Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #1
    Mechagnome
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The frozen north... of England.
    Posts
    727

    How to fix the story of the Siege of Orgrimmar

    I'd try to fix the whole story of WoW if I could, but ain't nobody got time for that. Instead, I'm going to concentrate on the Siege of Orgrimmar, as it's currently the biggest possible offender I can think of.

    STEP ONE: Identifying the Problem

    The necessities of the MMO genre have damaged a fictional universe already damaged by the necessities of the RTS genre. Concession after concession gets made to accommodate both the lore and the gameplay, but it's always the lore that has to make the concession, and not the other way around.

    Both playable factions were expected to run each dungeon and raid, so both playable factions had to be given reasons to do just that. The Horde were told they had to save Moira Bronzebeard to help Thrall's efforts to reach a peaceful accord with the Alliance via Ironforge, which is *slightly* more understandable than the Alliance being told they had to destroy the Scarlet Crusade despite the Crusade being a useful tool against the Forsaken.

    The solution in this case is obvious: Different dungeons depending on your faction, that provides gear that might look different but is statistically identical. This even has the added benefit of getting players to roll the other faction to see how their half of the story plays out, instead of having everything be mirrored because it saves time.

    Now let's apply this thinking to the Siege of Orgrimmar.

    What we know so far is that Garrosh antagonises the rest of the Horde so much that they rebel against him, and that the Alliance are trying to take him down as well at the same time.

    Now why the hell would they want to do that? The Alliance has a perfect chance to allow two groups full of people they want to see dead to weaken each other, then go after the survivors with fresh forces. Instead, they're wasting soldiers and resources helping the enemy they're at war with clean up their own internal problem, all on the off chance that the Horde won't seek to continue the war or be the ones to betray them just afterward.

    Think back to the first sentence in this section. What does it mean? It means that in order for both factions to have a desire to do the same raid content, either one or both must be written like idiots at times. The community has always accepted this in the past, but I would argue that all factions MUST be self-serving and have their continued existence as one of their top priorities.

    If taking part in a raid or dungeon goes against that faction's self-interest, then it either gets cut or it weakens the story.

    This is even more important when said faction is actually a nation, rather than just a group of people brought together by a common cause who will then disband when they have no more reason to stick together. And it's even more important when said faction has been at war several times with the people they're now expected to help.

    Sadly, the way this is doubtless going to play out is that both sides will fight the same bosses with the same mechanics at the same time and the victory will be referred to in future lore sources as being the work of "brave heroes" in order to never answer the question of who canonically did what to who. It's a fix, and a cop-out, and still doesn't address the real problem of trying to understand why the Alliance would care about orcs killing each other instead of them.

    STEP TWO: Fixing the Problem

    So now we have the Alliance being told to ignore everything the Horde has done to them, presumably by big-name characters who have little, if any, reason to trust the Horde at all.

    How do we fix it? Simple. In fact, it's not just simple: It's genius. It's genius and it helps bring back some of the partisan feelings sorely missed in this era of mistaking "gameplay" and "balance" for one another.

    First of all, a chronology of events as I would have them unfold:

    1) Garrosh's policies and actions have finally incited open rebellion among the Horde.

    2) The rebellion appeals for Alliance aid. The Alliance refuses.

    3) The rebellion, with no other choice, takes the fight to Orgrimmar itself. They make it to Grommash Hold, and finally kill Garrosh.

    4) The Alliance attempts to capitalise on the situation. Some want to dismantle the Horde as an organisation, others want to slaughter the orcs outright.

    5) Weakened by their struggles, the surviving members of the rebellion intend to go out fighting--but Thrall and a number of other shaman call upon the elements to wreck the Alliance forces. A great tidal wave crushes the Alliance foot soldiers and their supply lines outside of Orgrimmar, and violent winds and hurricanes cut their aerial forces to shreds.

    6) With victory no longer assured, Tyrande calls a retreat.

    This plan has several benefits, which I will now outline:

    1) It provides both factions with reasonable, believable reasons for their actions, and lowers the issues I have with the Siege from "the lore sucks and the bosses will be the same anyway" to "the bosses will be the same anyway," and that can only be a plus.

