Talk:World of Warcraft: Cataclysm

Fixed
Sorry, I finally fixed the references! --Falesa (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Goblin and Worgen Classes
" Possible classes at this moment: Mage, Warrior, Death Knight, Rogue, Hunter.[2] "

In the demo version they allowed attendees to play, I know Worgen and Goblin could all be warrior, hunter, rogue. Worgen could be Shaman, and Goblin could be Mage. One of them could be Warlock but I cannot recall which. Death Knights were greyed out, but probably because the demo accounts did not have a level 55 toon. Yourbuddybill (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Goblins and worgen can be all but 2 each, Goblins can't be druids or paladins, and Worgen can't be Paladins or Shaman. 23:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool. just noticed that the main page was updated with a super handy link to a matrix.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.

Can goblins really be Shamans? Because if so Blizz has made a big mistake.Centaur77 (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Quotes from a blue at http://blue.mmo-champion.com/1/10543537977-blizzcon-09-classes-items-and-professions.html explaining the classes and such. So it's pretty definite that Goblins can be Shamans. Suicidal_SNiper (talk)10:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the goblins can't be druids! The worgens can! Maybe the goblin will be: warrior, rogue, warlock, death knight or mage, and the worgen will be: warrior, warlock, druid, death knight or priest.

No one ever said the goblins were going to be druids. The Goblins can be EVERY class EXCEPT druid and paladin, and the Worgen can be EVERY class EXCEPT shaman and paladin. -- Astus the Graven One 15:26, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Question
Whats a "character progression?" Also who is that old ally that is shown bringing the worgen into the fold? Is it supposed to be Velinde Starsong? I don't know if she was a druid. --Darkling235 23:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As I recall, "character progression" is one of the new features, that keeps track how far somebody is phased, alot of people liked the phasing it WotLK, however, they couldn't get in a party with their friends properly. So a new UI feature was / is developed. I think that is it. About the druid, no idea. Deliah Shalièn (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Velinde Starsong was a priestess, wasn't she? When I did the quest where you follow her trail, they all remembered her and said stuff like "You don't often see a night elf priestess 'round these parts". Scarletsorcerer (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Vashj'ir
Has anyone else noticed that this sunken city of Vashj'ir is located smack dab in the middle of the Maelstrom, where Nazjatar is supposed to be?


 * They mentioned during the panel that the map they showed was not actually to scale properly so in actuality it is south of the Maelstrom like they said. Leviathon (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A later panel had a more accurate map that clearly showed it being quite a ways south of the Maelstrom. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Any idea what panel it was so maybe a image can be found? Leviathon (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe it was the preview panel. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Found it: http://static.mmo-champion.com/mmoc/images/news/2009/august/cataclysmpreviewpanel_076.jpg -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Guess I will re-watch through the panel. 1 thing I found interesting was when they were talking about the map and the zones being added he said "and Kezan with is not on the map" which makes me won der if we will be seeing it added also. Leviathon (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Dungeons and End game content
Are the abyssal maw, skywall and firelands confirmed dungeons? it still seems like speculation at this point. Deepholm seems a more probably dungeon than those three. --1201 (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * They were confirmed during the World of Warcraft preview panel. Leviathon (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. Abyssal Maw is accessible via Vashj'ir (I believe he said there will be two dungeons in there, actually), Firelands is accessible from Hyjal, and while they didn't say where Skywall connects to they did say it would be there. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 06:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My guess is that Skywalls entrance will be in Silithus since with the Qiraji and Silithids having been defeated then the only other enemy could of been the Twilight Cultists and their summoning. Leviathon (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. I seem to recall there being a huge tornado appearing in Darkshore.  Now this is just speculation on my part, but it seems to make some sense that a tornado may be the way to get up to the sky. --JPlowman2 (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Would be interesting if that is what the tornado will be for and if it is near that corpse in the zone. Leviathon (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Second sundering
Should we make a page that details how this disaster happend and it's aftermath? Gorvar (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree, but only once it would have happen, or only the confirmed facts.
 * 17:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Facts sounds good, the Goblin page on the Cataclysm website allready mentions it as the 'Cataclysm'.Gorvar (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I meant, do not be over-confident about a zone modification you may have seen in the trailer.
 * Stick to the modifications clearly announced (for now)
 * 17:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall Wetlands being said to be completely 'destroyed' in any of the panels so I am not sure about that part of the article. Twilight Highlands is located on the eastern coast so it isn't what is replacing it. Leviathon (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Little edit: wowinsider has a somewhat fuzzy pic of the continent layouts and you can see that while Wetlands is heavily reduced it still is a full zone. http://static.mmo-champion.com/mmoc/images/news/2009/august/artpanel_081.jpg Leviathon (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I edited the Southshore part. Really I question how much of it may have entirely been joking on the devs part that it was lost at all but saying the 'Alliance finally lost southshore' could just as easily mean a tidal wave and the cataclysm itself destroyed it instead just like Auberdine. Leviathon (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't they say the Horde got it? Gorvar (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, they didn't. 07:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It almost seemed more like a joke that everyone is looking too into. Leviathon (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Darkshore is getting Horde reinforcements and Ashenvale will be more favourable towards the Horde once the expansion is released. Don't you think it will be at least a little unfair if Southshore would too end up in the hands of the Horde? I mean, balance and stuff: that's pretty important, right?[[Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gif]] AMBER (RΘCK)  09:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like that a lot of areas that will be 10-20 will likely have both factions in them. We know Darkshore has a Horde camp, Worgen will likely be pushed towards Silverpine and there is a Alliance camp in Northern Barrens which is likely where tauren and some orcs will go 10-20 at. Leviathon (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The night elf's leveling progression is getting a little wierd. Ashenvale is now hordie, part of darkshore too, hyjal is a hi-lvl zone, where the night elves are going to level past lv15? Pudim17 (talk - contr) 18:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ashenvale is being heavily attacked by the Horde but there are other Alliance outposts in the zone that are likely more built up. For example Forest' Song near Azshara is likely built and Maestra's Post is probably where the Astraanar night elves are now at. For all we know the night elves are attacking Splintertree outpost for example. Leviathon (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What Cataclysm is not
I think this calls for a "What Cataclysm is NOT" page, like that "What Wrath of the Lich King is NOT" page we had up last year. Anyone else? --Super Bhaal (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. -- 04:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Will it be... cataclysmic? Blackhawk003 (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, go to your room. --Super Bhaal (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * THAT WOULD BE AWESOME!!!!! Minor miner7 (talk) 14:59, September 3, 2009 (UTC)


 * One or two people agree(s) with me already! If we do manage to make a "What Cataclysm is NOT" page, could we protect it from deletion requests and edits by people that don't like lolcats and election jokes this time?  --Super Bhaal (talk) 18:56, September 3, 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to make one, then, why don't you? :) I mean, if anybody is against it, they can file a petition for removal, otherwise, I see no issue in some fun! :P Of course, if it remains civilized.. ^^ 22:10, September 3, 2009 (UTC)


 * It would not be "What Cataclysm is NOT", it would be "What Cataclysm is not". The WotLK one was moved from a name like that per the naming policy.-- 23:04, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * If I didn't suck at making pages on Wikis I would. I'll just sit back and leave it to somebody else to figure out, and then ride their wave.  --Super Bhaal (talk) 07:56, September 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Just take the format of the wrath one and change stuff. Soratrox (talk) 02:35, January 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ride on cowboy
 * 12:50, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hell it has been moved as a personnal article!
 * Too bad.
 * 17:28, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Trailer video
You should really stop changing the youtube link every 10 seconds:
 * You spam the Recent changes
 * It's all the same video anyway

19:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Tell that to all the logo and in-line uploaders. It may have stopped, but everyone wants (wanted?) their thing to be the one WoWWiki uses.-- 19:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just want consistency in the icons.  02:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No problems with the icons, but this video, they're all the same!!
 * 07:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bastions of Antiquity
That was previously in the article, but after googling, I can't find any mention of it anywhere else so I removed it (assuming it was just some marketing hoopla for "new dungeons"). Does anyone have any idea what that would be? If so, maybe we could re-add it. 4:45 PM, 24 Aug 2009 (EDT)


 * They mention it in the trailer.--Centaur77 (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The so called "bastion of antiquity" would be Uldum and Vash'jir. Abyssal plans are not really part of the "antiquity" (antiquity=first living being imo).
 * 07:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Cover image / Box Art
I just added an Temporary Image where the box art should arrive soon, to show people how 'orangey' it might become, and, I also edited the logo out of the movie, (removed the black) and put it on here, I hope it's adequate, and mostly, allowed!.. If not, remove or something! :p Deliah Shalièn (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed somebody made an other box-art that looked alot nicer, Might somebody answer me why it got reverted to my silly cropping of the WoW/Cataclysm site? Deliah Shalièn (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I made my own box art yesterday, what do you think guys? Please comment. It features the Worgen. Took about 3 hours to make. -- 06:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Less furry love, more goblin love. Seriously though, I like it.  --Super Bhaal (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks nice! - I think however, it's not the worgen going to be in the circle, but Deathwing, yet, a worgen is probably going to feature in the bottom-left corner :)! Deliah Shalièn (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Very cool box :) I hope you do one for the goblins too. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind - I moved the image above to the right so that conversations indent properly.


 * I removed the cover art only because it's not official. I agree we need a better picture, but we can't have the official page show unofficial fan-art in the box at the top. However, I'm fine if someone wants to make a gallery of fan art and show it there! There's already been confusion that some things weren't true, even though they were announced at BlizzCon 2009. I don't want to add to that. 1:49 PM, 28 Aug 2009 (EDT)

Scam
"It cannot be stressed enough to players that Blizzard will never ask you for your credit card, password, user name, e-mail address or any other information it already has."

