Solution for the Alliance to leave Orgrimmar

90 Dwarf Priest
10685
05/13/2013 05:52 AMPosted by Threeslotbag
Did everyone just not pay attention to Syl's post at all?


Her idea that hostages are a good idea because Medieval kingdoms did it was a bad idea.

They also did slavery, women as property, no legal system, and a billion other sociopaths things. Therefore the Alliance should do all those things and become a nightmare distopia worse than Warhammer!


Guh. No.

For a start:
- WoW already has slavery in it.
- None of the nations are known or demonstrated to have a justice system for commoners; any mention of courts are for military or nobility.

Secondly:
- It's essentially a captive diplomat. You are supposed to treat them well, and you only pick people for this that are willing to go (or your own heirs as a sign of self-sacrifice). She pointed out how Jaina would probably be considered a hostage under the old definition.

I think you're entirely too stuck on the connotations of the word in modern usage.
Reply Quote
90 Human Death Knight
0
So pissing off the Horde fanbase is justified because... it's their turn? That's pretty low, mate. It's not like we did any of that crap to you. I, Malidictuim, did not make the decision to blow up Theramore. That was Blizzard.


That kind of unhealthy attitude is not Alliance-specific. There are several Horde players, some on this very forum, who defend Blizzard producing lackluster Alliance content because of factional discrepancies in Vanilla. Basically saying that Alliance players are not allowed to complain about entire quest chains being copy-pasted, suddenly terminated with no resolution, or randomly cut before going live because they had an extra 10-20 leveling zone during the initial launch of the game.

I will agree that it is Blizzard's fault for making it this way, in that they've been encouraging hostility between Alliance and Horde players for years.
Edited by Arterius on 5/13/2013 6:27 AM PDT
Reply Quote
I don't think Maledictum did say it was an Alliance-specific attitude, just that the reasoning was crap in that instance (which it is.)
Reply Quote
90 Troll Shaman
5420
Hostage in the modern sense, and Hostage in the ancient sense laid out by Syl above, do not coincide with "Political Prisoner" which is what Jaina did. That said, I hardly think a diplomatic exchange of important peoples is out of character.

It still flops no matter which definition you use for "hostage" because of the fact we know that apparently, the war is going to keep on rolling after the Siege of Orgrimmar, so the hostage taking would just be "kill an arbitrary number of Horde characters with a predisposition for peace off-screen in order to further shoe-horn conflict", which will provide neither satisfaction nor respite to (or from) anyone.

Honestly, I'm mentally prepared for anything following the Siege of Orgrimmar taking place entirely offscreen. Remember that in the recent Dev Chat doohickey, Kosak hinted that lorewise, Ashenvale would probably be presumably Alliance controlled post 5.4.

The best suggestion I've seen for communicating this would be through the use of scenarios in which you get to clear out some holdouts after a little blurb indicating the Horde's left the place (be it Ashenvale or Gilneas). No idea what the Horde's equivalent scenario(s) would be, presumably something having to do with the theme of rebuilding after a costly war.

@Bullcowsby

Welcome back

Yes, hi!
Reply Quote
90 Gnome Mage
18545
So pissing off the Horde fanbase is justified because... it's their turn? That's pretty low, mate. It's not like we did any of that crap to you. I, Malidictuim, did not make the decision to blow up Theramore. That was Blizzard.


You missed the point. First, Blizzard has made a precedent that a part of the player base not liking a change is not reason not to. And honestly, at this point, giving the Alliance player base something to cheer behind at the cost of a change the Horde player base will not like is entirely justified. Tell me, do you think that the Alliance players should just not get any progression because some Horde wont like it? It is not about sticking it to the Horde players. It is about giving something to rally behind to the Alliance. The fact that some Horde wouldn't like it is not really a reason not to give it to the Alliance.

05/12/2013 09:05 PMPosted by Bradlas
This is a very tough situation. Obviously because of game mechanics we cant just demolish Orgrimmar and decimate the Horde.


