Quote Originally Posted by Atomic_Skull View Post
If it wasn't capped somewhere what would happen is that 100% haste would cause a literal "divide by zero" situation. Whenever someone achieved 100% haste and attacked something the server software would lock up. I think what happened was that the whole issue went unnoticed until people started getting dangerously close to 100% haste and they went in with the intention of just capping it at 99% or something. But once they took a good look at it they said "holy %#&@ that's overpowered" and implemented an 80% cap.
It depends on the number of attacks that you would need to process before the mob died, how many individuals are doing it at once, and how many people are nearby to see the damage. It would be the sheer number of attacks in quick succession that would have to be broadcast all at once to all individuals within range that would cause anything from massive lag to a complete network failure.

Even if the cap was 100%, haste would never truely be 100%. Like an infinite loop with no delays, it would always be limited by the processor that's computing the data. It's not as bad as a divide by zero error, but it's still pretty damn bad because of the fact that all the data has to be sent out exponentially to all individuals within range. I'd compare it to running several GOTO 10 programs on one server at the same time that all broadcast data across a network.

Note: I'm not arguing with you. I just felt like putting in my two cents because I'm a nerdy code monkey. Tech and programming talk makes me geek out.