The argument you are making is that the Horde should be happy it got a second civil war because ‘it’s content’. You’re not going to convince anyone with that kind of reasoning.
6 Likes
Just because it’s horde content, does not make it Good Content or positive content for the horde. And it’s some that STILL gets lost in the conversation.
Know what I mean?
5 Likes
people playing through beta.
I’m talking about the levelling campaign, IE: the face of the expansion story that should be setting up the entire expansion and it’s main protagonist characters.
13 Likes
Man I hate that I don’t know how phones work because there’s so much wrong with meringues argument that it’s flabbergasting and requires direct dissection.
4 Likes
Several people picked their arguement apart. Which wasn’t that hard if anyone actually played horde side.
4 Likes
Look, that is simply a different issue. That is Blizzard writing content for the Horde, giving the Horde stories, but doing it in an unpopular way. But importantly it actually involved giving the Horde more content than the Alliance.
Now quite a few players are saying they don’t think Blizzard will give the Horde equal content to the Alliance because of that. Which just doesn’t fit. History has been the Horde getting more content, not less. So, that is not justification for thinking the Horde wont get content.
Now, if it was a complaint about the story. Like say the expac started with the Horde attacking a city, etc. I would fully agree with looking at history and saying, ‘hey, wait a minute.’ But that isn’t what is happening.
That is a strawman and you know it.
My argument is you can’t say the Horde has a history of not getting content because you didn’t like the content.
I have played through the beta. There is a TON still open. For example, the first patch barely meets the Harronir. There is a ton of open threads that could all very easily involve the Horde.
The leveling campaign is fairly small part of an overall expac. Even shorter for TWW. And even in Dragonflight each of the major patches added a ton of story content.
And is your only measure of an expac the leveling story? That seems like more of a way of trying to cherry pick for your complaining.
First, I have played the Horde side.
But more importantly the ‘picking apart’ was just them strawmaning.
I suppose you could just continue to ignore the list of expansions I posted that proved that devs heavily favor the ALLIANCE over the horde when it comes to story and in overall quests while lying about the horde getting more content than the alliance, which again is a Bold Face Lie
The alliance has over a 100 MORE quests ingame still for their Loremaster Achievs
But sure, alliance has less by whatever deceitful metric you’re using
4 Likes
Okay, you want to go there.
MoP: Objectively and significantly more Horde content. In fact an entire patch dedicated to the Horde.
WoD: More Horde story than Alliance
Legion: Close in content, two zones each. Though more story content happened around the Nightborne (Horde) than any other group. I see you tried to discount the Highmountain and the Nightborne because they joined later in the expac. But, so did the Lightforged. And while the most Alliance favored zone had a significant night elf presence, the Tauren had more presence in Val’sharah than anything Alliance in Highmountain.
BfA: HEAVILY favored telling Horde story. Including, but not limited to a number of fully rendered cinematics. You not liking the story doesn’t mean more time and resources didn’t go into the Horde storytelling.
SL: DID NOT favor the Alliance. I love how you move the goal post to what you consider the “areas that mattered.” But that doesn’t work. When taking all the story telling together, the Horde had more story telling than the Alliance. Heck, most of the expac was around Sylvanas, the Forsaken and how they came about. One zone had a decent amount of Alliance story telling. But it also had a bunch of Troll (Bwomsamdi and Loa) as well as Tauren lore. Plus characters like Kael’thas.
I get you didn’t like much of the Horde story. But that doesn’t change the simple fact: More time, resources, and effort went into telling Horde stories and adding Horde content than the Alliance. That means the Devs do NOT favor the Alliance.
Funny that you say that while your metric is: If you don’t like it, it doesn’t count.
Inserting the whole “areas that mattered” doesn’t change the fact that you are trying to paint a false picture. And inserting that line means you know you are trying to paint a false picture.
I agree with most of what you said except this. I think the split is more like 75/25 even than I’m being lenient. Story center stage around Andiun & Tryanda. We quested under Jaina and Bovar the most. Yes Thrall and Baine were there but they were just there, they did little to nothing. They didn’t help us fight back like Jaina, they didn’t have a story arch like Tryanda or Anduin. Thrall was suppose to resolve his inter conflict with his mom but nope was scrapped and retconned what little happened apparently. Baine entire content was scrapped.
Worst part was the orcish religion if one could call it that was the worship of ancestors. You would think it would play a part in the shadowlands. Or you know the undead race would have a role in the after life realm. It to me feels like blizzard went out of their way to ignore logic. Just like in legion where orcs had a history and resentment against the burning crusade.
6 Likes
Vast majority of horde players don’t and didn’t want that.
7 Likes
I really like the takes where people say “but there’s a large portion who liked this” cause absolutely none of you have done a survery. None of you have that data
15 Likes
They’re just remembering one of those ******* pvp’ers who wandered in from the General Forums, saw the spirited debates between the two sides, and decided to troll for a little while by “Blood and Thunder’in” all over the Story Forums announcing how great it was to ruin things for Alliance partisans and roleplay out their sadism for all to read.
