The Alliance losing and the Horde winning.

Story Forum
Lots of people here seem to be irked by the fact that it seems that the Horde is winning on most fronts.

One, while I haven't played in the beta I do know that Blizzard stated that in most conflicts the Horde and Alliance were supposed to give as much as they take.

Also, if the new music is any indication, I think the Horde being a rising power bent on conquest is supposed to be a major theme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGWTOImNTug

And the Alliance being beset upon on all sides and trying to fight for their homes and families is also a major theme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXhAKAHSe7k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZy9ziutmaA&feature=related

I don't think it's a sign of weakness in the Alliance, the Alliance was simply hit harder by the cataclysm and the Horde took advantage. No, the Horde isn't about to destroy the Alliance, Blizzard isn't about to completely alienate half their playerbase.

Also, I think a lot of it has to do with the way the questlines were rearranged. Areas which both the Horde and Alliance are supposed to quest that aren't dominated by a neutral faction show fights breaking out between the two sides. Areas that were once used by both factions but now only one faction quests in has that "winning" faction destroy the other one. Like Southshore being destroyed in the Hillsbrad Foothills, on top of the fact that it primarily served as a hub for high level Alliance players to gank Horde questers and the fact that the Alliance players that WERE there to quest were a whole 10 levels above the Horde questers.
Are you in the beta per chance?
He says he isn't.

One, while I haven't played in the beta I do know that Blizzard stated that in most conflicts the Horde and Alliance were supposed to give as much as they take.
A mixture between skimming/the ambiguous nature of his pre-answer left me confused. I wasn't sure if he was saying he hasn't been playing much, or if he outright wasn't in.
I'm in the beta.

What's up?

I'm in it more.
Are you in the beta per chance?


Yeah, like I've said, I'm not in the beta.

But I've been following it through videos of the questlines, stuff Blizzard has said and quest texts and the like.
Well let me just clear it up then.

Let's imagine for a moment that the Horde are a...totem pole.

Let's say that totem pole is made of segments of wood.

Now let's say the Alliance are lumberjacks.

With axes on fire.

And we burned down the entire bloody forest.

And have said, "You want some more?"

I don't know where this analogy went but yeah.

Yeah no, the Alliance are doing fine, don't listen to the QQ.
Giggidy

Now let's say the Alliance are lumberjacks.

wait what
It collapsed due to military defeats, yes. But even when it suffered loss after loss - look at the Punic Wars, where Hannibal brought Rome to it's knees, and curb-stomped them at every turn - they still pushed back and kept their pride.


Well they actually fell because of a social apathy towards citizenship.

But that being said, how on earth can you call this anything like the Punic Wars when we're at your door step, not vice versa?
Well let me just clear it up then.

Let's imagine for a moment that the Horde are a...totem pole.

Let's say that totem pole is made of segments of wood.

Now let's say the Alliance are lumberjacks.

With axes on fire.

And we burned down the entire bloody forest.

And have said, "You want some more?"

I don't know where this analogy went but yeah.

Yeah no, the Alliance are doing fine, don't listen to the QQ.


You should then make sticks to create a minepick and create your first shelter!
Seriously though, I doubt people think Blizzard wants to crush the Alliance. They're probably just setting things up for a retaliation from the Alliance.

You should then make sticks to create a minepick and create your first shelter!

Seriously though, I doubt people think Blizzard wants to crush the Alliance. They're probably just setting things up for a retaliation from the Alliance.


I'm confused, what kind of retaliation do we need?

Garrosh thought the Alliance were weak and decided to bite.

He didn't realize that he bit off way, way, way more than he could chew.
Well first off, the Alliance actually still has a slight advantage when it comes to storyline progression, as they have 2 exclusive 20-25 zones (Wetlands and Duskwood) while the Horde only has one (Hillsbrad). Everything above that is contested, and there is an effectively perfect balance in lower levels.

From what I've seen, while it's possible that the Horde have a slight advantage as far as "victories" go, everything is so open to interpretation that any slight imbalance is meaningless.

For example, many players will consider the Stonetalon Mountains as a Horde victory. But I see the Horde wasting their super-weapon on a strategically worthless target, and it's military leadership disgraced and eliminated. The Alliance wind up controlling huge sections of the zone, including the valuable pass into the Southern Barrens, through an alliance with the local Grimtotem. So is it really a Horde victory?

And sure the Alliance lose the fortress of Bael Modan in the Southern Barrens, but they respond to the attack by utterly obliterating the Frazzlecraz Motherlode. Sounds like a case of equivalent exchange to me, and certainly isn't a very decisive victory.

About the only place with a hands-down Horde victory that I've seen is in the Western Plaguelands with Andorhol, and considering that it ends with Koltira being taken to the Undercity for brainwashing, it's not exactly something most Horde players can rally around. Then we look at the undeniable Alliance victory in Swamp of Sorrows, where the Alliance wins a fair fight and never compromises on it's principles. That's a major "Glory to the Alliance!" moment if there ever was one.

Though I play Horde I am in love with the balance of power and not for some Horde favored reason because honestly I envy the Alliance as a player. They are overwhelmed on many fronts, forces divided and a warpath threatens their very existence; but to me there is no greater existence. The Alliance races have dominated Azeroth in one way or another, with exception to Draenei, since the Troll empires were in their primes.

To finally be backed down into a corner with no where to run the Alliance will have to muster everything they have not to win but to survive.

I am fortunate enough to play on a high population server that is completely dominated by the Alliance, my opposing faction by at least a six to one ratio. I'm lucky to see Wintergrasp twice a week even fighting five times a day and I am stronger for it. This situation makes me a better player than I could ever otherwise be and it will make the Alliance of lore strong too.

This is a great turn of events. Rather than every move on the chess board being an absolute even play the Alliance is gains few, but very key, victories and the Horde is overrunning outposts and settlements that the Alliance has held uncontested for years. Warcraft does not need to be a fair match, as long as the Alliance are still in the game and have a chance at come back the story is better for it.

Now let's say the Alliance are lumberjacks.

wait what


THEY ARE LUMBERJACKS AND THEY'RE OKAY!
Just as a side note, the Alliance lost in North Eastern Kingdoms, a place that was not under their control in the first place.

They made huge gains in the Barrens, which is the heart of the Horde.
Well first off, the Alliance actually still has a slight advantage when it comes to storyline progression, as they have 2 exclusive 20-25 zones (Wetlands and Duskwood) while the Horde only has one (Hillsbrad). Everything above that is contested, and there is an effectively perfect balance in lower levels.

From what I've seen, while it's possible that the Horde have a slight advantage as far as "victories" go, everything is so open to interpretation that any slight imbalance is meaningless.

For example, many players will consider the Stonetalon Mountains as a Horde victory. But I see the Horde wasting their super-weapon on a strategically worthless target, and it's military leadership disgraced and eliminated. The Alliance wind up controlling huge sections of the zone, including the valuable pass into the Southern Barrens, through an alliance with the local Grimtotem. So is it really a Horde victory?

And sure the Alliance lose the fortress of Bael Modan in the Southern Barrens, but they respond to the attack by utterly obliterating the Frazzlecraz Motherlode. Sounds like a case of equivalent exchange to me, and certainly isn't a very decisive victory.

About the only place with a hands-down Horde victory that I've seen is in the Western Plaguelands with Andorhol, and considering that it ends with Koltira being taken to the Undercity for brainwashing, it's not exactly something most Horde players can rally around. Then we look at the undeniable Alliance victory in Swamp of Sorrows, where the Alliance wins a fair fight and never compromises on it's principles. That's a major "Glory to the Alliance!" moment if there ever was one.


Think that's contested bud.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum