Ariel, these are not plotholes - and this is why I’m getting frustrated. I have asked repeatedly for criticism that I can take back and make edits with. You’re coming back to me with this fallacy that I also have to account for what Blizzard might do in the future, rather than making suggestions as to what I believe they should do - and I feel like you’re baking that into my intentions.
I get that you’re angry with the story, I am too - but I have to ask for better than this.
Tl;dr: Horde players that used to care for the story deffinitely DON´T trust Blizzard with any nuance that actually salvages the faction after thye narrative disaster of BfA.
Ergo why losing customer TRUST is such a big no-no regarding quality control policies… simply put it, most of us that followed the story don´t believe Blizzard has the will nor the means to fix the mess they pridefully created in the first place, regardless of how much we tried to give feedback in BfA.
You need to stop taking me disagreeing with your idea (like nearly every Horde poster here) as a personal insult or attack against you. Then pulling empty academic jargon out to butter up you being upset that we aren’t thrilled with the idea you are presenting here. Which is why my argument simply focused on the likely outcome from the Horde in its current post-BfA state to NE radicals killing Horde civilians. To preserve the Armistice, the Horde would put the burden of choice on the Alliance. They can either deal with these murderers themselves, or they can leave the Horde to do it without interference. If they choose to support the NE radicals, then the armistice is over and things escalate beyond a simple skirmish in the Barrens. Which … go figure … only benefits one race. The NEs.
So … supporting the NE radicals targeting civilians wouldn’t really be a rational choice for most of the Alliance Leadership to take. Since it would risk dragging their people and their resources into another World War, solely to benefit the NEs grudge (no matter how justified it would be). Thus, they would either choose to deal with the problem themselves … or remain hands off to the Horde dealing with them. Its a lot less risk and resource intensive than the alternative. Which … thus doesn’t support PvP. Because in the Alliance acting case, the Alliance are the ones hunting down the radicals. In the Alliance hands off case, the Alliance is not supporting the radicals. Which means that either the Horde or Alliance as Factions are not involved in one of those two scenarios. Its just the NE radicals vs the Alliance OR the Horde.
Again, the point that this is going to hinge on is the characterization. If you can make a character that’s likeable, and then threaten then, you can generate investment to protect them, I feel. Admittedly - this is the hardest part of this question - which is: how do you make the average citizenry of the Horde feel as though they are worth protecting?
And characterization is, admittedly, where I am weak.
Why the rest of the Alliance simply doesn´t run ASAP to stomp the Horde in defense of their allies when the historical record in-game related to this type of conflicts shows that any time that the Horde “fought back” it ended up with a big bad crater with an Alliance name and a huge amount of Alliance lost lives IS a plothole.
Simply put it: using COHERENT and DECENT writting, the moment the Horde raises a mere hand to “defend” themselves SHOULD raise the alarms of all and every Alliance military and political leader (after all the Horde lorewise speaking has NEVER been shown as a “fair fighter” and anytime they get into spats with the Alliance the blue team ends up losing massive amounts of life thanks to some weirdo weapon the Horde magically pulls from their behinds at the last minute).
And unless you actually WANT to avoid any type of justification for the Alliance murdering civilians in the narartive (ergo, the bit about naeutral organizatyions condemning the Alliance this time around), then I´m afraid the Alliance is kinda justificated into murdering those Orcs by default thanks to the historical behaviour of the Horde in the current lore.
Good luck trying to invest in “positive characterization for Horde Orcs” when we have a COMPLETE expac -WoD- retconning their fall from grace from “usually peaceful but then devil fooled and manipulated them” to “they act like warmongering jerks cause WoW´s “Titanic Gods” designed the Orcs as a-holes by starters”.
Your secodn plothole / hurdle: why would any on the Alliance / Neutral side of things care over murdered Orcs when those Orcs have been consistently shown as violent maniacs that never respected the Alliance races at any point in the story of the game?
Why the rest of the Alliance simply doesn´t run ASAP to stomp the Horde in defense of their allies when the historical record in-game related to this type of conflicts shows that any time that the Horde “fought back” it ended up with a big bad crater with an Alliance name and a huge amount of Alliance lost lives IS a plothole.
Two reasons.
Good look trying to invest in “positive characterization for Horde Orcs” when we have a COMPLETE expac -WoD- retconning their fall from grace from “usually peaceful but then devil fooled and manipulated them” to “they act like warmongering jerks cause WoW´s “Titanic Gods” designed the Orcs as a-holes by starters”.
