Haha so you admit you don't even know how to properly divide 2 numbers. I guess this is no surprise, because you don't know how to properly multiple numbers either. Adding % wpn dmg to +% overall dmg, ROFL!
You sir are either a terrible troll or a complete idiot.
Wait...did you just say %WD/s/mana is TWO numbers?
See what happens when I try to voice my OPINION on a skill and for some reason bring math into play. I forget two words and everything goes to hell XD Anyways, back on topic, the reasons I like Haunt are:
I r smart.
I gradiated from the 6th grade, and it only took 3 years.
Derp
Yes very compelling arguments.
You don't understand the difference between backing up an argument (with proof) and stating an opinion? I guess that makes sense that you wouldn't.
Hmm. So I FORGOT to include two words which is "incredibly misleading." You incorrectly calculate the wd/s/m for Splinters because you failed to read ONE number correctly in the patch notes. Then you acknowledge my sarcastic and annoyed tones, which were caused by your presumptuous reply to me FORGETTING to include two words.
It's incredibly misleading because %WD/s/mana is a useless metric. The only useful ones for WD are %WD/s and %WD/mana. It's also incredibly misleading as those 2 words completely flip the outcome to show that unruned is worse.
edit: you've been pretty blackly ironic too my friend, ms. kettle
You don't know the definition of irony. Which I guess isn't bad, since most people don't. You didn't seem to know the definition of efficiency either considering your post was all about what to do at low mana and the like, so I guess it's not worth continuing.
Its also incredibly misleading when you enter a thread making assumptions and correcting people, then you make a pretty simple and stupid error yourself. You've done a good job of showing us the meaning of "hypocrisy" as well.
Actually, the fact you questioned my intentions as ironic is in itself ironic. If you need to explain this for you, thats fine. And back to efficiency are we? Well like I said, unless I specifically stated that was my intention with my calculations (which I didn't), its safe to assume that wasn't the purpose. Apparently this is a hard concept for you to understand, but its pretty fundamental in nature. Let me ask you something which might shed a little more light into your questionable reasoning:
If you're out on a first date with a guy at a restaurant and the check comes, do you assume hes paying?
This thread has received more attention than it deserved, I think. Unfortunately, it seems this only ends with people constantly flaming each other :(.
*Consistently stabs thread* DIE, DIE, DIE!
Crap, I'm so tired.
See what happens when I try to voice my OPINION on a skill and for some reason bring math into play. I forget two words and everything goes to hell XD Anyways, back on topic, the reasons I like Haunt are:
pathing allows casting on any enemy viewable onscreen
unlimited (for the anal retentive, as many as you'd like, NOT infinite) applications at any point in time
additional damage type (besides poison or physical)
low mana cost (low enough that come endgame, casting should be "free")
2. My original math was correct, I forgot to add two words which was definitely warranting the presumptuous reply you gave, I agree.
Those 2 missing words make it completely incorrect. It's also misleading.
3. I'm not sure how you got 20 wd/s/m for Splinters when it costs 6 mana to cast 180% worth of weapon damage and you're claiming it casts in 1 second.
Ah, even higher than. I thought it cost 9 mana. I'll go back and correct it.
4. Another person who needs to use insults to argue. Maturity at its best.
5. If you're going to make so many assumptions, be prepared to be wrong. Unless I said "efficiency" in my post, its safe to say I was not implying it either. You're definitely free to continue making incorrect assumptions though.
You did straight up call me an ass, said (Incorrectly) that I was wrong and you were right multiple times, and used a very sarcastic tone.
Are you trying to be ironic?
Hmm. So I FORGOT to include two words which is "incredibly misleading." You incorrectly calculate the wd/s/m for Splinters because you failed to read ONE number correctly in the patch notes. Then you acknowledge my sarcastic and annoyed tones, which were caused by your presumptuous reply to me FORGETTING to include two words.
