Concerning 5.3

Story Forum
Prev 1 3 4 5
We have done it before. You want to hear something messed up? Hear Brann go 'For the Horde'. Do remember, prior to Cata the bulk of the alliance complaints were that their characters kept going neutral. Guess who the horde players had to follow around.


Differences:
Brann was not an Alliance leader.
(In fact he is one that argues against fighting the Horde)
Brann did not have a history of participating in a genocide war.
Brann's involvement was minor and mostly about archaeology.
Brann didn't threaten the Horde helping him, or even talk smack.
Vol'jin is not neutral.
Brann did not require the Horde to 'prove themselves' to him.

But, yes having NPCs go neutral is bad. Vol'jin is not going neutral. Not in the slightest. He is still a Horde leader. Everything about him is Horde. It is even worse then Thrall. Thrall at least tried to feign neutrality, but has since returned to the Horde. Thrall tried to play the neutral part and failed. Vol'jin doesn't even make the pretense. He is Horde and we have to prove our value to him.

Dont get me wrong. The current alliance quests are rubbish but not because they make the alliance 'subservient' to Vol'jin. Your not one of Vol'jin's minions. Your an allaince rep helping prop up a rebellion so it weakens your main enemy Garrosh.


Lets see:
sub·ser·vi·ent
/səbˈsərvēənt/
Adjective
1. Prepared to obey others unquestioningly.
2. Less important; subordinate.

Well, pretty much how the Alliance player feels. Go work for Vol'jin because he is our only chance to stop Garrosh. Do whatever he wants, prove your worth to him. Now, we can agrue whether you think the character actually is or not. But, the bottom line is there is plenty of reason for the player to feel that way. Especially since after saving a troll you still get threatened a couple of times. You still get talked down to. And you still have to earn the right to 'prop up' the rebellion. The Alliance player shouldn't be made to feel subservient to a Horde leader, at all.

Frankly I dont like either faction having to follow around the other factions characters


I firmly agree.

Brann is no more neutral than Thrall was and hordies had to follow him around to two expansions.


That I don't agree with.

Thrall founded the Horde. Even after going 'neutral' Thrall still brought another group into the Horde. Thrall still talked (admittedly subconscious) bad about the Alliance. Thrall had a history of actively fighting the Alliance.

Brann staunchly argued peace. He was never seen as an aggressor to the Horde. He has been pretty neutral in everything he has done. Here is a quote from him:

"What I found is ferociously interesting but disconcerting for our plans. The orcs, tauren and trolls of the Horde are firmly established on Kalimdor and (boil my beard) they could be staunch allies against the Scourge and the Burning Legion. They certainly have every reason to hate the demons and the undead. Yet instead of working with them, the Alliance forces on Kalimdor (and the rest of the world, for that matter) squabble with the Horde over petty conflicts, mostly for tradition’s sake. I say “squabble,” but the situation is escalating toward outright war again, my friends. I can’t think of anything the Scourge and the Legion would like better than to watch the mortal races chop each other to bits so they can inherit whatever’s left when we’re done. We need diplomacy and handshakes, Magni, not swords and guns."

Not even in the same category as Thrall when it comes to taking sides. He is Alliance because he is a Bronzebeard. But he is damn close to neutral. And, like I said before, Vol'jin is even worse. Vol'jin doesn't even make a pretense. There is no fighting for the common good. He is fighting for the Horde, ask him. It is all about family.

The Alliance should not be working for him. Interaction with him should be limited. Blizzard said that during the SoO they planned to have the Rebels and Alliance just see each other across the battlefield. At the time they said that they seemed to recognize that these sides wouldn't be playing nice with each other. Somehow that philosophy has changed. This patch should have been done where the Alliance and Darkspear mostly just 'see each other across the battlefield'.
04/17/2013 04:24 PMPosted by Brukk
I would. They supported a violent dictator. They made their bed, let them lie in it (and be buried in it too)


And see the Alliance buried beside them.

Despite the fact that most Alliance players don't seem to like it, that's the situation they are in.

Sure. They can leave the Horde to its infighting. But then they'll still lose the war to Garrosh.

*shrug*

The Alliance isn't helping out of the goodness of their bleeding hearts.

They're helping because they have to.

They're doing nothing more but seizing on an opportunity to save their own skins.


