Warcraft in psedo 4 faction that works

[Enrif]

He probably wasnt there at the time. I mean, its a long time line from that time to now. But vanilla indeed had these after the release, but dont consider that late. If you say arena was late, then I would understand it better as that was bc.

i was on EU when the big PvP patch came and introduced the whole Honor Ranking system for the game. nice try.

[Alanar]

late addition to Vanilla. And as i mentioned before, the PvP there was were local groups (Silverwing Sentinels vs Warsong Outriders), not full on Faction vs Faction PvP. You could still have a local group based PvP system, without needed a full on divide of the rest of the playerbase. We see this work in other MMOs with PvP only faction divides (ESO, FF14, GW2)

- - - Updated - - -



apparently not you, so why do you again participate in this conversation?

Again, that doesnt matter. Horde VS alliance was there in vanilla. Stop moving goalpost and accept you are wrong and move on. I really dont care, about your ideas on your own issues with this. This is simply not relevant.

I dont care, because you accuse me of moving goalpost, while you have been doing that almost every post with me and now again. Very typical. You got corrected and are obviously wrong then comes the: why do you partcitipate lol. Nah dude, just stop not biting to your nonsense or your cover ups.

- - - Updated - - -

i was on EU when the big PvP patch came and introduced the whole Honor Ranking system for the game. nice try.

You expect me to believe that lol? If you were you wouldnt make such a dumb comment.

[Kilpi]

I think having factions, especially in the first few years of the game (and even more so in Vanilla) added A LOT of flavor and feel to the game and the world, that isn't really a metric you can measure (entirely subjective). And I think a lot of the QoL features added to WoW in the past 20 years have all contributed to that. Sure, some don't see like it has any value, but it's also completely impossible to say how WoW would've done if there were no factions in the launch. I feel like it added a lot the feel of the game, but it surely does have its problems (server imbalance or low population servers in general).

It's kind of like all RPG elements the game had. Everytime on of those were removed, people kept saying "it doesn't add anything to the game, so it might as well be removed". But in the end the game ends up being a completely different game once you've removed "all the didn't add anything to the game". Which, in hindsight, kinda looks like they did add. Not every feature in the game has to be measurable "the game is X% more efficient" or something. Take away lot of the core things the game had in Vanilla/TBC/Wrath (which having two factions is included), and the game wouldn't have been the same and most likely wouldn't have been as successful.

[Enrif]

You expect me to believe that lol?

you can believe whatever you want

[Alanar]

It did add alot of flavor and ofc the factions were at war and added all up to that. Hell we had pvp servers( still do) and rivalries between guilds h/a. Pvp was bigger, because outside the raids, there wasnt even so much to do at the time.

Its just weird, to make pvp a topic, as faction devide is somehow bad? It has always been vs eachother and big part of the game flavor. Sure, since dragonflight its happy bappy, but its simply still part of the game, but not so much that strong theme and rivalries as it used to be, for obvious reasons. Phasing, mixed serves etc etc.

- - - Updated - - -

you can believe whatever you want

You sure choose what to respond to lol and I am pretty sure I am right.

[Enrif]

I think having factions, especially in the first few years of the game (and even more so in Vanilla) added A LOT of flavor and feel to the game and the world, that isn't really a metric you can measure (entirely subjective). And I think a lot of the QoL features added to WoW in the past 20 years have all contributed to that. Sure, some don't see like it has any value, but it's also completely impossible to say how WoW would've done if there were no factions in the launch. I feel like it added a lot the feel of the game, but it surely does have its problems (server imbalance or low population servers in general).

i don't agree. I think the flavor could have been just as well established with the different reputations. Let the game start with the classic reputation levels, Orcs are honored with Ogrimmar, friendly with Thunder Bluff and Darkspear, neutral with Undercity, but then instead of closing of the other faction, just make them start at Neutral for Theramore, Unfriendly for Ironforge, Gnomeregan and Darnassus and Hostile for Stormwind. That brings all the flavor that is needed. BUT the players can still engage in all the stuff they want to, together. If they want to PvP they can go to the Warsong Outriders and participate in warsong gulch. but after that they can team up with a night elf for blackfathom depths.

