Raid nerf?

[Deja Thoris]

Mounts were originally 1 per kill in 25 man. It remained 1 per kill in 25 man for Firelands, then was changed to 2 for 25 in Dragon Soul and Siege of Orgrimmar because people complained that 10 man teams got all their mounts FAR quicker with a 1:1 mount ratio but a 1:2.5 player ratio. With 10 man gone, there's absolutely no reason the boss should drop multiple mounts. It's still quicker to get your mounts now than it was originally because rosters are smaller and it's still one drop per kill. If you can't farm the boss for 25 weeks, your entire guild isn't supposed to get the mount.

Regardless of the logic 1/20 still seems a tad stingy. I'd be up for 2/20 to be honest.

[MrExcelion]

Using the manno portal and stacking alt mages works for an extra archimonde mount a week. It's not as mainstream as it could be though because there's still the matter of doing the ring quest, otherwise it'd be super common. Even saw a pug on twitch for it last weekend, heavy mage stacking. Saw 10 mages try to Ice Block the final Curse before 35% on manno, lol.

[Dracodraco]

Using the manno portal and stacking alt mages works for an extra archimonde mount a week. It's not as mainstream as it could be though because there's still the matter of doing the ring quest, otherwise it'd be super common. Even saw a pug on twitch for it last weekend, heavy mage stacking. Saw 10 mages try to Ice Block the final Curse before 35% on manno, lol.

Plenty of pugs going that does 13/13 if you bother to search for them. I think the bigger issue with doing an extra kill a week is the fact that you need to gear up another ~20 characters and people actually has to play their alts to do so. We intended to do it, but then we heard when the "last call release date" was slated, and we realised that we'd be done in march even for trials if we didn't sell any mounts, so we never really got started.

[Wilderness]

Mounts were originally 1 per kill in 25 man. It remained 1 per kill in 25 man for Firelands, then was changed to 2 for 25 in Dragon Soul and Siege of Orgrimmar because people complained that 10 man teams got all their mounts FAR quicker with a 1:1 mount ratio but a 1:2.5 player ratio. With 10 man gone, there's absolutely no reason the boss should drop multiple mounts. It's still quicker to get your mounts now than it was originally because rosters are smaller and it's still one drop per kill. If you can't farm the boss for 25 weeks, your entire guild isn't supposed to get the mount.

Yes, that's how it was done but it doesn't mean it should always be done that way. I wouldn't mind 2 drops - gives later kill guilds more time to get everyone their mount, and everyone else gets more sales. The only arguments for keeping it at 1 drop is because that's how its been done before or to extend the time spent farming an instance but I don't think either is a strong reason.

[Dracodraco]

Yes, that's how it was done but it doesn't mean it should always be done that way. I wouldn't mind 2 drops - gives later kill guilds more time to get everyone their mount, and everyone else gets more sales. The only arguments for keeping it at 1 drop is because that's how its been done before or to extend the time spent farming an instance but I don't think either is a strong reason.

I'd argue that exclusivity is another good argument for keeping it this way. If your guild can't farm for long enough to get everyone the mount, chances are you shouldn't all be riding around on them; It's the closest thing we have to a status symbol nowadays, it's purely cosmetic, and you get a title for participating either way (so everyone gets rewarded); It's the definition of a luxury item to show off.

So tell me, if a guild needs two mounts to drop every week to get everyone their mounts before new content is released, why exactly should they feel entitled to all get one?

[PosPosPos]

Yes, that's how it was done but it doesn't mean it should always be done that way. I wouldn't mind 2 drops - gives later kill guilds more time to get everyone their mount, and everyone else gets more sales. The only arguments for keeping it at 1 drop is because that's how its been done before or to extend the time spent farming an instance but I don't think either is a strong reason.

On the flip side, there's also no strong reason to drop 2 mounts instead of one.

