Also on AOL
- Autos
- Technology
- Lifestyle
- Gaming
- Finance
- Entertainment on AOL
- Lifestyle on AOL
- Sports on AOL
- Travel on AOL
- More on AOL
Featured Galleries
Joystiq
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-02-2008 @ 3:55PM
Oblivion said...
"...it's interesting to consider that player-characters are, lore-wise, among the primary contributors (rather than the primary responders) to the friction between the Horde and the Alliance.
That is an interesting point. As far as the World of Warcraft lore is concerned, the Horde and Alliance are very often in a truce-like state. They joined forces in a war effort against the Qiraji. There was an Orc representative in Ironforge and a Dwarf representative in Ogrimmar during that time. And outside of the Azeroth capital cities, the battlegrounds, and a handful of lower level instances, both Alliance and Horde build reputation with the same factions and fight the same dungeon bosses. So, they really are working together quite a bit--even if it's being done in a sort of parallel fashion.
I would agree that the Horde and Alliance are largely at "war" because of PvP, and that is unfortunate in my opinion. It just further illustrates that the two factions are becoming more and more homogenized, which is too bad for the player. I really think Blizzard has to look closely at the Horde/Alliance relationship prior to releasing Wraith of the Lich King. While it is obvious that both factions will be at war with Arthas and the Scourge, it would be nice if we could stage that war from two separate cities with different points of view. I'm really not looking forward to Dalaraan (Shattrath 2.0) being a joint capital. I think they need to get back to the Horde/Alliance separation that was more prevalent in old world Azeroth (particularly the lower levels).
Reply
4-02-2008 @ 4:20PM
windex said...
If i see a low level horde on my way somewhere, chances are I will mess with him or kill him. For one main reason:
I don't like horde.
I'm not flexing or showing off skills. I am killing you because you are horde. I do the same thing if I see a level 70. This is a video game, and I play it to kill things, not build a caring and functional society. Horde ranks up high on those things I like to kill.
There are a couple pro-ganking arguments to make though.
1. There is no reason for anyone on a pvp server to not expect to be killed. If you think there is an unspoken bond between horde and alliance that allows you to quest in harmony, then you shouldn't be on a PVP server. There is no truce. By ganking lower level characters, you assure they don't think they are playing World of Carebears.
2. Protect our lowbies! Horde in STV or tanaris or another equally contested area, i'll help out the cause and kill some horde. Although you could argue this will just anger them and make them attack lowbie alliance that they wouldn't have attacked otherwise... in fact they more than likely will do just that. Good thing or bad? Up to you, the one getting killed.
3. I'm not ganking out of revenge, but I certainly want the horde to reach level 70 with a fighting attitude looking for revenge!
I am against camping because it really isn't much fun for either party. If I initiate a fight, i will kill them and continue on my way or continue whatever I am doing.
To be honest, I much prefer ganking solo 70's over lowbies, but I'm not going to run by, smile and wave just because you are a low level.
4-02-2008 @ 5:22PM
doyesac said...
2 quick points:
First, I don't see how this is a response to the post above you. What exactly were you replying to in Oblivion's post?
Second, you can't gank a fellow 70. You can kill em, camp em, annoy em, fight em, make em cry, grief em -- all sorts of things. But you can only 'gank' a player that is grayed out (and so honorless to you).