Official High Elf Discussion Megathread

[Trumpcat]

Tell them what you'd like to see, specifically, and I think we'll get more customizations!

You are either mocking me or naive or a Blizzard information gatherer!

[Obelisk Kai]

Hello there.

And goodbye again it seems.

You just don't want to take it and try to mislead a bit more. It's easy to understand. There are more lore of other franchises with less diversity than in warcraft and it didn't made them bad lore. What's important in any faction based lore are the factions, not the races per se.

Other games and other franchises are irrelevant to this discussion. Particularly as nobody is going to remember the whosits and the whatsits from Wildstar or Allods Online or any other game that aped WoW. The Alliance and Horde are iconic in gaming and Blizzard has a long term obligation to protect those IPs.

Nah, you made it clear, they say something and it becomes an immovable fact. Which is not true.

No, that's not what I said. I very clearly stated what they say is absolute until they themselves change it and then when they change it, then that becomes absolute. In the same way as the Eredar corrupting Sargeras was word of god until the Draenei were revealed and it turned out it was in fact the other way around. Until we knew of the retcon, anyone who said the Eredar corrupted Sargeas were 100% correct, relying on absolute word of god. And once the retcon was known, anyone who claimed that wa 100% wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Pandaren was a failure of implementation ... not of the idea of neutral races. The fact you cannot separate your opinion from what is said is sad.

They feel they wrote themselves into a corner with Pandaren because there isn't really much you can do with them because of how they chose to tell that story. It is clear they can make distinctions now because Void Elves are still Blood Elves who are still High Elves ... we treat them as different races, but it is pretty certain they are all just a single race (Lor'themar respects High Elves, but loathes Void Elves; many high elves distrust Blood elves and that distrust could go to Void Elves, but Void Elves still see themselves as part of the same race as the two former. In Lore, a Void Elf don't see themselves as "different" the other children of Quel'thalas).

The rest is either a red herring on your part (a distraction from the actual discussion) or just you repeating your opinion on the facts as if it was a fact.

Once again, you have stated your belief that Pandaren were a failure of implementation. Yet you have provided no evidence to support this fact beyond stating an opinion as if it was fact, something you are accusing me of. That last part is of course a lie.

To support my assertion that they failed as neutrality undermined faction distinctiveness, I offered the following information.

1.) Ghostcrawler's tweet explaining that they weren't fans of sharing the Pandaren between the two factions when he was still with Blizzard as a senior developer.

2.) My brief conversation with a post Blizzard Ghostcrawler several years later where I specifically asked about High Elves, and his response was "What is more important: faction identity or more options for Alliance?"

3.) The two times Ion Hazzikostas was asked in public as to why Void Elves were chosen over Alliance High Elves and he cited faction diversity as the reason.

4.) The existence of the Allied race system itself, whose upsides outmatched the similar upsides of a neutral race (specifically in terms of time and money saved through the repurposing of existing rigs and the fact they don't have to build newbie gardens), leaving the idea of a neutral race with only the downsides of damaging faction diversity.

5.) The avoidance of any neutral or shared races since. If faction distinctiveness were, as you seem to be claiming, not an important factor, then Blizzard would not have created Void Elves in the first place and would have created Alliance High Elves.

Taken together we have plentiful evidence to suggest that preserving faction distinctiveness is an important part of Blizzard's design philosophy. Saying the original tweet was just the opinion of an ex-employee does not explain why all these years later the current developer team seems to be still operating in agreement with it.

And in closing, Void Elves are not evidence High Elves could get the same treatment. If High Elves were perceived to be as different as Void Elves are, then Void Elves would not have been created. It has been said by the devs that Blood Elves ARE High Elves, whereas as Ion said in the Jessie Cox interview in 2017 that Void Elves are another flavour of High Elves. In other words, Blood Elves and High Elves are both vanilla ice cream, Void Elves are ice cream but blueberry.

There is a distinction with one that can be realised through an allied race system. The distinction between Blood Elves and Alliance High Elves cannot, as it is literally a difference of opinion. As Alliance High Elves are identical to Blood Elves, an Alliance High Elf Allied race undermines the identity of the Blood Elves and therefore the integrity of the Horde faction by diluting faction distinctiveness. Less talked about is that they would also now undermine the role of Void Elves as THE thalassian elves of the Alliance and the true foil to the light based Blood Elves. The potential impact on the Void Elves threatens to be as profound as the potential impact on the Blood Elves.

[Darththeo]

--Snip--

1) The tweet was in response to how Pandaren for both factions "worked out" ... that's asking about how he felt about their implementation specifically. It wasn't the concept of Neutral races.

2) Ghostcrawler's opinion on WoW after he left has zero more value than yours or mine. I don't care what he told you post Blizzard as it is meaningless to me.

3) The reason for High Elves, not neutral races. We aren't talking about why High elves weren't chosen, while it is a valid point to show neutral races are unlikely, it does not remotely suggest that they are ruled out.

4) Red Herring. This is literally a non-issue when discussing neutral races. Stop bringing it up like it has any validity, it doesn't.

