Talk:Reins of the Violet Proto-Drake

Not an item
Note that with, mounts are really spells, although most of the time you receive an actual item, like "reins" which you use to learn the actual mount spell. From the information available online so far, this mount is only a spell, never an item. However I have heard rumors that for mounts similar to this one, Blizzard sends you an in-game mail, and you receive a "reins" kind of item to learn how to summon your new mount. -Howbizr (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You always "learn" how to summon mounts through an item. Blizzard just hasn't created yet the item that teaches you how to summon the mount. 17:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then it just hasn't been picked up on fan sites yet. At least one tester somewhere out there has one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.
 * Private server/sandbox/datamining. Note the lack of NPCs.... 17:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "You always "learn" how to summon mounts through an item". Not always. Class-specific mounts are learned as a spell directly, with no reins item involved. The exception is Winged Steed of the Ebon Blade.

Mount speed
Anyone have a source for why this was changed from 310% to the normal speed? WoWHead is still showing 310%, and I haven't read anything about it on MMO-Champion. -Howbizr (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you undid my change I made to the speed for this mount. I only made the change to 310% because Mounts said it is a 310% speed along with the Black_Proto-Drake and Plagued_Proto-Drake. Should those also get reduced to 280% speed? Ifandbut (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Until someone actually gets the mount and can confirm its speed, or it is confirmed by an official source, I say we should leave it as it is. 11:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * More than likely, I added that information to those articles. But it was added to the official website as 280% (QQ I'm pretty pissed about that) so we can safely change it. -Howbizr (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Problem is, both sources could be considered official. One is a Blizzard produced page, the other is a page produced directly from in-game data.  If anything, you could note both speeds and that the true speed won't be known until someone has the mount.   17:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. But data mining of un-reachable content is not official IMO. (Not unlike Ulduar (instance) which is "technically" released although it's unreachable. You can see parts of the rooms on youtube or a private server). -Howbizr (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And back to 310%. The plot thickens... XLS723 (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirmed 310 in game. 8:29 PM, 21 Sep 2009 (EDT)

Not yet implemented
See how the item ID is actually a spell ID? We speculate it will be "reins" and speculate who will send you the mail, because she sends all the other items like this, but we don't actually know. It really hasn't been implemented/discovered. Technically but unlikely, they could still remove it. But since it's on the official website, it's probably going to exist. 8:43 PM, 9 Aug 2009 (EDT)

You have your Proto drakes confused

 * Moved from User_talk:Howbizr

The Reins of the Violet Proto-Drake has been ingame for a while - it is even listed here World of Warcraft Flying Proto Drakes page. This is NOT speculation. -- 03:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No I'm not confused. No one has this mount yet. No one will have this mount until September at least. But it is very very likely this mount will exist because it's mentioned on the official website. 10:30 AM, 10 Aug 2009 (EDT)
 * Just because no one has earned the mount does not mean it does not exist in the game ( it is Implemented ) just no one has met the requirements. So it does NOT need the NYI flag. There is a difference between Implemented and not earned vs Not Yet Implemented and will be ingame soon. --  14:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And I am sorry to say this but " Make Up Your Mind !" you tell me on one item we are going to go by what Blizzard patch notes says (stating it is in game) even though it is not ingame and I showed you proof via 2 3rd party web page that shows it is not there - and now you are NOT going to go by Blizzard notes that say it is ingame, just because you found 1 3rd party that says it is not there. Sa I am going to revert it again until as you said "Until Blizzard says otherwise." - YOu cant choose when you are going to follow Blizzard official pages and when you are NOT going to. --  14:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WoW Armory also shows it on their page too. -- This is 2 Blizzard pages that show it does exist ingame. -- 15:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added a note on the main page stating it is in game just has not been earned yet, and can not be earned yet until sometime in September. This still does not mean it does not exist, unearned is not the same as does not exist. -- 15:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Deep breaths...


 * The problem is not that it's a mount, or that it's an achievement reward - it's which flag to use. It doesn't really feel like a stub; very little if any information is missing. NYI feels weird because there's lots of information about its release (armory in particular, pretty much guarantees altho not 100% that it will be available in the game), but you can't obtain it, yet. Maybe we just need a "not yet obtainable" flag...


 * And I agree that Blizzard information is rather irritating because we don't know what to believe. Their information about Patch 3.2.0 also says they implemented customizable dance moves, but you can't yet. Although at least it didn't make it into the patch notes. And they made blue posts about priest changes (Power Word: Barrier) but it was shelved, quietly.


 * I guess as a developer, I put patch notes really high on the reliability scale, because these are generated from completed problem tickets and requirements documents. Somewhere out there, a developer said he coded it correctly, or a manager said it would be coded, and that's how it got on the list. What probably happened was either the developer was sloppy and didn't do it right, or QA found the problem, but it was marked "not critical" and it wasn't fixed before the build, and someone didn't fix the patch notes. However, because it made it into the patch notes, something they don't change after the fact, makes it seem highly likely they'll fix it at a later date (because they've done this before, and they did fix it later).


 * But the stuff that the PR people put on the website isn't quite as reliable, although it's highly reliable. Armory is definitely even high on the reliability list, but Blizzard has taken things off of armory before, and I'm sure it will happen again. 11:24 AM, 10 Aug 2009 (EDT)

Another broken page
Invalid tag extension name: onlyinclude

Does anyone have the golden touch to fix this? I'll email support just in case... 8:37 PM, 21 Sep 2009 (EDT)