This is sort of false. Blizzard does ask for your account name so they know what account to deal with, your email address if you're requesting to change it if you can't by the website (or your login could be your email if you're using a Bnet account), and sometimes your credit card if you're trying to confirm you're the owner of the account. Password, however, is never asked. 18:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * They mean in game. Once you're logged in, they already know all that stuff. 1:50 PM, 28 Aug 2009 (EDT)

Cataclysm class chart
Is it really on it's correct location.. right in the middle.. messing about the entire layout? Deliah Shalièn (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it really that hard to put new comments at the bottom instead of the middle of the page (or were you doing that intentionally)? Leviathon (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, will do next time ^^;; But still, you didn't quite answer my question. - Atleast now you see how annoying the chart is to me though too :p Deliah Shalièn (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Box art #2
People wanted to see a combo of the goblin and worgen and this is what I managed in 3,5 hours. I just wish there were some decent artwork with the worgen in profile. Thoughts? -- 08:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow.. o.o Just Wow... however, the logo is orange / red ish, so, we can only asume the cover will be orange / red ish too, your worgen one was pale blue, and this one is brown. That's the only 'flaw' I see. Other then that, very pretty! I like this one more then the worgen one though! :p Deliah Shalièn (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah exactly. Wow! Just Wow... I think you did a superb, excellent, job on both boxes, but I feel this one is more inline with what the box-art will/should look like. -- 13:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ehmmm, Delilah it's the exact same Worgen. It's just an illusion that he's pale blue on the first cover because the whole image there is bluish. So no, I won't change him. -- 13:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Being a image manipulation enthusiast myself, I thought I'd step in. Shandris: yes, it's the very same worgen but with the blue glow emanating from the worgen, the image looks utterly out of place. The worgen would fare better with a bit of colour manipulation; more specifically: the blue glow 'translated' into reddish or brownish glow. Yes, in the source he was pretty blue, but that no longer looks right in this box art.[[Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gif]] AMBER (RΘCK)  14:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Daddy liek. -Super Bhaal (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, after reading I notice a flaw in my own comment, I ment, the box-case background colour was pale-blue, and this one brown, not the actual worgen! - And, personaly I asume the box-background colour will be orange / red-ish, not brown, or pale blue. So, I don't mean, change your worgen!.. I mean.. make one with an orange / red-ish background! :p 17:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Very cool box, I like it more than the worgen one. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought brown-orange (as it is now) was a better color than fiery orange. -- 20:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone also made a flipside cover. -- 20:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture one, goblin and worgen, is unlikely because in the last expack that added new races (BC) the blood elf, Horde race, was the main object in the photo. If they did goblins in this one, they'd obviously be showing signs that they favor Horde over Alliance, which is fine for players to say but some might take it as an insult to have the makers of the company favor their opposing faction. <---Sig Here (WoW Fan Story Writer)

Cataclysm - Surely an April Fool! Wait, What?!
Am I the only one here who thought Cataclysm was simply an April Fool based on the various promises suggested such as re-design of Azeroth, the new player races, level cap that isn't 90 and the Archaeology secondary skill (Whatever the Hell would you use that for anyway)?

This may be me being cynical but personally I still don't quite believe this is actually the next expansion. I know it seems rather an elaborate scheme, but when Blizzard does their April Fools, they like to make them good ones Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You really think that all the BlizzCon was just a fraud and the demo was made just for fun? I thought that when it was first told in MMO champion before the BlizzCon 2009, but now it is official, besides we are not in April ;) Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * April Fools is just that: fooling around on the first of April. For one, we're in August and for two, Blizzard would have thrown away huge amount of money and resourcing just developing fake content. And for two: April Fools lasts one day, this Cataclysm-thing hasn't been debunked even though official word on it has been out on the streets for a week now. I'm sorry to say, but if there really is a fool, it has to be you, Drakauk.[[Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gif]] AMBER (RΘCK)  09:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly: Blizzard's April Fools are NOT and have NEVER been specifically done on April. They are simply revealed to be tricks on the 1st of April, and if you paid enough attention to the Blizzard website itself you'd already know that. Blizzard's April Fools can potentially last months before they are revealed to be untrue. Secondly, how much revenue would you reckon Blizzard gets from the thousands, even millions of players on WoW? It would probably most likely not even make a dent in their coffers to stage all this. Thirdly, is it being foolish not to believe they are already developing the next expansion when they have not even released all the content available for WotLK? And for the record, if you are going to insult me, at least have the decency to remember how to spell my username properly. Fourthly, neither of you have responded to my starting point of whether you thought that it was a joke when you saw it announced initially. Finally, you should really wait to see whether or not it will actually appear in the "Under Development" section before believing that it will actually be coming out. The fool is the one who trusts blindly, not the one who waits to make sure that all the facts are straight. Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeez, take a nap. --Super Bhaal (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd respond to that, but that would actually give dignity to such a comment.Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Selling tinfoil hats for 10 gold PST! Leviathon (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're talking about. Sincerely. The bard class, Warcraft III within WoW, Ogres as a playable race, Molten Core for Atari and much more. All of them revealed on April 1st and April 1st only. Besides, I don't trust blindly, but Blizzard is too much of a smart company to let thousands of players fly to Anaheim in order to let them listen to nothing but bullshit. They know they'd get sued for that. Besides, the playable demos and stuff are more expensive to make than you think. They wouldn't create so much content in order to say "haha, fake". Blizzard is a company that makes money, not one that wants to piss off people.[[Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gif]] AMBER (RΘCK)  18:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue that matter any further because I don't have the necessary reference points to prove my point. However as far as I recall these things were merely revealed to be April Fools on the 1st and were in fact suggested weeks in advance to get people thinking maybe that'd be the case. Point of play though: technically they have done W3 within WoW, just not in the manner they suggested. (See: Caverns of Time) I will concede though that it would be a rather extreme means to fool thousands of people. Okay, instead of whether it is a trick or not, How about this: What is the reckoned likelihood that the upcoming expansion will garner enough interest to actually be produced? Will it come out or will it be another Ghost? Who knows, maybe people are too wrapped up with WotLK to want another expansion so soon. Scum of the Earth, COME ON! (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That could be the same said for what happened between BC and WotLK. All we can really do is watch and wait to see what comes or doesn't. My opinion is the concept is interesting and I hope it is true.Toasty 21:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree Blizzard has done many April Fools jokes ever since the game has been released: Patch 1.11 (Evil Patch Notes),, Wisps, and many more - but they have Never done a April Fools joke in the previous year (we had our April fools joke for 2009 already) they always announce them in January / February and reveal they are jokes in April of the same year. - They never have shown a working (Playable starting area) for April fools joke either - when they announced Blood Elves as playable races they had  them as a playable race at BlizzCon 2005 but not the Wisps since they were the joke. This has been my  copper pieces worth of input. --  22:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it indeed doubtful that the expansion itself is a very elaborate joke. However, I am certain that in January, there will be some bogus as to what will happen inside or as additional content for the expansion. Like, suddenly Murlocs as playable race too, or something silly like that. 22:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Make that April. Blizzard hasn't revealed April Fools jokes before at least March 31st for years now. Also, I'm confident the expansion will garner enough interest for millions of people to buy it. By the time Cataclysm is released, most guilds will have Arthas on farm status.[[Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gif]] AMBER (RΘCK)  10:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think what Deliah Shalièn was meaning was that in January Blizzard will announce something like the s as a race and such - then on March 31st or later will reveal it was the April Fools joke. -- 16:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I got the point. However, I've got my own: my point is that this manner of joking hasn't been practiced by Blizzard in recent years. The last time they did it - if my memory serves me right - in 2006. The 2007, 2008 and 2009 were not spread before March 31st. Simply put: Blizzard has quit making April Fools jokes months in advance.[[Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gif]] AMBER (RΘCK)  14:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for a clearer clarification, the reason they are actually bringing out the expansion so soon is that after the release of Aion in North America and Europe, Blizzard needed to strike back ---> World of Warcraft: Cataclysm! That's why its based so much on Azeroth, its easier and faster to change something than to build something anew. Also people hate the Barrens, its time it got got changed. LONG LIVE BARRENS CHAT! Also for the record, this is September, not April 1st. Thepiesflyinghigh (talk) 16:27, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Why Draenei will not get any new classes?
It is stupid. Just think about Draenei in War3. They were best stealthers in game. Well, these ones were Broken, but i don't think they differ in this point so much. Draenei rogues is perfect idea. Warlock is less lore-based, but as many races prefer fight fire with fire, possibly Draenei will do so, as they are arch-enemies of Legion. Druid is possible due of influence of near-located Night Elves, as well as shamanism. Asdruabel (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a place to discuss changes to the article, not express your dissatisfaction with a decsion made by Blizzard. take it to the Forums. 11:19, 28 August 2009

You are right! The draenei should be rogue! But I also prefer to be druid.

Lore my friends, lore. Draenei for a start don't even come from a shamanistic backround, they come from a pure (No rouges), holy (pallas and priests) back round. The only way they managed to give Draenei the shaman was by putting in that broken fella. However I don see why or HOW Blizzard could give TAUREN PALADINS! Seriously, thats just wierd. Yet again, if you kill it and eat it's meat, you won't have to say grace.... or will you? xD. Only kidding nw peeps.