    2) It provides both factions with understandable reasons to keep the war going instead of having Garrosh blamed as the sole reason for it and that now he's dead we can all get along better. The Alliance refused to help because they didn't want to throw away their own troops and resources helping the people they're at war with, and they saw a chance to come out on top. This is a reasonable thing to do if you're Alliance, and an honourless thing to do if you're Horde.

    And let's face it, the Horde needs reasons to hate the Alliance that aren't so ham-fisted they make me laugh.

    3) It provides Thrall with some much-needed ruthlessness--anything, really, to move him closer to his Warcraft 3 incarnation where his motivation was to do what he had to do to keep the people of the Horde safe. If I was doing the whole story over, using the Dragon Soul would have killed him, but meh.

    4) If Tyrande is the commander in the Alliance version of the Siege--which she should be, given she's the closest thing to a military leader the Alliance has on Kalimdor as she's the former general of the Sentinels and thus would realistically know more about warfare than Varian does due to her former immortality--then it should go some way to undoing the pitiful characterisation Blizzard have dumped on her so far.

    She went from a badass in Warcraft 3 to an inactivate peacemonger in Vanilla (The Tyrande I remember would probably have kicked Fandral in the face for questioning her authority. Then again, though, Fandral wouldn't have had a reason in the first place to disagree with a leader who would have been on the front lines shanking orcs in Ashenvale). The inactive part is visible with the other leaders, but then Cataclysm hit.

    Cataclysm hit, and she went backwards. From the short story that portrayed her as an emotional wreck in a toxic relationship that was written as being a perfect one, to the "Hush, Tyrande" incident in the Well of Eternity dungeon, to her constant whining in Endtime, I thought things couldn't possibly get any worse.

    And then they got worse with Mists, where Tyrande--the former general of an an army that fights its battles tactically and excels at ambushes, mind you--has to be lectured on not zerg rushing by Varian, a man who has only ever had Standard Fantasy Prince Sword Training and never actually had to fight for his life before he magically became blessed by Goldrinn because a troll said he was as fierce as Lo'gosh just because.

    But that's another issue entirely, as is the issue of Garrosh's personality jumping all over the place, to the point where Blizzard had to hire an external writer in order to get them out of the hole they'd written themselves into (Since his primary purpose in each scene he's in seems to be to act contrary to absolutely everyone around him on absolutely every issue whatsoever).
    It became clear that it wasn’t realistic to try to get the audience back to being more hardcore, as it had been in the past. -- Tom Chilton

  2. #2
    There's a big problem with your post: you assume the Alliance wants to see the Horde destroyed. Hint: it doesn't.
    If there's one thing World of Warcraft players hate more than people who don't play, it's people that do play but not as much as them.

  3. #3
    Yeah, that's a great idea. Instead of having it as a raid both sides can enjoy have the Alliance do nothing, have the Garrosh story resolved without their involvement, and then show up to get their asses handed to then by a tidal wave. That won't make anybody mad or alienate any factions. >_>
    "If you have to believe it on faith, you have no reason to believe it at all.” Aron Ra

  4. #4
    You assume there's something to fix, yet you don't even know how it's going to play out so it's impossible to know the story.
    You fucking what mate?
    Quote Originally Posted by Monoxide View Post
    I reported you, btw. Your signature offends me. Hopefully you're forced to change it and get an infraction. I'm going to follow your posting habits and given enough time I'm sure I can report you to the point of a ban. We'll see how you like it.

  5. #5
    So your idea is to have the alliance do absolutely nothing for the first bit, and then get demolished in the second bit? Yeah, sorry, but I like actually doing something and at least having the idea I accomplished something (like driving Garrosh out of Org.). The Alliance was promised a victory after long suffering and I intend to collect.
    Your Soul Shall Suffer! ||| Forum rules ||| New England Patriots

  6. #6
    Isn't Garrosh kinda sucking up Sha like a... What's a good metaphor? So it's a pretty good idea for the Alliance to tag-team with the rebellion, otherwise Garrosh will be like "mwahaha I'm the nega-emperor LASUR BEEMS".
    If you are particularly bold, you could use a Shiny Ditto. Do keep in mind though, this will infuriate your opponents due to Ditto's beauty. Please do not use Shiny Ditto. You have been warned.

  7. #7
    Can't fix what isn't broken.

