---------- Post added 2013-04-27 at 08:00 PM ----------
....right...maybe you need to read the TITLE OF THE GAME..World of WARcraft..not "World of Lets Diplomatically Resolve our Social, Economical and Ethnic Diversity with rounds of Talks, Concessions and MediationCraft"
Wtf would we do? Log in and play WoWFarmville? Plant some trees? Raids would be enduring endless rp sessions between Varian and Thrall...I can just see the chieve for heroic mode negotiations: "Achieve completion of Paragraph 2, subsection 4 re: Equal Distribution of lumber in Ashenvale between the Orcs of Durotar (hereafter referred to as party A) and the Night Elves of Ashenvale (hereafter referred to as party B) without more then 4 raid members unsubscribing or falling asleep. 50pts"
Well I can see two major issues with this:
-Lack of content
-Lack of lore for new battlegrounds.
PEPE SILVA, PEPE SILVA
I'd be fine with a "peace" expansion, the concept of a "war" in WoW (despite being in the name) has always been a farce, even in MoP trying to bring it back to "war" it's just been Horde picking on the Alliance, but now since one of them is going nuts the Alliance is preparing a groin kick in return. Seriously, the war died at the end of WC3, anything else since it just merely more of a pointless cold war.
We need conflict. It's what drives this game, given the focus on combat. Non-combat is always secondary -- professions, exploration, etc. Heck, a lot of the crafting produces items used during battle. Even the pet-collecting has a combat slant, now.
So, "peace" may only exist between Horde and Alliance, while we focus on a greater threat. But if TBC and Wrath are any prior indication, we won't ignore the other faction entirely. There will be fighting between outposts and field commanders at the very least, "unofficially sanctioned" operations and wetwork...
A Farewell to Pre-Cataclysm Azeroth (video)
I think I prefer the "Cold War" status the game had in Vanilla, where the 2 factions aren't directly at war, but there is enough conflict going on to justify the battlegrounds and world PVP. The problem with total war is: if one side dominates too long, the otehr gets (justifably, IMO) annoyed and starts to ask for "their turn". If its too nuetral, neither side is really happy.
I think the total war should be saved for single player games, like a Warcraft IV. This way, the players WoW toon isn't involved (Off Topic: i think that is a WCIV is made, it should totally allow you to import your wow toons as hero units tho) and allows blizz to flex a bit more muscle over who wins and loses and such.
Of course, we also have to realize that unless blizz decides to sell/end Warcraft., neither side will ever fully "win" and any losers will eventually get a rocky style come back.
You must show no mercy, Nor have any belief whatsoever in how others judge you: For your greatness will silence them all!
A better way to do this would be to not initially having a conflict. Instead both factions focus on rooting out all the cultists/marauders from their zones.. There would need to be a LOT of things added. I can see this working out relatively well for dungeons, quests, and scenarios, but I'm having difficulty coming up with a raid. All I've got so far is another Tournament style thing.
I do like the idea of out of the blue attacks, but it'd be impossible to pull off.
The game needs to revert to the "Big bad threatening both horde and alliance"-theme, we've had an expansion with "Horde vs Alliance" now and it's a story that just can't end or indeed really change anything much, yeah we're going to march into Orgrimmar, get rid of Garrosh and then leave again, for game balance! Which makes for a lame ending that leaves both sides unsatisfied, no total victory for either side, just "Back to the good ol' status quo everybody!"
What would we do sing around a campfire singing kumbaya?
I want this to happen just to see how they'd try to market it.
I will eat, sleep, and breathe Dark Souls 3.
Add me on the PSN for jolly-cooperation @ PuppetShoJustice
I would like to see what some other guy suggested - another faction actually declares/wages war on US; not like anything thus far except maybe a hugely bolstered version of the Twilight's Hammer - they were a presence, yes, but the real power that held the Horde and Alliance in check wasn't the martial strength of the cult but the threat of Deathwing himself; he WAS a one-dragon army.
Even in BC, we didn't really see the Burning Legion going all war on us; we followed them to one place they have holdings and fought some of them but it wasn't extensive and we weren't even near any of the lords until Sunwell Plateau, which wasn't in Outland anyway.
So I guess I don't mind the Alliance/Horde war, but I don't find it as compelling as a big picture / backdrop for the expansion; I much prefer one or more other parties/armies that are involved in the conflict in a major way. I don't want another expansion based on defeating a singular evil, we've done that twice now with Arthas and Deathwing - sure there were minor deviations, we left our campaign against Arthas for a sec to stomp on Yogg and ditched Deathwing to hammer the most powerful of his allies (who also was an old foe of the world)
I want an expansion with a really strong variety - similar to what we have now in MoP - we fought a Mogu enclave full of secrets, the stronghold of the Mantid race, the strongest Sha currently hanging out and now we're up against a resurrected mogu emperor who enslaved a whole continent 12,000 years prior to the present. Vanilla was flawed in a lot of ways mechanically; however, the sheer variety of content and adventures was much more what I like to see in MMOs.
So I don't think I would like a full-on "peaceful" expansion; I'd like it to be more like BC or Vanilla - our conflicts are pocketed and important, but we have several more important, better armed foes to deal with.
Last edited by Olrox; 2013-04-28 at 06:24 AM.
Signature dunked by a lame MMO Champ robot.
While I would like to eventually see peace between the factions, I highly doubt it would ever happen in any meaningful way due to various obstacles. (No small one being the need for conflict in game.)
The existence of PvP in game is a particularly sticky issue, though not insurmountable. I'm sure Blizzard could come up with a reasonable explanation for continued player conflict. Failing that, PvP could be redesigned to be same-faction only but I wouldn't count on it.
The one thing I'm sure of is that such a thing would NEVER mean the end to PvP as that would be a death blow to the company. That's as good as telling a few million people their money isn't wanted any more. Even if only say 20% of players actually quit the game directly from that you have to keep in mind the repercussions. This is a social game and for many it would lose its appeal if they couldn't play with friends anymore so more are sure to follow.
Even if Blizz lost less than half of its customers the game would still be a pale shadow of what it once was and while they've made some big fuckups in the past, they never will on this scale, if nothing else then solely for the cash.
Stories must always have a conflict. An expansion focused on gaining peace would make creating compelling conflicts a bit hard to justify.
While I think it needs to happen (the Horde and Alliance reaching a satisfactory settlement), I don't think it deserves (or would be a good option for) top billing as far as an expansion's story goes. It should be a sub-arc, one of several stories that occur through the course of the expansion to give it depth and realism.