The Queue: The day the music died
by Adam Holisky 
Jun 12th 2009 at 1:00PM
Long long time ago...
I can still remember
How that music make me smile, Alex.
And I knew if I had my chance
That I could make those people dance
And, maybe, they'd be happy for a while, Alex.
Tim asked...
"When discussing new content coming out, why does Blizzard always play so close to the chest? For example, the mount changes are due to be "in the next major content patch" which everyone knows is going to be patch 3.2, why don't they just say it?"
It's all about forward looking statements, and in general companies don't like to make them. If they make them and then things happen differently, it's possible for them to get sued. That's why if you look at the BlizzCon announcement page, for example, or any press release, there's gigantic legalese attached that basically says "Blizzard is not responsible if these statements don't come true."
Now does saying something like "Mount changes come in patch 3.2" and then it gets delivered in patch 3.1.4 constitute a breach of some apparent contract that a judge could rule against Blizzard with? I don't know, and I don't think anyone knows for sure.
But no one wants to find out.
The other side to the coin is that with 11.5 million players, you're bound to make some large group mad if you say you'll do something and then change your mind (even though your decision not to go forward with the plan is perfectly reasonable). The folks at Blizzard are real people, despite their promises of ponies, and no one like to make 100,000 people dislike the game they play so much. Even if that 100,000 is just a rather small fraction of the overall community.
Stephen asked...
"With the recent changes to mounts, how will the mount quests for Locks and Pallies be done? I'd like a Feat of Strength for my Pally to match the one on my Lock and Druid. Will we need to not buy the class mount from the trainer, and wait until level 60? Can we still do the quest if we have the mount already trained? What's the plan?"
I'd assume the quests will remain at their original levels because they're tied to dungeons of those levels. You can do the quests whenever, even if you have the mount. They're a fun and unique thing about WoW, and I recommend everyone tries them all out, even though they're not required anymore.
Methuus asked...
"If Blizzard is not going to let us fly in the old world, how about they give us faster land mounts (like epic flying speed, but on the ground). Seems like an obvious idea. Has anyone from Blizzard ever commented on this?"
100% speed boost on the ground is pretty fast. Remember that traveling by ground you need to navigate terrain and other obstacles. By air you can pretty much go as the crow Medivh flies. Blizzard has said before they don't want the epic flying mounts to go beyond the 280%/310% increase they give now, and it's not hard to draw the conclusion that they're probably okay with the land speed as is.
Out of the realm of possibilities for the land speed mounts to increase in speed? No. If they do, should we expect a major jump? No.
Have questions about the World of Warcraft? The WoW.com 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: The Queue, Paladin, Warlock, Patches, Odds and ends, Blizzard, Mounts
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 6)
Nick Jun 12th 2009 1:03PM
Yay for more 3 question Queues.
AyaJulia Jun 12th 2009 1:54PM
Ask more questions...?
Dandellwow Jun 12th 2009 1:05PM
Alright, so I have a question:
When dealing with percentages, how do you figure the order by which something is multiplied? For example, let's talk about a Death Knight. If the Death Knight is in a battleground and picks up the 30% damage buff(imagine his damage is 1000). Obviously, that'd make the damage ~1,300, right? Well, add Hysteria to the effect. +20% damage. My question is, do the multipliers stack, follow the order of application, or do they have a set order in which they go(such as, since Hysteria is a spec skill, it is multiplied first before the general 30% damage buff?).
If they stack, the damage is obviously increased to 1,500.
If in order of application, the damage is increased to 1,560.
If in a set order, the damage is increased to 1,560 as well(i'm thinking that's just coincidental).
barrettjacobsen Jun 12th 2009 1:31PM
There is no difference between order of application and a set order. Multiplication is not order dependent, 1000 * 1.2 * 1.3 = 1.3 * 1000 * 1.2 = 1.2 * 1.3 * 1000, etc...
Glan Jun 12th 2009 1:47PM
adding separately (after completion of the equation)
100 + 20% (effect 1) = 120
120 + 15% (effect 2) = 138
If you stack (add) the 20 & 15%, it's +35%
100 + 35% = 135
subtle difference using small numbers
Arlendor Jun 12th 2009 1:49PM
You're right, barrett, but that's not the question. The equations in question are 1000 * 1.2 * 1.3 and 1000 + (1000 * .3) + (1000 * .2)
agnoster Jun 12th 2009 1:57PM
The question you are actually asking is if damage increasing percentages stack additively or multiplicatively. I don't know the answer (I think it's multiplicative), but I *do* know that either way the order does not matter because, as *elementary school math* taught us, both are commutative. A + B = B + A and A * B = B * A.
