Joystiq

© 2014 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads | Advertise With Us

Joystiq

© 2014 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads | Advertise With Us

## Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

8-16-2009 @ 12:06PM## Saelorn said...

If the mana cost increases by 130% then wouldn't the mana cost of the second blast be 527? As in, the base cost (100%) plus 130%, for a total of 230% of the base cost (rather than the current 300% of the base cost)? Or does my math fail?

Reply

8-16-2009 @ 3:18PM## John Z said...

I too am very pleased with the changes. I just hope they are still there when the patch goes live.

8-16-2009 @ 12:25PM## Mushuwushu said...

I think it when it says 130% it really means just increasing the mana cost by 30%. If it wasn't then the old spell, like you said, would technically be 3 times mana each time and after 3 stacks each arcane blast would cost 6k mana lol.

8-16-2009 @ 12:31PM## danny said...

You are correct his math was wrong the cost of arcane blast will on the fourth stack be 1418.

8-16-2009 @ 12:37PM## Mushuwushu said...

Actually, after reading something on mmo-champion, I think the math is wrong too. Since it says base mana, increasing the base mana by 130% and not 30% sounds right. Ehh :/

8-16-2009 @ 12:51PM## placebo said...

Increasing something by 130% is the same as multiplying something by 1.3 just like increasing something by 200% is just like multiplying by 2.

Old: 229 (*2) = 458 (*2) = 916 (*2) = 1832

New: 229 (*1.3) = 297.7 (*1.3) = 387.01 (*1.3) = 503.113 (*1.3) = 654.0469

8-16-2009 @ 1:12PM## danny said...

increasing something by 130% is not the same as multiplying by 1.3. if the value of a number was being changed to 130% of the original number then u would be correct but that is not whats happening here.

8-16-2009 @ 1:16PM## placebo said...

"increasing something by 130% is not the same as multiplying by 1.3."

Yes, yes it is.

"if the value of a number was being changed to 130% of the original number then u would be correct but that is not whats happening here."

If the value of the number is not being changed to 130% then what is happening here?

8-16-2009 @ 1:28PM## danny said...

actually as it is now with 200% mana cost increase after 1 stack the mana cost is 663 and the base mana cost is 221. the way u are doing this is if u were to increase the mana cost of 221 by 200% u would say 221*2 = 442. that is incorrect u are adding 200% of the mana cost to 221 so 442+221 = 663. the same thing applies to 130%.

8-16-2009 @ 1:32PM## placebo said...

From a post later in this thead: (To correct my other post on the math above)

"Per the testing on EJ, the mana costs of AB are:

Base: 215

1 Stack: 494

2 Stacks: 774

3 Stacks: 1053

4 Stacks: 1333"

Looks like the way the tooltip is worded is sketchy.

So 215 Original *1.3 = 279

279 + 215 = 494

279 + 494 = 774

Etc.

After rereading the tooltip while making this post it makes a little more sense:

Cast 1: Original cost.

Cast 2: Original cost + 130% of Original Cost.

Cast 3: Original cost + 130% of Original Cost + 130% of Original cost.

Cast etc: Etc Etc.

8-16-2009 @ 1:37PM## Zeplar said...

Alright peeps trying to do math here... let's use our brains for a moment...

Increasing by 130% and increasing to 130% are completely different. The first is x2.3 and the second is x1.3.

8-16-2009 @ 1:38PM## danny said...

Base: 215

1 Stack: 494

2 Stacks: 774

3 Stacks: 1053

4 Stacks: 1333"

this is correct

the 1418 for the fourth stack. i got that number because the base mana cost i was using in the math was 229 and not 215 but yes if 215 is actually the base mana cost then 1333 is the correct number

8-16-2009 @ 1:52PM## Hansbo said...

My god, leave math unsupervised on the internet and everything goes wrong. You guys downrated the wrong person!

It has been said before, but since the "opinions" seems to still be in argument, I'll just say:

Increasing BY 130%: multiply by 2.3

Increasing TO 130%: multiply by 1.3

if you increase something by 100%, you double it.

8-16-2009 @ 2:33PM## themightysven said...

this is why mages have to stack so much Intellect

8-16-2009 @ 9:40PM## LilBanshee said...

Right now, live, my arcane mage pays 221 for zero-stack arcane blast. I'm looking at it right now, and that's the price. This number is, of course, after taking into account arcane focus which reduces the mana cost by 3%.

I understand where the number 229 came from, that is the number you would start with in order to get 221 afer removing 3% of the mana cost. I'm not going to reset my talents to verify it, but it looks close enough to accept as accurate (its a smidge off of a perfect 3%, but its close enough that I doubt someone would wildly guess and land so close to the mark).

What I don't understand is where the number 215 came from? Is that actual information from the test realm or just B.S.? If it's legit, then it's an undocumented reduction in the mana cost that makes us even MORE mana efficient. Someone get on the PTR and check, I'm too lazy.

For any possible base cost n of arcane blast, the 3.2.2 stacked costs would be n*2.3, n*3.6, n*4.9, n*6.2, so....

If the base cost is 229, the stacked costs will be: 527, 824, 1122, 1420

If the base cost is 221, the stacked costs will be: 508, 796, 1083, 1370

If the base cost is 215, the stacked costs will be: 495, 774, 1054, 1333