Is Faction Lore Bias Simply Just a Perception of Players

[Deleted]

Decide for yourself

Cataclysm:

- Alliance lost every important battle in every zone
- Alliance zones given to the Horde
- Orgrimmar gets a complete revamp and looks great, Stormwind gets its park destroyed
- Thrall as the main character
- Garrosh as the driving force behind the faction war
- 4.1 Vol'jin in the spotlight in the trailer, takes up the fight against the troll tribes
- 4.2 Thrall in the spotlight in the trailer (for whatever reason, because he had little to do with the battle on Mount Hyjal against Ragnaros)
- 4.3 Thrall saves the day

MoP:

- Alliance loses Theramore
- story focuses heavily on the Horde storyline and on Horde characters, Alliance does almost nothing
- as far as we can tell no satisfying ending of the conflict for the Alliance, Varian lets the Horde choose another warchief and then the Alliance walks away

[Raiju]

I see what happened. You completely missed the point I made.

You think I'm talking about whether or not Thrall recruiting them was right or wrong. I'm not. I'm pointing out that his actions included recruiting for the Horde regardless of the context. He was evidently not wholly neutral and still very much had the interests of the Horde at heart. That is fact to which his actions will testify. I am not saying that is right or wrong from a character PoV.

Thus accepting him as from an Alliance player PoV was not straight forward.

He sent them to the horde because the horde from vanilla to wrath was basically a home for underdog and outcast races with nowhere to go. I will use the guild example again.

I have left X guild and am in Y guild, but my words naturally hold weight in X guild because I was respected in there for a couple years. If I recommend someone to go to that guild it's not to do that guild a favour, but to do the person a favour sending them somewhere I know they will get what they want.

Not loyalty, just experience.

[razorfire]

I see what happened. You completely missed the point I made.

You think I'm talking about whether or not Thrall recruiting them was right or wrong. I'm not. I'm pointing out that his actions included recruiting for the Horde regardless of the context. He was evidently not wholly neutral and still very much had the interests of the Horde at heart. That is fact to which his actions will testify. I am not saying that is right or wrong from a character PoV.

Thus accepting him as from an Alliance player PoV was not straight forward.

and you're ignoring the point I was trying to make, declaring that he isn't neutral because you choose to ignore the context of his sending the goblins to the horde is just saying you can't accept the possibility that it was a decision of logic and repaying a debt instead of faction loyalty. let me try phrasing it differently, imagine for a moment you are leaving a group to join a joint effort with another group, that same group then takes aggressive action against you and a third part, much too small to stand up to either this group or your ex group, shows up to help. after they assist you and start what could easily lead to them being crushed in the process do you A: send them on their way letting them go under despite your debt to them. B: send them to the group they just angered. or C: send them to the group you just left knowing that it is quite possibly their only chance of avoiding any direct retaliation from the group that STARTED the entire mess.

[Aquamonkey]

"I'll tell ya what de Horde is. De Horde dat me an' Thrall built. It be a family. When de whole world try ta put us down, de family come an' pick us back up." --Vol'jin

[Heladys]

B: send them to the group they just angered. or C: send them to the group you just left knowing that it is quite possibly their only chance of avoiding any direct retaliation from the group that STARTED the entire mess.

Point B implies that the goblins are at fault. How then do you claim the alliance is at fault in point C?

Confused. Still seems like Thrall was carrying a torch for the Horde at the time.

[Raiju]

Point B implies that the goblins are at fault. How then do you claim the alliance is at fault in point C?

Confused. Still seems like Thrall was carrying a torch for the Horde at the time.

It doesn't imply that at all.

Alliance attacked goblins because thrall was there, goblins killed alliance in their self defense, alliance angry that goblins killed their troops and 'defended' thrall.

[Heladys]

It doesn't imply that at all.

Alliance attacked goblins because thrall was there, goblins killed alliance in their self defense, alliance angry that goblins killed their troops and 'defended' thrall.

Maybe I'm taking something different from 'the group you just angered' than others are.

[razorfire]

Point B implies that the goblins are at fault. How then do you claim the alliance is at fault in point C?

Confused. Still seems like Thrall was carrying a torch for the Horde at the time.

perspective, to the goblins they were randomly attacked for being there, which is the truth. to the alliance forces that captured thrall and attacked the goblins they were dealing with a possible threat, arguably another truth. to the alliance that are in stormwind all they would have to go on that the goblins weren't to blame is the word of said goblins, which if history has told us anything, will be ignored in favor of "you aren't us and you don't have 'proof' from someone who works for us, obviously you killed them". in other words even if it was completely one sided each group will put at least some blame on the other.

and thrall "carrying a torch for the horde" is again what I'm trying to point out isn't needed for the scenario to happen, he is offering a form of aid, possibly the only lasting aid he CAN offer, to a group that has been dragged into a fight with one of the 2 options for help they can go to. 2-1=1

[nekobaka]

Just from a questing stand point in MoP I found the hord side to be more fun with alliance being a bit too generic. Perhaps it is the style of hord questing that I enjoy more, but then why are they different. The hord have this aggressive get shit done theme to them while the alliance is a lot of gung-ho mixed with passive aggressive that just ends up getting you kicked to the side lines feel. So even if you are not looking at all the wins and losses the hord experience for me is more enjoyable.