Edit: Heck, that would even be better. When Garrosh drops the bomb on Theramore, and you as player help, you get hatred with Theramore. Or if you help Varian with the Undercity raid you get respectful with Stormwind. Sure, some things would be a bit different, but most could still fit in a rep based system compared to a faction divide system

[Kilpi]

i don't agree. I think the flavor could have been just as well established with the different reputations. Let the game start with the classic reputation levels, Orcs are honored with Ogrimmar, friendly with Thunder Bluff and Darkspear, neutral with Undercity, but then instead of closing of the other faction, just make them start at Neutral for Theramore, Unfriendly for Ironforge, Gnomeregan and Darnassus and Hostile for Stormwind. That brings all the flavor that is needed. BUT the players can still engage in all the stuff they want to, together. If they want to PvP they can go to the Warsong Outriders and participate in warsong gulch. but after that they can team up with a night elf for blackfathom depths.

Sure, you are free to disagree. All of this is entirely subjective. Me on the other, would've liked if the factions were kept MORE meaningful, the story would've been LESS about working together. But each to their own. I mean, look at your sig about a legged naga (lol). I can't come up with a single reason why that would be a good idea, but you seem to like it.

[Enrif]

Most things are always subjective. Sure, we can use some objective measurements like "without faction divide, each player would be able to play with each other player", but if this is to your liking or not, is subjective.

[Alanar]

I think having factions, especially in the first few years of the game (and even more so in Vanilla) added A LOT of flavor and feel to the game and the world

Not every feature in the game has to be measurable "the game is X% more efficient" or something. Take away lot of the core things the game had in Vanilla/TBC/Wrath (which having two factions is included), and the game wouldn't have been the same and most likely wouldn't have been as successful.

Absolutely, there were many reasons for it. Pvp scene was more alive and close kit communities per server, made rivalries etc. People knew who was a good player as well. It added depth to the factions and why they were at war. At tge time it was at least.

I agree, it all counted. There is no good argument for removing or taking away core things. Especially the reasons for it to argue about this are just flatout weird. If pvp wasnt a thing back then, we would just be doing raids.. without it it really would be a completely diffent game. Thats a given.

I for one, would go for LESS working together and keep the horde and alliance identities. It seems some people are still stuck in the DF mode, while I am here hoping we dont lose the identity. I dont see any good coming from losing that or be one big faction. It would temper it to a point no ome would.care anymore since everything is the same or shared.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, look at your sig about a legged naga (lol). I can't come up with a single reason why that would be a good idea, but you seem to like it.

Idk if its worse then the nazdorei concept or equally as bad. No one who actually likes Naga would suggest this.

[Syegfryed]

I would rather ask if YOU actualy play the game. When i do a dungeon or raid i don't do it against any other player.

Thats a rly weird non sequitur, what YOU do means nothing to me neither for the overall game and it doesnt disprove the point made.

Those Tournaments are not the core of the game.

I didn't even said they were, but it doesn't matter, the point literally still stands: factions help people to get more actively invested in the game due to tribalism, is literally the same phenomenon with sports

Or by another example hogwarts houses, everybody who enjoy HP to a degree know which house they are, even as silly as it sounds, because its the same thing with identity, affinity and rivalry with the other houses.

This helps A LOT, to grow popularity and to grow a loyal fanbase.

If you dont partake in it, thats perfectly fine, but dont pretend its not a thing.

[Nightshade711]

The faction debate is a bit silly. The factions have been a core part of the game since launch - especially story wise.

There's a reason why there's a good bit of people that want the faction conflict back and are tired of the World of Peacecraft.

[Enrif]

Or by another example hogwarts houses, everybody who enjoy HP to a degree know which house they are, even as silly as it sounds, because its the same thing with identity, affinity and rivalry with the other houses.

yeah, no. While they are houses, they are the sub-faction of the overall Hogwarts faction, which is one of multiple schools in the magical world. It is more that Gryfindor is Stormwind, Ravenclaw is Gnomeregan, Hufflepuff is Ironforge and Slytherin is Darnassus, but all part of the larger Hogwarts which would be the alliance.

The type of tribalism you try to promote falls flat when these tribes are in friendly competition with each other, while their overall structure (hogwarts) is uniting them. People from different houses freely learn and cooperate with each other.

Same could have been true for WoW. People who like orcs or tauren and people who like humans and elves could have played together if it were not for the restrictions

[Biomega]

The faction debate is a bit silly. The factions have been a core part of the game since launch - especially story wise.

There's a reason why there's a good bit of people that want the faction conflict back and are tired of the World of Peacecraft.

...but there's also a reason the faction conflict was (largely) abandoned in the first place. And it wasn't because they wanted "more peace" - it was because there's no way to actually make it viable in the long term. No one can ever win or lose it and in a setting like WoW that just creates contrivance and boredom.

