Patch 5.3 interview with Ghostcrawler
Mystery of the Unborn Val'kyr
The latest patch 5.3 news
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria newsInsider Trader: Patch 3.1, profits and preparation
by Amanda Miller 
Mar 13th 2009 at 6:00PM
Insider Trader is your inside line on making, selling, buying and using player-made products.Patch 3.1 is looming ever closer, and things are about to change in a big way. Today I'll be discussing how the patch is going to affect your professions, and how you can take advantage of this by maximizing your profits on the Auction House.
Players have become increasingly bored with raiding because the content that was released with the expansion pack, Wrath of the Lich King, was too quickly conquered. Across the board, players are showing up to raids on an inconsistent basis, and many people now spend much of their time on the Public Test Realm playing through Ulduar.
This has contributed to falling prices on the Auction House for raiding materials and consumables, because not only have many people stopped raiding, many others have decided to save their gold and raid without being buffed to the gills.
What should you do in these tight times? Aside from the things for which you are currently saving, the patch will bring with it a 1000g bill to learn how to dual spec, costs to fund raid wipes, bring new consumables, and enchant and gem new gear.
By learning what to sell and purchase and when, you can minimize your post-patch costs and make some gold while you're at it.
Of all of the crafts(wo)men, Scribes may feel the effects of the patch the hardest. If you currently make your money by selling glyphs, then I would work on selling your entire stash off pre-patch.
Once dual-specs become a reality, people will no longer need to purchase new glyphs every time that they respec or spec back to their mains. They will simply glyph each spec once, and never need to purchase glyphs again unless they switch to their least-used spec, or a new one becomes available. At first, it seemed that you would be providing portable Lexicons of Power as a requirement for dual-speccing outside of a city, but that requirement has been removed.
Once you've sold off your stash, it is time to start building up a stash of inks. Patch 3.1 is introducing a whopping number of new glyphs as well as changes to existing glyphs. You'll want to be ready on day one to start cranking out the most popular glyphs, as well as the new ones, for a handsome profit. Everyone will be re-glyphing their main characters and pimping out their new offspec, and demand will temporarily spike.
When this subsides, hopefully Blizzard will introduce a new way to make some income!
Because of the widespread boredom over current raid content, the prices of herbs have been falling on the Auction House. If you aren't an Herbalist, or don't feel like gathering, then now is the time to buy in order to buff up your ink stocks.
You also might want to consider making your finest vellums. Either funnel them to a high-level Enchanting alt, or sell them. After all, post-patch, everyone will be clamoring for the new enchants, as well as constantly replacing their gear.
If you are an Enchanter, then I'd start looking for a cheap source of vellum! I would also recommend purchasing cheap Auction House greens now, rather than later, in order to build up a reserve of Enchanting materials.
Once the patch hits, Enchanters who sell materials rather than enchants will see increased profits. Everyone will be buying the materials for the enchants that they need, or the actual enchants on vellum. Enchanters will be buying up greens and mats to take advantage of the upswing in business.
If you want to be prepared, then start buying now, while the prices of greens and raw Enchanting mats aren't inflated. Start putting the most popular enchants onto vellum now, but save some materials for the new enchants that will come with the patch.
Your post-patch riches will not be restricted to patch day, as people will be plodding through Ulduar upgrading their gear for quite awhile. Having a stash of materials saved up beforehand will lower your overhead.
As mentioned above, herb prices have been falling lately, and now is the time to buy them. If you have a stash to sell, hold off on the days where prices are particularly low. Once Ulduar becomes playable on live realms, the demand for herbs will soar as people will be snatching up new glyphs, elixirs and flasks.
Frost Lotus in particular should see a huge spike in price. Ever since Blizzard nerfed the drop rate, my usual stack of 60-80 surplus Frost Lotus has dwindled to around 5-15. Purchase them now, and sell them later!
Herbalists may as well herb pre-patch. Once the patch hits, those who did not prepare ahead of time will begin a strict regimen of gathering in order to keep up with their own, and their guild's, alchemical needs. If you save up now, the increased competition won't hurt so much.
Alchemists, of course, might as well start making up flasks and elixirs while herbs are still cheap. Flasks will be important to raiders who do not like to fuss around after each and every wipe, while elixirs will be marketable to those who don't care about the increased cost as much as they care about stat customization.
