Talk: Patch 3.3.5 (undocumented changes)

Revision as of 18:44, 31 May 2010

Number

Where does it actually call this patch 3.9.0? Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:01, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

In the URL. --Pcj (T•C) 00:03, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok then, thanks for clearing that up.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:09, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

ummm are you sure this is not 3.3.9 because blizzard said that there will not even be a 3.4.0 because 3.3 is the last major patch so this is either fake or its 3.3.9 or its a cataclysm patch also cataclysm will come before they have time to do a 3.3.5,3.4.0,3.4.1,3.5.0,3.6.0 ect. Almasa (talk) 00:33, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

That was kind of my thought... it does seem kind of silly to go from 3.3.5 to 3.9.0. Though I can see why they would give it that number... cause technically a major patch would be needed to change the entire would prior to the cataclysm xpak release date. So 3.9 would make sense given that cata is 4.0.0.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:10, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure about it. They probably just didn't want it to be 3.4.0 and making it like 3.3.7 probably seemed silly. --Pcj (T•C) 01:21, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

No.....that probobly wont be its name dude.they have never skiped numbers before and they wouldnt start now they also said that there would not be another major pass however i belive this is offical so its real but its name is wrong because its probobly 3.3.9 i think it might have gotten mixed up a little thoughout the corse of passing information along.... Almasa (talk) 05:40, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Well, the underdev pages for ICC had /3p3 in the URL, the ones for Ulduar had /3p1, this one has /3p9... It's all precedent. In any case, if it ends up being a different patch version, it's not like it's hard to just move this page to the proper version number. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 06:34, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Almasa, they have also never done such a huge patch that would borderline an expansion set. Whatever they plan to call the patch this is likely the one that will change all of Azeroth's graphics and allow for flight capability. The work involved is probably equal to that of Wrath of the Lich King or Burning Crusade. Since this effects all players, not just those that will buy Cataclysm, there is likely a reason to their numbering of it 3.9 rather than say 4.0.1. And yes, blizz said no more major patches until Cataclysm. That doesn't mean this patch is coming out very soon, its likely to happen right before the release date. One last thing, just because Blizz doesn't do something, doesn't mean they won't do something... it's like expecting to see a new heroic class for the Xpak after Cataclysm just because of their "pattern" they've shown. BC=New races, Wrath=New class, Cata=New races... but this is a pointless debate, as Dark T Zeratul has said, the page can simply be moved if things change.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 07:02, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

I think that the 3p9 is a placeholder name for maybe one of the last patches boefre cataclysm launch. Aedror42 (talk) 23:18, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this is a Cataclysm leadup - and on top of it, the BC-to-Wrath changeover didn't exactly follow a numerical order. Last patch of BC was 2.4.3, the first official patch of Wrath was 3.0.2. Skipped over 2.5 to 2.9. This is just more of the same, I think...and we probably won't see 3.3.5 until probably May or June-ish, if I had to guess - just in time for the Cataclysm later in the summer (if then). --Joshmaul (talk) 10:43, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

It is likely that 3.9 must be renamed to 3.3.9, because that is likely. I suggest to keep the number 3.9 until it is clear what the actual version number is. Then we can change 3.9 in Wowwiki to that version number. 3.9 is a guess, likely a misinterpretation of "3p9" by MMO-Champion. Hans Kamp (talk) 07:42, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Joshmaul, that's simply how software version numbering schemes work. As you recall, vanilla got up to 1.12 before it was updated to 2.0 for the expansion. It's not a simple decimal system incrementing by 0.1. It's (release version).(major patch).(minor patch). Whenever a major patch is released, the minor patch is returned to zero. Likewise, whenever a release version comes out, the major patch is returned to zero. It wouldn't make any sense for them to skip from 3.3 to 3.9. Primal Zed (talk) 03:52, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

This years april fool's?

I'm almost certain! User:Deliah Shalièn/Sig 16:25, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Very unlikely.

Blizzard's April fool's are always unveiled the 1st, not a month before.

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 17:21, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Some of the quests are already in the PTR according to mmo-champion.com

Drkstrm (talk contribs) 22:41, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Delete this page

Blue post on forums confirmed that these events will happen in patch 3.3.5 so the events should be moved to 3.3.5 and this page should be deleted.EDIT:looked again and it turns out its not on 3.3.5 but it is not gonna be a 3.9.0 and the events wont happen with a patch!Almasa (talk) 17:48, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. The only reason the events are running in the 3.3.5 PTR is because they want to test it before this patch. By the way, do you have any evidence of your assertions? I doubt it, seeing as you've corrected yourself once already. --Joshmaul (talk) 20:16, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Evindence: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25134703802&pageNo=1&sid=1#7 no patch 3.9.0 its not coming with a patch at all.Almasa (talk) 21:08, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Your link only explains that OP and ZF are not for 3.3.5, it do not says that there will not be a 3.9.0

You should just Wait and See, articles can always be moved or renamed later.

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 11:54, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Look at the second blue post. It says that it wont come with a patch.

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 :You should just ''Wait and See'', articles can always be moved or renamed later.
 :{{User:A'noob/sig}} 11:54, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
+Look at the second blue post. It says that it wont come with a patch.