Siege of Orgrimmar

90 Goblin Warrior
10355
"The final patch of Mists of Pandaria will be the Siege of Orgrimmar! Both factions lay siege to the city to bring Garrosh down and end his reign of Warchief."

:|
Reply Quote
13 Worgen Warrior
40
Was just about to open a thread.

What I'm asking myself is, why does Blizzard have to spoil things like this. I would have really loved to first play through Pandaria and see this story develop myself, so that I could've speculated. I bet that a lot of the Alliance vs. Horde conflict in Pandaria works towards the battle against Garrosh. So I'm going into this experience, knowing right from the start, with absolute certainty, that at the end we're going to fight Garrosh.

Blizzard if any of you hasn't seen Star Wars yet - Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father!
Now you know how I feel.

Reply Quote
85 Blood Elf Rogue
1335
can't wait to start killing me some Orcs!
Reply Quote
90 Human Paladin
17005
"The final patch of Mists of Pandaria will be the Siege of Orgrimmar! Both factions lay siege to the city to bring Garrosh down and end his reign of Warchief."

:|


I hope this isn't the only thing they have in store for us, regarding the Alliance kicking butt.
Edited by Terovar on 19/03/2012 07:54 GMT
Reply Quote
90 Goblin Warrior
10355
"The final patch of Mists of Pandaria will be the Siege of Orgrimmar! Both factions lay siege to the city to bring Garrosh down and end his reign of Warchief."

:|


I hope this isn't the only thing they have in store for us, regarding the Alliance kicking butt.


I agree but invading Orgrimmar and killing the Warchief is pretty big, whether it's enough to balance the Horde bias, I'm not too sure.
Reply Quote
85 Blood Elf Death Knight
4415
Hell, it's about time.
Reply Quote
90 Human Paladin
17005



I hope this isn't the only thing they have in store for us, regarding the Alliance kicking butt.


I agree but invading Orgrimmar and killing the Warchief is pretty big, whether it's enough to balance the Horde bias, I'm not too sure.


Blizzard will give Orgrimmar back to the Garrosh haters, because we know the Horde cannot live without Orgrimmar. After all it's ''The Horde and the Alliance will bring down Garrosh''. Pfah, pathetic, it should be ALLIANCE ONLY. No instead, it's shared. This victory should be OURS and OURS only.

It sort of feels like a Battle for Undercity 2.0, just with a real faction leader (Putress and Varimathras were dissidents, Garrosh is the supreme leader).

Anyway, what will it change if the Horde can get back their beloved Orgrimmar after the siege? We get back to War? We refuse to impose durable consequences on the city AND the Horde? Sieging Orgrimmar should mean it's total annihilation and the disbanding of the Horde, not just the assassination of it's Warchief. It would make no sense, especially for Varian Wrynn, to just siege Orgrimmar and then just...Leave it to be reoccupied again by it's owners?!

Since this is an MMO, of course, this cannot happen, due to the cataclysmic QQ that would come from the Horde.

In the end, it just seems that after the Siege of Orgrimmar, the balance of power will be ''reset'' (as they stated in their Q & A). Of couuuuurrrseeee...The Alliance cannot consider this as a major victory, it's just a ''leader removal'', without territorial concessions and then...back to bickering. What a waste of time and ressources!

Hmph. Im not satisfied, if this is the only thing they have in store for the Alliance I am disapointed. What about Turalyon, Alleria? The Second War heroes? What about the way Tyrande, Malfurion, Velen, the Council of Three Hammers and Greymane will be handled?
We got nothing. The closest thing we have to ''details'' regarding what will happen during the siege of Theramore is ''King Varian Wrynn will struggle to assemble the Alliance for a meaningful counter-attack''.

Way to be shady!

Dustin Browder promised ''awesome stuff which would leave us fist pumping for years''. Im waiting for facts and results. Siege of Orgrimmar? NOT ENOUGH, especially not if the Horde get back their own city after the siege.

I AM WAITING. You have MUCH to pay for the Horde bias you gave us in Cataclysm. What you currently offer is far from enough. So stop messing around and give us more!
Edited by Terovar on 19/03/2012 08:34 GMT
Reply Quote
90 Goblin Warrior
10355
You're being completely unrealistic.

The game would die if the horde was "disbanded".
Reply Quote
90 Human Paladin
17005
You're being completely unrealistic.

The game would die if the horde was "disbanded".


Flaws of an MMO. Nevertheless, I want major consequences for the Horde, MAJOR, you hear me?! They deserve this, they have deserved this for a LONG time and they should suffer permanent consequences due to this siege.
Reply Quote
90 Human Mage
16305
I hope Gamon will be one of the bosses
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Paladin
9170


I agree but invading Orgrimmar and killing the Warchief is pretty big, whether it's enough to balance the Horde bias, I'm not too sure.