It still happens to this day. And we even got our Blackrock-Orc-in-a-Blood-Elf-Skinsuit as a permanent resident during that period of time.
5 Likes
Technically what we are doing is arguing on different goal posts.
Your argument is strictly on the idea of pure numbers, regardless of whether it aided or harmed the Horde story.
My argument is that the quality and effect on the playerbase has a massively more important effect then the amount of it.
Noone cares about the objective amount of content given to each faction when the majority of one sides content is subjectively disparaging that faction.
EDIT: Or to rephrase so I don’t have to put this down elsewhere, the kind of tit-for-tat argument over who deserves content is dumb and we absolutely should have even representation in all stories to prevent exactly these kinds of arguments.
Where is this history coming from? Horde has mostly gotten less content, maybe it did in mop. Even then it was because we were going though a civil war and villain batted. Out side of faction conflict the horde and it’s characters get little to no development at all. Now look at the alliance it gets content and development for it’s characters in every expansion.
On that note do you know why every horde player had to level in the barrens in classic? Because they ran out of time to develop zones and quest for the horde. Horde has less cities, less characters and alot less netural content than the allaince.
5 Likes
Given that this is the literal story forum, i think people are valid in arguing not just the quantity of story but also its quality
5 Likes
There would be no need for this argument if Blizzard was not lazy and made two separate faction experiences like was the norm until the end of BfA.
Legion I can forgive, since it had 12 separate class quest content (and we STILL got Stormheim and a different champion here and there), but SL/DF/TWW are just unforgivable.
11 Likes
A big gripe many alliance players have with Blizzard is that Blizzard loves giving Horde players easy zingers and low-hanging fruit at the expense of the alliance as a faction or specific races. You can’t look at a night elf cosplay or art anymore without some halfwit making a barbecue joke, or talk faction pride without someone mocking the Theramore bombing. All that “teasing” tending to be extremely one-sided gives credence to the bias arguments.
It’s a lot like weapon magazines. Popular media shows soldiers just throwing them on the ground. What happens is that they dump them in a fanny-pack like bag for holding empty ones, because Uncle Sam will take that cost out of your pay if your rationale for throwing them isn’t good enough. Any anything you abandon can and will be used by the enemy against you. But picking up expended magazines and brass isn’t sexy.
The card board box that stores your gas mask costs $50.00 USD. Ask me how I know.
4 Likes
I have said this before, let me say it again:
- If your concern was that Blizzard was going down the Horde is a villain path again, I would fully agree with a concern. That did happen in the past.
- If your concern is that Blizzard will not give equal time and attention to the Horde, there is not justification for that from history. That didn’t happen.
Bottom line, Blizzard has said they are going to ensure the Horde does not have less content. You can’t argue history shows the opposite, because that just isn’t true.
Yes it is. Good thing that is not what I am arguing.
Horde had CONSIDERABLY more content in Cata.
More story in each patch of MoP and an entire patch of only Horde story (including and extra scenario).
WoD was notably more Horde history and story than Alliance.
BfA was blatantly more Horde story. Including the Saurfang quest chain and the multiple fully rendered cinematics.
While Legin and SL were fairly close (and mostly ignored both factions), Horde had more in both of those as well.
Over the years Horde has absolutely had more content.
I think this is where you and others are missing the point. You didn’t like the story (and justifiably so). So, you don’t count it as development. It also colors you view of how much time the Alliance got (Horde players tend to over estimate the amount of development the Alliance got). The Horde has not had less content than the Alliance. Quite the opposite. The Horde has had more content, more time, more resources.
That is why the concern the Horde wont get it’s fair share going forward is not justified. Lack of content has not been the Horde’s issue.
It is fair to raise story concerns. I have said that many times. Again, if this was a case of the Horde getting a story that started with them making an unprovoked attack then looking at the paste story failures would be completely justified.
It is not fair to claim that Blizzard isn’t telling the truth when they say Horde will get an equal share of time because of a historical pattern. That has not been the pattern.
Well, this is a trilogy so they probably planned to spread out. Midnight is probably going to be thalassian focused so lots of horde stuff, since they changed the design structure of the expansions (building the story as a 3 parter instead of a self contained thing, makes sense to focus on one thing at a time).
About the support cast: heck, a couple years ago a very valid criticism was the over reliance on Thrall as a horde character being green jesus and stealing the spotlight from everyone else. Now that some less known characters are getting like 3 dialogue lines and some screentime we…complain that we are not seeing enough of the big names anymore?
tbf this works both ways, “Muh Taraujo” was a thing before Cata was even launched and yet people still milk Theramore and Teldrassil years and years later. Plus we’ve had to quest with Alliance NPCs calling us the scum of the earth every expansion since WoD, with MoP not really counting since we don’t actually quest with Jaina, she just shows up in a shared scenario in IoT.
Also the Horde never gets the constant reassurance that [Bad thing] we did was actually okay like the Alliance does.
Military spending is the epitome of penny-wise, pound foolish. Though looking at other nation’s military spending, at least the US can be proud that when we spend 75 bucks for a hammer, we at least get the damn hammer, or hell will be paid.
7 Likes