I think that’s easy to do when you regard the Orcs as a concept - harder when you approach individual characters. I get the feeling that if we’re presented with likeable, fun people, people are naturally going to want to defend them. That’s a task the Barrens questing would have to accomplish.
Your secodn plothole / hurdle: why would any on the Alliance care over murdered Orcs when those Orcs have been consistently shown as violent maniacs that never respected the Alliance races at any point in the story of the game?
The Alliance aren’t supposed to care. The Horde player is supposed to care - rebuilding the investment is for them, not us.
That sort of emotional manipulation (in the context of story writing) can work, but it can also backfire pretty easily.
You could, say, add a new character who is a precious newborn babe with wide eyes and have Tyrande show up and literally eat it. Awful! Scandal! The sheer woe of it all!
That’ll get people to hate Tyrande. Sure. But that can also backfire and get people to just give up with the story entirely. It can make them hate the writers.
So. I think I’ll try to bridge the gap here with a simple comparison.
Kyalin, why are you not invested in the story enough to want to kill Sylvanas even after what she did to something you care about in the game?
Your answer is most likely pretty similar to how the Horde feel when you suggest they fight the night elves for killing this theoretical character.
I want to place less of the focus on loss and more of the focus on the threat. I don’t want to just kill a puppy on screen and say “don’t you feel bad? Go avenge this puppy”. I don’t think that worked out very well in the first place. Some of that is going to be needed, but I think the overall focus needs to be a) here are these fun people, b) oh no, these fun people are under threat unless you do something, and then c) your actions saved these fun people. It should be framed in a positive way, and should feel like a victory.
Are they? I mean the Horde torched their lands and killed their civilians with nothing but a pat on the hand as punishment. And the benefits from defending a race that has been consistently shown as violent when left alone are waaay less than the problems thye Alliance can get from losing their biggest supporters in Kalimdor.
Dear, the Horde and Alliance have been “portrayed” as being “in the last stages of resource availability” since TBC… and soldiers et al are still pulled from the factions´behinds -why? simple: because if Horde / Alliance are TRULY in ac actual shortage of military resources, then how can devs justify them beating the cosmic menace FOTM, hmmm?-
What I quoted WAS the actual conceptualization of the RACE. WoD wasn´t about “Grommash acting like an a-hole for the sake of being an Orc”! it was about THE WHOLE FREAKING ORC RACE ACTING LIKE A-HOLES FOR THE SAKE OF BEING ORCS.
Why would I care for rando Orc civilians or an Orc nobody I literally met 5 minutes ago when the race has been consistently depicted as violent morons that literally can´t have 5 minutes of peace without pissing off someone?
Are they? I mean the Horde torched their lands and killed their civilians with nothing but a pat on the hand as punishment. And the benefits from defending a race that has been consistently shown as violent when left alone are waaay less than the problems thye Alliance can get from losing their biggest supporters in Kalimdor.
Yes. We may not see eye to eye on this - but I don’t view slaughtering civilians as justified - and the Silverwing commander is certainly someone I want to paint as appearing to represent a darker, less justifiable figure - as well as her series of raids as evil acts.
Dear, the Horde and Alliance have been “portrayed” as being “in the last stages of resource availability” since TBC… and soldiers et al are still pulled from the factions´behinds -why? simple: because if Horde / Alliance are TRULY in ac actual shortage of military resources, then how can devs justify them beating the cosmic menace FOTM, hmmm?-
Sure, and they’ve also been portrayed as not being able to do various things due to resource constraints. Again, my suggestion does not have to incorporate what Blizzard writers may do in the future. I think you’re telling me to fear the monkey paw, and I’m saying that we can’t make suggestions when we live in fear of it. We have to suggest that they not do the ridiculous things they do.
What I quoted WAS the actual conceptualization of the RACE. WoD wasn´t about “Grommash acting like an a-hole for the sake of being an Orc”! it was about THE WHOLE FREAKING ORC RACE ACTING LIKE A-HOLES FOR THE SAKE OF BEING ORCS.
As you can read in my OP - I’m aware of that. Undoing that perception I feel will take some time, but I feel that presenting Orcs in a more sympathetic, relatable light is the first step in reversing that impression.
I feel like this is a hard question to answer, because (I could just be wildly biased about this) it feels like on average, alliance-leaning fans seem to attach to a broader range of minor characters than horde ones do. But, fair warning, I can’t separate my own view from that.