Blizzard will give Orgrimmar back to the Garrosh haters, because we know the Horde cannot live without Orgrimmar. After all it's ''The Horde and the Alliance will bring down Garrosh''. Pfah, pathetic, it should be ALLIANCE ONLY. No instead, it's shared. This victory should be OURS and OURS only.

It sort of feels like a Battle for Undercity 2.0, just with a real faction leader (Putress and Varimathras were dissidents, Garrosh is the supreme leader).

Anyway, what will it change if the Horde can get back their beloved Orgrimmar after the siege? We get back to War? We refuse to impose durable consequences on the city AND the Horde? Sieging Orgrimmar should mean it's total annihilation and the disbanding of the Horde, not just the assassination of it's Warchief. It would make no sense, especially for Varian Wrynn, to just siege Orgrimmar and then just...Leave it to be reoccupied again by it's owners?!

Since this is an MMO, of course, this cannot happen, due to the cataclysmic QQ that would come from the Horde.

In the end, it just seems that after the Siege of Orgrimmar, the balance of power will be ''reset'' (as they stated in their Q & A). Of couuuuurrrseeee...The Alliance cannot consider this as a major victory, it's just a ''leader removal'', without territorial concessions and then...back to bickering. What a waste of time and ressources!

Hmph. Im not satisfied, if this is the only thing they have in store for the Alliance I am disapointed. What about Turalyon, Alleria? The Second War heroes? What about the way Tyrande, Malfurion, Velen, the Council of Three Hammers and Greymane will be handled?
We got nothing. The closest thing we have to ''details'' regarding what will happen during the siege of Theramore is ''King Varian Wrynn will struggle to assemble the Alliance for a meaningful counter-attack''.

Way to be shady!

Dustin Browder promised ''awesome stuff which would leave us fist pumping for years''. Im waiting for facts and results. Siege of Orgrimmar? NOT ENOUGH, especially not if the Horde get back their own city after the siege.

I AM WAITING. You have MUCH to pay for the Horde bias you gave us in Cataclysm. What you currently offer is far from enough. So stop messing around and give us more!


This most probably IS the only thing they got in store for the Alliance. They probably do think we like it because we get to besiege the capitol of the Horde. Yeah, together with a part of that same Horde...
Until they come out with something better I have to assume this is it. I personally have lost all hope.

Horrible story as well by the way, the Horde gets so much internal strife that they have to besiege a big part of their own forces in their most important city and the Alliance helps? Excuse me?!
The Alliance could use this to destroy the ENTIRE Horde. While the Horde is besieging Orgrimmar the Humans, Dwarves and Worgen could utterly destroy the Forsaken. With High Elf influence I'm convinced some sort of peace talks could be started with the Blood Elves. If Night Elves can live with Mages again, High Elves and Blood Elves can certainly start peace talks. Then it's on the boat to Kalimdor and round up the remaining Horde.
Why would they help the Horde if they have the perfect opportunity to destroy it once and for all? /shrug
Reply Quote
90 Human Paladin
17005



Blizzard will give Orgrimmar back to the Garrosh haters, because we know the Horde cannot live without Orgrimmar. After all it's ''The Horde and the Alliance will bring down Garrosh''. Pfah, pathetic, it should be ALLIANCE ONLY. No instead, it's shared. This victory should be OURS and OURS only.

It sort of feels like a Battle for Undercity 2.0, just with a real faction leader (Putress and Varimathras were dissidents, Garrosh is the supreme leader).

Anyway, what will it change if the Horde can get back their beloved Orgrimmar after the siege? We get back to War? We refuse to impose durable consequences on the city AND the Horde? Sieging Orgrimmar should mean it's total annihilation and the disbanding of the Horde, not just the assassination of it's Warchief. It would make no sense, especially for Varian Wrynn, to just siege Orgrimmar and then just...Leave it to be reoccupied again by it's owners?!

Since this is an MMO, of course, this cannot happen, due to the cataclysmic QQ that would come from the Horde.

In the end, it just seems that after the Siege of Orgrimmar, the balance of power will be ''reset'' (as they stated in their Q & A). Of couuuuurrrseeee...The Alliance cannot consider this as a major victory, it's just a ''leader removal'', without territorial concessions and then...back to bickering. What a waste of time and ressources!

Hmph. Im not satisfied, if this is the only thing they have in store for the Alliance I am disapointed. What about Turalyon, Alleria? The Second War heroes? What about the way Tyrande, Malfurion, Velen, the Council of Three Hammers and Greymane will be handled?
We got nothing. The closest thing we have to ''details'' regarding what will happen during the siege of Theramore is ''King Varian Wrynn will struggle to assemble the Alliance for a meaningful counter-attack''.

