Wikia

WoWWiki

Talk:Rumored Races/Archive3

101,389pages on
this wiki

Back to page | < Talk:Rumored Races

Rumored Races 3rd discussion archive Edit

Likelihood vs. Alphabetical order Edit

(Please be kind to correct my mistakes. It's my first poll)

I, Kirochi, am fed up of meaningless votes about the likelihood of a race. I would like to put the races in the alphabetical order to keep fair towards all the races. I also think that the colors I suggested in the previous would perfectly fit that order, but it's gonna be another story. So please vote about that. At least one vote will make me mind that it's not a good solution to you all. At least five member votes and one admin vote will allow me to change the whole list in my way.

There's kind of a form for conducting polls, but whether official or not, that form is (to my way of thinking) unnecessary, and especially since I haven't conducted any myself of late, I don't even know it. I wouldn't worry about it.
As for making the list alphabetical order, just to keep things "fair," I don't see the point. It would make more sense only if we included the likelihood of the race appearing in any future expansion. Fandyllic started listing some of the likelihoods of that, but only a few, that I recall. So until we get more chances, there's no need. I also think the colors indicating strength of argument should be adopted. Maybe white for a weak argument either direction (or a pale version of one of the following colors), red for negative and blue or green for strong positive.
Then, the likelihood should be indicated by a color similar to what I just mentioned, as well as a number. (This, especially if everything is in alpha order, because then we can judge what is more likely between two "Possible"s. Just brainstorming, here. And for now, I won't vote. Maybe later. Schmidt 00:12, 18 Jan 2006 (EST)
I'm not sure it's about keeping things 'fair', it's about how impossible it is to take something like this, where possiblities are opinion, and forcing a 'group opinion' of what everybody feels. Unless we have a formula to generate these, I think it's a bad idea to have possible/unlikely. I'm also against having weak/strong arguements on group opinions unless these also can be scientifically calculated.
" It would make more sense only if we included the likelihood of the race appearing in any future expansion." That's how it is, read the top of the page.. --Xmuskrat 09:48, 18 Jan 2006 (EST)
It's okay to have a Burning Crusade likelihood and a future likelihood, but only if they are kept separate. You can't have a meaningful likelihood with those two possibilities together. It just doesn't make sense, despite what the top of the page says. Now that there are two types listed, we can at least separate the two possibilities for argumentation's sake.
--Fandyllic 10:51 AM PST 18 Jan 2006
Forget what I said earlier. Schmidt 03:13, 19 Jan 2006 (EST)

For AlphabeticalEdit

  1. --Kirochi 15:46, 17 Jan 2006 (EST)
  2. --Xmuskrat 09:05, 18 Jan 2006 (EST) There is no scientific method to put your opinions on there, or to pick the order the list should go in. Likely or unlikely is subjective, we don't agree already, and we especially won't with more things to agree to. (We as all of WoWWiki people)
  3. --Anticrash 12:31, 18 Jan 2006 (EST) In my honest opinion, all we need is Race and Reason. I don't see any need for Possible or Unlikely, bolds or italics, weak or strong, color schemes, or any of that.. for all intents and purposes, ALL races are Possible and should all be treated the same.
  4. Schmidt 03:13, 19 Jan 2006 (EST)
  5. User:TopDread 8:16, 19 Jan 2006 (EST)
Vote Closed and accepted with 5-0 Yes margin and 5 days with no new votes.

AgainstEdit

I remember you that your vote will be counted when you'll have put your tag in front of the # sign. Please leave some comments to yor vote.

The vote is now closed for me. I won't do anything. If you want to vote in spite of the ending of this poll, feel free, but I give up that idea.--Kirochi 12:17, 18 Jan 2006 (EST)

This vote is accepted according to the proposed WoWWiki:Voting policy. Kirochi or someone else can re-order the races alphabetically if they want. I don't beliee this vote represents aggreement on anything more than alphabetizing. --Fandyllic 5:05 PM PST
Ok, thank you. The coloring will be voted with another poll, and I won't do anything that wasn't mentioned here.--Kirochi 08:13, 25 Jan 2006 (EST)
Correct. This vote was for, and only for alphabetizing. --Xmuskrat 09:24, 25 Jan 2006 (EST)

AlphabetizingEdit

It's done. I also changed the likelihood ranking (sorry I finally decided to reform that too, but I think it was correlated).--Kirochi 09:07, 25 Jan 2006 (EST)


Draenei Likelihood Edit

Voting closed in favor of POSSIBLE. At least three votes will lock the Draenei likelihood at Possible, disallowing any further changes to Unlikely.