Keep in mind that mana regeneration is also being nerfed into the ground. While you might be able to sell mana potions now, there will likely be an increased demand post-patch.
Now is also the time to maximize your First Aid and Cooking, and even Fishing, if you haven't yet. While cloth prices have lowered, new Tailoring recipes are being added.
Many people have stopped bothering with expensive food buffs, but Ulduar will require their use. Whether you ever see yourself making strong profits from food sales or not, you might be able to buy some stacks of food and/or meat and fish cheaply now. It also wouldn't hurt to make up several stacks, as each wipe on the Ulduar learning curve will consume more food.
The patch will mean that people are upgrading their new gear again, and this will increase demand for gems, belt buckles, spellthreads and leatherworking kits. Item customization is big business.
Whip up a few scopes, Eternal Belt Buckles, spellthreads and LW kits, in addition to some of the most popular gem cuts, depending on your profession. If there are any recipes for these items that you do not yet have, now is the time to grind the reputation for them.
Uncut gems and likely, raw ore, will sell for more post-patch. If you can, increase your Mining time, and start Prospecting! Red gems in particular should be saved.
Each week, Insider Trader takes you behind the scenes of the bustling sub-culture of professional craftsmen, examining the profitable, the tragically lacking, and the methods behind the madness. Check out the patch 3.1 profession changes.Filed under: Herbalism, Fishing, Mining, Alchemy, Blacksmithing, Cooking, Leatherworking, Tailoring, Enchanting, First Aid, Patches, Items, Analysis / Opinion, How-tos, Economy, Jewelcrafting, Features, Raiding, Guides, Making money, Buffs, Enchants, Insider Trader (Professions), Wrath of the Lich King, Inscription
Reader Comments (Page 2 of 3)
Clint Mar 16th 2009 9:50AM
@Adamanthis
Good counter point. The current 'gender neutral' way of writing/speaking has always been unnecessarily confusing and reinforced centuries old inequalities. Although I am not yet convinced speaking in the 'artificial' conjunctions (policewoman, craftswoman, etc) is the best way to go about it. In fact it doesn't really address the issue of not having a sufficient 'gender neutral' term.
Etymology is facinating.
Worcester Mar 16th 2009 2:00PM
Interesting, but why stop there?
"Craftswoman" tells me what gender the person is, but I still don't know what color her skin is. What about her religion? What about her height? What about her preferred breakfast food?
Which of these things are important to her skill in her profession? Right. None of them.
What about those words that don't reveal a person's gender? Do we need to make words like he-soldier and she-soldier? Would any commander on a battlefield, while barking out orders to take a particular hill or bunker, bother with the difference between his male and female soldiers? Hopefully not!
Will creating artificial names for professions make up for past inequalities? Will those artificial names even make up for current biases?
Let's try another experiment. Ask 100 people to hire a blacksmith to create a large iron door. Then, give them the option of hiring the she-blacksmith and the he-blacksmith. Now, we're all certain that the outcome will be about 50/50, right? Or does anyone thing that some bias about skill or strength will find it's way into our little experiment?
Creating artificial words will not legitimize anyone's position. The only way to be truly equal is to be anonymous. Our work should speak for itself. The meanings of words change, and take on new meanings that might not have been intended. "Craftsman" might once have excluded women, but not anymore. The meaning of "craftswoman", however, is ambiguous. You might hope it means "a woman who crafts something", but that's really up to the person hearing it.
Creating artificial words it unhelpful at best, undermining at worst.
Adamanthis Mar 16th 2009 5:42PM
""Craftswoman" tells me what gender the person is, but I still don't know what color her skin is. What about her religion? What about her height? What about her preferred breakfast food?"
The point of modern gender-neutral language is that it does not tell you what gender the person is. "Crafts(wo)man", "craftsperson", or "crafter" are all inclusive terms that could refer to either a woman or a man. A "craftsman", on the other hand, is a man. Lofty etymologies aside, the clear implication of the word is "a man who crafts". Telling women that they must accept being referred to using male-gendered terms - and criticizing them when they use less exclusive terminology - is condescending and petty.
