The Masterplan for Sylvanas

Story Forum
Prev 1 7 8 9 Next
11/10/2018 11:25 AMPosted by Mellow
11/10/2018 10:43 AMPosted by Yagarr
Virtually every person agrees Sylvanas is a Hitler analogy and her decisions are neither moral nor intelligent. (I.e. Burning the Horde's only advantage in an otherwise 50/50 war, instead of using it to negotiate from a place of power.)


Well, if you think of Stormheim as Pearl Harbor, she would be a Truman analogy...

But is still think maybe she went too far.

It would have made sense if they were losing too many troops and she wanted to end the fighting by crushing their hope. Instead it's, we won gg way to go, now we just need to occupy the city and... ITS GONE.

You can't even say that it worked in our favor in anyway. Hell the NE might have been made stronger because of it.
11/10/2018 11:44 AMPosted by Kirango
11/09/2018 03:40 PMPosted by Deathisfinal
Speaking of division and choice:

"Beyond that," he added, "once you play a choice like that, you have to follow it through, so in subsequent quests that come out, you're going to be on the side you pick, and we'll see what comes of that, if you're right or wrong.

Does anyone think there's actually gonna be a right or wrong path? I'm putting my money on Sylvanas being right.


I mean, that would be an absolute kick in the teeth to people who have not been on board with the Horde's characterization this expansion, so it's got about even odds. If they make it that cut and dry, they're going to lose a portion of the Horde player base, regardless of who is "right". If they do vindicate Sylvanas, of course, they're also likely to lose a portion of the Alliance player base.

It's anyone's guess, at this moment.

No matter who wins, half of us lose.
Either sylvanas wins and the honorable horde is pushed into the background while the alliance get trounced by the horde.
Or
Saurfang wins and the dark side of the horde is pushed into the background while the alliance have to give half of their victory over the horde to the horde.
11/10/2018 11:44 AMPosted by Kirango
11/09/2018 03:40 PMPosted by Deathisfinal
Speaking of division and choice:

"Beyond that," he added, "once you play a choice like that, you have to follow it through, so in subsequent quests that come out, you're going to be on the side you pick, and we'll see what comes of that, if you're right or wrong.

Does anyone think there's actually gonna be a right or wrong path? I'm putting my money on Sylvanas being right.


I mean, that would be an absolute kick in the teeth to people who have not been on board with the Horde's characterization this expansion, so it's got about even odds. If they make it that cut and dry, they're going to lose a portion of the Horde player base, regardless of who is "right". If they do vindicate Sylvanas, of course, they're also likely to lose a portion of the Alliance player base.

It's anyone's guess, at this moment.


It’s DiF, if they they did not think Sylvanas was right I’d think something was wrong:P
11/10/2018 11:44 AMPosted by Kirango
It's anyone's guess, at this moment.


My guess, there will be a compromise.

11/10/2018 11:50 AMPosted by Saiphas
It’s DiF, if they they did not think Sylvanas was right I’d think something was wrong:P


Its between Sylvanas being right and a compromise.
11/10/2018 11:25 AMPosted by Mellow
11/10/2018 10:43 AMPosted by Yagarr
Virtually every person agrees Sylvanas is a Hitler analogy and her decisions are neither moral nor intelligent. (I.e. Burning the Horde's only advantage in an otherwise 50/50 war, instead of using it to negotiate from a place of power.)


Well, if you think of Stormheim as Pearl Harbor, she would be a Truman analogy...

But is still think maybe she went too far.
I would say teldrassil is more like pear harbor, it was a strike meant to knock the alliance out of the fight but only served to piss them off
Saying stuff like "she's too well-liked to kill off" and her fate is for the fanbase to to decide is just a euphemism for "we don't want to deal with the headache of her insane fanbase sending us death threats on a daily basis and possibly blowing up our HQ if we kill her off".
Well, the Sylvanas/Truman comparison also doesn't really work because Truman was a living breathing human who was capable of feeling things like regret and remorse for having to make those hard decisions for the sake of ending the war.