No we don;t. The Alliances does not need Vol'jin or the rebels. They are -completely- unnecessary to an Alliance victory. They make it somewhat easier (and I would love to see the Alliance use them as cannon fodder. Which is what the Alliance should be doing), but the rebels are not an absolute necessity, Brukk.

Realistically, the Horde would come out of MoP severely weakened militarily and economically.
04/18/2013 08:37 AMPosted by Kynrind


And see the Alliance buried beside them.

Despite the fact that most Alliance players don't seem to like it, that's the situation they are in.

Sure. They can leave the Horde to its infighting. But then they'll still lose the war to Garrosh.

*shrug*

The Alliance isn't helping out of the goodness of their bleeding hearts.

They're helping because they have to.

They're doing nothing more but seizing on an opportunity to save their own skins.


No we don;t. The Alliances does not need Vol'jin or the rebels. They are -completely- unnecessary to an Alliance victory. They make it somewhat easier (and I would love to see the Alliance use them as cannon fodder. Which is what the Alliance should be doing), but the rebels are not an absolute necessity, Brukk.

Realistically, the Horde would come out of MoP severely weakened militarily and economically.


Go in alone, guns blazing, with no help and risk many lives, and possibly losing to Garrosh.

Or...work with the Rebels, let them take some of the losses as well, get some Horde dudes in leadership positions willing to work with you and presumably grateful for your help; thereby creating a stronger, potentially unified front against the Legion or whatever else Azeroth throws at us after the Garrosh threat is neutralized.

It doesn't take a military strategist to see which one is more beneficial. I'm sorry you aren't getting your Imperium of Man "PURGE THE UNCLEAN!!" righteous crusade, but there's apparently a bigger picture here.
But, yes having NPCs go neutral is bad. Vol'jin is not going neutral. Not in the slightest. He is still a Horde leader. Everything about him is Horde. It is even worse then Thrall. Thrall at least tried to feign neutrality, but has since returned to the Horde. Thrall tried to play the neutral part and failed. Vol'jin doesn't even make the pretense. He is Horde and we have to prove our value to him.

Vol'jin isn't neutral. he's still a Horde leader following a Horde agenda that involves cooperation with the Alliance.

Good lord, you may as well declare Amber and Sully neutral for proposing the idea of cooperation in the first place.
Go in alone, guns blazing, with no help and risk many lives, and possibly losing to Garrosh.

Or...work with the Rebels, let them take some of the losses as well, get some Horde dudes in leadership positions willing to work with you and presumably grateful for your help; thereby creating a stronger, potentially unified front against the Legion or whatever else Azeroth throws at us after the Garrosh threat is neutralized.

It doesn't take a military strategist to see which one is more beneficial. I'm sorry you aren't getting your Imperium of Man "PURGE THE UNCLEAN!!" righteous crusade, but there's apparently a bigger picture here.


It would not be alone guns blazing. For the Alliance to be a threat to the Horde, it IS winning the war. This means the Alliance is fully capable of winning on it's own. For it to be a credible threat it has to be (assuming Blizzard is capable of having the Alliance be a real credible threat the the all-mighty Horde). Otherwise Garrosh's actions do not make any sense even for a mad man. If he's winning the war, why is he resorting to ever more extreme actions? Because the Alliance isn't dying fast enough?

The rebels can help, but they should NOT be a necessity for victory.

I am sorry, but it doesn't take a military strategist to see what relying on a rebel faction to make sure strategy works is foolish. Unless the Alliance control s the rebellion, relying on it is stupid. It should be taken into account and used (to spare Alliance lives if possible), it should be only one of many strategies the Alliance has running, but it should not -ever- be the lynchpin of the war strategy. Which is what Blizzard is making the rebels.

As for the unified front you're talking about, that's complete bs. Metzen himself has said that the war is going to continue after MoP, so there isn't going to be a unified front. It's also sickening that that excuse is ALWAYS the reason the Horde is spared. Every time the Horde is going to reap the consequences of it's actions, this excuse is -always- brought up as a reason it has to survive. Frankly it is betting old.
04/18/2013 08:51 AMPosted by Cártian
But, yes having NPCs go neutral is bad. Vol'jin is not going neutral. Not in the slightest. He is still a Horde leader. Everything about him is Horde. It is even worse then Thrall. Thrall at least tried to feign neutrality, but has since returned to the Horde. Thrall tried to play the neutral part and failed. Vol'jin doesn't even make the pretense. He is Horde and we have to prove our value to him.

