathematical analytics was my strong point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

phalczen Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 (edited) I am sure this is a lot of important information but sadly it looks like an alien life form wrote it out to me. That or maybe Einstein, lol. I wish mathematical analytics was my strong point. P-values are one way to compare two sets of data for differences. You want to use different types of statistical tests depending on the nature of the data and the variable being compared. p-values indicate the likelihood that the results or outcome you are observing are due to random chance, with lower p-values being less likely the observed results are due to random chance. A p-value near zero means it’s highly unlikely the result is due to random chance. In this case, dipstik tested several sets of Abilities per minute just spamming a basic attack, at different alacrity ratings. The goal being to prove whether or not GCD rounding to tenths or hundredths of a second was occurring. Based on dipstik’s results, the differences between the test runs of basic attack spamming at different alacrity ratings is only significant when the tested alacrity ratings are on different sides of an AR breakpoint. In other words the results pretty much confirm that the GCD is still rounded to tenths of a second. EDIT: this is proven by the low-breakpoints dipstik chose. An Alacrity Rating of 755, under the new formulae, translates into an Alacrity Percentage of 4.67%. An Alacrity Rating of 862 translates into an Alacrity Percentage of 5.27%. These percentages, if the GCD was rounding to hundredths of a second, would mean a GCD of 1.44 and 1.43 seconds respectively. Dipstik's results show no statistically significant difference between APM at either of those Alacrity Rating levels. Its also followed up in the high breakpoints dipstik chose. The comparisons between an Alacrity Rating of 1293, 1724, and 3017, all between the 1.4 and 1.3s GCD, show no statistically significant difference. Edited October 15, 2019 by phalczen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

dipstik Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 (edited) P-values are one way to compare two sets of data for differences. You want to use different types of statistical tests depending on the nature of the data and the variable being compared. p-values indicate the likelihood that the results or outcome you are observing are due to random chance, with lower p-values being less likely the observed results are due to random chance. A p-value near zero means it’s highly unlikely the result is due to random chance. In this case, dipstik tested several sets of Abilities per minute just spamming a basic attack, at different alacrity ratings. The goal being to prove whether or not GCD rounding to tenths or hundredths of a second was occurring. Based on dipstik’s results, the differences between the test runs of basic attack spamming at different alacrity ratings is only significant when the tested alacrity ratings are on different sides of an AR breakpoint. In other words the results pretty much confirm that the GCD is still rounded to tenths of a second. EDIT: this is proven by the low-breakpoints dipstik chose. An Alacrity Rating of 755, under the new formulae, translates into an Alacrity Percentage of 4.67%. An Alacrity Rating of 862 translates into an Alacrity Percentage of 5.27%. These percentages, if the GCD was rounding to hundredths of a second, would mean a GCD of 1.44 and 1.43 seconds respectively. Dipstik's results show no statistically significant difference between APM at either of those Alacrity Rating levels. Its also followed up in the high breakpoints dipstik chose. The comparisons between an Alacrity Rating of 1293, 1724, and 3017, all between the 1.4 and 1.3s GCD, show no statistically significant difference. good show ol chap to add: the summary table png is a table of the 95% confidence intervals of difference between means between the row and column headers. for example, for row (left side) 0 column (top) 755 we have an interval of 0.0226 to 0.0699. That means there is a 95% chance the the difference between the gcd times if you have 0 alacrity and 755 alacrity will be between 0.0226 and 0.0699 seconds. For row 1294 and column 3017 we have an interval from -0.006 and 0.016 seconds. This means that there is a 95% chance that the difference is less than 0.02 seconds (essentially zero). Edited October 15, 2019 by dipstik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

