Still making claims you cannot substantiate regarding my motivations, I see.
Correct me if I am wrong, but was the other thread not deleted due to a COC violation that YOU committed?
And I see you are back to irritating people. Were you on vacation?
2 Likes
??? I have stated numerous times in this thread that It was the addition of the petition into the thread that caused it to break CoC�
not really sure what you are trying to prove by stating that yet again⌠you can clearly see it in my post history⌠which is not hidden⌠because I have nothing to hide⌠because I am not here to cause discord within the community.
3 Likes
If, by âirritating peopleâ, you mean still not blindly agreeing with you (general you) and not blindly supporting unarmored mounts , then I guess you could say thatâalthough that is not my intention, only a side effect.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I was not on vacation, although I was enjoying some quality time with my wife.
Glad to have you back, the thread was getting hard to keep bumped.
Could you please however, stay on topic. Making points like
Does irritate people, as the general mood in this thread is clearly not THAT case. Youâre just looking for a reaction.
Other then the unarmored mount venders, not being in the âfoundation 1.12 holy grailâ state⌠what is your actual stance regarding unarmoured mounts being a part of vanilla, but not classic?
5 Likes
Considering the lame excuse for leaving these mounts out of classic i think the only thing blizz can say now that would satisfy me is they have decided to add them in. If they made a statement theyâre sticking by what they said i would continue to support this thread as i canât think of a worse reason than what blizz has given. Its too late to try to play it off as if they have a better reason now. These mounts are as important to some of us as server first 60 / week 1 rags kill are to others. So these mounts might influence play style if in temporarily but those other 2 scenarios wonât?
Until recently i thought the mounts should be in temporarily like the original run, but this isnât a 1:1 redo so now iâm in the camp of leave them in permanently. No one will need to rush and that was the only concern of blizz. No one who has them already will be effected as the games are separate. And our museum will be more authentic than not having them at all.
3 Likes
Actually, if you read this thread with an open, objective mind, youâll see that many (if not most) of those desiring unarmored mounts have openly admitted that even a Blue post would not be enough unless it did what they wanted to hearâthat they would continue to complain if Blizzard did not say what they wanted to hear.
Case in point is the post above me.
BTW, I am not the one hoping that Blizzard Will add mounts to Classic that were NEVER even in vanilla.
Not the same thing, this implies that they blue post their same reasoning, which would be sillyâŚtwice. Iâd continue to play their game, and keep this thread bumped, as my issue is the reasoning, which is contradictory. Nearly everyone here, is supporting implementing the mounts in some capacity, while sincerely wanting âno changesâ.
Iâm not sure what you are trying to say, if trying to answer my question. Are you saying I never saw a Night Elf, in Ironforge riding an unarmored pure white saber in vanilla? The guy was a boss, not a hacker.
2 Likes
I see you chose to ignore the part where that poster specifically says:
He even implies that they could give another reason, but he would not accept it.
As to the other part of my post, allow me to quote you:
Thatâs not very authentic or sincerely wanting âno changesâ, is it?
I canât speak for everyone, however I like to think I understand where they are coming from. Even your particular quote of Beelzebubba, still has holes. Satisfy is an emotion that comes from a reward. He is not attacking blizzard with that statement, and his following reasons for continuing to want the mounts is justified and reasonable.
Your quote of me, was purely playing devilâs advocate, for a possible reason why blizzard wonât put them in. Which I gave a solution to said problem, âNo Changesâ generally is supported by players that donât want blizzard to mess up a game, that was originally great.
Tell me though, since youâre posting one way or another, and worse adding no value to the thread for the past 2 months(except unintentionally bumping). What would 2 new unarmored mounts for a race that didnât have them, and unarmored mounts in general do to classic⌠that would alter someones playstyle and or ruin their experience in Classic?
2 Likes
Iâm just being honest. I donât think blizz can say they donât have the capability to have these mounts in classic. I donât think they have said itâs supposed to be strictly 1.12 recreation even tho it pretty much looks that way that never seemed like the impression they were trying to give. I am saying if they stick with the reason they gave there is no reason for me not to keep saying its a bad one. If they came out with a post and said " Itâs not so you wonât have to rush itâs really because (reasons)âŚ" that is backpedaling and imo as lame as wanting to dictate play style. If Iâm going to give this company money Iâm going to let them know what i want as a consumer and I really am hoping to enjoy classic. To me these mounts make it a more authentic museum so why should i not ask?
3 Likes
You can understand their reasons, but to deny that there is not a significant number of people that will not accept anything except what they want to hear is being willfully obtuse and choosing to ignore the facts that are right there in front of you, IMO.
The reason blizz gave would only be acceptable to me if there was consistency in all other areas of classic that could cause the ârushâ play style they used as an excuse. But then I would be complaining that really isnât something they should be controlling.
3 Likes
Yeah, Iâm ignoring facts, Iâm blind for taking you seriously. Thank you for your continued support to the thread.
I donât think anyone here, is actually arguing against this sentiment, including Fesz.
At this point, I would like a blue post sharing their internal thoughts on the subject. Limited time rush mentality, adding them permanently, or not at all due to resources or philosophy.
2 Likes
Have we not already had a statement from Blizzard giving us their internal thoughts? Did that statement not indicate that they had discussed the matter internally before reaching a decision?
It might not have been a post on the forums, but was it not an official Blizzard statement, even if some do not like the content of that statement?
It even falls into one of the categories you listedâlimited time rush mentality.
And now this thread exists.
For the mounts.
1 Like
Didnât blizzard give all of the EU players their âdefinitive final statementâ on language specific servers? Or did a bunch of people posting on the forum in opposition of their statement convince blizzard to back track and give them language specific servers?
Blizzard wasnât going to remake vanilla remember? And then people convinced them that they were wrong and now they are making classic? If anything you are reaffirming our belief that if we are vocal we will get what we want.
The squeaky wheel gets the oil ![:wink:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/wink.png?v=6" ":wink:")
5 Likes
Indeed. I really donât follow their logic on this decision because they donât use that logic for other things. They donât want us to rush to get the mounts before they go away? If something as simple as the skin of a mount warrants a change, what are they going to do to something like the AQ war effort? If theyâre worried about people ârushingâ for the mount, surely theyâre aware people will be stockpiling AQ War Event mats.
4 Likes
At this point we are over 2300+ replies (counting old thread too) Blizzard, please.
3 Likes
Why still no response?
Lack of respect towards the community in my opinion.
5 Likes