Whisperer bro

First of all, you completly changed the point of my first quote, this was actually the point i made: “all I can see is you arguing with high rated people that played games at that rating, played more games this season and back up their claims by them being at that certain rating/games played THIS season as well as using logic”

which is, yes, super ignorant of you

Now, to your second point. If you tell the scientist that you think hes wrong because he made some points you dont understand, yet he has the title to also back up his claims, you might just not have the mental capabilities to understand what hes saying. The same way you cant tell a chess player why you should play this and this way against this certain tactic because that has been working at your level of competition but you would get totally smashed by a pro using your same tactic because he would be able to read that from what you are doing and get bent over. Same as in arena, if stuff you do and say you should do works at your 2k, it might not work at 2.5+ where people play completely different, then you just come here and start saying why the pro player played wrong and stuff even though you do not have any experience playing at his level.

To your third point now. I really dont checkpvp, I just saw your feats of strength, saw that you dont have duelist this season and not many games played, just having the rival title. Also, I see what the pattern you follow is now very clearly, trying to mislead my own quotes, lets see…I actually said: “you should at least have some games played this season, not be stuck below 2k and then talk to some people who argue against you that have more than 2.6k xp and have much better idea on how the game works, your skill capped claims that you always make are literally so misleading, the site says how the tier systems work as well.”

again, trying to mislead totally and not getting the point of my sentence and just quoting random words, I can do that too with you and quote things that had way different meaning to try to make you feel lost in your own arguments because of making you think you said some stuff which you never had on your mind. I dont do that, why? Because its cheap, ignorant and does not lead anywhere.

The last quote is funnily quoting me on 3 words, “when logic fails”. You took that out of the context again, not quoting myself for the third time here but lets think, where do you use your logic, where are you coming from in your arguments? You take stuff out of context and try to paint a picture for me to think I said some stuff I didnt, for some less observant people, it might work, it might be effective and they might think they are losing themselves in their arguments, because they in fact are. But is that all you need? Attention and feeling of winning an argument by using this misleading technique? This, my dear Whisperer, is in fact an informal fallacy and literally makes you a hypocrite, since you tried to tell me how I am just and only using these fallacies, while you did that all along.

  1. As a straw man argument, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. It is common in politics.
  2. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.

I think you are the one that failed.

wait what is this

Title doesn’t back up claims.
That’d be logical fallacy.

Wow isn’t turn based game like chess. This point was already refuted by Jito.

I’d add something to think about, if a person has such a better experience or is an expert in field, then it shouldn’t be any problem whatsoever to refute arguments from those that are not experts. After all, they’re the one who knows more and is an expert, aren’t they?

It’s more of a show-not-tell.

  • If you’re an expert and my opinion is wrong, show yourself to be an expert by refuting arguments. “Majority disagrees with you” isn’t an argument. It’s a fallacy. “Rating” isn’t an argument, it’s a fallacy.

  • If you fall for telling and not showing AKA “I am expert and you’re wrong, I won’t tell you why should that be so” then you actually don’t convince me that I am wrong, you rather convince me of the opposite of what you’re saying, that is that you’re not expert, because if you were, you’d understand game enough to be able to mention the argument of why is it so

I did none of that and you gave no examples. Also you don’t understand appeal to authority. BTW That’s something you did use.

Fallacy of appealing to authority doesn’t mean misrepresenting their opinion but rather using their opinion to try to back up their claims. Which is something you multiple times required aka people with rating and not actual arguments.

At first point you made, you quoted me with this kind of fallacy once again, here is the third example I just gave you, quoting out of context. I said: “If you tell the scientist that you think hes wrong because he made some points you dont understand, yet he has the title to also back up his claims, you might just not have the mental capabilities to understand what hes saying.” , at the start of my sentence I said that he made some points you dont understand, he also has the title that make him more expert in the field he is talking about and you just might be clueless or not understand it even if he explains his point to you like you were 5.

To your second point you made, you telling me that I compared wow to chess would be unwarranted presumption, the point I was trying to make is that you would get totally smashed by a team of pro players in wow if you tried to apply the same tactics that work at lower rating most of your games you play against them.

