So we waited 10+ years to get an UNCOMPLETED VERSION OF THE GAME WE ALL WANTED. THANKS BLIZZ. MAYBE IN 10 MORE YEARS YOU WILL GET COMPETENT ENOUGH TO DO RIGHT BY FANS. 
5 Likes
Indeed, thatâs what it feels like to me, and also something Iâm bringing up in my letter. In the end, Classic without unarmored mounts will always feel like itâs missing something.
4 Likes
lets not forget they deleted a thread about this topic with over 1k+ posts and continue to ignore this one.
5 Likes
Letâs not forget thatbthey deleted that thread because an advocate for unarmored mounts CHOSE to WILLFULLY AND DELIBERATELY violate the forum CoC.
You may think that Blizzard reacted too harshly.
The fact remains, though, that if that person not deliberately violated the forum CoC, Blizzard would have had no cause to react.
IMO, you have only the person that deliberately chose to violate the forum CoC to blame for the previous threadâs deletion.
These mounts not being included at the start of classic using the reasoning of âwe donât want players to feel pressured if they want to go at a slower/casual paceâ is completely backwards. It is a nice approach in theory but indicates a potential catering to casual players which wasnât the outlook in vanilla.
You could apply this logic to many other items and events in vanilla because it would pressure them into playing differently then theyâd like to. Are we going to open up a longer time window for AQ Scepter turn ins so people arenât pressured to play day and night to have a shot at the mount? How about ZG mounts, people who want those feel pressured to not miss a single lockout. Maybe we just hand out free raid loot since people might feel pressured to raid consistently. Top PvP rewards require endless hours of grinding honor and provide some of the best loot. Maybe we make that grind easier.
This decision sets a dangerous precedent imo. If people donât want to rush or put in a certain amount of effort in order to achieve certain objectives thatâs their choice. Donât launch classic and punish the people who want to do otherwise.
10 Likes
Agreed. Part of what made Vanilla feel so unique is that not everyone could have, or even should have, the ability to get everything. Now look at the state of mounts. Thereâs hundreds, each one shinier and more grandiose than the last. Same with armors. T1 was epic without particle effects and the souls of the damned popping out of your shoulderpieces all the time. Live looks like a pile of unicorn puke because of it imo.
4 Likes
why does this fezs guy keep trying to play devils advocate and why is he always posting in this thread 24/7?? he seems like a paid poster / damage control??
5 Likes
Fezs is an acquired taste and a pretty good dude. He is very passionate about things and is willing to take people to task over fast and lose facts.
We donât always get along, but I get him.
This on the other hand. . Really? Uh. . thatâs not a real thing but just something someone who has no valid argument uses 
The way I see it, heâs the second most frequent poster, and has bumped the thread over 100 times. More power to him.
4 Likes
You might want to recheck that.
The top four posters are alliance, so at best I am the fifth most frequent poster with less than a hundred posts.
Mine shows you as second with 124 replies. Maybe Iâm looking at the wrong spot. Regardless, thanks for the bump.
2 Likes
1300 posts with their customerâs thoughts and opinions could have been managed better. Nothing a cursory glance from a moderator couldnât handle, the fact that they censored 1299 posts is Blizzardâs fault.
2 Likes
You know if he was a paid shill Iâd be fine with that. I think he isnât however, which makes it even more sad.
1 Like
Waiting for them to remove MC and Ony so they donât have people feeling that they need to rush to 60.
3 Likes
If the COC had not been violated, Blizzard would have had no reason to take action, right?
Did Blizzard violate the COC or was it an advocate for unarmored mounts?
The question really should be, in similar instances, do entire threads get deleted because of one poster, or do they remove the individual poster? Whatever the answer to that question is should be what happened in that thread.
1 Like
One post violates the COC, remove that post and time out the poster. That seems reasonable.
Delete over 1K posts to elimate a bad post, seems like overkill⌠imo.
1 Like
Weâve seen it handled both ways.
IMO, that would seem to indicate that there is no hard and fast, set in stone policy. That is just my opinion, but then I am not looking to play the victim and place blame where it does not belong.
but indicates a potential catering to casual players which wasnât the outlook in vanilla.
lol
I know Classic is hard core by modern standards, but this is absolutely 100% false for 2004. Try and avoid such blatant historical revisionism in the future.
When the victim is the customer, in this case 1299 posts. Speculation would have it they didnât want to hear what those posts were saying. Thus censorship, which way theyâve handled it in the past is moot, as this situation wasnât necessary.