IT IS THE CIRCLE ...... THE CIRCLE OF LIFE
or something...I'm tired
edit: you've been pretty blackly ironic too my friend, ms. kettle
No it isn't. Splinters has over 3 times the %WD/S/Mana. I actually typed out BOTH of those numbers. No math involved. You literally just had to look at them and notice 20>6.66. Literally just look. You must be a troll, no one could function with this level of incompetence.
Also, in the English language, you don't have to use the exact word "efficiency" to be talking about it. Welcome to the language.
1. Yes wow, I looked 1 line above when I quickly referenced that for my last post, sue me.
2. My original math was correct, I forgot to add two words which was definitely warranting the presumptuous reply you gave, I agree.
3. I'm not sure how you got 20 wd/s/m for Splinters when it costs 6 mana to cast 180% worth of weapon damage and you're claiming it casts in 1 second.
4. Another person who needs to use insults to argue. Maturity at its best.
5. If you're going to make so many assumptions, be prepared to be wrong. Unless I said "efficiency" in my post, its safe to say I was not implying it either. You're definitely free to continue making incorrect assumptions though.
I got it from the entire rest of the post being about efficiency, and you making a point to factor it down with mana in mind.
Otherwise you would have stopped at % weapon damage per second, which which case you might find it interesting that poison dart with splinters is 180% weapon damage per second or 20% weapon damage per second per mana.
Yep, I used the exact word "efficiency" in that post before providing the calculations. Oh wait. I guess not, just another ASSumption you've made. Thanks for posting this math though, you just proved my point regarding Haunt's versatility. Its (Splinters) WD/SEC/MANA being the same as Resentful Spirit's while the latter can path THROUGH objects and be applied to multiple targets at once. Cool!
edit: actually, now that I look at it, the word I used before providing the calculations was "damage"
Base Haunt:
9 mana per cast
360% weapon damage over 15 seconds
this gives us 24% weapon damage per second
which gives us 2.66% weapon damage per mana
Resentful Spirit Haunt:
9 mana per cast
180% weapon damage over 3 seconds
this gives us 60% weapon damage per second
which gives us 6.66% weapon damage per mana
This math is wrong.
Base Haunt:
9 mana per cast
360% weapon damage over 15 seconds
this gives us 24% weapon damage per second
which gives us 2.66% weapon damage per second per mana Which is actually 40% weapon damage per mana.
Resentful Spirit Haunt:
9 mana per cast
180% weapon damage over 3 seconds
this gives us 60% weapon damage per second
which gives us 6.66% weapon damage per second per mana Which is actually 20% weapon damage per mana.
Actually the math isn't wrong, I simply forgot to add "per second" in there. But the efficiency aspect wasn't my intention in posting the math either (not sure why you made that assumption). The damage increase was, which is an effective 2.5x increase.
i hardly read patch notes, as im not in beta. But even still. casting haunt 9x on a group of mobs would take longer to do than pop grasp and burn with acid rain or even poison dart spam. And not to mention the fact that i'd probably only get 2 ticks before the monsters died, which again, seems like more time wasted than gained.
Sorry I should've been more specific...I'm not suggesting spamming Haunt on EVERY enemy as that would get INCREDIBLY tedious lol. But, it does have a few good qualities:
it can bypass environmental obstacles thus letting you target and deal damage to ANY enemy you can see on the screen, whenever you want
you can have as many applications as you want, giving you a great additional damage source vs. elite monster groups
it has good rune effect choices with healing, slowing, increased damage, and mana regen properties
it is incredibly cheap mana wise, making it a great fit for mana intensive builds
i did say 15% was a rough guesstimate, but clearly those 2 words mean nothing in this arguement. I thought haunt could only affect 3 enemies at most? that or i'm reading back to patch 3/4
Its not your fault, Antirepublican has been giving incorrect information on quite a few things ITT. But yes, the cap of 3 Haunts has been removed for at least 2 patches now. This thread does a good job illustrating that its pretty common knowledge, and has been for over a month:
You also have to remember though, you can have UNLIMITED Haunts active at any point in time. If you choose that rune, the level of healing you receive from the skill is entirely up to you
Please just ignore our local troll here. He doesn't understand simple concepts. Like you can't have unlimited haunts.
http://www.diablofan...14-information/
please provide the %weapon damage / second / mana of
If you can do that, I might be willing to answer some of your questions.
edit: ok, I'm going to bed, this might take a while....good night and good luck!
