Weren’t the bombs planted before the raid anyway? That would mean that regardless of outcome the flotilla would be crippled.
Or was the fleet only going to be scrapped if Ol’ Rasta didn’t comply?
1 Like
The bombs took out a portion, from the Raid it appears another portion are taken out in the Assualt. Remember the Golden Fleet is large, we plant some bombs, but as we still don’t have cutscenes yet for the majority of the raid we can’t tell how much was the pre-work and how much was the Assault.
Additionally, the port facilities and infrastructure were heavily hit (or appear so) in the Assault. We DO have Talanji’s post raid broadcast text which essentially states that the Zandalari are a shell of their former strength, and her openly wondering if Sylvanas will abandon her.
To her credit, Sylvanas uses that moment to the fullest to incorporate the Zandalari into the Horde.
Nah, not every city just and eye for and eye as minimum.
if we don’t get that’s fine, is not the first time that it happens in the alliance.
i guess than in six years tyrande will become relevant and probably will have the treatment she deserve, and the reason why i created this thread now that she probably will not be relevant in the azshara raid.
1 Like
Yeah, they’re not going to destroy another Horde city after destroying Undercity. And they’re not going to build a new Forsaken city just to have it destroyed.
Here’s hoping you’re right and in 6 years Tyrande’s successor gets to do something neat to ‘get revenge.’
I remember the dying night elf priestess’ last words: there will be justice one day, but eyes other than ours will see it.
1 Like
If that’s true I’d be surprised. This expac is a blank-show from all angles and I suspect that won’t last for long if it’s true, do to both the quality of BFA and the natural progression of sub drop off as excitement for any new expac goes down.
Like I said, it would still divide the player base even more. Less people in chat, less people in already empty cities do to sharding, less people for dungeon, raid, pvp groups. Ques are longer. Even if the beginning of an expac shows strong numbers and the divided playerbase doesn’t seem too bad, you still have to account for the sub drop off of a year in.
It would because Alliance players are still doing the Night Elf stuff and Horde players are still doing Saurfang stuff. 2 more factions would require them to do something in this patch for 2 more factions. Hypothetically a Stormwind faction wouldn’t participate in the Darkshore Warfront and the Night Elf factions wouldn’t participate in the Arathi Warftont. What reason would Night Elf players have for helping Kul’tiras anymore? Does the old world reflect this change? Or do Night Elf players who know their faction is separate from the Alliance still go through leveling zones as Alliance and are forced to help the Alliance?
Not to mention why introduce Allied Races this expac if they’re just about to split the factions? That makes it even more complicated for what races go where. Where do the Draenei go? They worship the light like SW but their closest allies are the Night Elves. Do the Lightforged stay with the Alliance because of the light thing or do they follow their Draenei bros if they go Night Elf? Genn is Anduin’s good boy but the Gilneans owe the Night Elves…?
This would be one of the biggest game breaking things Blizzard could do imo.
I think there are two aspects here that are getting conflated:
-
The structure of the Alliance, which exists independently of the individuals who fill the positions within it.
-
The specific individuals who currently hold positions of leadership within the Alliance.
I’ve been talking all along mostly about #1. Nothing about the structure of the Alliance, as I see it, prevents the Alliance from being the first to throw a punch in a war. Do you agree with that? If not, why not?
1 Like
As I have elaborated, the structure of the Alliance would require buy-in from the different states. This is shown explicitly in Chronicle 3. after Daelin’s death KT demanded that the Alliance make war upon the Horde. This was rebuffed, and so KT left.
This is reinforced by the Darkshore council meetings, which show that the High King, unlike the Warchief, can not simply order the states that make up the Alliance to agree with his strategy, instead that he has to persuade them to his action.
What these show is that you would need to get each of the states on board with an agressive war. It would require significant effort to get groups (if we are rewinding the clock to preWoT) such as the NEs who were paid restitution in War Crimes and whose disposition are to defense, to wage a war of Aggression into Horde Territory. The dwarves, as a state, have mostly turned to consolidating their current lands, especially after the twilight’s hammer took Grim Batol. The gnomes are not disposed to be agressive, and the Draenei as a people have just exhausted themselves from a war. Even the humans of Stormwind have been working more toward peace than war. This turns the final war making group the Worgen, whose only primary goal would be the retaking of Gilneas, which is not an aggressive move in the eyes of most. Even there, you would have to retcon/remove the development of Genn in BtS to get them there.
This is why it is impractical for blizzard to use the Alliance as the aggressors, because it requires significantly more work to do so because structurally, the HK can’t order a war, and we have in text evidence of a warmongering state getting cast out/leaving of the Alliance when they did not have the buy in of every state.
2 Likes
Sure. Fine. But coalitions go to war with buy-in from the different states all the time, in the real world. I don’t see this as a reason why the Alliance cannot ever start a war. Do you?
(Etc.)
Now you’re slipping into situation #2, talking about the specific leadership currently occupying the structure of the Alliance. I’d like to talk about just #1 before we move to #2.
Is it your position that in a “white room theorycraft” situation, it is not possible for the Alliance to start a war? Because I’m getting from your posts that you do think this, and I think it is in fact possible.
Impracticable, not impossible. Impractical meaning it would require significant effort to create conditions that would get that buy-in, especially for races not disposed to wars of aggression OR significant alterations to the states or nature of the High King. Which then runs into ruining the thematics of the faction, which returns us to no longer being a alliance of independent equal states.
Edit: This is the devolution of thematics I was talking about, the rejiggering of the structure of the Alliance (as an institution). Which you wanted to avoid in the first place.
