Beta Key Giveaway Week 3: Winners have been selected!

Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ...
11
19
20
21
  1. #401
    Quote Originally Posted by Shandalay View Post
    I think maybe the change was mainly because the 'we will divide Azeroth into two continents' didn't make much sense from the ingame perspective at that point. If she says that before attacking Teldrassil and about taking Kalimdor for the Horde it would mean she'd be ok with the Alliance taking Eastern Kingdoms and I just can't see that being the case. Maybe after it happens as a grudging 'well, now at least we're divided by an ocean' but when Undercity and most of the North Eastern Kingdoms still belongs to the Horde she'd never say: 'Let's take Kalimdor so we're divided by an ocean' .. because they wouldn't be.

    So they had to make this change to actually make it fit. She can sell the 'divided by an ocean' as a good thing afterwards, when it actually makes sense.
    that could definitely be one way to show it. but mind you this way, all the horde's moral highground is lost or horde constant "why are we always the bad guys" happens again.

    Thing is there has to be 1 faction in a 2 faction conflict that swings the first blow. Now we can go into depth and detail about stormhiem and the goblins in silithus but those honestly are general faction skirmishes like the ones happening all over the world. Ashenvale, South Barrens etc. Burning down a major city with multiple civilians goes beyond that.

    I kind of dont want to go that route, of horde bad guy, horde warchief raid boss again. We have seen that. Hoping for something different. because before if the sequence is flipped as in undercity first, then teldrassil then the horde has a means to explain their reasoning and aggressive stance in kalimdor. But if teldrassil is burnt down as a pre-emptive strike then it rings very close to what Garrosh was doing, not just with theramore but also with the divine bell.

    sadly, leaving horde players with two options, "prepare for another back step and do a redemption line AGAIN" "feel bad for being the bad guys again"
    and taking alliance again on over used stream of, "lets go save the world AGAIN" "we are the reactionary force, again"
    Yes I play alliance. No I dont hate the Horde. Yes I believe there are bad people in both factions. Yes, in the end this is a business and blizzard wont let one faction win over the other completely.

  2. #402
    Quote Originally Posted by Minikin View Post
    that could definitely be one way to show it. but mind you this way, all the horde's moral highground is lost or horde constant "why are we always the bad guys" happens again.

    Thing is there has to be 1 faction in a 2 faction conflict that swings the first blow. Now we can go into depth and detail about stormhiem and the goblins in silithus but those honestly are general faction skirmishes like the ones happening all over the world. Ashenvale, South Barrens etc. Burning down a major city with multiple civilians goes beyond that.

    I kind of dont want to go that route, of horde bad guy, horde warchief raid boss again. We have seen that. Hoping for something different. because before if the sequence is flipped as in undercity first, then teldrassil then the horde has a means to explain their reasoning and aggressive stance in kalimdor. But if teldrassil is burnt down as a pre-emptive strike then it rings very close to what Garrosh was doing, not just with theramore but also with the divine bell.

    sadly, leaving horde players with two options, "prepare for another back step and do a redemption line AGAIN" "feel bad for being the bad guys again"
    and taking alliance again on over used stream of, "lets go save the world AGAIN" "we are the reactionary force, again"

    I don't think the new dialogue paints the Horde as a bad guy. As an aggressor, yes, aggression on a larger scale than there was before, but if you look at the situation closely it's not like there is much choice than to attack.
    I said that before in another thread but do we realistically think that there could be a peace treaty between Alliance and Horde that doesn't demand much of the Forsaken conquered lands given to the Alliance, lots of amends made by the Forsaken and afterwards is still kind of shakey because some Alliance guys would rather see the 'cursed Undead' completely extinct?
    Peace between the Alliance and the Horde would demand such a lot of good will on both sides that I don't see it as viable, at least not quickly. And there comes the Azerite.

    Apart from that I also think that Sylvanas actually wants to conquer the world completely, which is also why she'd ally herself with Zul. He wants the same thing, or at least that's what his guys claim in ToT very loudly and resolutely. Together they can make it.

    The Alliance is not saving the world by fighting the Horde. They are saving their world and their way of living. The world wouldn't be destroyed only because the Horde conquers it. But the Alliance and their people would probably have a very, very hard time or even go near extinct.
    You could say the same of the Horde and its people when the Alliance conquers the world.
    So it's really a fight for survival, the Horde the active and aggressive part, but just as justified in this as the Alliance is in defending against it. A preemptive attack by the Horde can be seen as an aggressive defense too, just less easily justified maybe. But from a Horde perspective it would make perfect sense, I think.