Vol'jin isn't neutral. he's still a Horde leader following a Horde agenda that involves cooperation with the Alliance.

Good lord, you may as well declare Amber and Sully neutral for proposing the idea of cooperation in the first place.


I think you missed the point.

Working with Thrall, who pretended to be neutral for a while, was one thing. It could have been presented so much better. The interaction with him was like you where a Horde player, which was not really cool. That was a problem, but mostly a presentation problem. You could have fixed 90% of the Alliance issue with Thrall with a few lines of text changes and a couple questing adjustments.

There is no pretense with Vol'jin. Like you said: "he's still a Horde leader following a Horde agenda". And there is the problem. The Alliance players are questing and working for a Horde agenda. We don't want to work towards the Horde agenda. We want to work towards the Alliance agenda. It needs to be separated. Running errands for the Darkspear is not working towards the Alliance agenda. This is not even a presentation problem, the whole of it is a problem. You can't fix it with a few lines of dialogue. The whole system is wrong.

Don't know how many ways we can say: We don't want to work for a Horde leader in order to achieve a Horde agenda and forward a Horde story.
04/18/2013 08:51 AMPosted by Cártian
But, yes having NPCs go neutral is bad. Vol'jin is not going neutral. Not in the slightest. He is still a Horde leader. Everything about him is Horde. It is even worse then Thrall. Thrall at least tried to feign neutrality, but has since returned to the Horde. Thrall tried to play the neutral part and failed. Vol'jin doesn't even make the pretense. He is Horde and we have to prove our value to him.

Vol'jin isn't neutral. he's still a Horde leader following a Horde agenda that involves cooperation with the Alliance.

Good lord, you may as well declare Amber and Sully neutral for proposing the idea of cooperation in the first place.


Which is why it doesn't make any sense for the Alliance (and the players in particular) to be working closely with him. Alliance quests should at the most, just mention him and have their own quest lines dealing with the war against the Horde. Interaction with the rebels? Kept to a minimum.
04/18/2013 09:53 AMPosted by Neeber

Vol'jin isn't neutral. he's still a Horde leader following a Horde agenda that involves cooperation with the Alliance.

Good lord, you may as well declare Amber and Sully neutral for proposing the idea of cooperation in the first place.


I think you missed the point.

Working with Thrall, who pretended to be neutral for a while, was one thing. It could have been presented so much better. The interaction with him was like you where a Horde player, which was not really cool. That was a problem, but mostly a presentation problem. You could have fixed 90% of the Alliance issue with Thrall with a few lines of text changes and a couple questing adjustments.

There is no pretense with Vol'jin. Like you said: "he's still a Horde leader following a Horde agenda". And there is the problem. The Alliance players are questing and working for a Horde agenda. We don't want to work towards the Horde agenda. We want to work towards the Alliance agenda. It needs to be separated. Running errands for the Darkspear is not working towards the Alliance agenda. This is not even a presentation problem, the whole of it is a problem. You can't fix it with a few lines of dialogue. The whole system is wrong.

Don't know how many ways we can say: We don't want to work for a Horde leader in order to achieve a Horde agenda and forward a Horde story.

The Alliance players are working towards the Alliance agenda: beefing up the rebellion so when Garry retaliates for Razor Hill, they don't get steamrolled and then the loyalists and rebellion can continue murdering each other as the Alliance gathers her armies and prepares to strike at a weakened Orgrimmar.
04/18/2013 09:52 AMPosted by Kynrind
I am sorry, but it doesn't take a military strategist to see what relying on a rebel faction to make sure strategy works is foolish.

It's genius, actually.

Minimizes the resources the Alliance needs to invest in the offensive while maximizing the damage dealt to their enemies. Minimizes the risk of losing their own soldiers while ensuring the rebels take casualties of their own, in the case the war continues after the Siege (Though it'd take some impressive contrivances for the war to continue between the Alliance and Horde then, but that's never stopped Blizz before.)

It may not be portrayed adequately, and that is a problem in itself, but the Alliance is very much using the Darkspear Rebellion to their own ends in 5.3. Hell, Alliance players are given the chance to talk smack to the leader of the rebellion, and will apparently be able to be further jerks to him once he sasses back, something we've never had before in WoW's history.
04/18/2013 09:55 AMPosted by Kynrind

Vol'jin isn't neutral. he's still a Horde leader following a Horde agenda that involves cooperation with the Alliance.

