Ever since it was reported that in 2.4.2, threat generated by Growl would no longer scale with pet attack power, Hunters have been trying to figure out what that means. Will it only scale with Hunter attack power? Is there any way to get Growl's threat up? Just what is the relationship between the threat generated by Growl and the stats listed on both Hunter and pet? The Mystic Hunter has been working to try and figure things out, but the stats he's found have actually been more confusing than clarifying -- he did a series of tests on the Live server and then on the Test server... and found them to be the same.
Say wha? Mystic found that threat is clearly scaling with Pet AP, and not with Ranged AP (he shot RAP way high using the Core of Ar'kelos and a few other gear pieces, and had no noticeable affect on threat generated by Growl).
So not so fast on that Growl change -- if it is going to be implemented in 2.4.2, it hasn't been put out there yet (which, considering that the 2.4.2 testing is supposed to be almost over, makes us think it won't happen this patch at all). Of course, if the fix doesn't come out, then the original problem is still there. These Growl issues are turning out to be a huge headache for both Hunters and Blizzard.
World of Warcraft is doing terrific lately, but if you believe the hype, there's trouble on the horizon, and it's coming in the form of two big MMOs: Age of Conan and Warhammer Online. Greg Howson of Britain's Guardian newspaper has a column online in which he examines WoW's grip on MMO gamers and the two big games it'll face this year.
We'll leave the cross-MMO predictions to our great sister site Massively, but for their part, Blizzard says they're looking forward to a little competition in the MMO pool. Howson has J. Allen Brack, WoW's lead producer, saying that they're looking forward to playing the new games as well. And it's true -- real competition in this space might actually be a welcome thing to fans of all MMO games. Blizzard is working hard now, but they might actually be working harder if they had a competitor breathing down their necks.
Unfortunately for those who want to see that happen, it's going to be super hard for anyone to get near Blizzard's neck, much less near their game. As Lord of the Rings Online producer Ed Relf says to Howson, WoW is pretty much the iPod of the MMO space. It could just be that what Blizzard has done here -- bring an MMO to the forefront of gaming culture for an extended period of time -- is a deed that just can't be replicated, no matter how much money you put into making a game.
Mania is quickly becoming the voice of choice for analysis on Hunter changes, and her latest take on the Growl changes recently released in the patch 2.4.2 notes is no exception. From what Mania can see, Growl's threat isn't scaling with Hunter Attack Power at all, but Blizzard claims it is, so she's chalking her findings in that direction up to faulty data. What she does determine, from both her research and Blizzard's posts on the subject, is that the change here has nothing to do with Hunter's RAP or AP values -- it only has to do with the pet's AP values. Before, if pet AP got a bonus, so did Growl's threat. After 2.4.2, any bonus to pet AP won't affect Growl's threat.
So Hunters who routinely get their pet buffed are probably going to feel this change a little bit (though in most situations where pets get group buffs, I'd imagine Growl would be turned off anyway, in order for the tank to control threat). And Hunters who use boars, of course -- as Daniel explained, that extra AP from Charge doesn't work for Growl any more. Mania doesn't stop there, however -- since we know now that the only thing affecting Growl is the Hunter's Attack Power, she's determined to figure out just how much AP can scale Growl up (she's guessing it starts at 1955, we'll see what she comes up with).
Of course, some players have found that this works pretty well -- especially MM Hunters, who generally have more attack power (thanks to talents which increase it), have no problems with drawing aggro away from their growling pets. Blizzard's reasoning on this may have been solid -- to make the abilities of the pet rely on Hunter stats, not any temporary pet buffs. Hunters with Boars won't get that nice burst any more, but Hunters with a high RAP will do just fine.
Adam did post this graph (made by Saiforune a.k.a. reader Ian over the weekend after I threw up a request on Friday) already, but considering how much info is in here, and how much work Ian put into it, I figured it deserved another look now that the contest is officially closed. So what we've got here is a standard bar graph, marking out how many people guessed which day that patch 2.4 would go to the live realms. The range of choices is pretty amazing -- the earliest people expected the patch to go up was today, March 3rd (sorry guys, I'm guessing you didn't win), and at least two people think we'll see the patch in the second half of the year (I doubt the patch will drop after October, but I guess we'll see).
As you might have guessed, Tuesdays got the most guesses (since that's usually when Blizzard updates the realms), and Tuesday, March 18th got the most guesses overall. Adam's predicted date of March 25th got the next most guesses, and strangely enough more people thought Blizzard would wait until the 8th of April rather than releasing it on April Fool's Day. Also, there are a lot of days missing between 4/1 and 4/8, so while we don't know exactly which date those 11 people in between guessed, odds are there are some days missing in that stretch that didn't get guessed, so if Blizzard decides to release the patch on a non-Tuesday (remember that the PTR went up on Friday night), we might have an interesting outcome.
My official guess was before Noblegarden (which starts on 3/23), so looks like I line right up with what most readers thought: we're all expecting the patch on 3/18. Now it's just time to wait and see when Blizzard decides the patch is ready. Thanks again to Ian for putting this together -- fascinating stuff.
Relmstein has an interesting post about Blizzard and all the "unintended consequences" they seem to run into. He talks mainly about Alterac Valley and Blizzard's recent AFKer battles, as well as the fight against smurfing and selling Arena ratings. Both times, Blizzard implemented fixes that were meant to, well, fix things, but both times, the "fixes" were either completely dodged, or simply lead to more problems.
Now, Relmstein is just thinking critically about Blizzard's actions, and we always encourage that. But at the same time, you can't really blame them for having unintended consequences to their ingame actions-- the law says everyone does. And to go the other way, the mere fact that Blizzard is confronting this stuff (honor exploits and rating sales) while other games are just trying to get PvP or a good Arena system down says that they're way ahead of the game already. They're dealing with specific problems in implementation, while other developers are still just trying to get people to play.
But at the same time, Relmstein is exactly right to call both of these examples Blizzard attacking the symptoms rather than the underlying problem. Why do people sell Arena ratings or AFK in Alterac Valley? Because Blizzard's honor rewards system makes it easier for them to do that rather than actually be good at PvP. If Blizzard attacked the problem (a mixed-up rewards system) rather than the symptoms (AFKers and smurfs), then there would be no dodging their fixes.
And the answer-- in my analysis-- is, as usual with most mergers: money. The fact is that Activision wants to be the biggest gaming company in the world. They want it all-- consoles, PC games, you name it-- and connecting with Blizzard helps them get a big part of that. World of Warcraft has turned Blizzard from a quality game designer into a videogame powerhouse, and Activision, in reaching for the top, has invited Blizzard on their team.
Blizzard will profit from it as well-- Activision knows how to get games published and marketed (just look at Guitar Hero III, which has done incredibly well for being a game that was not only not made by the original developer, but actually released up against a strong competitormade by the original developer). Blizzard knows how to make great games, and Activision knows how to release them, so both companies obviously think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
Warcry has a super interesting reading of the XP leveling changes that Blizzard is making in 2.3. Their style is a little more, err, informal than ours, but they're right-- Blizzard is basically stealing XP from you in the next patch. Vaneras confirmed the other day that players who have a certain percentage of XP before the patch will keep that same percentage of XP, but not the same amount of XP. So, if, for example, you're halfway through level 59 when the patch hits, you'll lose about 600,000 XP that you've already earned.
But before you get all angry about Blizzard wasting all that time you spent leveling, realize that things will likely even out in the end. Even though you'll lose 600,000 XP from the amount you have, you'll still be halfway through level 59, and you won't need as much XP as you did before to level to 60. So you haven't really "lost" anything, because even though Blizzard has "taken away" some XP, you didn't need what they took anyway.
As we've said before, these leveling improvements are going to be great news, not only for altaholics who are leveling up their third or fourth character by now, but also for guilds eager to see some new 70s to bring into the raiding mix. Folks who are leveling both before and after patch 2.3 are going to experience some strange math, but that happens all the time anyway (did you know that all the stuff you're killing at level 70 now doesn't count towards the experience you'll need to earn in the next expansion?). Blizzard is tweaking the numbers, but the experience will still be faster.
Basically, to gain a loyalty level, your pet needs to, no matter what, gain at least 5% of the XP you, the Hunter, needs for your next level. This is required even if your pet is your level (which means they aren't actually gaining the XP). But there's also a time component on every loyalty level past Unruly. For example, to get to level 4 from level 5, you not only need the experience gain, but an hour must pass. This, as Mania says, is why sometimes your pet will ding loyalty while you're standing around in town-- you've gained the experience, but the time has to pass as well.
She's not done yet-- she needs (or someone with some time on their hands could do it as well-- Mania's going through a move lately) to check out if the experience stays the same all the way to 70, or if it increases at the higher levels. She also didn't try this keeping the pet anything other than happy, so the numbers may change if the pet isn't at full happiness. And she didn't explore, at all, what happens when the pet loses loyalty-- if your pet has dropped a level of loyalty, it may be a completely different formula to regain it.
But great work so far, and this is more than enough to give any Hunter a clear idea of how loyalty works in most cases.
Foxx asks over on Livejournal about the oldest question a budding Rogue can face: sword or dagger? As our great Rogue column Encrypted Text says, Rogue specs are designed more around weapons than roles-- the basest decision you make as a Rogue is to use daggers or swords.
To my mind, there's no question: it's got to be daggers. I'm a longtime D&D player, and Rogues are supposed to Backstab, and Ambush, and sneak around and get in positions to do huge amounts of damage. A poisoned dagger is a Rogue's specialty, and that's what he's got to be wielding.
On the other hand, some Rogues can't handle the pressure of stealth-- they equip swords and go in swinging for the fences. Don't get me wrong-- there is a lot of good in a sword spec. Combat is basically the best solo spec you'll find, and Blade Flurry is pretty much a Rogue's only weapon against multiple opponents.
But even though it actually makes soloing harder, to me, a Rogue's just not a Rogue without a dagger in the main hand. You sword Rogues can disagree (and I know you will-- a sword-loving guildie of mine has argued this with me many times), but if you're not interested in sneaking around behind your target, and burying that toxic dagger in his back, maybe you should have rolled a fury Warrior.
Draele just started a blog about being a Warlock called Rantings of the Afflicted, and today he's got a post up about that most heinous of Warlock abilites: yes, none other than fear. A touchy subject (to say the least), but he offers three different suggestions on how to make fear fun for everyone.
At its base, fear is actually Blizzard's way of trying to come up with another game mechanic. If you're a veteran MMORPG player, you know there are three archetype classes-- healer, DPS, and tank. All three of them are centered around damage-- either getting rid of it, doing it, or tanking it. Fear, however, plays with none of those rules-- it's a complete damage negator. The reason Warlocks have fear is so they can wear cloth and yet stay alive for a long time against one target-- long enough for their DoTs to come in.
The problem with fear, however, as even the developers have admitted, is that it's not fun for the person being feared-- getting feared leaves you with almost no option but to sit there and do nothing. It removes control from your character, and that's never fun.
It might not be something any of us are countenancing, but people do stop playing WoW. There are many reasons
to quit--lack of time, money, enthusiasm. However, as with any MMO, the words "Game Over" never flash on your
screen--how do you know when it's time to stop?
We each have different goals when we play WoW. I play because
I enjoy the social side of things, and my ultimate goal (if I had all the time in the world) would be to play every
class to level 60, visiting every area and dungeon, finishing every quest line. I love the depth of WoW, and I like
seeing the tricks that other classes can pull off to surprise me; I want to learn them all. I'm not in this game for
epics, but I know many of you are. If I achieve that goal, I may stop playing, or I may have found another along the
way.
What's your core goal in the game? Have you left WoW and returned, or has it always had a place in your
life?
Ever since it was reported that in 2.4.2, threat generated by Growl would no longer scale with pet attack power, Hunters have been trying to figure out what that means. Will it only scale with Hunter attack power? Is there any way to get Growl's threat up? Just what is the relationship between the threat generated by Growl and the stats listed on both Hunter and pet? The Mystic Hunter has been working to try and figure things out, but the stats he's found have actually been more confusing than clarifying -- he did a series of tests on the Live server and then on the Test server... and found them to be the same.
World of Warcraft is doing terrific lately, but if you believe the hype, there's trouble on the horizon, and it's coming in the form of two big MMOs: 
Mania is quickly becoming the voice of choice for analysis on Hunter changes, 
Relmstein has an interesting post
So now that 
Warcry has 
Foxx asks over on Livejournal about the oldest question a budding Rogue can face: 
Draele just started a blog about being a Warlock called 
It might not be something any of us are countenancing, but people do stop playing WoW. There are many reasons
to quit--lack of time, money, enthusiasm. However, as with any MMO, the words "Game Over" never flash on your
screen--how do you know when it's time to stop?
Subscribe