I'd argue that exclusivity is another good argument for keeping it this way. If your guild can't farm for long enough to get everyone the mount, chances are you shouldn't all be riding around on them; It's the closest thing we have to a status symbol nowadays, it's purely cosmetic, and you get a title for participating either way (so everyone gets rewarded); It's the definition of a luxury item to show off.

So tell me, if a guild needs two mounts to drop every week to get everyone their mounts before new content is released, why exactly should they feel entitled to all get one?

Eh, exclusivity is different from the rate at which people get the mount in this case. All you are doing is arguing an arbitrary yardstick for which to get the whole guild a mount.

Why does it have to be one a week? Same as why it can't be one mount every x weeks, it's just an arbitrary yardstick.


In any case, I dislike mounts dropping once per week, I rather it be a quest to kill Archi x times to get it. The current system is an implicit discouragement(or encouragement depending on how you look at it) to stop turning up to raids once you get your mount, at least with a kill quest, everyone who's in for all the kills can get it at around the same time.

[Adramelch]

In any case, I dislike mounts dropping once per week, I rather it be a quest to kill Archi x times to get it. The current system is an implicit discouragement(or encouragement depending on how you look at it) to stop turning up to raids once you get your mount, at least with a kill quest, everyone who's in for all the kills can get it at around the same time.

That should genuinely weed out the players that only play for themselves and not the guild.

[Raiju]

I'd like the mounts to be herald-esque. f.ex. Kill archi with every member 725 or lower ilvl - everyone gets the mount. Above? None.

[xcess]

I thought ppl in the top guilds would have a few geared alts, but its weird they still allowed the blackhand mount to drop 100% since its pretty faceroll

[Raiju]

I hope for more nerfs because the ring is like 99% vs. 1% problem. It is percentage based so a bad player with 44% burst still remains at the bottom whilst hardcore pros get their 15Seconds Mythic Reaver. 3Minutes Archimonde kills etc.

You should be able to do 60-70% of a top players burst in identical gear provided you aren't fresh into gaming

[Shiftzor]

WE pretty much have farmed roughly over 40 + mounts at this point. Atm we sell x2 a week and and for the 3rd basically goes to new raiders/trials and once they got it we will sell 3 mounts a week...feels bad

[Atherions]

They should buff the lower bracket classes/specs so they compare to arcane mages/ sub rogues. I feel like a total retard when i see mages doing more dmg the first 15 seconds of the fight than i do the entire fight

[Wilderness]

I'd argue that exclusivity is another good argument for keeping it this way. If your guild can't farm for long enough to get everyone the mount, chances are you shouldn't all be riding around on them; It's the closest thing we have to a status symbol nowadays, it's purely cosmetic, and you get a title for participating either way (so everyone gets rewarded); It's the definition of a luxury item to show off.

So tell me, if a guild needs two mounts to drop every week to get everyone their mounts before new content is released, why exactly should they feel entitled to all get one?

Its not a matter of entitlement - I'm not saying certain people do or don't deserve the mounts. As PosPosPos said - 1 mount, 2 mounts, 5 mounts, its all an arbitrary cut-off. Yes, its been 1 for most of 25-man raiding, but things do change over time. I'm happy not to farm resist gear anymore. This isn't the same thing, but it is something I'd rather be changed than to remain the same. Everyone who kills it faster gets the mounts sooner, the gear sooner, etc. They get the prestige of their world ranking.

The way I see it is that with an average roster of 25 people and 2 mounts per week you're looking at about 3 months to get everyone their mount. That seems long enough for me. Especially since I'd love it if Blizzard could finally space out tiers throughout an expansion well enough to avoid 1+ year in the final tier.

[Dracodraco]

Its not a matter of entitlement - I'm not saying certain people do or don't deserve the mounts. As PosPosPos said - 1 mount, 2 mounts, 5 mounts, its all an arbitrary cut-off. Yes, its been 1 for most of 25-man raiding, but things do change over time. I'm happy not to farm resist gear anymore. This isn't the same thing, but it is something I'd rather be changed than to remain the same. Everyone who kills it faster gets the mounts sooner, the gear sooner, etc. They get the prestige of their world ranking.