 * They did give paladins for the blood elves right? and what a twisting of lore it was (not in the bad, breaking way, just a change) They can do the same with taurens.... Somehow. Btw, sign ur posts. kthxby Azahel (talk) 17:45, September 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * So far, it appears that it's connected to the sun (and sun paladins did previously exist in the RPG). This makes it something of a parallel to tauren druids; they draw their power from the moon (Mu'Sha), while the paladins and priests draw theirs from the sun (An'She). -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:10, September 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * the blood elfs maybe teached the tauren the taurens maybe want to know all ways of healing
 * user:billyjl


 * Or, not. Please read Sunwalkers. They most probably are not "paladins" in the way of the current ones, but a different class with similar abilities. Kinda druidic/shamanistic warrior, like the original paladins were priests that trained in physical combat as well. Of course, they probably won't even give Tauren paladins unique ability names, let alone spell effects, so ingame, they'll be identical to paladins. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 00:31, October 3, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking that unique names/spell is probably out (now that class racials are long gone e.g.,hex of weakness and seal of blood); I still see a possibility though for one unique spell effect. They've admitted to unique mounts, and unique totems have arrived as well. I'm guessing instead of 'wings' or 'hammers' that Sunwalkers might get a spell effect like Moonfire -- you know, only golden. It seems a waste not to anyhow. The Sunwalker meme/leak is giving me a lot of hope for reasonable explanation for tauren priest/paladins.--Drolfeir (talk) 05:33, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

well first of all, Draenei can't be rogues because they have hooves. You can't be stealthy with hooves :) Secondly, re: Tauren Paladins. Races aren't strictly united by belief systems in WoW any more than IRL. It's not inconcieveable that some Tauren would follow The Light, just as Native Americans IRL could convert to Christianity. That said, I think alot of the new class choices (and indeed, some of the old), are very messy. Metalmunki (talk) 14:03, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Forsaken hunter makes sense though (Sylvanas) but what bothers me is that the new races will get so many classes. Also what more is there for Draenei? There's nothing thatr matches. 13:57, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Bestiary
I hope you dont mind but i added two more monsters that i found on IGN a bird & a dinosaur. (Hallowseve15 (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC))
 * They never mention them, just show artwork that also found on the official site. Until announced, artwork should not be used to judge new creatures, however likely they may be added. A few notes, it was a dodo that X was a star and "Lost Isle Dinosaurs" was a descriptive name not a creature name. 22:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Dodo is not dead!!
 * 08:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: Sorry

Well Coobra, following your point of view nor Volcanoth should be added: "They never mention them"... --N&#39;Nanz (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They didn't? Thought I heard them actually mention them during one of the panels at BlizzCon. 19:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no reason not to mention anything we saw concept art of considering we mentioned the creatures we had concept art of for WotLK. Leviathon (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You have a point, but so long as actual names are known, not things like lost isle dinosaurs. 20:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree --N&#39;Nanz (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we add Ettin and Hobgoblin then since there being introduced? Hallowseve15 (talk) 12:44, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * What's your source on that? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:42, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

I read it on Kirkburn's report and i know somebody who went to blizzcon in real life. Hallowseve15 (talk) 21:52, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

What about the people that won't get the expansion?
I've been wondering, o.o;; What will happen to the people that don't buy the expansion, will they still enjoy the new content...? Obviously they won't be able to get a flying mount, because both vendors and trainers are in outlands / northrend, however, the land itself still changes too, Will people just get ported out of zones they arn't suposed to be in? 19:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Old Azeroth's changes will be server-wide so no account limitation.
 * For the rest of the new content:
 * Worgen, Goblins, Tol Barad, Vashj'ir and Deepholm zones will most likely be instanced in a cataclysm-sub-server like the blood elves zones were a TBC-Sub-server
 * A lvl 60, 70 (or even 80) wouldn't dare to progress too far in the new wide opened zones like Mount Hyjal, Uldum or Twilight Highlands (but they could be instanced too)
 * 19:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * They have also talked about merging the draenei and blood elf areas into the newly remodeled world, so it wouldn't require you to use a portal to enter. 19:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Since they are going to allow flying around Azeroth than it would make sense that nothing is instanced since otherwise it would be pretty awkward to have to go to a instance portal. I think the only place that will be instanced and require a portal of some sort is the Sunken City of Vashj'ir. Leviathon (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hyjal might be instanced as well. I remember on the map there were specific flying areas. It could change, but any place that has a portal into the elemental plane would probably be instanced.--1201 (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Belf/Draenei areas are still going to be instanced. I specifically asked that at the fansite press conference Q&A. Deatholme would intersect Stratholme. As to why they're not moving Deatholme... -- k_d3 01:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The flying areas on the maps make it look more likely they just are going to have a cold weather flying type thing in Azeroth 1201. Leviathon (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh poo... wonder if the entire area will have a "portal" type entrance when you fly over the mtn top... or an invis wall... or an updated land... or the old non-flying land untouched... 03:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The blood elf and draenei areas being instanced still could be due to how TBC was done but that doesn't mean Hyjal, Uldum and the other zones zones will be instanced just yet since they are patching in so many of the changes regardless if you have the expansion or not. Leviathon (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * They, Blizzard did say at one of the panels that you will NOT be able to enter the new zones unless you have the expansion, so that does mean it will be blocked somehow (and currently that is by a Portal of some sort) unless they plan on invisible walls. -- 18:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally i'm glad the barrens, which will probebly be one of the coolest zonrs, will be playable for everyone.Gorvar (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome to barrens chat... it's back!. 20:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Shame it proberbly wont have Mankrik's wife anymore :(Gorvar (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Poor girl should have been buried or at least cremated by this point... As for Deatholme intersecting Stratholme, that is a pretty interesting thing to point out and I'd love to see how that's handled.  --Super Bhaal (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to see what they do with Dire Maul. It hardly fits as it is, and if you add the wings on it is worse. That also adds the question of what happens to all of the outdoor instances that are built in the main world, but can not be gotten to.-- 21:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * They probably will use invisible walls. Leviathon (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is also the possibility that they won't instance it, but instead have an automatic system - like Alliance trying to enter the Horde district in Dalaran and the tournament, and vice versa - that would cause you to get blinked back away from it, with a debuff that says something like "You must install Cataclysm before you can enter this area" or some such. --Joshmaul (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The area behind the instance portal for outdoor instances acts as a portal aswell. As for my reference, See:Zul'Farrak. You can wall-jump onto the walls around the portal, then jump down onto the ground behind the portal. --Iniquítous (talk) 04:12, September 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * Then again, there's Hellfire Ramparts, where you can fly into its outdoor parts. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 13:38, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Those who don't buy the expansion get: zone changes. Those who buy it get: new races, new lvl cap, and everything else. No matter what, everyone gets the changed zones. Also, I heard that the Aszhara zone will be "butchered", in the sense that the enemy lvls drop to like 8-15 and it gets a direct connection to Durotar. Is this true?Midiland95 (talk) 21:19, June 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's the word on the street that it's being overhauled to serve as part of the Goblins' starting zone. Can't say I have too much of an opinion over it... The zone has hardly anything in it right now, might as well use it for something, right? Tanooki1432 (talk) 21:24, June 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Out with the old, in with the KA-BOOM! 21:27, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

What of Northrend?
Solfaris--This article has listed the changes in Kalimdor & the Eastern Kingdoms but I was wondering if they had any changes planned for Northrend as well.


 * They mentioned some changes would happen but never gave specifics. Leviathon (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But nothing major, they're pretty happy with how Northrend turned out. 04:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Northrend should change, it's on Azeroth too. At least make Icecrown Glacier and the icebergs to the south melt a bit lol.Orisai (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole reason for the change is to make the original world flight capable... Northrend is already flight capable, so they have no need to alter anything. 05:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, they said they are changing the original world because:
 * To update it so that it has a better quest flow like Outland and Northrend do.
 * While they were changing it, go ahead and make it flight capable, since it has been on their to do lists for a long time.
 * -- 06:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * While Outland, being another planet, is not affected by the Cataclysm, Northrend is IN Azeroth. There should be at least some minimal changes, and some mention to the apocalyptic event in quests for both Outland and Northrend.Orisai (talk) 17:36, September 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd rather have Blizzard leave Northrend and Outland alone. These zones are fine as they are, and when it comes to quest flow, flight capability and things like lore progression neither of the zones require a great deal of changes. Well, we could have a theme like "Outland: now that the Legion is gone" but that hasn't got anything to do with Deathwing or the Twilight Hammer. Also, the Cataclysm being mentioned by quests in Outland would be plain weird. The realm has got its own disasters (say, a massive invasion of the Legion?) to deal with.[[Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gif]] AMBER (RΘCK)  11:46, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * With that reasoning, I can imagine explorers coming to Outland with news from Azeroth to the forces previously stationed there during the last Legion invasion. "Hey Mike, hows Azeroth"... "It's fine"... lol. Orisai (talk) 03:26, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Barrens Split
I keep reading from people that the barrens are going to be split east to west. From most of the pictures ive been seeing this isnt the case. I think till there is proof or an official response it should just be stated that this zone will be split. Darcshado (talk) 08:38, September 17, 2009 (UTC) Darcshado


 * Well that's official since BlizzCon, Barrens are splited in two, North low level and south hi-level.
 * 09:35, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I know that Blizzard had stated that there would be a high level and low level but never once did they say it was going to be a north and south. There is no refrence to this fact as well. Again to be safe and to produce the best information i believe this north south divide should be removed and just state "split" untill something a little more solid comes to life. Provide the source, i thought thats what wiki was all about. Not just stating information that could of been heard from Blizzcon. This site should only contain solid information. Darcshado (talk) 21:15, September 17, 2009 (UTC) Darcshado


 * The new level flow map shows it, and it was said at BlizzCon 2009. The map could be added (if it has not already, and is not blurry), but I do not know how to cite BlizzCon without people doubting it.-- 21:55, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. If it was just said but there is no solid refrences why is this posted? Look at the pictures and maps, Barrens are split in more then one place. But alas you guys feel since you 'heard' it that its correct. When ive seen plenty of people deleting contentent when it lacks a refrence. Might as well delete my account because i refuse to be apart of a hitler dictated group and makes me rethink everything i have read in these pages.