I spent loooaaads of time in the barrens. You kinda had to, with the pre-Cata leveling pacing. But for the life of me, I cannot tell you anything about any of the NPCs there, save for two; one of them ticked me off on a meta level because the game spoke for my character to give him a sexist smirk at a quest giver. The other is Mankrik because he is a joke.
So I was genuinely surprised when people were gushing over the named night elf lowbie NPCs that you can rescue from the maw during the Ardenweald covenant campaign. Which hey, more power to them if they like it. I wish I could have gotten that connected to the game. But as for civilians for me to care about? I’ve been sitting here for minutes trying to think, and at present I can tell you…Auctioneer Stampi, I suppose, because he’s the closer of the two Thunder Bluff auctioneers to the mailbox. And the grieving undead woman whose name I can’t remember, who sends you to the sepulcher to throw away her locket as a post-mortem divorce.
Other than that, I don’t think I’ve held much, if any, attachment for everyday NPCs. I feel like that requires a heavy dose of affectionate nostalgia, and for something like Warsong Gulch, which started out with the orcs clearly in the wrong and being bastards who just couldn’t help themselves, I never found myself sympathizing with them to begin with.
I feel like I’m rambling at this point and if I don’t sound stupid already, I probably will with this next comment: I wanted to avoid getting attached to Zelling and Rastakhan in BFA because I wasn’t expecting anything good to come out of a faction war. Couldn’t help it, kinda liked them despite trying not to. But I feel cagey about even the prospect of being interested in horde characters at this point, even ones that don’t exist yet.
I guess I get the reluctance, but, I will add a couple of things to this.
I can remember a handful of NPCs from Teldrassil, like Delanan and the ditch digger - but it doesn’t go much further than that. I think people overhyped what these NPCs meant, but that doesn’t mean people can’t or don’t have investment in more minor characters. I’m thinking those like Thisalee Crow, Budd (even though he’s a reference), Admiral Taylor, Nazgrim - there are some that stick out because they were allowed to have a personality, goals, etc. I think giving the Horde characters like them would help - possibly even a few more important ones to rebuild their decimated bench.
I can’t say that there’s a magic formula to this, but NPCs can be memorable and people can get attached to them. That should be a goal here.
Even the threat of loss hits the same wall, though. PVP as a story driving tool is simply tainted for us because we’re going to bat against genocide survivors who have every reason under the sun to want revenge. Who deserve revenge.
So why would I ever want to fight more night elves in the story? Why would I want to kill the children who’s parents burned in an attack caused by my faction? Why would I want to subject myself to being reminded of the worst thing my faction ever did?
And how could I possibly derive joy from that experience?
I can’t. And it doesn’t matter what the night elves threaten to take. Nothing the Horde has is sacred anymore. The absolute best you can do is piss me off to the point I just quit again.
Because I am not an orc who’s family is being threatened. I am just a guy trying to have a fun experience in an RPG I pay for. And the only way I can enjoy PVP anymore is by explicitly ignoring any story relating to it so I don’t have to engage with it as I try to enjoy the gameplay.
The moral stance regarding the narrative is clear: only the murder of Alliance civilians is “bad”, the murder of Horde civilians is a non issue.
Look, the personal stances regarding civilian murder from you, myself or any other player IS irrelevant as per the WoW actual in-universe story and in-universe narrative. And fact is, most if not all the times Horde civilians were murdered by an Alliance group / individual, the event was ignored, handwaved, justified or all of the above (happened regarding the Stonespire, the Goblins in their intro scenario, the Belves in Dalaran, etc.). Meanwhile, any time there are Alliance civilian casualties the narrative of the game treats it as if it was their very own 11/09 (yes, I said it). It becomes a tragedy media every neutral NPC condemns and even the players get chastisened for the event.
So I repeat, for me it´s NOT ENOUGH if you personally see Silverwing as “Evil”. I NEED the game to condemn her as “Evil”. And to achieve that, I ask for the same mechanisms used to condemn “Evil Horde” characters A.K.A. neutral organizations literally fighting to defend the Horde (coughcoughmaybeKirinTorplaysredthistimearoundcough), and them plus “goodie two shoes pro Horde Alliance” aknowledging THE WHOLE Alliance is at fault because they didn´t control the rogue element that made possible the evil acts in the first place.
Sure dear, that´s why we beated the Burning Legion. Cause the factions had no resoruces to even control local mischief in their own territory borders.
It will take more than an isolated scenario most people won´t care about and will skip as yet anothyer useless leveling experience.