To your third point. If you keep ignoring the expert in his field, he gives you arguments but you dont manage to understand what hes saying and you just keep saying he is wrong because of bad use of language or trying to find any minor detail in what he said just so you can mislead the whole conversation topic or keep it at that and think you are right even though you dont know how that works. Yes, thats what I assume and thats what you keep showing to me.

Majority disagrees with you is not an argument, just something to think about when you get told you are wrong about something often it probably means something unless you are expert and know your stuff. Rating is not an argument but higher the rating in current season, better experience and better understanding of meta come from that as well and that gives you way better idea on what stuff is to be changed and what not.

And to your last point where you try to say you did none of that and I gave no examples, look back and read, I gave you couple examples in my previous post.

To the quoting an appeal to authority its talking about quoting authority from a different field, which does not represent the fallacy that you did use its just couple examples for an informal fallacy. The first one you did use tho and you keep doing so.

To the last one now. I never said that somebody who has rating and no arguments is right because he has rating. But people who have rating and actual arguments that are also supported more since they know their stuff since they played at way higher ratings than others and know meta better probably give better arguments that you just choose not to understand or you really are this ignorant. Me saying that a person has rating and gives no arguments would, indeed be an unwarranted assumption. Thus a fallacy.

well yes, but what you apologize is actually not giving enough arguments aka I’m wrong because I’m not expert. All you catored to was majority and authority. No “points”. I’m all for “points” (=arguments). You didn’t pose any.

And btw title doesn’t make you expert. You can be expert which may (or may not) earn you title.

yes, which was refuted as invalid point by Jito

You can either rely on expert’s opinion or on arguments.
I choose arguments.

You conveniently enough, choose example in which both align, but what you apologize is not when both align, but rather expert’s opinion only.

I didn’t say when somebody gives me arguments that he doesn’t know what he talks about and we shouldn’t listen to them.
I am saying that when somebody doesn’t give me arguments or gives me fallacies (like you), then that isn’t enough to convince me no matter of his expertise.

No.

You seem to conflate both arguments and expertise, Jito explained it well with “Logos” and “Ethos”.
I won’t repeat him.

Conveniently you choose examples when both align (which is useless). So if I apologise Logos and you say “nah, Ethos is better, because in this my example Ethos and Logos align” it’s not convincing at all, because I believe in Logos, therefore in your example my way gave me same result.

If you want to apologize Ethos, choose example in which Ethos goes against Logos. Therefore somebody has arguments and somebody has expertise.

That’s well explained with mathematics.
Is mathetmatical proof better or is PhD better?
I believe mathematical proofs.

Destro is stupid and op. There its been established :slight_smile:

First point you made. The example was me leading you towards you posting your opinions on how to beat some comps and balancing of destro locks you present yourself with on these forums. Second part of your point is true, yet no reason to state that as far as I know it has nothing to do with the discussion we are having.

Second point you made is invalid since who is Jito to say whether its valid or invalid, you would get totally obliterated by whaaz team if you tried to use your tactics that work for you at lower ratings against the same comp. No discussion here.

You choose arguments, opinion of an expert about balancing is just an opinion after all, that opinion is based on his experiences if its opinion about balancing and he will have better idea on what should and should not be changed and whats broken and whats not than somebody who has not enough experience to even use arguments because you cant use logic when there is none, since you havent played at the top and have no idea about balancing.

You are making an example, there are people who gave you arguments in the past like Cutiepie and yet you kept on trying to convince everyone that your opinion is right. That is contradictory with what you are saying.

To your simple no there, let me quote myself there once again since you must be blind. I said:

3 examples right here where I gave you examples in the past, thats to your simple: “No.”

To the Logos and Ethos part. Logos and Ethos can both align, mathematics has nothing to do with discussion. Mathematics example you made has nothing to do with what I’ve been saying, an expert can give an argument according to his experiences and that happens alot on these forums when somebody has an argument with you.

Argumentum ad hominem.
Again you rely to expertise instead of arguments. You dismiss his arguments without stating any arguments yourself.

Then you speak of expertise and experts who have both arguments and expertise, but instead you rely only expertise and dismiss arguments without saying anything other than target Jito.