Darcshado (talk) 04:20, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're overreacting. --Joshmaul (talk) 04:24, September 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Very much so. 05:13, September 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * We're Hitler? Nein, nein, nein, nein, nein, nein! [[Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gif]] AMBER (RΘCK)  06:17, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

Release date?
Has Blizzard provided a release date for Cataclysm yet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by. 12:04,17 September 2009


 * When have they ever, except right before their game comes out? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:45, September 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * They haven't even announced the beta start date... 19:09, September 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Morhaime said sometime in 2010...


 * Soon... ~ Nathanyel (talk) 10:02, September 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * 2012. --Super Bhaal (talk) 12:44, September 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * It'll be released on January 1, 2013. Too late for us to enjoy it, if the Mayans are right. --Joshmaul (talk) 22:02, September 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * Officially, "blizz", however, Gamestop has this curious date of November 2010 on their website, that may or may not mean anything.  8:25 PM, 25 Sep 2009 (EDT)


 * Definitely "may not." Stores have to have release dates in order to take preorders, so when one doesn't exist they make one up. At best, it's an educated guess. At worst, they threw a dart at a calendar. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:50, September 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * If the year is wrong, I bet the period is right: "Santa Claus sells. We buy!"
 * 20:54, September 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * If only it was that soon - we still have Icecrown to take care of. I'm personally figuring late summer myself, or at least that's when we might hear about the beta test - if it does end up being like WotLK, it might be November after all...which means that the patch (the actual cataclysm) would be somewhere in October, just like WotLK. --Joshmaul (talk) 00:27, September 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd bet my ass on 3.3 on the PTR long before Christmas arrives. Considering how much work on Cataclysm Blizzard showed us at Blizzcon, I don't think the alpha test is too far off (say, this winter?) with the actual beta starting in like, May or June. That leaves us with the release of World of Warcraft: Cataclysm at the end of the summer of 2010. Back to school and back to leveling.[[Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gif]] AMBER (RΘCK)  09:46, September 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * While there are lots of players like myself in the workforce playing, I still think they carefully time release dates to the college calendar. 1:52 PM, 28 Sep 2009 (EDT)


 * yes,i expect it to come in late summer.that is quicker then wotlk came out sense it was announced however wotlk when it was announced didnt have this much info already.also a quote from blizzcon leads me to belive it will be realesed around late june to possibly VERY early augest
 * "by next blizzcon people will be complaining about goblin rouges"
 * this leads me to belive that it will come before blizzcon witch is in augest.Almasa (talk) 07:28, March 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * An August release date? Are you kidding me? They still have 3 fairly hefty patches to test and release before Cataclysm is released (3.3.5, 3.9.0 and 4.0), not to mention the Cataclysm beta itself. 3.3.5 is easily going to take a month to test on the PTRs, 3.9.0 probably a month to two months, and 4.0 is going to need AT LEAST two months on the PTRs. Even if they did only take the minimum time, and immediately slap the next one on the PTRs after they release one, sure that puts us at the end of July with about a month between 4.0 for shakedown before Cataclysm actually hits, but since when did Blizzard ever shove new content down our throats like that? We usually got a chance to adjust and enjoy it and they gave themselves a chance to see how the changes are working out.. My money is on a November release date, with the Cataclysm intro cinematic being unveiled in October at Blizzcon. That gives them enough time to properly test everything and us a chance to enjoy it. You're also forgetting Starcraft II which factors into this mess, as Blizzard won't want to risk sinking one with the other by releasing them too close to each other. There's going to be some time between Starcraft II and Cataclysm. Tanooki1432 (talk) 16:18, March 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * augest realese date is very plossible...3.3.5 isnt a major patch because it adds a raid...and im not fully convinced that 3.9.0 isnt an apiril fools joke yet....i heard a mention of them saying around late SUMMER...november is highly unlikely because 2 other things where realesed in november witch were just a coinceidence so the odds of a coinceidence happening again are highly unlikely....it fits perfectly look:
 * apiril:alpha cataclysm
 * may:3.3.5
 * june:star craft 2
 * july:possibly patch 3.9.0
 * august:patch 4.0/cataclysm pre-patch
 * a few days after pre-patch:cataclysm!
 * yay!!!see it makes sense.i wouldnt use patch 4.0 as an argument because wotlk came out like 2 days after the pre-patch came out.Almasa (talk) 09:23, April 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Get your facts straight: the WotLK pre-patch came out on October 14, 1 month before WotLK was released. Furthermore the BC pre-patch came out on December 5, just over 1 month before BC was released.
 * The Cataclysm F&F alpha hasn't been launched (according to the inside source on MMO-Champion) and it's unlikely that the beta will be released soon. I seriously doubt that StarCraft II will be released in June since a release date hasn't been announced.
 * I'm expecting Cataclysm to be released after BlizzCon, since it's a bad move to release it before BlizzCon: everyone would be all over Cataclysm to even bother going to BlizzCon to maybe get some news for future games, which I doubt. But maybe that's just me. -- 09:53, April 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * ok you were right about the pre-patch thing.i also have an update sense blizzard announced that blizzcon will actully be held in october so instead im thinking something like this.
 * apiril:alpha cataclysm
 * may:3.3.5 and maybe a cataclysm beta.
 * june:starcraft 2 and cataclysm beta if its not realesed in may
 * july:patch 3.3.9
 * august:cataclysm pre patch
 * september:cataclysm or cataclysm may come in early october.
 * october:diablo 3 beta?
 * december:patch 4.1.0
 * January or febuary:diablo 3
 * march or apiril of 2011:4.2.0
 * see...it all flows together.actully that cataclysm pre-patch might not come until early september if cataclysm is realesed in early october. Almasa (talk) 09:58, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * You're still shoving content down our throats at insane rates. Even if you're right and we do get Cataclysm by then, we're not going to be getting content patches that fast. As an FYI, we didn't get 3.1.0 until April of last year, a good 5 months after the release of Wrath, and 3.1.0 hit the PTRs in February, about 2 months before the release of the patch, which is about standard for large scale content patches (4.0). So maybe we could see 4.1.0 2 months after release, provided it hits the PTRs the DAY Cataclysm hits the shelves. But the world does not revolve around the Paragons and other hardcore guilds who can down brand new raid content the week it comes out. Also, that timeline has the potential of sinking Diablo 3 by sandwiching it between two major content patches. Most people will still be trying to get down whatever raid comes out in 4.1, and by the time they're done with that (IF they're even done with that), they then have whatever 4.2 has to offer, so they're not even going to be thinking about Diablo 3. So for the love of god, slow down. Blizzard developers are human beings. They have to sleep, eat, enjoy life outside the office just as you or I do. They can't churn out content like that. Tanooki1432 (talk) 15:37, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * We're not shoving any thing down your throat, and this page isn't an outlet to Blizzard employees. If you have an issue with the release time frames, take it to the official WoW forums. 16:44, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, Perhaps that wasn't the best choice of words.... Tanooki1432 (talk) 01:09, April 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Its just an estimate.Cataclysm will 90% come before blizzcon.mostly because of a few blizzcon comments by blizzard that made it about 60% and the fact that they are alredy posting up on the forums about the new spells and what not and all these little detailes confrimed that it would come soon.september as the realese date is VERY plossible!3.9.0 i think is actully 3.3.9 but ill post that on THAT talk page later!Almasa (talk) 08:43, April 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Blizzard says a lot of things, and I never believe release dates or estimated release dates or guessed release dates on Blizzard games until there's a solid number released by Blizzard for the game. If I recall correctly, they were estimating SCII for November of last year. But even then, it's still never a sure thing. I'm not 100% sure, but I think they announced a November 2006 release date for BC before bumping it to January to iron out a few more things. But honestly, I don't really care when it's released. If it's released in August, it's released in August. If it's released in November, it's released in November. If it's released it October, it's released in October. I still have plenty of stuff to keep me occupied until then, so I'm not all that concerned. Tanooki1432 (talk) 13:46, April 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's obviously for next Wednesday considering Operation: Gnomeregan lastest preview.
 * 13:59, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Read The Latest News Post on world of warcraft alackazam....It seems i was pretty much right!Almasa (talk) 04:18, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE!

alpha:now

beta:may

beta ends:august

pre-patch:september

realese:october

may of next year:4.1.0

Almasa (talk) 11:37, April 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Citation needed ~ Nathanyel (talk) 21:01, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently his source is this http://wow.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=22063. With a lot of assumption. 23:03, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute, the beta ends a full two months before the actual release of the game? That's rather atypical of what I've seen from Blizzard... They usually run their beta tests until pretty close to the actual release date.Tanooki1432 (talk) 02:08, April 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Alpha began yesterday. Tanooki1432 (talk) 22:28, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Welcome to yesterday. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 22:44, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't like yesterday, can I go to tomorrow? 23:44, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I can edit your signature/post so it reads that it's tomorrow... The question is, which tomorrow do you want? Do you want this tomorrow or the next tomorrow? There's even the last tomorrow. Tanooki1432 (talk) 02:02, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Cataclysm is going to be released in 2010. There is just way too much that needs proper beta testing. Uldum and Twilight Highlights still haven't been released to beta. Level 85 raid content isn't in beta yet, and the same is true with Archaeology and Mastery. The talent overhaul needs more work and balancing. The streaming launcher NEEDS months of beta to ensure it meets Blizzard strict standards. This thing is HUGE. It's not like a new sub-zone. This is how Blizzard is going to deliver data to players. And the bugs: they stretch up to the heavens! There are pages after pages of them on all of the beta forums with more being discovered virtually every minute. It's also a sad sign that the bug tracker is also bugged. I can't even imagine Blizzard pushing this out the door until early next year. this needs to be tested until at least Q1 2011. A Summer 2011 launch should resolve most, if not, ALL bugs. If they push this game out the door this year it will be the first game that doesn't live up to Blizzard's reputation of releasing top-quality products. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.