Way to be shady!

Dustin Browder promised ''awesome stuff which would leave us fist pumping for years''. Im waiting for facts and results. Siege of Orgrimmar? NOT ENOUGH, especially not if the Horde get back their own city after the siege.

I AM WAITING. You have MUCH to pay for the Horde bias you gave us in Cataclysm. What you currently offer is far from enough. So stop messing around and give us more!


Why would they help the Horde if they have the perfect opportunity to destroy it once and for all? /shrug


THIS, why should we let them the opportunity to rest and rearm themselves when this siege could spell the END of the War between the Horde and the Alliance?

I mean we're talking about the Capital City here! Who would leave such an opportunity to put an end to the Horde go to waste?

Can you see Varian saying ''Let them retake back their city''. I mean WHAT THE HELL MAN, IT'S THEIR CAPITAL! WE CAN END THIS RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW AND YOU'RE TELLING ME YOU'LL LET THEM GET BACK THEIR CAPITAL CITY?

This makes absolutely no sense. No sense at all. Unless Blizzard can bring a damn good explanation, this doesn't make sense.

In the end, what does the Horde lose in the process? Garrosh? Woah! Big deal! Especially when Orgrimmar will most probably remain intact in order to be reintegrated by it's inhabitants!

It's not like it's an unilateral victory for the Alliance! It wont even compare to the amount of territory and outposts we have already lost to the Horde! Must I mention Theramore will be an unilateral victory for the Horde? It will be DESTROYED.

Orgrimmar? ''Oh, lol, let's kill the leader to give the Alliance the impressions they did something for once, then let the Horde get back in the city :))))))''

Where are the territorial consequences for the Horde in all of this, where? Will there be a treaty which will specify that the Horde surrenders chunks of territory to the Alliance?

If no answers are brought to the questions I listed, the Siege of Orgrimmar will look like a ''Hidden-bias-treat'' to distract the Alliance and deal with the QQ there has been in the past two years.
Edited by Terovar on 19/03/2012 09:24 GMT
Reply Quote
90 Goblin Warrior
10355
Taking a Capital City wouldn't end a War.

The lore isn't a game where you take the capital and the faction randomly disappears.
Reply Quote
19/03/2012 07:59Posted by Rasen
I agree but invading Orgrimmar and killing the Warchief is pretty big, whether it's enough to balance the Horde bias, I'm not too sure.


No, it isn't.

The problem isn't the ending...it could end in an Alliance defeat for all I care. The problem is the way the story was told.

Iconic quests such as Nathanos undone...for no good reason.
Cheap shots at the Alliance such as having the Goblins wander around unrecognised with Cheese on their heads.
A war betweent eh horde and allaicne tow hich teh Alalicne never got an invite
The shoddy manner in which the Alliance was shoehorned into Horde content because the Alliance content was either removed or wasn't ready.

And so on.

Its not the destination...its the journey. The one good thing tjhings is that this does offer opportunity for some good Alliance stories. The bad thing is that Warchief Varian will likely be emblematic of the story Blizzard will tell.

EJL
Reply Quote
90 Human Paladin
17005
Taking a Capital City wouldn't end a War.

The lore isn't a game where you take the capital and the faction randomly disappears.


When Blackrock Spire fell to Turalyon, trust me, it spelled the end of the Second War. It spelled their ultimate defeat. The fall of the remainders of the Horde at the Dark Portal was bound to happen after that, and it happened.

THAT is how the Alliance ultimately won the Second War.
Edited by Terovar on 19/03/2012 09:26 GMT
Reply Quote
90 Goblin Warrior
10355
19/03/2012 09:22Posted by Terovar
When Blackrock Spire fell to Turalyon, trust me, it spelled the end of the Horde in Azeroth.


Oh really?

So the Horde doesn't exist on Azeroth anymore? Interesting...
Reply Quote
90 Goblin Warrior
10355
Also this is only speculation but the only reason I can ever see the Horde unitying somewhat with the Alliance to take down Garrosh and siege their own city is if there is some demon-involvement.

So I'm thinking, corrupted Grom (oops I mean Garrosh).
Reply Quote
90 Human Paladin
17005
19/03/2012 09:24Posted by Rasen
When Blackrock Spire fell to Turalyon, trust me, it spelled the end of the Horde in Azeroth.


Oh really?

So the Horde doesn't exist on Azeroth anymore? Interesting...


You asked if the fall of a Capital or Central HQ spelled the end of a War. That case did.
Reply Quote
90 Goblin Warrior
10355
Except that only happened because that Horde was a orc-only Horde.

Don't think the forsaken, for example, even remotely care if Orgrimmar was taken over/destroyed.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]