Oh I see! You changed your statement from “It’s not a goal that anyone can go after” to
Gotcha 
No, I didn’t change any statement at all.
Nice try! I already quoted your original statement in my 1st response, and have since quoted what you changed it to after.
See you in classic!
You quoted two different people.
1 Like
So I did! My bad, 100% owning it.
Fair enough 
1 Like
Indeed, I’m a huge advocate for the mounts
I’ve moved to Europe in the last month so my forum presence is there these days, but yes, there are members there planning to attend the AMA as well to support the unarmored mounts. People became aware of the situation lately and most on the thread don’t seem pleased about it
8 Likes
I have also noticed a large influx of new people who’ve just come back in the month leading up to launch and just now finding out about unarmored mounts being removed.
4 Likes
What does this mean?
You’re right, not something players playing day one would have a fair race in. However, I would argue that players have a relatively fair chance at obtaining if they played Classic before Decemember.
Their true reasoning is just 2019 AAA logic that wasn’t a part of the game in 2005, and sorry to say it seems to me like something they don’t want to add due to this particular touchy topic, as the only grief that lies between retail and Classic is both parties believe if the other succeeds, the other loses. Which is ultimately a losing scenario.
How is it an awkward situation if you can ride one whenever you like? Honestly, its not awkward, things to do in a game are just that, supposed to be fun. Games used to be fun when they were play to win. I fear that games just don’t have a “lose” path going forward. We’ll end up just like retail, too many players that don’t care about the game, but can’t stop playing because they’ve invested far too much on their mount collections to ever consider another game.
Are unarmored mounts too much of a reward for those who want to play Classic day 1? Who cares if more people make a choice for their first 1000g mount? Why do you care? Do you not want Classic to be successful? I hope that 2 years from now, TBC realms are available through character copies, that we get a Zul Aman phase and the limit of time Bear run is a thing, I hope I’m not in a simular thread asking why I can’t play through content that has similar ramifications. I hope Blizzard doesn’t hold back fun iconic things going forward.
5 Likes
It makes me sad knowing Blizzard might exclude these mounts. It’s like they don’t really care. They only mentioned they are excluding them because they were asked. I doubt they would’ve said anything at all until people find out themselves. It’s really sad that we are not getting the real Vanilla they promised.
8 Likes
It’s not game breaking, but it is a bit disappointing. I was looking forward to a swift palomino.
6 Likes
Because someone’s feelings will be hurt if they can’t get a participation medal. This is exactly the mentality that brought us to where we are in retail. You propose to have a lesser authentic experience in Classic to pander to this mind set.
I disagree with your opinion. If I were unable to obtain one I’d still love to see them around. Why? Because that is more true to the original experience.
Opening the gates for other changes is straw man. The CE pets are not opening up the way to Murky for instance.
8 Likes
The lack of unarmored epic mounts is very lame and the justification is flimsy at best. I thankfully am primarily playing Horde where at least the armored mounts don’t look too exceptionally awful but I pity any human that rides their armored horse around. They’re just terrible looking, and the unarmored ones are very much the opposite.
7 Likes
I honestly support blizzard here. Didn’t the cost of mounts and training changed when the ‘‘unarmored mounts’’ got removed?
I remember people paying for training and for a mount at lvl 40 for like 10 gold each being a 80 gold discount (I think) and the same applying for epic mounts.
In that sense it makes complete sense to not recreate that weird transition shift. If anything, it gives an advantage to players who rushed to mount levels and makes it unnecessarily harder and more expensive for casual players to obtain their mounts.
1 Like
Just another forum user who uses words they don’t fully understand. It means to attack the opposing side with personal insults or pointing out flaws in said persons character instead of addressing their points. None of which you did.
#ForTheMounts
2 Likes
Yea I went to double check, training for riding a mount was 100 gold and an epic mount was 1000 gold it looks like. (for lvl 40, 10 gold for riding and 100 gold for the mount)
If you want an authentic vanilla experience, it means that, you can’t change the price of items really… in 1.12, mounts were much cheaper and riding much more expensive. Most of your arguments seem to indicate those old mounts as a whole different item than the new one.
Now, to answer the progressive itemization argument. You have a good point but, that would imply the ‘‘new’’ armored mounts would be disabled as well until the change. I could therefore argue that, to me, this classic experience is lacking my armored mount and would be 2 times more confused as most posts states its a 1.12 item state on release.
One could also argue that, mounts are items and players expect the final version, rebalance, whatever version of this item as they kept hammering in most interviews in their 1.12 state. The mounts were technically not different items, they were visually updated as blizzard offered to players to change to the armoured version of it free of charge.
Also, in today’s standards, we would know the upcoming change if it were implemented thus, creating another kind of rush/gameplay to gather the mount which did not exist in that format back in Vanilla days.
Also, going with a mount update would imply one could, for instance, buy 10-20-30 mounts at 100 gold a piece, wait for the update and resell them 1000 gold a piece or more on the market which would be another unfortunate consequence of sequencing it. This also excludes ‘‘waiting’’ for the remaster to save a thousand gold on riding/mount costs.
Most players back then were no where near lvl 40 or lvl 60 either when those changes got into play. 5.5 months for many is not enough to reach max level or the gold required to buy them. Re-implementing it is basically a helping hand to people playing in a semi-casual or hardcore playstyles which wouldn’t be too fair. It would convince players to change their gameplay and/or rush to late levels just to acquire those mounts as opposed to what they would’ve normally done if it weren’t from the fact they were limited editions.
This discount still exists. You get it from being exalted with the main city of your race. There is also a discount for receiving at least honor rank 3.
2 Likes
This is the mentality that birthed the live game. If you think 5 months is not enough for hitting level 60 and getting an epic mount, I don’t know what to tell you.
7 Likes
You misunderstood me.
exluding discounts from exalted,
riding was 100 gold and the mount was 1000 (this can be reduced via honor)
after the armored mounts were implements, they swapped it around
Riding became 1000 and the mount 100.
So imagine if, 1 day before the switch I buy the riding at 100 gold, next day, it switches I buy the mount for 100 gold, it costed 200. If there was no switch, it’d be 1100 (excluding discounts)