5) The last time we got a new race before BfA was MoP. We had nothing else to go on right now, this entire point is pure speculation on your part.

---

Faction identity doesn't have to be determined by what races are playable on what side, so long as the identity is there they can meet it. You are treating your speculation and the opinion of a now non-employee as fact, when it is not. Neutral races are still a possibility and while they may not happen in BfA given they are stating this is the "END OF THE FACTION CONFLICT" as a main story focus, or even potentially an end to the faction conflict background noise ... it is likely the idea of the factions and their identity will be evolving post-BfA.

[Obelisk Kai]

1) The tweet was in response to how Pandaren for both factions "worked out" ... that's asking about how he felt about their implementation specifically. It wasn't the concept of Neutral races.

2) Ghostcrawler's opinion on WoW after he left has zero more value than yours or mine. I don't care what he told you post Blizzard as it is meaningless to me.

The later comment was a clarification on the earlier tweet as it pertained to High Elves. Faction diversity was cited as a negative. He wrote the original tweet so I would argue he is allowed to add a bit of texture.

3) The reason for High Elves, not neutral races. We aren't talking about why High elves weren't chosen, while it is a valid point to show neutral races are unlikely, it does not remotely suggest that they are ruled out.

Future neutral races come with the same baggage as Pandaren, sharing something between the Alliance and the Horde that diminishes the distinctiveness of each and they are clearly not keen on doing that again given the failure of the Pandaren experiment. Alliance High Elves are several orders of magnitude more damaging of course as they are a duplication a race that has been a part of the Horde for over a decade.

4) Red Herring. This is literally a non-issue when discussing neutral races. Stop bringing it up like it has any validity, it doesn't.

That the Allied race system allows Blizzard some of the positives offered by neutral races without the clear, and stated downsides is a pertinent point. Calling it a red herring is an attempt by yourself not to engage with the obvious.

5) The last time we got a new race before BfA was MoP. We had nothing else to go on right now, this entire point is pure speculation on your part.

In the seven and a half years since MOP debuted, how many neutral races have been added as a testament to the success of the idea?

Of the eight Allied races added in BFA, how many are neutral?

A big fat zero in both cases.

You keep claiming that neutral races are still a viable choice, yet every opportunity presented to Blizzard to either affirm the viability of neutral races or actually add one has been rejected. They are indeed a choice, just not a viable one. And the Allied race system is a far more elegant solution to one of the problems that led them to try a neutral race out, the huge effort involved in creating two brand new races at the same time.

---

Faction identity doesn't have to be determined by what races are playable on what side, so long as the identity is there they can meet it. You are treating your speculation and the opinion of a now non-employee as fact, when it is not. Neutral races are still a possibility and while they may not happen in BfA given they are stating this is the "END OF THE FACTION CONFLICT" as a main story focus, or even potentially an end to the faction conflict background noise ... it is likely the idea of the factions and their identity will be evolving post-BfA.

World of Warcraft has built it's faction's identity precisely on the races that comprise those factions. Sure, they didn't have to but they did. And they reinforce time after time how important it is to maintain the distinction of those factions by keeping the racial rosters diverse, again Ion's comments regarding why Alliance High Elves aren't a thing. The future of BFA and the franchise is also unknown, it could evolve the way you say, but that is one of those unknowables I have warned about. You can't use the unknowable as a counter-argument.

[Grythletubs]

Quel'Dorei reign supreme! Well sort of.

Love that this thread is still going! I check back every month. My hopes are there for the future & keep up with the positivity guys.

The more attention the high elves get, the more likely they'll be addressed in the future whether it's a yes or a no

[FlubberPuddy]

Well, i understand that it's easier to grasp when you have everything compressed in simple concepts. But simple concepts do not make justice for reality, just saying.

Yes I agree there is a nuance to the situation. But people are coming in here and painting the situation with broad brush strokes which doesn't help at all. I assume everyone posting here are adults and have understood what words like context mean and are able to understand conversations within the context of a situation.

I of course could be setting my standards too high.

The thing here is that they want to preserve this idea of factions being race-exclusive, but it take out the fact that some races are members of both factions, and high elves are a special case in all this.

Exactly, there is no other race like the High Elves in the Alliance. Horde has no equivalent, but maybe that's why most of the staunch opponents are Horde players and partly why they can't make that connection. It isn't hard for newcomer Alliance players to see how prolific High Elves are on their side. I myself not having played Warcraft and coming in at the tail-end of Wrath. That was enough for it to pique my curiosity and wiki-up High Elves and their position in the Alliance.

Obelisk outright stated that High elf requests had been already delivered through Ren'dorei, which is not true by any means because from the simplest pebble of information about what a Ren'dorei is you just have this concept of Ren'dorei being Sin'dorei who got exiled by researching about the void, transformed by the void trap of an Ethereal that got interrupted just on time by Alleria Windrunner and turned their backs on their people to join the Alliance.

So yes, there are people stating that "they got what they wanted but they want more", it's shameless as it gets.

