Obsidian Worldbreaker only through the BMAH

[ex3qtr]

Obsidian Worldbreaker is no longer available through the Anniversary Event. Only through the BMAH. Should it therefore perhaps slip into the BMAH category instead?

[SolestialDev]

I briefly considered moving both Core Hound & Obsidian Worldbreaker to BMAH in the recent updates to the section but decided against it for the same reason Collector's Edition mounts aren't under Store despite them now being store mounts; I think for some mounts it makes sense to keep them in their original section, whilst for others it doesn't.

Would be curious what others think as well though.

[F0ri0n]

Personally, I would prefer if mounts/pets would keep their original sources because now it's kind of inconsistent.

Tyrael's Charger for example had 4 sources (Annual Pass, Store, D4 Event, Trading Post).
Some of the RAF pets and TCG mounts were available through Twitch Prime.
The TCG mounts that are now listed under BMAH also still available through TCG code redemption.

I think it also creates additional work to always update to the most recent source of an item.

[seirl]

From a mount collector's perspective, I think it's better to have the website be a current snapshot of all the mounts you can still obtain, and how you can obtain them. So I would go with updating the mount sources to be the most recent place you can get it from.

The question is what do you do when they become unavailable again. For example, with the Twitch Prime mounts, I would probably put them back again in the TCG mount category after the end of the twitch prime event.

[SolestialDev]

@seirl

The question is what do you do when they become unavailable again, For example, with the Twitch Prime mounts, I would probably put them back again in the TCG mount category after the end of the twitch prime event.

In my opinion they should reflect the latest source, so unless they become available again through another way they should stay there, I'd say the best we can do is update them with the 'notObtainable' flag, like we did for some of the store mounts. I did bring up adding a Twitch Prime/Drops category before though so good to see there is interest for it at the very least.

@F0ri0n

The TCG mounts that are now listed under BMAH also still available through TCG code redemption.

Whilst you are technically correct in your reasoning, I still believe BMAH to be the latest source for those considering those TCG codes are no longer printed & even selling/buying the codes is not something Blizzard even approves of, not to mention the amount of scams involved with these codes. The way it was updated was the same as was applied to the 'Riding Turtle' when that became available through ingame means (also previously TCG).

I do agree with being consistent, but that's technically what we're trying to achieve here, just trying to determine the boundaries of where to be or not to be consistent.

I think it also creates additional work to always update to the most recent source of an item.

This isn't really an issue, considering anyone can work on it and open a PR. I don't mind the additional work personally.

[F0ri0n]

@SolestialDev
Thanks for the clarification. I do see your points. For me, it was just always convenient to easily identify mounts exclusively obtainable through the Trading Post and having that satisfaction of a completed subcategory from the past. But I understand that for the majority of users, it might be more practical to always have the most recent source listed.

I do still see an issue with fringe cases like the anniversary mounts or some of the Collector's Edition mounts (also purchasable on the store) however, which make it harder to ensure consistency.

[SolestialDev]

@F0ri0n

For me, it was just always convenient to easily identify mounts exclusively obtainable through the Trading Post and having that satisfaction of a completed subcategory from the past.

Would you think a split between Trading Post Originals & Trading Post Re-releases (so mounts that were originally available through other means but then put on the trading post) is something you think would improve this? When I moved all of those mounts to Trading Post, I did see the potential problem of eventually having a section that's way too full and proposed splitting them, so perhaps that could be the solution if others agree its an improvement.

I do still see an issue with fringe cases like the anniversary mounts or some of the Collector's Edition mounts (also purchasable on the store) however, which make it harder to ensure consistency.

I think an argument could be made for the collector's edition mounts as they have feat of strengths attached, specifically mentioning their original source, even when buying them from the store thus making them slightly different at the very least. But perhaps you are right on the Anniversary mounts belonging with BMAH now.

[F0ri0n]

@SolestialDev
I think having the trading post category split between Originals and Re-releases is a great idea. This would at least mitigate the section becoming too crowded over time.