 * Preposterous- It was announced on multiple occasions from initial announcement to now that Cataclysm will be ready by the end of 2010. Judging by previous expansion packs, gamers have THEORIZED a late November/early December release. While it's not official information, it's shown in previous years to be pretty close when it comes to guessing. As for it not being ready, well, neither of the other expansion packs really were. It's not cutting Blizzard short to assume some obvious kinks and quirks to be released with the expansion to keep some big deadlines, however these are fixed within the first three major update patches (not three patches, three MAJOR ones). It sounds like a lot but in my personal opinion some of the hardest work in an expansion is post release. Heck, a lot of 85 stuff won't be released until after the expansion, just like WotLK. Htipiti (talk) 01:41, August 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * There are no "kinks and quirks" in Cataclysm; there are game-breaking bugs. The data streaming is something they just introduced within a last two weeks. Neither of the other expansions were as "expansive" as this one. For all intents and purposes Blizzard is taking the 4-5 years it took to create vanilla and condensing it down into a span of 2-3 years... then they're introducing a whole bunch of new changes like a talent overhaul and the a fore mentioned data streamer. Blizzard isn't going to launch the game if they feel it isn't ready. If I say the game isn't based on what I've seen and played, then I know Blizzard won't either; and they know what's going on behind the scenes. Regarding "It sounds like a lot but in my personal opinion some of the hardest work in an expansion is post release. Heck, a lot of 85 stuff won't be released until after the expansion, just like WotLK." Again Cataclysm isn't WOTLK or TBC... this is like Vanilla WOW v2.0. Yes! It's all 52 classic zones plus Uldum, Twilight Highlands, Vashj'ir, Deepholm, Hyjal, Tol Barad; plus raid content; plus instances (level 85 Shadowfang Keep and Deepmines aren't in game yet); plus a talent overhaul; plus the data streamer. It's massively huge! Even with the numbers and resources Blizzard is throwing at this thing it's not going to be released this year. "Cataclysm will be ready by the end of 2010" is true. In other words they'll announce the game is ready on December 31st but they'll still keep beta testing go. Korval (talk) 01:59, August 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * They've been good about release dates. Expac goes gold in October. Expac patch that next tuesday/wednesday (US/EU). Month later Xpac. I understand this is a MUCH larger expac. But that's probably why they introduced the data streaming. They've also said that as stuff in beta is finished they'll pop it out in background downloader on live. So patch 4.0 may hit, and we may have data being streamed to us every day to lessen the load. Saberd of The Shattered Sun (talk) 06:02, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be an edit war going on over the cata release date. Should the post analysis count, or should we wait for Blizzard to come right out and say it? -=- Drazisil [t/c] 17:06, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * The blue post quoted by MMO-Champ - I think it was Zarhym - saying that arena season 9 would be one week after Cataclysm's release, and the arena is scheduled for December 14, has got people thinking that Blizzard did come out and say it. As far as you and I know, that's not set in stone, but the rabid masses have been drooling over whatever date they've heard for the last year. --Joshmaul (talk) 18:15, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Changes to old Azeroth
A local gaming magzine reports that the new changes will be applied via the phasing system at level 80. Wild guess or verified? TherasTaneel (talk) 19:28, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Wildly inaccurate guess, given that Blizzard said exactly the opposite at BlizzCon. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:28, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * It probably doesn't matter at all, but I'm curious as to what source they cite (if any at all). Blizzard might have changed their mind since Blizzcon. It wouldn't have been a first that additions to WoW announced at Blizzcon did not come to pass or passed in a heavily altered manner.[[Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gif]] AMBER (RΘCK)  22:57, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * That'd be a pretty major thing to simply change their minds about. Remember, a big part of the reason the changes are worldwide is for the 1-60 leveling process; it wouldn't make sense to make sweeping changes to the world that don't show up until after you've finished leveling. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:58, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, there are no source cited; it's an article about the future of World of Warcraft in the mmorpg world and its development to stay in the race. TherasTaneel (talk) 23:04, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, probably just some hastily assembled piece of crapjournalism on the magazine's part then.[[Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gif]] AMBER (RΘCK)  23:18, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be PC Gamer UK - somebody posted scans of the article on one of my forums (in this order):          --Joshmaul (talk) 02:25, September 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all been summarized on MMO-Champion. Here:, if anyone's interested.[[Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gif]] AMBER (RΘCK)  10:01, September 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Where that romour came from... I wonder. Blizzcon 2009 clearly proves that everyone having a WoW account will be affected. Also those who do not have an account upgraded to Cataclysm. This makes PTR 4.0 particularly interesting. Maybe for me more interesting than the Closed Beta, who can tell? Hans Kamp (talk) 05:05, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

So the players will able to see the changes in Cataclysm since lv 1? I can’t see this will make sense… How does a blood elf player finish the quest that told him to go to THRALL to join the HORDE? Will he be changed to GARROSH? Sounds like a terrible mess up… Chronologically, When you hit lv 58, BURNING CRUSADE happens and you’re told to go to OUTLAND. When you hit lv 68, WotLK happens, and you’re told to go to Northrend. If the whole thing that mentioned above is true, then : You start a new character, Cataclysm happens. You hit lv 58, The BURNING CRUSADE happens. You hit lv 68, WotLK happens. You hit lv 78, Cataclysm happens AGAIN!! Zhang! (talk) 07:03, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Blizzard is making changes all across the board. Most of the changes are being centered on the vanilla content because it's so dated. What's there to say that the Draenei and Blood Elf starting zones (read: QUESTS) won't be touched up a little as well? Tanooki1432 (talk) 16:02, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, no, see, I'll explain it to both of you, so - 1): Thrall wont be changed to Garrosh, cause you already joined the Horde, then Thrall left and Garrosh came (same with Night Elves and Draenei). And 2): WotLK has already happened, I guess WotLK quests will still be there, except those to down the LK, which, at Cata, will be Bolvar Fordragon. And also, there's no point of everything changing at lvl 80, cause when someone hits lvl 80, it happens. Why doesnt it happen to brand-new lvl 1s that are created once you hit 80? And once you do it, youre a brand new 80, you cant see lvl 79-, they cant see you, and old lvl 80-s will just see you "spawn" at a place. EDIT: sry, forgot to sign my post, Gebezis 12:43, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Defense
My understanding is that defense isn't being removed from the game (the defense skill will undoubtedly still show on your characters' proficiency screen still with a value of 5 per level). It will though be removed from gear like armorpen, spell power, mp5 -- all mechanics and stats that will still exist, but won't come from armor but talents/masteries. Suggestion -- changing the wording on that bullet pending clarification from Blizzard?--Drolfeir (talk) 05:17, October 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * It currently states that defense rating is being removed. I don't think "from gear" is needed, since gear is the only source of defense rating. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:37, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there are one or two elixirs that grant defense rating, and I remember one of the Hallow's End food buffs to grant def rating, too. Still, "from gear" indeed is unnecessary. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 09:19, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * I just checked the photo on mmo-champion, it just says defense, does anyone have a source for defense rating? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:17, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * Cause its self explanatory... and it was a slide show, there was no "rating" next to haste either, or next to armor penetration. They said these stats were being removed from gear, not from the character. The stats on the gear read as ratings, so yea, its talking about defense rating. 02:58, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source to back up your claim that haste is being removed from gear? The Mastery slide shown on this page heavily implies that haste will remain a stat on gear, and the haste slide on this page doesn't say anything about it being removed from gear. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:31, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't recall haste being one of the removed stats either. Defense, armor pen, spell power, and mana per 5 are the only ones I can recall. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 03:41, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, I never meant to say haste was being removed, I was just using it as an example of them not putting the word "rating" with it. 05:11, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should summarize what was actually stated in the slides and blue posts and let the readers interpret it, or at least distinguish between what has been stated by Blizzard and our interpretations of those statements. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:21, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * A blue post (archived here) has confirmed that defense skill is also being removed. I've edited the entry and cited the blue post. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:39, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Haste and attack speed
Does anyone have a source to back up the claim that haste will no longer affect attack speed for physical DPS classes and specs? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:54, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Here you go. http://www.wow.com/2009/08/26/encrypted-text-patch-3-2-2-updates-and-blizzcon-news/ Paly 1 (talk) 04:12, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * That post could also be interpreted as stating that haste will also have a significant effect on yellow damage in addition to its' current effects instead of being a primarily white damage stat. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:35, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Itemization and cluttered loot tables
I've seen quite a few blue posts about how loot tables are too cluttered. Many of the announced changes would make the problem worse be widening the gap between healer and spell DPS gear or creating a gap between one-handed melee DPS weapons for strength classes and one-handed melee DPS weapons for agility classes. Have there been any blue posts or other official statements about plans to deal with cluttered loot tables in Cataclysm? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:05, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm... actually, gear will be homogenized, all casters will use spirit, leather/mail physical dps will have only agi, while plate dps has str, plus some ratings and sta for both, of course. 1h weapons with str but without def/defensive stats don't exist anymore since Titan's Grip, which in turn lead to enhancers using agi, rogues getting axes and 1h axes having agi. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 17:26, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * According to MMO Champion's summary of Blizzcon 2009's open Q&A panel, "Spirit is going to be a healer stat only, it won't exist on DPS Gear. Healers need it to regen and other casters don't use it at all.", in other words, mages, warlocks, shadow priests, boomkins and elemental shamans won't need spirit and will gain little or no benefit from it, which wouldn't be a problem for cloth wearers, but could be a problem for leather and mail wearers, who are currently expected to share gear between healer and spell DPS specs. Have you got another source that contradicts this? As for one-handed physical DPS weapons, they're also currently used by frost death knights, who don't gain much benefit from the agility on slow one-handed DPS weapons, but still benefit from the attack power. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:14, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * According to a blue post by Ghostcrawler (archived here), they'd like to get rid of spirit conversion talents for mages and warlocks because their gear usually won't have spirit, so it looks like spirit on leather and mail spell DPS gear and spirit conversion talents for balance druids and elemental shamans haven't been ruled out. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:19, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Nah, that actually speaks against such talents. They don't want caster dps to rely on spirit. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 09:51, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * But it contradicts some of the broad statements in fansite summaries of the panels, for example in MMO Champion's official summary of the Blizzcan 2009 Open Q&A Panel, it is stated that "Spirit is going to be a healer stat only, it won't exist on DPS Gear. Healers need it to regen and other casters don't use it at all.". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:34, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe re-read the second part of your previous post, you probably intended something different. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 08:43, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * I started this topic to make sure that the article has the most accurate and up to date information on spirit, itemization and loot table changes. In my previous two posts, I was trying to point out that, at the time, the most up to date information was that they would like to get rid of spirit conversion for mages and warlocks since those classes generally won't be using spirit gear, however it was too early to rule out the possibility of spirit conversion for any spell DPS spec. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:12, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, they're definitely planning not to do that, and it will probably go live that way, but if the casters complain about the "loss" or the lots of "useless" gear with spirit, they might reintroduce this, even for elemental shamans. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 09:07, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, according to this recent blue post, druids may get attack power from strength in order to allow feral tanks to share tanking cloaks, rings and necklaces with plate wearing tanks. I've incorporated that information into the article. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:46, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * To quote my edit summary: I wonder why that blue post was even made, it's actually just as it is now for Wrath items, no Strength on leather anyway. Just the AP on leather/mail is moved into the Agi. Would be interesting to know though if the AP from Agi concept will still be baked into Cat Form, or not, which would grant bears AP from Agi, too ~ Nathanyel (talk) 09:07, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * This been sorted out by the class previews a few months ago. In blue post here, it was announced that Balance and Elemental will have talents to convert spirit to hit rating, and in the warrior preview, it was announced that Fury warriors will get a talent called Single-Minded Fury, which will make dual-wielding one-handed weapons competitive with dual-wielding two-handed weapons. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:30, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