That's because their focus has always been the model appearance, it's their views of how they took the High Elf requests for years before Legion. They came to an unfounded conclusion without consulting those who were making the requests for years, and then making their own decision on why these fans wanted High Elves in the first place.

Which is sad when you think about it, he's gone on record to say how he's followed the conversation topic of High Elf request for years but he's apparently not started a dialogue with them to understand more. Instead trying to do similar to some other posters and paint the topic in a certain way that seems more shallow than not - even though the ones coming in here and saying sorts like, "you just want Blood Elves on Alliance" are the ones being shallow.

While i don't agree that High elf customization in Void elves is by any means acceptable it's easy to understand why some people are open to that, this shit got too long and too heated, most of the people who want playable quel'dorei don't even post anymore, it may seem as a clear compromise for those who just want this to end.

Exactly, I don't agree with having it that way either, but if Blizzard isn't going to go any other way about it and this is the only way they'll grant High Elf fans something then it's easy to see why people would support it or be open to supporting it.

Well, i'm not a guy who often do this because i like to have all points of view available to contrast and make for a good argumentation, but i suggest to do the same as i did. It's no use when someone is just so openly antagonistic for the sake of it.

Yeah I'm just going to avoid from the future onwards if a poster appears and says something basic without having read up on the recent bits of conversation. The information is posted online for a reason, they can search it up themselves.

That's the thing, no one even said in the first place that Void elves were a compromise, the nearest thing that can be grasped about that is one dev nodding when asked about Void elves being some sort of a high elf fantasy, which tells -nothing- about that.

It's a player-made opinion but it's getting thrown around by some as if it's a statement Blizzard made themselves. Again, this just speaks more about those who try to pass off opinion as fact.

It's believed to be a compromise because Ren'dorei are a kind of high elf, it just happens to be -anything- but a high elf when looking at it.

Blizzard should monkey-paw a very requested race for Horde side so these players could then understand where High Elf fans are coming from in regards to Void Elves. Because it doesn't seem like some of these players have the capacity to understand someone else's situation without being in it themselves.

[Darththeo]

The later comment was a clarification on the earlier tweet as it pertained to High Elves. Faction diversity was cited as a negative. He wrote the original tweet so I would argue he is allowed to add a bit of texture.

His opinion post Blizzard is irrelevant.

Future neutral races come with the same baggage as Pandaren, sharing something between the Alliance and the Horde that diminishes the distinctiveness of each and they are clearly not keen on doing that again given the failure of the Pandaren experiment. Alliance High Elves are several orders of magnitude more damaging of course as they are a duplication a race that has been a part of the Horde for over a decade.

First off, the idea it comes with the "same baggage" is pure speculation because Pandaren's problem was more with how they were written as opposed to just being neutral. The playable Pandaren are all part of the same society, they are all Wandering Isle Pandaren that merely distinguish themselves on philosophy ... many still maintain friendships (because of how they chose to write it).

That the Allied race system allows Blizzard some of the positives offered by neutral races without the clear, and stated downsides is a pertinent point. Calling it a red herring is an attempt by yourself not to engage with the obvious.

No, it is your attempt to lead the argument down a path that is irrelevant to the idea of neutral races ... the definition of a red herring. Allied races do not have anything pertinent to this discussion besides your lame attempts to distract from the argument. Nothing is preventing a neutral allied race, another neutral core race or anything. We do not know fully what they intend to do with this new system, anything is just speculation on your part and YET you continue to treat your speculation as if it were a fact.

In the seven and a half years since MOP debuted, how many neutral races have been added as a testament to the success of the idea?

Of the eight Allied races added in BFA, how many are neutral?

A big fat zero in both cases.

How many races were added before BfA and after MoP ... a big fat zero. (the 4 pre-released races to BfA don't really count as it required a pre-purchase of BfA ... just like Demon Hunter isn't considered added in WoD).

You keep claiming that neutral races are still a viable choice, yet every opportunity presented to Blizzard to either affirm the viability of neutral races or actually add one has been rejected. They are indeed a choice, just not a viable one. And the Allied race system is a far more elegant solution to one of the problems that led them to try a neutral race out, the huge effort involved in creating two brand new races at the same time.

You mean the single opportunity in the story after MoP? One thing that has been constant with Blizzard is they value story over everything else and right now a story about Faction conflict doesn't suit a neutral race. I can easily state this as a complete counter to what you have stated here. The current story does not permit a neutral race to be added at this time. This does not mean neutral races will not a viable option.

It would be like saying they'll never introduce a non-Hero Class again because we haven't had one since Monk ... you are speculating on an unknown, while treating said speculation as if it was a fully accepted fact.

World of Warcraft has built it's faction's identity precisely on the races that comprise those factions. Sure, they didn't have to but they did. And they reinforce time after time how important it is to maintain the distinction of those factions by keeping the racial rosters diverse, again Ion's comments regarding why Alliance High Elves aren't a thing. The future of BFA and the franchise is also unknown, it could evolve the way you say, but that is one of those unknowables I have warned about. You can't use the unknowable as a counter-argument.

If you entire argument is built on speculation and opinion, I can. And your entire argument is built on speculation and opinion. Your strongest argument is Ion's statement ... he is against playable High Elves and wants to keep faction identity and EVEN THAT doesn't discount the possibility of another neutral race.

[FlubberPuddy]

You mean the single opportunity in the story after MoP? One thing that has been constant with Blizzard is they value story over everything else and right now a story about Faction conflict doesn't suit a neutral race. I can easily state this as a complete counter to what you have stated here. The current story does not permit a neutral race to be added at this time. This does not mean neutral races will not a viable option.

It would be like saying they'll never introduce a non-Hero Class again because we haven't had one since Monk ... you are speculating on an unknown, while treating said speculation as if it was a fully accepted fact.

Probably the most pertinent point here, someone (mainly Obelisk) trying to act like Blizzard always intensely cares about "Faction integrity" during a Faction War focused expansion is like me trying to say Blizzard always intensely cares about Chinese inspirations during MoP. And then we see it's not really given a shit about for 3 expansions afterwards.

We've had numerous previous expansions where Horde and Alliance have worked together as allies in order to take down a big bad so often that the community would comment on that fact quite often ("Don't even get the point of factions since H/A always banding together now", etc).

Blizzard cares about the Factions being different right now, because they've created an expansion story that relies on that. We don't know how going forward it's going to be handled. But looking at previous expansion examples, one can very easily say it's not something that's going to be near and dear to Blizzard as they'll be focused on a different story where other factors are much more important.

Ex: Outland is scarcely ever brought up anymore - because it serves no function currently to the ongoing story atm. Same can be said for other zones/continents/concepts that were created in previous expacs like how the dragonflights weren't spoken of much at all since Cataclysm.

Even when Ion gave his answer, he included, "there's a desire to have things be more distinct especially between the two factions with the faction conflict being so prominent."

There was no semblance of "we always want the factions to be very distinct. Full stop. Period." His answer is within the context of this faction-war expansion that is BFA.

[Ielenia]

Yeah I'm just going to avoid from the future onwards if a poster appears and says something basic without having read up on the recent bits of conversation. The information is posted online for a reason, they can search it up themselves.

The whole situation about the Ren'dorei really annoys me, because, in my eyes, it would be the perfect compromise to give the lore of the high elves while at the same time making them distinct from blood elves... if the Ren'dorei were high elves, instead of exiled blood elves.

I mean, imagine if the opening quest text for the Void Elf recruitment campaign started like this:

Alleria Windrunner: "Champion. I've received word from the Silver Covenant, and it's troubling news. In light of my dealings with the Void, some high elf magisters of the Kirin Tor decided to do their own research into the Void. They have relocated out of Dalaran to avoid putting the city in danger in case something went wrong. And, it seems, something happened: communication between Dalaran and the magisters ended abruptly a few weeks ago. Seeing how I have experience dealing with the void, Veressa asked me to investigate the matter. I would like you to accompany me."

[Varx]

The whole situation about the Ren'dorei really annoys me, because, in my eyes, it would be the perfect compromise to give the lore of the high elves while at the same time making them distinct from blood elves... if the Ren'dorei were high elves, instead of exiled blood elves.

I mean, imagine if the opening quest text for the Void Elf recruitment campaign started like this:

Alleria Windrunner: "Champion. I've received word from the Silver Covenant, and it's troubling news. In light of my dealings with the Void, some high elf magisters of the Kirin Tor decided to do their own research into the Void. They have relocated out of Dalaran to avoid putting the city in danger in case something went wrong. And, it seems, something happened: communication between Dalaran and the magisters ended abruptly a few weeks ago. Seeing how I have experience dealing with the void, Veressa asked me to investigate the matter. I would like you to accompany me."

So void elves would only be a compromise if their introductory was revolved around silver covenant elves instead of silvermoon?

Why????

That sounds so ridiculously silly. Why don't high elfers just pretend their specific velf toon originated as a freaking high elf exile.

Its like someone wanting to play an uncorrupted gilnean or regular kul tiran over a regular stormwind human because "muh accents" and "muh lores".

Gimme a freaking break, that's some next level special snow flake OCD right there.

While we're at it lets make 2 high elf ARs. One for kirin tor high elves and one for silver covenant high elves. *flips grease stained fedora*.

[Trumpcat]

... lots of smart stuff

What that guy said.

[Ielenia]

So void elves would only be a compromise if their introductory was revolved around silver covenant elves instead of silvermoon?

Why????

That sounds so ridiculously silly. Why don't high elfers just pretend their specific velf toon originated as a freaking high elf exile.

The simple fact you have to ask that question tells me you either arrived to this thread for the first time and my post was the first one you read...

Or you just don't care, and never did, to learn what the pro-high-elf are asking for.

But I'll humor you: because it'd actually involve HIGH ELVES instead of blood elves, which is the whole point, here. It'd be the high elf lore and character the pro-high-elf community has been asking for the longest time.

It's not rocket science.

Its like someone wanting to play an uncorrupted gilnean or regular kul tiran over a regular stormwind human because "muh accents" and "muh lores".

