Unarmored Mounts Megathread 2.0

[Vakul-lethon (Vakul)]

Also your entire argument about time limited rewards is wholly inaccurate. Blizzard has always had time limited rewards. AQ event, bug bosses in tons of zones dropping temporary gear. The scourge invasion which drops temporarily available gear. The tabard of the argent dawn skin which was a limited time reward for doing the TBC portal pre quest.

AQ event is like, three people on a server that you can get on a single day. The scope is completely different than the type of rewards I’m talking about. Only the most dedicated of the dedicated, with the right guild, who can play WoW like a job will get it.

[Illsak-darkspear (Illsak)]

As long as i move faster with a mount idgaf what it is, why is the look of a mount so important? Can we just be happy?

[Shimy-khadgar]

I’m not talking about the AQ gate opening im talking about the bug invasions of low level zones.

You really don’t see difference between those events and unarmored mounts?

Those events didn’t change game play, all you had to do was log in one day during event.

Time limited mounts would change game play drastically - they would encourage rushing to max level and grinding gold. Almost anyone who wants to have mount will have to change their game play style. That’s massive difference between those events.

I completely see the difference. I am against them being in the game temporarily because it is non blizzlike for people to know they are going to be removed beforehand. Keep the mounts in the game forever. Stop treating them like they are special, stop acting like they are special. They are just another mount and should be treated as such.

It is more inauthentic for these mounts to never exist than it is for blizzard to keep them in classic forever.

[Vakul-lethon (Vakul)]

I completely see the difference. I am against them being in the game temporarily because it is non blizzlike for people to know they are going to be removed beforehand. Keep the mounts in the game forever. Stop treating them like they are special, stop acting like they are special. They are just another mount and should be treated as such.

A) That would be a change. Lots of people are against changes. I am not against changes, but I’ve been flamed enough by the #nochange hashtag to know it would be an issue. The mounts were not a permanent part of the game.

B) It’s not what the Vanilla devs wanted. If they had wanted the unarmored epic mounts, they would have kept them buyable. Classic should be a representation of the “best” version of Vanilla. The version that the Vanilla devs would have wanted.

C) A reskin is a bad indicator of them being “epic”. They should visually stand out both for PvP and also to make sure that epics are distinctly better than non-epics both mechanically and visually.

[Shimy-khadgar]

A) not having the mounts at all would be a change.

B) again you are assuming and putting words into blizzards mouth, find me evidence that backs up what you are saying.

C) absolutely false, the winter spring cat existing is a justification for unarmored mounts at 60. Not only that but in retail you can ride a 60% speed mount with 100% speed if you have it trained.

[Aidria-dathremar]

The Talisman of Binding Shard ( legendary necklace ) was also removed from the game.

Let bring that back too!

/sarcasm

[Fesz-cenarius]

“Unarmored mounts were not in patch 1.12”

literally 2 seconds later

“But there was a mechanism to turn in your unarmored mount for a new one”

But there was NEVER a mechanism to change your armored mount for an umarmored mount.

Tell us all again how one could obtain an umarmored mount in 1.12 either from a vendor or by trading an armored mount for an umarmored mount.

[Fesz-cenarius]

The Talisman of Binding Shard ( legendary necklace ) was also removed from the game.

Let bring that back too!

/sarcasm

Don’t forget that green mechanostrider. That was in vanilla also.

[Shimy-khadgar]

There was one of them, and no one is asking for anything on the level of the fluorescent green mechanostrider or the talisman.

And yes, I am aware of them not being purchasable in patch 1.12. I was just pointing to the inaccuracy of classic which does not have the option to trade in the unarmored mounts. In the last thread people were arguing that any change to the 1.12 version of the vendor would be non blizzlike right? Well they ARE changing the vendor to no longer accept the trades. A non blizzlike change!

[Robfried-shadow-council]

1. The fact they use it to gets subs in this case is a mute point because the first phase wojld be the most subbed regardless of the mounts simply because release is always the most popular time for any game including classic and in fact not phtting then in seems shady as so they can add them later for that exact reason when subs go down

2. If it matters to you that they are epic mounts that look like regular mounts and people want then purely for their look then it wont be a problem for them

3. Making them regular mounts would mean more people could buy them in time and negate the feeling to rush to the end also if them being limited is the problem make them permanent and if then your problem is them feelong common make them double the price or something there compromise

Lol

[Fesz-cenarius]

They could theoretically leave that NPC in the game. That does not mean that anyone would have the umarmored mounts to trade.

After all, if there had been a server on which everyone traded the unarmored mounts for the armored ones, the NPC would still be there, but no one would have had the unarmored mount to trade at that point.

[Robfried-shadow-council]

That thing was cool looking

[Erebos-feathermoon]

Nope, I said it.

Yeah and said it completely incorrectly in a way that made it factually untrue.

literally 2 seconds later

“But there was a mechanism to turn in your unarmored mount for a new one”

You can’t turn it in if it doesn’t exist in the game.

[Piptak-wyrmrest-accord]

/waves
“Welcome back short stack!”

[Twiinkedd-moon-guard]

Yeah and said it completely incorrectly in a way that made it factually untrue.

I would say you could not be more wrong but I bet you can find a way.

[Mergons-terenas]

If they were to put them in for only some time then they would have to remove the cloth–>rep vendors during that period of time too.

[Erebos-feathermoon]

I would say you could not be more wrong but I bet you can find a way

Please see your own original post which, as two people have pointed out, contradicts itself.

I’m not even in favour of this idea, I’m just pointing out that you’re an idiot if you state that something is NOT in the game whilst simultaneously stating that they ARE in the game and can be traded. Which one is it? Make your mind up.

[Twiinkedd-moon-guard]

Like the other person you are arguing semantics. They were removed in 1.4 except from the very few who had them in their inventory already.

When you have to resort to semantics arguments then you have already lost son.

[Saebellia-kelthuzad]

As long as they are not limited time only I can’t see any way it would harm the game. But I don’t want to crack open the door even a little bit for blizzard to do any changes.

Limited or not, it was within Vanilla’s timeline. What do you mean “crack open the door”. People want to play Vanilla and these mounts were part of Vanilla. Vanilla IS NOT just 1.12 and even if that was the case, the mounts were still present in 1.12 as people were running around with them everywhere. It will be more inauthentic not to have these mounts in, limited or not.

[Robfried-shadow-council]

The irony is so thick.