So What Does The Alliance Want?

[Talen]

Its a waste of resources to do it all again
Plus, if they did it would go against one of the reasons they even re-did them in the first place - to balance out the zones

People seem to forget that Blizz did all those changes for actual gameplay reasons - making the questing more smoothline and engaging (since most sub losses are from those who dont even reach max level) - and instead say its because "Favoritism QQ"

Ridiculous.

Zone balance does not affect gameplay. It affects the stories which are told and it affects where PvP takes place. The former is irrevelant and the latter can be worked around.

Even were it to have an issue, it would be simplicity itself for Blizzard to simply announce that the NElfs have all their lands back and the Horde have fully retreated from the North and West of Kalimdor and Southern Gilneas and simply not add anything into the game other than the text informing us of this.

That's FAR from ideal because changing the world in this case WOULD have value - that of giving the Alliance players some in game impact and something to be proud of, something they can point to - but they can just say it's what has happened.

EJL

[Omgarsh]

The alliance I see as the voice of reason and just action, they don't make big screw you holes in the ground cause they are not corrupted like garrosh is. If thrall stayed leader there wouldn't be holes were cities use to be. The horde under garrosh's want victory at all cost, the alliance want peace, or close to it. They'll get their revenge on the one responsible, garrosh and his elites.

I think the other problem here is the near-total 180 they did with Wrynn. We all remember how he was an incredibly hostile douchebag in WOTLK, and then in Cata they honestly portrayed him as a mostly selfish leader (Westfall in particular brings this to my mind). Now in MOP he's suddenly the wise tactician/magic man who can make peace and strengthen his entire Alliance by himself. They never really portrayed Garrosh as a character Horde players would respect, and definitely didn't do that with Wrynn (but they did with most other Alliance leaders) but now they've pretty much forced us to act like that never happened with him.

[Deleted]

Your enemy has internal problems. What to do ?

a) Help them deal with it, so they can continue to be your enemy
b) Wait for the most opportune moment to attack and wipe them all out

Normal person: b
Metzen: a

[Talen]

Ill answer that with a different question.
Do you think its better, not just for you but most players, to play brand new content in brand new zones or brand new content in old zones?

Usually the answer will be "New Zones".

Given the scale of the in world changes and given the lack of in game impact/story/progression/development of the Alliance for 4 years when 6.0 is here - then this would be one of the rare exceptions where SOME change would be very beneficial. Blizzard, in the past, has done more for less reason. You don't need quests or terrain changes. Add a few stationery NPCs, a few towers, build up the bases that already exist plant a few flags in the recaptured Horde territories, replace the Warsong troopers in the Gulch with phased Sentinel NPCs.....that sort of thing. The kind of change they've been making in game since vanilla.

Why not finish the road? Why not build up Fort Triumph and Forward Command - replacing the graphics of incomplete fortifications with fully built up versions? Why not fully repair Northwatch and Tiragaarde? Replace the Horde banners/NPCs with Alliance ones. More work would entail adding new bases at important points in Azshara or Gilneas or Feralas. Why not make use of phasing to ensure low level content is untouched? As it is, theres a lot that can be done with even a minimal amount of effort simply by replacing Horde NPCs/doodads with Alliance versions or by swapping ruins for completed fortifications.

EJL

[Deleted]

Honestly, and this is no offense to anyone who plays Worgen because I would play them if I played Alliance seriously, too (well ok I wouldn't because they have Gnomes, but if they didn't...) but Worgen are a complete crap race to have added to Alliance. Their starting story is OK but it really felt like the lamest race to add. Humans who morph into werewolves? Guys that Varian Wrynn previously said were kill-on-sight to all Alliance? It's like the lamest attempt at giving Alliance a new "badass" race instead of making good characters/moments with their existing races, and it makes them do lots of character fixing to retcon their older/original races and lore to fit the new race. Kind of like what happened with Draenei and how they didn't give Alliance the Broken as the only option, but instead forced that lame retcon of the Eredar into the story.

I enjoyed Goblins joining the Horde because they were well-integrated into the story and felt like they fit a natural void for the faction (sneaky, underhanded, but also very humorous). I really would have preferred that Alliance get some group of Furbolgs or something related to NEs instead of Worgen if they were going to use a previously NPC-only race. Worgen just felt pretty lame to me from their initial announcement. That said, they still got good development that ended kind of abruptly. Bear in mind that Goblins also lose their capital/starting zone so I can see why they did that for faction symmetry, but Blizzard definitely screwed up with how they handled Worgen after their starting zone's finished. Then again I think they screwed up every race that isn't Human in Cataclysm.

They lost Kezan allright. But they got the whole of Azshara for themselves, along with Bilgewater Harbor, wich can be counted as a pretty large city. With a pretty large gun on top.

What did the worgen get outside Gilneas? A small village in Blasted Lands (!??!?wut?) filled with dumb druids and a Tree in Darnassus.

[rowaasr13]

I don't really get this because if you exclude pvp you have no interaction with the players from the other side whatsoever. Not while questing, not while doing instances, not while raiding. You only see them running around sometimes and that's it.

Man, my feelings exactly. You're just forcibly disconnected from half of players in multiplayer game. Can't they shove this outdated "red vs. blue mortal enemies for no reason except PvP" crap somewhere where crap belongs and give players actual interaction instead? This would also silence many "that side have it better" complains - why complain when everyone can go and check those awesome things on "that side" anytime?

[Deleted]

Man, my feelings exactly. You're just forcibly disconnected from half of players in multiplayer game. Can't they shove this outdated "red vs. blue mortal enemies for no reason except PvP" crap somewhere where crap belongs and give players actual interaction instead? This would also silence many "that side have it better" complains - why complain when everyone can go and check those awesome things on "that side" anytime?

It's called World of Warcraft, not World of Ponycraft.

[Scummer]

It's called World of Warcraft, not World of Ponycraft.

The Alliance vs Horde story arc has probably been on of the worst arcs we've had in Warcraft. Sorry to put it so bluntly. The problems we're seeing now were almost unavoidable since the story started because neither side can truly win or lose which is the exact problem we're having.

Also using the "Warcraft" arguement is pointless. There is always war in each expansion. It doesn't mean it has to be Red vs Blue.

[Dvaldin]

I am reserving opinion on this until the end of the expansion. Blizzard has promised some Ally love this expansion. That have yet to deliver on that promise.

[ariakul]

Not our fault your incompetent

You had a chance to turn stonard into dust but decide better to withdraw when you had the town at your mercy

I'm pretty sure the OP isn't a developer or programmer at Blizzard.

[Combatbutler]

Your enemy has internal problems. What to do ?

a) Help them deal with it, so they can continue to be your enemy
b) Wait for the most opportune moment to attack and wipe them all out

Normal person: b
Metzen: a

A sane person would try to dismantle their armies and try to establish more moderate leaders, that are willing to cooperate with them in the future instead of against them, a maniac would try to commit genocide by wiping them all out.

Allies can become enemies in the blink of an eye and vice versa, that is usually how global politics work.

[Talen]

A sane person would try to dismantle their armies and try to establish more moderate leaders, that are willing to cooperate with them in the future instead of against them, a maniac would try to commit genocide by wiping them all out.

No.

The sane response would be to defeat them militarily, then occupy their lands and restructure their system so they don't pose a threat.

In other words - disband the horde and try to get the Tauren and BElfs into the Alliance.

This can't happen for obvious reasons. Moderate leaders would only be a part of that answer and not truly applicable in all cases here - LT and Baine are fairly moderate leaders.

EJL

[Defengar]

What the Alliance needs is an Alliance story. Not a story about their battle with the Horde, a story about the Alliance.

You can think of the current Horde civil war as a story about the Horde. It would work if you replaced the Alliance with ANYONE, it's the story of an unpopular war tearing a society apart and sparking a revolution.

Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of easy story hooks for the Alliance to latch on to for their story. Good stories rise internally, and Blizzard has been working hard to remove all internal frictions from the Alliance to turn them into a Big Happy (Boring) Family. You'd basically have to make something whole cloth.

If the diamond statue of muradin gets transformed back into a living dwarf, and he objects to whats currently going on, that could lead to a very interesting story.

- - - Updated - - -

No.

The sane response would be to defeat them militarily, then occupy their lands and restructure their system so they don't pose a threat.

In other words - disband the horde and try to get the Tauren and BElfs into the Alliance.

This can't happen for obvious reasons. Moderate leaders would only be a part of that answer and not truly applicable in all cases here - LT and Baine are fairly moderate leaders.

EJL

Pretty much what the Allies did to the Axis powers, and what the north did to the south after the civil war.

[Combatbutler]

No.

The sane response would be to defeat them militarily, then occupy their lands and restructure their system so they don't pose a threat.

In other words - disband the horde and try to get the Tauren and BElfs into the Alliance.

This can't happen for obvious reasons. Moderate leaders would only be a part of that answer and not truly applicable in all cases here - LT and Baine are fairly moderate leaders.

EJL

Full Occupation can backfire horribly, you can try to subdue the population, but especially in a medieval setting it would be nigh impossible to control them, it might even have the opposite effect, the people might start to hate them more and do anything to get rid of them.

