Originally Posted by
Trassk
This kind of analogy really speaks volumes when showing how little the playerbase manages to follow the story in what its set in right now.
Saying 'We need an aggressive warchief!', Yeah, well we had that. We've had that all though cataclysm and though mists too, we've had the most overly agressive bastard that walks leading the horde, and the result is leading to the horde breaking apart from the inside.
The lesson is that you don't need an aggressive warchief, because its a fact aggressive warchief's lead to nothing but trouble, ones that war nothing but to perpetuate war, and the results are always the same.
Pay. Attention. To. The. Story. The devs are flat out telling you the consequences of war and hatred and senseless violence. They made a freakin villian that grows and becomes stronger from this mentality, so why the hell are you insisting that the solution to this is to have yet another character doing the same mistake Garrosh has done. It leads to nothing but ruin.
What the horde needs, is a leader who is able to work towards peace for his people, one that still agree to peace when it is offered, but who will not take any shit the alliance dishes out at the horde either. Thrall has no faults in this, infact he was the best set example of what a leader should be doing, fighting when he knew it was right, and working for peace when he knew it was the best solution.
The only issue with Thralls leadership didn't come from what he wanted. It formed from the slack jawed playerbase who didn't understand this kind of morality and derped about 'durrrr thems need be more waaarrrrr in warcraft!'.