Sylvanas however is completely incapable of those faculties. She has shown time and again that she feels nothing but callous disregard for the innocent lives she has to roll over to achieve her goals, in a cycle of hatred that she takes partial responsibility in stoking, inciting, and perpetuating.

11/10/2018 01:01 PMPosted by Halgrum
Saying stuff like "she's too well-liked to kill off" and her fate is for the fanbase to to decide is just a euphemism for "we don't want to deal with the headache of her insane fanbase sending us death threats on a daily basis and possibly blowing up our HQ if we kill her off".


I think it also shows they don't consider that there are just as many people who hate her character and think it would not be a good look on the company to find something like burning some thousand innocent lives and children to be a thing to bounce back and redeem oneself of doing.
Thoughts on this quote:

"Any time we get a player base that's divided in their support for a character, I feel like we're doing our jobs. Any time it's one-sided to the point of 'this is clearly the right direction', it's not as interesting. That was really our goal with Sylvanas, to create enough plausible deniability in the actions she's committed where she can still have a fanbase, where she could still have people supporting her actions and saying, 'Well of course she's doing that for the Horde.'"

1. What's so wrong about having a leader that people are behind, especially in what you've billed as a "faction pride" expansion? Controversial characters are one thing, but if you want your playerbase excited about fighting the other team, then controversial characters are just a distraction. And when they're faction leaders, they're worse than a distraction.

2. Why don't they ever put these "interesting" controversial characters on the Alliance side? They've got plenty of material to work with.
11/10/2018 01:11 PMPosted by Pellex
Thoughts on this quote:

"Any time we get a player base that's divided in their support for a character, I feel like we're doing our jobs. Any time it's one-sided to the point of 'this is clearly the right direction', it's not as interesting. That was really our goal with Sylvanas, to create enough plausible deniability in the actions she's committed where she can still have a fanbase, where she could still have people supporting her actions and saying, 'Well of course she's doing that for the Horde.'"

1. What's so wrong about having a leader that people are behind, especially in what you've billed as a "faction pride" expansion? Controversial characters are one thing, but if you want your playerbase excited about fighting the other team, then controversial characters are just a distraction. And when they're faction leaders, they're worse than a distraction.

2. Why don't they ever put these "interesting" controversial characters on the Alliance side? They've got plenty of material to work with.
im pretty sure most of that article was just lawyer speak.
11/10/2018 01:11 PMPosted by Pellex
Thoughts on this quote:

"Any time we get a player base that's divided in their support for a character, I feel like we're doing our jobs. Any time it's one-sided to the point of 'this is clearly the right direction', it's not as interesting. That was really our goal with Sylvanas, to create enough plausible deniability in the actions she's committed where she can still have a fanbase, where she could still have people supporting her actions and saying, 'Well of course she's doing that for the Horde.'"

1. What's so wrong about having a leader that people are behind, especially in what you've billed as a "faction pride" expansion? Controversial characters are one thing, but if you want your playerbase excited about fighting the other team, then controversial characters are just a distraction. And when they're faction leaders, they're worse than a distraction.

2. Why don't they ever put these "interesting" controversial characters on the Alliance side? They've got plenty of material to work with.


i mostly play alliance. however i want to level one my hordies after ths DI. because i am finding the Hordes story more interesting at this time.

i would love for them to do something with this Worgan Nightelf/ human somewhat split. but i dont see it amounting to much.
11/10/2018 11:48 AMPosted by Granfaloon
<span class="truncated">...</span>

Well, if you think of Stormheim as Pearl Harbor, she would be a Truman analogy...

But is still think maybe she went too far.

It would have made sense if they were losing too many troops and she wanted to end the fighting by crushing their hope. Instead it's, we won gg way to go, now we just need to occupy the city and... ITS GONE.

