Oct 26th 2011 11:21AM I am an Alliance player and I started in BC, I would say it is fact. Bias might be a strong word however.
I share Mattkrotzer's and Sarah Bee's view that it's not the case that Blizzard hates the Alliance. I do feel that they get over excited in making cool storylines for the Horde, and dont' give enough for the Alliance to make it fun/exciting to be an Alliance player.
When you run into the Horde when you're questing as Alliance, it seems you're always losing. Gilneas and Andorhal was lost, so that's nearly half of the Eastern Kingdoms. The Horde is on a crazy offensive in Kalimdor.
The main problem I have is that it's always so predictable. Personally, I find plots/storylines really cool/exciting when there's some suspense or uncertainty. If an opponent is too weak, the victory doesn't mean much. If the opponent is too strong, then you don't get a victory at all. The trick is getting an opponent that is strong enough to be a powerful threat, but not so strong that all hope is lost.
There is virtually no retaliation from the Alliance. The most I can think of is that we invaded the Southern Barrens, but that seemed to end in a draw. When you're questing as an Alliance, it always feels pointless because no matter what, you're going to lose. On the other hand, when you're a Horde, you know you can win.
It simply makes the game itself less compelling to play. If I don't feel compelled to play my characters, then I'm probably not going to pay either.
Sep 6th 2011 4:41PM Southshore and gilneas wasn't orcs directly, but the forsaken are still part of the horde. Besides, wasn't it the warchiefs orders to invade gilneas in the first place?
With the stonetalon guy, it's still pretty alarming that it even happened in the first place. It got garroshs attention because it was on such a massive scale, but if there were smaller, similar incidents, im not sure they would have all gotten the same attention.
They may have been more brutal under guldan but they don't come across as evil as they do now. I find the lack of resources argument a little unconvincing considering the massive war effort all across Azeroth.
Sep 6th 2011 2:07PM I'm glad that Varian is at least getting some attention in this book, since he was given very little time at all in Cataclysm itself (and that was mostly just to get you to interact with Anduin). I don't think comparing the Horde to the Burning Legion is biased at all. In fact, I think the Horde is MORE evil now than when they were under the Blood curse. In the latter situation, they were more like wild animals, just lashing out at whatever was nearby.
Now it seems like they are going out of their way to do evil things, like the Broken Front incident, turning humans to goo in Gilneas and Southsore, and the bombing of the druid school in Stonetalon.
Here's hoping for this book (or even the next expansion) they'll take the kid gloves off the Alliance for some sweet retaliation :)
Aug 22nd 2011 8:24AM I agree that Tyrande was extremely different in WC3 and WoW. In WarCraft 3 she was quite the Action girl, but in WoW she has done next to nothing.
I think this is mostly due to Blizzard looking at the Horde as the protagonist in the storyline, so the spotlight is on them. Tyrande, the Night Elves, or even the Alliance in general cannot be too aggressive or else that would be the end for the Horde. I think that's why the Alliance is in a lot of defensive or losing scenarios throughout many areas in the Cataclysm world, because we're always painted as the enemy that is to be overcome.
I think that if Blizzard were to even out the aggression and victories in the AvH conflicts, I think it would allow some room for the more aggressive Alliance leaders to do their thing (Varian, Genn, Tyrande) and the more diplomatic leaders of the Horde to express their own views (Baine, Vol'Jin).
For me, it's always pretty cool to do something alongside the major faction leaders. I really wish Cataclysm had an event like the Wrathgate. Here's hoping for Mists of Pandaria! :)
May 14th 2011 8:11AM I'd say, by and large, they were pretty successful. As a protection warrior in bc and wrath, there was the right spec, and all the others were wrong. In cataclysm it feels like you have a legitimate choice to make those last few points.
I'd say they're still in need if another revamp. When I was speccing my holy pally for cataclysm, there were alot of pvp specific talents that would be "bad" for a pve player to take. That's not a real choice
Mar 13th 2011 8:14PM Another note to the "why can gilnean humans be Druids but stormwind ones can't", the worgen are connected to the emerald dream via the ancient goldrinn/lo'gosh. Thus, gilneans are able to be Druids (and also un-forsakenable :) )
Oct 8th 2010 8:58AM I understand that some DPS can be rude to a fresh tank, I'm a fairly geared tank so I can go zipping from one group to the next constantly, which suits their ADD personality.
However, come Cataclysm, while super geared tanks may have an advantage from 80-81, the quest greens are so good you should be about par with the ICC super tanks (I saw a lvl 80/81 quest green Axe that was close to par with Shadowmourne) soon enough. Thus, we will *all* need to acknowledge that we will need to setup and CC some pulls (and also not mindlessly AoE everything and break all the CC as well).
Therefore, while *bad* DPS may have to deal with longer wait times, tanks and healers will value good DPS that know how to use all their abilities and play smart. These players can simply just group together. You said you only have run heroics with a small group of friends, but simply post on trade chat that you're a tank about to queue for a heroic. On my server (Azuremyst-US) I almost always see DPS willing to pay tanks to queue for heroics with them.
So while you may only run with a small circle now, I foresee good Tanks, healers, and DPS being just fine.
Oct 2nd 2010 10:37AM Imagine that coming at you in a BG! They don't even need to *cast* fear.
Sep 29th 2010 5:52PM So by stating that Roman or American expansion were particularly brutal, we should therefore excuse the next time a nation aggressively expands into another because "Hey, this isn't that much worse!". Perhaps we should lay of the Nazis for what happened in Poland at the beginning of WW2 as well?
As for the Dragon/horse analogy, while I'm fairly sure Orgrim did not know the extent of Alexstazsa's nature, I doubt he would really care if it meant victory over the Alliance. Orgrim needed a way to deal with the Dwarven Gryphon Riders, who were devastating the Horde ground forces. Whether he viewed Alexstrazsa as a feral beast or unimaginably powerful guardian of light, letting her go would be tantamount to surrender. Do you *really* think Orgrim, the notorious pragmatist, let go of an advantage like this?
Sep 26th 2010 10:58PM I like this idea. I always thought it was strange that the incredibly powerful Titans could not take out the Old Gods without destroying Azeroth, but we players have already taken out 2 and everything seems fine (if not better, what with not having to deal with the crazy voices).
To draw a parallel with the StarCraft universe, what if there was a "main" Old god who was like the Overmind. The Overmind was the collective conciousness of the Zerg swarm, who used lieutenants (called Cerebrates) who had their own personalities and would command their own broods. However, the Cerebrates were still really nothing more than an extension of the Overmind's mind.
What if the Old gods we players have fought (the WarCraft "cerebrates") are simply some aspect of the original Old god , this massive being entwined with all of Azeroth? It would make sense we could kill some part of it (Yogg or C'thun), but we still could not kill the massive being it stems from (which even the Titans could not).