    The problem arises, when we see the bigger picture, which we players from an outside perspective do. Killing, war and suffering is what gives the Old Gods power. Weakening Azeroth itself by taking the Azerite makes it easier to corrupt. Both things are not prevented, but as I said above, they kind of cannot be prevented, if both sides want to keep on living their lives.

    My only gripe with this war thing is, that the player characters should know better. They have more information, more insight and more contact to all kinds of people from 'the other side' than anyone else. But Blizzard doesn't give us the choice to just turn our backs to the faction war and fight the real war.
    Maybe they'll give it to Saurfang. He should be capable of it too.
    'These are the signs of a king honour-broke: Pride coming first over all, treading the necks and the backs of his folk, that he alone might stand tall. Giving himself to desires that are base, tyrannous, cunning and cruel. Bring him down, set someone else in his place, such men are not fit to rule.'
    - Oathbreakers, Mercedes Lackey

  3. #403
    Quote Originally Posted by Highwhale View Post
    Waiting for Sylvanas loot table now...
    I roll Need on the bow.

    5 (1-100)

    Sh*t
    Mage Tower progress:
    Dk:3/3 Mage:3/3 Dh:2/2 Warlock:3/3 Hunter: 3/3 Priest:3/3 Paladin:3/3 Warrior: 3/3 Rogue:3/3 Shaman:3/3 Monk:3/3 Druid: 4/4

    #Zappyboi
    Screw the rules i have a Werebear.

  4. #404
    Banned Highwhale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Arathi Highlands
    Posts
    3,559
    Quote Originally Posted by Darktbs View Post
    I roll Need on the bow.

    5 (1-100)

    Sh*t
    I think she should have Nathanos - Wild Dog as drop mount.

  5. #405
    Quote Originally Posted by Shandalay View Post
    I don't think the new dialogue paints the Horde as a bad guy. As an aggressor, yes, aggression on a larger scale than there was before, but if you look at the situation closely it's not like there is much choice than to attack.
    I said that before in another thread but do we realistically think that there could be a peace treaty between Alliance and Horde that doesn't demand much of the Forsaken conquered lands given to the Alliance, lots of amends made by the Forsaken and afterwards is still kind of shakey because some Alliance guys would rather see the 'cursed Undead' completely extinct?
    Peace between the Alliance and the Horde would demand such a lot of good will on both sides that I don't see it as viable, at least not quickly. And there comes the Azerite.

    Apart from that I also think that Sylvanas actually wants to conquer the world completely, which is also why she'd ally herself with Zul. He wants the same thing, or at least that's what his guys claim in ToT very loudly and resolutely. Together they can make it.

    The Alliance is not saving the world by fighting the Horde. They are saving their world and their way of living. The world wouldn't be destroyed only because the Horde conquers it. But the Alliance and their people would probably have a very, very hard time or even go near extinct.
    You could say the same of the Horde and its people when the Alliance conquers the world.
    So it's really a fight for survival, the Horde the active and aggressive part, but just as justified in this as the Alliance is in defending against it. A preemptive attack by the Horde can be seen as an aggressive defense too, just less easily justified maybe. But from a Horde perspective it would make perfect sense, I think.


    The problem arises, when we see the bigger picture, which we players from an outside perspective do. Killing, war and suffering is what gives the Old Gods power. Weakening Azeroth itself by taking the Azerite makes it easier to corrupt. Both things are not prevented, but as I said above, they kind of cannot be prevented, if both sides want to keep on living their lives.

    My only gripe with this war thing is, that the player characters should know better. They have more information, more insight and more contact to all kinds of people from 'the other side' than anyone else. But Blizzard doesn't give us the choice to just turn our backs to the faction war and fight the real war.
    Maybe they'll give it to Saurfang. He should be capable of it too.
    i meant for the "bad guy" thing as, Garrosh eventually went from "look after my people the horde" to "look after the orcs" to "the true horde". eventually blizzard muddled him down to a guy who thought he could control the old od's power but ended up nearly consumed by it and had to be put down. the horde had to band together and the alliance to take him down. in contrast to him, anduin was also chasing the divine bell, but he would rather have it destroyed than used against people. i loved garrosh honestly he had so much to him, from outland, to northrend, and through cata into mists. But he ended off pretty badly. I am just a bit apprehensive, because sylvannas slowly seems to be heading in that same direction and hopefully doesnt because her character is pretty damn cool to just end up as a raid boss.

    I can agree that of course some parties believe the forsaken should be wiped out. Similarly some parties believe that some alliance races need to be wiped out. That is just the general theme of the game. it gets complicated if one side keeps going down the path of world conquering genocide constantly. I mean we the players know that garrosh did not represent the darkspears or the tauren and some orcs. We know that garithos did not represent the draenei or night elves. But it gets kind of...over used when the villian's banners are red and horde symbol constantly. im just hoping they dont do that again.

