WoW Petopia Community

Andine wrote:BGs only in the War Games (because really, an Argent Crusader or Cenarion druid has no interest in fighting Horde).

I really disagree with such a limitation being imposed. Just because an individual is neutral regarding larger politics between the alliance and horde, it doesn't meant that they wouldn't have an opinion on specific conflicts. It really depends on the definition of the neutral faction; a pirate would attack horde or alliance freely, depending on who's paying them.

Andine wrote:I re-thought world PvP and I think that if a neutral player would flag himself, he'd go PvA (free for all). Neutrals also wouldn't get flagged accidentally, because they would be able to drop their flag only by manually doing it or attacking a player under PvA flag - so flagged Hordes would remain neutral and unattackable, but other flagged neutrals would be the "risk".

Ha, I was of course coming from the PvP server mentality - everyone is flagged all the time! I still disagree with blocking other flagged factions from being attackable. Why shouldn't it just be as simple as "you can be attacked by anyone, but you can also kill anyone?" Sure, if you get ganged up on by both factions, you're in deep trouble, but you could amass a neutral army to kill all opposition as well.

GormanGhaste wrote:

cowmuflage wrote:Would be fun to say join the Twilight cult. That would be fun!

*slips cowmuflage a pamphlet*

DO YOU NOT HEAR THEM? OUR TURE MASTERS WILL TAKE BACK WHAT IS THEIRS!



Ahem. Yup.

Kalliope wrote:I really disagree with such a limitation being imposed. Just because an individual is neutral regarding larger politics between the alliance and horde, it doesn't meant that they wouldn't have an opinion on specific conflicts. It really depends on the definition of the neutral faction; a pirate would attack horde or alliance freely, depending on who's paying them.

Ha, I was of course coming from the PvP server mentality - everyone is flagged all the time! I still disagree with blocking other flagged factions from being attackable. Why shouldn't it just be as simple as "you can be attacked by anyone, but you can also kill anyone?" Sure, if you get ganged up on by both factions, you're in deep trouble, but you could amass a neutral army to kill all opposition as well.

I think the main idea behind all the PvP limitations is that they're the price you pay for being able to contact both factions. As in, you either play against other players, or with them. If you stick to the Horde or Alliance, you will keep being able to do normal battlegrounds, world PvP etc. If you choose neutrality, you're washing your hands off their conflicts - probably because your new neutral faction keeps you from interfering, or you yourself do not want to further their goals anymore.

If there were no disadvantages to this choice, then Blizzard would absolutely never ever do it. Having people make a hard choice between remaining in the faction (and keeping the old playstyle) or going neutral (and losing some aspects of the game in exchange for lowering some barriers) would make it, IMHO, more likely to ever see the light of day.

Andine wrote:

Kalliope wrote:I really disagree with such a limitation being imposed. Just because an individual is neutral regarding larger politics between the alliance and horde, it doesn't meant that they wouldn't have an opinion on specific conflicts. It really depends on the definition of the neutral faction; a pirate would attack horde or alliance freely, depending on who's paying them.

Ha, I was of course coming from the PvP server mentality - everyone is flagged all the time! I still disagree with blocking other flagged factions from being attackable. Why shouldn't it just be as simple as "you can be attacked by anyone, but you can also kill anyone?" Sure, if you get ganged up on by both factions, you're in deep trouble, but you could amass a neutral army to kill all opposition as well.

I think the main idea behind all the PvP limitations is that they're the price you pay for being able to contact both factions. As in, you either play against other players, or with them. If you stick to the Horde or Alliance, you will keep being able to do normal battlegrounds, world PvP etc. If you choose neutrality, you're washing your hands off their conflicts - probably because your new neutral faction keeps you from interfering, or you yourself do not want to further their goals anymore.

If there were no disadvantages to this choice, then Blizzard would absolutely never ever do it. Having people make a hard choice between remaining in the faction (and keeping the old playstyle) or going neutral (and losing some aspects of the game in exchange for lowering some barriers) would make it, IMHO, more likely to ever see the light of day.

*shrug* The way I'd do it is how I said. Most of the time, you wouldn't be able to talk to players who are alliance or horde, except in bgs where you chose a side.

There are plenty of sacrifices you make being everyone's target under most circumstances. I just don't see limiting the PvP crowd from choosing a new faction; that would alienate a lot of players.

Andine wrote:I'm currently imagining there would be a "recruiter" NPC for most major neutral factions (say, Argent Crusade, Cenarion Circle, Earthen Ring, Steamwheedle Cartel - maybe even the Black Prince, to become a personal crony of Wrathion). The NPC would give you papers to get signed by the leader of your current faction (so Varian or Garrosh/whoever replaces him), who in turn demands a price to pay for your dismissal. With those signed, you go to the faction's leader (Tirion, Malfurion in Hyjal, Thrall over the Maelstrom, Baron Revilgaz, Wrathion, etc.) and hand those in, with a message that this will forfeit most PvP forms and will be undoable only once. With that done, congratulations, you can now group up with and talk to players of both factions.

Don't necessarily expect to be welcomed as "neutral" by either faction if you made that choice. Especially if you are seen as abandoning a faction. There's a lot there not to be trusted. A human forsaking Stormwind? That's treason, or at least cowardice, in the eyes of other humans of Stormwind.

And undead? where would they go? no one is going to accept them with open arms that readily.

Remember that the WoW conflict is as much a racial battle as a political one. Homelands are at stake as much as political and economic aspirations.

All that said, I've thought myself about a third faction. Perhaps the elves make peace with each other and break off, or the taurens and trolls decide they've had enough of the Orc leadership. A lot of things could happen.

And now that Garrosh is going to nuke Theramore?.. peace?.. not a chance.

Kalliope wrote:

Andine wrote:BGs only in the War Games (because really, an Argent Crusader or Cenarion druid has no interest in fighting Horde).

I really disagree with such a limitation being imposed. Just because an individual is neutral regarding larger politics between the alliance and horde, it doesn't meant that they wouldn't have an opinion on specific conflicts. It really depends on the definition of the neutral faction; a pirate would attack horde or alliance freely, depending on who's paying them.

Andine wrote:I re-thought world PvP and I think that if a neutral player would flag himself, he'd go PvA (free for all). Neutrals also wouldn't get flagged accidentally, because they would be able to drop their flag only by manually doing it or attacking a player under PvA flag - so flagged Hordes would remain neutral and unattackable, but other flagged neutrals would be the "risk".

Ha, I was of course coming from the PvP server mentality - everyone is flagged all the time! I still disagree with blocking other flagged factions from being attackable. Why shouldn't it just be as simple as "you can be attacked by anyone, but you can also kill anyone?" Sure, if you get ganged up on by both factions, you're in deep trouble, but you could amass a neutral army to kill all opposition as well.

This is much more likely the route a third faction would take. Some break-aways from both sides, with enough resources to make sure they don't get squashed. More of a mercenary organization.

But true neutrality? wouldn't work in wow as a player character. It would either be OP by having too much access (give me access to both faction's auction houses? tyvm!) or gimped... (only access to the neutral AH).

A mercenary type faction could be cool. Get some new class types maybe like swashbuckler or something. Kinda rogue/hunter hybrid going on.

Slickrock wrote:Don't necessarily expect to be welcomed as "neutral" by either faction if you made that choice. Especially if you are seen as abandoning a faction. There's a lot there not to be trusted. A human forsaking Stormwind? That's treason, or at least cowardice, in the eyes of other humans of Stormwind.

And undead? where would they go? no one is going to accept them with open arms that readily.