A Simple Question
Do I need the previous 2 expansions installed to install Cataclysm? Kookamooka (talk) 10:51, December 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * Most likely. As you need Classic for BC, and BC for Wotlk
 * 10:55, December 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. Kookamooka (talk) 12:06, December 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * There's really no point, you still get access to all the zones: World of Warcraft: Cataclysm except for the ones in this image: File:Cataclysm Map.jpg and not including the new races. SandersP (talk) 00:30, January 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well if all you want to do is the new 1-60 content, sure, but if you want to access the new races, new race/class combos, new zones, Archaelogy, anything beyond level 60... I think saying "there's no point" is incredibly misleading. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:34, January 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Rare are the players saying "glory to vanilla" and who don't buy any expansion pack anyway.
 * 09:09, January 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * It would make sense as Cataclysm will raise the level cap to 85, I can't see Blizzard allowing people to ignore the first 2 expansions and be allowed to get from level 60 to 85 just from having Cataclysm. And as to the "glory to vanilla", theres quite a big guild on my server of people who have the expansions but have turned off their xp to the sole purpose of playing vanilla end-game semi-authenticaly, strangely.--Lyco (talk) 04:21, January 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I can see Blizzard at some time in the future "merging" Classic with older expansions, in terms of need for purchase. You just purchase WoW, and have Classic, BC (and WotLK) already.
 * Of course, this would dangle with "classic accounts" for characters with a max level of 60. Then again, we have XP stop by now. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 17:44, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

You do not need the previous expansions on your computer to install Cataclysm. You need to have purchased the the original game plus the previous 2 expansions and have registered them with Blizzard and linked to your account. So if you buy a new computer and install Cataclysm and you log in Blizzard will know if you had purchased the previous expansions before allowing you to install the game. Paly 1 (talk) 04:10, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Lich King
Does this mean then that "Fall of the Lich King" was exactly that? "Bye bye Arthas mate, I knew you were only pretending to be so strong"..? I mean they said Fall of the Lich King will be the last major patch before Cataclysm and I cant see they slipping in the LK's demise in a reset. So what gives? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.


 * Um... it is the last major patch till Cataclysm, that's not to say they won't do several minor patches in between. 06:12, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. My guess is that everyone is supposed to take a nice, long breath after the Lich King falls, things are to carry on as usual, and then all of a sudden when everyone has a false sense of relative security (I heard on the official forums that an unspecified amount of time is to pass between "now" - the Lich King's fall - and Cataclysm) the Cataclysm happens.  --Super Bhaal (talk) 17:04, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks both, realy had me rather confused to be honest. I'm hoping they used Fall of the Lich King for a reason, as I couldn't possibly see him actualy being completely dead. Deafeated, but never killed. And I think he'll be like one of those villains in a comic book where he's too useful to the story etc for them to ever let him die. --Lyco (talk) 04:13, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Release date
Activision officially announced that it would come out this year, so is it okay with you if we at least put "2010" in the info box? -- 08:11, February 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems unlikely they'd release it the same year as starcraft 2. unless they're pushing sc2 back again. --1201 (talk) 08:44, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems more unlikely to me that there would be a full year between 3.3 and Cataclysm. They've mostly "confirmed" that they want to release Starcraft 2 mid-2010, so a late-2010 release for Cataclysm is still a possibility (and, in my opinion, almost a certainty given the previous expansion development cycles). -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:38, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Source: ActiVision. It says that 2010 will be a very special year for Blizzard, as they for the first time ever release two major products in the same year. -- 18:59, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hasn't the game and following expansions all come out at around November each time? 20:33, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * BC was January 16th, 2007. That both Classic and WotLK came out in November is mere coincidence, I'd say. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 20:48, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * BC was slated for a November 2006 release date if I recall correctly, but they bumped it to January to iron a few things out. Tanooki1432 (talk) 18:38, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Box Art?
Nordic website CDON has Cataclysm up for preorder, and they have, oddly enough, box art for the game. It looks professional, but it seems strange that I've never heard of it before. Anyone else have?  Xavius, the Satyr Lord  22:23, February 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone with Photoshop can come up with that, though. It seems like too much of an effort to create such a pic when they could just use a crop of some official pic - maybe they just have a high standard. However, even more unlikely than this shop taking that effort is Blizzard giving just this Swedish shop a preview of their box art.. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 02:54, February 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's probably fake, but the thing that had me wondering was the effort they had put into it. It fits the format of the earlier games perfectly, it even has the text next to the Blizzard logo, and the "rune-ring" with the fire effects looks like it took a long time to make. Like you said: why go to all that effort? [[Image:INV Misc Orb 04.png|20px]] Xavius, the Satyr Lord  12:43, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Thunderbender?
On YouTube, I saw footage of a new "hero class" called the "thunderbender". Just wanted to know...is there going to be something called the thunderbender. Thanks.--Rollersox (talk) 23:23, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Total BS. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:41, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather be a Night Elf Mohawk. 23:42, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL :P. OK thanks for the info.--Rollersox (talk) 02:44, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

how will noobs cope?
ok bare with me it's a long tale for a short question. Before I installed Burning crusade I could see things like 'blood elves' on the character creation screen and portals that I couldn't access without the upgrade. Same basic thing with WOLK. You had to install the upgrades to access the new features. So the question is when cataclysm comes out and the world of Azeroth is supposed to be changed; is that change going to take place if you DON'T install cataclysm? Will the barrens be cracked and orgrimmar changed etc? Do you have to install cataclysm to just access the new features like the level cap, new races and new classes? OR do you need cataclysm to see the new Azeroth too.--A Pickering (talk) 22:46, February 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * The article would have answered your question, if you only bothered to read it : World of Warcraft: Cataclysm - Zones affected by the Cataclysm.
 * Except this point, Cataclysm will most likely be like BC and WotLK : if you don't install it, you cannot access new races, professions and zones.
 * 23:08, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