    As per the lorewalker scenario, if the horde does succeed in conquering the world, as in end the alliance, the world would be lost/destroyed. As per that scenario when garrosh wins, for a time there is peace. then the faceless attack from the depths and the horde cannot stop them alone, and azeroth is lost.

    I can completely agree with the alliance saving their world and way of living vs the horde battle for survival. I have said it many times that the horde is complex and the horde is what adds spice to the story of warcraft. Without the orcish invasion we would just be a general planet, of some kings and queens and farmers. The horde brought strife and story, got battles to happen, stories to be written and legends happen on both sides.

    one thing they have made clear (from not just a business point of view but story too) that both factions are needed to keep this world safe and moving forward, by lore and mechanics. alliance cant do it alone, horde cant do it alone. neither faction will ever gain a clear upper hand. so all that really leaves which side is good and which is bad. i personally like that both sides can be argued upon, the horde is just a bit controversial, but that is just their nature. i mean people can say, well! garrosh nearly ruined azeroth! someone can say, yea im sure Arthas helped heal the world did he? Benedictus joined deathwing and the twilights hammer! someone can say, oh and darkan did what again?

    players should definitely know better and i think when that azshara scenario happens, players will probably go to their faction leaders, and knock some sense into them.
    Yes I play alliance. No I dont hate the Horde. Yes I believe there are bad people in both factions. Yes, in the end this is a business and blizzard wont let one faction win over the other completely.

  6. #406
    Quote Originally Posted by Highwhale View Post
    I think she should have Nathanos - Wild Dog as drop mount.
    Reins of the Banshee Queen S.Slave
    Mage Tower progress:
    Dk:3/3 Mage:3/3 Dh:2/2 Warlock:3/3 Hunter: 3/3 Priest:3/3 Paladin:3/3 Warrior: 3/3 Rogue:3/3 Shaman:3/3 Monk:3/3 Druid: 4/4

    #Zappyboi
    Screw the rules i have a Werebear.

  7. #407
    After some deliberation, I think the new dialogue makes her look slightly less villainous. If only because the new dialogue makes it sound like the war has already started and burning Teldrassil is simply a strategic decision.

    However, the old dialogue made Sylvanas' character look more proactive and complex, the new one is pretty blunt and lacks a clear endgame(though Sylvanas might just be playing her cards close to her chest)

    I hope she keeps her "Kalimdor for the Horde" masterplan but fleshes out a little bit, it needs to include a plan for the Blood Elves and a process for removing the remaining Alliance strongholds on Kalimdor.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Zulkhan View Post
    My money's on that. Sure as hell Blizzard wants to keep things "simple" for the in-game scenario, just like they did with the Theramore scenario and Tides of War back then.
    I hope this is the case. This text is fine for the in-game event but the old plot made the story way more interesting

  8. #408
    The Insane Arrashi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Land of human potential (and non-toxic masculinity)
    Posts
    18,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Darktbs View Post
    Reins of the Banshee Queen S.Slave
    How about a boat that floats on wave of alliance tears ?

  9. #409
    Warchief Dagoth Ur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Clockwork City
    Posts
    2,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Halfdrop View Post
    After some deliberation, I think the new dialogue makes her look slightly less villainous. If only because the new dialogue makes it sound like the war has already started and burning Teldrassil is simply a strategic decision.

    However, the old dialogue made Sylvanas' character look more proactive and complex, the new one is pretty blunt and lacks a clear endgame(though Sylvanas might just be playing her cards close to her chest)

    I hope she keeps her "Kalimdor for the Horde" masterplan but fleshes out a little bit, it needs to include a plan for the Blood Elves and a process for removing the remaining Alliance strongholds on Kalimdor.
    Well arguably the war has already started in Silithus. But yeah I agree, I preferred her old reasoning over Teldrassil being a port to smuggle Azerite over to EK. At least we knew what the endgame is, and it's interesting one at that.

    It could also be that it becomes her goal after Undercity falls though, so maybe that's why they removed it from Teldrassil scenario?

  10. #410
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrashi View Post
    How about a boat that floats on wave of alliance tears ?
    Meh, random drop from another boss.

    She will also drop a trinket called:

    Banshee's queen cry:
    Active and simulates Sylvanas's cry that calls out the fanboys to protect the user form all damage and effects.
    Mage Tower progress:
    Dk:3/3 Mage:3/3 Dh:2/2 Warlock:3/3 Hunter: 3/3 Priest:3/3 Paladin:3/3 Warrior: 3/3 Rogue:3/3 Shaman:3/3 Monk:3/3 Druid: 4/4

    #Zappyboi
    Screw the rules i have a Werebear.