[Lobstarrr]

Can the alliance fanboys stfu already, it gets really old.

[Namalia]

No, it is not.

Especially since Cata.

~ Worgen story only half available to alliance players.
~ Worgen get a tree. Goblins get a zone (to reshape as the Horde symbol, definite bias) with a city.
~ Alliance Twilight Highlands intro and endings cut because Blizz spent too much time working on the Horde version
~ "We'll keep trying!" as developer sanctioned alliance war cry @ Blizzcon
~ Alliance players being ridiculed @ Blizzcon & other live events (MoP launch night)
~ Corpsegrinder telling Alliance players to go kill themselves while being Blizzard sanctioned entertainment.

[sarcasm]Nope, no bias at all.... [/sarcasm]

[Deleted]

No, it is not.

Especially since Cata.

~ Worgen story only half available to alliance players.
~ Worgen get a tree. Goblins get a zone (to reshape as the Horde symbol, definite bias) with a city.
~ Alliance Twilight Highlands intro and endings cut because Blizz spent too much time working on the Horde version
~ "We'll keep trying!" as developer sanctioned alliance war cry @ Blizzcon
~ Alliance players being ridiculed @ Blizzcon & other live events (MoP launch night)
~ Corpsegrinder telling Alliance players to go kill themselves while being Blizzard sanctioned entertainment.

[sarcasm]Nope, no bias at all.... [/sarcasm]

The Corpsegrinder thing was so hilarious. I just sat there shaking my head. The funniest thing was that Blizzard didn't understand Alliance players would be insulted by that.

[Zoldam]

I often times see people saying "Things can't be 50/50" which I agree with. The problem Alliance players have is not so much the Horde wins everything, but that the Alliance has little to no part in the main story, Blizzard has only used the Alliance to further the Horde story, if you want any Alliance story you need to look outside the game at books and such which is not very good in my opinion.

This is coming from a Horde player before I get yelled at for being an Alliance crybaby or whatever other insults people throw around.

[Scummer]

and you're ignoring the point I was trying to make, declaring that he isn't neutral because you choose to ignore the context of his sending the goblins to the horde is just saying you can't accept the possibility that it was a decision of logic and repaying a debt instead of faction loyalty. let me try phrasing it differently, imagine for a moment you are leaving a group to join a joint effort with another group, that same group then takes aggressive action against you and a third part, much too small to stand up to either this group or your ex group, shows up to help. after they assist you and start what could easily lead to them being crushed in the process do you A: send them on their way letting them go under despite your debt to them. B: send them to the group they just angered. or C: send them to the group you just left knowing that it is quite possibly their only chance of avoiding any direct retaliation from the group that STARTED the entire mess.

Ok I think at this point you are trying to argue something else than the point I was making. That or you are ignoring the entire point and being wilfully blind . This is a very basic discussion that are trying your hardest to gloss over. No need for further discussion.
Again it's posters such as yourself who wilfully avoid the issue at hand and ignore the lore present to you that annoy me hence why I've been trying my hardest to ween myself off posting on these forums because it seems like a challenge at times to discuss the lore.

- - - Updated - - -

Confused. Still seems like Thrall was carrying a torch for the Horde at the time.

I would ignore him at this point.
Thrall recruited the Goblins into the Horde. An action that very much displays his own skewed allegiance. Apparently recruiting for one faction while neutral in no way affects how the other should feel towards him (sarcasm).

[theredviola]

At this point it's mostly arguing about which crappy storyline was crappier.

Oh good. I'm glad it only took 4 posts to get to this point. Warcraft's story line has been rather brown and log shaped for years now.

[Aquamonkey]

Thrall recruited the Goblins into the Horde. An action that very much displays his own skewed allegiance. Apparently recruiting for one faction while neutral in no way affects how the other should feel towards him (sarcasm).

Maybe he should have sent them as indentured servants to Gazlowe to help pay off the dept from repairing Orgrimmar.

[ACES]

I don't think so. The Horde is clearly favored from a Lore standpoint in terms of major events that actually have a significant impact on the game.

[Verdugo]

"I'll tell ya what de Horde is. De Horde dat me an' Thrall built. It be a family. When de whole world try ta put us down, de family come an' pick us back up." --Vol'jin

Can someone translate that to me?

[Nadev]

Can the alliance fanboys stfu already, it gets really old.

Can Horde fanboys shut up about Alliance fanboys?