[1.Local]: How?

Common wisdom that isn't so wise
Mage god (and warlock-hater) Christian Belt has nothing but praise for LilBanshee's comment on the Patch 3.2 mage update. "This one was pretty hardcore," he notes. "His (her?) numbers do a pretty fantastic job of showing why firing out a zero-stack Missile-Barraged Arcane Missiles isn't a bad idea at all. It's a lot of work put into proving a relatively tiny bit of commonly-accepted mage theory isn't 100% accurate. Anybody willing to put that much effort into something so minor deserves some kudos, I think."

LilBanshee: "It'll become useful so few times it's probably not worth calling out ..." It's the difference between 87% and 90% chance. A 3% increase counts for a lot more than you give it credit for.

"... the theorycrafting has already been done and proven it – MBAMs without AB stacks are bad." Simply declaring that something has been proven doesn't make it so. Where's your source?

I despise hearsay and group think, so here are some real numbers for my own character (raid buffed) based on http://www.codeplex.com/Rawr. Note: Arcane Blast and MBAM each have cast time 1.84 seconds with my haste rating.

0-stack AB: average damage 6,878 (3,278 DPS)
1-stack AB: average damage 8,047 (4,373 DPS)
2-stack AB: average damage 9,216 (5,009 DPS)
3-stack AB: average damage 10,386 (5,644 DPS)
4-stack AB: average damage 11,518 (6,260 DPS)

0-stack MBAM: avg damage per tick 2,415; avg total damage 12,076 (6,563 DPS)
1-stack MBAM: avg damage per tick 2,826; avg total damage 14,129 (7,678.71 DPS)
2-stack MBAM: avg damage per tick 3,236; avg total damage 16,182 (8794.42 DPS)
3-stack MBAM: avg damage per tick 3647, avg total damage 18235 (9,910.13 DPS)
4-stack MBAM: avg damage per tick 4,058; avg total damage 20,288 (11,025.84 DPS)

There, some numbers to work with based on a reputable simulator and a real character. Now:

0-stack MBAM will deal 12,076 over 1.84 seconds for an average of 6,563 DPS.
AB AB AB AB MBAM will deal a total of 54,815 average damage over 9.2 seconds for an average of 5,958 DPS.
AB AB AB MBAM will deal a total of 42,376 average damage over 7.36 seconds for an average of 5,758 DPS.
AB AB MBAM will deal a total of 31,107 average damage over 5.52 seconds for an average of 5,635 DPS.
AB MBAM will deal a total of 21,007 average damage over 3.68 seconds for an average of 5,708.423913 DPS.

Therefore, 0-stack MBAM has a higher DPS than the AB-AB-AB-AB-MBAM rotation, making it a net increase in damage, not decrease. How much of an increase total? Well, let's see the total effect:

AB AB AB AB MBAM MBAM will deal a total of 66,891 average damage over 11.04 seconds, for an average of 6,059 DPS.

AB AB AB AB MBAM MBAM MBAM (if you're so lucky) will deal a total of 78,967 average damage over 12.88 seconds, for an average of 6,130.978261 DPS.

QED.

Now, I fully expect you to dismiss this and continue happily scorning unstacked MBAMs because you've heard it was bad from a friend of a friend; such is the nature of group think. And I fully acknowledge the possibility that somewhere in that wall of text I messed up a calculation or two. Hopefully, though, I've at least helped a handful of people to see that common wisdom isn't always all that wise.

We can only ever suppose with Garrosh
Another comment recommendation comes from staffer Matt Rossi, who notes, "The entire Garrosh Hellscream post is chockablock with interesting comments." One of the most thought-provoking observations on Garrosh and the lore of WoW comes from reader The Hammer.

The Hammer: I'm not sure how Garrosh becoming even more aggressive could possibly be good for the Horde overall? An all-out war with the Alliance would probably cost tens of thousands of lives. Now, despite in-game appearances, the orcs are not in abundance. Eight years has probably provided something of a baby boom, but the emphasis is on baby. Whilst not exactly critically endangered in terms of extinction, a war like that could certainly make it happen.

That, and this "righteousness" that he believes his people to have is also contrasted with the "inferiority" that he believes anyone who opposes the Horde has. Which in both a practical and ideological sense is just rubbish. He believed that taking out Valiance Keep, and Valgarde, would be beneficial. There are so many reasons why it wouldn't be, and so many reasons why a planned attack might fail anyway. Another reason why he'd be hopeless as a leader.