This is independent from people's desire to see more focus on conflict and action rather than group hugs and emotional circlejerks, which is definitely a recognizable current in the community at least to some extent. We don't need the faction war for this, and in fact, it's probably more easily done without it. The idea of "putting the 'war' back in 'WarCraft'", to borrow a popular sentiment, does not inherently mean faction war. That was just one way to frame things, and even from the very beginning of the game, it was something that was largely undermined by the concept of larger, external threats.

The faction war just cannot work in this setting - not in the long term, and not without massive contrivance. You'd need a setting like Warhammer 40k, for example, where you have an entire galaxy to play with and can sustain conflict by focusing on sub-sections that are still massive enough in size (like entire planets, say). That kind of granularity doesn't work for WoW, because no one is going to care about a faction war that's purely about Tarren Mill vs. Southshore whatever. The scale isn't the same, and the moment you escalate you run into a wall.

I'm sure there's people who object to this and are fine with all the contrivance, but history has shown them to be a minority. Way more people complain about us yet again joining hands to defeat the evil dragon/god/lich/whatever over and over again, or about the fact that it's been 20 years and somehow Warsong Gulch is still a contested territory to skirmish over. The faction conflict just can't go anywhere.

[Kilpi]

...but there's also a reason the faction conflict was (largely) abandoned in the first place. And it wasn't because they wanted "more peace" - it was because there's no way to actually make it viable in the long term. No one can ever win or lose it and in a setting like WoW that just creates contrivance and boredom.

They could've made the expansions happen in EK and Kalimdor (for the most part) and have the world evolve with the story. That way they could've made big changes to zones where both factions win and lose stuff based on the events.

[Enrif]

They could've made the expansions happen in EK and Kalimdor (for the most part) and have the world evolve with the story. That way they could've made big changes to zones where both factions win and lose stuff based on the events.

and yet, this would go old fast. "oh no the horde conquered that city, oh no the alliance conquered that city". Especially as Biomega mentioned, the scale of the game world isn't big enough to tell such a story. how often would the Arathi Highlands have to switch ownership for example?

I think, if for vanilla they would have used the setup of the ttrpg, it would have been a much better starting point. There were only two cities: Ogrimmar (Orcs, Trolls, Tauren) and Theramore (Humans, Dwarves, Gnomes, High Elves) and the Night Elves that lived at the Hyjal. The rest would have been a conquest of the wild Kalimdor setting up settlements and new cities, with the first expansion perhaps a return to the eastern kingdoms.

THAT would be far more interesting

[Kilpi]

and yet, this would go old fast. "oh no the horde conquered that city, oh no the alliance conquered that city". Especially as Biomega mentioned, the scale of the game world isn't big enough to tell such a story. how often would the Arathi Highlands have to switch ownership for example?

I think, if for vanilla they would have used the setup of the ttrpg, it would have been a much better starting point. There were only two cities: Ogrimmar (Orcs, Trolls, Tauren) and Theramore (Humans, Dwarves, Gnomes, High Elves) and the Night Elves that lived at the Hyjal. The rest would have been a conquest of the wild Kalimdor setting up settlements and new cities, with the first expansion perhaps a return to the eastern kingdoms.

THAT would be far more interesting

Would be more interesting than any of the cosmic stuff they've done.

[Biomega]

They could've made the expansions happen in EK and Kalimdor (for the most part) and have the world evolve with the story. That way they could've made big changes to zones where both factions win and lose stuff based on the events.

This is just the issue, though: that isn't long-term viable. You can do it a few times, but it can never last and it can never be substantial. You flip one territory one way, another flips the other way - that's a requirement if the conflict is to preserve parity, and that, in turn, is a requirement for a world of that size. You couldn't well be like okay Alliance won, 90% of zones are now Alliance - that would create massive problems for the gameplay. So you'd have to soften it into yeah they won but they didn't WIN win, or whatever else that actually undermines and obviates the entire concept in the name of (near enough) parity so people of both factions can have (roughly) the same enjoyment and engagement with the world.

That's why this just doesn't have any staying power: it's forever trapped in constant equalization. A conflict no one can win or lose. As I mentioned earlier, you'd need absolutely MASSIVE scale for this to work, like WH40k's galaxy-wide conflict where you have no trouble shifting things on the level of planets or entire solar systems or more, without endangering the balance of the whole. And even THERE things tend to get boring knowing you'll never see a world where the Tyranids just overrun the entire galaxy and that's that. Never ever going to happen.

Would be more interesting than any of the cosmic stuff they've done.

That's a whole different discussion. It's entirely valid to say that what they've done isn't great without that somehow meaning that the faction war would have automatically been better. It could well have been worse. Those two things are not connected this way. It was never "either we keep perpetuating a faction war, or we go bananas over cosmic bullshit" - that's a wholly false dichotomy.

