I thought you had me on mute because I called you out on your racist comparisons?
He does. He can see what you post when others quote it.
2 Likes
Ah ok I see. Makes sense.
It’s all your fault! 
Eh, but I also think having some “Cosmic Power Ups” are necessary for the Horde. Nobody Horde side matches up to Jaina (nevermind Thalyssra and Rommath are thousands of years old and mages the entirety of it) or Tyrande/Malfurion, etc.
If all the Council Members (Primary Racial Leader included) are talkers and not doers, where does that leave us?
4 Likes
No, I’m not his twink.
Your name sounds like a scottish drink.
Hot tip for those who aren’t familiar with Cailias: s/he plays the game for the chance to fight the Alliance and nothing else. That is priority #1 and any story that enables it is a good one. All other things are irrelevant.
(Or at least, that’s what the player chooses to project when posting on the boards.)
Oh, the council members would do things as well. Either at the end when the big bad needs a final send off or during their own race specific development.
5 Likes
I mean, I’m inclined to be that person on the Alliance. It doesn’t have to be a bad thing so long as there’s competition and mechanics-based counterplay - it only becomes a problem when everyone else is ramrod into it via Blizzard’s ubernarrative.
1 Like
I’m not saying it is a bad thing. Just giving others in the thread a tip that some lines of argument are a waste of time against this particular poster. (Right, Cailias?)
2 Likes
Fighting someone whos evil or at the very least flawed does not make oneself good
Hell, the last time “racist alliance warhawks” attacked the horde just because, Genn and Rogers accidentally saved the universe from Sylvanas and/or the Jailer.
Similarly you have Turalyon who stil has his WC2 glasses on and only Faol has tried to break his assumptions that azeroth hasnt changed on the million years hes been away- So if he started a new war because he thought the horde is still a fundamental threat to the alliance then hes simultaneously working with the wrong info while accidentally being correct
For example, the Blood Knights and Liadrin helped the AU draenei not because they had to or because they had something to gain. But rather because it was simply the right thing to do, that is a good redemptive action- this is what the horde should do, a good action done towards a third party simply because thats how the new horde was supposed to roll
its a nice thought, but general consensus seems to be giving anything to the alliance ever is worse than pulling teeth. Which is ironic considering all these SUPER METAL RED WEDDING GAME OF THRONES MOMENTS are what got us in this mess in the first place
5 Likes
Please tell me why Alliance input and sign-off is required for things such as:
- Reducing the use of the “Noble Savage” trope with respect to Calia, Baine, and Thrall vis a vis the rest of the Horde.
- Building a Necropolis for the Forsaken to allow them to be “safer” from constant persecution.
- Stopping Thrall from acting like Eeyore and being in essence powerless.
- Developing and empowering more Horde racial leaders.
- Letting the Horde turn isolationist with respect to the Alliance and just not interacting. In essence, just stopping making us the villain and aggressor starting wars (this doesn’t necessarily mean the Alliance has to be a villain and/or aggressor).
Maybe you can argue that power is a zero-sum game and that some suggestions have a relative effect on the Alliance but these ones are all based on matching Alliance power advantages:
- Empowering and enhancing the role of Shamanism and Spiritwalkers.
- The creation of something similar to An’she.
- Powering Horde leaders to be more in-line with the fantastic feats of the Alliance (Jaina, Anduin, Tyrande, Malfurion, etc).
And while there is possibly some “zero-sum” argument to neutral representation this is even more detached from Alliance “power.” I mean holy cow, you’d think the Horde races don’t exist (and I’m not even touching the Kirin Tor which is just a disaster). Just realize:
- The Knights of the Ebon Blade are undead but have no connection with the Forsaken.
- The Earthen Ring - a shaman organization - gets their Horde role downplayed with two (of five) leaders being Alliance races.
- Taurens are downplayed within the Cenarion Circle - with basically only one Tauren being represented vs 11 Night Elves.
