Not adding Unarmored Mounts is a mistake, and the reasoning behind the decision is flawed


(Devilsknight) #65

Also let “Talisman of Binding Shard” be in the game!
Add everything that by coincidence or chance made a very few, unkowing and unprepared people, become special and make sure all special snowflakes now can feel like they are part of a unique history by preparing for it 15 years to late. Take everything thats beautiful, memorable and unique and massproduce it, eat it up and spit it out to make everyone feel special without an effort.


#66

Bring back unarmored mounts !!!

#equalrights


#67

I am one of those (few, I guess?), that appreciate these mounts not making it into Classic. Please hear me out, put down the torch. I am not here to tell you, that you are wrong; only offer my own oppinion, which I hope you will read with an open mind :slight_smile: (And if not, I give myself credit for posting it, knowing fully well, my response might make someone wish, that I would go up into flames as fast as Teldrassil did)

At first, when I read, that these mounts would not make it into Classic, I was really dissapointed. It was one of my main goals in Classic; to obtain that nightsaber without armor. I even had a specific look of my Night Elf in mind, so it would fit with the mount!

But having thought about it, I appreciate it not making it into the game. The statement from Blizzard makes sense to me; because yes, I will admit, I would be rushing to level 60 to be able to get this mount - and with that, miss out on the whole point of Classic; getting to relive it again, without the rush.

Argue all that you want (I won´t bite or argue back though :wink: )- but I believe, that the reason for Classic being made a reality is not to cater to those that intend to rush so they can parade around Ironforge in T3. If you are of that mentality, then each to their own, of course, but there already exists a lot of games out there to fit with that mindset.

For me, personally, now, without that “carrot” I can take my time without worrying about missing out on this mount. (And just in, before someone might start blaming me for the mount not making it into Classic; I can assure you, I have no such power over Blizzard!)

What a friend suggested though, would make everyone happy, I suppose;
bring in the mounts, and have them available for longer.

I am not sure why that isn´t being done.

I highly doubt, however, that we will never see these mounts. I think we will see them implemented somewhere down the line; once Blizzard determines, that everyone got a chance to “relive Classic slowly”. But that is me being naive, perhaps :slight_smile:


#68

now that’s just not true. First off, only MC was out during early days of classic and the concept of rushing didn’t even exist. The game was ground breaking new content so no one in their right mind would rush through new content to get to then unknown endgame content.

There was no PvP other then killing other players for the sake of it. There was no honor system and no BG’s. Mind you, we’re talking up till 1.4. There’s absolutely no way ppl would rush for something that’s non-existant

And what curve are you talking about? Up to 1.4 the vast majority of players were still leveling. The only curve that existed then was being higher level. There were no advancing raid tiers so there’s nothing to get ahead of.


#69

Mounts are an item, items adhere to the 1.12 state rules and implemented with the patch they came. They were introduced at the start and the mounts never changed they just got reskinned. As such it conforms to the rules that they laid out.

Making an exception for one item is going to open a pandara’s box for all items


(Trajan) #70

They have already made those exceptions with other items though so that excuse doesn’t really fly.


#71

I want the AV version to be the full experience, not the nerfed variety that was present in 1.12. So far Blizz have refused to implement it, even though the original AV was, in my opinon, the almost perfect combination of mission-running and PvP. Sucks, but it’s not a game-breaker, so that’s how it is. This is the same as not having unarmoured mounts: sucks, but it’s not a game-breaker, so that’s how it is.

Almost perfect , because the items ripped from the corpses of alliance players were considered to be conjoured, which meant they disappeared when the player left AV. This meant the player lost FW rep if they weren’t, or couldn’t be, handed in. If only this little mistake had been fixed, by making the items soulbound and persistent, then AV would have ranked as instance perfection; a benchmark for future pre-arranged battles.


#72

Wich item(s)?


(Uzuki) #73

Classic was about the journey, not rushing to the endgame! - Classic fans.

You should have to rush to 60 if you want the unarmoured epic mounts! - Also Classic fans.

Pick one.


#74

Both are valid opinions.


(Uzuki) #75

As long as you also realise that both are entitlement.


#76

Except if no one rushed back then, no one would have had the original unarmored mounts, and so this entire discussion wouldn’t be happening…or are you admitting it’s absolutely possible to get these mounts without rushing, thus proving once again Blizzard’s argument against them is faulty? :slight_smile:

So…world PvP? You know, the kind of PvP people always praise as being the single greatest alteration of PvP to ever having taken place in WoW?

You heard it here first folks, all those TM vs SS matches and City Raids were non-existant, apparently we all just had a very lively imagination back then?

So you’re genuinly trying to argue that in Vanilla, the majority of players who started levelling from launch, were still just levelling their first character by 1.4, four MONTHS after release?

Considering the fact MC had been cleared up to Ragnaros by the 10th of February (2 months prior, and only 2 months after release), apparently there were indeed people rushing through the content even in Vanilla ^^


#77

Personally, I think this is a fuss about nothing. A skin is missing from the game. The world is coming to an end. I just hope this attitude doesn’t make its way into the game. It’s what sent Retail down the road to mediocrity.


#78

Well personally I’d argue it’s the growing indifference towards what Blizzard does that’s led us there, but to each their own, you do you :slight_smile:


(Uzuki) #79

No I personally don’t care about them but whether you want them to feel special because you rushed levelling just to get them and think anyone who didn’t doesn’t deserve them or the people that took their time think they deserve them because they’re being punished for choosing to enjoy the game, it’s both entitlement in the end.


#80

It’s almost as if it’s not the same people saying these things, but two different groups of people with very different ideas about what’s important in Classic…

Or…hear me out…one can believe Classic is about the journey, while still recognizing that if you want rewards, you bloody well have to earn them :smiley:

Shocking how easy it is to make sense of this when you spend just five seconds thinking about it, huh…?


(Druidbra) #81

Yellow snow av doe…


(Trajan) #82

Loot tables will not be in their 1.12 state in phase 1. Some items will be missing since they were added to the loot tables in patches that correlate with another phase. Meaning that Classic will already launch with different items available at different times from the same place. Having different mount items available at different times would not be any different.


#83

Yes it would, since all of the items itself are in the 1.12 version. the mounts did not become a new item, they just got their graphics updated, similar to the old tier sets. Since it adheres to those rules, they are not a different item but a different look, at which they are consistent


(Trajan) #84

Different appearance is a different item. Which is further reinforced by the item not updating as the armored versions were added. You are arbitrarily only focusing on the name of the item as the only thing that matters. Actually I’m not even sure if the name is necessarily the same.