And this is why retail is in a mess. Next thing we hear is “omg, I was unable to get the scarab mount, we need to change that cause … reasons”
So you say people will feel rushed to get this mounts, and we should just leave them out. How about this, learn self restraint. Why does everyone need to get a medal?
3 Likes
What I like about these forums is, people post opinions, ignore all the other arguments they don’t want/nor care to answer and back up their claims with vague statements such, that is why retail is a mess. They also tend to add things they wrongfully think players like me would argue for such as, everyone should get the scarab mount… I mean, I am literally fighting to remove a mount from the game and your argument is that I try to make more mounts accessible…
I’ll happily remove that claim if you have as good answers for the much more important parts of my posts.
1 Like
The reason this argument doesn’t work is because people will play the game at the speed they want regardless of the mounts being in.
You could also argue that we didn’t know how a lot of things worked back in the day such as how much weapon skill affected your performance, which specs are more viable than others, which zones have the least travel per quest etc.
On another note, I’d like to point out that the unarmored mounts and the current epic mounts are two separate items in the DB. When they were made unobtainable by players they weren’t removed from the game, but they were removed from their vendors item table.
3 Likes
You are right, we shouldn’t base changes on players dynamic such as, how much they want to play and so on as, not only it can’t be done but would in more ways than others be harmful to the experience. Classic can’t be vanilla just like it was where no one knew anything. I’ll gadly withdraw that statement.
Though, the main argument in favor of old mounts is that, it used to be there and people want to again have that feeling to have the exact mount like they used to have which in essence is a strong motivation. (Which is not too far from the same rationale) Though, as I pointed out, this necessarily excludes the armored mounts entirely just as much… if you want to be true to the experience you had, there was only 1 or the other available at the vendor and, in terms of numbers, I would not be surprised a majority of players had an armored mount during the vanilla experience. There was no one playing in 1.12 that was able to buy an unarmored mount, or in more than half the vanilla experience for that matter.
So, in essence, it’s either choosing for old mounts and their players or for the new ones if you think that argument is valid. And I don’t see any argument claiming that a side is better than the other.
If we have to be completely real here. Most people didn’t even get to play Vanilla back then. Does that mean they shouldn’t play Classic? Applying your logic here. The mounts were a big part of Vanilla’s life cycle. Even after they removed them the mounts were in the world and people used them. There is no excuse for removing them permanently.
The Black Qiraji Resonating Crystal mount and Title were removed from Vanilla too, and they were in the game for way shorter time. Unobtainable by millions of people. Why add that in then? Might as well remove it too. While we are on the topic why have rank 14? It’s unhealthy and only a couple of people will be able to get it. Remove it too. You see what I am saying? Just give us the game as it was back then.
3 Likes
The point I was making is, its either unarmored mounts or armored mounts… you can,t have both at the same time. I never stated they shouldn’t play classic. I probably miswrote my argument if that’s how it was interpreted (my bad English is not my main language)
So, implementing unarmored mounts, there would be just as much no excuse for removing armored mounts from players who want them.
And the only way to please both crowds would be to bring back the ‘‘progressive’’ approach to mounts which, if there was no flaws with that, would be the solution. Though, there were gold costs associated and ways to abuse the transition which really is my personal main worry here.
It’s simple. Add unarmored mounts for 4 months and then remove them and replace them with the armored version. Just like it was back in 2004. Don’t do some shenanigans by having armored ones from the start or having both at the same time or not having one at all (the unarmored version in this case).
Why do you have to reinvent or repair the wheel when it’s not broken?
They are already doing progressive itemization on some vendors. This shouldn’t be a problem for them at all. And the people who want the armored version and don’t want to spend 1000 gold again will get a free replacement mount version in exchange for the unarmored version. Just like it was back then.
4 Likes
The unarmored mounts were available for just over 5 months in Vanilla, then replaced with armored .(If that time line were followed) why are you implying no one can get armored ones when they will be available after the unarmored are discontinued? This argument makes no sense.
3 Likes
They get to exchange the unarmored version too. So no harm done at all.
1 Like
Aye, so that argument is moot
Well, that would be the perfect solution, I 100% agree IF there wasn’t those details to remember.
an unarmored mount is BOE, costing 1000 gold. Training 100 gold (excluding honor discounts)
After the switch
The armored mount is 100 gold, training 1000 gold (excluding honor discounts)
So, if we change it after lets say 4 months, it means that, 1 day before the change I could train for 100 gold and 1 day after the change I could buy my mount for 100 gold. Costing 200 in total instead of 1100.
(+ the fact that unarmored mounts were bind on equip if I am not mistaken therefore, people could stack them and sell them on the ah if they really wanted to. I’d personally be fine with that if some sort of progression was implemented for mounts by Blizz but we have to remember that factor)
I didn’t imply that at all. All I said is, you can’t have both at launch/simultaneously or whatever you want to call it. The only way to make everyone happy is to have it progressively added (which would still make late-comers in vanilla unhappy to have to wait months for their armored one)
Though the progressive addition with the gold cost doesn’t seem like an appealing option to me.
Why cant armoured and unarmoured mounts just be a choice you can make at any point and coexist for the remainder of classic wow?
2 Likes
Look at the things they left out that are exclusive to Vanilla and judge for yourself. It would be really embarrassing for them if Classic becomes more popular then retail…
2 Likes
You only have to ride that unarmored for a short time and trade it in as Saebellia posted. Your argument there is null.
Adding, this would be true to the classic experience. You can continue posturing but it’s making you seem silly friend.
No, mate. There won’t be any training for 1000 g and mounts for 100 g during Classic. It’s confirmed to stay 1000 g for mount and 100 g for training.
5 Likes
That is a valid concern. But that change wouldn’t bother anyone if they changed BoE to BoP. Come on.
1 Like
So are you saying they should change the cost or unarmored mounts to 100 gold instead of their vanilla price of 1000 gold?
I’d be fine with that if that was the stance they want to take honestly. I just find it funny to argue for an authentic vanilla experience with the mount that was available for 4 months on 1000 gold and claim the mount should be only 10% of its authentic price.
No? That is not what I am saying at all. I just said they won’t touch the mount/training prices. It will be 1000 g mounts and 100 g training throughout the whole Classic.
The mount/training prices were changed during vanilla.