i just cut off the decimal. if you're getting that focused on the actual value, it will be determined by how much singing+wind skill the BRD has anyway.
It probably would have been better if I explained my reasoning for asking.
The reason I asked is because there are basically 2 ways I've seen haste calculated
1/100-63 = 1/37 = 2.7027027~ which is easy enough to call 2.70~2.7
1/100-64 = 1/36 = 2.77777777~ 2.78
Which I'm sure the latter would be the correct way because lets look at 99 to 100 haste
1/100-99 = 1/1 = 100% increase
1/100-100 = 1/0 = undefined = infinite increase (0 delay, ect infinite attacks)
uhhhhh, first of all:
1/100-63 != 1/37
1/100-63 = -62.99
and of course 1/37 != 2.7027027
second, i look at this chart
and compare new rounds/min to old rounds/min. if haste cared about initial delay, i'd do:
[60/(new_delay/60) - 60/(old_delay/60)] / [60/(old_delay/60)]
or (A - B)/B where B is how many attack rounds per minute you get before the haste bonus, and A is how many attack rounds per minute you get after the haste bonus.
but, haste doesn't care what delay weapon you use, so i just use the chart that happens to have 450 as the base delay.
incidentally, i don't really understand your post. i've inferred that you mean 1/(100-63) and such, but i don't see how in the world that constitutes 2 different ways of looking at haste rather than just using the wrong value... going from 63% to 64% is the same as 1/36 not 1/37.
as for 99% to 100% haste being undefined, uh... 400*.00 = 0, so i suppose it is undefined, but there's always been a cap. there is no such thing as 100% haste... there's not even any such thing as what it "would" be.
hmm. actually, this touches on something philosophically interesting
. there's assumptions going on about following rules here, i think. there's interesting questions as to what the function that determines your new delay actually is (well, it's not that interesting, since the function just can't take 100% as an argument, but meh). if anyone gets interested in the article linked above, the "answer" to the book (and the best response you'll find) is david finkelstein's
edit: crucial typo. Edited, Aug 4th 2009 6:14am by milich