Refering to something where I might be wrong yet giving no support for that statement.

We don’t know, so far it’s likely it didn’t happen, after all you didn’t give argument (support) that it happened nor are you expert on what I do. Definately not better than I am, since I have read all I posted therefore I am more of an expert in this field. So in both your and my metric, we should actually dismiss this accusation since I am better expert in field and you lack arguments.

Sure so you attacked my expertise, althought it’s both untrue (you didn’t have any information) and it’s also irrelevant (expertise doesn’t matter).

Expertise strongly correlates with truth. But it’s not causation. With arguments, it’s causation.

Yet you gave no example, no arguments, attacked me, lied multiple times, etc.
After all this your CLAIM is also UNSUPPORTED.

no argument
I am not defending that I am better than Whaaz or that I’d beat Whaaz with my strategy, so you counter something I didn’t claim, pathetic

You referred to a person that has no expertise in the field he talks about - appeal to unreliable authority thus a fallacy.

I dismiss arguments that have no logic.

I gave you support to that statement couple posts back. Nice try though.

Experise being true in me telling you whether you are 1.9 or 2k does not matter, you are no expert in this field thus have no say in what balacing should be, you can have an opinion, but the opinion is likely to be wrong and made up from your past experiences that are nothing like playing at the top.

I didnt lie a single time, that would be a fallacy. What example do you need, there can be an expert that gives arguments at the same time? A scientist does not use arguments? You surely arent the brightest tool in the shed.

I said the last thing about you getting obliterated by whaaz as an example that you would simply lose to most rank 1 players, those players would outplay your strategies that work at lower ratings, thus have better idea in what should and should not be balanced.

I am making my answers shorter and shorter since this is getting exhausting to talk with somebody as ignorant as you are. This is no political debate or something, this is straight, factual conversation where its obvious that a pro chess player will know more about strategy than somebody who is just starting and is completly clueless. Aiming at you right there in case you missed that.

There is no fallacy as appeal to unreliable authority. That’s you thinking appeal to authority isn’t fallacy, it is.
I refered to Jito’s arguments, not to Jito’s authority. That’s why I also quoted it.

I understood, but Jito already gave counterargument for this. Ability to play and strategy are two different things. If I don’t have ability to play it doesn’t mean my strategy is bad.
And if my strategy doesn’t work on higher rating, then there’s a reason. I ask for the reason, not for the dismissal out of expertise.

Scientist do of course. But you didn’t and most people attacking me here didn’t- they had no counterargument to point I made.
There are no experts in this post that gave arguments.
I did gave arguments. And I do value arguments only, not expertise. Expert giving me argument is same as anybody else. Because I value argument for its merit not for who it came from.

No. Again you use fallacy of appealing to authority and ignore counter arguments why it’s invalid (like the Jito one’s I quoted) :wink:

Ability to play is strongly tied to how much you play and the experience you have as for example the highest rating you were on recently. This makes you competent to execute said strategy, if you dont play well enough and your ability to play is not good, no strategy can save you, thats true. But think about it from a perspective of you not being able to play very well and choosing the wrong tactic, that can also be the case, how would you know what to do against said team if you have no idea how the teams play at higher mmr?

I am not talking about this post only, I guess you missed the main point why this discussion started. In other, different posts I see you arguing with some way better players than you are that give you arguments that you continuously fail to understand and give answers such as: “I tried it, you cannot cast two cbs into one coil.” , and: “Made up numbers.”, and: “Do you have proof?” and: “Locks dont win tournaments.” and: “You can LoS infernal, they have to cast during infernal so you can LoS.”, except for you cant really LoS infernal if they make a cross-cc setup and lock double chaos bolts into a coil with HoJ right after to cast some more stuff.

I already explained your last point you made here, not getting into it for the second time.

well yes, but this answer is actually mathematically impossible, it’s not an opinion :smiley:
and no, it’s not that I lack skill.
you can be skill however you want and still for x>1 (GCD), y >1.5 (CB cast time)
x+2y > 3, that’s simply math

and simply when you say “I’m expert and 4 is actually smaller number than 3”, then yes, I don’t believe your expertise

Well yes, as I said, I believe arguments, not expertise, so I ask for arguments and / or proofs.
If you think that’s stupid and you rather take opinion of majority, then you actually deny scientific method in favor of logical fallacy. Your call, I don’t care.