Decimate the Horde, I agree. However, there is no game mechanic that functionally stops Orgrimmar from being destroyed. Everything in the city can be duplicated. There is nothing inherent in city that prevents it from being destroyed. Just saying that game mechanics does not really make a good argument against destroying the city.

That's on top of the juvenile assertion that Horde players need to have their experience made deliberately unpleasant because Blizzard didn't cater to their every want.


Again, you miss the point. Horde has been given development at the cost of the Alliance. When the Alliance ask for development, why is a cost to the Horde a valid reason to deny them? You are basically saying; 'Sure the Alliance got screwed over. But, sorry you need to be screwed over again so that the Horde players don't lose anything.' Tell me how that makes sense? The Alliance player do deserve to have a victory over the Horde. We have been promised it and have yet to have it delivered. The Alliance should get its fist-pump moment. The nature of the full war is that for the Alliance to get said victory the Horde must suffer a lost. Horde players don't want to lose is not a compelling reason to deny the Alliance a victory.
Edited by Neeber on 5/13/2013 7:30 AM PDT
Reply Quote
05/13/2013 07:30 AMPosted by Neeber
So pissing off the Horde fanbase is justified because... it's their turn? That's pretty low, mate. It's not like we did any of that crap to you. I, Malidictuim, did not make the decision to blow up Theramore. That was Blizzard.


You missed the point. First, Blizzard has made a precedent that a part of the player base not liking a change is not reason not to. And honestly, at this point, giving the Alliance player base something to cheer behind at the cost of a change the Horde player base will not like is entirely justified. Tell me, do you think that the Alliance players should just not get any progression because some Horde wont like it? It is not about sticking it to the Horde players. It is about giving something to rally behind to the Alliance. The fact that some Horde wouldn't like it is not really a reason not to give it to the Alliance.


I'm not going to rally behind blowing up Orgrimmar. IC or OOC.
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Death Knight
10020
Horde players don't want to lose is not a compelling reason to deny the Alliance a victory.


I keep seeing you make statements like this, or how Horde players don't want to lose "anything" but the point of contention that I have largely been seeing has been in regards to losing a capital city. Many here have even agreed that Horde losses and Alliance gains could be shown afterwards via scenarios in areas such as Ashenvale and Gilneas.

Also it would take more then just a copy and paste to replace a capital city, especially THE capital city of the Horde, but for a moment, lets consider the idea of a new city being elevated to this status. The nearest and easiest would likely be Bilgewater, out of the way, already large, and has some of the vendors needed. Ofcourse you would still need to put in a number of vendors, as well as new buildings to house them. Doesn't help that this would also tick off some Alliance fans that would see the Horde getting recourses allocated to building up a new capital city as Horde bias when the Alliance wouldn't get an equivalent. Not to mention the potential pvp backlash using Bilgewater could cause (people still complain about Garrosh's placement).
Reply Quote
90 Troll Shaman
5420
Sure the Alliance got screwed over. But, sorry you need to be screwed over again so that the Horde players don't lose anything

I love how "not removing multiple playable cities and races" has become synonymous with "actively screwing over the Alliance" in some people's minds.
Reply Quote
90 Human Death Knight
0
I don't think Maledictum did say it was an Alliance-specific attitude, just that the reasoning was crap in that instance (which it is.)


At least to me, his post was implying that it was Alliance-specific.

I may have misinterpreted the part where he says, "So pissing off the Horde fanbase is justified because... it's their turn? That's pretty low, mate. It's not like we did any of that crap to you," but I've found that someone claiming that some type of negative behavior is exclusive to the "other" side tends to be the rule rather than the exception.
Reply Quote
58 Undead Death Knight
120
5.3 or 5.4 should('ve) featured scenarios dealing with stuff like this.

Ashenvale is a biggy, and Gilneas could've replaced that silly ship scenario.

Or better yet, almost all of the resources used on the silly Pandaria scenarios could've been used on relevant ones.
Reply Quote
90 Gnome Mage
18545
I keep seeing you make statements like this, or how Horde players don't want to lose "anything" but the point of contention that I have largely been seeing has been in regards to losing a capital city. Many here have even agreed that Horde losses and Alliance gains could be shown afterwards via scenarios in areas such as Ashenvale and Gilneas.


Just to clarify my personal preference:
I would rather see Ashenvale, Gilneas, etc, zones updated via some quests and phasing or scenarios and phasing. I would like to see Orgimmar with a phase with Alliance troops in it. Then see questing remove the Alliance presence there while also removing Horde presence in other areas. So you see a diplomatic withdrawal. That way, the Alliance gets to gain something from the siege, rather then to liberate a city for the Horde and then go home empty handed.

However, the argument that Orgimmar could not be destroyed because some Horde people would be unhappy with it is not a good argument.

And the same thing is said regarding any time Horde losing ground is suggested. Not just Orgrimmar. To suggest that one side cannot have victories because it means the other has to have defeats is terrible. And it is worse because it is only being argued one direction.

I love how "not removing multiple playable cities and races" has become synonymous with "actively screwing over the Alliance" in some people's minds.


You really like to jump to rather foolish conclusions, don't you. No, telling the Alliance it can't have a victory because the Horde wont like it is 'screwing over the Alliance'. You want to argue against Orgrimmar being destroyed, come up with an argument for it that does not involve telling the Alliance; 'Sorry, we wont like it, tough luck you don't get any victory.'

Bottom line: The Alliance has suffered to the Horde. Blizzard has not given the Alliance any real progression in the war. The story is almost exclusively Horde. The Alliance needs to have victories and gain in game to give them the promise fist pump. The fact that this comes at the cost of the Horde losing is just part and parcel to the full war that Blizzard has created. Horde will have to lose some if the Alliance is to get progression. Does it have to be Orgrimmar? No. In fact, many of us would prefer other areas. But, regardless of what you argue the Alliance gains should be, the Horde will have to lose for that to happen. And, personally I find the argument that Alliance can't win because the Horde fanbase wont like losing something to be a terrible argument.
Reply Quote
No idea what the Horde's equivalent scenario(s) would be, presumably something having to do with the theme of rebuilding after a costly war.


oh dont worry

you dont get scenarios

you can do the alliance ones instead

wont that be fun?

;-;
Reply Quote
90 Human Paladin
14385
Maybe the Alliance builds an embassy in Orgrimmar, This way Orgrimmar is still the Horde base but it would show that the Alliance is keeping an eye on them. I don't see how this is bad and the Horde could build an embassy where the park used to be as well.

Better than having the forever crater in stormwind.
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Druid
8945
First, Blizzard has made a precedent that a part of the player base not liking a change is not reason not to. And honestly, at this point, giving the Alliance player base something to cheer behind at the cost of a change the Horde player base will not like is entirely justified.


Are you equating with decisions made because of time constraints with active, deliberate decisions to screw over part of the playerbase? Are you suggesting that Blizzard set out to somehow make the Horde story freakin' awesome as all Hell with the knowledge that the Alliance would get screwed and their response was "SUCK ITTTTTTT YEEEeeeEEEAAAHHHhhh!"?

Horde has been given development at the cost of the Alliance. When the Alliance ask for development, why is a cost to the Horde a valid reason to deny them?


See above and/or look up the word "intent".

You want to argue against Orgrimmar being destroyed, come up with an argument for it that does not involve telling the Alliance; 'Sorry, we wont like it, tough luck you don't get any victory.'


Such arguments as the ones you ask for have already been made. Perhaps you should search for the forum for threads regarding the topic so that you can see that "we won't like it" is not generally the most common reason given.

For someone who seems quite convinced that we all just "don't get it", you seem to be missing some things yourself.

And, personally I find the argument that Alliance can't win because the Horde fanbase wont like losing something to be a terrible argument.


That's a terrible argument - luckily, it's not the only one (despite your insistence.)

Yes, hi!

@Bullcowsby

Welcome back


HHHaaaaaai

Maybe the Alliance builds an embassy in Orgrimmar, This way Orgrimmar is still the Horde base but it would show that the Alliance is keeping an eye on them. I don't see how this is bad and the Horde could build an embassy where the park used to be as well.

Better than having the forever crater in stormwind.


If it's true that the hostilities continue even AFTER, then this isn't very defensible. How do you have "embassies" in cities with whom you are actively in conflict?
Edited by Bullcowsby on 5/13/2013 9:07 AM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Warlock
12610
Unhappy or inconvenienced Horde players is a sure sign of the forthcoming apocalypse. Just like dogs and cats living together. It was in Ghost Busters.
So, Ally, why do you want to cause the apocalypse? Why do you hate freedom?

After SOO, Alliance should just surrender to Horde and get it over with. Fist pump! Then the Devs can be happy, writing what they love, and Horde players will be happy, because they're so savage and awesome and anti-hero. Ally will be happy, too, because then they can cancel their subs and play another game.
Reply Quote
90 Gnome Mage
18545
Are you equating with decisions made because of time constraints with active, deliberate decisions to screw over part of the playerbase? Are you suggesting that Blizzard set out to somehow make the Horde story freakin' awesome as all Hell with the knowledge that the Alliance would get screwed and their response was "SUCK ITTTTTTT YEEEeeeEEEAAAHHHhhh!"?


No I am not saying that Blizzard set out to screw the Alliance. But their priorities did end up doing just that. Horde story took priority. In fact, it seems that anytime a choice comes up to cut Alliance or Horde, Alliance gets cut. Why can't the reverse be true for once. If content has to be cut, some of it should be Horde content to make sure the Alliance content gets put out. But the real reason for the comment was: Horde fans were saying that the Alliance can't get a victory because the Horde would have to lose something to give it to them. My question: If it is okay for Alliance to lose content, territory, etc so that Horde can get progression, why is the reverse not also true? Goose/Gander.

Such arguments as the ones you ask for have already been made. Perhaps you should search for the forum for threads regarding the topic so that you can see that "we won't like it" is not generally the most common reason given.


And my comment was aimed at a specific argument being made. I did not say that such arguments did not exist. Some with reasonable merit, some without. I was saying that the argument he made was without merit and he should move on to another. Maybe you should try reading the posts I was responding to.

That's a terrible argument - luckily, it's not the only one (despite your insistence.)


Again, I was responding to a specific argument. No where did I say other arguments did not exist.

Again, I personally don't think leveling Orgrimmar is the solution to the Alliance need for gains. But gains should happen as a result of the SoO. Otherwise the Alliance will again take the role of 'just there to forward the Horde story'. Horde losing territory should be a given. And Horde fans not liking losing ground is not a valid argument.
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Druid
8945
Why can't the reverse be true for once. If content has to be cut, some of it should be Horde content to make sure the Alliance content gets put out.


Do you not see how absurd this line of reasoning is? "Blizzard made a mistake and ran out of time for something, so they should accidentally do the same for the Alliance." It wasn't done on purpose -- so to ask why the reverse can't be true would require Blizzard to consciously and deliberately do it, which is then not the same.

One of the "specific arguments" you quoted was from Kellick. I was responding to at least that response. If you want to, we can just keep trading "no yous!", or you can see that my larger point is that what you're asking for simply isn't possible (edit: reasonable is a better word here) and that the "goose/gander" reasoning you're applying is inherently idiotic, myopic, and untenable in this situation.

And Horde fans not liking losing ground is not a valid argument.


