Shouldn't there be some lore for Sylvanas this expansion?

[The Madgod]

The whole thing with Ulduar and Mechagnomes was invented when they made that expansion. There wasn't anything in the Scourge theme that suggested that Mechagnomes had to be invented. They made it up so they could do something with Gnomes. If they can fit in Gnomes into a Scourge expansion, why is there no room for let's say the Draenei. Sure there were some Draenei present there, but there was no Draenei storyline like the Gnomes finding out about Mechagnomes and the Curse of Flesh.

Because a good arc for an expansion isn't one static theme. That's the overarching theme, and the Forsaken had the most pull in regards to that. The draenei's focus is the Burning Legion. The only link to the burning legion that was in Northrend was Mal'ganis and that was a well kept secret till the end. Other than that, the Burning Legion doesn't have a place in Northrend.

Of course they can fit more different races into the content and have it make sense. There is enough room for Night Elven and Worgen involvement on the Alliance side in patch 5.3. You can still have the Horde side of the quests deal with their internal problems.

Pretty sure the Alliance is helping Vol'jin because that's who they're going to have to follow for the seige of Orgrimmar. If this is the case, then why would they want to water that down with Alliance involvement elsewhere? It detracts from that focus, I'd say, or calls that focus into question, which isn't necessarily a BAD thing but it does ruin the immersion.

Okay.... so why does it need to be exclusive? I just still don't understand this. You're saying that for Forsaken lore to "count" it can only involve Forsaken characters, and no other areas can get updates? Why?

That whole story arc is about the rise of the new Forsaken. They're a huge military power now, and they launch an attack on Gilneas. You get to see how they interact with the rest of the Horde races, what their plans are after the death of Arthas, how they plan to procreate... you get to personally quest alongside a fully-voiced Sylvanas Windrunner. You see them take new territory in Hillsbrad and advance the plot that's been there since Vanilla. Seriously, if that doesn't count as Forsaken lore development, nothing does.

I don't think you understand the point I'm making.

It's absolutely a major lore development for them, but development of the lore in general was not soley (or rather, primarily) focused on them for that addition to the game (I.E., the Cata 1-60 revamp). That's why I call it non-exclusive.

The lore hasn't had a FOCUS on the Forsaken since Wrath. Forsaken lore hasn't been EXPANDED since Cata. See the difference?

[Daswolfen]

Problem is, in the silverpine questline it was Sylvanas who was evil and Garrosh who enforced morals on her. Bringing her in now would be conflicting in some way...

No.. its just Sylvanas is just more evil than the rest of the horde. The only good race in the horde is the Tauren. Goblins are neutral at best and all the rest of the races are evil by their nature. As much as horde players disagree, the act is they ARE the bad guys. Now the Alliance have made some questionable decisions but nowhere on the order of atrocities committed by the horde.

[Verdugo]

No.. its just Sylvanas is just more evil than the rest of the horde. The only good race in the horde is the Tauren. Goblins are neutral at best and all the rest of the races are evil by their nature. As much as horde players disagree, the act is they ARE the bad guys. Now the Alliance have made some questionable decisions but nowhere on the order of atrocities committed by the horde.

Alliance commited worst atrocity of them all.

They live.

[jealouspirate]

I don't think you understand the point I'm making.

It's absolutely a major lore development, but development of the lore in general was not soley (or rather, primarily) focused on them for that addition to the game (I.E., the Cata 1-60 revamp). That's why I call it non-exclusive.

The lore hasn't had a FOCUS on the Forsaken since Wrath. Forsaken lore hasn't been EXPANDED since Cata. See the difference?

I guess I see the difference "technically", but I don't see how that practically makes a difference. In both cases the Forsaken lore got a lot of attention and progression, and it still puts the Forsaken ahead of most races in terms of plot movement.

Pretty sure the Alliance is helping Vol'jin because that's who they're going to have to follow for the seige of Orgrimmar. If this is the case, then why would they want to water that down with Alliance involvement elsewhere? It detracts from that focus, I'd say, or calls that focus into question, which isn't necessarily a BAD thing but it does ruin the immersion.

Well, this is exactly the problem with 5.3, isn't it? Alliance players don't want to follow Vol'jin for the Siege of Orgrimmar. They want their own side to the story.

[The Madgod]

I guess I see the difference "technically", but I don't see how that practically makes a difference. In both cases the Forsaken lore got a lot of attention and progression, and it still puts the Forsaken ahead of most races in terms of plot movement.

Maybe so, but I don't think that means they shouldn't get any attention when they're relevant. That's unfair to the plotline.

Well, this is exactly the problem with 5.3, isn't it? Alliance players don't want to follow Vol'jin for the Siege of Orgrimmar. They want their own side to the story.

I think, considering the desire for lore consistency in the game, the Alliance would have to follow Vol'jin into Orgrimmar. Elsewise we'll basically have two different raids. That's probably pretty difficult to make for the raid dev team.

[jealouspirate]

I think, considering the desire for lore consistency in the game, the Alliance would have to follow Vol'jin into Orgrimmar. Elsewise we'll basically have two different raids. That's probably pretty difficult to make for the raid dev team.

I actually tend to agree here, which is why I've always thought that having Garrosh and the Siege of Orgrimmar as a raid is bad idea.

As you say, there has to be one "true version" of the raid. No matter how it goes down, it will always be frustrating for one faction. Either the Alliance follows the Horde in and they (rightly) feel left out, or the Horde follows the Alliance in and they get left out. I think the whole plotline was short-sighted of Blizzard.

For the Alliance, killing Garrosh was supposed to be about revenge on the Horde against all they've done. Now instead, it's actually HELPING the Horde and making them stronger.

