Saving Thrall: Will the real Thrall please...

100 Troll Shaman
5930
For two expansions the Alliance, including its playerbase, runs roughshod over the Horde, and every time the Horde tries to fight back they fail miserably. It isn't until one day Alliance players decide that they want a different king that the Horde is allowed to start winning, and only against an NPC faction. After Varian is killed the Alliance gets to keep all its holdings and the Horde is okay with it.

When can the Horde expect to run roughshod over the Alliance for two expansions then? Because it sure as hell wasn't "Oh crap Alliance forces invading every single one of our starting zones and all of our offensives are failing horribly." Cataclysm.

I was working from the original post, which proposed that the war continue after MoP, and that Thrall be responsible for it. I simply added the suggestion that he be given an actual reason to do so, rather than just "lol kill the Alliance".

If you've another idea which makes Thrall responsible for the war continuing beyond MoP and provides a clear reason for doing so for both sides, share it with the class.
Edited by Kellick on 3/20/2013 6:15 AM PDT
Reply Quote
25 Blood Elf Paladin
0
03/20/2013 06:14 AMPosted by Chorrol
The solution to Vyrin is to ignore Vyrin.


If you ignore sense then it doesn't matter that your posts completely lack it, right?
Reply Quote
25 Blood Elf Paladin
0
When can the Horde expect to run roughshod over the Alliance for two expansions then? Because it sure as hell wasn't "Oh crap Alliance forces invading every single one of our starting zones and all of our offensives are failing horribly." Cataclysm.


Yeah, who could forget the resounding success that was the Barrens offensive, what with its commander ending up hanging in a tree, its forces routed, its Dwarf Fortress blown up, and its capital mana-bombed.

Its success is only matched by the spectacular successes the Alliance met in Lordaeron. My character is currently logged out in the Capital City Inn.

If you've another idea which makes Thrall responsible for the war continuing beyond MoP and provides a clear reason for doing so for both sides, share it with the class.


I don't think he should. I don't think that Blizzard should do another faction war storyline unless they go in full-hog and actually have major exchanges of territory and one faction decisively (but with dignity) losing.

As long as they're a slave to gameplay mechanics and the "everyone has to be a good guy winner" mentality, they shouldn't try to portray a realistic war.
Edited by Vyrin on 3/20/2013 6:19 AM PDT
Reply Quote
100 Night Elf Rogue
10935
Rather than plopping the entire conflict on the Horde again, why not have Varian decide, after the Siege of Orgrimmar is concluded, to renege on his supposed agreement with the Horde rebels and just kill everyone in the city, only to have the Alliance pushed out by an outraged Thrall, who then pledges to preserve the Horde at any cost?

That way, the Alliance player base gets to see their faction taking the conflict seriously, you get to see Thrall commit to the war, and the Horde's fight with the Alliance no longer looks like a kid eating glue from the jar, because they'd finally have a good reason to fight.


The reason why is because that creates a Garrosh issue on the other side of the fence. The solution is not to have an unambiguously evil villain, the solution is to have Thrall expel the Alliance from Orgrimmar because they are trying to take control.

In other words, Thrall values peace, but he is NOT going to see Orgrimmar turn into a giant internment camp.

The Alliance should want and require this - after all, they're the ones who are continually asked to suffer for the Horde's expansionism, and getting kicked out should be seen as treachery. For Thrall, it should be seen as necessary.

This way, the war still continues. We keep PVP without it being awkward, Blizzard gets a second chance at handling the faction conflict correctly, and Thrall gets to be Horde again, with some controversy. Reviled to the Alliance, he will be a true hero to the Horde, and not just half of it
Reply Quote
100 Troll Shaman
5930
Its success is only matched by the spectacular successes the Alliance met in Lordaeron. My character is currently logged out in the Capital City Inn.

Look, if your complaints are that one playable faction didn't get to capture multiple playable capitals of the other playable faction, maybe you should pick up an MMO which isn't based on the two faction format.

Try to keep suggestions anchored within the realities of the game's format while also keeping them with the thread's main subject of Thrall and his characterization from WC3 onward.
Reply Quote
100 Blood Elf Death Knight
11915
We keep PVP without it being awkward


To be fair, there are ways to attain this without war (tournaments or war games being prevailent). I know that this wasn't the main point of your argument Kyalin, but I have seen it put up as a reason for the continued war a lot and figured I would throw out an alternative.
Reply Quote
90 Orc Warlock
10710
When can the Horde expect to run roughshod over the Alliance for two expansions then? Because it sure as hell wasn't "Oh crap Alliance forces invading every single one of our starting zones and all of our offensives are failing horribly." Cataclysm.


It was like that in vanilla too. The Alliance were all over are staring areas. I figured that was the point, it made nearly staring Horde player to see that Alliance and it themes were the enemy.
Granted it really didn't carry to over in the end game when we ended fighting Alliance problems.

And so it worked Cata, upgraded the zones without breaking that incursion Alliance feel they had.
Reply Quote
25 Blood Elf Paladin
0
Look, if your complaints are that one playable faction didn't get to capture multiple playable capitals of the other playable faction, maybe you should pick up an MMO which isn't based on the two faction format.


Again, if Blizzard wants to portray a total war, then they need to portray a total war. They have the technology to do it, they just don't have the will/manpower. Capitals aren't sacrosanct in war, and in fact multiple lore capitals have fallen in this war, they've just been Alliance ones that didn't function as "gameplay capitals."

And that's ultimately the problem I was talking about. As long as Blizzard is a slave to gameplay mechanics, then any attempt to radically alter the status-quo on Azeroth is doomed to failure because at the end of the day everyone needs to be able to mouthbreathe at the auction house, and that's where Blizzard's priorities lie.
Reply Quote
100 Troll Shaman
5930
03/20/2013 06:23 AMPosted by Shaithiss
We keep PVP without it being awkward


To be fair, there are ways to attain this without war (tournaments or war games being prevailent). I know that this wasn't the main point of your argument Kyalin, but I have seen it put up as a reason for the continued war a lot and figured I would throw out an alternative.

Or proxy wars being backed or fought by mercenaries for battlegrounds. Or just do what they did for AV and make it non-canon.

03/20/2013 06:19 AMPosted by Kyalin
The reason why is because that creates a Garrosh issue on the other side of the fence.

Don't see how. You said it yourself, the Alliance already has every reason to pull that off, right?

It's looking more and more like the Horde rebels and Alliance will make a tentative agreement before the Siege of Orgrimmar, and killing 'em all is what's in store for Garrosh's supporters anyways. All Varian and/or the Alliance needs to do is say "Yo Horde rebels, I'm really happy for you, and I'ma let you finish killing Garrosh, but you still supported one of the biggest wars of all time." and their motives become totally understandable.

Just expand the Alliance's scope from killing Garrosh's current supporters to his erstwhile supporters for their past actions. The Alliance's actions and motives are no less defensible, and Thrall gets his valid reason to defend the Horde at any cost.
Reply Quote
25 Blood Elf Paladin
0
The Alliance's actions and motives are no less defensible, and Thrall gets his valid reason to defend the Horde at any cost.


How would this make the Horde look good?

"Alliance and Rebels team up and defeat Horde, Alliance demands that the rebels be held responsible for their actions under Garrosh, rebels immediately begin to make war on the Alliance?"

That's a great way to prove that the rebels are no different than Garrosh and that the Alliance helping them was a mistake.

It sounds to me like when you make your proposal you're including a hidden "and by the way the Alliance commits war crimes to make me feel better" clause.
Edited by Vyrin on 3/20/2013 6:42 AM PDT
Reply Quote
100 Troll Shaman
5930
How would this make the Horde look good?

"Alliance and Rebels team up and defeat Horde, Alliance demands that the rebels be held responsible for their actions under Garrosh, rebels immediately begin to make war on the Alliance?"

That's a great way to prove that the rebels are no different than Garrosh and that the Alliance helping them was a mistake.

It sounds to me like when you make your proposal you're including a hidden "and by the way the Alliance commits war crimes to make me feel better" clause.

I wasn't proposing the Alliance "hold them responsible". My post very clearly indicated they'd be killing or aiming to kill the rebels. No war crimes, mind you.

It doesn't make the Horde look good. It just gives them self-preservation and avoids making them look any stupider.

The Alliance goes "we had a deal, but instead we're gonna kill you all because you were jerks", the Horde rebels go "do not want", Thrall goes "um no" and the conflict goes on.
Edited by Kellick on 3/20/2013 6:48 AM PDT
Reply Quote
100 Night Elf Rogue
10935
Don't see how. You said it yourself, the Alliance already has every reason to pull that off, right?

It's looking more and more like the Horde rebels and Alliance will make a tentative agreement before the Siege of Orgrimmar, and killing 'em all is what's in store for Garrosh's supporters anyways. All Varian and/or the Alliance needs to do is say "Yo Horde rebels, I'm really happy for you, and I'ma let you finish killing Garrosh, but you still supported one of the biggest wars of all time." and their motives become totally understandable.

Just expand the Alliance's scope from killing Garrosh's current supporters to his erstwhile supporters for their past actions. The Alliance's actions and motives are no less defensible, and Thrall gets his valid reason to defend the Horde at any cost.


Having the Alliance say "we are going to stay in Orgrimmar to keep watch over you" is far different than "RAWR! I'm gonna kill you all! I'm gonna kill you all!"

Really, there's no reason to do that unless you're trying to make one faction evil.
Reply Quote
25 Blood Elf Paladin
0
Then what would be the point of the Alliance helping the rebels at all? If they wanted them dead they'd just wait for the rebels and loyalists to weaken each other and then move in and destroy them all.

This betrayal adds nothing other than making the Alliance look worse.
Reply Quote
100 Troll Shaman
5930
Having the Alliance say "we are going to stay in Orgrimmar to keep watch over you" is far different than "RAWR! I'm gonna kill you all! I'm gonna kill you all!"

Really, there's no reason to do that unless you're trying to make one faction evil.

That first bit wasn't included in your original post, actually. You mentioned Thrall "preserving" the Horde, but made no mention of why or from what.

Simply put though, it's far easier to raze a city with everyone still inside than it is to turn the entire thing into an internment camp in the middle of the desert which you then have to feed and supervise for generations to come.

And while it's possible the Alliance would be in a position to do the former, I rather doubt they'd be in the position to do the latter while faced with a Horde force similar to theirs in strength, surrounded by three Horde capitals within spitting distance that have gone largely untouched by the war, while their own nearest support is at the other end of the continent.

Certainly, the fact that your proposal assumes Thrall would be able to boot the Alliance out of the city indicates the Alliance probably wasn't in an overwhelmingly superior position to begin with.
Edited by Kellick on 3/20/2013 7:01 AM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Human Death Knight
13050
Rather than plopping the entire conflict on the Horde again, why not have Varian decide, after the Siege of Orgrimmar is concluded, to renege on his supposed agreement with the Horde rebels and just kill everyone in the city, only to have the Alliance pushed out by an outraged Thrall, who then pledges to preserve the Horde at any cost?

That way, the Alliance player base gets to see their faction taking the conflict seriously, you get to see Thrall commit to the war, and the Horde's fight with the Alliance no longer looks like a kid eating glue from the jar, because they'd finally have a good reason to fight.


I wouldn't mind this, but I think it would be another huge 180 for Varian after we just had a patch dedicated to making him a nicer character. It would be really out of character for him to do something like this at this point. Please remember that a lot of people really hated his character when he openly attacked Thrall and I don't see this helping one bit.

I think it should probably be a more furious and vengeful character, like Tyrande or Jaina. Hell, I would like Genn to do something that would actually stir conversation as well.
Reply Quote
58 Undead Death Knight
120
Hopefully the raid ends with neither side leaving the city immediately, until some sort of deal is struck up.

Requiring one side to depart almost as soon as Garrosh hits the floor makes it hard to get a satisfying ending.
Reply Quote
90 Human Death Knight
13050
I think if there were two expansions dedicated to Alliance just straight up pwning Horde, I'd get bored very quickly.

Then again, that doesn't mean I don't want the Alliance to actually do some things that would induce tearful bouts of rage amongst the Horde. Hell even in their most aggressive moments, the Alliance didn't kill anyone of actual importance. (Meanwhile the Horde has gotten away with killing people like Liam Greymane and Marcus Johnathan in their most aggressive moments.)
Reply Quote
All I have seen from Thrall is lip service, lies, and deceit.

In fact, I almost want to say that Thrall has his own dim-lit room with a crytal ball accessory that lets him see all the wanton destruction, chaos, and overall death and carnage that his decisions (or lack thereof) have wrought, and he then wrings his hands devilishly.

"All according to plan" He says, "Let Garrosh make the Horde into a much more destructive War Machine than it ever was, and then kill him, and step in."

"Yes." Kil'jaeden echoes from the twisting nether, "All according to plan."

And then they both maniaclly laugh together, till Metzen descends upon Kil'jaeden and tells him he isn't a god, he doesn't get to laugh.
Reply Quote
90 Human Mage
13505
All I have seen from Thrall is lip service, lies, and deceit.

In fact, I almost want to say that Thrall has his own dim-lit room with a crytal ball accessory that lets him see all the wanton destruction, chaos, and overall death and carnage that his decisions (or lack thereof) have wrought, and he then wrings his hands devilishly.

"All according to plan" He says, "Let Garrosh make the Horde into a much more destructive War Machine than it ever was, and then kill him, and step in."

"Yes." Kil'jaeden echoes from the twisting nether, "All according to plan."

And then they both maniaclly laugh together, till Metzen descends upon Kil'jaeden and tells him he isn't a god, he doesn't get to laugh.


That's in no way bias against Thrall. Nope no Bias there at all

~Aeluron Lightsong
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)

Reported!

[Close]