- The Argent Crusade is predominantly shown as Human.
- The Knights of the Silver Hand is predominantly Human.
- Almost all of the “famous” Dragons take on High Elf, Night Elf, or Human Form. Chromie is a Gnome.
- Of playable races, the Illidari are prominently displayed as Night Elves.
Of the consistent major solutions that would change the Alliance player experience - here’s a prominent one:
- Stop whitewashing the morality of Alliance events portrayed - while vilifying Horde events. Don’t justify Camp Taurajo after the fact and villainize Theramore (a military port). Don’t re-arrange the order of Lordaeron and Teldrassil or the events at Silithus with the Goblins and Dwarves. Don’t ignore Varian declaring war by immediately undoing it so the Horde could start a war. Don’t ignore the Alliance sinking a Goblin transport while trying to capture Thrall.
The issue with your thread about what the Alliance needs to recover from BfA is that it simply tried to solve both problems (Alliance and Horde) with a solution you refused to budge from, regardless of one side telling you your suggestion was diametrically opposed to what they saw they needed to rebuild. It’s why I turned off notifications on it. Trying to force a solution that is literally the opposite of what the Horde players want leads to this:
I can’t even say I disagree with this mindset because when faced with the suggestions that were being forced upon us - this is what I would rather see.
Both sides do need to cooperate and compromise - but that involves first understanding what one side needs. This thread has tried to focus on what the Horde needs to effectively rebuild internally. There are other parts that will require addressing Alliance concerns and there have been some suggestions. I’ll only touch on a couple I suggested because I don’t like to speak for others:
- Taurens from the Cenarion Circle are escorted by the Horde in Ashenvale to peacefully meet with the Night Elves where they are escorted to Darkshore/Teldrassil and aid in the regrowth/restoration of some of the land. After the Taurens are granted safe passage the Horde leaves Ashenvale entirely.
- Forsaken develop the use of “Plague-B-Gone” and restore Gilneas while in the process of helping recover/restore/remove the Feral Scourge remaining in the northern areas of the Eastern Kingdoms.
Unfortunately, it was pretty blatant that your suggestion was tone-deaf for half of your target audience and it was portrayed by the title as a way to help that audience. This thread is trying to find answers that will fix those problems. Then we can work on ways to integrate that into a solution both sides could enjoy.
Then the writers will have Anduin and Slyvanas get married and their child will be the Chosen One who unites the factions and we will all be back to complaining.
11 Likes
RE: Alliance sign off.
Not required for bullets 1-4. 5 is where we have to talk. The Alliance and the Horde are going to continue to have interaction, and should. The question ultimately is what that looks like.
Re: Power
I’m more of the opinion that some of the incomprehensible powers should be toned down. Jaina shouldn’t be able to bring down Undercity’s walls singlehandedly, the Night Warrior powerup is dumb. I get that these are supposed to be heroes, but they should be a lot more grounded than this. No disagreement though if we want to develop the Tauren religion some more.
Re: Neutral representations
If you really want more, be my guest, but I’m going to sit here and tell you to be careful what you wish for. I think all of that representation has certainly been to the detriment of the Night Elves as a playable race.
RE: Whitewashing. Agreed
RE: My suggestion - Zarrin, I refuse to bow to arguments that are attacking points that I didn’t include in the suggestion. You’re chastising me for not treating straw man attacks as being worthy of consideration at the end of the day.
1 Like
Every argument that disagrees, vehemently, with your suggestions is not a strawman argument.
They’re telling you they disagree.
They’ve told you you’re proposing something that is the opposite of what they feel would help the Horde in any way and would not fix, rebuild, and/or redeem the Horde.
If you can’t accept that basic principle then there really isn’t any hope of a fruitful discussion.
8 Likes
Zarrin, I looked at these arguments. The grand majority of them attacked elements that were not in the suggestion.
That’s a straw man argument, by definition. They’re arguing with points that no one was making.
