Talk:World of Warcraft

From 1d4chan

Don't do it[edit]

I have just found out that the trail for world of warcraft has become 'free up to level 20' instead of '10 days to play' and have decided that I might has well give it a go again, if only to find something 'new' to do aside from getting zombified in haunted biomes and playing a moderate game that is only cool to me because it is 40k, and it takes up over TEN GIGABYTES of space. FOR THE FUCKING TRAIL. Some games take an hour or two to install. this one? I'm probabaly going to have to leave my computor on overnight. All I want to do is play a dorf...

DON'T DO IT!!!! IT'S NOT WORTH IT!!!!


"Oh yeah, and the Lich king? That guy that was the last big baddy in the WCIII RTS game? Got killed by a fucking two-dimensional add-on character that did not exist prior to Wrath of the Lich King. Seriously Blizzard, WTF?"

>>rage about how expansions ruined the Awesome of Vanilla World of Warcraft

>>don't know who Tirion MOTHERFUCKING Fordring was

Blizzard's writers are clearly not the only pants-on-head retarded individuals involved in this article.

Now who's the retarded Blizzfag who fucked up this article?

Dunno, but it appears that it is staying that way.

  • No, for I have fixed this article. Jesus, someone who obviously does NOT play WoW should NOT be touching this article. CrazyThang 21:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

What about folks that played it and got disgusted by plot development? --5.254.65.88 08:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The panda[edit]

For those who didn't know, Pandarian existed in warcraft 3 frozen throne's orc campaign. I thought it was just a typical joke played by Blizzard back then, but who knows, Blizzard buttfucked warcraft 3's lore too much anyway.

    • It was originally a joke, but a few people saw the image and liked the idea of a "panda race", so Blizzard made Pandarens cannon.

Rewriting, as a disambiguation page or otherwise[edit]

Given the existence of the World of Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game page and the plans to create a page for the board game, I propose that this be remade as a disambiguation page. It would be more efficient to cover them separately in that respect, and the necessity of summing up the entirety of the video game on this page is debatable.

While I don't entirely see the need for an article on the video game, I would be content with it if it was rewritten to cover only the setting of the game rather than the game itself. Ideally, it should sum up the basic story of each expansion and details on the races/classes without forcing the reader to look at a different wiki just because the page refers to characters never even mentioned on this page or the Warcraft page. Gameplay details should also be limited to what was most important in each expansion rather than listing out every little thing, and the rants about Blizzard being the second coming of GeeDubs just plain detract from the article as a whole. The textwalls also make the page a pain to read through as well, so breaking them down would be a good idea. Whether you do that by separating the paragraphs or by removing the parts that aren't vital for a WoW newcomer to know about is up to you. --Newerfag (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • RPG's are based in the world they are set in. Thus, a summary of the plot is necessary for people to decide at what pointbto set the story in. If providing summaries of RPG setting plots wasn't a thing, why would we have so many pages for 40k and D&D? This is just one page afterall. --Thannak (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    • True. But still, textwalls are textwalls and a lot of the information within the article assumes the reader knows a lot about the Warcraft setting already so it'll be more likely to confuse people than to help them. That's what I'd prefer to fix, but as someone who never paid attention to WoW in the first place I don't think I have the know-how to decide what is and isn't worth keeping. At the very least, the complaints about Blizzard can go. They sound like they were copypasted from /v/, and not in a good way. --Newerfag (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Pacman boardgame 75x75.jpg This is a /v/ related article, which we tolerate because it's popular or we can't be bothered to delete it.
  • Allow me to rephrase that. I literally could not understand most of what was written in the "Game and Expansions" section, partly due to the eye-searing walls of text that felt three times as long as they needed to be and partly because it was written as if I should know every character in the Warcraft series up until then. And if I'm only using it as a setting, I'm not going to give a shit about issues that are only present in the video game which I'm not actually playing and very likely never will play. Is having this rewritten in a way that a total newcomer to Warcraft who has no intention of playing the games can understand it without constantly referring to WoWWiki or Wikipedia to figure out what the fuck is going on too much to ask? --Newerfag (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
No, explaining the setting in a way that is actually useful to a newcomer is fine. I think a useful thing to do is put the section order back to how it was before Thannak expanded everything, so races (and probably additional characters) are first.--68.204.237.58 20:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
My thoughts precisely. Right now it's a complete clusterfuck of lore most people know nothing about, bitching about issues exclusive to the game as opposed to the setting, and the fans' reception of the games which shouldn't even be relevant. Those sections could stay, but they'd have to be streamlined considerably in a way that would explain who the hell everyone is, and why they're fighting each other in the first place. And explanations of what "the players" can do should be removed outright- as far as the setting proper is concerned, they're just generic adventurers whose only role is to do all of the work for the actually important characters. All that's needed is a basic plot summary, with enough details to inform newcomers without going overboard and confusing them further instead. For the moment, I'm culling that section of video game only-related information and bitching about Blizzard, because nobody's going to be worrying about how balanced PvP is when they're not playing the game anyway.--Newerfag (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
A section for an overview of the major characters is now up. While I'm starting it off with three subdivisions (Alliance/Horde/Other), feel free to make more if that's what's needed. --Newerfag (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Getting better, but I still suggest collapsible sections lest the "textwall of doom" problem make the page even more unreadable. Remember- if you can't keep it simple, you shouldn't keep it at all. --Newerfag (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"Text wall of doom" was never actually a problem, on any page anywhere. Stubs and lack of detail is. Collapsible sections were never necessary, just proper organization of index. --Thannak (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
And yet I found that the problem was too much detail- or should I say, too much unexplained detail and too little context to put that detail in. The new sections regarding the setting information and important characters should go some way to address that, and perhaps it could lead to this page and the Warcraft page being merged at some point in the future depending on how much it gets expanded on. --Newerfag (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I dropped some Forsaken anvils. I know you all will hate me but I calls em as I sees em. --5.254.65.195 07:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Jesus Fuck, These Forsaken Rants[edit]

  • Are there no Blizzard forums? No fan wikis? These details should go there, or die, and decrease the surplus page bloat.
Also, people keep fixing this hate diarrhea and someone keeps switching it back, which is just awful. --SpectralTime (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Because that part of the storyline fucked up in a way that is beyond awful. Last time I checked 1d4chan was neckbeard saltwiki, and not some robot9k expy. --81.213.214.211 15:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Plus, what the fuck is bloat on 1d4chan? Seriously... --81.213.214.211 15:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
My problem with it is that constant references and long rants about Forsaken diminish the pages on the other races. Its okay to be longer, but a paragraph on Night Elves and a fucking book on Forsaken with references throughout the rest of the document is a major problem. --Thannak (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
And that's Blizzard's attitude towards world-building and storytelling nowadays in a nutshell right there. Damn right this is a problem, just less with the article and more with a material it's based on.
Let's take these in order, shall we? There are and they're full of shit. This is a fan wiki. Should they? As far as I know, the others are trying to keep things as encyclopedic and as formal as possible where 1d4chan allows for more... informal, fan(atical) approach "with more opinions, sarcasm, skub, and salt that typically pokes fun of the absurdities found in the settings they discuss." What people? I look at pages' history and all I see are 'positive' edits and occasional formatting by Thannak. If this is a war, I fail to see the opposing side.
Mumble-grumble, you make one bad Christmas Carol joke...
Who called it a war? I just complained that shoe-horning in an eleven-year-old bitchfest into literally every mention of the Forsaken on the page, and also into a few completely-unrelated places for good measure, is exhausting and dumb. You *do* know this page used to be nothing but bitching about 4e, right? It just feels like we've given you as much room to say your peace as a reasonable person could possibly want, and it's just never going to be enough. Bad lore sucks, but you don't see me finding every mention of gnolls on every page of the wiki and complaining about how 5e's are shit, then finding every page that mentions 5e and shoehorning in a mention of how shit the gnolls are. Also, you sign posts with two dashes, and four tildes, like this: "--~~~~". --SpectralTime (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, that plaque at the page's start is called "Editwar" so, I suppose, you did. Rather uncalled for, if you ask me, again - no one's fighting, just complaining. Kind of a false advertisement there. Eleven-year-olds aren't usually interested in questions of morality (or poor writing for that matter), however they are about to become interested in Sylvanas' choice of wardrobe, though. Any references for these "few completely-unrelated places"? I didn't get that far into history, no. Who's "we"? "Bad lore" and shitty gnolls don't exactly correlate, don't you think? And for the record, I'm not the one that "dropped the anvil" on Forsaken, merely his self-appointed redactor, and I'm well aware of the signatures - do allow me this undignified pretence of anonymity.
An edit was carefully-removed and carefully-reworked, and then someone just reverted all of it back to the way it was. That's pretty much the exact definition of an editwar, even if this is pretty much just a low-stakes editsquabble. And how the hell are you trying to argue that bad lore doesn't correlate with bad lore? I could go down the page and delete every little whiny nitpick about how much the Forsaken fucking suck outside the designated, novel-length section we already set aside for it... so I think I will, actually. Why not? --SpectralTime (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Anvil dropper here, I made a much nicer edit on Odyn. Hope ya like it. --185.108.219.14 08:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Well if those were the problem and this is a solution, I'm good with that. And Forsaken aren't a product of "bad lore" (quite the contrary, at least before the writers began to bend the narrative to suit Sylvanas at every turn, for whatever reason) - they are, I dare say, creators pets. Not unlike certain other people in cyan power armour that incidentally seem to be fucking everywhere around here along with their skub... But, I suppose, it's all sophistry, so... eh.
FUCKING SYLVANAS - --SaltyMan (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ...Ya know what? I give up. If no one else gives a shit about quality control on this page, fine, what the fuck ever. I wash my hands of fighting the rising tide forever. --SpectralTime (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
More likely that you just have a minority opinion on the matter than an issue of quality. To tell you the truth, Sylvanas ain't the hill you should die on anyway. They may be a bit hyperbolic but they have some valid points. --104.237.80.170
I went to wowhead and I swear by my newborn son, without rancor, answered a rant about "Why do they hate Sylvanas?" with a long list of horrors the character did consciously and without compulsion, starting from torture and massacres on completely unrelated innocents, saying why would anyone with emotional maturity would not dislike. Guess what happened? Removed for necro, nevermind it was way too fresh for thread necroing. The censorship Forsaken fans employ isn't even funny. So I decided to spread it everywhere, let's see what happens. Jesus, my childhood game series is ruined! --SaltyMan (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, that was a 2-year-old thread - seems rather necrophiliac to me, as well as Wowhead moders, I'm sure. And now for smth completely different. "Extremely rare vehicles with near-impossible replacement parts," really? Any reference on that? Cause it seems to me that the opposite is quite self-evident, not in the least due to sheer quantity of such, serving as part of the decor, apparently.
Tanks, cars and power armor. Ever worked as logistics secretary or even as a sales engineer? It hurts to maintain gazillion parts for a single car, ESPECIALLY when all you have is a minority dude race that can only produce said parts. Now consider any race cranking up wizards and priests and paladins in contrast to some chicken walker mech it takes a pain to maintain. Now consider attrition and war logistics. Which one is easier? --SaltyMan (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Well that little assumption on your part didn't stop 'em from fielding the good stuff during Second and Third Wars, now did it? I bet tanks, planes, howitzers, machine guns and all other WWI goodies weren't easy to maintain either, yet that didn't stop anyone from using them. Care to guess why? Point is: Alliance has massive technological (and magical, for that matter, though not so massive) advantage and fails to utilise it for no other reason (in-universe presented, that is) than preserving status quo. That is rather annoying and definitely not reasonable. Srsly, this entire WoW plotpoint ever since Cataclysm is like a bloody "Monty Python's Flying Circus" episode, and not in a good way...
Good point but the vehicles _are_ used, just in few numbers. Just not as much as you think, just like, WW1 tanks, which were used late in war and in low numbers. Also, in WW1, the world was industrialized heavily with enormous resources around the globe used for war effort. Azeroth is a constant, feudal medieval stasis of states with near-zero stability everywhere. --SaltyMan (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Quite the Mess This Article Is[edit]

Regardless of other complaints no matter how well- or ill-founded, this article could use a good restructuring. There's a disjointed amount of specific knowledge and assumptions that dance around the page that helps no one except those that already do not need to read the article. Since there seems to be some arguing, I rather not go ahead an implement this without prior approval. The proposed restructure is:

  • General Setting Stuff
    • General Setting Information
    • Races
      • Perhaps divided into factions of there's a clean correlation
    • Geography
  • Classes, mechanics, other things that can be interestingly transferred to the tabletop
  • Plot-related content and developments
  • See Also

--Naeondaemon (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. It is not a lack of belief that such a restructuring would be good or necessary that prevents its taking place, but a lack of will and energy.
I mean, *I* just scoured the whole article for off-topic Sylvanas-bitching, and in that brief window found a bunch of basic spelling and grammar errors in need of repair. If you wanna do it, I doubt anyone'll stop you. --SpectralTime (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Spectral felt the burning need to carry water for Sylvanas. Not even surprised.
...You are more than welcome to go ahead and believe that, if that gives you comfort. --SpectralTime (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that people want to protect a so-called tragic bitch with a hardon for genocide, torture and sick experiments. --88.202.186.218 07:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that this article keeps getting worse and worse? It's like I'm the only one here who's not afraid to call for it to be put out of its fucking misery. --Newerfag (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The sixteen-year-old High King[edit]

So they just went and did it, huh? No meeting, no discussion, no coronation - they just put it on his character page without any explanation whatsoever and every other Alliance leader apparently just said to that: "Yeah, let's give a sixteen-year-old boy complete control over our military and foreign policy. What could possibly go wrong?" I'm sorry, did they fire every remotely competent writer on their team or could it be that some logic, reason and consistency is just me asking too much? Everywhere I look, every setting I go to - some anticlimactic shit all over. Feels bad.

  • Its Warcraft lore. That means 60% of what progresses the plot is in a novel or online short story, not the game. It'll probably be announced eventually. --Thannak (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
There was no meeting, discussion, or coronation for Varian either. He sort of gets built up as a leader to the night elves and worgen the Wolfheart novel, but he just shows up as High King later, then justifies it to the night elves and the dwarves.--97.104.199.133 02:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Arguably works with Dwarves. Ironforge was always friendly with Stormwind, the Deeprun Tram was connected before Warcraft 1 according to the retcon. Its Lordaeron they didn't like, which is why they weren't too excited about the Alliance at first since Menethil in charge. Night Elves makes as much sense as Blood Elves staying in the Horde after they got the Sunwell back; they're a race in the faction, and aren't important to the main story. They even half address it in the story where Wrynn tried to take over Ironforge, he sees himself as part of the family and thinks he has a take in their civil war. Now given there's a triumvirate ruling Ironforge you'd think there'd be some argument now though. --Thannak (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
'Built up', 'justifies'... Funny, I can't say the same about the boy. Two expansions, a story and (sadly) never properly implemented "Trials of the High King" we have behind Varian, already a king, learning to be smth more. It sure sucks that the storyline was ditched and the just went "Roll with it", which another poke at Blizzard (you'd think those thing were kinda sorta important, no?..), yet I fail to see how that justifies Anduin's High Kingship. You step on your own toes once... it kinda makes it worse, not better, when you step those same toes again. And not even trying this time. So far, I can only recall Anduin exploiting his plot armour in dealing with his teenage complexes and maximalism - did that help? Poor Tyrande, no wonder she throws occasional temper tantrum: 12000 years of experience - gets outdone by a not particularly bright child. Sure, Thannak may be right and it'll be addressed later somewhere somehow, but past history with Blizzard suggests otherwise. Speaking of which... That moment in "Son of the Wolf", you know the one I'm talking about, that wasn't... Anduin's "Trial of the High King", was it?..
Probably.--97.104.199.133 03:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Xe'ra and the Light[edit]

This new implication with the Light resulting from Xe'ra actions and the portrayal of Illidan looks like it's turning into quite the controversy. The reason I've heard that people don't like Xe'ra is how she whitewashed Illidan's actions and condemned players for killing him. Whitewashing Illidan is something Illidan fans have done, yet when Xe'ra does it, some of those fans hypocritically dismiss her as "That damn windchime"? That's the lack of logic more often expected from Sylvanas' more irrational fans (what a thing fanboyism/fangirlism is). The other problem is Xe'ra trying to force the Light on Illidan and Illidan killing Xe'ra being treated like a good thing. So it's a good thing he killed the commander of the army of the Light, did the Burning Legion's job for them and risked causing dissent. Between this and Velen and no-one beside Turalyon having a problem with Xe'ra death this is poor writing on Blizzard's part. It also smacks of some hidden jab at religion, because we have Illidan swaggering around the Vindicaar mocking Velen and the Light despite how they're helping Illidan (and some hypocrisy; Illidan mocks Velen for fleeing Argus and getting people killed when Illidan has done the same and fled to Outland to hide from Kil'jaeden) and dissing faith like some smug atheist before refusing Xe'ra's gift (not to mention similar comments heard from s afew fans). So what is the deal with this and how should it be handled on the page?

You are trying to reconcile a diverse group of a irrational people while having strong opinions of your own. Some Illidan fans whitewashed his actions. Xe'ra whitewashed his actions. Many people did not like Xe'ra, especially because she insulted the players directly while being portrayed as correct by the narrative. When Illidan finally called her out, she is in the middle of randomly going crazy and he kills her, rather than something that would be an attempt to fix the narrative. I think the apathy and lack of infighting may be due to the fact that they have bigger problems right now.--97.104.193.184 06:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Blatant Alliance Fanboy whining is not allowed[edit]

Vandals with no account keep inserting deconstructive edits repeatedly accusing the Horde of being a creator's pet and whining about how the Horde is favored. This article is supposed to be constructive, so shit like that isn't allowed, go whine about imaginary Horde bias elsewhere. Admiral Apathy (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Whining about factions isn't allowed on 1d4....you don't come here often, do you? --1.157.169.5 10:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Only this page had gigantic 20 paragraph rants whenever the Forsaken were mentioned. Admiral Apathy (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Because they were an utter mess of clusterfuck starting from "Grey Morality" bullshit to finally burning down the fucking world tree. It ain't imaginary so eat a dick Hordeboi. --SaltyMan (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, who the fuck are you to say it's not allowed. Are you a Mod or something? I say it's allowed, what now faggot? Go add bad stuff about the Alliance if ya wanna, 'cause why not? It's all about free speech, be my guest. WoW players are pure cancer for fuck's sake. --SaltyMan (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I take it you're the anon who keeps adding those rants? I did add some minor stuff, you deleted it. Admiral Apathy (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Nope. I was sitting on my ass when I got the gmail notification. I am not a faggot that hides under Anonymity. Add all you like, but then add it without deleting what's on there. --SaltyMan (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Don't call people faggots, and there's nothing wrong with being an anonymous user. --Root (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

It is clear that Admiral Apathy signed up to right a single wrong on this wiki, which is fine... but come on, don't make up rules.--Namefag (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You call me a dumbass, spergic faggot? --SaltyMan (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

All the hills to die on, and you pick this one... while displaying the sheer audactiy to call someone "spergic".
Disappointing, were it not completely expected. No wonder Newer get an itch to delete shit. I understand this is the wiki of a 4chan board we're talking about, but there's no reason we can't compromise, or at least realize that there are some levels of detail where excluding it wouldn't kill us. --LGX-000 (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I told myself I wasn't going to dignify him with a response...but he brought his ban on himself. --Newerfag (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope, never outsource responsibility in a "Why did you make me hit you" obese wifebeater way. Any ban you do is solely your own responsibility. The whole website has more shit than 4chan stuck together in many of its parts, and you choose to "ban" someone who is upset because spergic obese Hordebois love to edit creep the fuck out of true content. No no no no… YOU bring my ban on myself. Go ahead and ban this account. I'll make another. --SaltyMan (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

After all this time you STILL haven't realized I don't actually have the ability to ban you? Or that I have better things to do than try to salvage a mediocre article on a dying MMO?--Newerfag (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)