You can't even say that it worked in our favor in anyway. Hell the NE might have been made stronger because of it.
<span class="truncated">...</span>

I mean, that would be an absolute kick in the teeth to people who have not been on board with the Horde's characterization this expansion, so it's got about even odds. If they make it that cut and dry, they're going to lose a portion of the Horde player base, regardless of who is "right". If they do vindicate Sylvanas, of course, they're also likely to lose a portion of the Alliance player base.

It's anyone's guess, at this moment.

No matter who wins, half of us lose.
Either sylvanas wins and the honorable horde is pushed into the background while the alliance get trounced by the horde.
Or
Saurfang wins and the dark side of the horde is pushed into the background while the alliance have to give half of their victory over the horde to the horde.


I don’t think it’s that simple. I think a lot of Alliance and some Horde players have essentially been “losing” since probably Cata.

People have been saying she’s been worthy of being killed by at least the Alliance for a long time and the only reason she’s been around is “plot armor”. Same with the Argents and Ebon Blade. Why did they never take care of her when she started raising more undead with the Val’kyr? (This was a very popular debate on Sylvanas threads)

Now you can easily say those things aren’t worthy of being removed from power, but a lot of people did think that.

As I’ve mentioned in other places, there is nothing they can do with Sylvanas that wouldn’t be controversial and anger a lot of players.

Even before BfA Sylvanas threads were the most common.
11/10/2018 01:11 PMPosted by Pellex
Thoughts on this quote:

"Any time we get a player base that's divided in their support for a character, I feel like we're doing our jobs. Any time it's one-sided to the point of 'this is clearly the right direction', it's not as interesting. That was really our goal with Sylvanas, to create enough plausible deniability in the actions she's committed where she can still have a fanbase, where she could still have people supporting her actions and saying, 'Well of course she's doing that for the Horde.'"

1. What's so wrong about having a leader that people are behind, especially in what you've billed as a "faction pride" expansion? Controversial characters are one thing, but if you want your playerbase excited about fighting the other team, then controversial characters are just a distraction. And when they're faction leaders, they're worse than a distraction.

2. Why don't they ever put these "interesting" controversial characters on the Alliance side? They've got plenty of material to work with.


While certainly not based on anything scientific, I still think it’s based on pandering to the 2 different fanbases. Or arguably 3.

I feel like the majority of the Alliance playerbase wants the traditional medieval fantasy experience like LotR (movies) where the good guys are united 90% of the time.

On the Horde I do think there’s a split amongst players to begin with that’s mirrored in the story. Some want to be the honorable monsters, others just want to play the evil faction. They would love to destroy the entire Alliance.
...
It would have made sense if they were losing too many troops and she wanted to end the fighting by crushing their hope. Instead it's, we won gg way to go, now we just need to occupy the city and... ITS GONE.

You can't even say that it worked in our favor in anyway. Hell the NE might have been made stronger because of it.
...
No matter who wins, half of us lose.
Either sylvanas wins and the honorable horde is pushed into the background while the alliance get trounced by the horde.
Or
Saurfang wins and the dark side of the horde is pushed into the background while the alliance have to give half of their victory over the horde to the horde.


I don’t think it’s that simple. I think a lot of Alliance and some Horde players have essentially been “losing” since probably Cata.

People have been saying she’s been worthy of being killed by at least the Alliance for a long time and the only reason she’s been around is “plot armor”. Same with the Argents and Ebon Blade. Why did they never take care of her when she started raising more undead with the Val’kyr? (This was a very popular debate on Sylvanas threads)

Now you can easily say those things aren’t worthy of being removed from power, but a lot of people did think that.

As I’ve mentioned in other places, there is nothing they can do with Sylvanas that wouldn’t be controversial and anger a lot of players.

Even before BfA Sylvanas threads were the most common.

That's true, which is why after seeing the BFA intro at blizzcon I thought they were going to bring her and the honorable side of the horde CLOSER together. Then they said there was baggage between those sides that both she and saurfang represented. Now they are saying one side is right and the other is wrong.

Sure, maybe that's always been the case, but they had a real chance to fix it and have done everything in their power to make it worse.
11/10/2018 02:23 PMPosted by Granfaloon
...