PossibleEdit

  1. --Anticrash
  2. --Xmuskrat 12:45, 3 Jan 2006 (EST)
  3. --Kakwakas 17:40, 3 Jan 2006 (EST)
  4. --Kirochi 15:54, 4 Jan 2006 (EST)
  5. --CJ 07:58, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)
  6. --OwlBoy 08:23, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)

The Draenei Likelihood will be LOCKED at Possible until further evidence can prove otherwise. This is not to be changed from Possible until such evidence arises. --Anticrash 16:02, 4 Jan 2006 (EST)

Yessir! --Xmuskrat 16:58, 4 Jan 2006 (EST)
I still think this closing of voting is sort of silly, but this is a much better example of something many people agree upon. However, if any of you likes this idea of locking votes and results after a mere 3 votes, feel free to propose it in WoWWiki:Voting policy. I'll vote against it, but it's still a valid proposal.
--Fandyllic 4:40 PM PST 10 Jan 2006
I copied this template Anticrash posted and ran my Pandren vote the same way. It's the only way voting has been done on this site so far, there is NO voting proposal. So I personally won't vote anymore, as we don't have a voting policy. It's meaningless. --Xmuskrat 20:10, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)
There is a proposed WoWWiki:Voting policy, but it wasn't there when you posted your comment. If you decide to start voting again, please take a look.
--Fandyllic 10:59 AM PST 18 Jan 2006


Ogres Edit

What's this bullet in ogres about them being shamanistic? I've never heard anything about shamanistic ogre culture... I swear, half the time someone claims a race can't be the new Alliance race because they're "shamanistic," they're pulling it out of their ass. :/ --Kakwakas 20:34, 29 Dec 2005 (EST)

I beieve they believe "shamanistic" means they don't live in a castle. *wink* --Xmuskrat 10:14, 30 Dec 2005 (EST)
Really, I think it falls to logic to assume what race practices what kind of magic. If you think about it, there cannot be some generic unnamed form of magic.. it has to be something (holy, arcane, shaman, druid, voodoo, etc, etc). And, logically, the ogres, being from Draenor and being close with the Draenei and the orcs, most likely would practice a similar magic to their fellow natives. Orcs originally practiced shamanism, and since ogres were once part of the Horde (albeit a demonic horde) it makes sense that they'd have similar habits, and would also have roots in shamanism. That is my first point. My second point being, simply, observation. While playing in-game, I've observed the magical abilities of ogres. Usually, they only possess one attack spell and a healing spell. The healing spell alone, based on the nature of the spell and the animation, narrows them down to three classes: priest, druid and shaman. Since ogres are from Draenor, they'd have no connection to Azeroth, thus I logically rule out druid. Also, since holy magic stems from firm religious beliefs, I also rule out priest. Thus, the only logical choice for the ogre magical background in my opinion would be shaman. I apologize for my rant. =) --Anticrash 10:45, 30 Dec 2005 (EST)
The most obvious choice would be Warlocks. --Xmuskrat 15:40, 30 Dec 2005 (EST)
There are Dark Iron dwarves that use paladin spells, tauren that use rogue abilities (Grimtotem Bandits), and centaur marauders have an attack that looks like a druid's Hurricane. Does that make the Dark Irons believers in the Holy Light and centaur druidistic? =p Ingame spell graphics don't mean much. --Kakwakas 19:27, 30 Dec 2005 (EST)

There are as much reasons for and against ... But consider that the Dark Iron dwarves are formerly Dwarves (do I have to remind you that dwarves are dwarves). Anybody can use Rogue techniques, and the fact that playable Taurens can't be so is purely esthetic : they're too big and that would give a class-advantage to the Horde (if they lose a stone or two, they are utterly able to be discreet). I also think that Centaurs can be Druids (yes, in a very evil way, but think that in the mythology Centaurs have always lived in the forests) Personally, I think that the Ogres in the Alliance would be totally stupid. It won't make sense. Would you ally with Ogres ? Nay, you wouldn't.--Kirochi 11:29, 1 Jan 2006 (EST)

Would you want to ally with crazed, deformed Draenei? =p

By the way, if we're gonna flag ogres as shamanistic with that much evidence backing it, we should also flag Draenei as shamanistic.--Kakwakas 20:49, 1 Jan 2006 (EST)

The appearance of somebody doesn't show it's mind. I would ally with anybody with good intentions. And Ogres DON'T have good intentions.