Actually, the wild majority said they didn’t want the narrative in any way. Full stop.
Most folks didn’t care about territories. They felt like even engaging in it in any way - after the way BfA portrayed the Horde - meant that they would feel like dying/losing was justified and just didn’t want any part of it.
The most popular legitimate response to the suggestion was that they just wanted to avoid being involved in another fighting narrative.
Technically, I think the most popular response was that BfA was a disaster and no one had faith that any story put forward that involved any form of interaction would be positive for the Horde at all - but I’m skipping over that because it’s a dead end and not productive.
8 Likes
Actually, the wild majority said they didn’t want the narrative in any way. Full stop.
No, you’re leaving things out - like when they supported this sort of thing by asserting that the scenario involved the Horde being aggressive (which it explicitly did not), or that they were being cast as the bad guy (which they were not), or that they would be forced into doing the content (which they would not). There were elements that they injected that led them to this conclusion, elements that the scenario was specifically constructed to avoid.
Once these were corrected, I began to see the “mending process” take place, where they tried to fit their existing objection to “new information” (me correcting them on what they were replying to) while still trying to worm in the elements that weren’t there that they were trying to object to. In one instance, they bent so far that they broke, and just admitted that they didn’t like the scenario because it also would have offered something to Night Elf players.
There were, to memory, two objections that actually did hit close to the mark. The first one was that an overemphasis on loss would be demotivating - I agreed and attempted to clarify. The second was that it was strange for the Steamwheedle and not the Bilgewater cartel to be involved. The rest? Bluntly, it read like a collection of anti-Alliance poster stock lines, accusing me of suggesting things that the scenario again, specifically avoided.
I’m sorry if it seemed like I was saying that the only responses were of the kind I highlighted. Just the large majority. You decided not to interact with them because (as above) you wrote them off, because you felt there needed to be interaction (and ultimately conflict, though you did not say that specifically above).
Story-wise, I would honestly prefer seeing a group of Horde members walk into Night Elf lands, scour through the debris from Teldrassil, recover whatever items they can, and build a new Night Elf city somewhere. Heck, you could have them walking around in shackles at their feet. Give them pickaxes. Let the Night Elves act as overseers watching their progress and making sure they don’t stray.
If you want to make it into a battleground - we can have folks racing to grab priceless items and drop them off in a basket and folks racing to build a city. Both sides are also trying to fight over the resources and recover the artifacts.
Also, the basket is at a Temple of Elune, the Night Elves get all the items, and the city is built in whatever location the Night Elves want it to be.
It’s a race to see who can appease the Night Elves first!
Also, at the end, Night Elf players get triple rewards - one from anything they would receive from being on the Alliance, and then the combined rewards of the donations from the Alliance and Horde sides.
//We just had a PVP Brawl where we were trying to cook, so this is not that insane.
But I don’t want this. I don’t see how it would be fun for Horde players in the first place to grovel at the Night Elves’ feet, and I don’t want the feeling of being pitied. I can’t look at this from any angle and conclude that this is good or fun content.
I would like instead a situation where both sides are involved in a stalemate of a conflict where both sides feel that what they’re fighting for is important, and where both sides feel strong. You can build in the worldbuilding behind that - such as the return of an Orcish clan structure on one side, and the reconstruction of Northern Kalimdor on the other. But the friction point certainly shouldn’t involve groveling.
Why are you allowed to say this as an answer and nobody else is allowed to say that to your suggestion?
Piggybacking off my other suggestions - earlier in this thread there was another good idea!
The Alliance and Horde square off in Lordaeron to see who can remove the most blight so that Humans can move into Lordaeron. Both sides can fight each other to clean up the giant stink cloud that infests the area!
At the end, Humans move in and take over the land. Humans also receive triple rewards.
We can do something similar for Gilneas too and the Worgens.
And in each case we can toss in some Feral Scourge so both sides have to kill off Undead in the process.
4 Likes