Is UN in real life considered treason? In WoW, is Tirion or Darion Mograine considered treasons? No, they're allies to both sides that both sides recognise as necessary to maintain the world from supernatural threats. Players leaving for those factions do not join the Horde - "the enemy" - which would make it treason. They're joining one of the forces working for the greater good. So far, even Garrosh recognises that. Because he's getting a facelift for evil in MoP, he may not any longer, but he did so far.

And I've seen numerous undead among the Argent Crusade - to count only Leonid Bartholomew and Argent Apothecary Judkins. Random non-named Argent NPCs also have a chance to spawn with the Forsaken model. I think their major drive here is they want to be part of Lordaeron, but not the one ruled by Sylvanas.

Remember that the WoW conflict is as much a racial battle as a political one. Homelands are at stake as much as political and economic aspirations.

Homelands are at stake only because of that personal vendettas of two people at the wheel. Varian appears to be made into a better person as the story progresses, to the point we're assured in Orgrimmar he'll be fighting Garrosh, forbidding Allied troops from assaulting Horde civilians. Perhaps after 5.3/5.4, the new Warchief and Varian will be more peacable together.

And now that Garrosh is going to nuke Theramore?.. peace?.. not a chance.

I forgot any chances for peace long ago, with Metzen's fixation on Warcraft I as guidance to what people want in his game. I just want a chance to opt out of it. If many people would have abandoned their factions because of story reasons, maybe the CDev would finally see we do not want this war after all, apart from the vocal minority.

I know that making similar limitations would end up just creating a PvE/PvP split in the playerbase. Those who would want to maintain competitive PvP, would have to remain in their factions, and those who would want to be hardcore in PvE, would HAVE to join a neutral faction, so they can utilise racials and various bonuses of both factions in their combat. And yes, that is one of the major reasons it will never happen. But in a perfect world, people would choose the neutral faction when they're sick of this stupid war. And perfect world doesn't exist and I know it.

I feel like it would sort of ruin the point of the game though. Not only would Blizz have to cater to Alliance and Horde, they'd need to cater to neutral faction people. That's a lot of neutral factions. All of them would near their own quests in the future zones (You have alliance quests/horde quests, and now there'd have to AC and CC and Twilight Cult and whatnot quests, and that's just a bit much.)

Additionally, drawing the real world comparison can't mesh as well. Because when you really get down to it, comparing WoW to real life is sort of pointless. They're not supposed to be realistic and parallel to each other. If you want, you know, RL, go outside. Don't play a video game. Hell, you shoot fire. Out of your hands. You turn into animals. You say, "Hi there creature who is mated to a god, come be my pet." You summon demons. There is little "realism" in this game and trying to make those comparisons is insane.

Besides, Varian and Garrosh aren't exactly practical. They'd get all angry and they probably would consider it being a traitor or a deserter. You're abandoning your faction to go, in their eyes, chill with some other group because you're too much of a coward to fight for your side. Besides, the UN has far closer ties to its respectives countries than the Argent Crusade to either faction, or the Druids of Hyjal to either faction, or even, you know, the Twilight Cult to either faction.

And lastly, the mechanics for it would just seem so messy and hard to work with. Assuming you don't start with that faction from level 1 (If you do, that's a whole monstrosity of new things to get done), you'd again have to create quests in future zones to cater to the factions. The dynamic of the game would change. People are tired of "Kill big bad at end of xpac" which is what we've had. That's WHY MoP is "Kill the other faction!" because they're trying to make it different. And a neutral faction would ruin the point of that.

Azunara wrote:I feel like it would sort of ruin the point of the game though. Not only would Blizz have to cater to Alliance and Horde, they'd need to cater to neutral faction people. That's a lot of neutral factions. All of them would near their own quests in the future zones (You have alliance quests/horde quests, and now there'd have to AC and CC and Twilight Cult and whatnot quests, and that's just a bit much.)

That's easy IMHO. While most high-level zones are already completely or nearly completely neutral (Vot4W, most of KunLai, Townlong), you would still be able to do those quests for your original faction that don't involve killing the other guys. Only in place of being sent to kill Alliance/Horde, you'd get something else. If there were multiple neutral factions you could join, they'd all be treated as "neutral" for the purposes of questing in high level zones.

Additionally, drawing the real world comparison can't mesh as well. Because when you really get down to it, comparing WoW to real life is sort of pointless. They're not supposed to be realistic and parallel to each other. If you want, you know, RL, go outside. Don't play a video game. Hell, you shoot fire. Out of your hands. You turn into animals. You say, "Hi there creature who is mated to a god, come be my pet." You summon demons. There is little "realism" in this game and trying to make those comparisons is insane.

Okay, if we're already here, let's throw out gravity. And water too. Let's just erase the whole sky and put more zones up there. Because screw realism, right?

No. Just because one or two things are unrealistic, doesn't mean everything has to be unrealistic, or else you're getting into Baron Munchhausen territory (which while enjoyable in its own right, is supposed to be completely absurd). Some level of realism has to be maintained, and through basic logic and chain of causes and effects. I see this argument often come up in discussions about many fantasy and sci-fi franchises. Because existence of magic and/or aliens somehow throws out basics of logic out of the equation. No, it doesn't. If people in the franchise behave in a stupid way, there's no amount of magic that can justify it - if you're trying to create a serious franchise, not a joke Munchhausen & co are.

Besides, Varian and Garrosh aren't exactly practical. They'd get all angry and they probably would consider it being a traitor or a deserter. You're abandoning your faction to go, in their eyes, chill with some other group because you're too much of a coward to fight for your side. Besides, the UN has far closer ties to its respectives countries than the Argent Crusade to either faction, or the Druids of Hyjal to either faction, or even, you know, the Twilight Cult to either faction.

Again, is Tirion, Darion or Thrall considered a traitor? They aren't, because their factions are allies to both sides - factions that work for the greater good. So far even Garrosh has recognised that. And considering that it's 100% certain I'm not seeing it this expansion, and in the next one Garrosh should be replaced by someone more reasonable, both faction leaders should salute you for choosing the greater good, because they're not brain-dead stupid to consider people who try to save the world traitors.

And lastly, the mechanics for it would just seem so messy and hard to work with. Assuming you don't start with that faction from level 1 (If you do, that's a whole monstrosity of new things to get done), you'd again have to create quests in future zones to cater to the factions. The dynamic of the game would change. People are tired of "Kill big bad at end of xpac" which is what we've had. That's WHY MoP is "Kill the other faction!" because they're trying to make it different. And a neutral faction would ruin the point of that.

People are not tired of big bads. Blizzard is. It looks like Chris Metzen has recently played Warcraft I again and got it into his head that humans vs orcs is so cool. Like THIS wasn't tired out enough - and somehow an idea 20-years old is "fresh", while what steered most of Warcraft's history ("like fools we cling to old hatreds", "only by working together(...)") is considered "tired".
Also, I still don't ask to completely remove the war. I'm asking for an OPTION to opt out of it. People who like killing innocent people and teabag faces of lowbie they're camping can still do it. I'm asking to be able to leave them behind and do what I like - and I'm willing to pay for it by resigning from certain features.

Andine wrote:Is UN in real life considered treason?

this is the 2nd time you mention the United Nations.

let's just clear up this misunderstanding before it gets out of hand.

NO one who works at the United Nation has "left their faction". They are there as representatives of their own countries.

The Dutch delegation at the UN all remain Dutch citizens.
The French delegation remain French.
Etc...

None of them suddenly join a new country called "United Nations".

They are each there to promote the interests of their own country (faction).

If anything, joining the UN is a much closer equivalent to becoming exalted with a faction other than your own.
I am exalted with Thrallmar. Doesn't mean I no longer consider myself a citizen of Silvermoon. I am representing Silvermoon and the Horde when I work for the interests of another faction. I demonstrate my solidarity with them. I am not leaving my faction to join them, however.


Leaving your faction, to join a "neutral faction" is absolutely NOT the same as joining the United Nations as a representative of your homeland.

Now, as far as what happens once you've left your faction, I just don't see keeping access to everything you had from that original faction anymore. It is unrealistic and unfair.

Let's say you're Canadian, and you decide to abandon your Canadian citizenship. Do you think that you can still continue to profit from the Canadian health and welfare infrastructure? Do you think that, as a non-citizen, you would have equal access to all human resources and services that are normally offered to Canadian citizens?

No, you would not. Because you have abandoned your citizenship, in favour of that of another country (faction).

So yes, while you might consider the term "traitor" a rather strong one, with powerful negative meaning, it remains that you have, in effect, betrayed the nation/faction that has nurtured you, raised you, supported you, throughout your existence, to now leave and swear allegiance to another.

despite my disagreeing with Andine's tack on this issue, I still find the idea of a third "neutral" faction interesting. I don't find it necessarily realistic, or easy to implement in-game.

I'm getting mixed messages from Andine, however, and I'd like to understand more.

is it PvP that you don't care for?

or is it the actual lore in-game that is based upon the inter-factional war?

because you mention both at different moments in the conversation, and it's difficult to really understand what it is this new "neutral" faction would solve as a game issue for you.

If it is the former, then simply move to a non-PvP server.
I've always been on a PvE server and have only once killed another player, and it was purely by accident (damned nervous mouse click finger plus flagged enemy player equals dead player).

If it's a question of lore, I'm afraid I have no suggestions. The war is a large part of the very raison-d'être of World of Warcraft.

As has been already stated a few times in this thread, it would be impossible, and thoroughly unrealistic, for this potential third faction to remain entirely "neutral" vis-a-vis both Horde and Alliance. It would not make sense to have neutral players have access to auction houses of both original factions, plus the pre-existing neutral AH (and presumably their own third-faction AH).

In all honesty, I think it would be far more interesting to have a real third faction - not Horde, not Alliance - which players could "switch" to. But one that is in an uneasy truce with both Horde and Alliance. While you could enter their cities if you were unflagged, you would not have access to their "citizenry services" (ie: specialty shops, trainers, AH, etc...). And you would not have access to any faction-specific quests.

It would be a very difficult balancing act to fine-tune this for PvP servers.
For example, let's say a "neutral" is involved in world PvP with a Horde player, an Alliance player should not be able to jump in and "help" either side. It would be illogical for an Alliance player to bring assistance to a Horde character.
Now, I don't know if Blizzard would make it so that the Alliance player could help the Neutral player against their "common enemy" for a brief period of time? maybe once they have killed the Horde player, they suddenly become flagged against each other?
This would mean that a "neutral" player, getting involved in any PvP against one side, would always be at risk of having to fight off enemies from both sides. Certainly an incentive to remain "neutral"! LOL

Andine, I would also really like to know what your underlying distaste for the "war" is. Is it lore based, pvp based, or rp based?

I could see how an undead would not want to have part in these conflicts that they've been dragged back into from a RP perspective.

The "world" of WoW doesn't really have room for a true neutral faction. There are too many mechanics problems, and I think you are oversimplifying the fixes for them. You want your cake and want to eat it too.

That said, I think a third faction would be possible, and potentially would have made the panderans a lot more interesting.

Theres enough sea in the world that a pirate based faction could work. Their capital would be a giant floating city :3

For everyone critiquing this idea, I refer you to the title of the post. Everyone here who prefers neutrality is well aware that it won't become an actual option in-game. It's more of a fantasy thread for us.

I do have hopes for MoP, though. Even with the story-arc on increased faction conflict, they seem to have put many peaceful, neutral factions in-game in beautiful surroundings for those of us that prefer that sort of game-play.

GormanGhaste wrote:I do have hopes for MoP, though. Even with the story-arc on increased faction conflict, they seem to have put many peaceful, neutral factions in-game in beautiful surroundings for those of us that prefer that sort of game-play.

I find that interesting, given that you characters have trained are are skilled in generally brutal acts of warfare. Now if you were going to RP that out, and forsake those ways, that would be interesting. I'm not sure how a warlock would go about that, or a shadow priest or warrior. Would be easier for hunters, but still, our characters are the "heroes" of the conflicts, not the average farmer or shopkeeper.

If you really wanted to forsake the warefare, a tradesman class would be interesting.

Slickrock wrote:

GormanGhaste wrote:I do have hopes for MoP, though. Even with the story-arc on increased faction conflict, they seem to have put many peaceful, neutral factions in-game in beautiful surroundings for those of us that prefer that sort of game-play.

I find that interesting, given that your characters have trained are skilled in generally brutal acts of warfare. Now if you were going to RP that out, and forsake those ways, that would be interesting. Would be easier for hunters, but still, our characters are the "heroes" of the conflicts, not the average farmer or shopkeeper.

If you really wanted to forsake the warfare, a tradesman class would be interesting.

I've never seen my characters as heroes, they just try to do the right thing in any given situation. My hunter was never trained for warfare, just survival. She does go to war, for the right reasons. The current alliance/horde conflicts are not a good enough reason to her. War should always be a last resort, there are no good wars. Balance, grasshopper.

GormanGhaste wrote:I've never seen my characters as heroes, they just try to do the right thing in any given situation. My hunter was never trained for warfare, just survival. She does go to war, for the right reasons. The current alliance/horde conflicts are not a good enough reason to her. War should always be a last resort, there are no good wars. Balance, grasshopper.

Choosing a different path is certainly an option. However, choosing that path, one should expect not to have access to the resources that either faction supplies. Can't have it both ways. (Yes, I'd like to have that shiny new tier gear.. fight on the new front? no thank you.. not my thing).

You could certainly role play it now. Do only faction neutral quests, and live in the goblin cities.

I'm reminded of the rogue samurais in various tales. They want to go off on their own, not wanted to be owned by anyone, but they always wind up with a hard road, and usually are drawn into a conflict on one side or the other.

Another thing.. WoW is still really steeped in medieval warfare, and in that time, neutrality only really existed when a nation-state was powerful enough (or revered enough, or both - in the case of the papal state) that it would be left out of a conflict.

So what factions would work? The goblins could have been that, and with the cartels are that to some degree, but you can't play it as a goblin. The panderans had a potential to be that, and it would have made the game a lot more interesting if they had done that with the panderans.

But without a faction that can have the resources (gear, trainers, etc), it's going to be hard to be truly neutral.

For the sake of gameplay, I think a pirate faction would be the most interesting.

Or...

At the end of Panderia.. both elf groups grow weary of the conflict, mend fences, and withdraw from their respective factions. That would stir things up.

Sorry, but I consider the factions absolutely integral to the game's overall appeal - the tension and conflict keep things charged, distinct and interesting for me. If things were neutral it would feel slushy and generic, where the enemy is always some NPC group of the moment, always beaten at the end of the xpac. No thank you. I do realize others dislike the faction thing just as much, and I respect that, but this is my personal opinion.

It's not about whether you could logically justify it - of course you could, just like you could logically justify removing the language barrier. Blues have said as much. It's about what makes the game work (or what Blizzard thinks makes it work, anyway), even if there's barely a figleaf of logical justification for it.

And honestly the logical approach in this context is just a bottomless rabbithole anyway, because really anything can be questioned and who is to say ultimately why one illogical thing gets left alone whilst the next gets made "realistic". E.g. requiring you to eat food every so often or starve, track pounds of equipment and make you move slower when overburdened or not be able to see at night as a human (as they did in EQ), be limited to one backpack and a few small pouches like a normal humanoid instead of 5 backpacks, have halberds take up more backpack space than trinkets, etc.