Solution for the Alliance to leave Orgrimmar

55 Draenei Death Knight
470
Seeing as how varian is a wolf and the Alliance are a wolf pack....voljin might wave a bone in front if the Alliance face and toss it far away from orgrimmar. As a pana once said, it is in their nature.
Reply Quote
100 Tauren Druid
11055
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?


How are resources being diverted? How is the Alliance not receiving any resources for development? Does the Alliance receive no lore in the "divertered-resource updates" for the Horde? What zones are you so absolutely worried are getting only Horde-lore, Horde-growth updates and giving the finger to the Alliance? Stop and think about it... is the Alliance really not seeing any progression in these things?
Edited by Bullcowsby on 5/13/2013 9:47 AM PDT
Reply Quote
100 Troll Shaman
5930
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?

Are you familiar with the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?"?

It is the most widely recognized example of a loaded question, one which cannot be answered within the options set in the question without accepting a premise (ie. that you, at some point, were beating your wife).

In this case, your question implies both that people believe that Alliance getting growth and story is inherently wrong (which is a load of bull), and that resources were diverted to show Horde growth and story (you cited a single scenario and an unreleased patch in which nothing of the sort happens as evidence of such).

I would argue that the premises by which you'd have us argue are false from the word go, and that you're just trying to skew the argument in your favour by having us accept inherently bogus arguments.
Reply Quote
55 Draenei Death Knight
470
Do you want new things like raid or do you want Alliance to get more development?
Reply Quote
100 Tauren Druid
11055
Do you want new things like raid or do you want Alliance to get more development?


But this is the problem - the two are not mutually exclusive, just as the Horde getting development and the Alliance getting development are not mutually exclusive.

The suggestion that somehow development for one is inherently at the loss of development of the other is one of the problems at the root of this ridiculous discussion.
Reply Quote
100 Blood Elf Rogue
6255
No, after the defeat of Garrosh, a new boss appears which is considered to be far more urgent than their petty wars. They would then discuss briefly saying things a long the lines of:

"Our differences must have to wait, this new foe must be dealt with for the sake all our existence!"

To make matter more convincing, Wrathion appears out of no where reminding them the fury of the Burning legion.

So the party is then ported out of Orgrimmar and into wherever place this new entity lives in. After the new entity is defeated and the world is thus, once again, saved, two ports will appear, one for SW and one in Org. Due to the heavy causalities taken by the Alliance away team, Varian and Jaina takes the SW port cursing under their breath and the Rebel faction thanks them.

The two faction now licks their wound and prepare for war against the Burning Legion. This way, everyone, sorta kinda wins? Also, since there is a new threat and both faction prepares in defense of Azeroth, the Alliance and Horde neither gain or lose territory. This leaves the devs not needing to change anything for the upcoming expac. This way, the Alliance save face by not walking away from Org, and at the same time, saves devs a lot of work!
Reply Quote
100 Tauren Druid
11055
I'm sure there are many Alliance players who would find it a "slap in the face" regardless.
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Warlock
12610
Awfully convenient that these "greater threats" always appear to bail out a certain faction.

And by convenient, I actually mean contrived.
Reply Quote
100 Tauren Druid
11055
Awfully convenient that these "greater threats" always appear to bail out a certain faction.

And by convenient, I actually mean contrived.


I'm not sure "always" is the appropriate adverb here -- regardless, though, who would have thought that a fictional narrative wouldn't be entirely organic.

It's almost as if it's being written rather than actually happening.

(People have argued for years that without these necessary contrivances, Warcraft would have ended long ago and that both factions would be gone.)
Reply Quote
100 Blood Elf Rogue
6255
Awfully convenient that these "greater threats" always appear to bail out a certain faction.

And by convenient, I actually mean contrived.


Yeah, kinda sucks. But it's very practical from the dev standpoint imo.
Reply Quote
100 Human Death Knight
13515
05/13/2013 10:16 AMPosted by Bullcowsby
People have argued for years that without these necessary contrivances, Warcraft would have ended long ago and that both factions would be gone.


And these contrivances are incredibly destructive to the narrative. There's a reason comic books and sitcoms are generally not considered the pinnacle of writing, because the writers typically have to return to the status quo by the end of the episode.

Couple that with Cataclysm, where numerous zones ended with dangling plot threads, and the devs' stated lack of any drive to resolve any of them. They've used the "do you want updated content or a new expansion?" excuse worryingly often recently to deflect questions about old content. And they've done it for both Ally and Horde, from Ashenvale to Quel'thalas.
Reply Quote
100 Tauren Druid
11055
05/13/2013 10:38 AMPosted by Arterius
And these contrivances are incredibly destructive to the narrative.


You say destructive, I say necessary.

Without them there IS no narrative because things would have resolved long ago.

So yes, destructive... in that they're destroying the very narrative they are used to create. /ooooooo
Reply Quote
100 Tauren Druid
11055
Of course, this can be resolved without such a contrivance but, as the OP points out, such a resolution would be unpalatable to the Alliance playerbase.
Reply Quote
100 Human Death Knight
13515
You say destructive, I say necessary.

Without them there IS no narrative because things would have resolved long ago.

So yes, destructive... in that they're destroying the very narrative they are used to create. /ooooooo


It's destructive because the narrative is static. No one can win. No one can lose. All playable races must join the Alliance or Horde because all playable races must be in the Alliance or Horde. Once in the Alliance or Horde, they must remain in the Alliance or Horde, even if it goes against all reason or sense.

If Blizzard dropped the dual faction system entirely, they could take the story in a million different directions. With it, it is laughably predictable. Whatever results in as few changes as possible is the most likely route.
Reply Quote
100 Tauren Druid
11055
Oh, I agree. That was my point -- they're necessary contrivances to keep this story going (which is an important goal for a company seeking profits).

So then the options people seem to be providing:

-Alliance gets kicked out
-Alliance leaves willfully because reasons unrelated to big baddy
-Horde loses -stuff- (territories, cities, etc)
-Some sort of weird Alliance presence
-Big Baddy threatens the world

Well, the first two options are anathema to Alliance players because it makes them look weak. The third is logistically and pragmatically less feasible (in terms of development time and resources) and may also be upsetting to Horde players. The fourth doesn't make sense given what we understand the post-SoO situation to be.

I imagine this is Blizzard's general reason for going with the fifth option so frequently -- it gives both factions a way to save some face while launching the story forward into a new expansion storyline. Is it contrived? Sure it is -- but there are numerous examples of derp moments throughout the Warcraft storyline on both sides. At least the fact that it consistently happens indirectly lends legitimacy to it happening again.

Players can dislike it all they want and gnash their teeth at horrible storytelling, but given the other options which is the least of the evils?
Edited by Bullcowsby on 5/13/2013 11:17 AM PDT
Reply Quote
100 Gnome Mage
22060
But this is the problem - the two are not mutually exclusive, just as the Horde getting development and the Alliance getting development are not mutually exclusive.


In theory I would agree. If Blizzard was doing things that way, all would be good. But, consider Cataclysm. Why was the Alliance experience so poor? Simple, resources where applied first to the Horde content which was mostly flushed out. When time ran out it was the Alliance content that got the bulk of the cut. Look at 5.3. Again, the development is almost exclusively Horde. So, yes, in theory both sides should get content. In practice that is not happening.

But, we digress. The idea of lose is not necessarily in lose of development. The Horde can experience the withdrawal as well. There is no reason to say that Horde cannot get any story out of it. However, the Alliance does need to see progress. Blizzard really needs to show the Alliance coming out of SoO with a gain. To do that, they really need to show, in game, territorial progression. The Alliance either pushing Horde out, or forcing their hand in the wake of SoO and making them withdraw. In this way the Horde (faction, not players) does have to lose. An idea that really gets some Horde fans worked up.

I would argue that the premises by which you'd have us argue are false from the word go, and that you're just trying to skew the argument in your favour by having us accept inherently bogus arguments.


Except that the Alliance lacking development is not really something that can be contested. It was admitted as a problem by Blizzard. It is not a question of whether or not the Alliance lost content because the focus has been on Horde first. MoP was supposed to be an improvement. And it started out much better then Cata. Now 5.3 is a repeat, but worse, of the same mistake. Resources have been spent developing the Horde content and little to nothing left for the Alliance development. This leaves the Alliance playerbase understandably frustrated and concerned about the direction that the content will go. I am not asking that the Horde content automatically get scraped. What I do think needs to happen is developmental priority shift to the Alliance for at least a time. This way if/when content does get cut back, the Alliance content is not what is cut. It is a simple matter of: They have been cutting back Alliance content and providing more Horde content, so they need to prioritize getting Alliance content out the door since it is dramatically behind.

