Will the Siege of Orgrimmar end the war?

90 Gnome Monk
10300
If Horde and Alliance are going to be working together to bring down Garrosh, that be enough to provide the diplomacy needed to at least stop the open conflict and go back to the "cold war" from Vanilla and TBC? Would it possibly even do a better job of uniting the rival factions? Or does the hatred on both sides run deeper.
Reply Quote
90 Troll Shaman
5420
Not to give a really lazy answer, but that depends on the events leading up to the Siege of Orgrimmar, the siege itself and its immediate aftermath.

If the Horde rebel can convince the Alliance (not necessarily by talking to them directly, but by their actions) that they can contain the unruly elements within the Horde and that they've no intention of following through on the conflict (which is very likely, given how most of those billed to lead the rebellion have spoken against the war since before it started), then it's possible we'll see a moratorium on the fighting.

If, however, Blizzard handles the siege the way some of the more vocal Alliance posters want it to be handled by having the Alliance go to wipe out or enslave every man, woman and child in the Horde, then the war will obviously get worse.

Ultimately, I don't expect we'll see any sort of definitive end to the conflict between the Alliance and the Horde, simply because there's the very real possibility that the storyline will be recycled in the future (once the inevitable Burning Legion expansion is done, perhaps).

We can only hope that in the meantime, Blizzard will have learned from the mistakes and missteps it made leading up to an during this current iteration of the faction war.
Edited by Kellick on 12/5/2012 5:25 PM PST
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Rogue
11450
12/05/2012 05:24 PMPosted by Kellick
Ultimately, I don't expect we'll see any sort of definitive end to the conflict between the Alliance and the Horde
Reply Quote
90 Troll Shaman
5420
12/05/2012 05:30 PMPosted by Noitora
Ultimately, I don't expect we'll see any sort of definitive end to the conflict between the Alliance and the Horde

Sure, take a one liner from my post which is a statement of metagame rather than story. :P
Reply Quote
90 Gnome Monk
10300
12/05/2012 05:24 PMPosted by Kellick
If, however, Blizzard handles the siege the way some of the more vocal Alliance posters want it to be handled by having the Alliance go to wipe out or enslave every man, woman and child in the Horde, then the war will obviously get worse.


I like that the more vocal alliance posters seem to be taking "faction pride" as "turn us into another horde!"

What a disservice to the lore and history of the Alliance... It's had its ugly moments, but it's more often than not true/lawful good. Stop wanting us to be chaotic neutral...
Reply Quote
90 Dwarf Warrior
16150
I think we can probably say that at the very least it will end this phase of the war.
Reply Quote
90 Undead Warlock
5995
Likely Cold War. My theory is that Garrosh is linked to the Legion in some way, and there isn't time to continue the war.

Why? Well, he's really stepped up in Demons and Warlocks. On the Echo Isles, the Warlocks use green fel fire, rather than the normal red warlock one.
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Shaman
13310
I suspect it will be as much a case of cutting losses. The Horde rebels will be open to peace and neither faction is going to be really willing to pay the price to force the war further. As it is right now both sides are losing resources and personel in droves. Horde and Alliance Heros are getting slaughtered on the beaches of Pandaria and the war is far from over.

Just think about the damage your characters are doing every day during quests. The opposite faction is doing just as much damage to your people. End result is both factions, already spent from years of constant war from various threats are going to have to dicide if they are willing to risk crippling themselves to acheive total victory.
Reply Quote
90 Undead Warlock
8115
12/05/2012 05:57 PMPosted by Ximothy
Why? Well, he's really stepped up in Demons and Warlocks. On the Echo Isles, the Warlocks use green fel fire, rather than the normal red warlock one.


My envy knows no bounds.
Reply Quote
Northern Lordaeron and Gilneas are still the elephants in the room when considering ending the war.
Reply Quote
1 Undead Monk
0
And the whole matter of the Alliance getting nothing for cleaning up the Horde's mess.