  8. #8
    Field Marshal Purson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    76
    Sorry for my quick and crude thoughts but isn't it this simple:

    * Horde are disgusted in Garrosh, so they rebel to overthrow him.

    * Alliance see the Horde turning against their leader, decide they too can capitalize on the movement and set about destroying him to weaken the Horde (Some extra horde kills wouldn't be wasted either of course).

    Both situations achieve a beneficial outcome and both have ample reason to set about killing Garrosh... or is that too simple?

  9. #9
    Over 9000! Arbs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Draenor
    Posts
    9,016
    Quote Originally Posted by skitzy129 View Post
    Can't fix what isn't broken.
    You read my mind good sir.

  10. #10
    I am Murloc! Peaky Blinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Birmingham UK/Arizona US
    Posts
    5,687
    This whole Siege of Orgrimmar prolly sounded great on paper but i have a feeling it gonna be a giant clusterfuck lore wise

    The Alliance has lost so much in the war with the horde and for them to not capitalise on there misfortune is stupid to the point of retardation

    The only logical way i can see it is if the raid ends and both factions draw swords at each other then BANG burning legion pops in laughs so the two faction sheaths there swords and decide to leave there fight for another day cause they have bigger fish to fry

  11. #11
    I just completely disagree with your premise. The Alliance has a massive interest in ousting Garrosh and aiding a more peaceful faction in retaking Orgrimmar. Even if they were all ruthless genocidal maniacs and wanted every member of the Horde dead, they don't have enough troops in Kalimdor to make that realistic. Aiding the Darkspear rebellion is a no brainer for the Alliance. It is also perfectly in character for Varian (post character development) and Anduin. In fact ironically the person most likely to push for a more aggressive stance towards the Horde is now Jaina (but I suspect she'll come to her senses and focus her anger on the real culprit, Garrosh).

    And also, without Alliance aid there's a good chance the rebellion would fail. That leaves Garrosh in power uncontested.

    The story doesn't need fixing it makes perfect sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blayze View Post
    Both playable factions were expected to run each dungeon and raid, so both playable factions had to be given reasons to do just that. The Horde were told they had to save Moira Bronzebeard to help Thrall's efforts to reach a peaceful accord with the Alliance via Ironforge, which is *slightly* more understandable than the Alliance being told they had to destroy the Scarlet Crusade despite the Crusade being a useful tool against the Forsaken.
    Well Thrall was a peacemaker so BRD does kind of make sense. And the Scarlet Crusade was a group of insane vicious zealots who were as big a threat to the innocent humans as they were to the Scourge or the Forsaken. And of course, we ultimately discover they're being manipulated by Balnazzar.

    It makes perfect sense in the background lore, unfortunately you didn't see a lot of it in-game on the Alliance side.

    Sometimes I honestly feel sorry for the Scarlet Crusaders... look at what happened to them in Northrend and after the Cataclysm. They were monsters but sheesh.

    ---------- Post added 2013-04-03 at 02:05 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Combooticus View Post
    This whole Siege of Orgrimmar prolly sounded great on paper but i have a feeling it gonna be a giant clusterfuck lore wise

    The Alliance has lost so much in the war with the horde and for them to not capitalise on there misfortune is stupid to the point of retardation
    How is the Alliance engineering the downfall of the Warchief (the one responsible for all those losses and hostilities no less) and his loyalists and installing a more peaceful regime not a massive capitalisation?

    What are you looking for? The Alliance wiping out the Horde? That wouldn't even work in the RPG let alone the MMO, and would turn the Alliance into worse monsters than Garrosh.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  12. #12
    I am Murloc! Peaky Blinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Birmingham UK/Arizona US
    Posts
    5,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post

    How is the Alliance engineering the downfall of the Warchief (the one responsible for all those losses and hostilities no less) and his loyalists and installing a more peaceful regime not a massive capitalisation?

    What are you looking for? The Alliance wiping out the Horde? That wouldn't even work in the RPG let alone the MMO, and would turn the Alliance into worse monsters than Garrosh.
    The Alliance is all about security while the horde is all about survival

    The alliance has a chance to dismantle once and for all its greatest enemy instead they are gonna install a peaceful leader who they must know could be overthrown for another garrosh hellscream in the future

    While the horde exists the alliance will never have security cause the horde will always be too fragile politically to be allowed to exist

    Im not looking for the alliance to destroy the horde cause the horde is my faction but i guess i just expect a just a tiny bit of realism even for a RPG world

  13. #13
    Mechagnome
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The frozen north... of England.
    Posts
    727
    Note that nowhere in my post did I mention the Alliance waltzing in without having to fight bosses. Maybe they fight some of Garrosh's holdouts, then the rebellion itself before the climax where they get blindsided by the elements.

