Wow lore would be better with 3 factions

Lore Story
1

First time poster so Im gonna start by throwing something spicy

Wow lore would be so much better if Alliance and horde split into three factions with a larger focus on racial specific identity in each faction than the 2 bland soulless amalgamations we have now. The split could occur any moment pre WoD (where they introduce AU shenanigans) but best would be pre-cata imo.
Alliance would be humans (Kingdom of Stormwind, Kingdom of Stromgarde and Kingdom of Kul Tiras), dwarves (Ironforge, Wildhammer, Dark Iron and Frostborn), gnomes, elves (blood elves and high elves) and I dunno Vyrkul (some independent clan related to Tyr or something). Basically resemble the wc2 alliance + Vyrkul. Keep Varian and also give more prominence to people like Danath Trollbane and Kurdran Wildhammer and to warlocks overall in each faction. High elves + blood elves reunite to form a single faction Also kind reminder that humans can actually be the aggressors. (and another question, we’ve seen corrupted night elves, blood elves, draenei and orcs when are we seeing corrupted humans?)

Horde would be orcs (Durotar+ a much greater emphasis on clans including Warsong, Bleeding Hollow, Shattered Hand, etc + non AU Mag’har), trolls (Darkspear + Amani + maybe Sandufyr?), Goblins (Gazlowe+ Ratchet + mercenaries from Kezan), undead (Sylvanas does not go insane, San’layn join the Forsaken) and Ogres (Gordunni Ogres join horde + Stonemaul). Basically wc2 horde + undead but this time not so clearly “evil”. You would have an interesting balance between “new” horde leaders (Thrall, Vol’Jin, Saurfang, Drek’Thar) and “old” horde leaders (Sylvanas, Garrosh, whoevers leading the Amani, Gordok) so the horde wouldn’t always turn into the comically evil faction.

Finally you would have a faction with Night Elves (including shen’dralar), Tauren (keep Cairne and also Baine doesn’t have to be the horde punching bag anymore), Worgen (a more bestial version accepting their bestial side, not just eastern Europe humans), Furbolgs (Timbermaw tribes+ other uncorrupted tribes like Stillpine) and Draenei (including broken). This faction would be similar to the kaldorei resistance led by Jarod Shadowsong in the war of the ancients + space goats who also have history of fighting the burning legion . Obviously very pro nature and anti-demons but also despise orcs, dwarves, goblins, warlocks, etc. Basically an isolationist holier than thou faction that could also be quite “feral” i.e. they might look the other way if little timmy gets eaten by wolves.

And all of this with a lot more focus on the different races and factions rather than just the horde or the alliance. And also would allow for more localized conflicts between different factions and not just constant red vs blue.

Dunno, any thoughts on the idea?

2

I think Blizzard’s current strategy of just shoving the faction struggles to the background is the better idea, WoW isn’t the behemoth it was back in Wrath anymore, dividing the playerbase just causes problems.

No offense, but splitting the playerbase in three parts would make things even worse than they are now with two parts.

3

Thing is you would also allow interfaction interaction like in DF. Therefore allowing a large player base while letting story elements not having to be constrained so much by gameplay restrictions

4

Factions are a limitation we shouldn’t need. If we’re to interact cross-faction anyways, the alliances between groups should just be changable, as they are in real life and any good story. There isn’t even a need for races to stay united on one side or the other. Just let the lore development decide the sides in any given conflict, instead of forcing groups that don’t have anything to do with it in.

…it would be nice to actually have conflict against anything more relatable than random cults and their megalomaniac leaders, though…

3 Likes
5

Yeah basically this tbh. I just showed a potential scenario but there are a lot of better ideas than just horde and alliance always

6

In a way, this has always been the case for NPCs. If we look at the Steamwheedle Cartel, Darkmoon Faire, Argent Crusade, etc., then they include people from all races. I wish our characters could choose to be that reasonable and just join groups based on shared interests.

7

Indeed, and it wouldn’t be that hard. If they write some war between industrialist goblins and dwarves vs naturalist tauren and nelves somewhere, they could just have the player choose a side. Keep the rewards cosmetic, and no harm done, even if the sides are chosen unevenly.

Though I guess putting players on both sides is always a gamble, when one side is supposed to win and the other to lose. And going with a compromise solution that tries to dissipate the conflict they spent time on building isn’t exactly a popular experience either, like MoP and BfA should have showed quite clearly. But they kinda have to deal with that.

There also is always the copout solution of having the player chapion fight against the war instead of within it. Making the war between beloved peoples the backdrop, while the player quests actually are about finding and stopping the instigators, and keeping the conflict from escalating, can work… It doesn’t create the same investment in the war as participating on either side does, though.

Either way, involving us in a conflict between player races makes it much more personal than involving us in a fight between colorful flying lizards…

1 Like
8

What sort of ideas do you have in terms of a solution to that?

9

I don’t think there is a good one. You can’t please everyone all the time. So maybe variance is the key? Win some, lose some, solve some? Not an easy balance to strike, especially for so many people, but I do feel that being predictable is pretty much the worst option here. If we always know that there will be a compromise solution, we never feel that the conflict means anything. Or at least I don’t. I called the way the BfA faction war would end from its announcement, and that kinda sucks.

They also might make winning and losing less definitive by not fully ending the conflict. Maybe the aggressor has to retreat, but that’s not the same as making peace, and the threat of restarting the conflict could always be there, for example. Another way would be creating more sub-factions. Maybe there is official peace between Orcs and Elves now, and that will be a disappointment for some, but if there remains a “rebel” faction dedicated to revenge, at least they won’t feel ridiculed. And said rebel faction could actually create cool conflict stories for the future.

But there never is a perfect solution. And trying to balance player expectations can be negative by itself. If players trust the writers to deliver something good, they’ll be much more likely to excuse the things they dislike, so consistently telling a good story might be the most important thing, rather than balancing wins and losses… But the WoW devs don’t really have that trust right now anyways, so… I’m not sure if they have a way to “win” that players will accept.

10

I don’t know if you intended this or not, but this might be a good one. You’re balancing the competing interests of the playerbase in a way likely to generate the least amount of complaints.

11

always wanted third faction for the night elves as in WCIII, oh well.

2 Likes
12

Hindsight is 20/20, but yeah, I feel like that’s another thing which made Warcraft 3 work so well: nobody was shoe horned into a faction. The biggest reach was the tauren being in the Horde, and that’s only because they were new; their philosophy still meshed well with that of the orcs and trolls. Everything else fit into nice packages with their factions too.

13

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.