This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Huge for Blizzard,
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
What about this, with the addition of the Panderan, who are monks and are looking for peace, are able to negotiate with certain races, mainly the Timbermaw, the Arrokoa, the Naga and even the Centaurs and a third neutral faction is started with these four new playable races.
I know I would love to play a Naga, and more than just a few quests like we were able to do.
I know it would be hard to do, just thinking out loud.
Oh, and the Panderan would be only race, because of their monk like qualities that could join any of the three factions.
@Adamsm
See how quickly someone can come with a solution? I know u are probably going to refute this with some lore abiding law but, just like the bi-polar war with humans/alliance and orcs/horde, it's time to move forward and evolve.
Since the Pandarens are joining in on the 'bi-polar' war as you call it, the race itself refutes the idea. Also: Centaurs hate most other races and have a blood thirst that makes the Worgens in the feral form look tame. As for Nagas: As long as Queen Massive ^&*! Azshara is alive, they'll never be a playable race....since the entire race is completely and utterly devoted to her and more then willing to lay down their lives for her no matter what.
You can 'evolve' but you can't break the Lore; which the addition of a player faction would do.
Post by
967171
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Naga aren't enslaved to a hivemind.Correct; but her transformation into a Naga hasn't changed how her people feel about her; saw it all through the War of the Ancients where her forces were willing to put up with anything, including working side by side with demons, because she told them to.
Lady Vashj's abandonment and subsequent disapproval by her peers (as shown in the Battlemaiden quests) should be proof of that.Wrong Vashj; the one who went with Illidan did so under the orders of Azshara: Whatever they were planning, Outland was the test to see what would happen before they did it on Azeroth.
Playable naga could be reasoned as anything from new age naga (i.e. those who were born long after the Sundering and never lived as Highborne) upset about betraying Neptulon (playable shaman class, anyone?) to rogue nobles leading their clans astray.All Nagas were part of the group that were in Azshara palace at the end of War of the Ancients as the Old God was responsible for her transformation, not Neptulon.
Post by
967171
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I'll give you this one since I don't read the books. Why does Lady Naz'jar mention that it's a shame Vashj wasn't more like her mother? There seemed to be some pretty clear contempt in her words, which implied to me she was a bit of a pariah.Who knows; why do so many parents in Azeroth seem to be disappointed in their kids/fathers/mothers: Arthas and Terenas, Medivh and Aegwynn, etc etc etc.
Really? Even the hatchlings your goblin kidnaps in the Lost Isles?
Yeah, I highly doubt every single naga is over 10,000 years old.And those hatchlings were born to Nagas who have been a part of the Naga group for years; they would have been raised up to love Azshara, same as their parents, and parents parents. As seen in War of the Ancients, Azshara charmed her own personal Felguard protectors into swapping alliance from the Legion to her; hell, they were willing to try to physically stop Mannoroth from approaching her. Her people love her; you see that all through any of the quests with Nagas.
Edit: In other words, the Naga love their Queen, and are more then willing to march into the mouth of death if she tells them to.
Post by
967171
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Aye; I could possibly see a rogue faction of Nagas whenever Azshara shows up, with possibly the addition of them as a new race after that point, as they try to figure out how to live without their Goddess being there to give them orders heh.
I also wasn't aware about the Felguards. That's pretty interesting.It is...and it isn't lol; since it means she was just so beautiful/charming/whatever anyone would fall for her lol; but then again, most of the rebels of the War of the Ancients believed she was a captive/unwilling part of the plans that was being manipulated by Xavius....as seen at the end, it was more or less the other way around heh.
Post by
919808
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I like the Illidari faction already
They were wiped out Jim.
Post by
919808
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
DarkFenris
Having 3+ factions has more implications than are being discussed in this thread. For each new faction, there is further division within the player community, with separate guilds/AH's/mounts/quest rewards, etc, etc.
So now your friend wants to be a Blood Elf (despite all reason and logic), and he can't group with you because he would be in a different faction than your Orc. Your desire to try an Undead warlock alt means no heirlooms or gold from your Tauren warrior main because they are now in different factions that don't interact. No more hawkstriders for your Goblin, because now they are only available to a different faction.
