Patch 5.4 patch notes
Virtual Realms feature revealed
The Proving Grounds are coming
The latest patch 5.4 newsThe Queue: Eight
by Alex Ziebart 
Mar 13th 2009 at 3:00PM
Welcome back to The Queue, WoW Insider's daily Q&A column where the WoW Insider team answers your questions about the World of Warcraft. Alex Ziebart will be your host today.In yesterday's edition of The Queue, my partner in crime Adam Holisky did some speculation about Battlestar Galactica that was taken as a huge, massive spoiler. As far as I know, it wasn't actually a spoiler. I'm here to fix that. I'm here to give you a real, true spoiler. Are you ready for it?
They shoot Old Yeller.
hold up asked...
Is the Realm First Ulduar Achievement based on completing Ulduar on Easy Mode or is it based on clearing the entire place including the optional Algalon "the Raid Destroyer"?
Valnoth, WoW's Lead World Designer, posted in a thread that asked this very question. He says that the realm first achievements/titles will come from beating Yogg-Saron on Hard Mode and beating Algalon the Raid Destroyer. Both the 10 and 25 man versions of the raid have these achievements, they are not linked to eachother.
Helore asked...
Has there been any news on the new dances they promised us?
I think I've answered this question about seventeen thousand times since we've started The Queue and I think it gets asked on every single edition of the column, without fail. The answer is still no, and it will be probably be no tomorrow and the day after that. We haven't heard anything except that they are still working on it. When we know more, you will know about it. Trust me.
Chickamauga asked...
Dual-spec question that I haven't seen asked yet, and if it was, sorry: When I buy my second talent tree, are the Glyphs empty, or pre-loaded with what I already have? Will my Shadow Priest have to buy another Glyph of Levitate?
Yes, your second set of Glyphs starts out empty. You'll need a second Glyph of Levitate, or any other glyphs that you want to use in both specs.
hempnight asked...
How many people do you think got the Purity Ring reference?
Beats me, I know I didn't get it!
CallMeIrd asked...
Does having one or two non combat pets out during a raid really affect a person's FPS? Is it generally that much of a nuisance? I get not allowing every single person to have one out, but when it's just a couple?
Depending on the pet, it actually can have a pretty big impact, mostly on those that are pushing the limits of their computer with Wrath of the Lich King already. The biggest culprit I've noticed is the Ghostly Skull, with its big blue cloud particle effect. That cloud can absolutely tank your FPS if it's directly in front of your camera. Before I purchased my new video card, I had to scroll my camera all the way out when I was around one of those so it wouldn't cross directly in front of me. If I got a super close up look of that thing, I would drop to a total of one or two FPS total. That's pretty harsh.
That's sort of an extreme case, but still. If you have people in your raid who're squeezing every last drop out of their system, having vanity pets out can have a noticeable effect. A bunch of people in your raid pulling out flashy pets can be the difference between 10 FPS in a raid and 2 FPS in a raid. If you have a great system and you don't find yourself often dipping below 40 or 50 FPS (or more), you won't even notice a difference when everyone has sparkly pets out. Those few people with the old equipment? They'll notice.
Have questions about the World of Warcraft? The WoW Insider crew is here with The Queue, our daily Q&A column! Leave your questions in the comments and we'll do our best to answer 'em!Filed under: Patches, Analysis / Opinion, The Queue
Reader Comments (Page 3 of 6)
Aaron A. Mar 13th 2009 3:22PM
In other news:
- Lucy and Ethel's complicated scheme backfires with hilarious results,
- Bart Simpson writes something on a chalkboard, and
- Captain Kirk gets friendly with the alien in the pink Mylar bikini.
alpha5099 Mar 13th 2009 3:26PM
Is there any game balance justification for the racial limits on classes, or is it solely because of the lore? I understand that certain classes don't make much sense for some races, but I've been trying to figure out if there would be any actual gameplay consequences if there weren't those limits. Gnome priests of the world unite.
Balius Mar 13th 2009 3:35PM
Rage is why Blood Elves are the only class that can't be warriors. The ability to instantly generate rage would have been overpowered.
The tauren forms also all have features unique to the race (horns, ears, coloring) and those would either not make sense or require more models to be used.
Other than that, the only real reason is lore I think.
alpha5099 Mar 13th 2009 3:50PM
Oh, the reason I'd heard for BE not getting Warriors was also pretty lore based. I read somewhere someone from Blizzard explaining it, saying that they didn't want to give BE more than 6 classes, and had to decide between Warrior and Hunter for the sixth class (because the light and magic classes were shoe-ins, and I guess they must've felt Rogues were necessary). They decided they couldn't in good conscious not include Hunters, as there's so much lore on elven rangers and what not. So, no Warriors for the BE.
The thing about rage generation does make a lot of sense though. I could see that being a little overpowered.
rosencratz Mar 13th 2009 3:56PM
Pure flavour!
Blizzard wated the races to ahve certain feels to them, certainyl there are laore reasons in soemc ases but, for example, there is no reason that a Belf warrior can't exist. In fact many do, in the game, you just can't play as one. Human Hunters too,etc.