I don’t think it’s that simple. I think a lot of Alliance and some Horde players have essentially been “losing” since probably Cata.

People have been saying she’s been worthy of being killed by at least the Alliance for a long time and the only reason she’s been around is “plot armor”. Same with the Argents and Ebon Blade. Why did they never take care of her when she started raising more undead with the Val’kyr? (This was a very popular debate on Sylvanas threads)

Now you can easily say those things aren’t worthy of being removed from power, but a lot of people did think that.

As I’ve mentioned in other places, there is nothing they can do with Sylvanas that wouldn’t be controversial and anger a lot of players.

Even before BfA Sylvanas threads were the most common.

That's true, which is why after seeing the BFA intro at blizzcon I thought they were going to bring her and the honorable side of the horde CLOSER together. Then they said there was baggage between those sides that both she and saurfang represented. Now they are saying one side is right and the other is wrong.

Sure, maybe that's always been the case, but they had a real chance to fix it and have done everything in their power to make it worse.


Even with that though people would’ve considered that a retcon and certainly Alliance players would’ve been upset over not getting “justice” for what she’s done to them. (Such as Silverpine).

There’s lots of debate about what happened at Stormheim for instance.

My personal guess is there was probably a fairly even 1/3 split in regards to the Burning of Teldrassil of “why are you making Sylvanas dumb evil?” “Burning the Tree was evil but she’s always been evil.” and “Burning Teldrassil was fun! Bring on the war!”

About the only thing people can agree on is when fighting enemies like Azshara who just straight up deserves death. And even a minor character like Ashvane doesn’t have any players on her side.

As an aside, biggest disagreement amongst Alliance seems to mostly be about human representation vs other races. So even though the ingams Alliance is perfectly unified, the players are split on one aspect of the Alliance at minimum.
While it may not have been presented well in BfA so far (I agree), none of the Horde characters have been acting too far outside of their previous characterizations. Particularly the non-Forsaken. They’ve always been “stupid Honor overdrive”.

So idk actually if once Sylvanas became warchief there was any stopping this split. Before being warchief she could come up with excuses to the Horde leaders but they never could pin anything on her.
11/10/2018 02:34 PMPosted by Niingdorei
While it may not have been presented well in BfA so far (I agree), none of the Horde characters have been acting too far outside of their previous characterizations. Particularly the non-Forsaken. They’ve always been “stupid Honor overdrive”.


I'd say Liadrin, Rexxar, and Eitrigg are pretty out of character and feel very hypocritical tbh. Blizzard's been trying to have them espouse things like "honor" but it's felt like a band-aid at best. (Which I know, fits that "stupid honor overdrive" you say, but I don't think that's a very good look on them either.)
11/10/2018 03:20 PMPosted by Rendford
11/10/2018 02:34 PMPosted by Niingdorei
While it may not have been presented well in BfA so far (I agree), none of the Horde characters have been acting too far outside of their previous characterizations. Particularly the non-Forsaken. They’ve always been “stupid Honor overdrive”.


I'd say Liadrin, Rexxar, and Eitrigg are pretty out of character and feel very hypocritical tbh. Blizzard's been trying to have them espouse things like "honor" but it's felt like a band-aid at best. (Which I know, fits that "stupid honor overdrive" you say, but I don't think that's a very good look on them either.)


Liadrin is currently Warfront Fodder atm, and unfortunately that position is unflattering as hell to any character stuck exclusively in it.

Eitrigg ... drank the coolaid hard. He's fallen for the idea that the Alliance is every bit invested in a War of Annihilation against the Horde; as the Horde is the Alliance.

Rexxar, I understand. He's genuinely convinced that the Jaina Proudmoore that has become Grand Admiral of Kul Tiras is the EXACT same Jaina Proudmoore (ideologically) as the one who committed the "Purge of Dalaran" and tried to drown Org with a Tsunami. He's essentially overlooking a lot because he straight up thinks he's facing Daelin Proudmoore 2.0 in Jaina.
11/10/2018 05:14 PMPosted by Droité
11/10/2018 03:20 PMPosted by Rendford
...

