Yes, because asking for an option to skip some quests and asking for the entire storyline to be rewritten involve exactly the same amount of resources on Blizzard's part.10/24/2018 01:47 PMPosted by EnekieIt's less about the choice and more about the fact that Blizzard went out of their way to ensure that every Horde player was happy.
Meanwhile, you have longtime figures of the community like Redshirt Guy calling out the poor quality of the Alliance storyline and getting completely ignored.
The Horde gets special treatment. It might not be one that every Horde player considers special, but it's there.
10/24/2018 02:24 PMPosted by KazimorYes, because asking for an option to skip some quests and asking for the entire storyline to be rewritten involve exactly the same amount of resources on Blizzard's part.
It's clearly not about the resources. It's about the fact that one side gets listened to and the other side gets ignored. Neglecting that is a dishonest argument.
Right... because if I ask someone for $20 and get it, then you ask the same person for $10,000 and they don't give you anything that is all about who got listened to and nothing to do with the request.10/24/2018 02:32 PMPosted by Enekie10/24/2018 02:24 PMPosted by KazimorYes, because asking for an option to skip some quests and asking for the entire storyline to be rewritten involve exactly the same amount of resources on Blizzard's part.
It's clearly not about the resources. It's about the fact that one side gets listened to and the other side gets ignored. Neglecting that is a dishonest argument.
As long as blizzard is going out of their way to make sure hordies are satisfied no matter what id like a third 'You both suck' option
Sylvanas might be an unrepentant monster but saurfang happily started this world war and walked away from it when he was no longer personally satisfied with it
Both suck and I hate having to side with a corpse or a coward
Sylvanas might be an unrepentant monster but saurfang happily started this world war and walked away from it when he was no longer personally satisfied with it
Both suck and I hate having to side with a corpse or a coward
10/24/2018 02:32 PMPosted by Enekie10/24/2018 02:24 PMPosted by KazimorYes, because asking for an option to skip some quests and asking for the entire storyline to be rewritten involve exactly the same amount of resources on Blizzard's part.
It's clearly not about the resources. It's about the fact that one side gets listened to and the other side gets ignored. Neglecting that is a dishonest argument.
I'm going to say this again, since the idea that "horde players get what they want" is being repeated here.
They designed all of this ages ago and it is VERY UNLIKELY that it's changed due to a few weeks of people complaining.
Even if they say it is, I won't believe it, because that's just not how it works behind the scenes.
It saddens me that the "alliance forum posting narrative" is now going to include repeated declarations of this due to parroting #influencers.
10/24/2018 02:46 PMPosted by Sef<span class="truncated">...</span>
It's clearly not about the resources. It's about the fact that one side gets listened to and the other side gets ignored. Neglecting that is a dishonest argument.
I'm going to say this again, since the idea that "horde players get what they want" is being repeated here.
They designed all of this ages ago and it is VERY UNLIKELY that it's changed due to a few weeks of people complaining.
Even if they say it is, I won't believe it, because that's just not how it works behind the scenes.
It saddens me that the "alliance forum posting narrative" is now going to include repeated declarations of this due to parroting #influencers.
Not for nothing but that's quite literally how alliance players got the right to backtalk to vol'jin in the 5.3 ptr then further tell him off after the first bit wasn't popular
Given that it's just some changed quest text and a chunk cut out instead of being outright replaced, the idea that it was changed pretty recently if not outright in response to player complaints is probably pretty likely
10/24/2018 02:37 PMPosted by KazimorRight... because if I ask someone for $20 and get it, then you ask the same person for $10,000 and they don't give you anything that is all about who got listened to and nothing to do with the request.
The thing with this example is it's fundamentally dishonest. Horde already have built into their narrative of BfA to be the hero/loyalist. They can opt to pull wounded from the Blight or help spread it and their story doesn't change. They can side with Saurfang or not, and their story doesn't change.
All I'm saying is it would have been nice to be able to turn down the quest where upon I descended upon a bunch of exiled trolls to murder them in cold blood and steal their stuff because the group that exiled them is on friendly terms with the Horde.
Nothing in the War Campaign narrative has to change. No new resources or quests need be devoted. Just a dialogue option that basically says "This is wrong and I'll have no part in it." And we move on.
Allow the Alliance players some opportunities to develop their characters a bit. Instead Vanndrel's over here like "You know, I'm an Exile too and this feels wrong, but you make a compelling argument Shandris."
Given that it's just some changed quest text and a chunk cut out instead of being outright replaced, the idea that it was changed pretty recently if not outright in response to player complaints is probably pretty likely
Well, they probably had a few iterations of it (and many other things) and MAYBE player sentiment helped steer an in-progress internal discussion over which iteration to use.
That's not the same as people scrambling behind the scenes to make players happy.
Nor does it warrant resentment and outrage.
10/24/2018 03:02 PMPosted by SefGiven that it's just some changed quest text and a chunk cut out instead of being outright replaced, the idea that it was changed pretty recently if not outright in response to player complaints is probably pretty likely
Well, they probably had a few iterations of it (and many other things) and MAYBE player sentiment helped steer an in-progress internal discussion over which iteration to use.
