Also worth noting, are they going to implement the Quel’Serrar book at the later patched 1.12 drop rate? Some things should not be in the 1.12 state, for numerous reasons. I feel like they would be foolish not to recognize that.
3 Likes
No, its very different.
Progressive itemization changes the stats of an item as each progressive patch goes on. An item might have 10 agility and 1% crit in Patch 1.1, and then have 20 Agility and no crit in Patch 1.6. In Classic, the item will have 20 Agility from release.
They are doing Progressive Item Release, meaning an item is unavailable (“off”) until the right content patch where they make it available (“on”). There’s no fine grain control beyond available or not available.
But as I said, all other instances, are where an item is unavailable and moves to available (off to on). Whereas the mounts, people want it moving from available to unavailable (on to off).
Foolish or not, its specifically what’s happening.
EDIT: Actually drop rates are undergoing 1 change.
So the Quel book is probably not going to be dropping at the 1.12 rate till CP5.
Great info, thanks. This still seems to boil down to there being no 100% consistent word on how things are being considered when the drops change. I’m glad to see that they are recognizing that some things just shouldn’t be implemented in their 1.12 versions and that they will indeed be implementing progressive drop tables, albeit at a level where each item is being considered individually rather than overall.
Regarding the “Itemization in WoW Classic” post, they said “stats on existing items will set to their final 1.12 conditions.” Maybe it’s splitting hairs, but the Ivory Raptor and other unarmored mounts were not in the game at 1.12, so saying that the armored mounts were their “final 1.12 condition” doesn’t seem to apply. It was entirely separate items. You could have both. One was not turned in to the other. The final 1.12 version of the Ivory Raptor was still the Ivory Raptor, you just had to have bought it prior to it being taken out of the game.
Because of all of the above, I personally take their official statement that specifically addressed the mounts as the most worthwhile thing to consider compared to the “It’s an item as it was implemented in 1.12” argument because at this point we really don’t know what’s going to exist as 1.12 and what’s going to change at 1.10
1 Like
Actually they were in the game, and still are in Retail. They were not purchasable at 1.12.
I too think they should reconsider the decision. But I understand where they’re coming from.
1 Like
Yeah, that’s basically what I was trying to say when I said:
“The final 1.12 version of the Ivory Raptor was still the Ivory Raptor, you just had to have bought it prior to it being taken out of the game.”
So saying that the mounts shouldn’t be in because their 1.12 “version” was the armored ones is just wrong.
1 Like
Yeah the final condition of the Ivory Raptor is the Ivory Raptor. I don’t think Blizzard themselves ever claimed the final condition is the Armored mounts.
However, the “final condition” of the Mount Vendors is their 1.12 condition, where they sell 3 unarmored and 3 armored mounts.
I’m still a bit confused
Item is not available, then becomes available is coded “00010” (off) then becomes “00011” (on)
Item is available, then becomes unavailable is coded “00010(1)” (off) with the addition making the overall game think its (on) then becomes “00010(1)” (on) with the addition making the overall game think its (off)
Overall, though this hurts my head and I’d rather get back to blizzards philosophy being flawed.
To be clear:
Off = 00000000
On = 11111111
The difference here is that after CP6, there don’t need to be any switches, because everything is “On”.
Absolutely, yet we’ve also established that Blizzard is willing to address loot tables, which I would consider vendor sold items to be part of, especially if they had major changes over the patches. While they’ve said if it doesn’t have an effect on game play they aren’t going to be as focused on it, they’ve also said that they want the game to look and feel the same, and generate the same feelings of nostalgia.
I do understand the 1.12 argument, don’t get me wrong, but they aren’t holding 100% true to that in all cases, and their other argument of catering to some groups of players falls entirely short in my opinion. Because of that, I’m more than happy to keep being the squeaky wheel until the game releases 
2 Likes
Thanks for the clarification, my example was meant to show that the hard coding could be removed as well for both instances.
put the mounts in.
i’ll never be able to get one but, people who have the chance to nolife this game should be able to get rewards exclusive to those who do so. this isn’t nu-wow where everyone should be able to do and get everything
6 Likes
I’m curious as to why you believe you couldn’t get one, I’m currently advocating with great determination that this wouldn’t be the case.
Are you planning to start Classic in 2020? If so, you would have to no life to obtain the mounts, if they were implemented for the same span of time that they were in Vanilla.
Should they make the window shorter, due to exclusivity they’ll be flipping 180 on their current reasoning.
IMO - Mounts limited time(vanilla like 5.5months) > Mounts purchasable for all of classic > Mounts limited time (5.5 weeks for exclusivity) > Mounts limited time (5.5 days Blizzard troll) > Mounts not in the game.
2 Likes
You know what… If blizz put them in game but then took them out as soon as 1 person had it I would laugh so hard.
2 Likes
Me too, I have my moments… even if laughing at my own jokes. ^_~
For the mounts!
I meant to respond to you earlier but got distracted. Do you have any specific information for vendor inventories being changed on a timeline? Have they said specifics, or just that’s something they are doing in the same vein as updating the loot tables at patch 1.10? I googled a bit, but TBH I CBA to give it more effort atm as I’ve got stuff to do today.
why won’t blizzard give us an authentic classic experience? why do they ignore their customers when they are a multi-million dollar company that can easily respond to their customers?
3 Likes
Pride and or greed, its pretty clear regarding this topic that it is not that they know whats best for us.
While any response would be welcomed by me, I’m highly doubtful on one. It would invite flaming, trolls, and more attention to the matter than they’d like to deal with.
I’m still optimistic that I’ll log in August 27, get my Orc butt to Senjin Village and see them right next to Zjolnir… Then I’ll be off to grinding dungeons and picking up every avenue of Darkspear troll rep I can find.
3 Likes
Yeah, I’ll be hopeful for a ninja change as well, and don’t honestly expect an official Blue response. While it might seem like a relatively minor an insignificant change, this is honestly the only change that has left me with this niggling doubt in the what/how/why Blizzard will change things moving forward, especially if Classic ends up being popular enough to warrant Classic TBC.
3 Likes
Hetu, since you were in the beta, I’m now curious if there were the city cloth turn in npcs for rep while you were there? If not, I would expect them in a later phase. If they were in the beta, the mounts for cross race will be a bit easier to obtain.