You'll find this is the case for many of the more believable class/race combinations that aren't actually available to be played. They can/do exist we're just simply not able to play as them.
Think of it like this, when you look at a Belf in game, you know what classes it can be, essentially, it'll be a mana user.(If it's your enemy your not likely to see a rogue coming if they're any good) this is very much the flavor Blizz wanted to give player Belfs. At the end of the day we know a Belf is more than likely going to be a ranged DPS unless they're in plate. The same philosophy extends to the other races/classes where the "lore" doesn't negate reason. It's like we're filling the role for how Blizz thought the races would be populated in the "real" azeroth.
Also it's another reason that gives racial selections at character selection a reason for existing beyond aesthetics.
Mastique Mar 13th 2009 4:25PM
I think the reason you won't see a gnome priest, is lore as well. Gnome's don't generally believe in a higher power, and since the healing classes draw on some sort of spiritual force to heal, the gnomes just don't get it, they are pure science.
I did read something a while back about a "hero-class healer" that would base its healing on scientific methods, or some such mechanic, completely out of the realm of spiritual-ness. :)
Dobmeister Mar 13th 2009 4:30PM
One thing I remember them using was "Belfs are feeble little pansies, and hence can't lord it around in plate armour." 'But what about the Belfadins?' I hear you cry. Well, what they pulled for them was "All that juicy Light magic goodness they nabbed off M'uru is their power generator to lift their Pinkadin Armour and Battlehammer of Questionable Pwnage". So yeh, Belfs too puny for the brute strength warrior plate class; agile ranger/thief characters suits them, priest/warlock/mage equally so.
Xigageshi Mar 13th 2009 5:58PM
Actually game balance itself was equal with lore in the decisions.
they wanted to have an even number of races for each class per faction now since then they have... branched away from that a bit, but it was originally intended, for instance if gnome's could have been priest (which would have been awesome) then the alliance would have had 3 special priest racials, while the horde had only 2. originally dwarves were considered as mages (which also would be awesome) but then there would have been more mage capable races on alliance than horde. so its all balance + lore really. i'd wager balance came first, then lore was applied, and sometimes overridden.
look at night elves, females should be the only warriors and priests, and druids should be male exclusive, but ultimately balance and player freedom in that case trumped lore.
Xigageshi Mar 13th 2009 6:03PM
please pardon my lack of punctuation above :(
mindshed Mar 13th 2009 3:27PM
Re: BSG spoiler
If someone were still on seasons 1-3, that post would have been a HUGE spoiler. Even the suggestion that she might have something to do with the cylons (even if we don't actually know) is a spoiler when you're going through season 1-3 saying "Damn I hope character X isn't a cylon," because now that person has a suspicion about Kara Thrace that was completely unwarranted until this season.
Balius Mar 13th 2009 3:41PM
While I don't go out of my way to spoil things for people, I will also not feel bad if someone happens to have plot points revealed to them when they are not current. If you want to be sure to avoid accidental spoilers, the only way to do that is to be as up to date as possible.
RetPallyJil Mar 13th 2009 3:35PM
You know that Blizzard is hoping we eventually forget they ever promised us new dances.
But, as someone whose main is saddled with the Macarena, I say NEVER FORGET!
Aaron A. Mar 13th 2009 3:38PM
They're using "vanilla" to mean "basic," "plain," or "ordinary." I personally disagree with such usage because vanilla is an interesting plant, and real vanilla has a complex and versatile flavor; it's just that manufacturers (of ice cream in particular) create a sweet-yet-pleasantly-bland flavor and call it vanilla because "sweet yet bland" isn't very good marketing.
I am going somewhere with this, I promise. Just as vanilla is considered the basic, unadorned version of ice cream, before the addition of berries or chocolate chips, the original game is referred to as "vanilla" because it's the basic version of the game, without any of the TBC and WotLK content (a true rollback to 1.x would also remove guild banks and voice chat.)
Aaron A. Mar 13th 2009 3:41PM
Oops, meant that as a reply to somebody else. Please ignore.
Balius Mar 13th 2009 3:51PM
People who have had real vanilla ice-cream know that it isn't bland or basic.
Ian R. Mar 13th 2009 3:40PM
I heard that on the PTR Sigil of Awareness is going to be buyable with Valor tokens. Is there any new Emblem of Valor gear in the new patch?
mirilene Mar 13th 2009 3:51PM
The only exceptions to the vantity pet rule:
Dornaa/Salandria
Murky, or Gurky, or Lurky, or Murkimus
Firefly
That is it.
Fung Mar 13th 2009 4:09PM
yes, my inscriptionist will soon be riding around around on his hawg, picking up elves of the night and doing lines of gnome candy. i'm rich beotch!
Worcester Mar 13th 2009 4:04PM
So, whatever happened to that "mobile content" that Blizzard was allegedly working on? Do I have to be satisfied with Warcraft Chest and Characters?
And the mobile version of WoWinsider, of course :)
Nick Mar 13th 2009 4:18PM
my question is: could you please stop answering questions regarding dancing until blizz officially announces it? I enjoy reading this column, but when you keep answering the same questions it's kind of pointless for me to keep reading each day. I may as well just read the same post over and over again.