What does Wyrmrest Accord think of BFA?

(Serph) #141

Pretty easy to do when it happens in almost every thread

(Eledriss) #142

I agree, more or less. If Blizzard makes a mistake that creates a significant benefit to one side, and especially if it takes them a whole week to fix it, then part of “fixing it” should be giving the other side the same benefit.

But this isn’t the same thing as the Horde “atoning” for it, and the idea that any player should “atone” for a Blizzard decision (or a Blizzard mistake) is odd.

(Baenura) #143

yeah but you even complain about her in-game and on other forums. it’s like some weird playground crush where you try to kick sand at her to tell her how much you like her.

(Enekie) #144

Why is it acceptable for the Alliance to suffer as a result of Blizzard’s decisions, but the Horde should not?

(Enekie) #145

If this is the case, why not join the call to put the Horde in the passive role for awhile?

(Serph) #146

I did that like, once, two years ago and you know it. Don’t exaggerate

if I was kicking sand at anyone over liking them it’d be you

(Baenura) #147

irrelevant note but there’s someone reading this thread now named Illbleed and I don’t know how to feel about that.

RIP Dreamcast.

(Azhaar) #148

Obligatory reminder that no Horde players are writing this dreck. Horde players do not need to be punished or atone for Blizzard’s bias.

(Eledriss) #149

It’s certainly not acceptable for the Alliance to suffer as a result of Blizzard’s decisions. I never said that it was.

What I’m saying is that neither side should suffer as a result of Blizzard’s decisions. Making one side suffer on purpose in return for the other side suffering by accident doesn’t make the situation better for anybody. Instead, the side that suffered should be given something to counteract the instance of suffering, or in other words an equivalent benefit – for instance, a week of being able to queue for warfronts without being ilvl 320. At that point, both sides would have had a chance at the same benefit, and that would be fair.

(Enekie) #150

Here’s the real question.

When one side has suffered considerably more than the other, is it acceptable to merely go forward with both sides no longer suffering, or should something be done to amend for the previous suffering?

(Azhaar) #151

What kind of amends are you talking about, though? Deliberately imposing imbalance, glitches, or plot impotence on the Horde will rectify nothing and improve nothing. This is eye-for-an-eye thinking and nothing good comes of that, ever.

Blizzard needs to get its act together and the shape that needs to take is acknowledging that they are writing and programming for two factions. If they’re going to lean on this faction narrative to the point of deliberately goading both camps of their players in their marketing campaign, they need to make a good faith effort to treat both factions equally.

The Horde has historically benefited more from Blizzard’s bias. The solution to that is not punishing the Horde, but trying to remove bias.

(Eledriss) #152

As I said before, yes, something should be done to amend for the previous suffering. Something, for instance, that accords the same benefit that the less-suffering side enjoyed.

This does not mean that the other side should be made to take their “turn” at suffering. That would not be fair, because no players have decided, or can decide, to make the other side’s writing or gameplay worse. Only Blizzard is responsible, and only Blizzard can make the situation different.

(Lyzettie) #153

I don’t know, if you dislike how the alliance is treated so much why not join the horde.

(Dakama) #154

I can’t take you seriously anymore.
I’ve always tried to hold up some amount of human decency towards you but I refuse to believe you aren’t taking the piss
Being warmongers does not make you equivalent–no, worse–than the literal Lovecraftian tumors that are trying to eat the world’s soul from the inside out and have consistently been a force of untold horror and misery in the setting.
Take a step back for a moment and realize you’re huffing the faction conflict fumes a little too hard man.

(Baenura) #155

I’m sure this argument will be in good faith.

(Azhaar) #156

Nobody should have to make that call.

The Horde and Alliance offer wildly differing themes and aesthetics; having such an option is one of the big draws of a game like this because it lets you choose the kind of character you play and the kind of story you get to experience.

The problem with the current state of affairs is that the two factions were originally set up as distinct but in many respects equal. This new dichotomy of Awesome A-Holes and Noble Dishrags is spitting on the legacy of the early game, not to mention everybody who likes the Horde’s themes and aesthetics but doesn’t want to play an evil murdering monster, or likes the Alliance’s themes and aesthetics but prefers not to be constantly ignored and spat on.

(Enekie) #157

How would robot-catting the Horde not accomplish this?

Force the Horde to take a passive, introspective role for awhile. Let them go on a spiritual journey to learn about themselves and let the Alliance do the initiating, the action, the fighting.

Would a story in which the Alliance lead the charge and the Horde be relegated to cleaning up camp be amenable?

(Enekie) #158

I find the wording of “some amount of human decency” peculiar. Are we not all meriting of full human decency?

(Feyahni) #159

I believe it was Serph who said that the feeling safe on the forums thread was the thread that keeps on giving. But holy moly. This topic – opinions on BfA – is the topic that keeps on giving.

(Azhaar) #160

That would be a good plot if it was approached that way. With the writing actually emphasizing the Horde cleaning itself up and looking inward, rather than just being swept under the rug the way the Alliance is now.

That’s approaching it from a standpoint of writing a balanced narrative, not just trying to deprive half the story of any attention. That would be the important difference, I think.