Eloraell, do you think mounts are too rewarding for players that play Classic day one? Do you think the mounts that were in Vanilla, should be in Classic?
You did dodge my last question, when you were here last.
Should I stop promoting unarmored mounts because of a lightswitch? Classic might be awfully dark with out them.
No keep fighting the good fight. Onward, stalwart warrior!
Culvert operation, heâs a crusader on a mission! 
For the mounts!
Yes well, Iâd prefer to hear that from them. Thatâs not the reason we were given.
What was the reason you were given then?
This was their statement:
âWe know some people are interested in them, but we donât want to put them in for a limited period of time, because we didnât want to influence people through their first leveling experience. Especially people coming back for the first time. We donât want people to feel like they have to rush. If you want to level slowly and enjoy the journey, you should. Thatâs how I like to playâtaking it slow, running every dungeon.â
Of course, theyâve also said:
âWe rely on feedback from the community. We have avid fans, not just players from the community but Blizzard itself. With the beta, we expect people to call us out on things we missed. We try to be extremely thorough in researching things to get it right, and when we do miss something, weâll find it and deal with it there.â
"Everyone knows what Classic is, and the payoff will be in the details. What do you remember? What is the story that only you had in Classic, and how do we recreate that? And was there something special about the data or the code that we missed for some reason? "
So yeah, with one breath theyâve said theyâre committed to recreating Vanilla WoW down to even the most minor of bugs, and want us to have that same feeling of our characters being our own unique creations, then in another breath theyâve said they want to fundamentally change it to suit new players. This is why this thread exists. They are not being internally consistent with their decisions, at least in this instance.
@ Hetu, Thank you.
@Elorell, good grief, you have over 12k posts here and I imagine you have read at least 3 times that many. Are you seriously suggesting you didnât know the content of the statement that Blizzard gave concerning the exclusion of these mounts? UnrealâŚ
I wouldnât worry about any âlight switchâ.
Unless Blizzard posts something similar I consider it fabrication.
Bump for Unarmored Mounts!
Excuse me for being annoying, but wouldnât this particular instance just need a â0â or a â1â added to the code to make the lightswitch tricked its going from âoffâ to âonâ?
Iâve learned more forum tact, since I asked the first time.
I find it funny that over 800 posts ago, Fesz was making the same argument, while being simultaneously leveled with, as many people have. Yet he still comes here to poke us in the feels, its blatantly clear that âoppositionâ is his only goal.
Iâve been here for a month, clearly promoting mounts while he continues to claim he doesnât have an opinion on the subject itself. #shykidhuggingmomsleg
We want Vanilla, free the oppressed mounts.
Uh, great cherry pick of your own.
Iâm not against Unarmored Mounts. It would be great to have them. The only point I made above was that I understand why they are doing what theyâre doing.
Great strawman if you want to argue⌠but youâre arguing for the sake of arguing.
Eloraell, would you mind addressing my post? Iâm not cherry picking what youâve said, and Iâve responded directly to your question. The reason you gave as understanding why they made the decision was not the actual reason they gave us.
Sure. But as with most things, thereâs probably a bunch of different reasons that come together to confirm a choice.
My reasoning above was from a code simplicity point of view. The one they gave you was from a gameplay point of view. I get what theyâre saying there too, though the fix for that is easy. Simply donât turn them off. Unfortunately, people who specifically wanted the mounts to claim elitism would be up in arms.
Itâs a lose-lose situation for Blizzard.
I understand what youâre saying about the code simplicity thing, but have they said that as a reason for something before? From all that Iâve read, code simplicity or not, they are striving to deliver the product to us.
Personally, I think in terms of authenticity, it should go âMounts Briefly Availableâ -> âMounts Permanently Availableâ -> âMounts Unavailableâ ⌠Putting them as permanently unavailable seems like the least authentic choice they could possibly make. Elitists be damned, they were a cherished part of the game. Plus, with the mounts not crossing over to live server characters, Iâm not even sure what the downside of making them permanently available would be.
In any case, thanks for your reply.
Would be very nice if this museum has as much from the era as possible including the unarmored mounts, maybe more than one version of AV, being able to jump into Hyjal ( idk if few well placed jumps is considered wall walking?) blood spray effects and skelly carpets. The unarmored mounts are what interests me personally but more stuff from the era makes a better museum, imo. I donât want Classic Lite any more than I want Classic +. A more complete Classic is a win-win for the masses I would say.
Iâm on the team where I think it would be great to start with the real vanilla talent trees too, but I understand why they arenât going that far for authenticity. Things like not including the original AV, now that I dunno⌠A lot of life could be breathed into it by offering that kind of experience, admittedly briefly.
Wow, Iâm sorry that the post came off combatant, I linked your post solely to show that Iâve answered my 2 questions directed towards you.
Though, you understand why they are doing what they are doing, but I asked if it was as simple as adding a â0â or a â1â. As my brain regarding computers is mechanical at best.
Strawman, is not my intention. Sorry that it came off that way.
The same logic applies to progressive itemisation. Itâs far simpler to introduce an item in its final state than flip it through all the iterations.
To be on or off, it is that simple. But based on the way theyâre delivering all the content, the âonâ state is their default and the off state is the switch. Where as this would be the sole case of having an off state as the default. No where else are they removing content. Other items were removed from the game as Vanilla progressed, and while they donât have the same visibility, some of them would become the next âgive us this until the right patchâ item.
Is that not the heart of what they are doing with progressive patches though?