Considering the Alliance complaint has everything to do with the story, your qualification is meaningless. The Horde get a new Warchief. They have a conclusion to a really good storyline building since the beginning of Cata with Vol'jin.
- - - Updated - - -
I guess you missed the last expansion and most of this one.
We don't even know the cinematics, even less what will come after the Siege. That's the problem right there, we are still dealing with the siege and you are already complaining that nothing will come from it in the future. Blizzard never discloses what they plan next, ever.
All caps to describe the Siege? What people are complaining about though is that they aren't besieging the opposing faction's capital and killing their leader. They're helping the Horde besiege a villain who has taken their capital from them. The Alliance isn't beating the Horde, they're beating Garrosh. Right now, they're helping the actual Horde. It would be like saying Wrath of the Lich King was an expansion about defeating the Burning Legion because he was Kil'jaeden's minion until after Reign of Chaos. Not to mention, the Alliance lead up to the siege involved piloting a robot cat with a leet-speak name...Originally Posted by Dave Kosak
Anyway, I think I see the real problem here. Upset that the Alliance doesn't cheer at the Dalaran purge, and that they're not excited to kill every single orc in Orgrimmar? Blizzard doesn't realize what kinds of people pick the Alliance. Obviously it doesn't apply to everyone, but I bet you people are generally going to choose the shiny knights and humans of the Alliance over the brutish races of the Horde because... they want to be heroes, not barbaric conquerors (not saying the Horde are evil, but to a new player they are going to appear evil in comparison).
The Alliance players don't want to commit genocide. They want to have victories in a war, but not at the cost of their soul. They don't want to sacrifice their values just to say they accomplished something. And don't say you have to. Look at pretty much any neutral faction. And you know what? I think this may explain all the weirdness about the biggest heroes becoming neutral. Blizzard apparently has this weird idea that both factions are mindless, evil conquerors instead of both being the heroes they're supposed to be post-Warcraft III, and yet for some reason we're forced to join them instead of the actual heroes.
The Order of the Silver Hand and the Cult of the Damned both formed in Alliance territory. I'm willing to bet most Alliance players identify more strongly with the former.
Cannot wait for siege to land. Garry is going down. Even sorted out my t1 lookalike set and mogged gorehowl. Fucker dies by his fathers axe.
Your dad died freeing the Orcs and you went down a very similar path so you're going down.
I personally do not really care.
Time...line? Time isn't made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round. ~ Caboose
The problem is that the 'Horde before it was divided, in it's entirety' was responsible for the attacks on the Alliance while the Alliance get to kill some power hungry warmonger who's at war with BOTH factions.
The Horde responsible for the atrocities on the Alliance is for some reason, completely free of all of their travesties and the Alliance should be super duper happy that they killed some guy hostile to both factions who was partly responsible for everything that happened to the Alliance while all the others responsible get away with no consquences.
The Alliance don't get a revenge on the Horde responsible for what happened to them. The 'player Horde'. That's the problem. The 'Player Horde' actually did all of those things to the Alliance.
I'm repeating myself more because the thick skulled Horde idiots and Blizzard that don't realise it yet frankly need the repetition so it can sink in eventually.
Okey, he took child prisoners. What's the catch?
Also, I play with a Human Hunter and a Tushui Pandaren Monk, I have no Warchief.
But it is very relevant if it's an old character, meaning that the balance between the Horde winning or losing ingame stuff is very negative. An old character turn Warchief is just a title change under his name, nothing more.
- - - Updated - - -
It's you that have to sink in that the player, whoever it might be, will never be punished in any sort of matter. Ever.
That logic makes no sense. "Its old character so negative." xD
They've more or less admitted through tweets that the Alliance will not be getting back any of the territories the Horde have stolen because they don't feel like going back and updating them, and they think saying "Alliance has this in lore even though it's still contested ingame" is boring (While it is, I would say it's better than the alternative of the Alliance not getting anything at all, but apparently Blizz disagrees).
Obviously the Alliance cannot capture or destroy Orgrimmar for gameplay reasons.
Even Garrosh himself is fought with Thrall, and so will likely be killed by Thrall. Maybe Vol'jin for the black heart/Yshaarj's heart connection, but that's not any better for us.
Really, what's left for the Alliance to gain from Siege?