Kosak interview: Lore.

90 Human Paladin
9850
10/10/2012 12:23 PMPosted by Zhouliang


They're dead. They're all dead.


No they're alright.

Characters never die off-screen in WoW. Hell they don't even die ON-screen sometimes.
MEARLY A SET BACK.
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Rogue
8195
It just takes longer for lore characters to come back from the dead now that "The Quick and the Dead" has been nerfed. That corpse run from the Twisting Nether is a !@#$%!
Reply Quote
85 Troll Warrior
5535
I'm not saying Rogers is incompetent either. I am implying, of the two Admiral choices, she is the one is most danger of letting her emotions overcome her duty.

Really, you could put an orc skin on her and you would not even notice the difference.


I think we have radically different ideas on what an orc is like.

>Horde
>Numerous

Unless the Dark Lady has decided to give up on her expansion in the Eastern Kingdoms, the Alliance will have more forces.


Blizzard has never let numbers stop them from pulling innumerable armies from their collective butts using Rule of Cool.
Reply Quote
I'd like to have the Forsaken involvement in Garrosh's downfall be a morally-motivated one, actually. It would be nice to see their redemption, as I cannot see how Blizzard would be able to make the Forsaken antagonists without removing the playable race, which they cannot do. Honestly, unless Blizzard decides to make them antagonists of another game set in the future, which would be odd, I can't see any other way the Forsaken could go other than up.
Reply Quote
90 Worgen Druid
10460
10/10/2012 12:53 PMPosted by Lathal
I'd like to have the Forsaken involvement in Garrosh's downfall be a morally-motivated one, actually. It would be nice to see their redemption, as I cannot see how Blizzard would be able to make the Forsaken antagonists without removing the playable race, which they cannot do. Honestly, unless Blizzard decides to make them antagonists of another game set in the future, which would be odd, I can't see any other way the Forsaken could go other than up.


They're already antagonists while still being on the horde-side.
Reply Quote
90 Human Warrior
3150
I'd be disappointed if Rogers ended up as the incompetent one. It's rare that Blizzard writes a strong female character and when they do, they end up completely destroying them.

I doubt it will be Taylor, simply because he's already proven that he's able to adapt to the most adverse conditions and build something where there was nothing.
Reply Quote
90 Human Hunter
9410
Sylvanas for Warchief!
Reply Quote
90 Human Warrior
3150
10/10/2012 01:18 PMPosted by Novilica
Sylvanas for Warchief!


Sylvanas is bat!@#$ crazy.
Reply Quote
90 Human Paladin
9540
Because Blizz hates the Alliance, obviously.

Why exactly isn't it Admiral Taylor or Admiral Rogers?

God forbid that the incompetent commander IS one of them.


I personally hope that instead of "taking over" this character's position, the players somehow help him or her develop into a better leader.
Edited by Renat on 10/10/2012 1:28 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Draenei Shaman
10745
I lament for the lack of draenei and gnome anything in the upcoming patches.
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Death Knight
11025
More sin'dorei and Sylvanas lore...this pleases me.

I really hope Rogers isnt the incompetent one, even I like her. I rather see her beaten at her best.

I really hope for some Dreanei lore in the future. I have a bit of a deep seeded love for them. So far all they gotten was there ship being fixed =/
Reply Quote
90 Goblin Mage
13690
10/10/2012 10:57 AMPosted by Frostytroll
you did say he was incompetent and that he failed to demonstrate skill and bravery.


Did I EVER say he was a coward? Did I ever say he could not fight? I said neither of those things; you can argue against me all you want, but just because you believe you've tried to pick apart my opinion and discredit it doesn't make it any less valid.

@Kurze: I have a name; it's not goblin.

Deus-ex-machina IS a problem. Taylor is made up of them, but that's more of a complaint with Blizzard's writing of the character, isn't it? People say "Yeah, well, Sky Admiral Rogers had a boat and forces to stand on, so that's her leg to stand on". She has the Alliance at her back, not just a boat or just soldiers; this is the Alliance.

Taylor, again, had Earthen Ring keeping him moving in Vash'jr and jinyu keeping him moving in the Jade Forest; all of his forces, jinyu or otherwise, have been slain. He is down to two members; an engineer and a doctor. He had many, many soldiers, and they are all now dead, and Anduin escaped them.

Granted, we can attribute some of his requirement for the deus-ex machina to Admiral Roger's refusal to spare just a few men.

Maybe I just dislike the writing for the Alliance lately or something, but I despise how Taylor's always got a way out just because he has been deemed useful. I want to see REAL heroics. I want to see truly EARNED respect. He almost seems like he's tripping over himself half the time to get anything done and then losing everything just as he gains any ground. He's supposed to embody the Alliance, a strong, sold body who knows what they're doing, not some barely getting by luck-empowered figure... Then again, he does lose a lot for truly no good reason other than 'cause'...

...I am suddenly painted an image of the Horde-Alliance War, both sides going nowhere in the grand scheme of things for the sake of 'cause'.
Reply Quote
87 Blood Elf Mage
5305
10/10/2012 02:59 PMPosted by Lynox
"Yeah, well, Sky Admiral Rogers had a boat and forces to stand on, so that's her leg to stand on".


It's funny because having a huge, well-equipped army doesn't mean you're going to win anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France

A big army does a general no good if he doesn't know how to use it or if he's out-generaled.

So Rogers would then deserve respect, apparently being an admiral with both an army and the skill to use it.
Reply Quote
90 Worgen Druid
10460
10/10/2012 04:41 PMPosted by Talothas
"Yeah, well, Sky Admiral Rogers had a boat and forces to stand on, so that's her leg to stand on".


It's funny because having a huge, well-equipped army doesn't mean you're going to win anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France

A big army does a general no good if he doesn't know how to use it or if he's out-generaled.

So Rogers would then deserve respect, apparently being an admiral with both an army and the skill to use it.


You can't deny that a big army is a big help, though!
Reply Quote
87 Blood Elf Mage
5305
10/10/2012 04:46 PMPosted by Ferenold
You can't deny that a big army is a big help, though!


It does help to have troops, yeah. Bigger isn't always better, though...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Mazari_Sharif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Kasserine_Pass
Reply Quote
90 Human Paladin
9850
10/10/2012 12:53 PMPosted by Lathal
Forsaken


10/10/2012 12:53 PMPosted by Lathal
morally-motivated
wat.
Reply Quote
90 Goblin Mage
13690
10/10/2012 04:41 PMPosted by Talothas
"Yeah, well, Sky Admiral Rogers had a boat and forces to stand on, so that's her leg to stand on".


It's funny because having a huge, well-equipped army doesn't mean you're going to win anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France

A big army does a general no good if he doesn't know how to use it or if he's out-generaled.

So Rogers would then deserve respect, apparently being an admiral with both an army and the skill to use it.


You. I agree with you on this. Thank you.
Reply Quote
85 Troll Warrior
5535
10/10/2012 02:59 PMPosted by Lynox
Did I EVER say he was a coward? Did I ever say he could not fight? I said neither of those things; you can argue against me all you want, but just because you believe you've tried to pick apart my opinion and discredit it doesn't make it any less valid.


Prowess means ability (here ability to battle/command since that's what we are talking about) and also means being brave. Maybe you didn't realize this, but I did.

This is what you said plain as day. If you've changed you mind on Taylor or you misused the word, there isn't something shameful in admitting that. It'd just be, "Oh, well, I didn't mean to say that."

I'm not trying to attack you as a person. But as I said, you specifically stated something. It doesn't matter whose opinion is what. The truth is what refutes it.

I'm not trying to refute your opinion that Admiral Taylor should get a decisive victory for the Alliance. I mean, I'm still happy to talk about such things, but that really is the realm of opinions based largely on "I feel this would be cool because reasons." That's the same for me. When I think something would be cool, that's just because how I feel like just because.

Taylor is objectively a good commander. Both in person and in his ability. Everything he has done has demonstrated this.



It's funny because having a huge, well-equipped army doesn't mean you're going to win anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France

A big army does a general no good if he doesn't know how to use it or if he's out-generaled.

So Rogers would then deserve respect, apparently being an admiral with both an army and the skill to use it.


You. I agree with you on this. Thank you.


Yeah, but I've never said Admiral Rogers is a bad commander. In fact, what I specifically said was that calling her a bad commander because she was just "lucky" for having forces at her disposal is wrong.

Go back and read what I said.

The worst thing I ever said about Rogers was that she has hate and anger, but those are things I like about her.

But back to what you originally said. When the support of an assertion is dismantled and/or otherwise discredited, that does in fact make it invalid or rather I think the better term to use would be incorrect.

And of course, you are still free to disagree with me. I don't really want to harp on about it forever myself.
Edited by Frostytroll on 10/10/2012 6:22 PM PDT
Reply Quote
87 Blood Elf Mage
5305
10/10/2012 06:21 PMPosted by Frostytroll
The worst thing I ever said about Rogers was that she has hate and anger, but those are things I like about her.


Psychological studies have actually been done that shows that hate helps soldiers make it through combat, do their jobs, and come out the other side sane. Granted, those studies have mostly focused on line troops, not generals, but still. It's interesting.

I'm not arguing against you here, I'm just pointing out something I find interesting.
Reply Quote
85 Troll Warrior
5535
I was able to figure that out, but thanks, lol.
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]