So then the options people seem to be providing:

-Alliance gets kicked out
-Alliance leaves willfully because reasons unrelated to big baddy
-Horde loses -stuff- (territories, cities, etc)
-Some sort of weird Alliance presence
-Big Baddy threatens the world

Well, the first two options are anathema to Alliance players because it makes them look weak. The third is logistically and pragmatically less feasible (in terms of development time and resources) and may also be upsetting to Horde players. The fourth doesn't make sense given what we understand the post-SoO situation to be.


This is kind of what I have issue with. Using resources to forward the Horde story (see patch 5.3) is somehow okay. Using resources to forward the Alliance story (Territorial progression) is somehow to much to ask.

Look, Barrens got an update. Horde got new phased quests to defend Sen'jin and take Razor Hill. Horde have an extra scenario added to their list just to tell the Horde story. Could the same level of resources not be spent with a quest chain removing Horde from areas in Ashenvale or the like? We are talking about a few quests or a scenario removing the Horde and then phasing to replace Horde NPCs with Alliance NPCs. If Horde can get the added attention we see in 5.3 to progress their story, why can't the Alliance get the same in 5.4?
Reply Quote
100 Tauren Druid
11055
This is kind of what I have issue with. Using resources to forward the Horde story (see patch 5.3) is somehow okay. Using resources to forward the Alliance story (Territorial progression) is somehow to much to ask.

Look, Barrens got an update. Horde got new phased quests to defend Sen'jin and take Razor Hill. Horde have an extra scenario added to their list just to tell the Horde story. Could the same level of resources not be spent with a quest chain removing Horde from areas in Ashenvale or the like? We are talking about a few quests or a scenario removing the Horde and then phasing to replace Horde NPCs with Alliance NPCs. If Horde can get the added attention we see in 5.3 to progress their story, why can't the Alliance get the same in 5.4?


And here is the crux of the matter -- you see none of this as Alliance development. If what you want is strictly Alliance development that only the Alliance gets to see, then I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps you can petition Blizzard to have Varian go all crazypants dictator, causing a sort of civil war among Alliance members, leading up to and including fighting in Redridge or Duskwood and a siege of Stormwind. Then you can have an extra scenario helping tell the story. You can also have a phased event where Varian makes a move on <insert towns/starting cities). Sound good?

(In case it wasn't obvious, that was rhetorical and the entire paragraph was meant to show you that the Alliance *is* getting development and their story *is* progressing, but the nature of the storyline itself means that the Horde seems to get the limelight (though you never once acknowledge that as a negative light. I guess any direct attention is good attention in your eyes?)

05/13/2013 11:52 AMPosted by Neeber
What I do think needs to happen is developmental priority shift to the Alliance for at least a time.


Hard to accomplish when the storyline is taking place primarily in Horde zones and the "big baddy" is a Horde character :) But sure - I can get on board with the Alliance becoming the Big Evil and being stupid and causing a ruckus for the sake of a story! Bring on the siege of Stormwind!
Edited by Bullcowsby on 5/13/2013 12:10 PM PDT
Reply Quote
the alliance has to have a victory and concession of territory after the siege, otherwise there was literally no point to the worgen and night elven stories in cataclysm

well honestly there was no point to the worgen but thats neither here nor there
Reply Quote
100 Tauren Druid
11055
otherwise there was literally no point to the worgen and night elven stories in cataclysm


I'm not sure I agree -- how is a win and a territorial concession the linchpin of the Night Elven storyline in Ashenvale from the last expansion?
Reply Quote
I'm not sure I agree -- how is a win and a territorial concession the linchpin of the Night Elven storyline in Ashenvale from the last expansion?


because the night elven story in cataclysm revolved around garrosh's aggression and the horde's rapid expansion through night elven territory by using the cataclysm as a catalyst to allow them to do so, when normally they wouldnt have otherwise; even wrathion comments on this, making it a plot point not just for the night elves, but for the alliance as a whole

the story alliance side in ashenvale is so incredibly bad that it might as well not exist, and visually, for all intents and purposes, it doesnt

they need their comeback moment, or at the very least, warchief voljin telling the horde to get the !@#$ outta ashenvale/tyrande personally murdering every orc in the forest
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]