If noone cares about it why are you so hellbent on bringing it back?
Contradictions much?
There is 0 contradiction. You above all should understand that “noone cares about it” means “Noone cares that you earned it back then”.
Collectors and Completionists are a thing.
1 Like
I fundamentally disagree.
If we leave aside the completionists the people that want unobtainable stuff want it precisely because its rare.
This whole “oh I want it soooooo bad” shtick. Make it available to all and they’ll just see it as a +1 and shrug and move on. So giving them what they want destroys the specialness of it.
I’m not going to debate the pants off this, thats my view. It’s also Blizz’s at things stand but as the game gets older and loses subs they will compromise more and more so end up changing things like this. So be it, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it either way.
2 Likes
I would rather have seen them merge regions between eu and us before they made factions pretty much non rellevant but cant see a way back from this now ?
2 Likes
Half the players would have immense lag then. I’m near the “corner” of the EU and my latency never drops below 60ms. If I had to connect to US, my latency (and most everyone from the EU) would go beyond 300ms easily.
I would love more in game chat…I do that,and i found few people i talk to to be like that.
About alliance and horde.Threat is bigger,im glad we joined forces.If you cant stanbd it.blizzard made clasics alive,thank you and happy easter to you too.
This dismisses the fact that Blizzard have been in charge of all of that.
The faction conflict narrative, or lack thereof, is Blizzard’s doing. I didn’t write the story - they did! They could have written a different story, or a better story - but they wrote this one! So whatever shortcomings there is and has been in the story conflict between the Horde and the Alliance is on Blizzard. That’s their doing.
The reason why the story is where it is today, is because Blizzard have told it as such. Any shortcomings in the story is shortcomings in their ability to tell a good story.
The change in the faction conflict narrative to accommodate gameplay changes such as cross-faction play and shared story campaigns, is also of Blizzard’s own making. I certainly didn’t implement any of that. And again, the shortcomings in the story transitioning from faction conflict to My Little Pony friendship is all reflective of Blizzard’s own inability to transition the narrative to accommodate their own gameplay changes.
When you play a Forsaken Shadow Priest through the campaign in The War Within and Anduin talks to you like you’re best buddies, and the Arathi welcome you like you’re their own neighbour - that’s Blizzard’s lackluster storytelling on display.
When you queue up for a battleground and find yourself fighting side by side with someone from the opposite faction to invade the base of your own faction, then that’s a giant mess that Blizzard have made themselves. That’s on them.
It can certainly be argued that these changes - moving away from the faction conflict and allowing cross-faction play - were necessary from a game direction perspective, but that’s no excuse for the terrible way Blizzard have handled the implementation, and it doesn’t change the fact that the end result is not entirely positive. As this thread suggests, there’s perhaps a loss of “soul” in favor of modern gameplay convenience. And it’s certainly debatable if that’s been a good tradeoff for the game and for the players.
I personally remain somewhat unconvinced, but probably mostly because the implementation of said changes to story and gameplay has been so terrible.
6 Likes
You’re confused.
The people of Germany were not responsible for the war, the government (and the military) were. Nuremberg happened.
Even after war, people were not so adamant to become friends like nothing happened (like we see in game). Even as far as 2025, in France, there is an insulting name to adress german people and still a lot of stigma.
So yes, your view and the game’s are irrealistic and de facto, wrong.
2 Likes
Because playability and players being able to play what race they want and still play with their friends is MUCH MUCH MUCH more important than some fictional hostility.
It’s one of the things I LOVE about the new direction.
There’s other, more important things to worry about.
PvP is an afterthought. Always has been.
It’s NOT what the game is about and it never was.
That’s the harsh truth.
2 Likes
they still have friendly relationships with their neigbours and even joined alliances together, far from conflict or outright hostility. 
Things have to change.
The real issue after the best part of 20 years playing is we have changed.
1 Like
Yes, after several decades.
You need to consider what happened between the wars and the consensus we have today. Not doing so is bad faith and not a good look.
2 Likes
OK i know that is an issue but im sure blizz could invest some money into making this possible better servers etc?
Seems to me that for every player invested in so-called spirit of true wow, there are few players happy with current direction and multitudes of those who don’t care.
1 Like
Even that could be argued.
I would certainly argue that Blizzard have overcommitted to World of Warcraft to such a degree that they are now dependent on keeping this old ship afloat no matter what.
In retrospect they should not have gone all-in on this one game.
There are lots of franchises out there that are more than 20 years old. Nintendo does not have the same problems with Super Mario or Zelda that Blizzard has with Warcraft. The reason being that they keep making new games that explore new changes whilst keeping the old games as they were. Blizzard on the other hand are stuck with one game that they have to make changes to in order to stay modern, yet avoid making too many changes to in order to preserve the game’s identity - an impossible task.
The moment Blizzard saw the need to make major changes to World of Warcraft to keep it relevant as a modern game (arguably with Cataclysm), they should simply have made a new game entirely.
But they didn’t.
So now they’re stuck with this 20 year old rusty piece of a wreck that they’re trying to keep afloat. And it’s all they got.
Diversify your assets, as my old business economics teacher would have said.
1 Like
WoW is its people. its players.
sharding and instanced content ruined the soul of the game.
when was the last time you walked through goldshire and saw 40 low level players running around?
1 Like
West Germany joined NATO in the 50’s not “after several decades”. Anyway I leave it at that, this isn’t a history thread.
2 Likes
I think them joining the NATO at this time is more complex than “we’re friends all of a sudden”. But yeah, you’re right, let’s leave it at that
1 Like
True but I also don’t really see the horde and alliance truce as that, more as an alliance of convenience, that every sensible leader confronted with a bigger threat would push for.
Not entirely, yes the majority was the fault of the government but without people whi support this it wouldn’t happen, soilders who march for them into war, civilians who support the racial ideology, the industry that happily support the government (even bevor the takeover with huge donations.)
Every regime need people who support then and keep then in power…
You have in literally every country eith sime right wing ideology-look fir example to American.
Faculty wrong: germans joining 1955 nato, so 10 years after the war, 1958 the predecessor of the current EU.
Germany was even 1954 allowed for the soccer world cup, 9 years after the war
1 Like