[The Madgod]

I actually tend to agree here, which is why I've always thought that having Garrosh and the Siege of Orgrimmar as a raid is bad idea.

As you say, there has to be one "true version" of the raid. No matter how it goes down, it will always be frustrating for one faction. Either the Alliance follows the Horde in and they (rightly) feel left out, or the Horde follows the Alliance in and they get left out. I think the whole plotline was short-sighted of Blizzard.

The way they could do it would be for them to group up some time in the instance, but that would mean that different bosses would have to be tuned differently depending on the faction to ensure that it felt like you were actually progressing, which is really bad because it would take a LOT of fine tuning to ensure that one faction wasn't being given the short end of the stick.

But I don't think that a faction's going to feel left out here. The player group is probably the special task force of the invasion, and the Alliance and rebel Horde are working together, it's not one side leading the other, unless you really want to say the Alliance is following the Horde because the Horde members there actually know the place better, which is logical... but it's a partnership. The Alliance is providing a lot of the strength and the rebel Horde is providing the intel.

For the Alliance, killing Garrosh was supposed to be about revenge on the Horde against all they've done. Now instead, it's actually HELPING the Horde and making them stronger.

Not really, it's helping those oppressed under Garrosh get control back. The Horde's going to be significantly weakened by these events. That's a fact. The only strengthening they're going to get is a strengthening of their moral compass. That's it.

Any way you slice it, the Alliance is going to be the one on top after the Seige of Orgrimmar. The Horde as a whole will get a moral victory, but it certainly won't get a tactical one.

[nazrakin]

Maybe so, but I don't think that means they shouldn't get any attention when they're relevant. That's unfair to the plotline.



I think, considering the desire for lore consistency in the game, the Alliance would have to follow Vol'jin into Orgrimmar. Elsewise we'll basically have two different raids. That's probably pretty difficult to make for the raid dev team.

It wouldn't have to be two different raids. They could design a non-linear raid and simply have Horde start at the gates and Alliance start at sea, maybe even create one unique mini boss for each.

[Deleted]

The way they could do it would be for them to group up some time in the instance, but that would mean that different bosses would have to be tuned differently depending on the faction to ensure that it felt like you were actually progressing, which is really bad because it would take a LOT of fine tuning to ensure that one faction wasn't being given the short end of the stick.

But I don't think that a faction's going to feel left out here. The player group is probably the special task force of the invasion, and the Alliance and rebel Horde are working together, it's not one side leading the other, unless you really want to say the Alliance is following the Horde because the Horde members there actually know the place better, which is logical... but it's a partnership. The Alliance is providing a lot of the strength and the rebel Horde is providing the intel.



Not really, it's helping those oppressed under Garrosh get control back. The Horde's going to be significantly weakened by these events. That's a fact. The only strengthening they're going to get is a strengthening of their moral compass. That's it.

Any way you slice it, the Alliance is going to be the one on top after the Seige of Orgrimmar. The Horde as a whole will get a moral victory, but it certainly won't get a tactical one.

Actually having a sensible leader would greatly strenghten the horde.
Alliance can just sit back and watch as Garrosh's fails bring everyone, including the pandaren along with the shado-pan and probably the Argent Crusade, on their side. They don't do it jus cause WoW cannot exist if one faction just defeats the other.

[The Madgod]

It wouldn't have to be two different raids. They could design a non-linear raid and simply have Horde start at the gates and Alliance start at sea, maybe even create one unique mini boss for each.

I already mentioned that. That would make the raid lose its feeling of progression and it could potentially create a difference in difficulty based on which faction you chose, which wouldn't be a good idea.

Actually having a sensible leader would greatly strenghten the horde.
Alliance can just sit back and watch as Garrosh's fails bring everyone, including the pandaren along with the shado-pan and probably the Argent Crusade, on their side. They don't do it jus cause WoW cannot exist if one faction just defeats the other.

Relative outcomes don't mean that one greatly strengthens the Horde. It means that out of the possible outcomes, that one would strengthen the Horde the most.

The Horde'll get a moral victory and it's long-term survival will be more secure, but it is by no means strengthened tactically, strategically, or numerically.

[nazrakin]

Actually having a sensible leader would greatly strenghten the horde.
Alliance can just sit back and watch as Garrosh's fails bring everyone, including the pandaren along with the shado-pan and probably the Argent Crusade, on their side. They don't do it jus cause WoW cannot exist if one faction just defeats the other.

The Alliance can't just "sit back" though. Garrosh hates the alliance more than anyone, and whatever he's found in Pandaria will no doubt be used against them the moment its ready.

---------- Post added 2013-04-21 at 06:22 PM ----------

I already mentioned that. That would make the raid lose its feeling of progression and it could potentially create a difference in difficulty based on which faction you chose, which wouldn't be a good idea.

Arguably, Blizzard's best raids have been the non-linear ones so I don't think it would hurt the feeling of progression at all. In fact, based on the layout of Org, it would feel weird if we are forced now a strictly linear path. As far as faction differences are concerned, thats why I mention mini bosses since those are usually easyway.

[The Madgod]

Arguably, Blizzard's best raids have been the non-linear ones so I don't think it would hurt the feeling of progression at all. In fact, based on the layout of Org, it would feel weird if we are forced now a strictly linear path. As far as faction differences are concerned, thats why I mention mini bosses since those are usually easyway.

It isn't that the non-linear model wouldn't work. It's the idea that two separate entrances wouldn't work, especially if the bosses were the same, so in other words you were fighting progressively easier bosses as you approach the other faction's entrance, which is what ruins the progression flow. To fix that, you'd need to change the boss difficulty depending on the faction, which is what would ruin faction equality in the instance.