"Will creating artificial names for professions make up for past inequalities? Will those artificial names even make up for current biases?"
No to the first question, and mostly no to the second. But choosing gender-neutral language does at least prevent us from constantly reinforcing those biases.
The experiment I set out doesn't presume that people would be very likely to assume that a craftsperson is a woman even with gender neutral language. There probably is a strong underlying bias there. What I think it would show, though, is that people would be much more likely to assume that a craftsman is male than to assume that a craftsperson is male.
"The meaning of "craftswoman", however, is ambiguous. "
In what way? The construction of terms by replacing "-man" with "-woman" or "-person" is very common and quite simple. I find it hard to believe that someone would be familiar with "craftsman" but unable to comprehend "craftsperson." Even in such a case, it would take 10 seconds of education to rectify.
The other option, to freeze the inherent sexism of the language and continue the use of "universally inclusive" male-gendered terms for all time, is much less appealing.
Language evolves according to pressures on it. In this case, the pressure is to represent both men and women equally. And as much as we might try to make some great ado about the relatively minor changes required, it's really quite simple to do.
Worcester Mar 16th 2009 6:59PM
'"Crafts(wo)man", "craftsperson", or "crafter" are all inclusive terms that could refer to either a woman or a man. A "craftsman", on the other hand, is a man."
No, "crafts(wo)man" isn't a word at all. How do you even say that out loud? "Craftsman" on the other hand, is a person who is skilled at a trade. Centuries of use as a generic term has turned it... generic!
"But choosing gender-neutral language does at least prevent us from constantly reinforcing those biases."
No. Pointing out that we need a different word because a person happens to be female reinforces those biases. Aren't women good enough to have the same professional title as their peers? For the record, I believe they are.
"The experiment I set out doesn't presume that people would be very likely to assume that a craftsperson is a woman even with gender neutral language."
Interesting. The experiment I set out presumes that people would be more concerned about a person's skill than they are about a person's gender. If you just thought of a blacksmith as someone skilled in metalworking, you might be shockingly surprised to discover a female can do that work as well as a male.
"The construction of terms by replacing "-man" with "-woman" or "-person" is very common and quite simple."
And redundant at the very least. "Craftsman" includes everybody, by definition. It might not look that way at first, but many words are like that. By definition, "craftswoman" is exclusive.
"The other option, to freeze the inherent sexism of the language and continue the use of "universally inclusive" male-gendered terms for all time, is much less appealing."
Language is not inherently sexist. People are. What's "much less appealing" is worrying about which gendered version of a word you use, when it doesn't even matter.
"Language evolves according to pressures on it. In this case, the pressure is to represent both men and women equally. "
And again I ask, why is gender any more important than skin color or religion or height or anything else? I suspect the reason why nobody has touched this question is that gender is not, in fact, so important that we need to rework the language.
It turns out, the language is fine. The people talking, on the other hand, could use some help.
Adamanthis Mar 16th 2009 8:46PM
Let's have a look at the OED:
"Craftsman - 1. A man who practices a handicraft."
"Craftsperson - A person engaged in handicraft."
While the primary definition of "man" is "a human being, irrespective of sex or age", it's qualified with "Man was considered until the 20th cent. to include women by implication, though referring primarily to males. It is now freq. understood to exclude women, and is therefore avoided by many people."
So, unsurprisingly, "man" has never been inclusive in an egalitarian sense, the male-dominated society just let the disenfranchised half of the human population along for the linguistic ride, assuming that they went without saying, or didn't deserve explicit mention. And since then, "man" has evolved not to be more inclusive, but less, to refer exclusively to male persons. At no point along the way did "man" ever serve as a gender-equal, all encompassing term.
"Craftsman," therefore, is predominantly a male term. The experiment I outlined would, I believe, show that it reinforces harmful biases by carrying with it an inescapable connotation of maleness. Regardless of their other biases, more people would assume that a craftsman is a man than would assume that a craftsperson is a man. That's a bad thing, and makes a very strong case for avoiding the former term. You can not have a language where the term "man" refers exclusively to male persons, and is incorporated into other terms without bringing with it that meaning.
"Aren't women good enough to have the same professional title as their peers? For the record, I believe they are."