Not to mention the Alliance has not enough soldiers to occupy all the horde territories.

[Defengar]

You'll get a lot of negative posts about your first sentence. Be prepared to go all the way back to when Garrithos used the belfs as cannon fodder and the like. Or how Jaina was "unreasonable" and "removed" the Sunreavers etc.

But yeah that said, I do agree with you. I didn't like Varian ingame at all until now (even tho he has been put forward by "lore characters who should have vast better judgement and wisdom"). I do understand tho that he hates orcs due to Garona killing his father (while under a spell, which he didn't know for the better part of his life sofar). Garrosh is just the enemy he would be looking for in orcs. While Thrall actually should have been able to make peace with Varian and start a trusting relationship.

Anyway yeah voice of reason and just action. But do not be fooled, like every nation their leaders sometimes make mistakes or make calls based on wrong ideals.

A lot of people don't know why Garithos was racist even though a blue posted the reason a while back. Most think he was your run of the mill bigot, when in reality there was some legitimate reasons for his dislike of the elves and orcs.

Back in the second war he fought to defend the Elves of Quel'Thalas due to the proximity of his lord fathers lands to them (right on the border). At one point, during one of the battles over Quel'Thalas, a small group of orcs broke off from the main army and burned his home city to the ground, killing everyone inside, including his entire family. The orcs were able to do this, because Garithos and nearly all of the cities garrison was out defending elven lands.

Garithos blamed the Elves for the deaths of his family and people because they had demanded so many human forces be diverted to defend them.

I would be pretty god damn bitter too.
He was racist towards other groups, such as the dwarves, but his main hash lay with the elves.

[Aquamonkey]

A lot of people don't know why Garithos was racist even though a blue posted the reason a while back. Most think he was your run of the mill bigot, when in reality there was some legitimate reasons for his dislike of the elves and orcs.

Back in the second war he fought to defend the Elves of Quel'Thalas due to the proximity of his lord fathers lands to them (right on the border). At one point, during one of the battles over Quel'Thalas, a small group of orcs broke off from the main army and burned his home city to the ground, killing everyone inside, including his entire family. The orcs were able to do this, because Garithos and nearly all of the cities garrison was out defending elven lands.

Garithos blamed the Elves for the deaths of his family and people because they had demanded so many human forces be diverted to defend them.

I would be pretty god damn bitter too.
He was racist towards other groups, such as the dwarves, but his main hash lay with the elves.

He was already racist. He believed the "Alliance's true goal [was] the defense of humanity alone." Also, "mission that he assumed the Alliance should have always had: the preservation of humanity above all else."

[mysticx]

Full Occupation can backfire horribly, you can try to subdue the population, but especially in a medieval setting it would be nigh impossible to control them, it might even have the opposite effect, the people might start to hate them more and do anything to get rid of them.

Not to mention the Alliance has not enough soldiers to occupy all the horde territories.

Excuse me while i laugh riotously, horde and alliance are already sworn enemies for multiple generations, i'm pretty sure they can't hate each other any more than they already do, we reached the "Do anything to get rid of them"-stage a year or so ago, and not just Garrosh, Sylvanas is more than happy to toss plague-goop at anything that still lives, and the horde didn't object to Garrosh's rather extreme tactics until he turned on horde races, how much the alliance hates the horde? No idea, they haven't done much of note cor years...

The "Not enough manpower for occupation"-argument makes more sense, but in the end it was all gameplay-technical considerations.

[Dreknar20]

A sane person would try to dismantle their armies and try to establish more moderate leaders, that are willing to cooperate with them in the future instead of against them, a maniac would try to commit genocide by wiping them all out.

so basically, deny their ability to be an independent nation and just control them?

[KrazyK923]

No.

The sane response would be to defeat them militarily, then occupy their lands and restructure their system so they don't pose a threat.

In other words - disband the horde and try to get the Tauren and BElfs into the Alliance.

This can't happen for obvious reasons. Moderate leaders would only be a part of that answer and not truly applicable in all cases here - LT and Baine are fairly moderate leaders.

EJL

Its almost like...this was Wrathion's plan! :P

At least we know one character in the lore is like "what the fuck?" in terms of acting rationally.

[Dreknar20]

Full Occupation can backfire horribly, you can try to subdue the population, but especially in a medieval setting it would be nigh impossible to control them, it might even have the opposite effect, the people might start to hate them more and do anything to get rid of them.

heaping scorn and humiliation upon a defeated nation does nothing to foster peace, unless the nation is 100% shit upon.
You only have to look at things like Versailles to see how that works