Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #21
    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.
    In your version we'd just be there to make the Horde mad at the end, how is that any better than helping bring Garrosh to justice?
    "If you have to believe it on faith, you have no reason to believe it at all.” Aron Ra

  2. #22
    I see no problem with the story... O.o

  3. #23
    Pit Lord Galbrei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    2,254
    I know another way to fix it:

    Step 1: Leave it as it is.
    Step 2: ?????
    Step 3: Profit!

  4. #24
    Mechagnome
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The frozen north... of England.
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by Florena View Post
    In your version we'd just be there to make the Horde mad at the end, how is that any better than helping bring Garrosh to justice?
    Because even though we know the Alliance can't defeat the Horde because gameplay, the least Blizzard could do is give them the intention of actually doing what they set out to do.
    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

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Blayze View Post
    Because even though we know the Alliance can't defeat the Horde because gameplay, the least Blizzard could do is give them the intention of actually doing what they set out to do.
    As an Alliance player I see nothing wrong with them going in, thrashing Garrosh, and agreeing to a peace treaty with Vol'jin. Who says Varian wants to utterly annihilate the horde the way Garrosh does the alliance? Take his quotes in Krasarang into account, saying this is a war fought for 'a love of what's right.' Varian's not out for genocide, just to end the threat.
    "If you have to believe it on faith, you have no reason to believe it at all.” Aron Ra

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Florena View Post
    As an Alliance player I see nothing wrong with them going in, thrashing Garrosh, and agreeing to a peace treaty with Vol'jin. Who says Varian wants to utterly annihilate the horde the way Garrosh does the alliance? Take his quotes in Krasarang into account, saying this is a war fought for 'a love of what's right.' Varian's not out for genocide, just to end the threat.
    Yep, despite what some think, Varian has never truly been a warmonger. He's sought peace with the Horde repeatedly.
    "There is good and evil in this world; we must find the black and white in the gray."

  7. #27
    Immortal Destil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kanda's House
    Posts
    7,875
    1. the story is fine.

    2. It's just not the story you want.
    Quote Originally Posted by Slowpoke is a Gamer View Post
    Transorcers, Warlords in disguise.
    Writer and journalist for Adventures In Poor Taste (http://www.adventuresinpoortaste.com/)

  8. #28
    Now, Varian and the Alliance should maybe make some demands, such as telling the horde to pull out of Gilneas and Ashenvale, but outright destroy the Horde? Put them into camps again? I don't see that out of Varian. Jaina maybe but not Varian. (and probably not even her. )
    "If you have to believe it on faith, you have no reason to believe it at all.” Aron Ra

  9. #29
    Elemental Lord Nindoriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    8,888
    Quote Originally Posted by grisset View Post
    There's a big problem with your post: you assume the Alliance wants to see the Horde destroyed. Hint: it doesn't.
    Yes we do.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Nindoriel View Post
    Yes we do.
    He meant the actual Alliance, not Alliance players(and even then no individual speaks for a fanbase, sick of people saying "we" to make their opinion seem bigger).

    The Alliance has made moves to -not- see the Horde destroyed. From w2 to now let's look at it
    - Orcs put into internment camps instead of killed
    - Alliance and Horde worked together at Mount Hyjal, Ahn'qiraj, the Dark Portal, Wrathgate, Dragon Soul and soon Siege of Orgrimmar
    - Multiple peace summits attended by Horde and Alliance leaders (Varian, Thrall, Jaina)
    - Desire to not destroy Horde even now, Varian has stated he is counting on there being rebel Horde since Tides of War. He knew that not all Horde agreed with Garrosh and planned on working with the Horde

  11. #31
    I am Murloc! Airwaves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Australia! G-day Mate!... (We don't really speak like that)
    Posts
    5,677
    I want to know how we "FIX" a story that isn't even out yet?
    Angels and Airwaves
    Aldmeri Dominion - Imperial - Templar - Laethys - High Elf - Assassin - Frostmourne - Orc - Rogue - Sea of Sorrows - Norn - Thief
    Borderlands 2 - Mechromancer - Battlefield 4 - Engineer - Diablo 3 - Wizard

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Nindoriel View Post
    Yes we do.
    If the Alliance was feeling genocidal about the Horde, the Horde wouldn't be fracturing. It'd be more solid than ever.
    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.

  13. #33
    Scarab Lord MasterOfKnees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,704
    The whole "Thrall just summons a giant tidal wave to save the day" event you're suggesting is even worse than what's happening, which doesn't even need to be fixed, as it outright tells us that the Horde has 1 guy who can dominate a whole army from the Alliance, which would officially make the Horde a lot stronger than the Alliance. The Alliance wouldn't ever try to attack the Horde again, and because we have Thrall we won't attack the Alliance again, so the Horde wins simply through fear in what you're suggesting.
    Last edited by MasterOfKnees; 2013-04-03 at 06:58 AM.

  14. #34
    Moderator Nicola's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    4,706
    Seeing what Garrosh did to Theramore, Anduinn, etc, I'm fairly sure the Alliance wants to get rid of Garrosh as soon as possible. What's a better way than helping the guys that want to get rid of him as well?
    As the saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

  15. #35
    The real solution would be to disband the Horde and Alliance as game mechanically enforced separators of players. The players are mercinaries, so powerful that anyone with a brain (aka quest givers) will turn a blind eye to race for their services. Let Orcs become Exalted with Stormwind, Humans with Thunder Bluff, etc. Players are the exception, after all.

    Now existing only as lore and quest text, you never have to justify why the Alliance or Horde are helping their enemies. They aren't, if a faction doesn't logically have any interest in an event, they don't need to show up, and every player can still participate.

    This means you can have interesting things, like have the SoO be Horde-only in 5.4, then have the Alliance crush the weakened Horde in 5.6, and start 6.0 with Alliance occupation soldiers (like Kor'kron in UC) in the streets of Org., and whatever amazing events after that! Phasing means the world doesn't have to be static anymore.

    But that would require getting rid of the artificial, outdated player division, and Blizzard will never do that.

  16. #36
    i really hope we go back to the old model of alliance and horde being in peace and some hothead cause minor problem around (aka BG) wars without a conclusion are the whorst thing ever.
    How about we let the parenting of kids to... their parents? No, seriously, World of Warcraft is a videogame. Gaming it's supposed to be a fun activity (if you have that fun through challenges, social interactions, etc is completely up to you). Not some kind of "School of Hard Knocks about the Real World".

  17. #37
    The biggest flaw with this whole idea is the OP wants seperate dungeons/raids BUT the whole game is played from your perspective.

    Sure you know other guilds have progressed further but in game story wise you don't have 50 raids sitting outside the entrance waiting to storm in when your done the group you are in is THE group

  18. #38
    Mechagnome
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The frozen north... of England.
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobislost View Post
    The biggest flaw with this whole idea is the OP wants seperate dungeons/raids BUT the whole game is played from your perspective.

    Sure you know other guilds have progressed further but in game story wise you don't have 50 raids sitting outside the entrance waiting to storm in when your done the group you are in is THE group
    That's not quite the issue regarding that subject. The issue there is that both factions need to be given a reason to run said dungeon, resulting in some reasoning that runs counterproductive to said faction's goals and objectives (The Alliance and Scarlet Monastery, the Alliance and Ragefire Chasm, the Horde and Stockades...).

    As the saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
    As you've no doubt noticed, I don't ascribe to that philosophy. :P

    The whole "Thrall just summons a giant tidal wave to save the day" event you're suggesting is even worse than what's happening, which doesn't even need to be fixed, as it outright tells us that the Horde has 1 guy who can dominate a whole army from the Alliance, which would officially make the Horde a lot stronger than the Alliance. The Alliance wouldn't ever try to attack the Horde again, and because we have Thrall we won't attack the Alliance again, so the Horde wins simply through fear in what you're suggesting.
    That's in-keeping with Thrall's powers in canon, though. The Lost Isles quests prove that he can wreak stupid amounts of chaos with the backing of the elements, and to my knowledge there's only been a couple of times (While training in Lord of the Clans, and again after Ragnaros sent all the elements batshit crazy) that they even so much as hesitated to help him. Granted, a lot of that is by necessity as it's exactly what happens with player and NPC shamans as well--it wouldn't work well if every single time a shaman player cast a spell, they did an emote begging the element in question for their aid, nor would it work if they got refused on occasion.

    Still, Thrall's massively powerful, to the point where if I hadn't taken advantage of his abilities in my idea, I'd be left thinking of the Reed Richards is Useless trope. That's generally what happens when you have lore characters described as "the most powerful X in the world"--they end up either being written out of the picture, being depowered, or stuck wagging their fingers at the antics of the silly mortals who don't seem to learn anything.

    That only worked for Medivh because he was an antagonist, but for the Aspects it was just annoying to imagine these four super-powerful characters playing cards at the top of Wyrmrest Temple while others were busy fighting and dying to keep them safe from danger. They sort of work as neutral parties (Except for Alexstrasza, really, given her "history" with the orcs), but partisan entities on their level like Thrall and Jaina end up existing purely to oppose each other.

    It could work as an arms race story, though, and would have worked better had Garrosh not been written into being the Big Bad--imagine if both sides had kept upping the ante by gathering powerful allies and artefacts, to the point where the only thing stopping all-out war was the fact that each side kept growing in power so that the other had to keep up or risk appearing weak enough to attack.
    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. #39
    Elemental Lord Snowraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    European Union
    Posts
    8,980
    Quote Originally Posted by xskarma View Post
    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.
    This.

    OP, in your scenario the whole raid seen from the Alliance side is another defeat. By the end, the weak rebel Horde forces managed to beat not only Garrosh's forces, but also the full might of the Alliance, making a bunch of ragtags look like they're invincible, while the Alliance is on the level of the defeated actor, Garrosh, which shows they're weak and incompetent. If this would go live, the raging from Cataclysm would be nothing compared to what would happen now, and on good measure.

    Also, to add, it makes sense for Alliance to help the rebellion for the same reason EU helped the rebels in Libya. They're helping destabilize the regime and put a more likeable person in charge. That's how things work.

  20. #40
    Mechagnome
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The frozen north... of England.
    Posts
    727
    OP, in your scenario the whole raid seen from the Alliance side is another defeat.
    Not so much a defeat as a Pyrrhic victory.

    On the one hand, the Alliance loses most of the forces they committed to the assault after taking what some believe was a gamble and what others believe was the safer choice (Leading to the chance to have actual depth in Alliance politics instead of Varian and Everyone Who Agrees With Him versus Team Meanie McBadface, but on the other hand), the Horde has not only lost a lot of forces as well on either side of the civil war, but must ALSO now deal with the resulting power vacuum and whatever power plays happen in its wake.

    That's a hell of a lot more interesting than "everyone teams up to beat the Big Bad because he's basically Hitler."
    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
  •