Skip to Content

WoW Insider has the latest on the Mists of Pandaria!
  • mingdi9
  • Member Since Nov 23rd, 2009

Are you mingdi9? If So, Login Here.

BlogComments
WoW93 Comments

Recent Comments:

Know Your Lore: The Shattering, part 1 {WoW}

Oct 10th 2011 12:27AM I largely expect Vol'jin wasn't even in the running for the same reason it is implied that Garrosh has such a low opinion of him: that it took Vol'jin many years and lots of help from the rest of the Horde to take back the Echo Isles from one troll witch doctor.

Regardless of the details of the difficulties of taking down Zalazane, I can't imagine the Horde in general thinking of Vol'jin as good Warchief material.

Blizzard looking for "meaningful difference" in expansion releases {WoW}

Aug 23rd 2011 3:09PM Argh I wish I had like an edit button or something, it would make this a lot easier or at least make this particular thread a lot shorter.

Really, I'm sorry this grew into such a issue, which is all my fault but I still thought I needed to say it.

As cool as NPCs and quests changing due to map changes is, I think the problem would be the cost of doing such changes each patch. At the very least if it is done carelessly I think it would give the developers a huge headache.

I think Blizzard could probably do something like use a combination of Wrathgate and Molten Front phasing for max level, where the situation in the capital cities change depending on what phase you're in, but everyone can still see each other, though there might still be some issues. Like, what if Sylvanas did become a raid boss and the Horde lost access to the Undercity for the duration of a patch? Would it actually cause any issues for people? Would anything really be affected? I think it's definitely worth some consideration.

Blizzard looking for "meaningful difference" in expansion releases {WoW}

Aug 23rd 2011 2:46PM Actually I typed out my second comment after your fourth was posted but not your fifth, so you hadn't posted that by the time I wrote my reply.

That said, my feelings haven't changed on the matter. If you write a post saying "I think they should use expansions to focus on good story arcs," and then you spend the majority of the post writing out a detailed example, I think it is entirely reasonable to take it as a potential, hypothetical storyline that I think really should never be considered for an expansion as is.

Blizzard looking for "meaningful difference" in expansion releases {WoW}

Aug 23rd 2011 2:25PM I totally didn't miss the point, in fact you missed my point.

"I admit it, I downvoted it. Not because the idea is bad but the story you've given as an example is horrendous."

and

"So, I downvoted it due to the shortsightedness that thought the presented example of "a GOOD story" could ever be an acceptable story arc for an expansion."

So, to make it even clearer, I didn't downvote it because I thought the idea was bad, I downvoted it because the example given, the meat of the post, is far, FAR away from being a good story, or even a story that is minimally acceptable to half of the playerbase.

Blizzard looking for "meaningful difference" in expansion releases {WoW}

Aug 23rd 2011 2:13PM I admit it, I downvoted it. Not because the idea is bad but the story you've given as an example is horrendous.

I understand the point of your post, of using phasing and an expansion to tell a story, but your example of "a GOOD story" is not one involving the Burning Legion or anything, but one in which the Horde:

1) loses two of their most important racial leaders
2) at least three of their racial capitals
3) and ends with the Horde as a political entity defeated and, as implied by the lost of the two factions, having the remaining Horde players join the Alliance.

How would you feel if instead it was the Alliance that lost, Tyrande that became a raid boss, Stormwind invaded and sacked, and the Horde that united Azeroth, with all the Alliance players forced to become Horde or give up playing?

So, I downvoted it due to the shortsightedness that thought the presented example of "a GOOD story" could ever be an acceptable story arc for an expansion.

Breakfast Topic: Did changing factions change how you play? {WoW}

Aug 19th 2011 12:03PM Actually, let's not forget that Thrall himself also has nothing to do with the Old Horde. The only difference is that Thrall's green skin recalls the taint of the demon blood, while Garrosh's brown Mag'har skin does not.

Thrall thinks that he still has to pay for the crimes of the Old Horde, even if he didn't have anything to do with it. Actually, looking at his 4.2 questline and Twilight of the Aspects, it's possible that Thrall just has a habit of overburdening himself and considering himself responsible for everything.

The Queue: BlizzCon or bust, again {WoW}

Aug 19th 2011 11:30AM Rhonin will interrupt the last boss fight with a pack of raptors and save the day.

And the raptors are us. We are the raptors, and we save the day.

Breakfast Topic: Did changing factions change how you play? {WoW}

Aug 19th 2011 11:15AM Actually, it is kind of interesting looking at the difference between Thrall's Horde and Garrosh's Horde, which is primarily in their opinion of the Alliance.

Let's use Mitawa's post as a starting point, with the New Horde having settled down in inhospitable territory and built new cities only a couple of years prior. When this Horde, primarily the orcs in it, interacts with the Alliance, the human attitude is much like Sinthar described: "You Horde are barely civilized savage murderers that invaded and killed us without reason or warning!"

Thrall's attitude is basically "They're right. It may not have been us, specifically, but we still need to make up for the crimes of our people and prove to them that we have changed." So even if the Horde needs resources, as they did pre-Cataclysm, Thrall wants his people to suffer through it because the alternative would be to go to war with the Alliance, and Thrall doesn't want that because he wants peace with the Alliance and the orcs, as the Old Horde, have already done much harm to the humans. This attitude basically sends two messages to his people: that they need to suffer penitence to prove themselves to the Alliance, and that they shouldn't take pride in being orcs, because, just by being an orc, they share responsibility for the crimes of the Old Horde.

A large part of the reason Thrall is so concerned with the Alliance here is because he really wants to make peace with humans and the Alliance. However, Garrosh doesn't see any benefit the Horde would gain from peace with the Alliance that they wouldn't get from war with the Alliance - in fact, trying for peace is already causing the orcs to suffer from trying to prove to the Alliance that they have changed. And since Garrosh sees no point in making peace with the Alliance, he sees also no point in any suffering the orcs are going through for the sake of the Alliance, and therefore is also telling the orcs that they don't have to be ashamed of being orcs. Yes, the Old Horde did terrible things, but they aren't the Old Horde; they don't need to pay just for being born an orc.

This is where Garrosh's popularity as a leader (as opposed to a warrior) comes from; not only does he say the Horde doesn't have to suffer from lack of resources anymore, he also says that they can take pride in being orcs again.

Here's a speech Overlord Krom'gar gives to his soldiers in Stonetalon occasionally, and while Krom'gar turned out to be the worst kind of orc, I think it's interesting to see why he respects Garrosh and what, precisely, he evokes to try to rouse up his soldiers:

Overlord Krom'gar says: Grunts, ATTENTION!
Overlord Krom'gar says: I am perplexed. Troubled by what I witness...
Overlord Krom'gar says: How has our revered Warchief failed you?
Overlord Krom'gar says: Your families no longer starve.
Overlord Krom'gar says: Your loved ones live with shelter over their heads.
Overlord Krom'gar says: You may walk through the streets of Orgrimmar with pride!
Overlord Krom'gar says: We are the new Horde, and under Warchief Hellscream, we are masters of our own destinies.
Overlord Krom'gar says: WHY THEN, have we failed to take Stonetalon Mountains?
Overlord Krom'gar says: How have the Alliance been able to halt the great Horde war machine?
Overlord Krom'gar says: From this day forth, failure is no longer an option.
Overlord Krom'gar says: Under Hellscream's watchful guise, live or die, we take Stonetalon.
Overlord Krom'gar says: Do not falter, for Hellscream's eyes are upon you all!

Transmogrification and the dismissal of the silhouette theory {WoW}

Aug 17th 2011 3:37PM That's a much better revision of the idea stated in your original post, so I just wanted to point out that the tauren that are *already* not part of the Horde are the majority of the Grimtotem tauren. If tauren become part of some third faction dealie, it won't be the Grimtotem who stay with the Horde.

Transmogrification and the dismissal of the silhouette theory {WoW}

Aug 17th 2011 3:08PM Look at it this way:

Let's say, in 5.0, that your main's race (whichever it is) will leave the Alliance permanently. You don't have a say in this, and you have two options:

1) You can race change your main to stay Alliance, or
2) You can leave your Alliance friends and guild behind.

Considering this, I'm sure you can see why ideas like "the Tauren should leave the Horde" or "we should wipe out the Forsaken and have all Forsaken players race change to something else" are incredibly terrible ideas.