    Either way, what I pulled out of my ass smells less like shit than what past experience has taught me we're going to get.
    It became clear that it wasn’t realistic to try to get the audience back to being more hardcore, as it had been in the past. -- Tom Chilton

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Blayze View Post
    Either way, what I pulled out of my ass smells less like shit than what past experience has taught me we're going to get.
    Ignore past experiences because MoP's story is a lot different than anything else we've had before.
    You fucking what mate?
    Quote Originally Posted by Monoxide View Post
    I reported you, btw. Your signature offends me. Hopefully you're forced to change it and get an infraction. I'm going to follow your posting habits and given enough time I'm sure I can report you to the point of a ban. We'll see how you like it.

  15. #15
    we just want the purples doesnt matter why we kill the bosses.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Blayze View Post
    Note that nowhere in my post did I mention the Alliance waltzing in without having to fight bosses. Maybe they fight some of Garrosh's holdouts, then the rebellion itself before the climax where they get blindsided by the elements.

    Either way, what I pulled out of my ass smells less like shit than what past experience has taught me we're going to get.
    Oh joy. We get to fight the holdouts after Garrosh is already dead. That sounds just as epic as bringing down the butcher of Theramore.
    "If you have to believe it on faith, you have no reason to believe it at all.” Aron Ra

  17. #17
    Another expansion revolving entirely around the Horde with no payout for the Alliance whatsoever?

    Well, honestly, your description doesn't sound entirely out of place.

    I kid, I kid! XD

    I wouldn't be surprised if they have Anduin stay in Orgrimmar as an ambassador to the new Warchief to set the stage for the Horde and Alliance to have to band together against the Burning Legion.

    Personally, though, I agree that I don't see any way Siege of Orgrimmar can end without the Alliance looking like idiots or simply defeated and driven out yet again. It already feels like, as many predicted, the raid is shaping up to be "The Horde's Siege of Orgrimmar with their Alliance helpers."

    Which makes no sense when it's the smaller groups of the Horde races banding together to rebel (and even then, it's not like every last individual is taking up arms in rebellion) and they're standing directly against the might of Garrosh while the full military force of the Alliance is going to be doing covert sneaking missions. I get that Varian wants to play it safe (and OP is on the same page with me that they botched the High King opportunity for Varian to LEARN FROM and ABOUT his allies to determine how best to lead them as a cohesive unit), but it seems like the Horde should be doing more undermining than standing in direct opposition.
    Last edited by Faroth; 2013-04-03 at 02:38 AM.
    "There is good and evil in this world; we must find the black and white in the gray."

  18. #18
    Mechagnome
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The frozen north... of England.
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by Florena View Post
    Oh joy. We get to fight the holdouts after Garrosh is already dead. That sounds just as epic as bringing down the butcher of Theramore.
    It's either that or be a sideshow in the Horde's story for the sake of getting to raid. At least in my version the Alliance gets to help drive events.
    It became clear that it wasn’t realistic to try to get the audience back to being more hardcore, as it had been in the past. -- Tom Chilton

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Blayze View Post
    It's either that or be a sideshow in the Horde's story for the sake of getting to raid. At least in my version the Alliance gets to help drive events.
    What are tomorrow's lotto numbers? Who's going to be president in 2016?

    You don't know how it's going to go. Stop assuming things.
    If there's one thing World of Warcraft players hate more than people who don't play, it's people that do play but not as much as them.

  20. #20
    Mechagnome
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The frozen north... of England.
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by grisset View Post
    What are tomorrow's lotto numbers? Who's going to be president in 2016?

    You don't know how it's going to go. Stop assuming things.
    Like I said, I'm using past experiences to guide my thinking. This isn't a wrong thing to do, especially given that it's a story in the same franchise written by the same people working for the same company.
    It became clear that it wasn’t realistic to try to get the audience back to being more hardcore, as it had been in the past. -- Tom Chilton

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •