Wikia

WoWWiki

Bfx

1,613 Edits since joining this wiki
October 27, 2006
(Redirected from User talk:WoWWiki-Bfx) | User:Bfx

Casting animations and animations from WoW overall is a very interesting idea :) Good luck with it! --Tinkerer 12:46, 28 October 2006 (EDT)

Thanks! :) --bfx 18:54, 28 October 2006 (EDT)

Orphans :(Edit

While your pages are, in my opinion, quite informative and gets me to wonder why they weren't on this wiki yet sometimes, I'd like to remind you to watch out not to create so called orphan pages. If nothing (except your own user page) links there, not many people will be able to find it and get the information out of it. Thus, you might want to create some links to your pages in existing articles. Also check out Special:Whatlinkshere/(your pagename here). --Tinkerer 04:45, 29 October 2006 (EST)

Thanks a lot! I'm working on linking it appropriately. --bfx 05:04, 29 October 2006 (EST)

You don't know how much of a relief people like you are after endless single-purpose accounts which just upload themselves and their guild :P --Tinkerer 05:07, 29 October 2006 (EST)
 :) --bfx 05:09, 29 October 2006 (EST)


Again, welcome!   --Fandyllic (talk) 8:02 AM PST 7 Nov 2006

Buffs Edit

Is there a particular reason you're removing all of the buff templates (which flag those articles to the correct buff categories) I've added to the priest spells? Spent a decent amount of time adding those, kind of curious why you're undoing that. --Tusva 16:25, 9 November 2006 (EST)

Most of the pages you've been changing already had all of the information in the text, and having them twice is redundant. Furthermore I don't see any sense in putting the (de)buffs as graphical boxes onto the site. --bfx 16:36, 9 November 2006 (EST)
The idea is to list the actual buff/de-buff as it appears in-game along with the spell, as it would be silly to make an entirely separate page for it, despite the fact that they are two separate objects (the spell and then the buff/debuff it creates). It isn't intended to reiterate the actual spell information, just to list the buff description (along with buff/debuff type for dispel information) as it appears in-game. Also, sometimes the spell has either a different buff or multiple buffs/debuffs. Further, the template automatically tags those spells to be in the appropriate buff/debuff category for easier organization. I understand if you think it's redundant or don't agree with it, but normally it's appreciated to bring it up first before removing all that work.--Tusva 16:51, 9 November 2006 (EST)
Did you think about asking anyone first? Just reverting someone's hard work it not fair to them. I see no reason for the removal of the summary boxes, they look quite useful to me. Why is redundancy bad, anyway? Edit: I notice you also flagged those edits as minor, which they most certainly weren't -- Kirkburn (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2006 (EST)
I'm sorry for ruthlessly deleting them. Isn't there any other way to categorize those spells? I dislike it for the fact that these boxes don't have any other beneficial effect. The text could simply be added into the plain text. If the final decision is to add them, I will do that of course. Edit: Why isn't every spell rank listed with all the according information then? I don't see any positives besides categorization, which of course is very helpful. Redundancy in my opinion is bad, when the exact same information is repeatedly listed on one page. --bfx 17:01, 9 November 2006 (EST)
The thing is though, the same information isn't being implemented... the actual in-game text of the buff/debuff that results from the spell is being added. The buff/debuff type and organization are just excellent side effects. The intent isn't to just throw up what's already listed, rather, display the buff/debuff effect of the spell. --Tusva 19:04, 9 November 2006 (EST)
I'm not perfectly sure whether you want the information or the visual. Regarding the basic information, some pages already had the (de)buff effect description listed right beneath the spell description, and my intention was to have this layout for all spell pages. If you aim for the graphics, I personally don't see why (de)buff visuals in particular are more "valueable" than other visuals. --bfx 19:14, 9 November 2006 (EST)
It's a combination of the two. It helps connect what players see in-game with the buff/debuffs (just like we recreate the tooltips for items). Not really an issue of it being more "valuable" or not, it takes up very little real estate for a decent amount of gain, and isn't overriding or obscuring any other information. --Tusva 19:21, 9 November 2006 (EST)
Okay, I suppose I understand your point now. I'll undo the changes and stick to your method now. I apologize for causing trouble. --bfx 19:25, 9 November 2006 (EST)

The Lightning Capacitor Edit

Hey bfx, i've seen that you're after my reworked article about The Lightning Capacitor so i thought you could give me a hint with the Mathcraft. I have been testing a lot with the trinket (quite easy as a scorch mage) and my calculated values are quite close to the practical values although i know that there is a fundamental error in my calculations: ((X + Z)/2) + (X + Z)/2*1.5*crit(n))*hit(n) = Bolt(d) is incorrect, it should be ((X + Z)/2*(1-crit(n)) + (X + Z)/2*1.5*crit(n))*hit(n). The same goes for the Scorch(dps) calculations and the following ones, but using them produce way too low numbers, am I doing a theoretical mistake or am i expecting too high results? --Kamikaze28 15:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't done any mathcrafting with TLC so far, and I also do not have any practical experience; but looking at the plain numbers, your second formula seems to be perfectly correct. I suppose you are just expecting too much. :) I normally use the following formula, which leads to the same results, but is, IMHO, easier to calculate: ((X + Z)/2) * (1+crit(n)*0.5) * hit(n). --bfx 05:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
My formula is definately not correct. For my Bolt(d) calculation, my result is 1022.25 and yours 810.75. My crits are considered twice, somehow. I will rewrite the complete calculations with your formula, because it is plain right, but still 810.75 is around 100 lower than my experimental average bolt damage, even though i only have a crit(n) = 0.27 ... might also be the 0.94 hit(n) ... nevertheless, thanks for your rewritings and the nice, reformed formula ;-) --Kamikaze28 06:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Your first isn't correct, but I'm pretty sure your second is (I get the same results as with my formula). Hmm... seems odd that you don't get the expected results... --bfx 08:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yay, my second one was alright and is identical with your one (although i can't figure out how to transform them into each other, but well, thats not the hard point). I have found my mistakes that caused the differences, first i haven't thought about what i wrote in the additional notes, especially the thing about affecting talents and buffs/debuffs and second, i have made one little bracket error that caused the Bolt(d) to be wrong. (Scorch DPS around 600 was the point where it really strucked me, but i left out many talents that bumped it really up for simplicity and just because, every class and spec has to make its own calculations). To your - and my - convinience: I have checked all formulas with my own character values with all talents and various situations (yay i even thought about a best-case raid-environment with moonkins and elemental shammys) and came up with quite nice values. In the best case scenario, TLC got around its 80 dps and my scorch dps went from 796 up to 1012, so quite acceptable values. Job done :) --Kamikaze28 14:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Fine work, indeed. I'm glad you've finally solved the mystery; thanks for all the info. I hope to get this trinket at some time, it would be a great tool to play with. I have one question left: is its Lightning Bolt capable of proccing other trinkets/effects, such as Quagmirran's Eye? Or even Blade of Eternal Darkness (although I really doubt you have it)? --bfx 05:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Youre an affli-lock/shadow priest? Unfortunately TLC is really not that useful for those classes (except the illhoof fight itself, when you spam SoC with your lock, which might proc TLC like hell), unless you've got abnormous amounts of +crit gear, but oh well the harder part is to have it drop from illhoof... one of our mages is longing for it for - let me guess - 4 - 6 weeks maybe? and he still haven't got it... to your question: The only thing i have, which could proc is Shiffar's Nexus-Horn. The fact that this baby only procs off crits (with 15% i think) and that it has an internal 45 sec cd makes it really hard to figure that out, just because you need 3 crits to get a bolt, then maybe 3 - 4 bolts to get a critical bolt and until then, the horn may already have procced and is on internal cd ... but it would be nice to know. Though i have already heard, that the Lightning Bolt can't proc a shamans Lightning Overload, but a LO's crits yields a charge :) confusing mechanics. Maybe i will try to test it out with Dr. Boom - he's become my best friend