Poll: Good or Bad that WoW is moving away from faction conflict?

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ...
6
7
8
  1. #141
    I'm not worried. The Horde will do something absurd any day now and rekindle the fighting.

  2. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by Jindujun View Post
    I'm not worried. The Horde will do something absurd any day now and rekindle the fighting.
    The Horde/Alliance will have a rogue agent that will take the ire of both sides which will then lead to that rogue agent being a raid boss that the horde and alliance both kill and we have a "Don't do it again or we will end you" speech this will then give us a slight peace until a giant misunderstanding sparks it again.

    That's Blizzard's definition of the faction war. It's an MMO if this was an RTS we would absolutely still have full scale conflicts again because who cares if the Alliance wipes out the Forsaken in Warcraft 4 they will still be playable in Warcraft 4 and it would be reasonable for them to not be there in Warcraft 5, meanwhile the orcs could absolutely wipe out the Night Elves and take Ashenvale completely for themselves in an RTS because it wont be an iconic questing hub in an RTS it's just another map. Also the Night Elves wouldn't be part of the damned Alliance they would remain their own kingdom that gives 0 shits about anything not relating to Night Elves.
    3 Major Rules of World of Warcraft Players:
    1. No one on earth wants to play World of Warcraft less than other World of Warcraft players.
    2. The desire to win>The desire for anything else in World of Warcraft. NO EXCEPTIONS
    3. Efficiency will be king no matter how you think it will improve the game.

  3. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by Mysterymask View Post
    The Horde/Alliance will have a rogue agent that will take the ire of both sides which will then lead to that rogue agent being a raid boss that the horde and alliance both kill and we have a "Don't do it again or we will end you" speech this will then give us a slight peace until a giant misunderstanding sparks it again.

    That's Blizzard's definition of the faction war. It's an MMO if this was an RTS we would absolutely still have full scale conflicts again because who cares if the Alliance wipes out the Forsaken in Warcraft 4 they will still be playable in Warcraft 4 and it would be reasonable for them to not be there in Warcraft 5, meanwhile the orcs could absolutely wipe out the Night Elves and take Ashenvale completely for themselves in an RTS because it wont be an iconic questing hub in an RTS it's just another map. Also the Night Elves wouldn't be part of the damned Alliance they would remain their own kingdom that gives 0 shits about anything not relating to Night Elves.
    I think much better option would be - neutral Night Elves, with someway joined blood elves with them.
    Alliance consist of titanborn races (humans of all sorts, dwarves and gnomes)
    Horde - same as WC3 - orcs, trolls, taurens, goblins. Maybe Mok'Nathals.

    All other can be same.

  4. #144
    The Lightbringer Sanguinerd's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Knowhere
    Posts
    3,861
    Imo problem with the faction conflict has always been there was never enough. Both in actions to start the war and the reactions.

    The consequences of whatever happened have always been ridiculously timid.
    Subarashii chin chin mono
    Kintama no kami aru

  5. #145
    Something I posted earlier.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    I've been considering dialogue between Bronzebeard and Anduin, letting Anduin know in no uncertain terms that the Council (of Three Hammers) is extremely displeased with Stormwind in general with their treatment of Night Elves.

    Words tossed among the Council;
    1. "He treated an ally as little better than a vassal."
    2. "Seems they were given worse, they were treated as a tributary. I wonder how they see us..."
    3. "Anduin imagines his britches a bit large if he considers Stormwind a suzerainty."
    4. "The humans can't be trusted."
    5. "It seems he prefers orcs for allies."
    There should've been consequences back then. But that would mean Blizz would have to invest in a depth of characterization that doesn't exist in the current game.

  6. #146
    World of Warcraft could also mean the warcraft against evil, and not little tauren versus big gnomes.

  7. #147
    The problem with the faction conflict is that the game's mechanics cannot work with any real consequences. Neither faction can really "loose", because they are players. Not only that, even minor consequences would make the playerbase cry out in hatred.

    As a result the resolution of the faction conflict is always extremely unsatisfying. The injured side gets no justice, the perpetrators get no justification.

    BFA was the perfect example. It was clear from the beginning that the Horde would not be blamed or suffer any consequences for it's actions, making the Alliance look like complete idiots for AGAIN just laughing the warcrimes off and leaving the Horde alone with some mild promises that come down to "Please do not do this again, we do not like to be murdered. Pretty please."

    If Blizzard had the balls to actually have consequences, even if it would mean having a faction angry for a moment, faction clifct could be cool. Let's be honest the vast majority of players is unhappy anyway, whatever they do.

    In that regard I think it is a good thing that they move away from a story they cannot handle. Now we just need to find a story the team CAN actually handle.

