How to solve alliance mount imbalance

[jonfauscett]

The only mount imbalance I believe exists is that the Horde is down a flying mount because you can't get a bat mount. Alliance has both Gryphon and Hippogriffs. Why no bats? Huh?

I think you meant to say Alliance has both gryphons and hippogryphs, but the horde has a dragonhawk in place of the silver covenant hippogryph and everyone can get the cenarion expedition hippogryph.

[TerraMagus]

There isnt a 150 mount achi anyway. Why would you need another few mounts you arent gonna use anyway? Be happy with what you get, an awesome sprint.

Dev.

Do you know how easy it is to make achievements? Making a 150 mount achievement would take them, at absolute MOST, 5 minutes to do. They want to get the beefy stuff done before they go down their list of superfluous bullshit.

[Luphy]

There will be no imbalance. There will be the same amount of mounts on each side. I can't find a link but a while back Blizzard said they would add a few more mounts for the alliance to get, for example another lvl 40 elk mount. The only real imbalance is that horde has a larger variety to choose from.

[Keristrasza]

I know how to solve the mount imbalance issue, tell all the people who complain about it to STFU... I think that the people who constantly nitpick about crap in this game need to be kicked in the "boys"

If they followed this logic then they should have started that with the horde who sobbed rivers because Tauren couldn't mount anything other than kodo and worgs.

[Slavemaker]

Letting female Draenei being able to use the worgen racial mount would stop any complaints.... Ever...

Female Draenei, running on all fours, EXTREME WAGGLE!!!

[Paravir]

I think you meant to say Alliance has both gryphons and hippogryphs, but the horde has a dragonhawk in place of the silver covenant hippogryph and everyone can get the cenarion expedition hippogryph.

I went back and fixed it. anybody can get the achievement dragonhawk though, if I'm not mistaken.

[Deleted]

[QUOTE=Vesheke;9205143]

worgen water mount/QUOTE]

Oh my god, so much win.

[LordSothe]

There isnt a 150 mount achi anyway. Why would you need another few mounts you arent gonna use anyway? Be happy with what you get, an awesome sprint.

Dev.

Because there *is* a 100 mount achievement, and when Cataclysm comes out it will be noticeably easier for the Horde to get than the Alliance.

[Deos]

I dont give a rat's butt about those mounts, "OMG IM GONNA HAVE NOT 158 but only 155 mounts while horde gets 157!! zomgzomg the numbers are buuurning!!!"
seriously.. you mount whores are annoying :[

[rantus]

Horde miss 2 mounts.

Throw shitfit, Blizzard rectifies it.

Alliance miss 2-6 mounts, depending on recolours NYI.

"It's balanced, stop fucking QQing you BAWWWWWWWWers!"

So much this. Plus, with some people, when its mounts, which they may not care about themselves, its no big deal, but as soon as there's an imbalance about something they care about, we'll hear about it.

[darkwarrior42]

Because there *is* a 100 mount achievement, and when Cataclysm comes out it will be noticeably easier for the Horde to get than the Alliance.

Except that anyone who cares enough to do the 100 mount achievement is likely doing all the other rep achievements as well, and as such will already be in an ideal position to get a huge number of mounts. Combine that with all the new mounts available in Cataclysm, and it won't be even remotely difficult for Alliance, only time consuming.

I play Alliance, I am an Achievement seeker, and this doesn't bother me at all. It's already doable, and will only get easier. And we already know that they won't add another tier of the mount achievement unless it's doable by both sides, so really, what does it matter?

[jonfauscett]

I went back and fixed it. anybody can get the achievement dragonhawk though, if I'm not mistaken.

They can the achievment dragonhawk, not the sunreaver dragonhawk. My guess is the schievment dragonhawk is Blizzard's way of balancing the fact that everyone can get the cenarion expedition hippogryph. I just don't understand why everyone thinks that the mount numbers have to be balanced, almost as stupid as "cairne is dying so we have to kill off a beloved alliance faction leader too" arguments.

[darkwarrior42]

So much this. Plus, with some people, when its mounts, which they may not care about themselves, its no big deal, but as soon as there's an imbalance about something they care about, we'll hear about it.