It would need a WoD retconning in itself. anything less is but susceptible to be raised as “particular event with no actual representation of the race as per the lore”.
I wouldn’t imagine that this would be set up to force you to do the quests if you wanted to do WSG. One of the pillars of PVP storytelling is that story should be optional - although I do introduce a few mechanics that provide boosts to both sides when people are trying to do the quests. I still think they should be available though - and as for this entire questline. Look - if fighting Night Elves isn’t your thing, I’m not saying you have to do it.
But I am saying that for those who end up doing it, we should switch positions here - give the Alliance a few more morally darker moments, and give the Horde something that they feel good about protecting.
@ Ariel
I’m not going to address your entire post - because I feel at this point you’re just looking to make the other side suffer as you feel you have - which in my opinion is about as responsible as me calling to burn down Orgrimmar. You’re calling for massive, drastic changes to immediately undo the damage. I can’t give you that. Blizzard can’t give you that. Retconning WoD can’t give you that. The audience is left with these impressions and they’re not going away. They’re not going away for me either. I don’t feel that what I proposed would come anywhere close to resolving the ten years of humiliation that I feel the game dealt me. Because there were ten years of it.
But we do have to start somewhere, and we have to do that with a more stable foundation for a game that’s fun for everyone.
On paper this would be great, but I wouldn’t be able to stop from questioning the context in which they’re involved. I disliked Talanji straight out of the box because it felt blindingly obvious that she was a prepackaged bargain bin Jaina. Zelling was just there to make Sylvanas the baddest baddie bad.
Introduce a horde-aligned character and try to butter it up to me and I’m instantly going to start side-eyeing it (“is this character supposed to be a BFA veteran or a ‘clean’ character?”), but then tie it to any hostile night elf content and WHOOPS that NPC is radioactive I want nothing to do with it anymore get it away or kill it off I don’t care just get it off my screen.
And I know this is more about character attachment in general and not really relevant to the Warsong Gulch proposal (as I’ve been vocal in my distaste for it already) so I guess you can just disregard my tangent if you wish. But I’m just so used to Horde Bad at this point that I don’t really want any horde stories, and would rather just muck about in neutral content from here on out.
And I know this is more about character attachment in general and not really relevant to the Warsong Gulch proposal (as I’ve been vocal in my distaste for it already) so I guess you can just disregard my tangent if you wish. But I’m just so used to Horde Bad at this point that I don’t really want any horde stories, and would rather just muck about in neutral content from here on out.
No, the two concepts are somewhat linked. For those who are interested in PVP - I feel like they need some kind of motivation, and you’re not wrong to approach future content with a lack of trust. I do that too - I just again don’t think that should stop us from asking how the game could be better.
The hang up is everyone’s differing opinion on what constitutes “better”.
Wrong, I´m asking for “fairness” regarding the writting of this game. After all, if it was “good enough” for the Horde players, then it´s “Good enough” for the Alliance ones.
Why should a Horde scenario supposedly designed to bring back trust in the writting of the company -or at least a sense there´s some sort of HONESTY in the process regarding it´s creation, execution and implementation be designed with the express purpose of cattering to the Alliance playerbase regardless on the latent weakness in the narrative that can be exploited later if devs decide to backpedal and put blame on Horde? Why should “evil” Alliance characters and “Evil” Alliance acts use the overdone “only in small scale” formula? Whjy should I even care over a “small scale” defense scenario in the first place, specially when the “Alliance = Paragon of Moral Righteousness” status quo is kept artificially intact and NO guarantees are given regarding future retconning for villain batting the Horde as is usual for the Horde players regarding our story?
Sorry not sorry I reject your scenario thanks to how USELESS and POINTLESS it is for me, as a Horde player, regarding regaining my faith in both the faction and how Blizzard writes it.
Funny how “a more stable foundation” is basically “let´s keep the Alliance narrative Moral Absolutism as a Faction” status quo while we Hordies have to use small scale and pretty irrelevant events as a “good enough” effort to achieve this.
Nope, sorry but not good enough for me. Either actuall start working on retconning the poop that ruined tyhe Horde narratively speaking or give me development independent from your insufferable Mary Sue faction, period.
(happy scream). We see only death, nothing will save us! Scream, moan, just show that you are like us! We have been groaning for a year, and your turn has come. There is only one problem - a crowd with one, not a crowd. But nothing - four days, the heated argument will subside. And we only hear the echo …
Hmm. It should be a verse, but there is no rhyme and rhythm even in the original. But too much with pathos.