Aren't women good enough to be called men? Really? When women finally break down the sexist barriers of a profession, they should get adopt the labels that for generations reflected and reinforced their exclusion? To be "policemen" or "firemen"?
Women do deserve to have the same professional title as their peers, but titles that don't have inescapable male connotations: "Craftspersons" "Police officers" "Fire fighters"
If anyone is confused by these terms, they could just look them up. The usage of "craftsperson" usage dates back 90 years, so I don't know how newfangled it really is.
Worcester Mar 16th 2009 9:11PM
Now Webster takes a shot.
Main Entry:
crafts·man Listen to the pronunciation of craftsman
Pronunciation:
\ˈkraf(t)s-mən\
Function:
noun
Date:
13th century
1 : a worker who practices a trade or handicraft
2 : one who creates or performs with skill or dexterity especially in the manual arts
So your Oxford Dictionary, which requires a password to confirm the definition presented, says one thing, but Webster says another.
And again, you avoid the direct questions. Does "craftswoman" include men? The answer is no. It is therefore not an inclusive term. Despite your personal biases to the term "craftsman", we see clear evidence that it can and does included women. Over time it became the default word for a person who works in a handicraft.
And again, if these words are not made up, how do you say them? All languages evolve from a spoken word first, then possible to a written form. There is no way to say the word "crafts(wo)man".
And again, you avoid the obvious. Does it really matter if you are a man or a woman in the job? Does it reflect your skill? Why fight for gender? Why is it more important than heritage or sexual orientation or anything else?
Break down sexist dogma by performing your profession as well as anyone else. It's that simple.
Adamanthis Mar 21st 2009 12:02PM
"Does "craftswoman" include men? The answer is no. It is therefore not an inclusive term."
I haven't suggested it is, or advocated for the use of the term "craftswoman." Though it would be appropriate when referring exclusively to women craftspersons, just as "Craftsmen" would be appropriate when referring exclusively to men.
"Despite your personal biases to the term "craftsman", we see clear evidence that it can and does included women. Over time it became the default word for a person who works in a handicraft."
I don't think the bias that the "-man" suffix carries is mine alone. But, if you truly believe that people would be just as likely to hear "craftsman" and think of a woman as they would be to hear "craftsperson" and think of a woman, then I guess I'll have to get back to you with some research data. Wish me luck on the funding application.
"And again, if these words are not made up, how do you say them? All languages evolve from a spoken word first, then possible to a written form. There is no way to say the word "crafts(wo)man"."
"Crafts(wo)man" is clearly purely a written construct. "Craftsperson" would be my preferred choice, and you can get its pronunciation from Webster's.
"Does it really matter if you are a man or a woman in the job?"
No, it does not.
"Does it reflect your skill?"
No, it does not.
"Why fight for gender? Why is it more important than heritage or sexual orientation or anything else?"
I haven't advocated the use of gendered terms, but gender-neutral terms like "craftsperson".
"Break down sexist dogma by performing your profession as well as anyone else. It's that simple."
It's not just about how good you are when the system was constructed to exclude you. Sexism, racism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination are often systemic, reinforced by - sometimes quite subtly, sometimes not - by our language and practices.
Worcester Mar 23rd 2009 4:55PM
You want to spend tax dollars on research to determine if people hear "craftsman" and think of a man?
I think I've heard all I need to hear.
Adamanthis Mar 23rd 2009 7:42PM
It was a joke, Worcester.
Of course they do. No need to spend money to demonstrate the obvious.
Worcester Mar 23rd 2009 8:43PM
No, "they" don't all assume craftsmen are only male. You don't speak for everybody. Not everybody sees sexist inequality where you do.
And your "joke" is suspect to say the least. The mere fact that you would insinuate spending money to research your personal biases is enough to be an insult.
Adamanthis Mar 24th 2009 10:53PM
Dear me. I suppose our discussion must here come to an end. The only way I can think to continue is by referring to several studies which have been done, along the lines of the one I proposed, which demonstrate a strong correlation between gendered language and gender bias. Given your reaction to the simplest jocular reference to sociological academic inquiry, however, I think I'll refrain from doing so.
Good day.
Worcester Mar 24th 2009 11:52PM
Oh? You don't care to educate me further? That's a real shame, seeing as how my writing reaches a million people every night.