That's not the same as people scrambling behind the scenes to make players happy.
Nor does it warrant resentment and outrage.
I mean I guess that's probably very possible but pitching that blizzard teams are so bullheaded and out of touch that the players coudnt possibly have an impact isn't... a good look for the dev team lmao
10/24/2018 02:46 PMPosted by Sef
I'm going to say this again, since the idea that "horde players get what they want" is being repeated here.
They designed all of this ages ago and it is VERY UNLIKELY that it's changed due to a few weeks of people complaining.
Even if they say it is, I won't believe it, because that's just not how it works behind the scenes.
It saddens me that the "alliance forum posting narrative" is now going to include repeated declarations of this due to parroting #influencers.
Oh come on.
If it was intended all along why didn't it show up when the quest was first implemented? Why did it only appear after numerous and angry Horde outcries?
It's the narrative because it's the most logical explanation.
Both faction's war campaigns were filled with things I would have rather opted out of.10/24/2018 02:50 PMPosted by Vanndrel10/24/2018 02:37 PMPosted by KazimorRight... because if I ask someone for $20 and get it, then you ask the same person for $10,000 and they don't give you anything that is all about who got listened to and nothing to do with the request.
The thing with this example is it's fundamentally dishonest. Horde already have built into their narrative of BfA to be the hero/loyalist. They can opt to pull wounded from the Blight or help spread it and their story doesn't change. They can side with Saurfang or not, and their story doesn't change.
All I'm saying is it would have been nice to be able to turn down the quest where upon I descended upon a bunch of exiled trolls to murder them in cold blood and steal their stuff because the group that exiled them is on friendly terms with the Horde.
Nothing in the War Campaign narrative has to change. No new resources or quests need be devoted. Just a dialogue option that basically says "This is wrong and I'll have no part in it." And we move on.
Allow the Alliance players some opportunities to develop their characters a bit. Instead Vanndrel's over here like "You know, I'm an Exile too and this feels wrong, but you make a compelling argument Shandris."
The horde player gets some level of choice in which side they take in their own factions civil war (which the Alliance has no parallel to) but both factions are not given an opt out for borderline, or sometimes blatant atrocities in the war campaign.
There is room for calling this favoritism. If you want to say the horde is receiving undue resources because it's civil war is a major expansion plot that the Alliance has no equivalent too, then I'm on board. Though I don't feel like this is something most horde player wanted.
Would more opt outs for the war campaign be great? Yes.
If Blizzard wants to writes a quest where the Alliance player fawns all over Suarfang or begs him for help I hope you get an opt out too.
Edit: Now that I think about it the Horde player getting an opt out for helping Saurfang but the Alliance player not would be pretty naked favoritism and I hope that doesn't happen.
It's true that game development takes a lot longer than the end consumer usually appreciates. But it's also not like they haven't or can't change stuff in the PTR due to player feedback. Presumably that's the actual purpose of the PTR, not just to be a demo with an asterisk.
Maybe an experiment with player choice is something they've wanted to do for a while, but let's not pretend that player complaints had nothing to do with it.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that when Anduin tries to feed me some weenie crap about being just as bad as Sylvanas, I better get the option to tell him to go screw and hang out with the elves instead.
Maybe an experiment with player choice is something they've wanted to do for a while, but let's not pretend that player complaints had nothing to do with it.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that when Anduin tries to feed me some weenie crap about being just as bad as Sylvanas, I better get the option to tell him to go screw and hang out with the elves instead.
Can we stop acting like adding this in to the game was at all a large amount of work? It was an added dialogue option that allows you to skip a few quests and go straight back to Sylvanas.
With the way this has come out on the PTR the most logical explanation is that this was implemented due to outraged Horde players.
Again, that's great and I'm glad there are players being listened to. It would just be nice to have anyone anywhere near Blizzard's writing team acknowledge that the Alliance has been !@#$ on at every single turn this faction war then thrown a bone as our retaliation by attacking the Zandalari and the %^-*ing Vulpera.
Yeah, that retaliation will feel awesome when Sylvanas pulls a massive win out of her !@# in 8.2.
With the way this has come out on the PTR the most logical explanation is that this was implemented due to outraged Horde players.
Again, that's great and I'm glad there are players being listened to. It would just be nice to have anyone anywhere near Blizzard's writing team acknowledge that the Alliance has been !@#$ on at every single turn this faction war then thrown a bone as our retaliation by attacking the Zandalari and the %^-*ing Vulpera.
Yeah, that retaliation will feel awesome when Sylvanas pulls a massive win out of her !@# in 8.2.
I'd actually be super up for that, a kind of 'faction within a faction' angle.
Horde players can divide over if they want to be embrace what it is supposed to mean to be Horde (Saurfang) and or win at all costs (Sylvanas) and Kalimdor ends up split between these two ideological camps.