There is a difference. There were simply fewer mounts available at the time, so even being short a few mounts made it noticeably harder for the Horde to get to the 100 mount mark, particularly if you weren't a class that got a few for free or in possession a profession with crafted mounts.

Now, however, it's already easily doable for both sides. I do consider there to be a difference between it being easy for one side and hard for the other, vs. it being easy for one side and a bit easier for the other. Others may disagree of course, but that is primarily why I was in favor of the Horde getting more mounts before and don't really care about the Alliance having a few less, even though I'm Alliance myself.

[TerraMagus]

There is a difference. There were simply fewer mounts available at the time, so even being short a few mounts made it noticeably harder for the Horde to get to the 100 mount mark, particularly if you weren't a class that got a few for free or in possession a profession with crafted mounts.

Now, however, it's already easily doable for both sides. I do consider there to be a difference between it being easy for one side and hard for the other, vs. it being easy for one side and a bit easier for the other. Others may disagree of course, but that is primarily why I was in favor of the Horde getting more mounts before and don't really care about the Alliance having a few less, even though I'm Alliance myself.

Your logic is entirely dependand on them not going "okay now get 125-150 mounts". The instant they do (which they WILL), you're going to look like an absolute shmuck.

[jonfauscett]

There is a difference. There were simply fewer mounts available at the time, so even being short a few mounts made it noticeably harder for the Horde to get to the 100 mount mark, particularly if you weren't a class that got a few for free or in possession a profession with crafted mounts.

Now, however, it's already easily doable for both sides. I do consider there to be a difference between it being easy for one side and hard for the other, vs. it being easy for one side and a bit easier for the other. Others may disagree of course, but that is primarily why I was in favor of the Horde getting more mounts before and don't really care about the Alliance having a few less, even though I'm Alliance myself.

You make a great point, but for some reason the horde and alliance have to be identical in order for people to be happy. It all started going downhill when the alliance got the shaman and the horde got the paladin.

[Deleted]

I wasn't even aware of a mount imbalance.

I guess the measly 5 mounts I ride, which I use in a /castrandom macro, are not enough?

[LordSothe]

Except that anyone who cares enough to do the 100 mount achievement is likely doing all the other rep achievements as well, and as such will already be in an ideal position to get a huge number of mounts. Combine that with all the new mounts available in Cataclysm, and it won't be even remotely difficult for Alliance, only time consuming.

I play Alliance, I am an Achievement seeker, and this doesn't bother me at all. It's already doable, and will only get easier. And we already know that they won't add another tier of the mount achievement unless it's doable by both sides, so really, what does it matter?

Because it being doable by both sides does not validate having it easier for one faction. Mountain O' Mounts was doable by Horde even when it favored Alliance, yet they fixed it, because it was unfair.

For example, the last two mounts I bought for my own 100 mounts achievement were the Armored Snowy Gryphon and the Red Drake. That's 3200g that, if I had access to the Goblins mounts, I would not have had to spend. Even in Cataclysm this will most likely be the case -While they are adding new mounts, most of them are either from achievements (and thus fairly difficult to get) or expensive rep rewards. The Goblin Trikes, on the other hand, are very cheap and could save you a considerable amount of money even if there are only two.

[darkwarrior42]

Your logic is entirely dependand on them not going "okay now get 125-150 mounts". The instant they do (which they WILL), you're going to look like an absolute shmuck.

I addressed that in my first post, but since you skipped over that bit, I'll repeat myself. They won't add another tier to the mount achievement unless it's doable by both sides. If things develop such that it is hard for the Alliance but only of easy or moderate difficulty to the Horde, they'll add some Alliance mounts.


.... but I have to thank you for the giggles. Not being sarcastic here, it's been a *very* long time since I was called a shmuck, and it made me laugh

[Raivosoturi]

Exactly. Horde cry too much as is, and Alliance actually ask about it and the Horde retard babies respond:

"ZOMG ITS FIEN LULZ U NOOBZ I R TEH GREETIST!!!!1111one!"

It's getting really annoying to see so many stupid whiners on Horde side.

Seriously? Seriously?!

[Alraml]

You people care too much about things.

I really couldn't give 2 shits about mounts. I will be using the Swift Mistsaber as always on my Worgen