Please address the "reference clients" validity

Arcanums dont really make logical sense to apply to a buffcap.

They are a portable enchant (kind of like buying a vellum in later WoW)
The have no duration, do not expire, they are a perm modification, just like a chanter putting +55 heal on a weapon or +5 stats on a chest piece.
It becomes innate.

It kind of makes no logical sense for them to even appear as a “buff”
or technically be visible at all really.

Now other things do, things that expire and have durations.
Eating food, sharpening weapons, things we consume for a temp boost.
Those at least make sense as they never become an innate thing.

I can not actually remember how they were working that far back
my memory of that only goes back to after the fact.

The comparison of diamond flask and runeblade doesn’t really hold up as Lifestone has the exact same effect too and it never scaled. The real issue is that blizzard either changed the runeblade with the TBC pre-patch or it always scaled. The most likely option is that it always scaled, especially because lifestone wasn’t changed either.

1 Like

Yea, we knew it continued to scale even into WoTLK:

The life regen upon equiping seems to be 30hp5 increased by ~100% of your spellpower
On my ret pala it’s ticking well over 1.5k hp every 5 seconds, which makes it awesome for passive healing, should you ever need that

Either the reference client itself is bugged or Blizzard is straight up falsifying their reports. I mean. They have used TBC values for other items such as Skull of Impending Doom in Classic as well. So we know they’re fudging around with the data they’re sharing.

I’d love for a response on clarifying their contradictions. It’s troubling that they continue to use the “reference client” as a shield when we’ve caught them red handed on a few occasions. I’m not even asking for them to admit that they’re dropping the ball, but that’d be big of them if they did so.

1 Like

That’s not really what they said.

They first said they weren’t removing the hidden buff auras from the arcanums. They mentioned it was like this in 1.12.

Months later they say that they missed some previous enchantments that could (keyword is could) be flagged to avoid consuming buff slots.

This doesn’t mean that it’s still not like that in the reference client. It means they’ve loosened up their “No-changes” stance on the buff cap a bit because players are getting really ticked off at how stupid it is.

Blizzard is awful at communicating and I don’t know if they’ll clarify this.

Yep, that’s why I mentioned above that they should have designed Classic with their own vision in mind. Not restricting themselves to some vague and broken version of the game that has inherent issues in itself to validate whether something did or didn’t work as it did back in Vanilla. I.e. A “fun” server much akin to Nostalrius and Kronos.

There are reasons those servers were a blast to play on versus Classic…

1 Like

I’m not sure I understand your point. They stated a long time ago Arcanums were counting as buffs, and while they didn’t specifically say they would fix it, they did fix other enchantments along those lines. So they never contradicted themselves, they even mentioned it in the fix that it WAS counting as buffs in the reference client. This was considered a bug, and therefore fixed along with the ZG ones.

Probably looked at it and said, umm anyone know why we did it that way? it kind of defies logic, did we flub it up then?

When is an enchant not an enchant? When it is a buff…
…except it’s an enchant, except now it’s a buff, ANYONE GOT EXCEDRIN?

Probably what happens when you ask a CM to go ask a thing and then translate what a coder or scripter said.

Go ask an engineer for an answer, without a technical writer handy, that’s always fun to be on the receiving end.

1 Like