Good lord, you may as well declare Amber and Sully neutral for proposing the idea of cooperation in the first place.


Which is why it doesn't make any sense for the Alliance (and the players in particular) to be working closely with him. Alliance quests should at the most, just mention him and have their own quest lines dealing with the war against the Horde. Interaction with the rebels? Kept to a minimum.

The Alliance also has their own agenda that they're perusing. The SI:7 quests made it evident that the Alliance army was anticipating having to fight everyone until they found the anti-Darkspear plans and said "hey, we can use this to our advantage."
As for the unified front you're talking about, that's complete bs. Metzen himself has said that the war is going to continue after MoP, so there isn't going to be a unified front. It's also sickening that that excuse is ALWAYS the reason the Horde is spared. Every time the Horde is going to reap the consequences of it's actions, this excuse is -always- brought up as a reason it has to survive. Frankly it is betting old.


The Horde is spared for the same reason Stormwind was spared in Warcraft 2, the Warcraft franchise is based on the 2 faction model. The fact that you continuously ignore that is getting old.

Everytime one faction gets pushed to the brink, something will step in and bail that faction out. That's just the way it is, this situation isn't really any different.

With that in mind, the Alliance working with the Rebels makes sense from a gameplay standpoint. That way, you have one raid for both factions, and there are no issues over which ending is canon, etc etc.

Is it ideal? Probably not, but this is an MMO, not A Song of Ice and Fire.
The more I think about it, the more I realize something. The reason why it's so hard to get a viable congruent story for both factions is because no one at Blizzard has ever written one.

Now before the lynch mob comes out let me clarify something: I'm not saying that the stories in general are terrible (they're actually pretty good for the medium), I'm saying that they were never written as congruent. They're not written as two separate stories that interact around the same central arc. Time for a little history lesson here:

  • Warcraft 1: Written as two separate stories. One human and one Orc. One is canon while the other is for the most part not.
  • Warcraft 2: Essentially the same, just the roles reversed.
  • Diablo: Single story. No real deviation there.
  • Starcraft: Now here's where it get's interesting. All the stories tie around a central arc, but they're consecutive, not congruent. The zerg storyline occurs after the terran story, and the protoss story after the zerg. The expansion is much the same but the perspective order is different.
  • Diablo 2: Same as the first.
  • Warcraft 3: Like SC, the story is a consecutive one around a central arc with one story starting after the previous finishes. The expansion continues this trend with all but the horde which is a separate story altogether.
  • Starcraft 2: Much as the first is three stories that do deal around a central arc but the stories are consecutive. One race finishes, the next begins and key members from the first are involved as NPCs.
  • So you see, the people at Blizzard have never written a congruent storyline where the stories occur at the same time but interact with one another on equal terms. They've either written the story where it's one central protagonist from beginning to end or one where protagonist 1 is central for a while, then protagonist 2 is central while protagonist 1 is largely tagging along.

    Now that's all well and good for a game where you can shelve a protagonist for a while and when they come back are up to speed, but you can't do that with an MMO. The player IS the protagonist in their own story and shelving that character essentially puts them is stasis. They come out of it no different than when they went in. And here's where Blizzard is failing in it. They want to give both factions their time to shine, but they're doing it the same as they do it for their previous games with one side at a time getting central exposure. MMOs don't work like that. The central arc can fluctuate, that's all well and good. But the protagonists story needs to be compelling throughout or it's not worth being involved with.

    To compound the problem, the development team has a different concept between characters that the players do. To the devs, The likes of Thrall, Varian, etc are the protagonists and the central characters. For the player, these are NPC. For the devs, those characters are the story, for the player, they merely guide the story along. How many plaers can say they had their own motivation for doing something beyond shinies? Every step of the way the players aren't living their story, they're playing along with the devs story. So to a dev, the story is no different for them than any other game they've written. For the player however it's a very disjointed experience, one moment they're central to the plot, the next they're forgotten.

    Blizzard either needs to get people in that can write congruent stories or they need to get people in to teach them how to do so. This consecutive storyline track that Metzen and his people are on cannot and does not work because the character the player controls need their own story from their own perspective instead of tagging along to the central arc.
    The more I think about it, the more I realize something. The reason why it's so hard to get a viable congruent story for both factions is because no one at Blizzard has ever written one.