Nowhere near the same thing. 'Uncorrupted gilnean' and 'regular kul tiran' are just humans. And humans already exist in the faction they're supposed to exist.

High elves, on the other hand, have existed in the Alliance for the longest time, since before vanilla, but were never introduced as a playable race.

Gimme a freaking break, that's some next level special snow flake OCD right there.

While we're at it lets make 2 high elf ARs. One for kirin tor high elves and one for silver covenant high elves. *flips grease stained fedora*.

"When you have no argument, use mockery and insults." When will people like you realize such a tactic only makes you feel bad? It doesn't make you sound any smarter, y'know? Actually, resorting to that kind of "tactic" only makes you look dumb.

[Varx]

The simple fact you have to ask that question tells me you either arrived to this thread for the first time and my post was the first one you read...

Or you just don't care, and never did, to learn what the pro-high-elf are asking for.

But I'll humor you: because it'd actually involve HIGH ELVES instead of blood elves, which is the whole point, here. It'd be the high elf lore and character the pro-high-elf community has been asking for the longest time.

It's not rocket science.


Nowhere near the same thing. 'Uncorrupted gilnean' and 'regular kul tiran' are just humans. And humans already exist in the faction they're supposed to exist.

High elves, on the other hand, have existed in the Alliance for the longest time, since before vanilla, but were never introduced as a playable race.


"When you have no argument, use mockery and insults." When will people like you realize such a tactic only makes you feel bad? It doesn't make you sound any smarter, y'know? Actually, resorting to that kind of "tactic" only makes you look dumb.

Ok but whether they're high or blood that doesn't change the damn model. So just pretend that your toon is a High elf turned void. There are already high elves in their zone so it would fit. So there's your compromise.

It is the same thing minus the fact that blood elves are on the horde and since blood=high then what you're asking for is neutral thalasian elves.

[Ielenia]

Ok but whether they're high or blood that doesn't change the damn model.

It's not about the model.

[Varx]

It's not about the model.

When it comes to implementing playable races it is all about the model, other wise you would have a million redundant "races".

[Ielenia]

When it comes to implementing playable races it is all about the model

No. It's not. Stop embarrassing yourself. The Alliance already has the "blood elf model" in the void elves.

[FlubberPuddy]

Snip

Yes, it annoys a lot of people. I’m one of those that if they would’ve done something like you suggested wouldn’t be here still requesting for playable High Elves.

- - - Updated - - -

When it comes to implementing playable races it is all about the model, other wise you would have a million redundant "races".

Mag’har are a redundant orc model. They’re just brown. Why did people want em??

Dark Iron are a redundant dwarf model. Why did people want those??

Same for Lightforged Draenei and Highmountain Tauren, although I’ll admit those weren’t asked for in terms of being a playable race.

Still, the point is people don’t give a fuck if the model is redundant or not, people want to play the races they want to play. And if it’s a community favorite then it’ll be requested.

People want to play Alliance High Elves and it’s a community favorite, therefore it’ll be requested.

Saying shit like “just pretend you’re X” is a weak statement because a feature like Allied Races wouldn’t exist if that’s what Blizzard intended people to do. I could just as easily say, “make believe you’re a brown Orc who turned Green” it’s not the same as playing an actual Mag’har Orc.

Note the prefix being important, because as I said the AR feature wouldn’t exist if the prefix meant nothing. And the High Elf are not playable. Blood Elves are playable, Void Elves are playable.

Restating a third time because some people don’t or won’t get it: the actual race, and prefix matters otherwise the AR system wouldn’t exist in the first place.

There is meaning to playing a Zandalari Troll, a Kul’tiran Human, a Dark Iron Dwarf, a Nightborne Elf. Just as there is meaning to play a High Elf that is not satisfied by playing a Void Elf or Blood Elf.

Having to say “make believe it is so” is a non-answer. There’s a difference between an actual supported feature in-game and having to make believe. And with how so many of those who consider “High Elfers” out of touch with reality or whatever the hell, it’s the most absurd answer to give.

[Obelisk Kai]

His opinion post Blizzard is irrelevant.

His comments on his tweet when he worked for Blizzard are not. If a Journalist were asked to comment on a piece they wrote for a newspaper they no longer work for a couple of years down the line, does that make their opinion on that piece irrelevant?

You are holding an absurd position because what was said does not support your aims or position.

First off, the idea it comes with the "same baggage" is pure speculation because Pandaren's problem was more with how they were written as opposed to just being neutral. The playable Pandaren are all part of the same society, they are all Wandering Isle Pandaren that merely distinguish themselves on philosophy ... many still maintain friendships (because of how they chose to write it).

This response does not make sense. A neutral race or shared race is exactly that, a race available to both factions. The Pandaren are apparently divided on different philosophical interpretations of their way of life, Tushui against Huojin, which does not translate into physical differences in the character creator. Attempting to differentiate two groups via philosophy is pointless, you cannot express philosophy in a character creator. How do you express 'valor' or 'nobility'? These are attitudes, not physical differentiators.