Alliance players can divide over if they wish to uphold the ideals of the Alliance (Anduin) or win at all costs (Tyrande) and the Eastern Kingdoms becomes divided as the two camps strain against their common bonds.
It'd even work from a story standpoint without too much divergent quests since adventurers/Players would be working to push their specific ideological stance, and by running around and getting things done/claiming territory and resources/pushing back their enemies, they'd also be strengthening their particular camp's position while actively denying their rivals and enemies the same.
Ultimately, it would end up the 'Diamond' form of story-telling, we're all gonna end up in the same place no matter what, but yeah, I'd be down for at least the illusion that our choices matter in the story and that our characters have some form of ability to reject a bad leader or a bad path to walk down and pick an option we can live with without completely derailing the overall story of a expansion.
Hell, it'd even work for Blizzard since if you want the full story, that's at least six toons to play though. One for each of the four 'stories' and another one for each faction who wobbles between the two ideological groups within the Mega-factions.
Horde players can divide over if they want to be embrace what it is supposed to mean to be Horde (Saurfang) and or win at all costs (Sylvanas) and Kalimdor ends up split between these two ideological camps.
Alliance players can divide over if they wish to uphold the ideals of the Alliance (Anduin) or win at all costs (Tyrande) and the Eastern Kingdoms becomes divided as the two camps strain against their common bonds.
It'd even work from a story standpoint without too much divergent quests since adventurers/Players would be working to push their specific ideological stance, and by running around and getting things done/claiming territory and resources/pushing back their enemies, they'd also be strengthening their particular camp's position while actively denying their rivals and enemies the same.
Ultimately, it would end up the 'Diamond' form of story-telling, we're all gonna end up in the same place no matter what, but yeah, I'd be down for at least the illusion that our choices matter in the story and that our characters have some form of ability to reject a bad leader or a bad path to walk down and pick an option we can live with without completely derailing the overall story of a expansion.
Hell, it'd even work for Blizzard since if you want the full story, that's at least six toons to play though. One for each of the four 'stories' and another one for each faction who wobbles between the two ideological groups within the Mega-factions.
My only gripe about the quest option(as it is currently shown) is that I'm left to speculate what other rewards would be out there that don't feel cheap in comparison to siding with Saurfang.
I know the cloak is a cosmetic thing and I can just have alts pick either choice I want but intially the min-maxer in me is going to want to pick the option that has the better sum of rewards, whether it's in gold, azerite power, gear, cosmetic stuff etc.
Nothing really to get bent about, but that's what stood out to me.
I know the cloak is a cosmetic thing and I can just have alts pick either choice I want but intially the min-maxer in me is going to want to pick the option that has the better sum of rewards, whether it's in gold, azerite power, gear, cosmetic stuff etc.
Nothing really to get bent about, but that's what stood out to me.
Oh come on.
If it was intended all along why didn't it show up when the quest was first implemented? Why did it only appear after numerous and angry Horde outcries?
It's the narrative because it's the most logical explanation.
No, it isn't, because big corporate gaming dev teams don't work that way.
It's a big room full of people with their own opinions and arguments reviewing at 2+ iterations of any "pivotal content" and returning to it in "8.1 meeting 458" just before lunch on a Tuesday, where one side tosses sentiment metrics on the table.
Then, on the way back to their open office, before settling back in to the soul crushing grind, two devs pass a statue of an Orc and one quips "the forums are going to LOVE this."
Both snort-laugh on the way to their desks and then we make them right.
Can we stop acting like adding this in to the game was at all a large amount of work? It was an added dialogue option that allows you to skip a few quests and go straight back to Sylvanas.
With the way this has come out on the PTR the most logical explanation is that this was implemented due to outraged Horde players.
I never said it was a large amount of work. But, I've worked behind these kinds of scenes extensively, so I can only offer that perspective. I trust my expertise over anyone's logic.
I know it's a futile effort to curtail the next great forum memes, so whatever.
10/24/2018 03:59 PMPosted by Sef
No, it isn't, because big corporate gaming dev teams don't work that way.
[/quote]
We've seen it work exactly that way before. We've seen them make changes to keep people happy. We've seen them add and remove stuff to keep people happy.
They changed Tyrande's text in Legion because it made Horde players unhappy.
They added a quest in the attack of Darnassus because it made Horde players happy.
They added this because the Horde were unhappy with their choices.
You're going out of your way to explain away what is an obvious and repeatable phenomenon. Whatever expertise you have cannot outweigh the evidence sitting in front of you without a deliberate choice on your part to not understand the grievance of fellow players.
I'm not explaining anything "away", I'm illuminating the iterative process and why it doesn't equate to players dictating content, but rather players influencing internal choices. Project managment is agile, not reactionary. It's not as simple as "Horde players complain and get what they want."
https://ptr.wowhead.com/quest=54755/not-my-table
We've found the superior choice.
We've found the superior choice.
That's hilarious.... although now I can see why the Alliance is jealous. That's the best writing Blizzard has done since the DK campaign.