OK so I skimmed. but that link you gave doesn't answer the question. it just tells me what'll be changed when cataclysm comes out. Not whether or not you need to install cataclysm or not to see/access them.--A Pickering (talk) 23:19, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * will noobs play on regular Azeroth? Or will they have to work around the changes? It can't be that hard surely. We get different servers when we're in dungeons so we don't run into anyone else unless we enter as a group. Why not have a cataclysm server for people with cataclysm installed. let regular players play regular azeroth until they're ready for cataclysm--A Pickering (talk) 23:23, February 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Everyone will see the new changes, no matter if you have Cataclysm or not. That means you'll see the shattered Barrens even if you haven't purchased the expansion - that is done with a previous patch (most likely patch 4.0.0). The difference is that you won't have access to the new things, such as playing a goblin, new class combinations etc. -- 23:49, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Cause they don't want to make different rules and different patch types for different servers.. everything is the same and thats how they want it.
 * Moreover, a large part of why they're so drastically updating the old world is BECAUSE they want new players to experience it. They've admitted that the current 1-60 game is rather dated, especially compared to the 60-80 game, and so they're going back and applying what they've learned to make it a better experience for new players and a new experience for old players. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 01:11, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention it gives them a chance to make everything flight mount capable in the process. 01:37, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

The black iron from somewhere
Is it just me who thought when they heard the Tom say that you may recognise the black iron on Orgrimmar from somewhere, that it was from Icecrown Citadel? 02:08, February 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think all he meant was that it's reminiscent of the Horde structures in Northrend, not that it's saronite. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 02:24, February 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Of all the metals of that color, it seems to make most since that the buildings in Northrend were made of saronite. Just a few justifications: First, Agmar's Hammer's architexture is strikingly similar to that of Icecrown Citadel and, second, the quest "Black Blood of Yogg-Saron" in the Dragonblight shows that the Horde is actively interested in using the powerful and rare metal.AhotahThunderhorn (talk) 03:20, February 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * That quest and its' followup wouldn't make sense if Agamar's Hammer was constructed using saronite. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:37, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * The side effects of Saronite mining clearly explain that no "mortal" structure could use saronite, only the Scourge is not driven mad upon prolonged contact.
 * 08:49, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

I will attempt to Explain Tauren Pally
http://www.wow.com/2009/08/27/flavor-names-for-new-race-class-combos/

There is a quest call An Injured Colleague. It takes you to elder rise where you see a Tauren in robes wielding a staff and a Tauren kneeling with a large sword and armor. If you hang around, they will begin one of two dialogues, readeable at Aponi Brightmane and Tahu Sagewind.

If you talk to Tahu Sagewind:
 * "Surely you've been a student once in your life, . You learned from an instructor, and you gained respect for them in some way, yes? Maybe not as a person, but at the least, as one who know more than you and was willing to teach you. If not, use your imagination...


 * What would you do if you came to realize your instructor may not know as much as you thought, and that you may have found a better path?"

This is one of the phasing in the race/class combos that was spoken of at my link. *points to the top of the post.*

1horseboy2 (talk) 02:54, February 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * But what is your point? Where is the little something we don't already know?
 * 09:37, February 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, why quote the full conversations which are well-known by most people here when you could just link to Tahu Sagewind or Aponi Brightmane? ~ Nathanyel (talk) 12:26, February 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * My point is that I saw some people complaining about it on this page so I figured I posted. Also, I wasn't paying attention and didn't see that little help box on the side and didn't know how to post links. I was going to do that earlier but I couldn't figured it out xD 1horseboy2 (talk) 13:53, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

The Plaguelands! The Plaguelands!
So what will happen to the Plaguelands? I saw the chart on the article saying the levels would be changed but, what does that mean for the content? Will everything just be de-leveled a little, or will they drastically change it? What about Araj, Andorhal, and the Plague Cauldrons? How about Scholomance and Stratholme? Or the amazing quests like In Dreams and The Battle of Darrowshire (quest)?

What will happen to them? My favorite areas in the game? Skulkerart (talk) 13:47, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * They've stated that the Western plaguelands will be greener and less dead... with a possible name change. 16:22, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

I mean, If we DID somehow manage to kill the Lich King, how about his power in the Eastern Kingdoms recede a-bit? Kigaauuimp879 (talk) 14:32, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... Earth Crust Displacement theory?
Sorry for bringing this subject to this page, but during the last three or so years, I've seen way too many docummentaries, movies, and games that are directly, or in some way related to the idea that the world will face a cataclysmic change by the end of 2012. Now, it comes to World of Warcraft, a game played by millions of people worldwide, in the form of a new Sundering where earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcano eruptions will take place reshaping the world of Azeroth as if it were the Earth in the "Earth's Crust Displacement" theory and the 2012 movie. Be ready, we're going to see lots of the 2012 event references and easter eggs in the upcoming expansion. Orisai (talk) 02:20, March 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe. 04:06, March 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is what will happen in 2012: NOTHING. You may now stop worrying about imaginary disasters and absurd apocalypse theories. - Vorknkx (talk) 05:56, April 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum, dicuss the topic or begone.
 * 09:28, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

seroiusly...stop being lazy...
People its time to stop being lazy and edit the classic zones articles and make them updated for cataclysm instead of just making a little section...i tried working on it but someone undid my change....we need to stop being lazy and work on this please!!! Almasa (talk) 13:38, April 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Changes only deserve a Cataclysm section for now, as the Cataclysm has not yet happenned.
 * But be bold, copy/paste articles in your namespace and start formating them for the D-day.
 * 13:53, April 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * How do you suggest we update zone articles Almasa, when we don't know everything they plan to change. What they say now, and what actually might happen are two different things. 21:39, April 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel some, most, or all of the zone articles should be organized like a timeline, with any information that was true at some point coexisting in an organized fashion.-- 21:43, April 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. And the best way to do that... is the cataclysm sections to mark a new era. 21:50, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * That would match just about everything else on the wiki. A brief, general, present-day description at the very top, then a more detailed timeline in the bulk of the article below. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:15, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the Barrens, which, from what I've heard is being split into two zones?Tanooki1432 (talk) 20:53, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Already there... Barrens. Until the beta actually happens we don't really know much more than that, so there's no point yet splitting it in two. -- k_d3 20:55, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Change the thumbnails too make them what the zone will look like.make azara horde.change level ranges of the zones.desolace thumbnail changed to forest.azshara needs to be listed as horde and a level range of 10-20.Almasa (talk) 11:41, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, when it comes out. Currently, these zones do not have those factions and level ranges. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:44, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * My question is, what's the rush? There's still some time until these changes come out, and currently, none of them are applied to even test servers, let alone the main servers, and this site mainly deals with the "here and now", and not the "still to come". And what if Blizzard decides to instead destroy Azshara completely instead of making it a 10-20 Horde zone? Blizzard has been known to make changes like that. IIRC, Outlands was originally going to be a stomping ground for level 60s (when it was the level cap), not center stage of an entire expansion. It's all still premature, mate. Have some patience. Take A'Noob's advice and use your user page (www.wowwiki.com/User:Almasa/ ) and make these changes. Then, when the changes ARE implemented, you can simply copy and paste.Tanooki1432 (talk) 20:04, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Faceless ones
Does someone else recognize faceless ones in the top left corner?

Aquatic faceless ones? ><"

06:47, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like it, although the idea that servants of the Old Gods would be found in the elemental planes is rather unsurprising, really. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 07:00, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

concept art
It says that thats creature concept art but some of it is environment's with no creatures in it. should i move the image or change the section just to say concept art? Almasa (talk) 17:05, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Archive?
This page is kinda getting crazy huge. Maybe archive it and start over? Tanooki1432 (talk) 21:12, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't archive active articles. Only talk pages. 21:20, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I was referring to the talk page, not the actual page... Sentence structure/specifics fail... Humanity is NOT telepathic... Tanooki1432 (talk) 21:22, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh... Well.. if we archive it now, people might ask the same questions that would have already been answered, but unseen cause it wasn't on this page. 21:30, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I rest my case. Tanooki1432 (talk) 21:34, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

beta has no nda
beta has no nda so when the beta comes out will you post information on it?


 * When the beta comes out and the NDA is explicitly removed, yes. Until then we will honor Blizzard's wishes to keep the content secret. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:00, June 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a link to a page that says the nda will be lifted on sunday!

http://www.buffed.de/wow/news/15204/WoW-Cataclysm-buffed-besucht-Blizzard-Fotos-Frische-Cataclysm-Infos-am-Sonntagabend Almasa (talk) 14:40, June 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be an ass, but translation would be useful. Tanooki1432 (talk) 15:01, June 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Google it like you mean it!
 * 15:49, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * That would really cool if all the Alpha NDAs expired at that time... [[Image:IconSmall_DrakeAzure.gif]] Drazisil (t/c) 16:04, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

I used the translate Google thing i dont speak German lol...Almasa (talk) 16:12, June 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * That is not the Alpha NDA, it's the NDA for the Blizzard press event that fansites were invited to recently. Information from that event can't be revealed until sunday. -- 17:05, June 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I've heard too. (Sidenote, WoWWiki was invited, but we couldn't get anyone there : 17:55, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Cataclysm pics
We should do like MMo-Champ and post a "Cataclysm Screenshot of the Day" from the official sites screenshots. Hallowseve15 (talk) 11:15, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? WoWWiki is a database, not a news site. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 16:13, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides the Screenshots of the Day from the official site are already uploaded practically all the time and placed either on the article they represent or in the Cataclysm gallery. 19:43, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Wowhead "huge" cataclysm news
Are we allowed to upload screenshots that wowhead has taken from the press release last week (i.e. new stormwind keep, grim batol [interior])? Saberd (talk) 18:42, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * If it isn't Blizzard who have posted it in the first place, then it isn't allowed. TherasTaneel (talk) 18:55, June 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Blizzard hosted the press event, so you would think that the websites have permission. There are a bunch of previews out.-- 19:04, June 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing that it might be related to the NDA that was lifted today according to the article posted above. As for information being posted, I'm going to leave it up to the Admin-type people on what they want posted. Until then, I'm going to keep with the knowledge that the NDA on the F&F Alpha (and thus, the vast majority of the game's information) is still solidly in place. Tanooki1432 (talk) 20:45, June 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's allowed information, due to the fact Blizzard held the press conference and released the information to these sites, us included (had any of us been able to attend). They want the information to be released, even the screenshots, since it seems they asked them not to take photos of certain things, the ones they do were most likely allowed to take. 21:28, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

So no more NDA we can talk about Cata all we want? Hallowseve15 (talk) 01:26, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * The NDA was **NOT** lifted on the alpha. It was lifted on the internal press conference they held last week and applies to a very limited amount of information. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 01:47, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Warsong Gulch
Since horde took ashenvale so no more wsg? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.