TrixxieTriss Posted October 16, 2019 Author Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) good show ol chap to add: the summary table png is a table of the 95% confidence intervals of difference between means between the row and column headers. for example, for row (left side) 0 column (top) 755 we have an interval of 0.0226 to 0.0699. That means there is a 95% chance the the difference between the gcd times if you have 0 alacrity and 755 alacrity will be between 0.0226 and 0.0699 seconds. For row 1294 and column 3017 we have an interval from -0.006 and 0.016 seconds. This means that there is a 95% chance that the difference is less than 0.02 seconds (essentially zero). If I understand correctly between what you and Phal have said, 1.3 lvls will make little to no difference anymore and we will be making 1.5 to 1.4 builds if alacrity is rounding down? Edited October 16, 2019 by TrixxieTriss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

ottffsse Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 There are pretty powerful set bonuses in the game now tied to certain longish cooldown abilities like entrench and mental alacrity which you do not want to delay or elongate the cd on those - you want those to be as short as possible actually without making your crit chance plumet bellow like 35-38%. just a 5 sec difference on such a cooldown makes a huge difference in dps. Check the set boni damage boosts based on your class if your wearing such a set, because most of your dps increase comes in that window when something like entrench or alacrity etc is active. I believe many of the classes not just those two have such a set now. Activating such a cd (so the ability refreshed faster) while under something like an alacrity proc relic in scaled down content will be a petty standard trick I think. On pure burst no dot damage specs yeah the baseline 1.4gcd / 7.5% alac is fine, rest crit usually. On dot classes I hate going under 10% alac because dots start to "tick" slower and I do think there is at that point a noticeable dps decrease. Maybe in Pvp where you prioritize bigger hits over sustain you can drop it... but there again some neat cooldowns on longer (1 min+) cd abilities will be noticeably slower at 7.5% alac vs 10%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

phalczen Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 If I understand correctly between what you and Phal have said, 1.3 lvls will make little to no difference anymore and we will be making 1.5 to 1.4 builds if alacrity is rounding down? No. The breakpoints still exist, if you have enough alacrity rating you could run with a 1.3s GCD. It will be significantly different APM than at 1.4s GCD, i.e. it works just fine. The results were only to prove or disprove if GCD was being rounded to tenths or hundredths of a second. It’s rounding just like LIVE, up to tenths of a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

TrixxieTriss Posted October 16, 2019 Author Share Posted October 16, 2019 No. The breakpoints still exist, if you have enough alacrity rating you could run with a 1.3s GCD. It will be significantly different APM than at 1.4s GCD, i.e. it works just fine. The results were only to prove or disprove if GCD was being rounded to tenths or hundredths of a second. It’s rounding just like LIVE, up to tenths of a second. Ok, cool. Just checking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Lhancelot Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 P-values are one way to compare two sets of data for differences. You want to use different types of statistical tests depending on the nature of the data and the variable being compared. p-values indicate the likelihood that the results or outcome you are observing are due to random chance, with lower p-values being less likely the observed results are due to random chance. A p-value near zero means it’s highly unlikely the result is due to random chance. In this case, dipstik tested several sets of Abilities per minute just spamming a basic attack, at different alacrity ratings. The goal being to prove whether or not GCD rounding to tenths or hundredths of a second was occurring. Based on dipstik’s results, the differences between the test runs of basic attack spamming at different alacrity ratings is only significant when the tested alacrity ratings are on different sides of an AR breakpoint. In other words the results pretty much confirm that the GCD is still rounded to tenths of a second. EDIT: this is proven by the low-breakpoints dipstik chose. An Alacrity Rating of 755, under the new formulae, translates into an Alacrity Percentage of 4.67%. An Alacrity Rating of 862 translates into an Alacrity Percentage of 5.27%. These percentages, if the GCD was rounding to hundredths of a second, would mean a GCD of 1.44 and 1.43 seconds respectively. Dipstik's results show no statistically significant difference between APM at either of those Alacrity Rating levels. Its also followed up in the high breakpoints dipstik chose. The comparisons between an Alacrity Rating of 1293, 1724, and 3017, all between the 1.4 and 1.3s GCD, show no statistically significant difference. Very nice translation, I appreciate your work here lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts