Undercity was the Alliance equivalent of Teldrassil. It was a hollow victory for sure. But they did end up with one less Horde capitol on Kalimdor.Dazar'Alor is another victory that seems hollow. The Alliance does not accomplish all of its goals, even in victory. But it does accomplish something very important that people seem to be forgetting about.At the start of the expansion, both sides are pretty balanced. Neither has the naval force to conquer the other. During 8.0 we lay the foundation to change that, through the Kul Tirans, and the Zandalari. The Battle for Dazar'alor destroys most of the Zandalari fleet however. So it is an important victory. One that places the Alliance weeks away from total victory. That sounds rewarding to me.
Grandpa Anduin lol
For real balance, let's have Thanos come in and snap with his magic gauntlet ^^Then the game will finally be perfectly balanced, as all things should be xD
If the Alliance responded to Teldrassil with an equally disturbing/violent atrocity, it would not be the Alliance I joined in Vanilla and would lose the line that separates what it means to be Horde or Alliance. The fact that so many Alliance cry about the equivalence between Horde and Alliance actions for BFA means that they should, in fact, be playing Horde. Wanna do morally gray/dark stuff? Join a side with people more apt to doing morally gray/dark things.
Lol unless the Alliance pulls a similar stunt like teldrasill intentional or not nothing will ever be equal in terms things to do to one another, but the most writers devs dont care they hate working on stuff for the Alliance they made them a joke and boring over the years no wonder the faction is dying and with a head dev that says he will never roll Alliance its pointless to even try or ask for more interesting stuff for the blue faction,Also where is the story choice for the Alliance or when do they get a story arc of what it means to be Alliance but lok tar amirite.
Let's all cry because our favorite pixels got erased and the other ones didn't... If they made a story that was truly fully balanced it would be a very boring story indeed.
if you look at both event with a more abstract point of view than they look pretty similar. Point 1: Faction 1 distract Faction 2, which is an old empire, by fakeing an attack on a diffrent zone.Point 2: Faction 2 sends most of thier troopes to that zone. But notice to late that it was a fake.Point 3: in the meantime Faction 1 attack Faction 2 capital but fails to achive their main goal, which leads to casualties.Point 4 Faction 2 is furious Faction 1 can either be Horde or Alliance (as a whole) and Faction 2 is only a part of the enemy of Faction 1. in both cases my points are true.sure the results are diffrent, but mainly because blizz doesnt want to undermine the "we are the good guys and only want peace" mentality.We even know that the alliance are on the winning side, see horde brainmeeting after the next raid, which could predict the outcome of the wrafronts.The Horde war campaign part 1 got taken away by the allies in there campaign part 2. Theres a high chance of infighting thanks to the traitor Saurfang
Kevin's response at around 5:48 was the most interesting part to me. We've heard a couple times now that Blizzard seems to think the problems with certain WoW gameplay modes and systems is primarily the rewards structure (previously Ion had mentioned a similar thing with regards to Island Expeditions). It's kind of hard for me to understand Kevin's entire answer, but it seems like he's trying to say the same thing.I can only speak for myself, but if a gameplay mode or system is fun to me, I'll play it regardless of the rewards. I played the heck out of Wintergrasp and I wasn't raiding at all then. I could care less who controlled the vault.There may be certain times in WoW that I'll play for the rewards in spite of it not being fun for me (e.g., "win 10 rated battlegrounds to unlock artifact appearance Y"), but that doesn't mean I'm having a good time doing it.I really think Blizzard needs to take a fresh look at its player engagement methods. It shouldn't be "how can we get people to play more of this game mode?" It should always -- and only -- be "is this game mode fun to play?"This seems to be getting lost in development somewhere.
I don't get why people are so obsessed with faction "war victories" balance, or even why people stick so strongly to one faction. It's like if I played the Warcraft 3 campaign and only did the human parts.Most of the time I find wow's story is too balanced. It's boring when everything always has to be fair and equal. It's not good storytelling. The story of wow should be absorbed as a whole, not from some dim view of the faction you decided to play.I would love an expansion where the alliance always loses, is backed into a corner, loses a bunch of capital cities and has to work 10 times harder to come back from constant defeat. It makes that comeback so much better. So often it feels like finally we're gonna get some good stuff story-wise but fairness steps in. I would've wanted the alliance to take back Lordaeron. Who cares if the Alliance ends up with more capitals than the horde! It would've been awesome.I want characters to die unexpectedly Game of Throne style. I want to be angry and sad at the events that unfold. I want more burnings of Teldrassils, more things to change forever. I would be happy to see a world the forsaken leave the horde and form a new faction. So the horde would have 1 less playable race than alliance, and Forsaken faction would only have 1. WHO CARES! it would be awesome.Add a long time skip and have multiple factions split off. Nightelves unsatisfied with the Alliance split off, Bloodelves leave the horde to tend to Silvermoon and fix the Dead Scar. Imagine if Taurens would've split off and somewhat partnered with the alliance during BFA to take out Sylvanas, then settle back in with the Horde once (if) that's taken care of. Wow's faction balance lameness prevents cool story elements like that from ever happening.