Predicting a clamity: Patch 3.1
by Adam Holisky 
Feb 6th 2009 at 2:00PM
When Wrath of the Lich King was launched, there were countless servers inflicted with near game-ending lag and connection problems for people. And that's not to mention the hour long queues many of us faced (and still face to some degree).
Patch 3.0.8 brought with it a whole new host of issues, leading Mike Schramm to proclaim The Disaster of Three-Oh-Eight. There are still lingering issues from that. Just ask any Hunter about the cower bug.
So while we sit here with bated breath waiting for new information about patch 3.1, there is a little voice going on in the back of my head. "Do you really want this, Adam? Do you really want your email box to be flooded with tips about how buggy the patch is?"
But then I think of happier things, like clam stacking, and I smile.
I want to take a poll today. Do you think patch 3.1 will be a clamity or a cheering celebration?
| Working great on day one | |
|---|---|
| Working after one or two bug fixes | |
| Failing hard core until 3.2 | |
| The end of WoW |
Filed under: Patches, Analysis / Opinion, Blizzard
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Cataca Feb 6th 2009 2:07PM
And clams are still bugged...now the clams themselves stack, but when opened, the meat does not auto stack. >.< How long have they been working on this? Do they have Jimmy the crack head working in the clam department?
PeeWee Feb 6th 2009 2:27PM
Yet another "bug" you can easily avoid by supplying yourself with a good bagmod, such as TBag, which auto-stacks stuff for you, amongst other things.
Cataca Feb 6th 2009 2:30PM
@PeeWee
Did not know that, thanks
Arcaria Feb 6th 2009 2:52PM
This is like predicting that the next Pope will be Catholic or that the next big porn star will be hot.
Malkavos Feb 6th 2009 2:07PM
The cower bug has been there since patch 3.0 showed up, before Wrath even shipped. It's not new with 3.0.8.
Spicyness Feb 6th 2009 2:48PM
This along with the prowl bug is one of the annoying things still lingering from 3.0.2. It was in the 3.0.8 patch notes but not actually solved. Are we going to see an overhaul of all classes before we get the minor stuff solved from the Wrath patch?
Clarick Feb 6th 2009 4:23PM
Please make the prowl and cower but go away.....its 30 seconds of playing time and 5 clicks everytime i fly somwhere....it adds up. I mean I suppose i could take up valuable screen real estate and put those buttons on the screen but its still 2 clicks and not even left clicks...:P
Hopefully this gets fixed
peagle Feb 6th 2009 2:09PM
No "a slap in the face" option?
>:|
0bsolete Feb 6th 2009 2:10PM
I personally think it will do fairly well. Likely cleaner than average, and if not, then average. Unless of course the worried whisperings of Blizzard being smacked with deadlines by Activision or other such things hold any truth. And in all fairness, they could.
Either way, call it how you will, even patch 3.0.8 was better than the standard for half the MMO's out there-Sony Online Entertainment, I'm looking at your entire track record.
And if nothing else at least Blizzard sees a bug and immediately fixes it. No downtime, the least possible bureaucratic BS, a major bug goes straight to the top of the priority list.
Patrick B Feb 6th 2009 8:48PM
"And if nothing else at least Blizzard sees a bug and immediately fixes it. No downtime, the least possible bureaucratic BS, a major bug goes straight to the top of the priority list."
This is a troll post right?
Either that or you sure as hell aren't playing the same game that most of us are. LMAO
0bsolete Feb 6th 2009 9:04PM
I find immense irony in your user name. Being that my name is Patrick B as well. Regardless, yes, they do. Some bugs are not focused heavily on, true. But how many days does it take to pump out a fix? 3? Maybe even a week and a half on occasion. Play another MMO. Seriously, pick one. Half their releases are the same quality as 3.0.8 but nobody complains. Nobody comments, you hear some minor groaning but that's it. Bugs in most MMOs don't get fixed for months. Sometimes an expansion will come out and the bugs from the release of the previous expansion are still present. Or the one before that. Glitches, exploits, bugs or balance, nothing. Nobody says anything, no blue posts or anything similar. The forums are barely even monitored. I've been playing MMOs for going on a decade now. I've tried dozens. And most of them, despite a smaller server load, can't fix their own mistakes. And short of something fully game breaking, you will never hear anything resembling an apology. Its why I always come back to WoW. Even if the game has bugs post expansion (seriously? people are surprised at this?) and even if Blizz hasn't managed to perfectly balance classes, and the millions of variables in skills, ranks, mechanics, stats, items, races, play styles, and anything else that a player can interact with on two separate levels simultaneously (PvE and PvP) while still pumping out regular content and continuing to come up with new ideas for a mere 15 dollars a month, less than the cost of a night at the movies, I still applaud them for doing a good job, considering what they're going up against. Even if you have to wait 120 seconds to summon a second person through a warlock so people have to travel, even if there are lag problems with a comparative handful of servers handling millions of different people in dozens of different countries, this is a good game. At least it feels like a game company, one of the old fashioned types that would get excited about making something for the geeks and gamers like themselves to have fun with, and not another cooperate mass pumping out a steady stream of unoriginal and boring material not worth a tenth of the price tag while ignoring the player base in favor of the holy dollar. I'm not saying Blizz is perfect, but damn if they don't make a good game. And damn if they don't actually feel like a company full of people.