Wait...did you just say %WD/s/mana is TWO numbers?
. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`
If you can be lazy (which you have), so can I. You haven't answered ONE question I've asked you. Deflection at its finest.
You don't understand the difference between backing up an argument (with proof) and stating an opinion? I guess that makes sense that you wouldn't.
Its also incredibly misleading when you enter a thread making assumptions and correcting people, then you make a pretty simple and stupid error yourself. You've done a good job of showing us the meaning of "hypocrisy" as well.
Actually, the fact you questioned my intentions as ironic is in itself ironic. If you need to explain this for you, thats fine. And back to efficiency are we? Well like I said, unless I specifically stated that was my intention with my calculations (which I didn't), its safe to assume that wasn't the purpose. Apparently this is a hard concept for you to understand, but its pretty fundamental in nature. Let me ask you something which might shed a little more light into your questionable reasoning:
If you're out on a first date with a guy at a restaurant and the check comes, do you assume hes paying?
See what happens when I try to voice my OPINION on a skill and for some reason bring math into play. I forget two words and everything goes to hell XD Anyways, back on topic, the reasons I like Haunt are:
The fun of you has already been made. Where have you been?
No way useful to plebeians such as yourself, sure.
Hmm. So I FORGOT to include two words which is "incredibly misleading." You incorrectly calculate the wd/s/m for Splinters because you failed to read ONE number correctly in the patch notes. Then you acknowledge my sarcastic and annoyed tones, which were caused by your presumptuous reply to me FORGETTING to include two words.
IT IS THE CIRCLE ...... THE CIRCLE OF LIFE
or something...I'm tired
edit: you've been pretty blackly ironic too my friend, ms. kettle
1. Yes wow, I looked 1 line above when I quickly referenced that for my last post, sue me.
2. My original math was correct, I forgot to add two words which was definitely warranting the presumptuous reply you gave, I agree.
3. I'm not sure how you got 20 wd/s/m for Splinters when it costs 6 mana to cast 180% worth of weapon damage and you're claiming it casts in 1 second.
4. Another person who needs to use insults to argue. Maturity at its best.
5. If you're going to make so many assumptions, be prepared to be wrong. Unless I said "efficiency" in my post, its safe to say I was not implying it either. You're definitely free to continue making incorrect assumptions though.
Yep, I used the exact word "efficiency" in that post before providing the calculations. Oh wait. I guess not, just another ASSumption you've made. Thanks for posting this math though, you just proved my point regarding Haunt's versatility. Its (Splinters) WD/SEC/MANA being the same as Resentful Spirit's while the latter can path THROUGH objects and be applied to multiple targets at once. Cool!
edit: actually, now that I look at it, the word I used before providing the calculations was "damage"
Actually the math isn't wrong, I simply forgot to add "per second" in there. But the efficiency aspect wasn't my intention in posting the math either (not sure why you made that assumption). The damage increase was, which is an effective 2.5x increase.
Sorry I should've been more specific...I'm not suggesting spamming Haunt on EVERY enemy as that would get INCREDIBLY tedious lol. But, it does have a few good qualities:
I love it.
Its not your fault, Antirepublican has been giving incorrect information on quite a few things ITT. But yes, the cap of 3 Haunts has been removed for at least 2 patches now. This thread does a good job illustrating that its pretty common knowledge, and has been for over a month:
http://us.battle.net...ic/3988300956#6
I can't tell......are you.....serious?
. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-'". . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ":,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:". . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . ."~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . "~,_. . . .."~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . ."=,_. . . ."-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~"; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . ."=-._. . .";,,./`. . /" . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .`~,. . .."~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-"
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . /
. . . . . . `~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,__. . . `,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`