What certain people continue to fail to understand, after it’s been explained numerous times now, we get both sides have it rough.
But the horde, BY FAR, continues to get the short end of the stick when it comes to storytelling
4 Likes
He really doesn’t mind looking like an idiot. The really funny part is for all his talk about an easier way he still keeps chasing me around different threads just to call me by a name of someone else. Literally not adding anything to the conversation, just calling me by a wrong name.
I don’t see how that is ‘humbling.’ Horde gets built up as this near unstoppable force only failing when it breaks up, defeating itself. Then in a few years it is once again unstoppable until it again defeats itself.
Let’s not get into the whole ‘lost heroes’ argument. Because it happens on both sides. I think a lot of Horde players miss the Alliance characters that are lost because they aren’t paying attention. And some of the losses the Alliance got were far more humbling than the Horde.
For example, you listed Nazgrim. You know the Alliance had a counterpart to him. Care to guess what happened to him? Nazgrim got a public warriors death. Taylor got killed off screen by a subordinate and turned into a ghost. Meanwhile Nazgrim is now one of the Ebon Blade horseman, Taylor is still a ghost in the WoD garrison.
There are plenty of lost heroes on both sides.
I think you are confusing ‘humbling’ with ‘villainous.’ The Alliance suffered far more humbling losses, like Theramore and Teldrassil, where the Alliance lost big and were shown unable to contend with the Horde. While even Undercity, which was supposed to the counter to Teldrassil, was the Horde intentionally laying a trap and getting just as many hits on the Alliance as they took.
There is no question the Horde got painted with the villain role more. The Alliance never did anything to the Horde comparable to Theramore or Teldrassil. But the Horde wasn’t ‘humbled’ by that.
Even:
Wasn’t really humbling. Remember, we were only there because the Horde defeated itself. And did any of the Horde leaders even acknowledge his speech? Nope, they just immediately went into ‘who is our next leader?’
In the game, the Alliance lost most every battle right up until the Horde rebellion started. Even the ‘victories’ at best could be called pyrrhic, but were really just stalemates. The faction wars were basically the Horde slapping the Alliance around over and over again until the rebellion started and then the Horde loyalists could only be defeated with the help of the rebels. That is why I say say the Alliance was the faction that was humbled, it was presented as no real match for the Horde.
Yes, the Horde was treated as more of a villain. But that is different than being humbled.
It wasn’t that they couldn’t win against the Night Elves in their territory, it was that the couldn’t win before the rest of the Alliance would be able to reinforce them.
I do not disagree. People are wrong to say the Alliance was just as bad, or as some try to claim worse, than the Horde in terms of villainous actions. I just think it is funny that some people try to argue both opposite claims.
Again, to be clear: Yes, the Horde was put in the villain role far more. No, the Alliance has not committed comparable acts.
I never argued it wasn’t.
Yes, the Horde was more villainous.
And the Alliance doesn’t? Guess what, we lost major characters as well. Also cities. This is what frustrates me with a lot of the complaints. You think Horde has a monopoly on loss. It doesn’t. It is fair to be frustrated with lost characters you liked, but that is not unique to the Horde.
Both factions have had bad story telling.
Horde got handed the villain role and had to play through it, losing some characters people were attached to in service of that story.
Alliance got handed a jumbled, mismatched and often incoherent story all in service of the Horde story. While losing characters, often off screen, and cities in service of the Horde story. While also getting objectively and significantly less story content.
Who had it worse? That is subjective. It will depend on what each person values more. But it is wrong to pretend the other side didn’t have problems as well.
Varian got a heroic death in legion. Name just ONE horde character who got that
2 Likes
Grom got a heroic death before WoW was in development, does that count?
Cairne got a … wait.
Sylvanas and Varimathras got a heroic… loot table. Nathanos heroically tested the sharpness of Tyrande’s glaives with his neck.
Vol’jin definitely went out like a … something. Does “chump” mean the same thing as “hero?”
Thrall heroically retired to save the world? But hey, at least he left Garrosh the hero in charge. We definitely didn’t raid, imprison, then chase him to alternate Draenor to watch him die, right? And it’s not like Saurfang emerged to lead and immediately died. Reads notes. Oh dear.
Well, at least the financial backbone of the Horde doesn’t have to worry. It’s not like Gallywix mixes it up on the frontlines to even be at risk of dying in the first place. Oh. Oh no.
Okay, okay. It can’t be that bad. Surely the Alliance leaders have suffered the same problems, right? They’re totally in the same ballpark.
6 Likes
IRL a Warlord worth his salt would just tear whatever “council” apart, literally rend them. Everyone on Azeroth is bound to be under some council because the ideologues who write this game don’t know how life works, and believe anyone cares about something like an equal say.
But that’s also why nothing gets done Hordeside in this game, because the “council” wouldn’t actually work for five minutes with anyone in the Horde. Any of our PCs could/would become actual Chief, essentially right this moment.
They need to hire someone that has lived somewhere other than suburban America, or who would play a Horde character.
1 Like
No, that really is not the case, that’s complete nonsense. Most so-called warlords have councils, often advisory, sometimes far more powerful.
There is in fact not a single government irl that does not have a form of council at the top, whether the official ruler is one person or many.
Tauren have a council, Highmountain have a council, Sin’dorei have a council, Shal’dorei have a council - and all 4 of them always had them even under singular rulers.
The OG horde had a council running everything behind the warchief, even.
So until the game goes back to the horde as a purely orcish endeavor, no, councils are not a newfangled thing for those races that are shackled to the orc show.
I didn’t say you didn’t. You, however, said that Horde didn’t “get punished.”
No, I don’t. I think both sides have legitimate grievances with the writers.
That question never leads anywhere productive, and I’m not engaging with it. I’m simply pushing back against your statement that the Horde doesn’t suffer.
10 Likes
Cairne
Voljin
Saurfang
Loses do not mean punished. The Horde was not punished.
There is a reason the very next sentence was: " That is subjective ."
It is not a question that can objectively be answered. Because, as I said it depends on what a person values more.
I never said the Horde didn’t suffer. Both factions did. I said the Horde was not and cannot be punished, just as the Alliance was not and cannot be punished. There is a reason everything was put on Garrosh/Sylvanas. There is a reason there were nothing in the terms of reparations, ceding territory, war crime tribunals, etc. even hinted at maybe being discussed, let alone being done. There is a reason Blizzard even released a cinematic with Jaina and Thrall talking about letting go of the mistakes of the past. You can’t punish a player faction. It has not, will not, and should not ever happen.
None of those three got a heroic death.
Cairne was killed by a poisoned blade
Vol’Jin died to a no name fel guard
Saurfang died by suicide via mak’gora.
So try again. And actually try to be honest
5 Likes
Saurfang got cheated off from his honorable death. Much as I dislike how he was going on that suicide trope, but still wouldn’t say it’s still count as a heroic death.
3 Likes
I said “The Horde players feel punished.”
And that is the reason why asking it is unproductive.
What is punishment if not suffering?
I’m glad you agree with that.
3 Likes
Why does sieging a capital city (MoP) and killing The Horde’s standing armies not qualify as punishment?
3 Likes
Let me guess: Because the Alliance didn’t do it alone. The Horde rebels helped.
2 Likes
Cairne, the old Bull, completely stomped Garrosh who was considered one of the strongest warriors around and in his prime. He only lost because of the poison. And Cairne was fighting for his people. Pretty heroic.
His death wasn’t really all that different from Varian’s. Both were fighting against multiple fel guards. Both got beaten and stabbed by Fel Guards. Guldan didn’t stop Varian, no named fel guards did. The difference was Vol’jin was carried out and died from his wounds later. Varian didn’t get the chance to die from his wounds.
Dude marched into a fight he could not win in order to save as many lives as possible. Any honest person would describe that as heroic. Plus he did more damage to Sylvanas than The Lich King did, who also had an army of undead with him. Which is, incidentally, also more damage than Varian did to Guldan.