I'd say Liadrin, Rexxar, and Eitrigg are pretty out of character and feel very hypocritical tbh. Blizzard's been trying to have them espouse things like "honor" but it's felt like a band-aid at best. (Which I know, fits that "stupid honor overdrive" you say, but I don't think that's a very good look on them either.)


Liadrin is currently Warfront Fodder atm, and unfortunately that position is unflattering as hell to any character stuck exclusively in it.

Eitrigg ... drank the coolaid hard. He's fallen for the idea that the Alliance is every bit invested in a War of Annihilation against the Horde; as the Horde is the Alliance.

Rexxar, I understand. He's genuinely convinced that the Jaina Proudmoore that has become Grand Admiral of Kul Tiras is the EXACT same Jaina Proudmoore (ideologically) as the one who committed the "Purge of Dalaran" and tried to drown Org with a Tsunami. He's essentially overlooking a lot because he straight up thinks he's facing Daelin Proudmoore 2.0 in Jaina.


Rexxar does say that the Horde is at a crossroads again so he’s not ignorant of what’s going on.

Etrigg is odd since he’s barely commented on the state of the Horde even though he’s been in a lot of quests.

It might not matter in the end though since if Sylvanas wants to turn everyone on Azeroth into Undeath, there’s not a chance anyone except maybe some Forsaken support her for pretty obvious reasons.
11/10/2018 02:32 PMPosted by Niingdorei
About the only thing people can agree on is when fighting enemies like Azshara who just straight up deserves death. And even a minor character like Ashvane doesn’t have any players on her side.


I would say I hope Azshara survives BfA. Not because of morality but because she's an interesting character. Same with Sylvanas. It's why I get so !@#$%^- annoyed when people dismiss her as just worthy of dying and that's that.
11/10/2018 08:09 PMPosted by Vozul
11/10/2018 02:32 PMPosted by Niingdorei
About the only thing people can agree on is when fighting enemies like Azshara who just straight up deserves death. And even a minor character like Ashvane doesn’t have any players on her side.


I would say I hope Azshara survives BfA. Not because of morality but because she's an interesting character. Same with Sylvanas. It's why I get so !@#$%^- annoyed when people dismiss her as just worthy of dying and that's that.
i think she will survive. i am also not really convinced sylvanas won't be a raid boss given the patterns in 8.1 and 8.2 of warbringers becoming the final boss of the main raid, but i also think that each or most of them will survive their raid bossery

but of course i could be completely wrong
Any time we get a player base that's divided in their support for a character, I feel like we're doing our jobs.


I feel like Afrasiabi needs to understand that even if people feel divided on their support for Sylvanas/Saurfang, they're generally disappointed or frustrated in both.

The measure of success should not be parity in support, but whether or not people enjoy supporting their leaders.

Go take a look at the various "Who will you choose?" threads. It sounds like a bunch of protest-votes.

It's common to hear from Sylvanas supporters that they wish she had never been made Warchief, feel like she's losing her redeeming qualities, or think she's ruining other elements of the Horde. The sensation of defeat and depression is palpable. They mostly choose her over Saurfang out of fear that choosing Saurfang would stifle any chance of her restoration as a character they like.

On the flip side, it's common to hear from Saurfang supporters that they hate his connection to the Alliance/Anduin, disapprove of his delayed response to dealing with Sylvanas, and think it's nonsensical for him too declare back-stabbing Malfurion a dishonorable act after he unleashed siege equipment on Night Elves in Ashenvale. However, he is still their best chance to inject some moral fiber into the Horde's story.

Blizzard has to understand, at large the Horde playerbase is NOT ENJOYING THE EXPANSION. Which should be concerning.

Some people might love the story, but they seem to be a minority. Everyone else is coming to the forums to try and advocate for their own version of damage control.

The developers need to stop patting themselves on the back, acknowledge their short comings, and ask the playerbase how they'd like to see the story progress.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum