Skip to Content

WoW Insider has the latest on the Mists of Pandaria!
  • Glaras
  • Member Since Mar 2nd, 2009

Are you Glaras? If So, Login Here.

WoW537 Comments

Recent Comments:

Does Garrosh Hellscream deserve to die? {WoW}

Mar 24th 2012 9:40AM @N-train: I will freely acknowledge that we have heard Blizzard say that they've heard us, and will address the issue, if you will freely acknowledge that we have heard that before and nothing came of it. A few months ago, I pointed out that this has become a trust issue with the secs at Blizzard. I'm not going to bother repeating the well-documented litany of examples. I'm only going to say that when all you hear is "wait and see", and then what gets delivered is more of the same, it is more than understandable that we'll respond to promises of improvement with skepticism.

I'll put this to you, personally, though. I will be playing Mists when it comes out, and if Blizzard was serious about improving the Alliance's *in-game* experience, then I will be calling that out loud and long. But if we get in there, and it's just more of Andorhal, more of Southshore, more of getting pushed back while we just stand there getting beat up, more half-baked sequences like the opening of TH... then are you going to stand with us in calling it out, or are you going to be an apologist, and tell us to wait and see some more?

Does Garrosh Hellscream deserve to die? {WoW}

Mar 23rd 2012 2:39PM Taking out the Warchief -on its own - is only a good thing for the Alliance only if we act without the rest of the Horde's help, and we leave Orgrimmar a ruined shell whose fate will only be spoken of in whispered choked with dread.

Otherwise, it's not *our* story.

The Queue: The sins of the father {WoW}

Mar 21st 2012 12:04PM Ok, you win. I actually wasted a few tenths of a second testing to see if you were right. Ya got me.


Mists of Pandaria: Siege of Orgrimmar {WoW}

Mar 19th 2012 11:15PM I know you're going to think I'm nitpicking or playing with semantics, but I'm really not. The problem is that the term "Horde-favoring" and "Alliance-favoring" only has any real meaning if all else is equal. Let me illustrate:

Horde gets a scenario where they will besiege Stormwind. Players get a quest in Orgrimmar to report to Grom'Gol, and a special phased zeppelin ride has the player form up with elite Korkon troops for the ride south across the waves. Pep talk from an Orc general ensues, explaining that with the Alliance in disarray, now is the time, the die is cast, blah blah, and you land in STV. Your next quests involve an amphibious assault (quest) up the coast to Westfall to setup a forward staging area (quest). After fighting off elements of Stormwind's military who have been skirmishing with the Defias (quest), you take part in a bombing mission (quest) to destroy Stormwind's port (you can see it from Westfall's northerns shore, if you've never been there). You then get a quest to advance with ground units into Elwynn Forest (quest), and use demolishers to destroy Goldshire (quest, and no one from the Alliance will blame you), setting the rubble ablaze. After reporting your actions back to the staging area (in order to allow the phased version of a destroyed Goldshire to become persistent), you advance on the gates of the city. Four more quests have you breaching the walls, burning down the trade district, fighting your way to the keep, where you kill Wrynn on the steps, right below that damned statue of himself he had put up. AFter a hearty Loktar cheer, you get ported back to Orgrimmar, a conquering hero.

Alliance gets a scenario where they will besiege Orgrimmar. The breadcrumb quest in Stormwind leads you to a mage portal located a few steps from the questgiver, and you are ported to Durotar, right in front of the gates. The Alliance general makes a shouted challenges to the orcs, and a squad of Korkon ride out to get cut to pieces by NElf NPC archers. Similar to the Battle for Undercity, the general calls out again about the carnage about to take place for 5 minutes before the event starts. Then it's a foot charge through the gates, among piles of Alliance infantry, killing the odd orc/troll/tauren NPC. The general leads you to Garrosh's throne room, and you get buffed to absolute immortality so that you can join in the fight, slaughtering piles of Horde while the general runs back and forth killing other NPCs for a few minutes before Garrosh makes his appearance. You engage him along with other Alliance NPCs, and after suffering enough of Garrosh's inane dialog, the fight abruptly stops when Vol'jin appears, and shoots Garrosh dead. The obligatory speech ensues about how Vol'jin "warned Garrosh that this day would come". Then he thanks all the Alliance for putting an end to this idiot's rule. Thrall then enters the room and after a token protest, accepts the Warchief title back. He then tells the Alliance that they can leave, and be confident that better days are ahead. A portal opens, allowing you to port back to Stormwind to receive your reward from King Chin, who otherwise doesn't move a muscle.

Under your use of the terms, Killik, these are both equal events, one favoring the Horde and the other Alliance. But the *quality* of these two scenarios is vastly different, with the Horde in-game experience being far superior. This is the crux of Alliance discontent. And we've been told over and over "wait and see", and we keep getting experiences that compare to the Horde's in about the same manner as above.

Mists of Pandaria: Siege of Orgrimmar {WoW}

Mar 19th 2012 6:57PM @Hob: thank you for the question. I want to start by saying that I feel your confusion is stemming from precisely the point I was trying to make: you don't understand the root cause of Alliance discontent. Our problem has not arisen from not having another raid. And it has not come from the fact that the orcs have a leader who is, well, so thoroughly -Orc-, at least from our POV.

The problem is that Blizzard seems incapable of giving us a story where we do something worthwhile *for ourselves*, *by ourselves*. We have already heard that this siege is going to be a cooperative venture with the Horde. And as I wrote above, it will unseat Garrosh, who is apparently being developed as a maniacal, bloodthirsty fiend. That will give the Horde a new leader that is probably more palatable to Horde players, and will allow the cracks that are threatening the Horde's unity to begin to heal. But what does the Alliance get from this? As I said, there is no reasonable motive in teaming up with people who have been your enemy in the past, just so you can work together to take down that people's current leader, unless you're not going to be enemies with your teammates in the future. And unless Blizz is making MoP the final expansion of the franchise, that isn't going to happen.

No, if this was a reasonable act from a unified Alliance, we'd be working to slaughter every green-skinned Horde we could find.

And no, I don't want that. That would end the game. I just want my faction to be treated equally well as the Horde in terms of quest quality, storyline, reasonable outcomes and responses. In short, to stop being treated as the foil, and more of a co-star.

Mists of Pandaria: Zones and questing {WoW}

Mar 19th 2012 5:18PM Uuhhhhm when you get that peach tart recipe, remember to share.

(Dammit, now I want peach pie. Thanks...)

Mists of Pandaria: Zones and questing {WoW}

Mar 19th 2012 5:10PM I'm... I'm trying not to be too impressed with this. I'm really, really trying.

Your own personal farm? That is, like, *one step* away from a personal forge, or a personal mine, or... or whatever we want! And as a shaman, I have to say to Blizz: Alementals?


Seriously, this is most pumped I've been for MoP.

Mists of Pandaria: Siege of Orgrimmar {WoW}

Mar 19th 2012 3:11PM And I invite you to consider that "alternative" is not a binary choice. Why is "the alternative" a mirror operation by the Horde against the Alliance?

I also want to say that the meat of your message is "wait and see". Which is very familiar to the Alliance.

Mists of Pandaria: Siege of Orgrimmar {WoW}

Mar 19th 2012 11:41AM Am I the only one that isn't seeing this Siege of Orgrimmar as a good thing for the Alliance?

This is going to be kinda long, but I need to explain this. The major complaint of Alliance players has not been (in spite of the haze of noise on the subject) about territory or racials, or any of that nonsense. It's been about the fact that the Alliance and its leaders have been portrayed as essentially Horde punching bags, clueless idiots who can't seem to muster up the smarts to recognize that we're getting chewed to pieces. By an enemy that took advantage of our being focused on a larger problem elsewhere. We saw that in Wrath, when we were attacked from behind at the Broken Front, and again when (from the Alliance perspective) the Horde attacked at the Wrathgate. And again during Cataclysm, when the Horde advanced in lots of places while we were focusing on Deathwing. I know, some of that isn't "fair" in that the Wrathgate was (arguably) a renegade faction, and the more recent events are largely Hellscream's fault. But consider the game from the Alliance perspective, and this becomes an understandable summation. The Alliance, as a faction, has been a foil to the Horde's story, and this is the crux of the problem.

So now we have this Siege, and Metzen is saying this is going to be the thing that has all the Alliance being proud. But what is this Siege doing? We're removing Garrosh from the Warchief's chair. And this does what, for us, exactly? Regime change isn't a bad motive for invasion, particularly when the regime you're trying to change has been responsible for attacks against you, but it's a worthless exercise if the new regime is also hostile to you. And given that the entire premise of MoP is the Alliance-Horde war, we already know that Garrosh's replacement will be hostile. In the end, we're forcing a change of Warchief for the benefit of the Horde, and presumably for a "lessening" of Horde aggression. That makes no sense; you don't lay siege to an enemy fortification as strong and as central as Orgrimmar in order to make things a little less lethal for the neighboring elves.

The only sensible motive an Alliance High King-in-waiting should have in attacking Orgrimmar is its complete destruction, and the decimation if not elimination of the Horde's capacity to make war. If it's not that, then you're mounting a huge offensive -- and we've already seen that with Theramore's destruction, the Alliance's foothold on Kalimdor is tenuous enough to make such an offensive immensely more difficult -- for very little gain.

In game terms, the Alliance are once again bit players in the Horde's story. We're a foil, a necessary element to advanve Horde plot lines. And in exchange we get, what? A "High King", a human leader that has shown -zero- ability to bring the Alliance elements together. Moreover, the other Alliance leaders shouldn't have any reason to turn to Wrynn for unification. In fact, *none* of the leaders is a standout in that regard. With the destruction of Ragnaros' forces in the Firelands, only Malfurion has an actual victory of any recent standing, and he doesn't display any tendencies that would cause, say, Genn Greymane to commit Gilnean forces to him, in spite of the latter's taking residence in the former's city.

In order to pull off the High King bit, Blizz is going to have to show Wyrnn undergoing such a huge transformation in personality that requires massive suspension of disbelief. Now, maybe the Trials are intended to do that. But still, even that is going to be cast against the backdrop of the Horde's story. I feel that Metzen and the rest at Blizzard are demonstrating that their understanding of Alliance discontent is superficial, and they're trying to work up some "WHOA THIS IZ COOOL" to cover it over.

In other words, when the Seige is over, what is the Alliance left with? The answer to that question will determine how well Blizz "got it" or not.

Mists of Pandaria: Chris Metzen interview {WoW}

Mar 19th 2012 9:41AM Frankly, if I were in Blizzard's PR department, that "white chicks" comment would have nearly caused an aneurysm.