Whisperer bro

Keep thinking that to yourself. You asked me to show you proof of most people disagreeing with your opinions, I linked you previous thread, well not even so far in this thread look where we are, many people disagreeing with your biased opinion because you tried and found it impossible to do with not even the right gear for it.

But yeah, once again you argue with 2.6+ warlock who does not even have enough gear as he stated to do that consistently, yet he says it’s possible, Shadenox gave you mathematical proof, what else do you need? Are you suffering from a very minor case of major brain damage or something? Or is it just me that I cannot comprehend the 400iq of yours?

2 Likes

What do you need? I mean, ya’ll seem to not like this little chat you’ve got going on here. So just leave it be? :thinking:

YOU DIDN’T ACCOUNT FOR COIL’S GCD, IT DOES HAVE GCD, if cast time is 1 second, you cast off two that’s 2 seconds already, is your GCD lower than 0.4?

I don’t think so.

He did try. It was flawed. Didn’t count numbers properly. So it’s technically not mathematical proof.

It’s like if I said you can do in half second 60k dmg as Rogue because you can Envenom (30k) + Marked for Death + Envenom (30k). But you can’t because GCD exists. But just ignoring that fact and saying you can do that and that is mathematical proof doesn’t make it so. It’s not. You just couldn’t comprehend all facts. As it happens here.

And yes, if he’s 2.6k Lock claiming GCD lasts 0.4, I will disagree, no matter of his xp. That’s why I not only want expertise (actually I don’t want it at all), but mainly arguments. If argument si GCD = 0.4 sec, then I disagree because Blizz says something different and in-game it doesn’t seem like that to be the case at all.

It has a travel time too, so it’s not a full gcd (which is lowered by haste already) that shaves off the time coil is up.

3 Likes

10 characters

Travel time is 20 yards. I doubt it takes 0.35 sec to travel 20 yards, but show me video of that happening (two CBs during a Coil on targets with relentless) and I will admit I am wrong.

So far mathematically it looks very unlikely.

Maybe if you casted off Coil on Monk that’s teleporting in that exact second and then cast chaos bolt on different target that’s AFK in the middle of map, then maybe the monk could get hit by coil bit later and maybe you might pull two chaos bolt off…? But that’s not reasonable scenario if it requires that exact timing and one afk target.

Which is why ethos is required too, not just logos. That’s why experiments is a vital part of research, to acquire the ethos.

No.
Argument is not valid or invalid based on who said it.
To question validity of person instead of argument would be argument fallacy.
argumentum ad hominem.

If person A says X and person B says X, then validity of X is equal.
And if you have logos, you don’t need Ethos (aka if you have proof that something happened, you don’t need expert to say that it’s true… proof is enough)

It’s not based on who said, but what that who has done to accumulate the basis for that argumentation.

Hence, experimentation. Experience. To account for things that logos couldn’t.

Also, coil technically moves players away from the lock, like in a fear, and turns them around. It’s not instant that one can use whatever interrupt they’ve got after it if they’re even in range to do so, so that adds a couple of decimals of a second to cast freely.

Alright, then to the topic, nobody has Ethos on Warlock doing two chaos bolt during coil, because nobody has experience nor experimented with it.
Just me. I couldn’t do it with two procs and Flashpoint and Conflagrate buff.
Sure my experiments could be wrong, that’s why we have Logos, but so far I am only one who did any.
Jdog did apparently do some experiments too, but they were flawed, because he didn’t press coil (therefore weren’t relevant to “two chaos bolts during coil” discussion.

Sure you didn’t do anything.

So kinda Ethos = me. Logos = me. Pathos = sure, you.

Scroll up, there’s a lock claiming to have tried it…

There’s not.

The egocentric nature of this post is really disgusting. So you’re the ethos as in an absolute? Nobody else? And their logos mixed with their ethos is nonsensical to you, is that it?

and how is that not logos, exactly?

No, just in currently talked topic with currently talked people. Test it out and you’re Ethos too. I just used your parameters which you use to distinquish Ethos, which leaves only me as only valid person in this field.

No, their logos is absent (flawed examples ignoring parameters) and their ethos is absent (according to your description of ethos) too.

This actually is, well said, I admire that you tried arguments instead of ad hominems. However you’re wrong, you can actually instantly move your character to face different direction, it’s not impossible. If you’re talking about some melees being out of range, that might be true, but that’s not what we talk about, we talk about two bolts during coil. If you leave coil before second bolt is cast off then it’s off topic.

How can you be so sure that’s not what some of them were referring to? Not everyone is eloquent, and probably not something you should expect on a wow forum.

Also, you really do try to diminish the relevance of ethos, even though ethos is what has brought them a lot of their accomplishments. You’re not the ethos either, since your test parameters were too limited.

It might be what they’re refering to, but it’s not what they said. During coil actually means during coil.

If somebody by “during coil” meant “after coil ended” it’s not my fault that I didn’t mean the same thing.

By “during coil” I mean “during coil”. I do not consider time after coil ends as time “during coil”.

So for those who meant “after coil” instead of “during coil”, please clarify.
Yes. You can cast of even 10 chaos bolts after coil ends. If match last long enough.

I agree, nobody is then. Since we have no proof of anybody experiencing it, we have no proof that anybody is “Ethos” here.

He was proved wrong with sheer math already anyways.

1 Like

Which brings me back to that whole “concrete thinking”, you know?

You made mistakes in your calculations. If I say 1+1+1 = 5 because 1+1=4 and 4+1=5 then it’s also not mathematical proof because the premises are wrong. Your premises were wrong too, you didn’t account for relentless nor OP decay.
Thus isn’t a proof.