Even if they came from two groups explicitly written to live apart they would still look identical and thus share an aesthetic and a theme and therefore, they would fail just as Pandaren did by undermining the distinctiveness of the Alliance and the Horde.

If on the other hand you argue that there could be some physical differences, to produce a different aesthetic and theme alongside the philosophical variations, then we are in Blood/High Elf versus Void Elf territory. Void Elves and Blood/High Elves are two physical varieties of the same race, but Void Elves are now physically different from the core group. This pairing does not mean Blood/High Elves are a shared race, as the Void Elves now exhibit physical, aesthetic and thematic differences. This means they do not infringe on the distinctiveness of the two factions.

So you cannot use philosophy as the basis for a shared race because that cannot be represented on the model which the Pandaren demonstrate. And using physical differences invalidates the premise, as then they become different and are no longer shared.

No, it is your attempt to lead the argument down a path that is irrelevant to the idea of neutral races ... the definition of a red herring. Allied races do not have anything pertinent to this discussion besides your lame attempts to distract from the argument. Nothing is preventing a neutral allied race, another neutral core race or anything. We do not know fully what they intend to do with this new system, anything is just speculation on your part and YET you continue to treat your speculation as if it were a fact.

You state nothing is preventing another neutral race. This is incorrect.

We have enough evidence, including the Game Director stating so directly twice in the past eighteen months, that keeping the boundaries between the factions firm is a design goal when it comes to choosing Allied races. We have evidence from a previous senior staff member that they were not keen on sharing Pandaren between the two factions. Just because you hold the division between the factions in such contempt as to disregard it does not mean everyone else has to.

The Allied race system solves many of the issues that a neutral race was intended to mitigate. The Allied race system has none of the downsides a neutral race has. It has downsides of it's own, but not on the same level as a neutral race.
You keep arguing that it's possible but possibility does not equate likely or even probable. If you arguing that the theoretical possibility that it could happen exists, then yes, that does exist.

How many races were added before BfA and after MoP ... a big fat zero. (the 4 pre-released races to BfA don't really count as it required a pre-purchase of BfA ... just like Demon Hunter isn't considered added in WoD).

So to prove your point you rule out the time period when they have added eight new races to the game? That's like attempting to argue British politics is competent but insisting we stop examining events at the end of 2015. That isn't going to work.
When Pandaren were announced, speculation ran rampant as to what the future neutral races added to the game could be. Seven and a half years and not one neutral addition. Not a single one. When the Allied race system debuted they returned to offering faction locked pairs. Technically there shouldn't be any issue with a shared Allied race, but they have refused to add any. And specifically cited faction diversity when asked about Alliance High Elves.
We have four sets of new races since MOP where Blizzard could have opted to add a neutral race and in each case, faction locked races that protected faction diversity were selected. There are probably two more such sets to come. I suspect they will also be faction locked.

You mean the single opportunity in the story after MoP? One thing that has been constant with Blizzard is they value story over everything else and right now a story about Faction conflict doesn't suit a neutral race. I can easily state this as a complete counter to what you have stated here. The current story does not permit a neutral race to be added at this time. This does not mean neutral races will not a viable option.

Every time Blizzard launched an expansion was an opportunity to add a new neutral race. WOD and Legion both passed by without them. Your point about the current expansion involving a faction war that doesn't facilitate neutral races is...inexplicable because the only neutral race that has joined the game so far, the Pandaren, were added during the last major war between the Alliance and the Horde. Maybe you remember it and if you don't, you can see it playing out in all the zones revamped by the Cataclysm. Or you can visit Theramore crater. In fact when Chris Metzen announced Mists of Pandaria, he hyped up the faction war aspect of it 'red and blue are going to get it on' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAz1...X&index=2&t=0s). When the Pandaren visit their faction capitals for the first time, they are explicitly warned against fraternizing with the enemy,

To cite the faction war of BFA as a factor stopping the addition now and that the conclusion of this war will open the way to future neutral races displays an ignorance of the circumstances of Mists of Pandaria. The faction war is no barrier to the addition of a neutral race whether core or allied, because the only time they did it they did it turning the faction war. The real barrier to neutral races remains what they consistently tell you what it is, but which you stretch every sinew to avoid hearing. That neutral races weaken faction diversity and that they simply do not find that cost worth it.

It would be like saying they'll never introduce a non-Hero Class again because we haven't had one since Monk ... you are speculating on an unknown, while treating said speculation as if it was a fully accepted fact.

Has anyone come out and stated the development team weren't keen on the Monk class?
Has anyone come out and stated that a new non hero class was a bad idea that damaged some other critical aspect of the game?

They did state sharing a race between the factions wasn't a good idea. And because they stated keeping the factions distinct was important to them when selecting Allied races. If at some point they offer evidence regarding non hero classes being bad for the game, then you will be able to make that comparison.

But as they have offered evidence that neutral races didn't work and have not provided evidence non hero classes don't work, your comparison is spurious. This is a perfect example of a false equivalence.

If you entire argument is built on speculation and opinion, I can. And your entire argument is built on speculation and opinion. Your strongest argument is Ion's statement ... he is against playable High Elves and wants to keep faction identity and EVEN THAT doesn't discount the possibility of another neutral race.

Ion's statement, Ghostcrawler's statement, Ghostcrawler's elaboration, seven years of no new neutral races and an allied race system that doesn't need them.

Actions and words from Blizzard and by Blizzard.

But as I stated earlier, a new neutral race is theoretically possible. But so is me winning the lotto.

[Darththeo]

His comments on his tweet when he worked for Blizzard are not. If a Journalist were asked to comment on a piece they wrote for a newspaper they no longer work for a couple of years down the line, does that make their opinion on that piece irrelevant?

You are holding an absurd position because what was said does not support your aims or position.

If he is asked concerning what a company he no longer works with ideology is ... yes, it is irrelevant. And beyond that it is merely his stated opinion and has no more weight than yours or mine. All this is is "Ghostcrawler's opinion" ... I don't care about his opinion.

Stop acting like a Post Blizzard Ghostcrawler is worth anything in this discussion. His view isn't valid just because you assert it's validity. I have no evidence even to honestly support you spoke to Ghostcrawler, so I have merely humor you even bringing it up.

This response does not make sense. A neutral race or shared race is exactly that, a race available to both factions. The Pandaren are apparently divided on different philosophical interpretations of their way of life, Tushui against Huojin, which does not translate into physical differences in the character creator. Attempting to differentiate two groups via philosophy is pointless, you cannot express philosophy in a character creator. How do you express 'valor' or 'nobility'? These are attitudes, not physical differentiators.

Even, as you are bound to argue, they came from two groups explicitly written to live apart they would still look identical and thus share an aesthetic and a theme and therefore, they would fail just as Pandaren did by undermining the distinctiveness of the Alliance and the Horde.

If on the other hand you argue that there could be some physical differences, to produce a different aesthetic and theme alongside the philosophical variations, then we are in Blood/High Elf versus Void Elf territory. Void Elves and Blood/High Elves are two physical varieties of the same race, but Void Elves are now physically different from the core group. This pairing does not mean Blood/High Elves are a shared race, as the Void Elves now exhibit physical, aesthetic and thematic differences.

So you cannot use philosophy as the basis for a shared race because that cannot be represented on the model. And using physical differences invalidates the premise, as then they become different and are no longer shared.

And essentially the differences between Blood Elves and Void Elves are essentially purely cosmetic with different active powers ... Just like Mag'har Orcs and Green Orcs. Void elves don't really have a significantly different culture than Blood Elves. They don't really have hugely different philosophies. They still view themselves as Void elves.

The answer doesn't make sense to you because of YOUR limited view of what a neutral race means. You are essentially pigeon holing a neutral race into one possible set. Look at Vrykul again ... it could be a neutral race but with Stormheim Vrykul and Northrend Vrykul on different sides of the conflict. It doesn't make sense to you, because you see neutral races only being like Pandaren without any reason to hold said viewpoint.

You state nothing is preventing another neutral race. This is incorrect.

We have enough evidence, including the Game Director stating so directly twice in the past eighteen months, that keeping the boundaries between the factions firm is a design goal when it comes to choosing Allied races. We have evidence from a previous senior staff member that they were not keen on sharing Pandaren between the two factions. Just because you hold the division between the factions in such contempt as to disregard it does not mean everyone else has to.

The Allied race system solves many of the issues that a neutral race was intended to mitigate. The Allied race system has none of the downsides a neutral race has. It has downsides of it's own, but not on the same level as a neutral race.
You keep arguing that it's possible but possibility does not equate likely or even probable. If you arguing that the theoretical possibility that it could happen exists, then yes, that does exist.

States what I said was incorrect, continues to point out using his own flawed arguments. No reason even to respond to this part.

So to prove your point you rule out the time period when they have added eight new races to the game? That's like attempting to argue British politics is competent but insisting we stop examining events at the end of 2015. That isn't going to work.
When Pandaren were announced, speculation ran rampant as to what the future neutral races added to the game could be. Seven and a half years and not one neutral addition. Not a single one. When the Allied race system debuted they returned to offering faction locked pairs. Technically there shouldn't be any issue with a shared Allied race, but they have refused to add any. And specifically cited faction diversity when asked about Alliance High Elves.
We have four opportunities since MOP where Blizzard could have opted to add a neutral race and in each case, faction locked races that protected faction diversity were selected. There are probably two more opportunities to come. I suspect they will also be faction locked.

Counting one possibility as if it was really 4 is pretty sad.

Every time Blizzard launched an expansion was an opportunity to add a new neutral race. WOD and Legion both passed by without them. Your point about the current expansion involving a faction war that doesn't facilitate neutral races is...inexplicable because the only neutral race that has joined the game so far, the Pandaren, were added during the last major war between the Alliance and the Horde. Maybe you remember it and if you don't, you can see it playing out in all the zones revamped by the Cataclysm. Or you can visit Theramore crater. In fact when Chris Metzen announced Mists of Pandaria, he hyped up the faction war aspect of it 'red and blue are going to get it on' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAz1...X&index=2&t=0s). When the Pandaren visit their faction capitals for the first time, they are explicitly warned against fraternizing with the enemy,

To cite the faction war of BFA as a factor stopping the addition now and that the conclusion of this war will open the way to future neutral races displays an ignorance of the circumstances of Mists of Pandaria. The faction war is no barrier to the addition of a neutral race whether core or allied, because the only time they did it they did it turning the faction war. The real barrier to neutral races remains what they consistently tell you what it is, but which you stretch every sinew to avoid hearing. That neutral races weaken faction diversity and that they simply do not find that cost worth it.

