It's time to start thinking about the 450 and 500 mounts achievements

[Deferionus]

If someone has 500 mounts... I would not mind that at all. Shit is crazy and probably required more dedication than doing boosts/AH game. Obviously that's 500 mount achievement. It must be something either extremely rare or totally new + a title + a toy which creates a stampede of mounts running around you.

Disagree. The problem is that eventually over the addition of multiple expansions 500 mounts, which is crazy now, would become common place. If Bruto is to remain a status symbol it has to be attainable in a way that prevents inflation.

[Raelbo]

IMO it's fine for mounts to be 1% drops or guaranteed drops off rare spawns. I only really have a problem with Soundless, because it's both a rare spawn and a rare drop. And I do have the Soundless mount so that isn't just QQ. I saw the writing on the wall and ground it out right away while the zone was still popular.

What makes the Soundless mount tolerable is the group finder tool and the fact that the community (EU at least) has really pulled together to help each other out on this one. It effectively nullifies the problem of Soundless being a rare spawn.

That being said, I think that the writing is on the wall. If someone wants this mount they should get on it now while there is still sufficient interest in it that groups are forming regularly. Come SL and I think it's going to be a tough one to try farm.

That said, they shouldn't add more ultra-rare drops either, like the MoP worldboss mounts. But those MoP droprates shouldn't be increased now as that would devalue the time of everybody that got them.

The one saving grace of the MoP world boss mounts is that they can be bought of the BMAH (well, 3 of them at least). I obtained 2 of them that way, getting them back in WoD before the gold cap was raised. 955K for the Son of Galleon, and 400K for Nalak's mount

[MakeMeLaugh]

Well, I believe a lot of mount collectors are on their way to 550 mounts already, so 450, 500 and 550. But knowing blizz, all we will get is 450 and it's going to be lame...

[Raelbo]

Past experiences show that, if a mount perfectly fits a specific zone in an expansion, it's going to be sold in the shop.

A few hundred mounts would like to disagree with you....

People who have issues with shop mounts need to get over their sense of entitlement. Without the shop to help fund the game, Blizzard wouldn't have enough money left after taking their cut of profit to pay for half of the devs and artists responsible for making things like mounts. All those shop mounts that you would like to think would magically find their way into the game would simply stop being made

[Schizoide]

What makes the Soundless mount tolerable is the group finder tool and the fact that the community (EU at least) has really pulled together to help each other out on this one. It effectively nullifies the problem of Soundless being a rare spawn.

That's how I got mine, right after release. When I check group finder now in the US Soundless listings are quite rare. It's already immeasurably more difficult to get kills today, and that will only get (much) worse over time.

Putting them on the BMAH doesn't address the core issue. Extremely rare droprate mounts, meaning under 1%, should not be added to the future game.

[Zyrinx]

That's how I got mine, right after release. When I check group finder now in the US Soundless listings are quite rare. It's already immeasurably more difficult to get kills today, and that will only get (much) worse over time.

Putting them on the BMAH doesn't address the core issue. Extremely rare droprate mounts, meaning under 1%, should not be added to the future game.

I totally agree with this. BFA only had the island debacle, right? Which was definitely fixed via crates.

What is the actual droprate on Soundless, 1%?

[Schizoide]

Wowhead says 0.6%, so probably 0.5%? It sucked bigtime.

Agree island mounts are fine with mounts. I plan to solo them all in Shadowlands at level 60.

[Lucetia]

I mean, don't they add regularly acquirable ones every expansion, though? Almost every rep added per expansion still has a couple vendor-specific mounts, then maybe they will have a Paragon mount as well.

They do, but if you look at the numbers I posted above, even with new mounts, etc the percentages for attainable mounts (60%) vs RNG (40%) is not that great imo. The amount of RNG mounts should be closer to ~15% when it comes to terms with the achievement. That way it makes each one achievable and then the last one they put out still require a bit of RNG luck.[/quote]

I'm inclined to ask you what you think of reputations. ^_<

I'm one of the low % of players who has the 100 exalted reputations achievement. None of it was particularly hard. A solid chunk of it certainly required persistence, however. *coughs* Insane reputations, swapping Shattrath reps, Winterspring pre-Cata, and the like...