It's as valid as "well, it accidentally happened to us, so it should purposefully happen to you." (which is to say not valid.) -- Something I would point out is the "argument" against which other posters were railing.
Edited by Bullcowsby on 5/13/2013 9:31 AM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Troll Shaman
5420
wont that be fun?

Wouldn't bother me. Heck, it might even be argued that'd be the perfect way to demonstrate the contrasting themes of "victorious juggernaut" and "licking its wounds".

The Alliance is mopping up in the areas the Horde ceded after the Siege of Orgrimmar, and the Horde has to help the Alliance clean up its mess by assisting in taking out those holdouts.

My obvious concern would be on how Alliance players would feel having to share a scenario with Horde players, given that we've seen the complaints that typically follow such design decisions.

05/13/2013 09:19 AMPosted by Neeber
If content has to be cut, some of it should be Horde content to make sure the Alliance content gets put out.

Your suggestion wouldn't cut Horde content though, it would force Blizzard to devote massive resources to upgrading an entire Horde city to supercapital, further resources to reflect the destruction of Orgrimmar, then even more resources to revamping the entire 1-60 experience for Horde players, while devoting no resources to any Alliance zones or stories.

In short, your suggestion would guarantee another expansion's worth of whining that Blizzard spends more time on the Horde. And again, it'd be your complaints which forced their hand.
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Druid
8945
Wouldn't bother me. Heck, it might even be argued that'd be the perfect way to demonstrate the contrasting themes of "victorious juggernaut" and "licking its wounds".

The Alliance is mopping up in the areas the Horde ceded after the Siege of Orgrimmar, and the Horde has to help the Alliance clean up its mess by assisting in taking out those holdouts.

My obvious concern would be on how Alliance players would feel having to share a scenario with Horde players, given that we've seen the complaints that typically follow such design decisions.


If the complaints could be avoided, I would be personally fine with that. I don't have a problem being pushed into Alliance lore when it fits the storyline.
Reply Quote
90 Gnome Mage
18545
There are two different cases here.

The first is time lost and one side being cut. This should not have happened in Cata. It should not be happening in 5.3. So far the choice has been to produce more Horde content and cut the Alliance content when time runs out. So going forward, ideally neither side would have content cut when time runs out. However, if/when it does happen next time, whose content should be cut? Should the Alliance content again get the ax so that Horde fans wont be disappointed? Or should the Horde lose some content to make sure the Alliance can get some progression? If it is okay for them to cut the Alliance content in the past, it should be okay for them to cut the Horde content when the situation comes up again.

The second issue is territory. So far it has been okay to put resources into showing the Alliance lose ground (example: Theramore). In 5.3 resources have been diverted to show the Horde story progressing. Territory is updated to show that. Zones have shown Horde growth. The reverse should also be true. We should see resources spent giving the Alliance progression. We should see the Horde lose some territory so the Alliance can have the gain. Goose/gander. If it is okay to divert resources to make sure the Horde see progression, it should be all right to divert resources to see to it that the Alliance sees progression. If it is okay to give the Horde territorial progression and victory after victory, then the Alliance should get to see some territorial progression and at least some victories.

So again: Why is it okay for resources to continually be diverted to showing Horde growth and story, but asking the same for Alliance is somehow inherently wrong?

Your suggestion wouldn't cut Horde content though, it would force Blizzard to devote massive resources to upgrading an entire Horde city to supercapital, further resources to reflect the destruction of Orgrimmar, then even more resources to revamping the entire 1-60 experience for Horde players, while devoting no resources to any Alliance zones or stories.


Firstly, I don't think removing Orgrimmar is the best answer. I just don't think: 'Horde wont like it' is a valid argument.

And secondly, I don't think 1-60 content needs to be updated in order to provide the changes. They have this great tool in phasing that could allow a great deal of development in those areas and not effect low level questing at all.
Edited by Neeber on 5/13/2013 9:45 AM 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)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]