AndremedaSC Feb 6th 2009 2:10PM
Bated breath. Bated. Abated means something completely different. (And not baited breath, either ) :-P
shopshopshop Feb 6th 2009 2:15PM
Darn. I was going to say that.
Jason Feb 6th 2009 2:17PM
You beat me to it.
Abated - 1. to reduce in amount, degree, intensity, etc.; lessen; diminish.
Bated - 4. with bated breath, with breath drawn in or held because of anticipation or suspense.
Malatoor Feb 6th 2009 2:28PM
Bated is a shortened form of abated. Bated breath means holding you breath in anticipation. So they do not in fact mean something totally different.
If you are going to correct someone at least make sure you are correct.
Adam Holisky Feb 6th 2009 3:10PM
Bated is short for abated.
But since you felt it was such an issue that you had to comment about it, I changed it.
Keyra Feb 6th 2009 4:25PM
Sorry, but one more into the fray...
Abated isn't short for bated. It has a similar meaning, but it more in line with pairings such as atypical and typical, asynchronous and synchronous, etc. which are likewise similar and usually (though not always) antonymical.
AndremedaSC Feb 6th 2009 7:42PM
Wow, a mini-firestorm! Anyways, I concede the point: I was overly dramatic when I said that bated and abated are "completely" different. As noted above, they are similar in the sense that held breath is, basically, reduced breath. Sort of. And while I'm not looking at the dictionary, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that the etymological root of "bated" is "abated". But I do maintain that, *at least in current accepted usage*, bated is not short for abated, and I am not aware of any examples where they are really interchangeable (though I welcome corrections!).
Adam, I didn't mean to show you up or mock you, though I understand my comment may have come across that way. I very much enjoy reading your articles, including this one.
Antistes Feb 7th 2009 8:56AM
I love linguistic discussions. Not becasue I like being a "grammar-nazi" but because I actually *gasp* find different peoples views on language interresting.
That being said.. I'm not native to English. I did a little research though and it would seem that 'abated' and 'bated' are indeed (etymologically) the same word. However 'bated' would be more widely know in the idiom 'bated breath' where the meaning of the word differs from 'abated', even though that is the origin of the idiom.
As for:
"But I do maintain that, *at least in current accepted usage*, bated is not short for abated, and I am not aware of any examples where they are really interchangeable (though I welcome corrections!)."
I've copied this from http://dictionary.reference.com, with this example being taken from The American Heritage Dictionary:
verb, bat⋅ed, bat⋅ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to moderate or restrain: unable to bate our enthusiasm.
Here's the change in meaning as compared to 'abated'.
2. to lessen or diminish; abate: ***setbacks that bated his hopes.***
Here's the interchangeability.
–verb (used without object)
3. to diminish or subside; abate.
—Idiom
4. with bated breath, with breath drawn in or held because of anticipation or suspense: We watched with bated breath as the runners approached the finish line.
Whilst the Idiom uses the 1st meaning the origins are obviously from the 2nd meaning of the word, i.e. a synonym or short form of 'abate'.
/whip everyone with fasces
Belthazar Feb 6th 2009 2:15PM
I don't know what you'll find more annoying -- lots of comments/e-mail about an awful patch or me, a grammar cop -- but did you really mean _abated_ breath? I'm thinking maybe you're RPing an undead character, and you wanted us to know you're sitting around writing articles, not breathing.
The idiom is "with bated breath."
Normally I don't bother to go out of my way to correct people's grammar, but I do feel that those people whose words will potentially reach hundreds or thousands of people do have something of a responsibility to the written language. God knows that all of the high schoolers eagerly refreshing this site during snow days could potentially be forming the complete extent of their writing habits by reading this site! So come on, let's step up to the plate and educate the unwashed WoW-playing masses. ;-)