Oct 8th 2009 7:23PM Hmm lets see, as a mage I would probably bind 5 to ice block.
Oct 6th 2009 1:17PM This is kind of unrelated to the whole point of the article. But the whole "That said", "That being said", "Having said that" etc. thing seems a bit overused. This is especially true among many writers in the WoW community. -->That being said
Sep 3rd 2009 2:15PM And that itself makes it all the more cooler.
Aug 16th 2009 1:37PM 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
Aug 16th 2009 1:28PM 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%.
Aug 16th 2009 1:11PM 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.
Aug 16th 2009 12:30PM You are correct his math was wrong the cost of arcane blast will on the fourth stack be 1418.