How would players react to the Alliance losing?

Lore Story
81

That was after the genocide, and the definition of genocide does not exclude making agreements with he people you commited genocide against. Where did you get that idea?

So because the Gilneans outsmarted her, it was not genocide? Do you have any idea what genocide is?

That involved torturing, enslaving and mass-slaughtering civilians of the nation. Aka, genocide.

This has nothing to do with my argument.

No. Again, this is after the incident. The Alliance not contacting a malevolent being who just abandoned them to die can in no way influence Sylvanas descision to abandon the Alliance, because it occured after that event. Learn how time works.

Half the story of Stormheim is him trying to prevent it! Play the damn game before commenting on it!

Nope. I never claimed he had no reason to react. The issue here is that the story Blizzard wanted to create involed the player killing Skovald rather than Odyn. They can easily establish a logically concistent reason for why he did nothing.

Except for the fact that he had you tryin to stop Skovald from getting to the Halls, and he explicitly told Skovald he would not receive the Aegis.

Warrior campaign.

I never said he cared, though this is a valid assumption based on their allyship. I only commented on you implying he had no right to get angry. Stop using the Word headcanon every time I point out a flaw in your statement, just because you saw me use it once. It has a specific meaning.

Shut up with that “You opinion” bullsh*t. As I illustrated with my comment, Saurfang is wrong to demand punishment from the Alliance because he himself will not live up to that standard. It does not matter if he believed it, he is still wrong. That is not an opinion. He is demanding of the Alliance something he will never do and that makes him a hypocrite.

He returned from his Stormheim excursion. Besides, Anduin actually has a Kingdom to run, and is thus needed there. Genn does not have those same duties because of a certain genocide.

I see I made a mistake here. I meant to say “argument” not “arguments”. My apologies

That is something you invendted in your mind. I never said that.
You’re not trying to discuss. Your arguments become more biased, and lose any weight. All in all, try to remain as neutral as possible. I am the one to make you behave a certain way. Nonetheless, condolences for sharing your opinion on the topic.

1 Like
82

I think the correct response there would be “You first?” You have never been able to remain civil or unbiased.

“I am the one to make you behave a certain way”

Dear Gods above and below, listen to yourself? That is the height of arrogance…

Back on topic, though I realise it is Friday which is ‘Horde-Bashing’ day, so not sure how long we will stay on topic…

As a structure, it isn’t designed, the game, for either side to ‘win’. We know the Alliance does not lose, Anduin stays High King for another 70 years or so, equally, the Horde won’t lose, it would be too obvious a retread for even Blizzard to countenance. I mean they’ve gotten rid of Undercity, so it -literally- would have to be Siege of Orgrimmar 2.0. They’re not quite stupid enough to do that.

Equally, Sylvanas won’t be Warchief by the end of this, I can almost Guarantee it. I think both Factions will get an almighty smack, if I had to guess how, I would say that Genn dies, and that Nathanos dies. Possibly Gallywix, but more likely Nathanos, as this would then lead to a situation where Sylvanas becomes even more unstable and is removed -by- the Horde, from Warchief. Ancient horrors from the depths rise up, and the Factions are forced into cooperation (again) however this time its just too much, the Factions, their Armies, are just -too- exhausted. This is likely why Anduin doesn’t make his move for 70 years or so, perhaps Azeroth united just simply isn’t numerous enough to attack the Void Lords, and needs a couple of generations to recover. No one wins the Blood War, it is a horrible protracted slaughter that leaves so few left, that neither side wants war anymore, even at the cost of “Paying back X for what they did at Y”.

Blizzard have said that this Expansion will see the Faction war ended. I can’t see any other way for them to do this without instantly disenfranchising half the player base, unless it is a horrible grim realisation that the War simply won’t be worth -winning- if we keep fighting it…

Personally I think that is the route they will take.

83

As proven by the massive amount of evidence you provided. You know, character asassination is so much more convincing than arguments.

But then again, you have a long history of lying about me and never apologizing, so I guess this is just the latest installment.

Says the guy who accused me of never being civil or unbiased. Though maybe it was too much to expect you not to lie about me. Birds will fly and all that. Well then, I guess the only thing left to say is “You first?”

Imagine getting this uppity over a parody of someone being condescending.

1 Like
84

You deny that you have been unpleasant to people on these forums, and that your opinions are biased?

No, no I do not. I am not going to apologise for you being unpleasant to people. That is not -my- apology to make. You have managed to turn a civil thread vicious. Kindly refrain from that in future.

Well, that is largely based on Empirical evidence, to be fair…

Go tell the Penguins that.

“I was…just…joking…it wasn’t serious!”

Now back to my post responding to the thread topic, what are your thoughts on that, do lets try to keep it on track…

1 Like
85

I fail to see the relevance of this question. You claimed I had never managed to remaind civil or unbiased, not that I had ever been uncivil or biased.

What about the time you accused me of threatening to report people for stating dissenting opinions, which I never did and which you failed to provide evidence for?

You mean like everyone on the internet?

Once you stop lying.

That is not how you write anecdotal.

Haha, you actually thought I was being serious.

“Imma just get uppity about this one person’s clearly ironic comment and make vague, unsubstantiated accusations about them, writing several posts about it, plz stay on topic guyz!”

1 Like
86

Get a room you two!
The sexual tension is unbearable.

3 Likes
87

fixed for you.

3 Likes
88

I would, but as with a lot of things, I suspect Brigante would be faking it.

4 Likes
89

Your pov is a lot of things. Unbiased or neutrals are not terms that fits with this pov, if you would re-read your own posts once.

90

Or maybe, just maybe, for the first time ever, you could put your money were your mouth is, and actually provide an argument as to why.

I can just as easily say the reason you think I am biased, is that you yourself are biased and the only reason you do not see it is that you lack introspection, and using your standard, not provide evidence and expect you to believe me. Provide arguments, or shut up.

1 Like
91

The invasion of Gilneas was most definitely a genocide in which civilian population was targeted, enslaved, experimented upon, before the survivors were forced to flee in face of the application of blight.

It simply is not debatable, you can not say “Hey, it isn’t genocide because I feel like it.”

7 Likes
92

Think you’ll find I quoted you saying exactly that on several occasions in the same thread.

No, a person can disagree without being uncivil, I disagree with some of what Moridunum and Araphant and Wimbert say, yet can remain civil.

I can’t. To stop, I would have to have started, you see…

No, it is how you write ‘Empirical’

" ADJECTIVE

  1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

Well text based communication is notoriously bad for conveying messages, ironically, given that even in spoken conversation over say, the telephone, we still miss a lot of the signifiers that give context to what a person is saying…

I suspect that would annoy my girlfriend. I say Suspect, it might not, she’s quite broadminded.

Alas and Alack, ‘Faking it’ is not something males are able to do terribly well, unless prophylactics are involved, I mean, it is fairly easy to -prove- even then, and why on earth would I fake something like that? I frankly have more respect for my partners than that… These really are some calumnies you are laying at my door here…

93

Do you remember the good ol’ days. When either soldier or grunt would just pick up a weapon, or board a Demolisher or Siege Tank and just duke it out on the battlefield instead of using biological weapons?

Ah, good days.

1 Like
94

I am heartbroken! :stuck_out_tongue:

Now demolishers are just another victim of our brutality. Lok’tar demolisher!

1 Like
95

Yep, it definitely qualifies as Genocide, as does Taldrassil. It doesn’t have to be the whole population, just a portion of them based on the fact that they -are- of a race/nationality or religion.

2 Likes
96

As a certain Orc with a sweaty dome once said: “Time’s change.”

Lok’tar Demolisher. You were the best of us.

1 Like
97

Alright, then, I recognise my mistake and apologies: Gilneas and Hillsbrad are indeed genocide. My mistake.

Edit: I’m bad at geography.

1 Like
98

I am sorry, we will never forget your statement about a video game. Araphant will remember this :smile:

The best always die young…

4 Likes
99

Oh I don’t intend to let any of my mistakes forgotten, don’t worry about that.

Especially the following: Glory to the Banshee Queen.

100

Gilneas will be reborn from the blood of our enemies! Are you a blood donor by any chance?

1 Like