If you dont have enough gear to push your haste to the levels with the procs where its mathematically possible its obviously not going to work for you.

Yes, you ask for proof when people say lock crits 150k with one cb which is literally happening all the time.

Imagine spending your life on arguing with Whisperer. We could make a TV show about that.

1 Like

I’m not sure you can cast Chaos Bolt in under 1 sec + have GCD LOWER than 1 sec. But I might be mistaken, if I am, show me proof.
I don’t believe without proofs.

Also Warlocks gear prio for Mastery, not Haste.

No.

GCD is fixed at one second for some specs (Rogues, all specs with Outlaw having 0.8 during Adrenaline Rush, Windwalker, Feral), and is 1.5 seconds reduced by haste for all other classes, down to a minimum of 0.75s. Survival Hunters for example are one of the melees with 1.5s base reduced by haste, with 63% haste I have 0.92 GCD which is 1.5/(1+0.63). I assume you understand this formula is the one used to get your GCD depending on your haste level and the 0.63 is the haste. The only thing I’m not sure of is whether some specs have a fixed GCD that isn’t 1s. I think there are bot but I don’t exclude the possibility of a change in the system I’m not aware of.

To be convinced : any wow database webpage about the GCD like this one https://wow.gamepedia.com/Cooldown

You will see that cap was 1s before Legion and that it is now 0.75s.

Or any char with 20%+ haste and a Heroism (aside from the fixed GCD specs) on top would be quick enough to prove to you that it is possible to go below 1s.

As for Chaos Bolt in order to cast it below 1s you just need to solve baseCastTime*MultipliersToCastTime/(1+haste) < 1.

Backdraft is an example of the multipliers since it reduces cast time by 30% (so, times 0.7), the base cast time is in your tooltip when naked, if you have other passives further reducing it you’ll see it on the warlock, and then for the haste there is your gear, Overwhelming Power, Flashpoint, Reverse Entropy and the nether thingy I miss the name of. And all that without knowing the class so I might miss some. This mathematical formula doesn’t hold any issue so there is always a haste value that will satisfy it. It is mathematically possible to cast below 1s.

I assume it settles the proof issue.

While it it true they still need decent haste values and gather some for faster cast time. The first warlocks in the first leaderboard I opened have more than 20% base haste on armory, so without any proc whatsoever, going up to 29%.

https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-gb/character/eu/ravencrest/w%C3%A2llirikz
https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-gb/character/eu/outland/dakkrothx

These are good examples. IT MUST ALSO BE A COINCIDENCE BUT THEY ALL RUN TRIPLE FLASHPOINT AND TRIPLE OVERWHELMING POWER WHENEVER THEY HAVE THE AZERITE FOR IT.

Lets do a simulation. Lets take an average of 25% base haste based on the leaderboards. Chaos Bolt is 3s. Backdraft makes it 2.1s. Reverse Entropy adds 15% haste to our 25% making it 40%. Then the cast becomes 1.5s (halved already). Now what shall it be with a triple Flashpoint plus triple OP ?

As it happens on my Hunter with one OP of a 430 azerite when it procs I get close to 8%. Triple I’d get 24%. And it’s only ilvl 430.
Chaos Bolt would become 1.28 with that. I have no idea of the haste value of a triple flashpoint but given the values presented here it’s safe to assume that with 445 OP and triple FP you do reach that second in ideal situations with the haste values warlocks on top leaderboards have.

You failing to meet these conditions doesn’t mean they can’t be met.

2 Likes

well I didn’t have as much haste on my lock, trully, but I do have 3x flashpoint and 2x overwhelming and I tested it with all procs up… I think you consider unreasonable amount of haste

Never said it is. Of course it’s not coincidence that Locks try to run their BiS Azerite

still 0.75 + 1.28*2 isn’t less than 3 and if you imagine something like Relentless you’re fuccked and apparently (if you think I am wrong then Whaaz is right) so relentless is good choice against Locks.