WoD and Legion didn't add ANY races so to count them as "potential neutral race" possibilities is like saying last month I had a chance of getting a new job ... despite never applying or even looking for a new job that entire month. There is no evidence they considered a new race at all during either expansion so it doesn't count as a possibility.

The Faction War is more of a barrier to adding neutral races than any of your points. Literally it is the same level as any of your arguments against Neutral races ... in fact, it is the core aspect of your "faction identity" argument. If there was no faction war, what need is there for unique faction identity? The war is a driving point for faction identity. This weaken your own argument.

Has anyone come out and stated the development team weren't keen on the Monk class?
Has anyone come out and stated that a new non hero class was a bad idea that damaged some other critical aspect of the game?

Given that monks are Less played that Demon Hunters (a class introduced after them as a Hero Class).
And developers have been asked about it ... I would say that it would be the case. It is the same logic you are using to defend your "no neutral race" stance.

They did state sharing a race between the factions wasn't a good idea. And because they stated keeping the factions distinct was important to them when selecting Allied races. If at some point they offer evidence regarding non hero classes being bad for the game, then you will be able to make that comparison.

They did not state that, that is YOUR interpretation of what was stated.

But as they have offered evidence that neutral races didn't work and have not provided evidence non hero classes don't work, your comparison is spurious. This is a perfect example of a false equivalence.

Using your speculation on what is said as evidence again.

Ion's statement, Ghostcrawler's statement, Ghostcrawler's elaboration, seven years of no new neutral races and an allied race system that doesn't need them.

Actions and words from Blizzard and by Blizzard.

But as I stated earlier, a new neutral race is theoretically possible. But so is me winning the lotto.

Keep repeating yourself ... it doesn't make anything other than Ion's statement your only actual evidence and weak at that.

[Varx]

Yes, it annoys a lot of people. I’m one of those that if they would’ve done something like you suggested wouldn’t be here still requesting for playable High Elves.

- - - Updated - - -




Mag’har are a redundant orc model. They’re just brown. Why did people want em??

Dark Iron are a redundant dwarf model. Why did people want those??

Same for Lightforged Draenei and Highmountain Tauren, although I’ll admit those weren’t asked for in terms of being a playable race.

Still, the point is people don’t give a fuck if the model is redundant or not, people want to play the races they want to play. And if it’s a community favorite then it’ll be requested.

People want to play Alliance High Elves and it’s a community favorite, therefore it’ll be requested.

Saying shit like “just pretend you’re X” is a weak statement because a feature like Allied Races wouldn’t exist if that’s what Blizzard intended people to do. I could just as easily say, “make believe you’re a brown Orc who turned Green” it’s not the same as playing an actual Mag’har Orc.

Note the prefix being important, because as I said the AR feature wouldn’t exist if the prefix meant nothing. And the High Elf are not playable. Blood Elves are playable, Void Elves are playable.

Restating a third time because some people don’t or won’t get it: the actual race, and prefix matters otherwise the AR system wouldn’t exist in the first place.

There is meaning to playing a Zandalari Troll, a Kul’tiran Human, a Dark Iron Dwarf, a Nightborne Elf. Just as there is meaning to play a High Elf that is not satisfied by playing a Void Elf or Blood Elf.

Having to say “make believe it is so” is a non-answer. There’s a difference between an actual supported feature in-game and having to make believe. And with how so many of those who consider “High Elfers” out of touch with reality or whatever the hell, it’s the most absurd answer to give.

None of those ARs are redundant, are you delusional? There are very clear lore AND physical differences between them.

Now are there physical differences between helf origin velves or belf origin belves? No ffs.

Imagine how stupid it would be to add regular gilneans or KT just because their lore is different from stormwind.

This is why it would be REDUNDANT to add high elves as a separate race as they are physically the same as belves. And there is 0 justification for a difference in appearance similar between normal human and kt.

Saying the alliance has the belf model doesn't matter because A. I doubt blizzard would make a AR from and AR and B. You would still be copy pasting belves.

No. It's not. Stop embarrassing yourself. The Alliance already has the "blood elf model" in the void elves.

Oh it's not? So you're telling me its ok to repeat models just as long as their lore is different?

ARs are clearly not the same model. All the do is share the same race and rig but their model are different enough to justify their ARs.

You tell me to stop embarrassing my self when you sit in front of your keyboard and say velves would have been a helf compromise if they had started off as alliance high elves when it would literally not change anything from the velf model its self. Plus there are already high elves in their zone so who says u can't pretend your velf wasn't silver covenant.