This one is a mixed bag. I'd prefer the achievement to be more obtainable without needing PvP, non-obtainable reps, or ones where you swap sides. I'd also prefer if they counted leveling bodyguards/fisher friends and stuff since most of them take the same amount of time as leveling a bodyguard.

[Schizoide]

I have the 100 exalteds and don't have any PvP reps maxed. It burns when I PvP. I do have both alliance and horde, and reps where you need to switch I have on separate characters, as I have 12 120s.

That would have been impossible in 8.2, but in 8.3 it's very achievable. And in 9.0 it'll be trivial.

[Lucetia]

I do have both alliance and horde, and reps where you need to switch I have on separate characters, as I have 12 120s.

Horde and Alliance count as only one. For instance Orgrimmar and Iron Forge count as 1 and not 2; otherwise I would've had it a long time ago.

As far as the rep swap, I believe they came out and said Scryer/Aldor count as one and Frenzyheart/Oracles count as well to prevent people from needing to feel like they need to grind and swap (for solo players). Though I am checking all my alts and double checking to see on that one.

Though I really wish they had a better way of tracking the achievement. I'm at 96/100 on my main (who I do all my rep grinding on) and my reputation panel shows 98 exalted factions. There are 3 Brawl'gar achievements which I believe is being excluded due to the term "Max Rank" which should bring it down to 95. I've heard that the hidden "Alliance/Horde" counter for Classic counts which would bring it to 96, but even then can't tell for certain.

[Lord Pebbleton]

A few hundred mounts would like to disagree with you....

People who have issues with shop mounts need to get over their sense of entitlement. Without the shop to help fund the game, Blizzard wouldn't have enough money left after taking their cut of profit to pay for half of the devs and artists responsible for making things like mounts. All those shop mounts that you would like to think would magically find their way into the game would simply stop being made

I do not hold an active subscription, so even if I despise the ingame shop, I certainly don't feel entitled to it. I'm also not going to believe that Blizzard wouldn't be able to maintain a subscription-based game without a real money shop and I would rather not have those mounts at all if given the choice.

But that is beside the point. My point is that mounts that perfectly fit a zone/reputation reward have been put in the store before, like the Laughing Skull bug. The shop has proven to be able to release original mount concepts, like the flying pig, so the Laughing Skull treatment when present is stupid and unnecessary.

[Zyrinx]

Horde and Alliance count as only one. For instance Orgrimmar and Iron Forge count as 1 and not 2; otherwise I would've had it a long time ago.

As far as the rep swap, I believe they came out and said Scryer/Aldor count as one and Frenzyheart/Oracles count as well to prevent people from needing to feel like they need to grind and swap (for solo players). Though I am checking all my alts and double checking to see on that one.

Though I really wish they had a better way of tracking the achievement. I'm at 96/100 on my main (who I do all my rep grinding on) and my reputation panel shows 98 exalted factions. There are 3 Brawl'gar achievements which I believe is being excluded due to the term "Max Rank" which should bring it down to 95. I've heard that the hidden "Alliance/Horde" counter for Classic counts which would bring it to 96, but even then can't tell for certain.

Aldor/scryer and frenzyheart/oracle's absolutely 100% only count once each, so don't bother doing the opposing faction. I found this out the hard way, twice.

[Lucetia]

Aldor/scryer and frenzyheart/oracle's absolutely 100% only count once each, so don't bother doing the opposing faction. I found this out the hard way, twice.

Thanks, I thought that was the case and last I heard from Blizzard. I was just too lazy to verify it personally. It's essentially treated like Faction only reps like how they get converted when transferring.