So, feeling is your criteria.
There are plenty of Alliance players that felt punished for pick Alliance during Cata.
I can’t help your feeling. Objectively the Horde was not punished.
So,
The Alliance was punished with Theramore?
The Alliance was punished with Teldrassil?
The Alliance was punished with etc., etc.
If you want to call all bad experience punishment you have to include it all.
I have been saying that repeatedly.
So, destroying all the settlements in two zones (Ashenvale & Darkshore) and burning a entire region full of civilians (Teldrassil was more than just a city) was punishment as well? Blowing up Theramore was a punishment?
As bad as you think a siege of Orgrimmar was, it pales in comparison to what the Alliance suffered. So, if you consider SoO as ‘punishing the Horde’ you have to consider all the things that happened to the Alliance also punishment.
They are definitionally not punishments, because The Horde was the aggressor (see: Horde Players are Tired of Being Villains). There’s at least an argument to be made for Theramore, maybe, depending on where you land with legitimate military targets in an ongoing war.
If I punch someone because I want their lunch, that is not a punishment. If their friend beats the brakes off of me for stealing their friend’s lunch, that is a punishment.
This is actually delusional.
9 Likes
And that’s putting it nicely
3 Likes
Aren’t feelings what we’re talking about here? Aren’t feelings the reason why you care about punishment or lack thereof?
Also, the singular of criteria is criterion.
All punishment is suffering.
Not all suffering is punishment.
Punishment is a subset of suffering.
And yet, you claim you’re not interested in measuring “who has it worse”?
6 Likes
Go watch the cinematic.
If you want to claim Voljin did not get a heroic death because got stabbed by a no name fel guard, the same thing happened to Varian. The only difference is the no named fel guards brought Varian to Guldan before he died of his injuries, which is what would have happened. He was already as good as dead before Guldan even touched him. If being stabbed by a no name fel guard is enough to disqualify it as a heroic death, that applies to both. I don’t think it does though.
It was part of the war itself. It was not a punishment for the war.
If you punched someone and they fought back to protect their lunch and they won the fight. That would not be punishment, that would be you losing. If after that his friends came and ‘beat the brakes off you,’ that would fit as punishment.
SoO was winning the fight. Nothing was done after that. If you want to pick out specific punches during the fight and call them ‘punishment for the punch before it’ then you have to apply that same standard across the board. Picking and choosing which ones count as punishment just so you can say one side was punished is disingenuous.
Feelings might be why you care, but they are not what determines if something is true.
I am not interesting is discussing which players had it worse. That is subjective.
Which in game faction suffered more damage in the story is not subjective. Objectively the Alliance suffered more damage. You can’t honestly argue that.
The big difference is that player experience (such as being forced to play as villains) is not a factor in the in universe world.
A lot of mental gymnastics there, but you’re wrong. Siege of Orgrimmar was the conclusion of the war (the friend beating the brakes off of me—a retaliation/punishment). It was not part of the initial fistfight over the lunch.
Try being intellectually honest and exercise some critical thought instead. Vol’jin getting poked in the gut once and collapsing by the very flanking maneuver he was warning about is not comparable and not heroic. I refuse to believe someone can equate that to Varian’s sendoff with a straight face.
4 Likes
Retaliation has to come after the fight. The conclusion of the fight is not retaliation, it is the end of the fight.
It is weird how you try to justify it not being heroic. He was fighting a massive force, one that had Thrall on the ground. We saw him killed two attackers before getting stabbed (who knows how many before that). Then he killed the one that stabbed him.
Seriously, what do you think disqualifies that from being heroic?
Because the argument everyone seems to put forward is that it was a no name demon that killed him, so not heroic. But it was a no named demon who stabbed Varian as well.
So, what do you think is required for it to be a heroic death? Is there some number of foes that has to be killed first? Does it need a certain music score behind it? Is there some arbitrary number foes they have to be out numbered by? Is it only heroic if that person kills the most on screen? What really is required for you to think it is a heroic death?