 * The Horde only took part of Ashenvale, and Blizzard has said nothing about removing battlegrounds.-- 23:48, June 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I agree with Sandwichman. We have seen no removal of Battlegrounds to date for one thing, and for the other the Horde haven't taken all of Ashenvale, merely part of Southern Ashenvale. (And iirc WSG is supposed to represent fighting across the entire zone.) OkolorionTalk Contribs  00:44, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

G4TV Interviews
Would have posted this earlier, but had problems with confirmation emails from wikia again (Ty for getting it fixed quickly Kirkburn.). ;)

I'm being a bit lazy in not wanting to put this info in myself, but i throught i'd bring it to the attention of those who want to add it anyway. In a recent interview with G4TV, Cory Stockton announced two things of importance not talked about elsewhere to my knowledge: -- 23:22, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) New auto-quest technology introduced in Cataclsym will allow players to complete quests and take follow up quests in the field without having to return to quest givers. New quests in a chain will simply pop up once you've completed the quest criteria of an earlier quest.
 * 2) Cataclysm is launching with three raids, not the four previously announced. Given the latest information revealed on the raids, this would indicate that Firelands has been dropped as a launch raid.
 * Thank you. I've edited the Cataclysm page to reflect this. Saberd (talk) 05:18, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Additional race choices for Warlocks
http://blue.mmo-champion.com/t/24702205296/race-class-balance-between-horde-alliance it's official, I added it in here, it should be fixed on the troll, dwarf and warlock pages as well 03:14, July 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Done and Done and added references given by the other editor. Slayman (talk) 03:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Level ranges.
Zone level ranges have a stated intented goal by Blizzard, so it does not matter at all how they currently appear in beta, as they are still being heavily tuned. Please do not provide observed level ranges instead of these. -- 16:38, July 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide a source? Korval (talk) 16:54, July 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * We choosed to move Sunken City of Vashj'ir to Vashj'ir because "this is how it appears in beta, Blizz's plan must have changed".
 * Why would we provide a beta observed info for something and a Blizz's plan info for something else? ;)
 * We need to choose one or the other, not both when it favor someone/us.
 * 17:00, July 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * But this doesn't exactly say anything specific about level ranges being temporary and changeable. Could you also provide a source from Blizzard via their forums, Q&A or something?
 * Look, if no one is going to do me the courtesy of posting a single source verifying the removal of level ranges because Blizzard says, "these zones are going to sustain heavy changes" then I don't consider the removal a valid one. Until someone can provide evidence to the contrary I think the level range information should remain as-is. If we're going to make these sorts of claims and not provide evidence, then by extension any information related to Kelp Forest, Shimmering Expanse and Abyssal Depths should be removed. This would also include information such as level requirements for quests in Vashj’ir. Again someone provide a Blizzard source showing where they claim the zones are "are going to sustain heavy changes" specific to level ranges.
 * Korval (talk) 17:34, July 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Korval.
 * We post and edit, based on what we see in Beta. Why would this particular point escape the rule?
 * 17:45, July 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Precisely. Especially considering the dynamic nature of this site. If Blizzard changes Vashj'ir to be in the level range of 80-84 then it's not hard to edit and make the change. I think posting cursory information based on gameplay is appropriate and this includes cursory observation of level ranges within Kelp Forest, Shimmering Expanse and Abyssal Depths. Korval (talk) 18:05, July 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong A'noob. We do not post everything as it is in Beta as it's work in progress and there are many temporary work arounds and solutions in place that will never be used outside of beta.
 * The level ranges for the zones have been stated in a few places, but the most comprehensive is here -- yes many of the ranges on there are wrong/stated differently since it was last updated. I am also in beta btw, and have leveled through the new zones myself, so while i agree with some of the ranges Korval has provided, they are not what has been stated as the intended level range and are either temporary or they will announce they plan to change the level range (Eg. Mount Hyjal current does not provide a level 82 experience and only just enough XP to cover 80-81, so not even close to the 79-82 they have stated, and appears to be more like 78-80/81. -- 18:06, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: This page is not about "what Cataclysm looks to be in beta" but "what Cataclysm will be when it's shipped, with insight from beta to fill in gaps". -- 18:24, July 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Zealvurte. Could we remove level ranges from Hyjal, Twilight Highlands, and other high level zones? For example, Twilight Highlights isn't even available in beta (AFAIK). How can someone post a level range of "(84-85)" if no one outside of the devs and alpha team has played it yet? Korval (talk) 18:17, July 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I fear the blue post announced all level ranges Korval
 * 18:30, July 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. Okay. Fair enough :) Korval (talk) 18:31, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is, in fact, where I got them all from. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:08, July 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems Blizzard acknowledge the problem and have adjusted the level range as expected (See here.) – though personally not the right choice of levels imo. -- 22:36, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Update 4.0
Hey all, I'm having some trouble with the patch mirrors; I have donwloaded the 3 seperate parts and have copied them into the Updates folder, but I think I might have done this incorrectly as I'm still getting the Launcher pop up trying to download the content. The problem is, the router blocks the blizzard downloader so I cant do it that way. If anyone can shed any light on this, it would be much appreciated.

Pooinyourshoe (talk) 18:23, October 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Haven't heard of it blocking the d/l or moving/copying them anywhere...the launcher WILL still say update available...all it does however is check and see if everything is correct...it will go through and say "checking patch name X GB of Y GB" Apart from that...can't think of another reason. Saberd of The Shattered Sun (talk) 19:55, October 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Blizzard has notes on this, which I believe are duplicated here. If you have access to the router's settings, you can add the suggested ports so that the Downloader will be able to get through. On my Linksys routers, it's under "Applications and Gaming," and there are pages for single ports and for ranges, which makes it a little easier. There's also (on many routers' controls) an option for UPnP, which communicates the applications' settings to the router; but I don't know if this is still relevant. (In any event, I have it turned on, haven't set any forwarded ports, and it's working under Windows 7.) One thing I always forget to do is to launch the Launcher or Downloader with "Administrator" access so that it can make changes to the disk without exiting with a strange error message-- one of the charms of Windows that Mac people don't have to put up with.


 * EDIT: I've found something of a solution to the Windows UAC problem. Basically, I hate clicking "Yes" in the UAC dialog box every time I launch the game. Now, Windows "protects" files in several places, and "Program Files" is one of those. So what you can do is create a new folder on the root directory, calling it "Program Files (non-UAC)" or some such, and copying the whole World Of Warcraft directory there. You'll get a different UAC dialog the first time you run it (two, actually, one for the Launcher and one for the Downloader) but these only occur once per version; you'll have to click "Allow" each time there's an update. But, it cuts down on your clicking, eh? Copying to another disk and running it from there is another option, but the same idea.--ClemSnide (talk) 10:09, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, UAC isn't a "problem" - it's like su on Linux. The only difference is that in most cases Windows can automatically detect when something may need escalation and request it there.  In fact, it's optimal to set a complex Administrator password and live with typing it in every time you need escalation - it prevents people who have physical access to your computer from messing around with it.


 * Second, there's a way to disable UAC in the WoW directory in Program Files or Program Files (x86) without moving the folder, and one that isn't likely to break registry information about WoW. Right click on the WoW folder, click the Security tab, and grant regular users Write access to it.  Not that you should, honestly. Sarvam (talk) 05:06, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

What to do before the Cataclysm
I'm sure this information is out there, but a lot of it is inference. It'd be helpful to have a section on "what to do before the Cataclysm:" i.e., the Achievements that will from that point on be Feats of Strength, the factions that will disappear, etc. There are a number of lists scattered across the Web of this variety, but most of them amount to a more personal "what I want to do before Cataclysm" topic and not a more general "what will be impossible to do after Cataclysm is released."

Perhaps the wiki's owner could start up a page or section of a page. Specifics might include, but not be limited to:
 * Loremaster and Universal Explorer. While the Exploration Achievements page implies that these will be around, getting quests that may disappear or logging regions that will be no more can help gain the meta-achievements.
 * Pets that may disappear, especially rare pets, both vanity pets and hunters' pets. The Sprite Darter is a good example.
 * The Classic Dungeons and Raid Achievements.
 * Get Exalted with the Zandalar tribe.
 * Getting Dartol’s Rod of Transformation.

--ClemSnide (talk) 22:21, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * ...Sprite Darter is gone? D: *farm farm farm* Saberd of The Shattered Sun (talk) 16:17, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Splitting this page?
Now that 4.0.1 is live, perhaps this page needs a complete overhaul as it is getting a bit long to: Tequima (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Summarise Major cataclysm changes that have yet to happen - keep on this page with links to the details on Patch 4.0.3 (world changes) and Patch 4.0.3 for mechanics & other changes
 * Summarise stuff that has already changed - re-direct to 4.0.1 changes, API changes, Patch 4.0.1 (class changes) and undocumented changes?)

Whats the Download Size of CAT?
Whats the size of CAT? how many GB I need to save for this xpac to download completely?--Knighthonor (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)