    Now before the lynch mob comes out let me clarify something: I'm not saying that the stories in general are terrible (they're actually pretty good for the medium), I'm saying that they were never written as congruent. They're not written as two separate stories that interact around the same central arc. Time for a little history lesson here:

  • Warcraft 1: Written as two separate stories. One human and one Orc. One is canon while the other is for the most part not.
  • Warcraft 2: Essentially the same, just the roles reversed.
  • Diablo: Single story. No real deviation there.
  • Starcraft: Now here's where it get's interesting. All the stories tie around a central arc, but they're consecutive, not congruent. The zerg storyline occurs after the terran story, and the protoss story after the zerg. The expansion is much the same but the perspective order is different.
  • Diablo 2: Same as the first.
  • Warcraft 3: Like SC, the story is a consecutive one around a central arc with one story starting after the previous finishes. The expansion continues this trend with all but the horde which is a separate story altogether.
  • Starcraft 2: Much as the first is three stories that do deal around a central arc but the stories are consecutive. One race finishes, the next begins and key members from the first are involved as NPCs.
  • So you see, the people at Blizzard have never written a congruent storyline where the stories occur at the same time but interact with one another on equal terms. They've either written the story where it's one central protagonist from beginning to end or one where protagonist 1 is central for a while, then protagonist 2 is central while protagonist 1 is largely tagging along.

    Now that's all well and good for a game where you can shelve a protagonist for a while and when they come back are up to speed, but you can't do that with an MMO. The player IS the protagonist in their own story and shelving that character essentially puts them is stasis. They come out of it no different than when they went in. And here's where Blizzard is failing in it. They want to give both factions their time to shine, but they're doing it the same as they do it for their previous games with one side at a time getting central exposure. MMOs don't work like that. The central arc can fluctuate, that's all well and good. But the protagonists story needs to be compelling throughout or it's not worth being involved with.

    To compound the problem, the development team has a different concept between characters that the players do. To the devs, The likes of Thrall, Varian, etc are the protagonists and the central characters. For the player, these are NPC. For the devs, those characters are the story, for the player, they merely guide the story along. How many plaers can say they had their own motivation for doing something beyond shinies? Every step of the way the players aren't living their story, they're playing along with the devs story. So to a dev, the story is no different for them than any other game they've written. For the player however it's a very disjointed experience, one moment they're central to the plot, the next they're forgotten.

    Blizzard either needs to get people in that can write congruent stories or they need to get people in to teach them how to do so. This consecutive storyline track that Metzen and his people are on cannot and does not work because the character the player controls need their own story from their own perspective instead of tagging along to the central arc.

    Very good post.

    I honestly think it was a very stupid idea to have this war happen in an MMO because of the fact neither side can truly win to an extent that matters.

    The MMO format just shouldnt be used for player versus player wars. Even in something like The Old Republic with the Republic vs. Sith Empire, its stupid because if you play sith, you're signing on with the knowledge that no matter what, you lose in the end. Why would you want to?
    But its even worse for WoW. There is nothing from WoW's future that we can use as a point of reference. So neither side is definitively going to win, and while the game continues, its impossible for a truly decisive blow to be dealt to the other faction.
    It's genius, actually.

    Minimizes the resources the Alliance needs to invest in the offensive while maximizing the damage dealt to their enemies. Minimizes the risk of losing their own soldiers while ensuring the rebels take casualties of their own, in the case the war continues after the Siege (Though it'd take some impressive contrivances for the war to continue between the Alliance and Horde then, but that's never stopped Blizz before.)

    It may not be portrayed adequately, and that is a problem in itself, but the Alliance is very much using the Darkspear Rebellion to their own ends in 5.3. Hell, Alliance players are given the chance to talk smack to the leader of the rebellion, and will apparently be able to be further jerks to him once he sasses back, something we've never had before in WoW's history.


    It's genius as long as it's NOT the central pillar to the Alliance's strategy. It should be a 'if this works, that's good, If not, no real harm done to us.' Which isn't how it's being portrayed.

    The question that the Alliance p;layer can ask, "why shouldn't we keep these supplies for ourselves?" isn't talking smack. Only if you twist it is it talking smack. It's an actual legitimate question that deserves a serious answer. It's Vol'jin that's talking smack by pretty much bluntly telling the Alliance player the Alliance -needs- his rebels. Which is BS. The Alliance should not ever need the Horde for anything.