  8. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by Jindujun View Post
    I'm not worried. The Horde will do something absurd any day now and rekindle the fighting.
    The factions will be sanded down to being primarily cosmetic if they still exist at all by the end of TLT. And honestly, good riddance, they should have died at Hyjal.

    The words faction and race aren't in Warcraft.

  9. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by Schwert View Post
    You didn't.
    Meanwhile, wPvP is blowing up on SoD, BFA had the most hyped trailer of the game's history, and the majority of the game's marketing, especially back then, was to do with Horde vs Alliance. Hell, mountain dew themed their promotion to Red vs Blue.
    So, good for you for not partaking, but it's a crucial part of the game's identity.
    "Hyped" and "marketing"? What that supposed to prove? That someone at Blizzard has PvP boner, genuinely wished to shove wPvP down people's throat, is tonedeaf or didn't realized how he got stuck in some vocal bubble of minority of FotM gankers? There's just one FACTUAL thing about wPvP that breaks each and every narrative about its popularity: when they introduced "war mode" toggle instead of separate realms they had to load it with in-game bonuses for people to subscribe to this stupid masochism. Add to this that before toggle, each and every so-called PvP realm was skewed in Horde or Alliance's side at 90%+ vs. <10%, often at 95%+ or even 99%+ and that's all you need about popularity of PvP and "muh faction pride" as a whole.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkRose92 View Post
    The War in WarCraft? Yeah, a lil off to be moving away from it. It's okay to come together to beat a mutual enemy like in WCIII n several battles across WoW's tenure but ultimately it should come back to the conflict upon which the game was founded.
    This excuse again. If you didn't noticed, we have several wars against different evil or outright world ending factions each expansions. It's "World of WARcraft", not "World of AlliancevsHordecraft".
    Garrison Mission Manager: Select best followers for BfA, Legion and WoD missions.
    Instance Spec: Switch to spec suitable for your role when "dungeon ready" pops up.
    LDB: WoW Token: Monitor WoW Token price changes in LDB display.
    Other addons: Quest Map with Details * LFG Filter for Premade Groups * Obvious Mail Expiration.

  10. #150
    Faction conflict has always felt hollow to me, faction tension is good; but outright war/battle was always stupid because you couldn't do that without tangible losses/gains. It also doesn't help that before WoW's name was ever-mentioned warcraft 3 was a story about all these divided factions realizing they are small parts on a small world in a big universe. Classic having 2 factions always felt like "maybe they'll do something story wise with this!" but it always just felt like an unnecessary division. Almost all of my friends played wow, but we all got into it differently over the course of a year. Not a single one of us was on the same server or faction (not even to go gank each other).

    Little scuffles and inflammations (wrathgate/putricide is a really good example where it works IMO) flesh out the two faction, the internal politicking shadowferal pointed out: Stonetalon mountains. Tension works great, when neither side will be allowed wins and losses. At this point in the game's age, the devs aren't utilizing the good parts of factions. I'm pretty okay with the entire system going since I've not really cared about FvF since I enjoyed the SoO final cinematic; another good example of how you use factional conflict without having to do "WAR ALL DA TIME".

  11. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkRose92 View Post
    The War in WarCraft? Yeah, a lil off to be moving away from it. It's okay to come together to beat a mutual enemy like in WCIII n several battles across WoW's tenure but ultimately it should come back to the conflict upon which the game was founded.
    I mean technically Warcraft 1 and 2 were about the forces of Azeroth vs the Legion
    3 Major Rules of World of Warcraft Players:
    1. No one on earth wants to play World of Warcraft less than other World of Warcraft players.
    2. The desire to win>The desire for anything else in World of Warcraft. NO EXCEPTIONS
    3. Efficiency will be king no matter how you think it will improve the game.

  12. #152
    We're moving away from it so that we can go back to it.

    Getting rid of certain characters, shuffling the deck on others, giving certain characters and faction ideologies a chance to manifest. Ultimately the faction conflict "ending" in BfA didn't really solve much of the Alliance and Horde's differences, especially on ideological standpoints. If anything, all these councils and groups of racial leaders are just going to lead to division amongst the races, which could also manifest as the Horde and Alliance becoming more ideological factions than racial factions. That would obviously manifest in game as any race being able to join the Horde or the Alliance, eliminating the "race war" aspect of the game, and embracing a more multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-national competition of two outstanding ideologies.

    Sounds familiar.....

    But then we can have faction war all we want, and nobody's pre-prescribed racial personifications will get ruffled and bruised. We're already at the point where there are Nelves on the Horde and High elves (finally) on the Alliance. Only a matter of time until most of the other "core" races of the Alliance and Horde are available in some form as playable by the other faction. Hell, one of the core parts of BfA involved human pirates helping the Horde on Kul Tiras with their questionable activities.

    Expect more of this.

Posting Permissions

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