Skip to Content

WoW Insider has the latest on the Mists of Pandaria!
  • fuleng
  • Member Since Feb 24th, 2009

Are you fuleng? If So, Login Here.

WoW14 Comments

Recent Comments:

Patch 3.3.3 PTR: Priest healing tier 10 4-piece bonus changed {WoW}

Mar 3rd 2010 11:28AM So you're saying that disc priests who want to bubble-spam have no viable gear choices? This confuses me a little; do you mean there are no set bonus for bubble-spamming? While this is technically true since tier 8, the 2p9 PoM bonus is quite valuable if you're in PW:S spam mode. More generally, though, PW:S is dependent only on SP, and has been granted an extremely generous coefficient because it doesn't get anything from haste and almost nothing from crit. So, bubble-priests have the largest selection of viable gear choices - just look at the ilvl. Mana is almost unlimited, and all your gear has SP, so relax, if you want to put your raid in bubbles, pretty much any gear will do. Pick up some of that tank healer disc priest stuff, so you can do both...

Chill of the Throne: Dodge nerfed 20% in Icecrown Citadel {WoW}

Oct 29th 2009 4:12PM Ok, you're misunderstanding this.

You are correct that the Warrior/Pally pays a smaller DR penalty - but this is true with or without the 20% dodge penalty. In either case, the Warrior/Pally would be paying DR at 35% or 15%, and you're paying it at 50%. Subtracting -20% dodge after DR doesn't change that. Put another way, if it were advantageous for the Warrior/Pally to switch some dodge to parry with Icecrown Radiance, it would also be advantageous without Icecrown Radiance.

The only way a Warrior or Pally could game the system would be if he could reduce his dodge below 20% by taking Parry instead. This is vaguely possible in ToTC gear, but with the higher DR on Parry, it's unlikely that you'd break even, never mind get a strong advantage.

NPD: World of Warcraft has sold 8.6 million boxes at retail {WoW}

Jul 30th 2009 3:39PM I bought one WoW box, and used it to start up accounts for myself, my wife, and then passed it off to a friend. The first account's start-up fees were paid at retail, the second two (and maybe more, who knows) were paid online. This is probably fairly common.

NPD: World of Warcraft has sold 8.6 million boxes at retail {WoW}

Jul 30th 2009 3:35PM @Firestyle

The reality of the situation is a lot more complicated than you're making out - Blizzard didn't lose $107M because they are suddenly unprofitable - there's a lot going on on this balance sheet, and on the face of it, a lot of it really doesn't make much sense without additional information.

For example, Blizzard made a net income of $227M on total revenue of $1,349M in 2007. In 2008, they lost $107M on total revenue of $3,026M.

In other words, between 2007 and 2008, their total revenue went up by almost $2B, but so did their costs. It's hard to figure out exactly why - they do list an almost $200M increase in product development costs, but the vast majority of the increase in costs are in Cost of Sales - Product Costs - almost a $1B increase. Cost of Sales (or Cost of Goods Sold) is a standard accounting term, ideally the total costs directly attributed to sales of the product. How you break this apart from product development when you sell software is a little unclear, but it seems like Blizzard spent an extra $1B on boxes, CDs, bandwidth, labor, support, etc. mostly on the Wrath roll out, and made $2B more in revenue because of it. Not a bad rate of return.

Rather than show a yearly profit of around $1.2B, they seem to have plowed the money back into the company, not surprising since they have two big products on the horizon. Some of the expenses are a little puzzling - $200M for IP licenses versus $9M the year before. IP licenses for what? $292M more for marketing is understandable, but a sudden jump of $100M for restructuring costs? It's hard to figure out what's really going on without an insider view of the company, but it hardly appears that they've suddenly become unprofitable, either as a whole or just considering WoW.

TurpsterVision: Multiboxing, Recruit a Friend Style {WoW}

Jul 15th 2009 12:14PM Depends how nuts you are. Most multiboxers have no end game expectations and will switch to solo'ing once they get their toons to 80, but I think every 5-man instance has been successfully run by a 5-boxer.

Past that, as far as true end-game is concerned, some MB'ers take multiple toons on raids if their guild is okay with that. Some MB'ers will team up for a 10 or 25, for example two five-boxers will run a 10 man.

And then there are the people that are truly insane. Most of Naxx10 has been run by 10-boxers, and portions of Uld10 as well. Yes, including Flame Leviathan.

The Care and Feeding of Warriors: Small changes {WoW}

Jul 2nd 2009 3:14PM Please forgive my complete ignorance on the subject of rage - I've never run a warrior or druid before.

But couldn't you use a pre-combat Rage Potion before difficult AOE pulls?

Patch 3.2 PTR data file class changes {WoW}

Jun 23rd 2009 6:01PM The reason for the change to Art of War is a little non-obvious...

Someone pointed out on the forums that you could use a macro like this:

/cast Exorcism

and just hammer it and it would either cast Exorcism if Art of War was available or do nothing and not interrupt your swing timer. GC responded by saying that they planned to make some kind of change to avoid this, and the fix seems to be to make Art of War reduce the casting time of Exorcism but not make it instant so the macro never does anything. This is consistent with GC's reasoning for giving Exorcism a short cast time in the first place - to give Pallys the additional ranged option, but not greater mobility.

BobTurkey updates Priest theorycraft {WoW}

May 5th 2009 4:23PM His disc numbers have been taking a lot of heat, but I'll second his analysis. The key to understanding where he's coming from is that all healers have to balance essentially two sets of rankings, one for throughput, one for regen. Putting them together in one set of numbers is tricky, because there is no apples-to-apples comparison of throughput vs regen.

The magic constant that binds this together is his spellpower rating; in his analysis, he mentions that the rating of spellpower vs mp5 is empirical, and there is no math behind it. It's a personal decision.

I've been running a similar set of lootrank numbers for some time, but with 0.9 sp = 1 mp5. In Uld25, with the Soul Warding nerf, I've backed it down a little to 0.75 sp = 1 mp5. His rating 0f 0.6 sp = 1 mp5 isn't wrong, per se, it just values regen higher than I would, and for some encounters/specs/gear/playstyle combinations, that might be reasonable. Personally, I advocate gearing for hard throughput, and then backing in some regen if mana is an issue. I think his numbers are a good place to start, but there is no magic set of numbers that you can blindly follow and not think about.

WoW Patch 3.1 PTR Build 9626 Patch Notes Changes {WoW}

Feb 26th 2009 11:13AM Anyone notice the new tooltip on Renewed Hope in the priest discipline tree?

"Increases the critical effect chance of your Flash Heal, Greater Heal and Penance spells by (2%/4%) on targets afflicted by the Weakened Soul debuff, and you have a (50%/100%) chance to reduce all damage taken by 3% for 20 sec to all friendly part and raid targets when you Power World: Shield a friendly target"

... wow. I guess the Grace nerf isn't really a nerf if we get the mitigation for free raid-wide now!

WoW Patch 3.1 PTR Holy and Disc Priest changes {WoW}

Feb 25th 2009 11:34AM I don't think disc priests will want to regear towards spirit; the mana regen changes should basically be a wash for us. The oo5sr rule mana formula has been lowered, and the i5sr regen has been boosted by about the same amount through Meditiation - the goal was to have the net i5sr rule mana regen remain about the same. Since the spirit does the same net amount of work, if mp5 is better for spirit for you now, it should also be in 3.1. The only way the new formula will result in lower mana regen is if you spend large amounts of combat oo5sr, and disc priests definitely don't do that.