Solution for the Alliance to leave Orgrimmar

90 Dwarf Warrior
4575
One of the biggest problems of the Siege of Orgrimmar is the Alliance presence in the city after. One way or another, people are gonna be mad.

A couple ideas were suggested
-The Alliance get thrown out of the city. The problem is that it would really suck for the Alliance if that happens.
-The Alliance leaves the city volontereely right after the siege. Way to look like a loser in front of your ennemy faction.
-The Alliance keeps a military presence in Orgrimmar but that would be really annoying for Horde players.
-Orgrimmar is destroyed and Bilgewater Harbor is the new capital. Would new to redo two zones and some Alliance players would whine even if it would be the greatest victory for the Alliance.

None of theses would really work so here's my idea: taking hostages. The Alliance would leave the city with hostages willingly given by the Horde. This would guarantee the Horde wouldn't become super hostile again and peace would be brought back between factions. No need for a lot of hostages, only one or two per race could be good. Maybe none for some races.

It could also create problems with the alliance as some would want their head while others would befriend them. The Horde wouldn't really have any reason to be against that as good treatement would be guaranteed and peace would be back.

Here are some possible hostages. Could also be no-names but having one or two big names could be interesting.
-Eitrigg. Being friend with Tirion and old, Eitrigg could volonteer and go learn more about paladins and other culture.
-The Grimtotem friend of Baine in The Shattering
-Lord Saltheril, the party loving lord in Eversong Woods.

-(SPOILER) That troll druid the Alliance saves in 5.3 (SPOILER)

Just an idea I had.
Reply Quote
05/12/2013 02:29 PMPosted by Cobble
None of theses would really work so here's my idea: taking hostages. The Alliance would leave the city with hostages willingly given by the Horde. This would guarantee the Horde wouldn't become super hostile again and peace would be brought back between factions. No need for a lot of hostages, only one or two per race could be good. Maybe none for some races.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iabC7-9YUG4
Reply Quote
90 Dwarf Warrior
4575
05/12/2013 02:46 PMPosted by Delurk
None of theses would really work so here's my idea: taking hostages. The Alliance would leave the city with hostages willingly given by the Horde. This would guarantee the Horde wouldn't become super hostile again and peace would be brought back between factions. No need for a lot of hostages, only one or two per race could be good. Maybe none for some races.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iabC7-9YUG4

I don't really see why you would be against it, the Alliance would leave the Horde alone and there wouldn't be anymore pointless bloodshed, unless the Horde wants the Alliance to send them a few heads. Hostages would be treated like honored guests.

It could even go by race. If the Forsaken attacks, a Forsaken hostage will be killed. Of course, investigations would be made before executing the hostage to avoid situations like the Twilight's Hammer's assault on a druid meeting.
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Druid
19270
Problem with the whole idea though is that one forsaken killing a member of the Alliance is that they are individual acts....

That means the individual hostage's life is potentially forfeit on the acts of random individuals. That's far too risky for hostages.

One person might decide they hate the alliance regardless and go on a killing spree. The Horde and alliance don't have total and utter control of their citizen's actions... I mean if they did, situations like the defias and the warlocks in the cave outside org could never have happened ever.

When the hostage is dead because of a kneejerk reaction by the Alliance blaming the actions of a random individual on the Horde faction in question, would just lead to war again because the Horde would see it as an excuse just to kill the hostage.

It's not workable.
Reply Quote
90 Dwarf Warrior
4575
Only military movement could endanger the hostage's life. Having one rebel skirmish on a random town can't be considered a war declaration. Moving armies and assaulting major cities with them would, however. A cold war could still be possible. The hostages are just there to prevent other Southshore and Theramore events.
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Druid
19270
Yes but then you'd have the problem with people thinking that because a random rebel is creating havok somewhere that the Horde are still responsible and the hostage's life is forfeit.

Remember not all the members of the Alliance are fair and balanced when things like this happen. Some could call it a covert military action and call for the deaths of the hostages... etc.

Which would just lead to even more war.
Reply Quote
90 Dwarf Warrior
4575
Would also lead to tensions between the Alliance races, wich is what the Alliance needs. I could see Tyrande easily asking to kill an hostage while Varian would try to stop it. Then Worgens could call him Horde lovers, and we have trouble in the faction.
Reply Quote
90 Gnome Mage
19145
Holding hostages, while an interesting idea for some groups, is really not in line with what the Alliance does. It would be very out of character.

Honestly, I think the best solution would be for there to be talks at the end of it. The Horde would concede territories in the treaty. Ideally this would be done as a serious of quests/senarios that both sides see, similar to how Dalaran was done from both sides. Territories phased after.

Going forward a couple things have to happen. Both sides need to feel resentful of the other. And a general peace needs to be acceptable to both sides. This keeps the War simmering, like vanilla, and so it remains WARcraft. But, we go back to a cold war type feel.

Right now the Alliance has plenty of reason to be angry at the Horde. The Horde have zero reason to feel the same way toward the Alliance. Peace with everything as-is is fine for the Horde since they gained, but not for the Alliance. The solution to both is for the Alliance to force the Horde to concede lands. This gives the Alliance closure on the war and gives Horde a reason to feel resentful of the lose. And boom, both sides have the resentment and both sides get a level of closure.
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Priest
11090
I want to destroy Orgrimmar. And leave it as a crater, like Theramore D=.
Reply Quote
90 Dwarf Warrior
4575
I want to destroy Orgrimmar. And leave it as a crater, like Theramore D=.


-Orgrimmar is destroyed and Bilgewater Harbor is the new capital. Would need to redo two zones and some Alliance players would whine even if it would be the greatest victory for the Alliance.

I will add it will also displease to some Horde players.

Holding hostages, while an interesting idea for some groups, is really not in line with what the Alliance does. It would be very out of character.