for testing all that painful stuff ... at least painful for him. At least the article is accurate and understandable now ... if you want to laugh a bit, check out wowhead, thottbot and co. and read the comments of 14 year old wannabe-theory-crafter, who do not even have the trinket :P that really made my day. BTW: Grüße aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum ;-) besuch mich mal (Anducar, 70 Human Mage, EU-Theradras) --Kamikaze28 07:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm less interested in real damage increase, rather than theorycrafting with mechanics. I'd like to test it with SoC, Holy Nova, Arcane Explosion, Chain Lightning and so on (I have an Elemental Shaman, a Holy Priest and an Arcane Mage on the way to 70). Furthermore, I'd like to find out whether spell procs (like Blade of Eternal Darkness' one) can proc each other, resulting in possible chain reactions; from what I know, it should be possible. Unfortunately, there aren't many in-game yet, but I'm sure some more will be added. If you are able to find out whether Shiffar's Nexus-Horn procs off it, please let me know. I have never thought about Dr. Boom, thank you. Regarding the comments--I've already read them, they're really funny. Und noch lustiger ist, jemanden von Theradras zu sehen. :) --bfx 07:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Ja, die World of Warcraft is schon klein :) Some things i can assume / i already heard about your questions: SoC: I once played a friends WL in Kara and saw how that spell works; it can crit and thus will proc just like the initial effect of flamestrike, and it can multi-proc, of course. Holy Nova: works just like Arcane Explosion, thus multiproccing and really freakin special effect firework (piew piew!!). Arcane Explosion: See above, its really f*cking crazy in the Illhoof encounter itself, because of missing warlocks, we've come to kill illhoof with me bombing the imps ... AE downranked to Rank 3 and critting a lot is really awesome (PIEW PIEW PIEW!!!!). Chain Lightning: I'm way off a shaman, but still i have heard that every crit a CL produces yields a bolt, thus a CL with Elemental Focus (or whatever that 0% manacost 100% crit talent is called) will fire a bolt, because it crits 3 times. The proc thing is still under testing, under raid circumstances it is a) nearly impossible, that a bolt flies out of the 45s cd of the horn, critting and proccing it b) nearly impossible to notice it, because i have almost always something critting something :P but i'm after it, maybe on the weekend or so ... dunno. Still the proc itself is really odd, regarding the talents in some way, it is a spell, regarding other things like LoS, silence, stuns, it can's be a spell, but it is treated like a spell in points like resist/hit and is affected by debuffs as it was a spell. I'm still waiting for my first raid 1900 lightning bolt :P and yeah, thats possible. you could add me in ICQ if you want to crunch numbers a bit and so on :P 121530804 --Kamikaze28 07:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, i really did it, I charged TLC to 2, waited for the Nexus horn internal CD to run out (if it triggered within the 2 crits) and then critted and looked what happened. I witnessed 10 critical Lightning Bolts without proccing the horn, therefore i am (1-0.8^10)*100 = 89.26% sure, that TLC procs can not trigger any other procs. (The Horn has a 20% chance to proc on crits). Sry bfx no really amazing chain reactions. But it's still really odd, because in some ways it is counted as a spell/spell damage and in some case it is not. For example, the bolt is not really a cast, it looks like an instant, but it can proc even though you are stunned, which would make an instant cast spell impossible. Funny trinket ... but still it rocks :P --Kamikaze28 07:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much! It really helps me with my work, and perhaps I have found another part of the puzzle. I did some tests with other effects and got some strange results:
1. Shadow Oil -- this one procs a real Shadow Bolt Rank 3. It behaves much like expected, but not completely. Whereas it triggers Aftermath and on-spell-hit-procs ([Mark of Defiance]) and it benefits from spell damage just like the normal SB does, it does not trigger Improved Shadow Bolt. Because of that and your tests, I believe spell crits from procs are slightly bugged. Unfortunately, I didn't have Ruin, hence I still need to do some tests with it.