The way I see it is that with an average roster of 25 people and 2 mounts per week you're looking at about 3 months to get everyone their mount. That seems long enough for me. Especially since I'd love it if Blizzard could finally space out tiers throughout an expansion well enough to avoid 1+ year in the final tier.

To me, it is a matter of entitlement; If you want the mounts for everyone, you should kill the boss quicker or with multiple raids if you're slow, just like we have it right now. You get a title for participating, you get a feat of strength if you kill it before it gets nerfed, and you have a chance at the mount; With both a title and FOS, I just don't think people should automatically assume they all get mounts. You say people get rewarded by their world ranking, but is there any reason that early-killers *shouldn't* get rewarded with more vanity mounts for the guild, compared to giving everyone everything?

[Djriff]

Honestly I think HFC came a bit fast as people were still working on dishing out mounts to guilds. Luckily they didn't change it with 6.2

As for the entitlement, you both make good points. I agree you should kill the boss quicker or with multiple raids. However the main issue is this. If the raid which has been out for 10 months now, hadn't been out for this long already, how many people would have mounts? Should they have lowered the drop rate when they introduced valor upgrades?

[Dracodraco]

Honestly I think HFC came a bit fast as people were still working on dishing out mounts to guilds. Luckily they didn't change it with 6.2

As for the entitlement, you both make good points. I agree you should kill the boss quicker or with multiple raids. However the main issue is this. If the raid which has been out for 10 months now, hadn't been out for this long already, how many people would have mounts? Should they have lowered the drop rate when they introduced valor upgrades?

Generally I'd say patches should run in 7-9 month time periods, and mounts be made 1% drops after that when the next tier is released (and the content is trivialised to the point of never wanting to return); enough to get the entire team that killed the boss a mount if you stick to it, even if you spent a few months on progressing. If you killed the boss after the mid-tier nerf (which should happen around 4-5 months into the tier if they were to go for those figures), you shouldn't expect to get everyone a mount.

[Djriff]

I agree with you however the endless amount of rage within raid groups on who got the mount, who didn't, etc etc would be endless. What I think they should definitely do is make the mount character specific and not account wide. My level 20 paladin should not be able to ride the mount off of mythic Blackhand :/

Raid tiers lasting 7-9 months is a bit on the long end for me, but it really depends on the raid. HM would have been fine for 4 months, fairly easy instance. BRF should have been 6-8 months and HFC 7-10 months. The instances rose in difficulty, slowly increased the number of bosses, and with HFC slowly increased the gear as you went up (not something I agree with).

[Adramelch]

What I think they should definitely do is make the mount character specific and not account wide. My level 20 paladin should not be able to ride the mount off of mythic Blackhand :/

That's a terrible idea. Now maybe make them work above the levels they drop (so 100+ for BH/Archi mount etc) or once you're in their respective expansions and above (so 90+ for BH/Archi) and that could be a good compromise I guess. Not that I see the reason to change anything there.

[Djriff]

That's a terrible idea. Now maybe make them work above the levels they drop (so 100+ for BH/Archi mount etc) or once you're in their respective expansions and above (so 90+ for BH/Archi) and that could be a good compromise I guess. Not that I see the reason to change anything there.

Why though? It would give you a reason to go back on other characters and give you something to do. My paladin didn't do anything to earn that mount, my priest did.

[Adramelch]

Your paladin also didn't make any of the gold he is using, nor did he earn the heirlooms he is probably using. Also what about transmog, come Legion? Imagine as if you're also "loaning" him the mount from your main. What you say might make sense lore-wise but gameplay-wise and QoL-wise we're far far beyond this point.

If anything doing something like won't give a reason to go back on other characters, it will kill most player's will to play alts in the first place. Yeah good luck getting that mount on your other characters with the 1% chance and being limited to 1 kill per week.