[Mysterymask]

They could've made the expansions happen in EK and Kalimdor (for the most part) and have the world evolve with the story. That way they could've made big changes to zones where both factions win and lose stuff based on the events.

This only has like a few possible scenarios cause faction imbalance is going to happen no matter how hard you want it not to. People prefer to win over fighting adversity so what's going to happen when the balance starts to tip?

A. Blizzard writes it based on winning faction which ends up being who's ahead in numbers soon let's say Horde in this scenario just cease to exist and we have expansion over expansion of just the horde getting stomped on because people will GLADLY sacrifice fun in the name of victory

B. Blizzard just writes it on a fucking whim and the story just doesn't matter yes the Alliance outnumbers the horde 150:1 but those scrappy horde pulled off a victory that the 20 people still in the horde are not even that happy about cause they didn't even do anything

C. Fuck it not even an MMO anymore do battlegrounds aint worth writing for wow gets scrapped and we just get an RTS which I feel half of you would of preferred anyway

[Syegfryed]

yeah, no. While they are houses, they are the sub-faction of the overall Hogwarts faction

Same way the factions are to the overall warcraft IP.

which is one of multiple schools in the magical world.

nobody cares about the others, which again, show my point of identity.

It is more that Gryfindor is Stormwind, Ravenclaw is Gnomeregan, Hufflepuff is Ironforge and Slytherin is Darnassus, but all part of the larger Hogwarts which would be the alliance.

Lmao, great way to miss the point and try to force something totally different.

Its not a matter of a house representing a group, what matter is PEOPLE, real people, enjoying the "factions" of hogwarts, and being draw into it, where they form ties/bonds and rivalry, the same thing happens to wow.

Again, this is a clear concept of tribalism

The type of tribalism you try to promote falls flat when these tribes are in friendly competition with each other, while their overall structure (hogwarts) is uniting them.

We all are united by World of warcraft, the structure of the tribalism still exist, there still the great community then the faction community.

Same could have been true for WoW. People who like orcs or tauren and people who like humans and elves could have played together if it were not for the restrictions

thank god we had restrictions, otherwise the game would not create a strong sense of identity, affinity and rivalry.

[Mace]

and yet, this would go old fast. "oh no the horde conquered that city, oh no the alliance conquered that city". Especially as Biomega mentioned, the scale of the game world isn't big enough to tell such a story. how often would the Arathi Highlands have to switch ownership for example?

I think, if for vanilla they would have used the setup of the ttrpg, it would have been a much better starting point. There were only two cities: Ogrimmar (Orcs, Trolls, Tauren) and Theramore (Humans, Dwarves, Gnomes, High Elves) and the Night Elves that lived at the Hyjal. The rest would have been a conquest of the wild Kalimdor setting up settlements and new cities, with the first expansion perhaps a return to the eastern kingdoms.

THAT would be far more interesting

I think that was one of the options they planned to go with but scrapped... i know that initially Orgrimmar was going to be the horde starting point and Theramore the alliance, with exactly those races, but it was later switched to regional race area starting oints.


I must admit, this made wow immediately stand out for me, I don't htink I would have gotten into wow anywhere near as much if the initial start didn't have that scope.. yet, hte idea of fighting to establish strongholds and build cities in for your group in the wild contested and unclaimed lands would have been so good.


What's the point in having contested territories if they can't be claimed?

- - - Updated - - -

They could've made the expansions happen in EK and Kalimdor (for the most part) and have the world evolve with the story. That way they could've made big changes to zones where both factions win and lose stuff based on the events.

That while desirable was always not as good as making expansionsin brand new places. have you playedMMOs where they only do that? Trust me they just aren't as exciting as wow, nor do they have that feel of a new place even in their "new" areas.


What ideally would have been good would have been both a new expansion and an update to the normal zones to carry on the stories there


They shouldhave also have been looking at ways to make doing such things really easy for the developers to do - for example if you could implement your own questline as a dev, you wouldn't need everything to be programmed hin all the time, which means that the bulk of the work is on new conteinent/content, but far less is needed or a far smaller team can handle updates to existing zones. that could work


Another alternative was doing race quests or zone/regional quests as part o a continuous Order hall -type quest progression.. so that every patch, your races or the regionyour race is par tof has new developements and quests that explore things thatare happening.

ultiamtely you want to keep telling stories and doing interesting things. the new continent provides the bulk of new things to do, but you have established areas and peoples that poeple want to know or tell the stories of what happens there, so you want to provide that as often as possible.


however, ultiamtely i want these to be good, so if they were going to give rubbish stories and lame developemtns, it's just as well they haven't done it