Was working on a weird idea for BLU and wanted to see what it would take to get to the 80% recast reduction (or close to it). So went and pulled up the formula for Spell Recast Reduction:
https://www.bg-wiki.com/bg/Spell_Recast
IE:
1 - (Equipment Haste + Magic Haste - Magic Slow) ÷ 100
1 - (Combined total Fast Cast ÷ 2, result rounded down) ÷ 100
1 - Job Abilities spell recast reduction ÷ 100
So went though and created a spreadsheet to replicate the example formula on the page and got it dialed in and then went to do some testing with my own variables... that's where everything went wrong.
While testing: 25 Gear haste, 30 Magic Haste (Erratic Flutter), 0% Slow, 64% Fast Cast, and no JA reductions should, by the formula, result in 13s recast for a 45s spell (Using Erratic Flutter as my test spell). Well, in game, it shows it at a 17s recast.
Tried again with Barrier Tusk: 60s recast. Formlua says 18s, but ingame, 23s.
Tried with a few other spells as well like Occulation. Formula says it would be 27s, in game it's 35s.
By the math, the formula is around 8%~ off each time. Not sure if I'm just flumxing my math or what is going on. Testing was in Adoulin but was not under the effect of Ionis. Only other Buff was Erratic Flutter and Signet (Which shouldn't affect anything over in Adoulin)
Fast Cast / Fast Recast set used:
Carmine Mask 12% FC / 8% Haste
Taeon Tabard 8% FC (+4 Augment) / 4% Haste
Leyline Gloves 8% FC / 5% Haste
Enif Cosciales 8% FC / 5% Haste
Herculean Boots 5% FC (Aug) / 4% Haste
Baetyl Pendant 4% FC
Witful Belt 3% FC / 3% Haste
Loquac. Earring 2% FC
Weatherspoon Ring 5% FC
Kishar Ring 4% FC
Swith Cape 3% FC
Formulas used in Spreadsheet: (Open Office)
=SUM((1-(Gear Haste+Spell Haste-Slow)/100))
((1-(25+30-0))=.45
=ROUNDUP(((1-(Fast Cast/2)/100));2)
(((1-(64/2)/100))Rounded to tenth = .68
=SUM(1-(JA Reduction/100))
(1-(0/100)) = 1
BLU/RDM (Fast Cast II via /RDM is greatest)
Any input on this would be wonderful as I'm banging my head against a wall here for several hours and cannot figure out if my math is wrong or there was some kind of a change to the formula that just went unnoticed, better the former somehow. ;.;