And this examination is mostly to do with the inner-narrative of the game, and not the outside influences. Not the character's design. As far as I know, a lot of Horde players signed up to the Horde because they liked the Horde presented to them in Warcraft 3, Forsaken included in this. They didn't sign up to the Horde because they liked the opposing factions in, say, Warcraft: Orcs and Humans. They liked Thrall as a leader. They liked Cairne. Vol'jin. Sylvanas. They liked them, and they continued to like them throughout playing WoW. And then Wrath comes along and suddenly Garrosh becomes a major player, and apparently far more important than any of them, with the exception of Thrall. Yes, new characters are great, but not when they are so obviously there to make more established, well-loved characters look a bit naff in comparison.

Consider Thrall's complete lack of conviction during Wrath. It's my guess that Blizzard just find his war-weary, benevolent nature to be too obstructing to the PvP side of the game. They're possibly right. Possibly what the game needs is more focus on the Horde versus Alliance. But that doesn't mean the narrative isn't going to suffer because of it. And I think that's when a game design decision (you could say a marketing one, too; look at how Varian appeared first in the comics, and then in-game) negatively impacts on the storyline. Blizzard's motto has always been "gameplay first," and so this is understandable.

But still. What this examination fails to mention is this character assassination of Thrall. The Horde hero. Probably the most popular. But through the introduction of both Varian and Garrosh, he is devalued. Not because they were cooler than him, but because he has been dragged to the dogs, with no real adequate explanation as to why this is so. Doesn't want to upset Hellscream's boy? Feels guilt? Great, he doesn't have to dispense violent justice. But not to give him a good talking to? A raging whirlwind of words and rhetoric? Is this the same Thrall who took the orcs out of slavery? He was fair and just whilst still being imposing at the end of Lord of the Clans, and further successes (especially at Hyjal) could have only enlivened this sense of conviction. But no.

Garrosh, since he was introduced in TBC, has not had time to grow in the hearts of Horde players. What he has had time to do, was to be a cheeky upstart to both Thrall and Saurfang (and to be honest, Saurfang's retorts to him in Warsong Hold are godly. Really good stuff, and proof that an orc can be good-natured, yet still brooding, conflicted, and aggressive). We've been with Thrall, through the lore, since his birth. Since his gladiator fights. Since Warcraft 3. Since, almost, Warcraft Adventures. Like Sergra Darkthorn, Cairne Bloodhoof, Gyran Stoutmantle, and Rexxar, he's become a staple of the game. We've seen his inner conflicts, and he's triumphed over them.

Yes, Garrosh's own misgivings might be hidden away. They might be theorised about rather than shown. But we can only ever suppose with Garrosh. What we see is a despondent Mag'har, pure of blood, suddenly gain an almighty chip on his shoulder, and rage at everything and everyone. Stepping away from the narrative's politics, and whether a character is likeable or not, Garrosh's inclusion in the lore is really rather shoehorned.

Warlock love: just weird and kinda wrong
"Been getting a lot of love from the locks, which is just weird and kinda wrong," muses Dominic Hobbs. "One that did make me chuckle in the last Blood Pact was ... how do you link a comment? ..." (As you can see, Dom's nothing if not persistent in his promised investigation of "how.")

souvlaki: A bit of fun: Summon an infernal of your own in the Lord Jaraxxus encounter and hear your raid mates curse, as they cannot throw spells at him. It happened to me, incidentally, when at 20% my pet died and I decided to get an infernal out for that last bit of the fight. How I laughed when I saw the confusion I created. :D"

"Now that's a warlock right there," adds Dom.

[redacted]ing off to Elitist Jerks
A final staff pick for [1.Local] this week comes from Eddie "Brigwyn" Carrington, who observes, "No, I'm not submitting this one because it's fanmail (though that doesn't hurt), but for the last paragraph – it's all win!"

theuberpea: Eddie, I want you to know that your articles on levelling a hunter are appreciated. I have played a druid and DK at endgame and raided pretty hardcore. I am currently leveling a hunter alt and having a great time. I have found these articles to be both interesting and informative. So some of the info is a bit off (apparently), but knowing when I'm gonna get FD and the like is definitely a good thing.

I find it amusing that people bitch on your columns that you are not catering for the raiding community by not covering "this nerf" and "that buff." They make it sound as thought the only people that play WoW (or the only people that they consider worthy to play WoW) are raiders. Incredibly, they are both wrong and delusional. They should realise that people that actually give a s*@#$ about raiding shouldn't even be here for that info. There are forums like Elitist Jerks where you can rub yourself dry to spreadsheets, and those communities do a good job of providing the latest info on everything you need to know about raiding.

TL;DR: Want to whack off to spreadsheets? Go to Elitist Jerks. Want to read a column that talks about different aspects of playing a hunter including (GASP!) levelling? Then stay here.