I don't really see how that is out of character. And the hostages provide a change we can see in game. We will never see the territorial gains in the game, so I don't really consider it a good compensation. And sure, the Horde can give back stolen lands but the Alliance needs to have a way to make sure the Horde will remain friendly and don't take thèses lands back again.

As to why the Alliance should have hostages and not the Horde, I have three reasons.
1) The Horde always was the one to start the war. (Except with the whole Proudmoore thing but that is way smaller than the First, Second and Cataclysmic Wars).
2) Most of the arm that happened in this war was commited towards the Alliance by the Horde (Garrosh and Sylvanas in particular)
3) The Alliance are in Orgrimmar, not the Horde in Stormwind.
Edited by Cobble on 5/12/2013 4:26 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Priest
11090
I will add it will also displease to some Horde players.
I really disgusted with Ashenvale.. The orcs can make their capital in Thrallmar or something, its disgusting and broken world. The Alliance could make crusades to hunt them down like animals.
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Druid
7180
I really disgusted with Ashenvale.. The orcs can make their capital in Thrallmar or something, its disgusting and broken world. The Alliance could make crusades to hunt them down like animals.


I'm so glad that the advocates for total annihilation of one faction are still around.
Reply Quote
90 Troll Shaman
17275
05/12/2013 04:59 PMPosted by Seiryu
I really disgusted with Ashenvale.. The orcs can make their capital in Thrallmar or something, its disgusting and broken world. The Alliance could make crusades to hunt them down like animals.


I'm so glad that the advocates for total annihilation of one faction are still around.


Makes me wish that my Mini Mana Bomb didn't had a cooldown.

Edit: Fixed item ID
Edited by Makco on 5/12/2013 6:14 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Gnome Mage
19145
I will add it will also displease to some Horde players.


Gonna throw this out:
Theramore displeased more then a few Alliance players.
Ashenvale displeased more then a few Alliance players.
5.3 displeased more then a few Alliance players.
Etc, Etc, Etc. Lots more examples.

The fact that a few Horde players wouldn't like something is hardly a valid reason. There really is no compelling reason Orgrimmar can't be destroyed. All the capital perks can be moved to a new area. (Portals, banks, AH, etc call all be moved.)

That said, as cool as it would be for Blizzard to blow everyone's mind, I doubt they will do it. I really doubt Orgimmar in the world will even show an effect of the SoO.

I don't really see how that is out of character. And the hostages provide a change we can see in game. We will never see the territorial gains in the game, so I don't really consider it a good compensation. And sure, the Horde can give back stolen lands but the Alliance needs to have a way to make sure the Horde will remain friendly and don't take thèses lands back again.


Out of character in that the Alliance has no history of taking, holding, etc hostages. It is also a poor tactical move, as whose life really matters enough to the Horde that could be used that way? Faction leaders? Doesn't really make sense.

As to the seeing the territorial gains, that is just it: I think we should see them. Quests showing the withdrawal and phasing to remove Horde NPCs and replace them will Alliance ones. It should happen.

Admittedly it probably wont. Blizzard is fine redoing zones to add to Horde story. After all of kick in the nuts from Cata, Theramore, and the travesty of 5.3 I don't really see a valid excuse not to do some work on Alliance progression and show it in game. It is really unfortunate that it is unlikely to happen. But it is what should happen.
Reply Quote
want to destroy Orgrimmar. And leave it as a crater, like Theramore D=.


I want to make Teldrassil look like Searing Gorge, but we can't all get our wishes.
Reply Quote
alliance leaves because orgrimmar is literally a hole in the desert

with the orcish war machine broken, the forsaken are the only actual threat left within the horde, and we all know that nothings going to happen to the fanboys precious zombiemelons

nothings gained by staying in orgrimmar, watching the peons do nothing

plus the burning legion is on its way

why waste anything on the horde when it could be better spent preparing the alliance for their invasion
Edited by Siast on 5/12/2013 6:48 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Priest
11090
I want to make Teldrassil look like Searing Gorge, but we can't all get our wishes.
The siege of Teldrassil doesnt exist.
The siege of Orgrimmar is a fact, and anything can happen. =). We must expel those dirty orcs of the ancient Kalimdor.
Edited by Serendia on 5/12/2013 6:54 PM PDT
Reply Quote
05/12/2013 06:53 PMPosted by Serendia
I want to make Teldrassil look like Searing Gorge, but we can't all get our wishes.
The siege of Teldrassil doesnt exist.
The siege of Orgrimmar is a fact, and anything can happen. =). We must expel those dirty orcs of the ancient Kalimdor.

Ancient Kalimdor is gone. In reality the continent that is now called Kalimdor West, while the eastern Kingdoms are Kalimdor East, Northrend is Northindor, and Pandaria is Panindor.

Shall it be writen, shall it be done.

But no, really. Ancient Kalimdor was them all, you can't call the current Kalimdor ancient Kalimdor because all land (well, known land except maybe the Azuremyst and Bloodmyst Isles were part of Kalimdor.)
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Priest
11090
But no, really. Ancient Kalimdor was them all, you can't call the current Kalimdor ancient Kalimdor because all land (well, known land except maybe the Azuremyst and Bloodmyst Isles were part of Kalimdor.)
"Ancestral Lands of Kalimdor"
So sounds better?
Reply Quote
05/12/2013 07:13 PMPosted by Serendia
But no, really. Ancient Kalimdor was them all, you can't call the current Kalimdor ancient Kalimdor because all land (well, known land except maybe the Azuremyst and Bloodmyst Isles were part of Kalimdor.)
"Ancestral Lands of Kalimdor"
So sounds better?

Idk, I want to start calling Pandaria, Panindor. It sounds cooler, imo.
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]