[MORGATH99]

got 400 or 450 or 500 mounts how about a free ingame shop mount of your choosing / how about that ?

[trapmaster]

No data from shadowland for 450/500 mounts achievement.... WILL we ever get one for certain?

[Zyrinx]

got 400 or 450 or 500 mounts how about a free ingame shop mount of your choosing / how about that ?

Um, no. Chances are, you have them all.

[Dziubla]

Making something RNG related does not make it "truly special" at all, it just makes someone lucky. It's the equivalent of saying "Hey these people won the lottery." It just doesn't make it special at all.

Again, having things be tied to RNG doesn't made it hard by any means. It just makes one lucky. See above for more explanation.

If you truly believe getting 500+ unique mounts has anything to do with luck...then I have to question how much mount farming you've really done.

Is some luck needed? Certainly. But you won't get far with just luck. You need fuck ton of patience and persistence (and alts), otherwise, even the most lucky person in the world won't get far.

Also, as for your "farming for years with multiple characters" - sounds vague and somewhat meaningless. What does "mutliple" mean? Also, farming something "for years" only means anything, if you're actually farming it every single week for years without breaks, then yes, you're unlucky if you still haven't gotten it. If you're doing a couple of attempts every year, because you can't be bothered to do more, then your "farming for years" attempts might as well be equal to someone else's "farming for a week/month" attempts.

Personally, I'm currently sitting at 516 unique mounts usable on a single character, and while there was definitely some good luck along the way, where I got some mounts way faster than expected, there was also equal amount of bad luck, where I had to farm stuff for way too long. For example, I got Korkron Juggernaut on my second ever SoO run, while I'm still farming Ironhoof Destroyer, despite having 1007 attempts.

Again, luck can only take you so far, and I'd guess the only people who believe mount farming is about luck, are people who give up on whatever mount they're farming after 20-50 attempts, thinking they're "unlucky". Nope, just impatient.

[Schizoide]

Certainly luck does come into how long it takes to get each individual mount, but overall it's definitely persistence. Over hundreds of mounts luck averages out.

[Unlimited Power]

I may be speaking out of turn on the luck discussion going on in this thread given my rather excellent luck with mounts especially.

In fact I think Invincible is the only raid or dungeon mount drop that has taken me more than 100 tries so far, and I'm sitting at exactly 500 mounts on my paladins, so that should speak volumes about my excellent luck (also 2 MoP world boss mounts in <150 tries including bonus rolls).

That said, I don't think Blizzard should add in some 150-200 mounts available outside RNG just so the 450 and 500 mount achievements are, well, achievable without RNG getting in your way. That seems... Excessive.

I think more mounts should be available from vendors than is currently the case. It used to be that most factions in a new expansion would have several recolors of the same mount available on the vendor at exalted, and that hasn't really been the case since WoD. A change I personally believe Blizzard should revert.

But I do think there's value in a decent amount of mounts being available from RNG sources as well.

[Raelbo]

I'm also not going to believe that Blizzard wouldn't be able to maintain a subscription-based game without a real money shop and I would rather not have those mounts at all if given the choice.

The simple fact is this: Blizzard make a lot less money off subs than they did in the past. They also have a more sizeable development team. Now you can stubbornly decide to not believe that this will affect the amount of the content they are going to produce unless they find alternative means of generating revenue from the game, but that's not to going change reality.

Secondly, my point was actually that without the shop, we'd lose not only the items on the shop, but a lot more content as well. Because when a product like WoW fails to bring in enough revenue - they will find ways to cut costs.

But that is beside the point. My point is that mounts that perfectly fit a zone/reputation reward have been put in the store before, like the Laughing Skull bug.

True enough. But they're still far more likely to be acquired in-game.

The shop has proven to be able to release original mount concepts, like the flying pig, so the Laughing Skull treatment when present is stupid and unnecessary.

Well I guess you're entitled to your opinion. Still seems to me though like a silly thing to get oneself worked up about.