Nov 6th 2011 10:55AM I don't see it ever happening in WoW; it's one of those changes that is just too large a change. But I think multiple factions would be a very good thing for an eventual WoW 2. I know that Blizzard is on record as liking the fundamental Human vs. Orc conflict, but I think it adds real dynamism into the world.
A perennial, fundamental complaint about WoW is that the factions make very little sense. ("Why are we working with THEM?") Blizzard tries to address this by adding intra-faction conflict, but what the game really needs is smaller, tighter factions that players can develop more of a sense of identity and pride in. These factions could then be part of a scheme of shifting alliances (e.g. perhaps the Horde genuinely does try to help the Forsaken, but after an incident like the Wrathgate, moves to open war.)
Perhaps two factions are at open war in one Battleground, but have come to a reluctant truce to cooperate against a greater threat in a place like Outland or Northrend. Some factions could tend towards neutrality, while others tend to be much more hostile.
With Pandaren choosing which faction to belong to, the ability to have one race belong to two different factions is very interesting.
It would be interesting to see the world undergo a large jump forward in time and momentous change on the order of what happened in the Third War. Then the slate would be wide open to tell stories of shifting alliances, new enmities, and other changes that would revitalize the game.
Just a few possibilities:
A traditional core Alliance, of Humans, Gnomes, and Dwarves, representing the typical nobility and arrogance of that group.
A warlike, honour-based, shamanistic Horde of Orcs, Tauren, Trolls.
A Holy Light-focused combination of the Argent Crusade and the Aldor.
A combination of the Cenarion Circle and the Earthen Ring with strong representation from Night Elves, Worgen, Tauren, Orcs, and Trolls.
A magic-focused nation of Dalaran, dominated by high/blood elves, humans, Shen'dralar, and Forsaken.
A dark empire composed of Forsaken and trolls, with slaves from other races.
Oct 31st 2011 9:45AM I think the more critical date, for thinking about the history of Dalaran, is not when the blood elves joined the Horde, but when they would have become hostile to the Alliance (and the Kirin Tor specifically). One of the books mentions that the Silvermoon BE leadership still blamed the Kirin Tor for their inaction during Garithos' attempted genocide which took place shortly after the Third War.
From the way it is discussed, Archmage Sunreaver's faction of BE became a part of Dalaran while they were still quite hostile with the Horde in general.
Oct 31st 2011 12:30AM I think an interesting possible answer to this question is also an interesting RP opportunity.
There are many blood elf and Forsaken mages that would have been members of the Kirin Tor prior to the Third War. I like to to think that the neutrality of Dalaran sprung from them essentially returning to the fold and asserting their rights to have a say in the governance of the city.
I like to think of my blood elf mage as someone who studied at Dalaran for years before the Third War, but was abroad when the city was destroyed. Making his way back there, he found that blood elves were no longer welcome in the city. Having lost so much, he was determined to regain his home, and found other blood elves and Forsaken who felt the same way.
The way I see it, the survivors of the destruction of Dalaran, being a few humans and even fewer high elves, were eking out an existence trying to rebuild their city while in constant conflict with the Forsaken. One day, a contingent of blood elves and Forsaken mages (possibly led by Aethas Sunreaver) showed up, all former members of the Kirin Tor, making for a reunion of sorts (awkward!). They demand recognition of their status, but offer cooperation in return. So with their aid, Dalaran gets rebuilt as we know it (with Sunreaver's Sanctuary and Silver Enclave) then flown to Northrend. The remnants around the crater are the militant diehards who rejected that deal outright.
It adds an interesting texture to the blood elves and Forsaken now in Dalaran - a bitterness that not only was their home destroyed, but they had to fight for the ability to participate in its future.
Sep 3rd 2011 11:28AM Agreed. Warlock tanking through pets or metamorphosis sounds interesting, but the potential for warlock healing mechanics are far more fascinating. They would bring such a different flavour to healing that it might attract new players to the role.
Aug 12th 2011 12:29PM From a narrative standpoint, I think it actually makes very good sense. The expansions have, as you, say, been about very serious events. The Burning Legion invasion, war with the Lich King, and the Deathwing Cataclysm. The difficulty is that trying to continually up the stakes can lead to end-of-the-world fatigue.
This may be reading a lot into it, but "Mists of Pandaria" suggests and adventure-exploration focus, which can be a good antidote. (Not that we won't be saving the world a few times.)
Feb 16th 2011 12:50PM Your description of everyone coming to help fight Deathwing is interesting. I think it would be neat if the entire final raid of the expansion, instead of having many bosses, was a series of Deathwing encounters. Chasing him deeper and deeper into Skywall, for example. Deathwing in human form, Deathwing in dragon form, Deathwing using different minions to assist him, Deathing using different abilities and mechanics - with the players aided at each step by the different factions who have a grudge. A bit like how the Lich King is central to just about every encounter in Halls of Reflection.
Dec 28th 2010 12:16PM Wowpedia I find more useful for lore, strategies, and guides. I definitely go straight to Wowhead for any item or quest information.
I'm not really sure why the wiki even tries to compete with Wowhead to index quests and items, rather than focusing on their strength of covering more descriptive information.
Dec 28th 2010 12:06PM I was wondering about the artifacts myself. Until someone like Wowhead writes an addon to track it, we'll have to make do with anecdotal evidence. Personally, I have 5 rares and 87 total common solves, though those numbers need to be qualified in several ways.
Most importantly, I wasn't eligible for very many rare finds until I reached 300 skill. So, for example, I've done 28 troll artifacts without getting the rare, but most of those were done below 450, at which the sole rare find becomes available. At 300 I went to Outland, where I was eligible for all 3 rares. Outland carried me to over 450, at which point I went to Northrend, where I was eligible for all rare finds except the Wisp amulet.
Also, your chance of discovering a rare find (any rare, that is) decreases as you solve them, and thus eliminate them from coming up again. Several of my vrykul and orc finds came up after I had already solved for the sole epic for that race.
Most of my rares have come from races with relatively few artifacts: orc, draenei, and vrykul rares all came very quickly. I'd be interested if other people have experienced this. So far, my data is consistent with the theory that your chance at any artifact is based on the total number of artifacts for that race, so for example the odds of a particular night elf rare are 1/25, orc is 1/9, and Tol'vir is 1/13. It would take a lot more data than my personal experience to confirm this hypothesis, though.
Dec 24th 2010 11:51AM I think a more specific answer to the first question would be, "You will start repeating common artifacts before getting all (or in some cases, any) of the rares."
Nov 28th 2010 1:42PM "Man, I feel like you can't talk about anything with America (GENERALIZING HERE) without it becoming instantly politicised and POLARIZED."
To some extent that is indeed true; everything is political.
In Oxhorn's case, his movies have a definite slant to their politics, and come across as didactic and heavy-handed in a way that I feel detracts from their humour. Agree or disagree, take it or leave it, that's just my critical opinion. But it's hardly off-limits as a grounds of criticism.
The extent to which stereotype-based humour works is largely tied to how 'true' the audience perceives the stereotype to be. Usually, when I am laughing at an edgy comedian's act, I'm gasping, "That's so true!" I don't get that reaction from Oxhorn's hypocritical vegetarians, self-important atheists, or "filthy perv" gays, because those stereotypes trigger an eye-roll and a sigh rather than agreement - they are tired to me, rather than true. If I was of a more conservative bent, I would likely find it much funnier. Political-based humour works that way. (It is possible to skewer stereotypes so adroitly that the sheer genius of the work appeals to all - see John Kennedy O'Toole's "A Confederacy of Dunces").