2. Satyr's Lash's Shadow Bolt -- this one is not a warlocky Shadow Bolt; instead, it is just a plain new spell with the same name. As such, it does not benefit from any Shadow Bolt related talents (apart from Shadow damage increasing talents). However, it can still trigger on-spell-hit-procs (once again the question: is it also capable of triggering on-spell-crit-procs).
If TLC does NOT trigger Mark of Defiance, I'm pretty sure TLC's proc is bugged; however, if it does (and I'm pretty sure it does), there probably is a bug with on-spell-crit-procs.
Btw: TLC's Lightning Bolt is similar to Lightning Shield's charges. They are considered spells, but they ignore LoS, can be triggered when stunned/incapacited/etc., have almost unlimited range, etc. Its information on thottbot suggests that it should trigger on-spell-hit procs (much like Lightning Shield also does).
Currently I'm doing some tests with [Quagmirran's Eye], [Mystical Skyfire Diamond] and [Sextant of Unstable Currents] on the PTR.
Regarding ICQ: I haven't used that for quite a long time, but perhaps I will reactivate it. I'll add you asap. --bfx 05:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice and extensive work you're doing. Unfortunately i can't call [Quagmirran's Eye] my own (as a scorch mage it is rather unuseful and thus i didn't have much motivation to get it, and now if i run SP Heroic for it, our deep fire mage who's longing for it almost always comes with so ... gnargh, but i really wanna do testing with it), and i do not have any other things that proc on spell hit. But your thesis is quite interesting regarding on-spell-hit-procs and on-spell-crit-procs as different triggers. If you don't wanna use ICQ i can also offer AIM or MSN (Windows Live) as an IM :P Trillian für den Sieg! I am also concerned about the "Arcane Power influents TLC procs" ... i think it doesn't, because AP reads "When activated, YOUR spells deal 30% more damage …", i think that excludes TLC Bolts, because it is not considered as a spell of mine. Gosh, i really need some on-spell-hit-gadget to play around with... and mark of defiance is a poo, whoever needs that -.- and i am not going to get the 30 marks for just testing, pf. Oh, one other thing, i asked a GM by the way about TLC procs and how the mechanics works ... the smashing and disappointing answer was "Find it out yourself, isn't that much more motivating than just getting the answer from us?" ... but I will interview another GM about why TLC bolts can't proc the horn. Another thing: in the forums, many (preferably mages) are arguing that in later content TLC loses it's power because the percentual damage gain is decreasing as your own spells damage is increasing; still i am convinced, that the 60-80 dps gain from TLC is unbeatable even by trinkets from Hykal/BT, how's your opinion about it? ... man i really need you in IM to MathCratf with :D --Kamikaze28 08:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just done some more tests. The results are pretty weird. Satyr's Lash's Shadow Bolt can trigger Surge of Light (even though it takes ages to make that happen; it crits extremely rarely, and even if it does, it has only a 50% chance to trigger SoL, which sometimes seems to be a 5% proc chance :)). Enchantment spells, such as [Bloodboil Poison]'s poison hit and [Shadow Oil]'s Shadow Bolt, cannot, however. Still, every single proc is able to trigger Mark of Defiance. This makes the whole situation even more confusing. I more than ever suppose that Shadow Oil crits are not real crits (as it can proc neither SoL nor Imp. SB). But then again, why can't TLC? It's odd. Luckily I bought Mark of Defiance for my Priest some time ago (I regularly PvP, so I didn't have to work much for it). Another strange thing: Mystical Skyfire Diamond's Focus effect (halves cast time) can proc off ANY arcane missile (hence, in between a cast, not only at the start, such as Arcane Concentration does), but off neither Molten Armor's hits nor Blizzard's hits.