And coalitions going to war against superpowers of equal stature in a global war is a far different thing than the “coalition of the willing” who essentially had relatively token forces in Iraq/Afghanistan.
Okay, that’s a start.
You’re slipping into #2 territory again. In a “white room,” the nature of the people or races involved is not set. Divorce this from the setting for a moment. In a “white room,” the amount of effort needed to create conditions that would get the buy-in depends on the attitudes of the people in the various positions of leadership, and the mood/condition of the peoples they lead–agree with me so far?
You are largely overstating what conditions it would take for the players to buy into this scenario.
1 Like
Ok, I think I see our disconnect. What your arguing about is if the system as designed can be ported to other groups and achieve the same outcomes. For the sake of argument, sure you could rejigger everything from the ground up. But all that effort is what makes it impractical.
As an aside: trying to do what you are doing. Divorcing the institution from its historical context, does not fly in my opinion. Now granted this is personal biases coming into play at a professional level, because institutions do not just “port over”. They arise a specific critical junctures and are shaped by the circumstances of their formation.
The Alliance would not have been the Alliance as an institutional entity had not the human kingdoms, Gnomes, and ironforge Dwarves not approached each other as equals, creating the initial institutional framework of the Alliance.
By contrast, the Horde was formed through the subordination of the various clans to the Warchief as expressed through the blood oath. Power was further consolidated as Blackhand used the position to define its limits and powers. Those traditions and powers exist in the Horde to this day.
I am talking the peoples of the game, not the players. Hell you have players pushing for annihilating cities in this very thread. You also know that it would be a farce as far as players are concerned because the status quo and faction investment must be maintained at the end of the day.
This is actually an interesting distinction, and in a lot of ways shows the horde as hypocritical. One of the Horde’s defining values is freedom as expressed here:
" these diverse and powerful races strive to overcome their differences and unite as one in order to win freedom for their people and prosper in a land that has come to hate them."
Yet, they live under totalitarian rule, and are seemingly happy to do so.
The peoples of the game are fictional, so how the players view their actions is all that matters. Appealing to impracticality in a fictional scenario only matters in-so-far as how sensible said scenario is received by the consumer.
Yes, that is precisely my point. That many, many Alliance players feel the conditions for the Alliance races to wage a war of aggression have been exceedingly met. You’ve been insisting that the circumstances to have this happen are so difficult to fulfill when I’d say large portions of the Alliance fanbase feel otherwise.
2 Likes
If we are discussing things from a watsonian perspective, in terms of how you could get an “Aggressive Alliance” the states and peoples who govern the Alliance have to be considered which is the core of this conversation. Frankly, the faction war will always be a farce. Raising the stakes to this level should essentially lead to the annihilation of one of the factions and the dissolution of the other, because that is what happens in total war scenarios.
Additionally, the wishes and concerns of the fan base are ones that will never and **can never**be met. The -Alliance won’t ever get justice for the attrocities committed, nor will the Horde writ large be blamed. We have seen this exact same song and dance play out in MoP, with War Crimes cementing developer insistance that the Horde Not equal the Warchief
You would see the exact same frustrations on an “aggressive alliance” occurring.
Yes, and who is making that consideration? The players. So again, most Alliance players would likely say there is significant in-universe reasoning for their peoples to desire war, that’s been my overwhelming experience. That you continually insist the conditions for this war of aggression are impractical. This is using your judgment of the situation. I’m telling you that this judgment runs contrary to how many Alliance players see the lore.
Which is irrelevant to me as it is a problem that will, barring large game changes, forever remain. I’m not inherently against it changing, but I’ve accepted such limitations for what they are.
And yet World of Warcraft is a product sold to consumers. It does not exist in a vacuum. Therefore the desires of the players should be considered when tailoring it. To pretend it operates outside any marketing considerations is incorrect.
Irenaus, sure there are Alliance players who see the lore differently, there are also many who don’t.
Aggregation of individual interest with such a diverse fan base is practically impossible. I’ve had this exact conversation with Ariël before. Every lore development is essentially a “New Coke” moment waiting to happen, because player preference diversity is so extreme. Just look at the range of preferences within the Horde community. You have so many groups with competing identities that writing preferences that satisfy one will anger others. You can also see this Alliance side this expansion with the fights over returning to Darkshore.
Player preferences have honestly been minimal in Blizzard’s concerns, in part because how diverse the player bases are.
There are some who don’t. I would insist that your view is the minority one. Being my entire issue when you’ve continually insisted on this idea of impracticability. Which cannot be moved further than ‘that’s just your opinion, man.’
Precise and complete satisfaction? Certainly impossible. General satisfaction to the majority? I don’t consider that impossible. While difficult, it is hardly an exercise in futility.
Given both their statements and reactions to things, I would disagree. Again, to think the game somehow utterly ignores the desires of consumers is naïve. Even in the recent Eurogamer with Alex Afrasiabi acknowledges consideration of player desires.
This is the same interview that set the forums aflame with his announcement of Sylvanas being behind the wrathgate yes? And what segment of the Horde player base wanted that bit of lore development.
You insisting I am a minority is an unprovable claim, even in this self-selecting community that is the SF.
Tell me, what percentage of the Horde player base was satisfied with the Legion story, the Mists of Pandaria story, or WoD? Tell me, what would you estimate the Alliance satisfaction with MoP, Cata, or BfA? And that is just the first level of aggregation.
Customer preference as related to story decisions is even harder to gauge than mechanical systems. Even that is seemingly insurmountable for blizzard at times.