Remember what the Orcs gained from the Siege?

[Zandalariprelate]

Fuck the Horde fanboy writers, my six year old son could write better stories than them

Yeah how they dare to make the horde look bad and give some screen time, those monsters are worse than the legion

[Zulkhan]

Fuck the Horde fanboy writers, my six year old son could write better stories than them

I definitely have no doubts that you're genuinely concerned with the writing quality.

[Syegfryed]

The Alliance did not plunder or destroy Ogrimmar which is the definition of sacking a city.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pt/...ingles/sacking

an attack on a building or town in which a lot of destruction is caused and many valuable things are stolen:

1) They attack the town/city
2) A lot of destruction happened
3) Valuable things were stolen

This is the definition of sacking and what happenend, so, it was sacked

They liberated it from an occupying force and then turned it over to the rest of the Horde.

they conquered the city with the help of a rebellion force then they left for vol'jin to manage things and retire the army as they plase

The fact that it was turned over with zero concessions by the Horde is nonsensical

Concessions happened

The fact that nothing in game after the cinematic reflects the Alliancd being "the superpower of the world" makes that standing meaningless.

Ingame doesn't matter, a lot of things were not showed ingame, what matter is lore

Every step of the way the Horde goes toe to toe with "the superpower" and inflicts heavier loses then they ever experiance.

the horde only stand toe to toe with the alliance now its because of the legion to weaken the alliance and because of the allies they got on the way of BfA

[Grazrug]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pt/...ingles/sacking



1) They attack the town/city
2) A lot of destruction happened
3) Valuable things were stolen

This is the definition of sacking and what happenend, so, it was sacked



they conquered the city with the help of a rebellion force then they left for vol'jin to manage things and retire the army as they plase




Concessions happened



Ingame doesn't matter, a lot of things were not showed ingame, what matter is lore



the horde only stand toe to toe with the alliance now its because of the legion to weaken the alliance and because of the allies they got on the way of BfA

Bolster your own ego up a little bit. Dignity is a good thing. As long as the Alliance isn't dead we need to keep going and fightning off those boys and girls in blue. Loktar! Ogar!

[lockybalboa]

I definitely have no doubts that you're genuinely concerned with the writing quality.

So appearance and fluff=quality for you? They can use all the flowery words in the vocab but it doesn't conceal the fact that their story is still shit.

[steelballfc]

I mean, the Draenei literally dragged their own shitty issues all the way to Draenor and got everyone who lived there involved in their own bullshit. And while the Orcs couldn't know better, the Draenei were the supposedly "advanced" race and yet they proved to be just as obtuse as, well, the entire 90% of their race who fucking threw their lot to Sargeras.

it's all velen fault we are here.

[Fayolynn]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pt/...ingles/sacking

1) They attack the town/city
2) A lot of destruction happened
3) Valuable things were stolen

This is the definition of sacking and what happenend, so, it was sacked

they conquered the city with the help of a rebellion force then they left for vol'jin to manage things and retire the army as they plase

Concessions happened

Ingame doesn't matter, a lot of things were not showed ingame, what matter is lore

the horde only stand toe to toe with the alliance now its because of the legion to weaken the alliance and because of the allies they got on the way of BfA

The problem is the definition doesn't fit what happened. When a city is sacked the invaders go around and purposely cause destruction. Burn buildings down, slaughter civilians, per the dialog in game the Alliance sought to minimize damage to the city and the civilians were left alone. The entire purpose was to remove Garrosh from power. What of value was stolen from the city? The fact is that in game the Alliance went in and deposed a ruler and then washed their hands of the situation. Ogrimmar was not sacked by the Alliance.

What concessions happened?

In game does matter, not everything needs to be shown in game but if the Alliance is supposed to be the preeminent power on Azeroth that needs to be reflected in what the players experience in the game. Instead the opposite is shown with the Horde going toe to toe with the Alliance and winning. The closest they have come to showing the Alliance being the dominant power is the attack on Undercity which would have been a curb stomping if Jaina hadn't shown up.

If the Legion weakened the Alliance then why didn't it weaken the Horde as well? They were just as involved in defeating the Legion.

[Syegfryed]

The problem is the definition doesn't fit what happened.

The definition clearly fit what happened, 3 points happened, and it is the definition

When a city is sacked the invaders go around and purposely cause destruction. Burn buildings down, slaughter civilians, per the dialog in game the Alliance sought to minimize damage to the city and the civilians were left alone

you are putting more variables, by the definition neither of the things of you listed need to happen to consolidate a sack, nothing imply burning things down ( and it happened) slaughter of civilains (who happened anyway, its just something you can't control) vol'jin said to Baine he need to be above o top the bloodshed, so things were rly bad

The entire purpose was to remove Garrosh from power.

in the horde side, the alliance want to defeat the Garrosh's horde, not just "remove him from power, onlylate Vrian decide let it be

What of value was stolen from the city?

you can see then in the representation of thee heirloons the alliance can get by defeating garrosh, all updated models from the horde weapons

The fact is that in game the Alliance went in and deposed a ruler and then washed their hands of the situation. Ogrimmar was not sacked by the Alliance.

it is already stated and proved by ingame lore that it was sacked, again, your argument hold no ground when its already proved

What concessions happened?

lots of territory back to the alliance, horde forces retired from other places, the kor'kron dismantled and finished, varian ultimato

In game does matter, not everything needs to be shown in game but if the Alliance is supposed to be the preeminent power on Azeroth that needs to be reflected in what the players experience in the game.

it can be, but the destruction of the ingame orrimmar is a retarded way to show it

lots of thing happened but they never show ingame, this is just one of others

Instead the opposite is shown with the Horde going toe to toe with the Alliance and winning

where? now? its explained how they can go toe to toe now

The closest they have come to showing the Alliance being the dominant power is the attack on Undercity which would have been a curb stomping if Jaina hadn't shown up