Unfortunately, I do not have any instant messenger. ICQ is the only one I ever used. I suppose I will re-install it... soon :) --bfx 09:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Digging deep into wowhead/allakhazams database at some point leads to the term "server side script" (at least with TLC), which - in my mind - leads to the conclusion, that every trinkets proc is scriptet for it's own, there is no basic mechanic underneath it all. Thats the only thing that could explain this really unlogical behaviour. Still i wanna test TLC out with Quagmirrans Eye ... the Mystical Skyfire thingy only works this way on the PTRs and i doupt it will make it to the live version, because that baby bumps up the Arcane Mages DPS like hell, because right now AM does not consume the effect and while it lasts 10 secs you get 4 (!) complete salves of AM of which every only takes 2.5 sec ... and it will likely reprocc the diamond ... so, most probably a PTR bug. To the ICQ thing: If you dropped ICQ because of the Xtra-fancy-god-knows-what-all crap client, choose an alternative, there are lots of free IM clients that understand multiple protocols that may not be that feature rich, but really more usable than this abomination called ICQ 6 - in general ICQ became spoiled after AOL bought Mirabillis ... really pity because up till then, ICQ was great. Soon i will switch to mac, i will use Adium X and i will have no more of such problems ;-) if you are looking for alternative clients check the german wikipedia, there is a nice list with feature-comparison, download links and further informations.
BTT: if the proc behaviour is server determined it is out of testability and schematic, we can only find out what can proc what else, but we will never understand the big "Why?". For your and my sleeping comfort i will buy the mark of defiance and try to proc it with TLC ... bets are still accepted if it works :P I also think this odd behaviour is a byproduct of the fact that these on spell hit-effects are relatively new with BC ... correct me if i'm wrong, but before BC there ware no items that could do something on spell hit, right? so they stomped out this system out of nothing and didn't think it out thoroughly, just flicking single parts together. i seek you :P --Kamikaze28 11:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You're probably right that there is no mechanic underneath. But that's what I'm trying to find out. If there is one, I want to know it. :) The Focus effect of the Diamond is really OP on the PTR. 2.5 sec AM are incredibly powerful, especially because they have quite a high chance of proccing another Focus effect. It's simply amazing to get 3 fast-cast AMs in a row. And on-spell-hit-procs indeed seem to have been introduced with TBC, even though I'm not completely sure whether [Blade of Eternal Darkness] existed before 2.0.
Btw: I was able to get a Satyr's Lash Shadow Bolt and a Shadow Oil Shadow Bolt simultaneously, with one proccing Mark of Defiance. My next goal is to find out if both could proc one each.
You're actually right about ICQ: I stopped using it when I found out that I got the "Pro7-Edition" from the official website. I'll probably stick to an alternative client. --bfx 13:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
For the ICQ client of your choice look at this Wikipedia Article
I'm still working on getting some nice on-spell-hit-gadget to test TLC out ... unfortunately my work and raid times are quite tough together and i really can't tell my raid (as of I'm the raidleader) "sorry guys i can't lead gruuls today because i gotta go here and there to get some trinket for testing" thy would kill me before i could say Quantenchromodynamik But I'm still after it ... either mark of defiance or quagmirrans eye, or both. How's your opinion about TLC being superior to BT/Hyjal stuff in regard of DPS gain, which i asked you some paragraphs above? You may be richt with Blade of Eternal darkness, but that is quite a rare drop so they didn't have to think a lot about it's mechanics. And now go on and get yourself some ICQ Client man! -.- --Kamikaze28 07:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm probably the wrong person to ask that; as I don't do raid instances, I don't really care for the loot there, unless it has some special behaviour. Apart from some exceptions, I have no idea which trinkets can be found there, and I know even less about the maths behind. Perhaps I'll take a look at them, then we can discuss it... :) Don't worry about Mark of Defiance, it's not urgent at all. --bfx 14:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I just talked about this topic with a GM and his response was, that no proc should be able to trigger another proc. I couldn't explain every of your experiments to him, but he's looking it through thoroughly, i hope. He also said, that TLC Lightning Bolts are not concidered a spell of my own.
I have also done TLC testing wich Mark of Defiance, and it didn't proc it. So maybe thats it?
Thanks a lot, that's it. Not the best result, however. :) --bfx 13:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

daily quests Edit

eh, why'd you revert the cash reward for the daily quests.

The dragonmaw quests award 11.99, not* 4g something. if this is due to xp conversion then you'll have to add the xp value given + the converted value, instead of straight up reverting it,, which creates confusion. Also, the dragonmaw quests are "only" available at 70, so it does make sense to use the lvl 70 reward without XP - CJ talk / cont  09:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted them because these values are not correct. Even though they are only available at 70, it would be even more confusing to have some quests with their level 70 rewards and some without. I have told him that about that, and instead of leaving it, I wanted them at least reverted (to maintain consistency). --bfx 10:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the quest should list the total cash you will expect to get
The quests probably offers 4G 40S as a reward, PLUS experience, but you never see this. Since you are already 70 for these quests (requires epic flying) the XP is converted into extra cash and all you ever get is the total cash after the conversion.
I put down the total cash that you will receive from this quest at 70, I didn't factor in the fact that IF you could get it before 70, it would be less cash with XP.
I'm sure there are lots of people that forget, or don't realize that there is XP with these quests that is converted to cash.
Perhaps the extra XP->Cash conversion should be added as well(even if separately itemized) so people will know the total money they expect to get from doing the quest at 70.
I started to change the quests to reflect the actually amount you receive, because I came here looking to see which 10 dailies I should do to get the most cash from them. When I saw that the money I was receiving was far greater than was listed I got a bit confused at first. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's done this. Perhaps the rewards section for the quest should also list the additional money that you will be receiving once it is completed and it will help avoid all this confusion and needless editing/reverting/reminding about XP conversion. I'm probably not going to be editing it anymore as I found my list of 10 quests to maximize my money, 9 give 11G 99S, and 1 gives 18G 28S, but they aren't listed as 11G 99S or 18G 28S cause they aren't converting the invisible XP. I guess someone in the future will end up making the same mistakes again if this matter isn't clarified in the rewards.
Just my 2C worth :)
(Nallep 10:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC))
I whole-heartedly agree that it should be clarified how much money you get by the conversion. I have only reverted them to keep consistency. If you initially had added two separate values, I would have left it; but as it was summed up in one value, it leads to confusion whether this bonus is already included or not. --bfx 10:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Mind Flay Edit

Posted reply at http://www.wowwiki.com/User_talk:Diabolus#Mind_Flay (updated with additional tests --diabolus)

Nice Bug list Edit

I added it to Category:Bugs. I hope you don't mind. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:15 PM PST 13 Mar 2008

Of course not, thanks! :) --bfx 14:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Lesser Heal Edit

Why exactly did you remove the Healing Calculations from the Lesser Heal page stating non-specific information? The formulae related directly to Lesser Heal, and they were on the original Lesser Heal page before it was boilerplated. Just curious. --CptJesus 12:24, 28 March 2008

Nevermind, after looking at the talk in Greater Heal, I get it. --CptJesus 12:30, 28 March 2008
Fine :) --bfx (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of Player Talents with the Dispel Resistance Mechanic Edit

Nice contribution! I'm going through and reading abouts those talents now. Appreciate the work. --Arrek (talk) 18:52, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it! To be honest, I didn't even expect anyone to notice anytime soon. ;-) I'd like to go even further and add spells and talents which provide some kind of dispel protection, such as Unstable Affliction and Vampiric Touch. --Bfx (talk) 09:33, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
I've added those effects now. However, I'm not totally happy with the list design now. --Bfx (talk) 10:07, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
More talents and abilities I wasn't aware of; most interesting. I think I get the drift of what you mean about the list design, maybe ... there's some abilities in there now as well as talents. I can't see any biggie tho. --Arrek (talk) 12:28, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

About the patch versions... Edit

Comment from Veljamh moved to User talk:Veljamh. --Bfx (talk) 21:06, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Glad someone is reading my stuff :) Edit

Thanks for fixing a typo on Greater Heal. Hope you like the new Improvements sections on Devouring Plague and Binding Heal, and completely revamped sections on many others :) Oh, and yes, finally a completed spell coefficient table for Druid's heal spells :)

Cheers (many more updates are pending) :)

Veljamh (talk) 16:43, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

I must admit, I'm impressed. This is a severe case of edit frenzy – and luckily a very productive one. ;) --Bfx (talk) 12:20, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Holy 'fire' Edit

On Fire spells, you wrote that Holy Fire used to be a fire spell. When was it a fire spell/when was it changed? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:27, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Until the Priest review in Patch 1.10. Edit: If you'd like to take a look, this talent calculator gives you the original talent tooltip (Holy tier 3 talent). --Bfx (talk) 18:44, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is desiredEdit

Hey, just wanted to solicit your opinion on whether WoWWiki should leave Wikia. Thanks! --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!C62,301 contributions and counting) 12:30, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki