Solution for the Alliance to leave Orgrimmar

90 Troll Hunter
13060
05/13/2013 01:08 PMPosted by Neeber
And among such reasonable demands would be the Horde withdrawing form the territories they seized in Garrosh's war.

What new lands?

Southshore? Wonderful real estate that is.
Reply Quote
90 Troll Shaman
5420
05/13/2013 01:14 PMPosted by Siast
i posted those losses not for the tit-for-tat that youre assuming but an example of the horde getting graphic, absolute victories

And not a single one of the examples you mentioned fulfill those criteria, seeing as Silverwind happened off-screen and was therefore not "graphic", while the other ones weren't examples of absolute victories against the Alliance.

Hell, Gilneas is an example of an absolute, graphic Alliance victory, given the end result.

So's Durotar, for that matter. Or even much of the Barrens.
Reply Quote
90 Human Death Knight
0
05/13/2013 01:19 PMPosted by Kellick
Hell, Gilneas is an example of an absolute, graphic Alliance victory, given the end result.


Gilneas actually is a pretty good example of the discrepency.

Horde-side, the Forsaken make gains, get pushed back, but then manage to employ unconventional tactics to keep things from going completely sour and, even if they don't pull off a total victory, they stop the Alliance counter-offensive in its tracks, having the story end in at least a stalemate.

Alliance-side, the Gilneans suffer massive setbacks, but just as they start to stall the offensive and push back, everyone suddenly goes "Nope we lost" and you get shunted off to the next quest hub/zone, and the storyline never gets visited again unless you do something like reroll a Horde character or buy the tie-in book or something.
Edited by Arterius on 5/13/2013 1:32 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Hunter
17875

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


I think if Orgrimmar was effectively deleted, EVERY SINGLE HORDE PLAYER would be unhappy and some would quit the game. I don't think anyone stopped paying Blizz $15 a month over Theramore.

You can't just handwave destroying the heart of the Horde as not a big deal.
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Warlock
12610
05/13/2013 01:09 PMPosted by Kellick
theramore, southshore, silverwind, gilneas, andorhal

Retaken by the Alliance, lost to the Horde, kay, lost to the Horde, was never Alliance to begin with and was immediately adjacent to a Horde capital.

Truly, the Alliance suffered devastating losses.

I posit that keeping a checklist of wins and losses is not the metric by which Alliance players should gauge and legitimize their complaints or the quality of their story and or gameplay.


Why not compile a list of Horde losses to counter it then?

You have to either be blind or in denial to think that Ally hasn't lost more than Horde. you damn well know they have. You've admitted many times, albeit with the caveat that it was necessary for re-balancing (since it isn't like zones could be partitioned or new ones created. that is true madness. true madness! they had to be taken from the Alliance, and in as definitive or humiliating a way as possible).

Its two faced. You got what you wanted but you don't want to act like you're happy about it.
Be a man. Blizzard gave Horde stuff they "needed." Why so guilty about it? Why so defensive? The hand-wringing is pathetic.
It is like some guy at an Apple store, bemoaning all the underpaid workers overseas who made his cheap iphone... and then buying the iphone anyway.

As for the contrived "biggest enemy yet" arriving at timely intervals... you're not seeing the obviousness of it. Conflicts don't bounce from one to the next like a pinball. If I were writing a World War MMO, you could have the same "player" go from WW2 to Korea to Vietnam/Afghanistan. You don't need "OMG the Koreans are INVADING! We have to put aside our differences and work together, fascist, communist and democrat! None of us can beat the KOREANS on our own!"

Give SOO some cosmetic damage (do they have a Park to blow up?) and then just say they're rebuilding from the siege however many years later. And there you go.
No different than the time skip in Cata. It really wouldn't make the rest of the world any more chronologically confusing, since it is already a mismatched mess and out of synch with the MoP timeline. Virtually all of the next expansion after the siege will be in NEW ZONES (since old content puts the fear of god in the Devs and prompts mass wetting of pants and rustling of jimmies). So any hypothetical time skip doesn't matter at all, except that we'll probably see Thrall's kids running around somewhere and Anduin will be a little older. Maybe he'll have a goatee.