Lately a lot of threads have cropped up complaining about a decline in the WoW community; this suggestion will only further divide it, not enhance it.
I'm not really hearing any viable reasoning why WoW should have 3+ factions, other than "It'd be really
really
cool!" and "I want some huge free-for-all PvP in an enormous bg!". Really, as Adamsm has already pointed out, it's more like people are bored and want to roll new races or have different questlines in zones for alts without thinking about all of the consequences.
And I didn't even touch the lore implications, because people more well-versed than I have already covered it.
Post by
585087
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
479137
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Overhaul
Im honestly not a fan of 3 factions as it would make PvP a "little" more complex, as a person on the 3rd faction can steal your kills so you get absolutely nothing.
If there "were" to be a 3rd faction, it would be a breakage of the current two.
Forsaken are currently lead by Sylvanas who will probably lead to the seperation of the forsaken from the horde. This will lead to BEs leaving likely. Other races such as orcs - such as those who thirst for "blood and glory", Tauren - Grimtotem clan, etc... will become an independent faction. This new faction would have Sylvanas as its head.
A faction of humans lead by Jiana may then join the horde - they already have a capital in-game. Alliance may have some faction issues themselves to equal out the teams.
Blizzard is not ever going to make a new faction entirely, they like to work within their own system and storyline.
Edit: I do think though that blizzard should have free for all BGs or some form of team bg where you queue up in groups of 5 in a very large BG with around 8 other teams. It would basicly be arena except instead of your team vs their team it is your team vs 7 other teams. It would be more reactionary and keeping track of CDs would be far more difficult. A kill fest bg would be fun too. Sort of like AV except without a instant-end piece. Where you can eliminate reinforcements of the enemy's with objectives but you will need to grind the last 100-200 reinforcements away since there is no leader you kill that instantly ends the game.
Post by
DarkFenris
Not really. Especially if they do the right thing and make the 3rd faction "Neutral" so that it can interact with both Alliance and Horde.
Obviously "do the right thing" means that Blizzard will never even consider it.
Soooooo....let's make sure I have this right:
Blizzard would be "doing the right thing" if they created a third faction suddenly that was neutral to the Alliance and Horde? So now my level 1 Neutral faction bank alt can exploit the two markets because I have access to both AHs and can take advantage of (or create) arbitrage opportunities? I can grind rep with both Horde and Alliance factions and have all the mounts to myself? I can queue in LFD for both Alliance and Horde groups simultaneously?
Why wouldn't everyone be this new Neutral faction and get the benefits of both sides? How does this enhance the game at all?
I'm not sure I understand how this is the "right thing" for Blizzard to do. Could you please elaborate on that, and why your reasoning is 2 factions=evil Blizzard screwing over their customers while 3 factions=whew Blizzard sure "did the right thing".
Post by
331902
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
976351
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
DarkFenris
See thats where you would be disappointed in the game. You would be Neutral to both but would have your own rep/quest line just like alliance does the horde. It would be extremely limited on the who idea of communication and you wouldn't have access to the AH for both factions Neither actually. The faction would have its own AH. There is a reason the horde can not talk to the alliance anymore and it is because of bad mouthing. They used to have the Common language which would allow certain race's to talk among the other faction. but they got rid of that and now only have 2 for both factions. That being said the people who have figured out how to speak cross faction can in all rights be banned from the game if blizz decided to be &*!@'s about it. It is plain Jane in the fine print that you can not talk to other factions (player's only). So by doing so you violate terms and agreement. So the whole communication thing.......VERY STRICT if a faction would be introduced
Yeah, that's actually what I said in my first post; they would be a separate entity and further divide up the community. But then another poster said that Blizzard should make them neutral to both existing factions in order to "do the right thing", and my next post (which is the one you quoted) replying to that was pointing out how ridiculous that suggestion was.
We are on the same page.
Post by
781960
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
479137
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.