Fortunately for them, I do not have a personal vendetta against the sexist tyranny of the English language. When you're writing for such a broad audience, you see, it helps to keep it simple and straightforward. No "crafts(wo)men" in my scripts, thank you very much!
Man, I'm glad this is done.
Oh wait. Can I say that? Damn.
gaj Mar 25th 2009 4:39PM
Actually there is a big shift is what is consider politically correct nowadays. And policewoman is the correct term, just like craftwoman. I might not agree with all these changes but that is the correct way of addressing. Alot of books that attempt to talk in a gender neutral way are alternating chapters with female and male pronouns to make it more equal. I don't see a problem with that and nor should you have a problem with craftwomen.
Eternauta Mar 13th 2009 7:05PM
Paying for raid consumables suck.
Thank god it is no longer necesary.
It's already expensive to keep my epics enchanted and gemmed properly.
Turlagh Mar 13th 2009 9:20PM
We need an economic stimulus plan NOW!!!
890 Billion Gold should do the trick.
Esuna Mar 13th 2009 10:25PM
I'm tired of posts putting words in my mouth. I play WotLK. I haven't "become quickly bored" with the content... we've barely even started.
Please don't take it personally.
This is just the nth article complaining about how easy and fast people can stampede through the content, when I haven't found it to be true at all.
To be perfectly honest, I'm happy with the way things are in this expansion. I feel like there's actually a chance I'll see endgame content this time around without being over-levelled by 10 levels.
I apologize if I sound cross, I'm just perhaps feeling a smidge under-represented.
Cotterpin Mar 13th 2009 10:33PM
I'm sick of the elitist 'I'm so bored' posts as well. Some of us don't have 20+ hours a week to spend raiding and strangely enough we'd like to see some of the content our subscription fees pay for as well!
BobDole Mar 14th 2009 3:44AM
I'm sick of people saying they don't have 20+ hours to see content when it only takes about 4-5 hours per week to see and clear all current content. I raid 3 days a week for 3 hours and we're done with everything on the second day - I just don't see where the 20 hours is coming from.
Is this "20+" figure including the time to farm mats/gold/whatever because if so then I apologize.
The Claw Mar 14th 2009 4:45AM
Esune, you may not have successfully stampeded through the current content, but you're being deliberately disingenuous if you try to pretend that it hasn't been stampeded through by more people than any other content in the history of the game.
Usdom Mar 14th 2009 12:55AM
Ok, pay attention I'll explain this slooowly so you people can catch up to the obvious that every one else has noticed by now. Blizzard does not want you "Making money" with professions. They want you grinding mats and buying mats and using them to enhance your gear but they do not want you earning gold with them.
They have balanced the game so that the supply of gold is never quite enough and you always need more so you will do more stuff and play longer and say it with me now, PAY THEM MORE MONEY!!!
If you want a profession that makes gold get a gathering skill and NEVER EVER take advantage of the crafting skills that go with it.
Crafting skills, ALL CRAFTING SKILLS, are money sinks. You will NEVER EVER, EVER, NEVER EVER, NOT IN A MILLION YEARS, EVER, make an actual profit on a crafting skill, EVER.
You will always sink MUCH more money into the skill than you will ever make from having it and that is the point. Blizzard needs people to spend money. Imagine if we all had jobs where we made 10$ every 5 minutes (10 gold per quest) and the money just got traded between people (players) More money (Gold) would be flooding the market all the time making everything worth less and less. So blizzard had to make repair bills and outrageous prices for mounts and dual specing and rep turn ins to get people to dump the always increasing player controlled piles of gold back into the NPC.
But that wasn't enough. If blizzard gave us ways to make even more money with crafting or enchanting then we would have an even greater surplus of gold. Gold would become worth nothing. It would be like the opening day on a PTR where a green gem is 500 gold because everyone has so much gold. Then the players who haven't leveled to 80 and been there for a long time wouldn't be able to afford jack or his droppings.
So the system is designed, and constantly redesigned like the changed to the level requirements of "Twink enhancements" that are coming out int he patch, to make sure that you and everyone else has ALMOST enough gold all the time so you will always need more and you will always want. People who want, pay for another month.