  11. #411
    The Insane Arrashi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Land of human potential (and non-toxic masculinity)
    Posts
    18,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Darktbs View Post
    Meh, random drop from another boss.

    She will also drop a trinket called:

    Banshee's queen cry:
    Active and simulates Sylvanas's cry that calls out the fanboys to protect the user form all damage and effects.
    Shouldn't it be "Touch of sylvanas" - Your target makes yet another, interesting and original thread on MMO-champion.

    Seems alot more realistic that way.

  12. #412
    Banned Mehrunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United States of the Night
    Posts
    13,712
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrashi View Post
    How about a boat that floats on wave of alliance tears ?
    And on-use trinket Pillar of Salt that kills everything within 1000000000000000000 yards.

  13. #413
    The Insane Arrashi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Land of human potential (and non-toxic masculinity)
    Posts
    18,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    And on-use trinket Pillar of Salt that kills everything within 1000000000000000000 yards.
    Is this trails in the sky ?

  14. #414
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrashi View Post
    Shouldn't it be "Touch of sylvanas" - Your target makes yet another, interesting and original thread on MMO-champion.

    Seems alot more realistic that way.
    Nah, if that was the case every major boss would drop something like this.

    And not nearly as many have the same defense as Sylvanas.
    Mage Tower progress:
    Dk:3/3 Mage:3/3 Dh:2/2 Warlock:3/3 Hunter: 3/3 Priest:3/3 Paladin:3/3 Warrior: 3/3 Rogue:3/3 Shaman:3/3 Monk:3/3 Druid: 4/4

    #Zappyboi
    Screw the rules i have a Werebear.

  15. #415
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    Pointless change. The only thing it actually changes is adding the line about Alliance using Darnassus to transport Azerite from Kalimdor to EK. Which makes little sense, given how Darnassus is on the other end of the continent from Silithus, so they have to transport it to Darnassus somehow in the first place. And if they can do that, they can transport it from Silithus to EK just as well.
    The Alliance Magical Fleet! It can go from Stormwind to Darnassus and Lordaeron without anyone even noticing it! Worse, the Alliance can fucking invade the South Barrens and Mulgore AGAIN after Zul burn the Magical Fleet!

    I mean, I'm usually roleplay a neutral Alliance dwarf, but goddammit, with these magical powers, I'll become a true believer of the Young Lion of Stormwind...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Highwhale View Post
    Silithus's doesn't have Alliance fleet bay. The nearest is in Feralas. So way Feralas - Darnassus - EK looks logical.

    Considering Darnassus have established sea routes with Stormwind long ago.
    How the hell can the Alliance transport Azerite from Silithus to Feralas with the Horde controling the zone?

  16. #416
    Quote Originally Posted by Ash123 View Post
    Personally I like these new texts very much. I am never a fan of the concept "honor" prevailing in fantasy world, and it is very nice to see something from Sylvanas that is fundamentally different than shouting honor at every opportunity.

    Sylvanas basically wants a "war that ends all war", which, unfortunately, never works in history. Still, I appreciate her for thinking in that direction.

  17. #417
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    you are rly over exaggerating the situation, back in cata, at time he assume he was not like that, and yes everyone was shitting him because he want war, responding the war, without diplomacy, just in MOP they start to make him Hitler.



    yet, doesn't make sense why everyone is ok with her going full ape on teldrasill with dogshit reasons, and are shitting in Garrosh since day one, azerite or not azerite.

    Like i said before, i expect the same treatment or worse, and it seems we are getting with the BfA spoilers, so im cool
    Boobs. Basically this. And edgy emo.

  18. #418
    Banned Highwhale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Arathi Highlands
    Posts
    3,559
    Quote Originally Posted by Tauror View Post
    How the hell can the Alliance transport Azerite from Silithus to Feralas with the Horde controling the zone?
    Last time i checked Un'Goro, Tanaris and 1k Needles are contested territories. Plus Feralas is straight to north from Silithus.

  19. #419
    Quote Originally Posted by Highwhale View Post
    Last time i checked Un'Goro, Tanaris and 1k Needles are contested territories. Plus Feralas is straight to north from Silithus.
    "Contested" isn't the same as "logistical open freeway", quite the opposite.

  20. #420
    Banned Highwhale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Arathi Highlands
    Posts
    3,559
    Quote Originally Posted by Tauror View Post
    "Contested" isn't the same as "logistical open freeway", quite the opposite.
    Dude neither Alliance nor Horde have big outposts in Un'Goro/Tanaris/1k Needles.

    Its free way for Alliance from Silithus - Feralas.

    I'm not talking about Alliance could make mountain route Silithus - Feralas and completely skip these zones. Or use old Silithid tunnel system.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •