Feelings on this WoW Insider article?

100 Gnome Mage
20935
As for the Blood elves, I just assume he was convincing the other leaders as well. He isnt stupid, he isnt going to jeopardize the Alliance to get back the blood elves. Also none of the faction have a huge reason not to allow the blood elves into the Alliance.(even the drenaei have soften there stance considering what Velen did for them


Or he may intend to. Lets look at an example from Wolfheart.

When the worgan membership was being discussed, most of the initial discussion was between the Gilneans and the Night Elves. All the member nations came for the final discussion and voting.

The same kind of thing could have happened with the Blood elves. Varian is involved in the initial negotiations finding out what they are willing to provide to the Alliance and what they will expect from the Alliance in return. After the initial stage, it would move to a discussion and voting by all the member nations.

Alliance Pandaria quests all involves them kicking the Horde in the !@# every time they attack.


This just tells me you have no idea what you are talking about. Pandaria has been a stalemate.

Besides:
Lytum, It's not an issue of "hitting people back," it's about storytelling, writing, and char. development. That's the crux of our issues.


Thank you.
Reply Quote
100 Human Paladin
16280
They posted another article btw.

http://wow.joystiq.com/2013/04/15/another-take-what-is-the-alliance-missing/
Reply Quote
I like how in the first part of the article, she blames Varian Wrynn for taking our spot as the "Hero" then in the next part beneath it, says Varian Wrynn WASN'T the problem, and then goes on to talk about how the horde didn't experience this problem because they didn't have an Onyxia questline.

There are moments when I can commend Joystiq, and then there are moments when I can't help but put my face to my palm.

The background of the article is also riddled with insults to the alliance players.

Alliance lore and the Alliance storyline in general have both been subjects of contention since some point early in Cataclysm, and the complaints don't seem to be getting any quieter.


First line of the article, and she makes it sound like we're whiny brats who don't know what we're talking about.

And it is incredibly difficult to understand just what all the fuss is about. There isn't a tangible moment that one can point to, there isn't a cohesive example of what has been happening.


Lies in the second paragraph, first line. We have all seen glaring examples of what is wrong with the Alliance. Many are still on this front page.

There's just a sense of unhappiness that is, to Alliance players, absolutely real.


We're totally faking it you guys, we're complaining just to complain.

On the other hand, the Alliance of today was not formed out of any response to any dire threat. The assorted races of the Alliance simply banded together because they had already been working together to begin with


We were already a well established group from the first alliance, but we stayed together becuase of dire threats - Namely, the scourge still roamed the land - and the Legion roamed the stars. Maybe we didn't know about the Legion in its entirety till The Burning Crusade, but it was still enough to stay close friends with our comrades in arms.

The only reason we didn't partner up with the Horde is from bad blood from the first and second wars, right? That and later the whole Daelin Proudmoore incident. The orcs killing elves for lumber certainly also didn't help the issue at hand.

The assault that caused the death of Cenarius was made by an orc who succumbed to bloodlust, and then sought out and killed the source of that bloodlust, leaving the orcish race to live their lives in relative peace and quiet -- which was what Thrall wanted.


Does this writer have her head in her !@#? Thrall settled in Durotar to make his people pay for their past transgressions, not live in relative peace and quiet. One does not atone for thier sins so heavy in peace and quiet, that goes double for the orcs of the horde.

In Cataclysm, the Alliance spent the majority of the expansion getting smacked around by the Horde, who had a new and far more bloodthirsty leader in Garrosh Hellscream. For Horde players, this was interesting because it introduced a new dynamic.


Show of horde hands, how many of you actually liked Garrosh or the direction he was taking the horde in? I legitimately want to know without causing a $%^-storm here.

Instead, the story focused largely on Thrall, a character that Alliance players viewed as a Horde character, regardless of the fact that he'd stepped down.


Even after stepping down:

1. Recruited the Goblins to the Horde
2. Continues to wield the symbols of former Horde prowess (Doomhammer, Horde inscripted totems)
3. Goes out of his way for the Horde, allows the Alliance to fend for itself.

that's where the biggest issue comes into play -- reactive vs. proactive storytelling.


Is this being written by a bipolar person? I could have sworn earlier she said something along the lines of no tangible moments or exactly what all the fuss is about.

Also to the writer(s) of this article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWkxvIaKsFU

You have successfully weeded your way into Part 1 of the Issue of the Alliance Storyline.

since Varian's return, Alliance players have been relegated, willingly or no, to more of a spectator role -- and it's a role they're incredibly unhappy with.


Blames Varian for our unhappiness, when it was mentioned earlier that he wasn't the problem as opposed that he actually was the problem.

WHICH IS IT!?!?

In closing, No Gandred, we were not represented well in this article. From all outsiders looking in, this was written by someone with a more jaded and biased opinion of Alliance vs. Horde.

http://wow.joystiq.com/2013/04/15/another-take-what-is-the-alliance-missing/


I read the very last paragraph and now feel I must read the whole thing
Edited by Seebach on 4/15/2013 1:58 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Human Paladin
15205
Vanilla - Horde has Thrall, Alliance has nobody (not even Malfurion)
BC - Horde have Nagrand and Thrall's backstory and Garrosh, Alliance have mutated Draenei and a missing Turalyon
WotLK - Garrosh get's his wings and becomes a hero, Alliance get a puppet leader and loses Bolvar
Cata - Thrall gets forced into the face of the Alliance as the hero of Azeroth, Alliance get a dead Bronzebeard
MoP - Horde gets an upheaval story that takes up two patches and a raid instance, Alliance get to tag along for giggles

To even think that there is a balance in the story in terms of excitement, character involvement, and personal motivations is absurd. Horde are so heavily favored it's pathetic.
Reply Quote
100 Draenei Shaman
14970
They posted another article btw.


I couldnt help but disagree with quite a few things.

Take Mists of Pandaria, for example. Why is the Alliance on Pandaria? Because the Horde got there first.


Uh, the Alliance was there first, heck the only reason the Horde decided to sent there whole fleet was because we got there first and small head Garrosh didnt like that.

Why is the Alliance bringing down Garrosh Hellscream? Because Vol'jin began his rebellion and we chose to aid him and follow his lead.


Err, could it be we are trying to bring down Garrosh because he bomb Theramore and started a world war? The Alliance had every intention of invading with or without Vol'jin rebellion. However the Alliance decide to exploit the situation and help him so it would cost the Alliance less in the long run.

When is the last time the Alliance chose to take an action independent of the Horde?


In Cata when Varian decide to storm Twilight Highland because of the cultist there. Or how about in Wrath when the Alliance went to Northrend? Or heck,
Edited by Zerde on 4/15/2013 1:51 PM PDT
Reply Quote
I feel like I wrote this second article, but from the hands and mind of someone far more eloquent than myself.

Updated my first post to reflect writer gender.
Edited by Seebach on 4/15/2013 1:59 PM PDT
Reply Quote
- The Alliance victories need to have lasting effects

- Race leaders other than humans, leading, would be widely accepted and praised (especially gnomes, worgens, and Nelves)

- Making the Alliance something else than guest stars in the Assault of Orgrimmar would be great, even taking the opportunity and show in game the Alliance retaking Ashenvale. Ashenvale back to the Alliance would be a HUGE morale boost to the Alliance.

- And most important of all, Varian need to be shown as the leader supposedly he is. He is nowhere as epic as Anduin Lothar, doesnt get as much exposure as Tirion once did. IF I have to choose an important human leader alive in Azeroth, it would be Tirion. Varian should be glad Tirion isnt interested in leading the Alliance.
Reply Quote
90 Draenei Monk
18635
And most important of all, Varian need to be shown as the leader supposedly he is. He is nowhere as epic as Anduin Lothar, doesnt get as much exposure as Tirion once did. IF I have to choose an important human leader alive in Azeroth, it would be Tirion. Varian should be glad Tirion isnt interested in leading the Alliance.


One thing we don't need is more Varian.
Reply Quote
1 Human Mage
0
I guess there's no argument against the fact that Alliance lore is boring. It's totally reactive, like the article said.

And some pieces of it are outrageus and dumb, they don't feel right. Alliance helping the Horde to take Garrosh down, instead of watching the Horde falling apart and then wipe the floor while they're weak? What kind of "war" is that? Is the Alliance really buying this "it was Garrosh who nuked Theramore, it wasn't the Horde" cheap talk all over again? Wrathgate wasn't enough?

Just doesn't feel like 2 factions at war ...
Reply Quote
90 Orc Warlock
10490
Show of horde hands, how many of you actually liked Garrosh or the direction he was taking the horde in? I legitimately want to know without causing a $%^-storm here.


I've made my point about being dragged along behind a screaming maniac before. There was a lot of talk about how he wanted to make the Horde Proud again, but even in Cata he was acting like a bipolar Sith Lord.

[It doesn't] feel right. Alliance helping the Horde to take Garrosh down, instead of watching the Horde falling apart and then wipe the floor while they're weak?


This keeps coming up.

I still think the Seige of Orgrimmar is a terrible idea. You can't have Alliance in Orgrimmar without bringing up the question of "why dont' they just destroy the Horde then and there?" It forces a side to lose, basically. I don't mind being forced to a draw, losing battles, losing ground. I don't even really mind losing the war in general. But being put in a position where there isn't any logical reason not to have your side destroyed? To be "spared" by NPC mercy and stupidity from a situation we were put into by NPC stupidity and agression?

I'd almost rather they just put everyone to the sword and call it a day. Vol'jin and the Horde Rebels had better have a VERY Convincing argument to not be wiped out. I'm pro-Horde in general, and I really am having a tough time coming up with a reason the Alliance shouldn't be sitting further back and waiting for Vol'jin to lose more troops first.
Edited by Grimauna on 4/15/2013 2:48 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Warlock
9535
I really am having a tough time coming up with a reason the Alliance shouldn't be sitting further back and waiting for Vol'jin to lose more troops first.


That's my real gripe about it as well. It doesn't feel realistic at all. If anything, it makes the Alliance look stupid. Vol'jin's rebellion is growing, and he will likely become a threat to Garrosh. Why would the Alliance involve themselves in this civil war? Especially considering, as the article stated, that Vol'jin would likely be a more threatening enemy than Garrosh, simply because he is smarter.

I did find the second article to be an excellent read. Even the non-alliance specific points, such as why someone might like one Hero and dislike another, was quite insightful. Very good read.
Reply Quote
I think that the speech by Taran Zhu to Lor'themar and Jaina at the end of the Isle of Thunder story arc is foreshadowing what will happen after the siege. Both sides will simply put down their weapons and walk away.
Reply Quote
In summation

1st one - Bad

2nd one - Good
Reply Quote
100 Night Elf Druid
13495
On the subject of Alliance involvement in the Horde civil war:
I don't know if it is mentioned in the beta/5.3, but players know that Garrosh god the dead Old God and probably has sinister plans about it that could threaten the Alliance if left uninterrupted. This would give the Alliance a more solid reason to join in the fight early, rather tan watch the Horde battle it out with the rebels first.

The argument used in-game, I believe, is that the Alliance is helping Vol'jin in order to minimize their own casualties by keeping the Horde occupied with the rebels. That is a good argument, but it ignores that to many Alliance people (I won't speculate on how many), there isn't that much of a difference between the rebel Horde and Garrosh's Horde.

Thrall's Horde fought the Alliance. Under Thrall, the fight in Ashenvale occurred. The use of human subjects in Forsaken experiments went on. The attack on the Broken Front occurred even as the Alliance fought both factions' mutual enemy. The Wrathgate occured (This wasn't done by the Horde, but was done by former Horde members using Horde(Forsaken)-developed weapons.)

So, while we kill more of one type of Horde - Garrosh's Horde, we save some lives of the other type - Thrall/Vol'jin's Horde. Both groups have shown that they do not balk at killing Alliance. Why, unless Garrosh becomes a bigger threat to the Alliance, should we bother taking sides at all instead of letting them kill each other and lowering the total amount of 'Horde' soldiers?

Garrosh used the mana bomb, but the people of Theramore would be dead whether they were killed by the bomb or hacked apart by Horde soldiers. And while the bomb saved the Horde many casualties, we do not so far see Garrosh trying to produce more of them and make that part of his war strategy. Unless something changes, in the eyes of many of the Alliance, Garrosh's Horde differs from Thrall's Horde only in that they won't feel guilty when they kill you.

So, if evidence surfaces that Garrosh has a new powerful weapon that poses real threat of destruction to the Alliance, it'd make perfect sense for them to seek out the rebels and use their superior knowledge of the Horde to disrupt Garrosh's plans before they come to fruition. Otherwise, why should we* support one Alliance-killing Horde over the other?

*Note: I am not trying to speak for every single Alliance player, just the group of those that share this opinion.
Reply Quote
In summation

1st one - Bad

2nd one - Good


Neither convinced me. The second was especially unconvincing. I like SI:7. Indeed, the second was even less convincing than the first. The rah rah Alliance stuff is boring.

Have Ferlion write article no. 3. He's the one who came closest to what I think is the problem.
Edited by Sybhyl on 4/15/2013 4:33 PM PDT
Reply Quote
100 Gnome Mage
20935
I think that the speech by Taran Zhu to Lor'themar and Jaina at the end of the Isle of Thunder story arc is foreshadowing what will happen after the siege. Both sides will simply put down their weapons and walk away.


Which would be the worst possible ending for so many of us. I still say the best way to end it is let the players see at least some of the peace negotiations. Then let the players see the Alliance pull out of Orgimmar as agreed while also letting them see Horde pull out of other contested areas they agreed to.

It could be done as a small content patch to wrap up the story of the expac. The way the have been doing the patches in MoP actually affords a wrap up that we didn't have before. So, they can give the Alliance tangible gains, set the world and the stage for the next expac.
Reply Quote
100 Human Warlock
15800
Heres some of my reasons why I didn't like cata alliance side.

Our wins weren't felt as much as Horde victories. Mostly phasing.

Were reactive than proactive. I would have loved to partake in what led up to S barrens. With the sacking of Honor stand and Camp Taurajo.

I do agree, they are fixing the problems. I think one of the main reasons Alliance players didn't like it was due to we were reactive too much, than proactive.
Reply Quote
It's a well written article, it has some thought behind it, but I don't exactly agree with it.

And yes, asking for a victory is what got us MoP with the last boss being a pretty big victory for the Alliance thematically.

But, you know, again victory wasn't the problem and it's not going to help.


I don't think Garrosh is a big victory for us anymore.

He isn't even Horde.

He's the big bad. The Horde is now united to take him down.

Thus, taking down Garrosh isn't taking down the Horde. If we wanted to take down the Horde, we'd be fighting Voljin and his Rebels, which now more or less officially make up the vast majority of the Horde, or at least of the non-Orcs. Right now, Garrosh is just as much Horde as Kargath Bladefist was Horde in Hellfire Citadel - IE, not at all.

Now, we're just helping the Horde. We are "Uniting against a greater evil," and even worse, Orgimmar is now basically off-limits to us. We don't get to sack it, we need to leave it just like it was for the good of our "allies." The Horde is triumphantly taking back to their home from an aggressor and a tyrant.

Seige of Orgimmar, unless something drastic happens, is now a Horde storyline with the Alliande as also-rans.

If most of the Horde was still loyal to Garrosh, and/or we were actually making plans to make sure the Rebellion wasn't able to harm us after Vol'jin inevitably takes the Warchief's throne, it would feel a lot more like an Alliance storyline.
Reply Quote
90 Human Warlock
9825
I think that the speech by Taran Zhu to Lor'themar and Jaina at the end of the Isle of Thunder story arc is foreshadowing what will happen after the siege. Both sides will simply put down their weapons and walk away.

That scene just sickened me. Frankly they should already have been fighting not sitting there waiting for Taran Zu to make his grand entrance. Second, Jaina should have said the obvious -- "I stood by and let the Horde slaughter my own father in order to reach peace, and you dare talk to ME about "just walking away"??" (And then ice blocks Taran Zu and goes back to fighting the Horde.)

In summation

1st one - Bad

2nd one - Good

Thats pretty much it.

I liked these quotes in particular from secojnd article:
Except the story does not hesitate to knock us down a peg. What happens immediately after that quest ends? Taran Zhu, leader of the Shado-Pan, arrives on the scene. He chastises you and those in command of the Alliance forces. He is haughty and arrogant, dismissive of why you attacked the Horde (they tried to murder our freaking prince!), and then goes on to explain that the land of Pandaria itself will rise against us if we fight. In seconds, the rush of that victory is taken away. We are, in fact, degraded for fighting the war we've been forced to fight.

Worse still, the continent we land on is custom-made to cheapen our victory via the Sha and ensure no further victories on that land will bring satisfaction. Maybe that's very realistic, real war isn't supposed to be satisfying in the real world, but this is a fictional war in a fictional world. If you want to continue participating in the medium, you need satisfaction. Pandaria will not provide.


That's it. Essentially Cata: Horde wages a war of conquest, with Ally losing just about everywhere. AND having to follow the story of the Horde Hero Thrall. The ally story in MoP absolutely should have been our counterattack, making wins, and taking the fight all the way to the Horde capitals. Instead, the first half of Cata is all about shifting blame for the Horde's war entirely onto Garrosh, and putting the ally into full Lawfull Ballless Overdrive.
Reply Quote
It's also pretty silly that the theme of MoP in some ways has been "Why do we fight?" and implies that both Horde and Alliance are fighting for petty reasons rather than noble ones, and that we need to learn to fight to defend our homes and families instead.

That is silly to the point of insulting to Alliance folk.

We already know what we are fighting for.

We are fighting for family and home.

The Horde, canonically, currently has a mission to kill us all. Sylvanas and Garrosh (Who was, up until he started attacking the Darkspear, apparently at least nominally supported by the rest the Horde) have both, in the very recent past, openly declared their intent to wipe one or more races of the Alliance from the face of Azeroth.

That is why we fight. To keep the Horde from wiping us out.
Edited by Jaelara on 4/15/2013 7:09 PM PDT
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]