In other words, it is *not* coincidental in the least, and also, kids these days, argh.
Yeah, I'm phoning in my indignation now because I'm reaching the point where I don't think I can be disappointed anymore in how little people know about very, very basic math (or anything else, for that matter).
Chris Anthony Jun 12th 2009 2:36PM
agnoster, your indignation is misplaced. This is basic math, but it's also not the question you think is being asked. More thorough reading than you've afforded the post is required. (The wag in me wants to say that this is *elementary school reading comprehension*.)
The actual question being asked is this: Does +20% damage mean (Damage + Damage*.2), or (Damage * 1.2)? This seems like a trivial distinction, but it's actually quite important in context. [Damage + (Damage*.2) + (Damage*.3)] yields a different result from (Damage * 1.2 * 1.3), and order certainly does matter if the operators are mixed, such as [(Damage + (Damage*.2)) * 1.3] vs. [(Damage * 1.3) + (Damage*.2)].
As Dandell said in his original post:
[1000 + (1000 * .2) + (1000 * .3)] = 1500
(1000 * 1.2 * 1.3) = 1560
[(1000 + (1000 * .2)) * 1.3] = 1560
[(1000 * 1.3) + (1000 * .2)] = 1500
Fortunately, there's a known answer to this: any time you see "+20%", read "* 1.2". With extraordinarily rare exceptions (I can't think of any at the moment, but it's possible), buffs are multiplicative. In other words, (Damage * 1.2 * 1.3) is correct, and order doesn't matter.
-Chris A., http://ducttape.etherjammer.com/
vazhkatsi Jun 12th 2009 11:23PM
thought it was meant is it multiplied or added, as in is it 1.2*1.3*1000 or 1.5*1000
Raz Jun 13th 2009 2:42AM
Aghh! Math during Summer! On a Friday, no less!
/headexplodey
[Release Spirit]
Robert M Jun 12th 2009 1:05PM
1. What is the easiest way to contact a WoW.com blogger. Sometimes the post has some interesting information and sometimes needs expounded upon, but when you try and use the contact interface, you only get the general wow.com and not the option of choosing a writer. Is there a way to pose a shaman question to Rossi or a druid question to Robert outside of comments? The Queue has been one of my favorite sections of wow.com, and it would be awesome if at the end of a class piece, the bloggers could try and answer or direct a player on where to find the answer for a question that is more reader directed.
2. I remember reading a post where the devs said that sweeping changes of classes were finished until the next expansion and that players shouldn’t expect major changes or anything that would refund talent points. Are the class Q&A like the shaman one with GC that was posted yesterday looking ahead beyond Wrath? There seemed to be some pretty major changes, albeit not talent wise, coming for shaman in 3.2 like increased health, and the low level totem exchange. Do we have any idea what the class Q&A serve at this point in Wrath? Please understand I’m not complaining, I really enjoyed the shaman one, but it just seemed odd was all.
Ian R. Jun 12th 2009 1:53PM
On a similar note, is there a place where we can see a list of the twitter feeds of the bloggers? I've found mikeschramm and AdamHolisky.
ELIWOOD98 Jun 12th 2009 1:05PM
eh, i dont mind em(second)
swampsquatch Jun 12th 2009 1:35PM
FAIL. What don't you people understand about no one, the site or it it's readers, wanting them posted?
swampsquatch Jun 12th 2009 1:37PM
"the site or it's readers"*** Hooray for edit function!
paragorillabear Jun 12th 2009 8:45PM
still Fail on your edit, Swampsquatch
"the site or ITS readers" (no apostrophe)
But, hey, I like your name
Raz Jun 13th 2009 2:47AM
Ohhhhh, if you want it to be possessive, it's just "I-T-S,"
But if it's supposed to be a contraction, then it's "I-T-apostrophe-S,"
Scalawag.
Raz Jun 13th 2009 2:52AM
Ohhhh, if you want it to be possessive, it's just "I-T-S,"
But if it's supposed to be a contraction, then it's "I-T-apostrophe-S,"
Scalawag.
jfofla Jun 12th 2009 1:18PM
Thanks for reminding me of American Pie. I don't think there is another song that stirs my memory quite the same.
John Jun 12th 2009 6:47PM
Me too, but not in a good way. Darn earworms :)