There should be some kind of concessions or something to get them to agree to leave Orgrimmar in the hands of the rebels.
Reply Quote
Likely Cold War. My theory is that Garrosh is linked to the Legion in some way, and there isn't time to continue the war.

Why? Well, he's really stepped up in Demons and Warlocks. On the Echo Isles, the Warlocks use green fel fire, rather than the normal red warlock one.


While I think the fact Garrosh is utilizing Warlocks could become a notable plot point, I would be astounded if he's linked to the Burning Legion in any real sense.

Mainly because I think it's time we have a villain who is a straightforward conqueror rather then someone who wants to wipe out all life on Azeroth for some insane reason. If he does fall to any sort of malevolent influence, it'll likely be the Sha since that would create a very strong connection between the Siege of Orgrimmar and the events taking place on Pandaria.

At most I could see the Legion deciding to invade now of all times in part because of the chaos created by Garrosh's reign as Warchief. So after the Siege the Alliance and Horde will be in such a mad rush to prepare defenses, and later actually fighting the Legion, that they won't have time to fight each other even if they want to.

And the whole matter of the Alliance getting nothing for cleaning up the Horde's mess.

There should be some kind of concessions or something to get them to agree to leave Orgrimmar in the hands of the rebels.


Three points to consider on this subject:

1. Garrosh may be amassing enough power that the rebellion alone, despite containing virtually all the playable factions within the Horde, would get quickly trounced. It could be that the only way to beat Garrosh with a reasonable chance of success is to attack Orgrimmar simultaneously (even if not necessary in concert). This means the Alliance is going to Orgrimmar for it's own sake just as much as the Horde rebellion is.

2. As long as a leader amicable to the idea of peace takes power, the Alliance will benefit greatly , even without explicit concessions. If, as I stated above, the Burning Legion is on it's way, then even a short-term peace with the Horde could be beyond value.

3. The invading Alliance and Horde rebellion may ultimately be of comparable strengths. It could be a situation where Varian knows quite well that if he were to try to extract significant concessions, and the Horde called his bluff, he'd end up with a Pyrrhic victory at best.
Edited by Falrinn on 12/5/2012 6:34 PM PST
Reply Quote
90 Human Mage
13505
12/05/2012 05:41 PMPosted by Auryanna
If, however, Blizzard handles the siege the way some of the more vocal Alliance posters want it to be handled by having the Alliance go to wipe out or enslave every man, woman and child in the Horde, then the war will obviously get worse.


I like that the more vocal alliance posters seem to be taking "faction pride" as "turn us into another horde!"

What a disservice to the lore and history of the Alliance... It's had its ugly moments, but it's more often than not true/lawful good. Stop wanting us to be chaotic neutral...


Except we are lawful good. It's what we always been, we have the ugly moments but we always arrise on top. The vocal are just..desperate in attempt to enjoy the lore.
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Hunter
5420
I like that the more vocal alliance posters seem to be taking "faction pride" as "turn us into another horde!"

What a disservice to the lore and history of the Alliance... It's had its ugly moments, but it's more often than not true/lawful good. Stop wanting us to be chaotic neutral...


Why is wanting to repay the Horde for everything it's done to the Alliance just in the last two expansions always called "turn us into another horde!" ? Why? The Horde has attacked the Alliance numerous times and outright tried to wipe it out at least three times, and even in times of peace, still kept up the attack.

Meta-game reasons aside, after 40 plus years, why shouldn't the Alliance want to end the Horde threat forever? Humanity has gone from 7 powerful kingdoms to 1 kingdom. That's a massive drop in population (if humanity had even 1/4 of its pre-Dark Portal population, I would be very surprised). High elves are practically extinct, the gnomes and Draenei are very few, the worgen scattered across the world. Even the Night elves are suffering. The dwarves are the only race that hasn't suffered massive loses of population or land.

After all of that death and destruction, why should the Alliance want the Horde to survive at all? Turning the other cheek gets old after awhile and the Alliance's cheeks are bloody and broken after being hit so many times.
Reply Quote
90 Dwarf Warrior
16150
Meta-game reasons aside, after 40 plus years...
Barely 30, a good third of which was spent with the majority of the Horde in internment camps. In addition, most of the Alliance losses you listed weren't actually caused by the Horde. Dalaran, Lordaeron and Quel'Thalas were destroyed by the Scourge and the Legion, the gnomes were decimated by one of their own, Alterac betrayed them, and Stromgarde fell to the Syndicate. You might have an argument about Gilneas, were it not for the fact that had the Forsaken not attacked them, they STILL wouldn't be part of the Alliance.
Edited by Vegdrasil on 12/5/2012 6:46 PM PST
Reply Quote
90 Human Monk
2460
There's ultimately only two ways it can play out:

1) The war doesn't end. It's just that everyone learned their lesson. The Army of Light will be a neutral faction.

For gameplay purposes, this makes the most sense. They're not going to stop making Battlegrounds.

2) The Alliance and Horde cease to exist, and all playable races are on one faction. All previous battlegrounds are still there, but non-cannon. Over time, all world border/trade disputes are handled diplomatically.

This actually makes sense, and would be an extremely bold(and therefore unlikely) move on Blizzard's part. But, re-doing the 1-60 questing experience for Cataclysm was also a bold move for Blizzard, so it wouldn't be unprecedented.

PvP would still be there. They could introduce new battlegrounds as "tests of might" sanctioned by the factions. Or they could let players join NPC factions that duke it out in battlegrounds(IE, Argent Crusade versus Ebon Blade in the plague lands).

They would just have to make it so the 1-95 experience goes like this:

1-60 you are at war with the other faction.

60-80 TBC/WoTLK content.

80-85 you are at war with the other faction, but DOOMSDAY IS HEEERE(Cata content)

85-90 mete of the war, story ends with Garrosh being deposed and the factions join.

90-95 Language barriers are brought down, but players probably can't go to opposing faction's capital city(by policy of trying to ease into the peace). Burning Legion content is back, and we go to a new planet where all the quests are "neutral" quests.

#2 would work, but in the end I still figure #1 is what's going to happen. Though #2 would be better for the game's long-term, because the quest designers have such a hard time getting non-neutral quests in the game as it is anyways.
Edited by Draile on 12/5/2012 6:52 PM PST
Reply Quote
90 Dwarf Warrior
16150
12/05/2012 06:44 PMPosted by Kynrind
Will you shut the hell up about how the Alliance is lawful good?
Except, y'know, that that's how Chris Metzen's described them. It's not a hard and fast "every single member of the Alliance is lawful good forever and always," but it's still broadly true.
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Hunter
5420
12/05/2012 06:42 PMPosted by Vegdrasil
Meta-game reasons aside, after 40 plus years...
Barely 30, a good third of which was spent with the majority of the Horde in internment camps. In addition, most of the Alliance losses you listed weren't actually caused by the Horde. Dalaran, Lordaeron and Quel'Thalas were destroyed by the Scourge and the Legion, Alterac betrayed them, and Stromgarde fell to the Syndicate. You might have an argument about Gilneas, were it not for the fact that had the Horde not attacked them, they STILL wouldn't be part of the Alliance.


I'm counting the Draenei extermination drive in there. My point still stands though. Since the Horde showed up, the Alliance has done nothing but lose population, land and nations. Gilnes was one of the seven kingdoms and it's gone. Dalaran is finally coming back to the Alliance, but Lordaeron, Stomgard, Alterac and Kul Tiras are gone or MIA for the last several decades (Blizzard will have a real hard time explaining what Kul Tiras has been doing since Admiral Proudmore was sailing around.) That leaves only one intact kingdom and it has come back from being destroyed in the First War. While the Horde has gotten stronger and more powerful. As long as the Horde exists, the Alliance is at risk because the Horde can't control itself.
Reply Quote
90 Human Mage
16720
There has never been lasting peace between the Alliance and the Horde; even when they fought side by side against a common enemy, it was always a short-lived truce that didn't last much longer than the common enemy.

It probably won't be much different this time either.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]