You keep quoting this without knowing what it means.
Yes, haunt does have 100% uptime. Its not a cleave spell and its still up on the original target. And if the target dies then that combat is over. Use it properly and it has 100% uptime. Bad play doesnt give you an argument.
The fight is about to end so no. Not reading the rest of the scenario.
I know exactly what it means. You said UHB is “basically” a CD. It isn’t.
Weird because when you switch targets after applying it to your first target it’s not up on the second target. So no, it doesn’t.
And UHB is a buff. It can’t miss. It doesn’t care if you target switch. If your main target is dead then it’s still up. Haunt has none of these features, ergo Haunt does not, in fact, have 100% uptime.
So killing someone before the CD is off Haunt is “bad gameplay” now. Lmao.
Then guess what?
The end.
I know it doesnt have a CD, thats why I said basically.
Its not a cleave spell, and its still on the first so it still has that uptime.
After these very bad arguments you have nothing to put forward.
hey killawar stop engaging
unless they give us back plague strike for blood plague application i like to see the recharge system return for runes
Adverb, again, doesn’t change the essence of your argument. It is not, in fact, a CD, “basically” or otherwise.
So it has 50% uptime because there are two targets.
“It’s a bad argument” that affliction locks multi-dot targets? You don’t know how to play Aff either then, eh?
Yes, after a BG scenario, a runic banking scenario, all you have to put forward is that on one target of a multi-target dotting class Haunt could potentially have 100% uptime. Unfortunately Aff locks don’t focus one thing most of the time, so your argument is fallacious.
Turns out you’re projecting again.
Yes, words can change the context of what someone is saying. Not my fault you dont understand that point and dont know what “basically” added to a phrase means.
Nothing else is worth replying to and im not going to read it. You are attacking an argument that im not making. So go argue with someone else.
A frog is still a frog no matter what adjectives or adverbs you want to slap on beforehand. No, your “basically a CD” is not, in fact, a CD. The adverb beforehand is not changing that.
Basically: In a basic way; fundamentally or essentially. For the most part; chiefly. in a fundamental, essential, or basic manner.
UHB is not fundamentally a CD. If it was it would, guess what, have a CD.
You said UHB was basically a CD. You do not seem to know what “basically” means, hypocritcally.
This didn’t age well along with the entirety of your posts. Weird. Maybe cause you’re wrong on all fronts?
A frog is a frog, if you say its like a frog, that doesnt mean it is in fact a frog, that just that it is like it or similar to it.
Words can absolutely change the context of the sentence and you are arguing against that for whatever reason.
Not only that, but the “basically a cd” was explained and you ignored it for this crappy argument. Nothing past this first paragraph is worth reading or responding to when you start with such a bad premise.
An adverb is not a simile.
Arguing against that? Nope! I’m saying “basically a CD” is still, in fact, saying something is in essence a CD. That’s what “basically” means, by the way:
Old UHB was, in fact, not essentially/fundamentally a CD. It was a runic dumper with no CD and a self-buff.
You trying to explain how the definition of a word is not the definition of the word does not change the definition of the word.
Oh, look at that, more strawmanning. “I’m not going to look at the rest of it because it disproves me!” Yep.
Thats all im going to say. And ill keep saying it until you quit with this bad argument. Move on buddy.
So you’re going to keep parroting because you have some very sad need to get the “last word in”? Keep saying the same thing and that’s what we call spam. It might not be what you call spam - because you have a propensity for trying to change the definitions and meanings of words, but I suppose you’ll find out how little your versions of things matter.
UHB (old) was not a CD. The end. Alternative runic spenders are good things.
No because I already explained myself and what I meant and you still want to scream into the wind.
So you really don’t see the irony/hypocrisy here? That’s quite sad, actually. And no, you didn’t explain anything; you failed to give even the most minutely relevant comparison between any two given abilities. You described. Description is not explanation, and every single scenario I’ve explained you’ve just gone along and said:
So you keep your eyes closed, consider nothing, and continue to try and use the forums as your own personal echo chamber to regurgitate descriptive points that fail to prove anything you’ve said (probably because that’s not possible). Weird. Is that why you have over seven-thousand posts? Because you like to wail about how you claim everyone else is doing exactly what you’re doing?
I actually did explain what I meant, you just didnt read it.
And you don’t seem to understand the definition of those words. That being:
Does UHB have a CD? No? Does it have 100% uptime? Yes? Then it’s not a CD, basically or otherwise.
“Basically” a CD would mean that it is a CD. It does not. You are wrong. About semantics.
Read it again.
Looks like you need to take your own advice. Weird. Granted, this is coming from a person who says haunt has 100% uptime on two targets, so I can’t say I’m surprised at the level of mental gymnastics being used to try and dance around the fact that they’re wrong. What’s next? Is Battle Shout “basically” a CD because you only use it when the timer’s up? Might want to tell that to all the people who die in a BG asking for rebuffs.
I said that I wasnt going to read your posts after a bad starting premise. Or did you not read that?
QUIT LYING. FFS I did not say that it had uptime on 2 targets, I said it had uptime on the original target that you cast it on. I said it wasnt a cleave ability which this argument that you are trying to say that i am making is a complete and utter fabrication. You are trolling at this point.
Yes, you said many times that you’re here just to wail and post because that’s the reaction you’ve taught yourself to have when you see a reply notification in your inbox and that words don’t matter to you because you insist on changing the definitions.
Haunt does not, in fact, have 100% uptime on your targets. Affliction warlocks multi-dot, meaning that, guess what, they have more than one target they’re applying DoTs to. This means that haunt does not have 100% uptime on their targets like Unholy Blight (Old) would.
You’re the one who compared said “cleave spell” to Haunt. Would you like that quote too?
It’s a cleaving/rotting spec. 100% uptime means 100% uptime. It doesn’t have 100% uptime unless there’s only one target, and even in boss encounters in raids that’s not the case a lot of the time.
Again, multi-dot class. UA has 100% uptime. It’s a debuff, but you don’t cast it unless you’re snapshotting or unless it’s falling off. Is UA a CD now then too? Because by your logic it is since “you don’t push the button while it’s up, meaning it’s basically a CD”. Means pretty much every ability is “basically a CD”. Plague strike is a CD now by your logic because you don’t use it unless you’re reapplying every 20s.
Coming from the person whose logic is “Everything is basically a CD and I don’t read anything that disproves my point which means I’m right even though I’m not”.
Hypocrisy almost palpable.