.

the alliance was the dominant power after mop, lots of things happened after that

If the Legion weakened the Alliance then why didn't it weaken the Horde as well? They were just as involved in defeating the Legion.

the horde didn't participate in most of the legion, didn't you saw the expansion? barely had horde, alliance was present even in argus

[Jastall]

The Siege of Orgrimmar was the most limp-dicked siege ever. We don't know who actually won it, but if it's the Alliance, their leniency goes beyond what is reasonable considering the first thing they would see once they invest the city is the Kor'kron using Theramore civilians as target practice. Yet still, they give Orgrimmar back, the city shows no lasting damage, they take no prisoners or hostages back with them and they even grant the Horde some concessions in order to preserve the peace despite total victory.

Sorry, that's lenience itself. Look at Stormwind 1.0 for what happens when the Horde wins a siege. Now that's some right and proper sacking. The Horde got off with a slap on the wrist because gameplay demanded it.

[Zulkhan]

So appearance and fluff=quality for you?

Well, it would be a start at least.

The Siege of Orgrimmar was the most limp-dicked siege ever. We don't know who actually won it, but if it's the Alliance, their leniency goes beyond what is reasonable considering the first thing they would see once they invest the city is the Kor'kron using Theramore civilians as target practice. Yet still, they give Orgrimmar back, the city shows no lasting damage, they take no prisoners or hostages back with them and they even grant the Horde some concessions in order to preserve the peace despite total victory.

Sorry, that's lenience itself. Look at Stormwind 1.0 for what happens when the Horde wins a siege. Now that's some right and proper sacking. The Horde got off with a slap on the wrist because gameplay demanded it.

Well, the matter is simpler than it seems. We can't say the Alliance single-handely achieved a military victory during the Siege of Orgrimmar because, well, it's not a victory they achieved by just themselves: the Alliance was in no kind of condition to demand anything because they won the war alongside the rebellious Horde. There are people saying that the Alliance totally stomped the Horde and others saying that the Alliance merely did the Horde a favor, but both cases are wrong: removing Garrosh was in the Alliance's best interests, the reason why they achieved that single goal alone is because the Horde shared that goal themselves, which led to both factions finding the common ground to cooperate. Would have been in the Alliance's best interests to achieve much more than that? Obviously, but the Horde itself would have surely liked as well to end the conflict without triggering a civil war within its ranks, getting its main capital invaded and forced to dethrone the Warchief in charge because of his deranged politics.

[Jastall]

Well, it would be a start at least.



Well, the matter is simpler than it seems. We can't say the Alliance single-handely achieved a military victory during the Siege of Orgrimmar because, well, it's not a victory they achieved by just themselves: the Alliance was in no kind of condition to demand anything because they won the war alongside the rebellious Horde. There are people saying that the Alliance totally stomped the Horde and others saying that the Alliance merely did the Horde a favor, but both cases are wrong: removing Garrosh was in the Alliance's best interests, the reason why they achieved that single goal alone is because the Horde shared that goal themselves, which led to both factions finding the common ground to cooperate. Would have been in the Alliance's best interests to achieve much more than that? Obviously, but the Horde itself would have surely liked as well to end the conflict without triggering a civil war within its ranks, getting its main capital invaded and forced to dethrone the Warchief in charge because of his deranged politics.

Whenever the victory is single-handed or not heavily depends on who runs the raid. If it's the Alliance... yes, they kinda did it all themselves. They kill the Sha of Pride, storm the beach, breach the gates, slaughter the Kor'kron, and incapacitate Garrosh. All the rebels did is send soldiers to be massacred by the Iron Juggernaut then vanish until the final cutscene.

That's why to me, the Horde being the ones who actually did the raid is the only story path that makes sense for SoO. If the Alliance did 95% of the work but reap basically no additional rewards, then that's just bullshit. But even if the Horde does it, Orgrimmar is still mighty pristine for a city that gets sacked, and the Horde is still highly fortunate that their enemies did not decide to profit from their civil war.

[Zulkhan]

Whenever the victory is single-handed or not heavily depends on who runs the raid. If it's the Alliance... yes, they kinda did it all themselves. They kill the Sha of Pride, storm the beach, breach the gates, slaughter the Kor'kron, and incapacitate Garrosh. All the rebels did is send soldiers to be massacred by the Iron Juggernaut then vanish until the final cutscene.

That's why to me, the Horde being the ones who actually did the raid is the only story path that makes sense for SoO. If the Alliance did 95% of the work but reap basically no additional rewards, then that's just bullshit. But even if the Horde does it, Orgrimmar is still mighty pristine for a city that gets sacked, and the Horde is still highly fortunate that their enemies did not decide to profit from their civil war.

It's a pretty worthless argument though since player's perspective is irrelevant. The event was canonically a cooperation, outright showed in some occasions and other times ignored due a matter of convenience and game mechanics, since both sides are represented in the same spots depending from the faction played. As a consequence, none of the two versions alone matter because if the Horde would have done that 95% of the job than the Alliance shouldn't have even been in Garrosh's underground throne room to begin with, they should have been, by all means, decimated right after Garrosh's forces were and viceversa.

Nonetheless, the conclusive cinematic and plenty of other lore elements cemented the idea that, in whatever fashion, Alliance and Horde rebellion equally broke through Garrosh's forces and reached the Underhold, leading to the tense confrontation at the end. Failing to acknowledge this is just the vice of certain Alliance players and their snowflak-ish tendencies, unable to apparentely perceive the existence of a story outside of the one played by them.