And you can literally say anything - anything at all - transpired in between SOO and the next expansion. Maybe the Alliance occupied Org for a few years? Maybe Varian and Vol'jin had a "Dude, where's my car" adventure and bonded over it? Maybe Jaina is sitting in a frozen cave somewhere, surrounded by eggs and wondering "what happened to my life?"
Edited by Sardana on 5/13/2013 1:40 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Draenei Paladin
11205
You're wasting your time. Players like Kellick and Bullcowsby are so convinced that Alliance players don't deserve a reasonable story that They don't even have the right to ask for it.
Reply Quote
90 Undead Death Knight
12030
05/13/2013 01:32 PMPosted by Arterius
Alliance-side, the Gilneans suffer massive setbacks, but just as they start to stall the offensive and push back, everyone suddenly goes "Nope we lost" and you get shunted off to the next quest hub/zone,


You do suffer some set back until you decimate the entire forward army and blow up one of the hordes oh so fragile airships. And then it ends. Which I agree was stupid.
Reply Quote
05/13/2013 01:19 PMPosted by Kellick
And not a single one of the examples you mentioned fulfill those criteria, seeing as Silverwind happened off-screen and was therefore not "graphic",


the corpses of the questgivers and vendors still litter the ground while horde npcs tromp over them

i daresay that counts as graphic

while the other ones weren't examples of absolute victories against the Alliance.


theramore is a barren crater

andorhal ends with all of our soldiers being raised form the dead and the alliance getting decimated by the val'kyr

southshore is a puddle of slime

how are those anything less than absolute victory

Hell, Gilneas is an example of an absolute, graphic Alliance victory, given the end result.

So's Durotar, for that matter. Or even much of the Barrens.


why am i not allowed to see the times we supposedly win

more than that, youre arguing over semantics

horde get to see their wins

we do not, and apparently asking for it is too much
Edited by Siast on 5/13/2013 1:57 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Human Death Knight
0
Alliance-side, the Gilneans suffer massive setbacks, but just as they start to stall the offensive and push back, everyone suddenly goes "Nope we lost" and you get shunted off to the next quest hub/zone,


You do suffer some set back until you decimate the entire forward army and blow up one of the hordes oh so fragile airships. And then it ends. Which I agree was stupid.


As soon as the airship gets blown up, the quest text says something to the effect of how it's a great victory, but there's no hope in holding back the Forsaken offensive, now get on the boat so everyone can evacuate to Darnassus.

As I said, as soon as the Worgen player pushes back, the game goes "Nope we lost"

At least we can all agree that it was stupid.
Edited by Arterius on 5/13/2013 1:59 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Troll Shaman
5420
You're wasting your time. Players like Kellick and Bullcowsby are so convinced that Alliance players don't deserve a reasonable story that They don't even have the right to ask for it.

Please, find a single post in which I've said the Alliance doesn't deserve a good story.

I'll wait.

In the meantime, consider the fact that fabricated accusations and straw men arguments are the only thing you've got against myself and how that constitutes harassment, trolling, or both.

Why not compile a list of Horde losses to counter it then?

Durotar, Southern Barrens, Felwood, Darkshore, Tirisfal, Stonetalon, Thousands Needles, Ashenvale, Gilneas, Hinterlands, to name a few.

None of which actually addresses my point (and in fact, actively avoids it), which is that focusing on some scoreboard of wins and losses is not the metric by which we should be judging the quality of each faction's, zone's or character's story.

I do not think it reasonable to demand Blizzard to spend resources to redo most of Cataclysm's content, divert resources to destroying Orgrimmar, then devote even more resources to upgrading another Horde city to capital status & functionality.

Cataclysm suffered from diverting so many resources to retooling the 1-60 experience. Doing so once more so soon only to placate a minority of players who won't be satisfied by anything short of Blizzard actively making the Horde dislike their game experience is an asinine proposition at best.
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Hunter
17875

Why not compile a list of Horde losses to counter it then?

Durotar, Southern Barrens, Felwood, Darkshore, Tirisfal, Stonetalon, Thousands Needles, Ashenvale, Gilneas, Hinterlands, to name a few.


You forgot all the MoP losses. Jade Forest, Little Patience, and of course, the Dominance Offensive.

D.O. especially caused Horde to get stomped 3 times in the face by the victorious Alliance. Bottled up on the beach (the Alliance's stated goal), Divine Bell killed the best Orc warriors on Pandaria then Alliance blew it up, and it made Dalaran join the Alliance.

Finally, we get to destroy Org and take out the leader of the Horde. I don't see the Horde destroying SW and killing Varian this expansion, do you?
Edited by Threeslotbag on 5/13/2013 3:49 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Gnome Mage
19145
Why not compile a list of Horde losses to counter it then?

Durotar, Southern Barrens, Felwood, Darkshore, Tirisfal, Stonetalon, Thousands Needles, Ashenvale, Gilneas, Hinterlands, to name a few.


Wow, just wow. Not a single one of those zones has Horde actually losing anything to the Alliance. In fact, Ashenvale and Stonetalon have the Horde destroy a lot of Alliance bases. The Alliance is literally falling back the entire zone in both.

I guess I have to go with:

You're wasting your time. Players like Kellick and Bullcowsby are so convinced that Alliance players don't deserve a reasonable story that They don't even have the right to ask for it.


I do not think it reasonable to demand Blizzard to spend resources to redo most of Cataclysm's content


Again, let me say this AGAIN: We are not asking them to redo the Cata content. We want them to add to the zones. If they can add phased questing in Durotar and Barrens to tell the Horde story, they can use the same amount of resources to do some phased questing in areas like Ashenvale to tell Alliance story.

Your problem is you don't think it is reasonable for Blizzard to do anything for the Alliance because it might take away from the Horde.

Cataclysm suffered from diverting so many resources to retooling the 1-60 experience. Doing so once more so soon only to placate a minority of players who won't be satisfied by anything short of Blizzard actively making the Horde dislike their game experience is an asinine proposition at best.


Again, we are not asking them to redo the 1-60 experience. Please get that through your head. We want phasing and progression. They are doing it for the Horde in 5.3. Again, why is it so unreasonable for the Alliance to ask for the same?

It is also NOT about making the Horde dislike the game. It IS about giving the Alliance something to like.
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Priest
11090
Again, we are not asking them to redo the 1-60 experience. Please get that through your head. We want phasing and progression. They are doing it for the Horde in 5.3. Again, why is it so unreasonable for the Alliance to ask for the same?

It is also NOT about making the Horde dislike the game. It IS about giving the Alliance something to like.


Again, let me say this AGAIN: We are not asking them to redo the Cata content. We want them to add to the zones. If they can add phased questing in Durotar and Barrens to tell the Horde story, they can use the same amount of resources to do some phased questing in areas like Ashenvale to tell Alliance story.

Your problem is you don't think it is reasonable for Blizzard to do anything for the Alliance because it might take away from the Horde.
I agree. I think we should have something to do with Gilneas and Gnomeregan. It seems strange to still not recovered, especially Gnomeregan.
And yes, I would like a phasing in Ashenvale...
Edited by Serendia on 5/13/2013 4:06 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Human Mage
16115
Wow, just wow. Not a single one of those zones has Horde actually losing anything to the Alliance. In fact, Ashenvale and Stonetalon have the Horde destroy a lot of Alliance bases. The Alliance is literally falling back the entire zone in both.


In Darkshore, the Night Elves slaughtered the Shatterspear trolls. In Ashenvale, they repelled the Horde attacks on Astranaar, Maestra's Post, and Raynewood Tower and took the battle to the Horde camp at Silverwind Refuge.

So yes, the Horde did lose to the Alliance in those two zones.
Edited by Gibbons on 5/13/2013 4:20 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Troll Shaman
5420
05/13/2013 03:54 PMPosted by Neeber
Not a single one of those zones has Horde actually losing anything to the Alliance.

I'm just going to reiterate that you've clearly not done any research on this subject (or you're actively ignoring it and going "nuh uh" while covering your ears in the hopes no one will call you out on your bull, your pick).

Your problem is you don't think it is reasonable for Blizzard to do anything for the Alliance because it might take away from the Horde.

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.

Gosh, I wonder who wrote that? Oh wait, it was me.

Could it be that you're resorting to baseless personal attacks to try and mask the fact your argument falls apart under the slightest scrutiny?

And considering a number of posters in this very thread have asked for the extermination of the Orcs, and other threads have repeatedly been hijacked by people asking for the removal of entire playable races or the destruction outright of Orgrimmar, yeah, I can assert that many people's expectations are wildly out of touch with reality.

If you aren't one of those holding these ridiculous positions, then you've no reason to get so huffy and defensive, and you've certainly no cause to oppose my calling out those positions as ridiculous.
Reply Quote

Durotar, Southern Barrens, Felwood, Darkshore, Tirisfal, Stonetalon, Thousands Needles, Ashenvale, Gilneas, Hinterlands, to name a few.


The fact that this list is so ridiculous gives credibility to the claims of Horde bias better than most posters arguing that the bias is there manage to establish.
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Druid
8985
You're wasting your time. Players like Kellick and Bullcowsby are so convinced that Alliance players don't deserve a reasonable story that They don't even have the right to ask for it.


Wow, I'm impressed that you went back through months of threads to see my opinion on the issue; I'm not sure whether to feel complimented or creeped out. That being said, I'm also a bit disappointed that even after all that research you've misunderstood my point somehow.

I guess I have to go with:


Or you could go with what we're actually saying. You're being hyperbolic and it isn't helping this discussion.

What I do think is realistic (and expected) is that the Alliance players want/get a good story. What I do *not* think is realistic (and should not be expected), is some of the other garbage being tossed around in this thread and others. I find it hilarious (and saddening) that this far into the *subsequent* expansion there is still this mythos of the eternally-losing Alliance and calls for an "eye for an eye" variety of game development.


The fact that this list is so ridiculous gives credibility to the claims of Horde bias better than most posters arguing that the bias is there manage to establish.


You may wish to support that weak quip with something more substantial than your beard, sir.
Edited by Bullcowsby on 5/13/2013 4:53 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Gnome Mage
19145
I'm just going to reiterate that you've clearly not done any research on this subject (or you're actively ignoring it and going "nuh uh" while covering your ears in the hopes no one will call you out on your bull, your pick).


Let me rephrase. In every zone you listed the Horde position is either stronger then it started or the same as when it started. Translation, not a loss.

05/13/2013 04:14 PMPosted by Gibbons
In Darkshore, the Night Elves slaughtered the Shatterspear trolls.


And they where an assault by the Horde, not the other way around. Horde never had a position in that zone, they just didn't gain on. A failed objective, not a loss to the Horde as they never had it to start with.

In Ashenvale, they repelled the Horde attacks on Astranaar, Maestra's Post, and Raynewood Tower and took the battle to the Horde camp at Silverwind Refuge.


They repelled several attacks, but lost others, most notably Silverwind refuge that you mentioned. The Horde camp there was because Horde took it. Sure, Horde did not achieve all their goals, but they lost nothing they didn't have before and gained ground they didn't have. So, again a gain.

A small victory is not a loss simply because you don't get total victory.

Could it be that you're resorting to baseless personal attacks to try and mask the fact your argument falls apart under the slightest scrutiny?


Except that you aren't scrutinizing my arguments, you are not even considering the actual arguments. I say: 'Resources should be spent to progress Alliance story, since they are being used to progress Horde story.' You hear: 'Redo all the low level zones and level Orgrimmar.' I say that: 'if Horde have gotten priority on getting content out when time limits came up in the past, then Alliance should get the same in the future.' You hear: 'Purposely cancel Horde content and make only Alliance.'

My bottom line argument: Blizzard has made Horde content a priority in the past and even including current (5.3). The Alliance content has gone in secondary and lost to Horde content. Resources have gotten allocated to driving forward a Horde story. That is all fact. My belief is that the reverse needs to happen as well. Getting Alliance content out and developing the Alliance needs to step into the priority position for a time. Resources need to be expended to progress the Alliance story equally. If it is okay to do an entire content patch for the purpose of providing Horde progression, why is it wrong to ask that the Alliance get to see its progression as well?

SoO should primarily be Alliance driven. And after the SoO, a few quests/scenarios and some phasing to show the Alliance pushing out and/or forcing the Horde to withdraw from territories like Ashenvale would not take any more resources then 5.3 devoted to the Horde progression. It would be a major boon to the Alliance and give a reason to the Alliance to pull out of Orgrimmar after the raid. It would give the Alliance control for a bit. It is not an unreasonable request. Yet it is consistently received as the end of the world.
Reply Quote


You may wish to support that weak quip with something more substantial than your beard, sir.


The list mentioned was thrown on the table with no support at all. I'll gladly argue the point, but I don't feel it necessary to do so for that reason.

The list was put out as a counter to someone else's post, and yet, consists of no argument what so ever.

Which seems to be the style being used here. Throw out something, don't bother to really support it. When someone like Neeber up there bites, start engaging in pedantic bull crap, and declare that the other side "didn't do their research."

Give me something to argue against other than unsupported claims and condescension. But the burden is not on me to disprove someone else's claim that they do not bother to support.
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Druid
8985
The list mentioned was thrown on the table with no support at all. I'll gladly argue the point, but I don't feel it necessary to do so for that reason.

The list was put out as a counter to someone else's post, and yet, consists of no argument what so ever.

Which seems to be the style being used here. Throw out something, don't bother to really support it. When someone like Neeber up there bites, start engaging in pedantic bull crap, and declare that the other side "didn't do their research."


The question was: list some.

It was a direct answer to that question. No explanation should be needed -- within which the Horde suffered loss to the Alliance. If you don't agree, you're welcome to use wowhead (or go do the questing yourself) If you really want, I can provide you with a detailed list of those losses. I think the assumption here was that we're all well-enough versed in what happened (or able to look it up) that LISTING it is all that is needed.

You then traipse in declare them all "ridiculous" for no reason whatsoever.

So yeah, it would be nice if, when expressing an opinion, you support it with why. I'd be happy to know your point of view.
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]