    The Alliance also has their own agenda that they're perusing. The SI:7 quests made it evident that the Alliance army was anticipating having to fight everyone until they found the anti-Darkspear plans and said "hey, we can use this to our advantage."


    It would be nice if that was true. Unfortunately, all of that will be shown off screen and the Alliance player will be railroaded into helping the Horde rebels.

    The Horde is spared for the same reason Stormwind was spared in Warcraft 2, the Warcraft franchise is based on the 2 faction model. The fact that you continuously ignore that is getting old.

    Everytime one faction gets pushed to the brink, something will step in and bail that faction out. That's just the way it is, this situation isn't really any different.

    With that in mind, the Alliance working with the Rebels makes sense from a gameplay standpoint. That way, you have one raid for both factions, and there are no issues over which ending is canon, etc etc.

    Is it ideal? Probably not, but this is an MMO, not A Song of Ice and Fire.


    No. Stormwind wasn't even involved in WC2. It was already destroyed and occupied by the Horde (more or less since the entire Horde seemed more interested in warfare rather than settling and having children). The Alliance was shown as being too weak on it's own to defeat the Horde and that it's victory only came about because the Horde tore itself apart first. Which is playing out now in the Cata/MoP repeat of WC2. It's stupid and shows the Alliance being, again, weaker than the Horde. Especially weaker than a Horde that is statistically smaller than it is. Which is pretty insulting when you think about it.

    It only makes sense from a game play issue. When you look at the lore and history of the game, it doesn't make much sense at all. The Alliance should not have the same quests and be working hand in hand with the same Horde that was, only 1-2 months before, trying to kill them. The Alliance should have it's own series of quests that have nothing to do with the Horde rebellion. They should be focused on what is important. On the war against the Horde. We should be shown taking the fight to and defeating the Horde in battle, taking outposts, towns and bases. Not helping Vol'jin and friends.
    I honestly think it was a very stupid idea to have this war happen in an MMO because of the fact neither side can truly win to an extent that matters.

    The MMO format just shouldnt be used for player versus player wars. Even in something like The Old Republic with the Republic vs. Sith Empire, its stupid because if you play sith, you're signing on with the knowledge that no matter what, you lose in the end. Why would you want to?
    But its even worse for WoW. There is nothing from WoW's future that we can use as a point of reference. So neither side is definitively going to win, and while the game continues, its impossible for a truly decisive blow to be dealt to the other faction.

    #93
    1 hour ago
    Like


    This I agree with. This war should never have been started because it's going to piss off at least one faction when it cannot win
    I honestly think it was a very stupid idea to have this war happen in an MMO because of the fact neither side can truly win to an extent that matters.

    The MMO format just shouldnt be used for player versus player wars. Even in something like The Old Republic with the Republic vs. Sith Empire, its stupid because if you play sith, you're signing on with the knowledge that no matter what, you lose in the end. Why would you want to?
    But its even worse for WoW. There is nothing from WoW's future that we can use as a point of reference. So neither side is definitively going to win, and while the game continues, its impossible for a truly decisive blow to be dealt to the other faction.

    #93
    1 hour ago
    Like


    This I agree with. This war should never have been started because it's going to piss off at least one faction when it cannot win

    It's not even a matter of winning, it's a matter of how the story is being told. The Darkspear are revolting and taking Razorhill, that's awesome (not sarcasm), the Horde gets a good, compelling story.
    So why, again, is it that the Alliance is tagging along? Why are we skulking around with SI:7? Why aren't we with the Night Elves (say Shandris' army) attacking the Korkron from behind when they react to the loss of Razorhill*? It ties in with the rebellion, gives the Alliance player an active role in the story rather than a reactive role, hell put Tyrande in too and make up for that piss poor excuse that was ALP.
    It's not that difficult to put the Alliance into the fight, it's not that difficult to give the Alliance an active role.
    This could have been done so much better if Blizzard had put a little forethought into the Alliance side of the story. The next patch was planned out months ago, there was time to include the Alliance with their own (separate) story.

    *The Korkron reacting to the Darkspear Rebellion would give Blizzard a way to connect the Alliance and the Rebels by having them meet after routing the Korkron. Let the Night Elves arrange the deal with the Darkspear, toss them a bone.

    Join the Conversation

    Return to Forum