Draenei are fighting for their people.Laughing Skull Clan is fighting for it's supremacy. That makesme doubtless of which race can be trusted and which one NOT. And How can you say Draenei are shamanistic ?--Kirochi 12:52, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)

Personally, I'd rather see Draenei then Ogres on the Alliance. While I would like to see Ogres in game, I'd rather see them eventually in the Horde. For the Alliance, I want to see somebody who holds Alliance ideals, racism and bigotry. --Xmuskrat 12:53, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
I attempted to have a conversation about what shamanistic means, but everbody would rather just use that as their new two dollar word to discredit whichever race they dislike the most.--Xmuskrat 12:54, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
Exactly. The only reason I say that Draenei are shamanistic is because people say ogres are shamanistic. If they want to remove one, they have to remove the other. =p Personally, I'd like for this page to ONLY have facts supporting or opposing the possibility of each race, not random rumors that are floating around that people treat as if Blizzard said it. Yes, I'd like for ogres to be the new race, but I'd like for this page to be unbias and maybe actually help someone come to their own conclusion of what the new race could be. --Kakwakas 16:04, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
It's tough. For one, it is a rumors page. So trying to get all rumors out of the equasion might not 100% be the best idea. However, I do think every rumor should have a source. I don't think somebody should be able to make something up out of the blue. --Xmuskrat 14:15, 8 Jan 2006 (EST)
Yeah, if we make everyone link a source for every point, it'll probably stop a lot of false/unfounded rumors. --Kakwakas 14:33, 8 Jan 2006 (EST)
Yeah. I want to make a new template for that page, one that requires sources to be put in, etc. Maybe Silverside can help me with it, as he's pretty swift with templates on here. --Xmuskrat 15:06, 8 Jan 2006 (EST)

I won't edit the page, but I ask you mind that on Mogor's page (leader of the Laughing Skull Clan) was raided and killed with his clanmates by Ner'Zhul, so that means they may not ally with the Alliance ...--Kirochi 09:06, 11 Jan 2006 (EST)

And giving that the Laughing Skull's are Orcs, and not Ogres, that makes it even more difficult that they may not ally with the Alliance. --Xmuskrat 09:56, 11 Jan 2006 (EST)
Ah, wtf. So the Laughing Skulls were all Orcs with an Ogre leader, and they're all dead? So then what was the basis for that ogre rumor involving them? Did someone just pull all of that out of their ass? --Anticrash 10:18, 11 Jan 2006 (EST)
It would appear so. I hope it wasn't me.  :P --Xmuskrat 10:23, 11 Jan 2006 (EST)
Could the fact that they're adding another new 'creature' Ogre model ([1]) seriously damage the Ogres reputation as one of the most likely races? If they're adding a new non-playable Ogre model, then why would the Ogres still remain likely? --Vorbis 19:31, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yes you're maybe right. At least that model won't be the playable race because it's higher than the existing Ogres, which are far too big to pass through doors.--Kirochi 15:58, 14 Jan 2006 (EST)
Hum ... PEOPLE WHAT'S THAT MADNESS ABOUT MUTATED OGRES !!!!

The Ogres in Outland couldn't mutate because they actually are native from Outland and maybe never passed the portal ! Please tell me if I'm wrong, but these Ogres seems to me to be the REAL ones and that those we can see in game are in fact THE ONLY mutated Ogres.--Kirochi 16:27, 19 Jan 2006 (EST)

Mutated Ogre? It refers to that. A new modeled Ogre displayed at BlizzCon. --Xmuskrat 16:30, 19 Jan 2006 (EST)
Thanks Xmuskrat I knew that it was that screenshot that launched the rumor of mutated Ogres, but I think that the ones we can see in game ARE the mutated ones ! How could the Ogres mutate if they didn't even pass the portal and if they kept in Outland ? It's never said on this page that the Ogres that were presented at Blizzcon were mutated ones !--Kirochi 16:55, 19 Jan 2006 (EST)
You are correct. We have no more information then that screenshot itself, and it could be anything. --Xmuskrat 19:53, 19 Jan 2006 (EST)
Thank you ^^. Back then, I think that we can't use that argument in any negative way (yes, I'm defending the Ogres right now, please don't forget this moment), and if it keeps on the page it has to be italicized before we come to an agreement about a color code. A model is not so hard to build and I doubt that Blizzard is as lazy as you (not thou) say (if they were so lazy would they have made WoW ?). I also remind you all that a plus in a way is not a minus in another one.--Kirochi 20:03, 19 Jan 2006 (EST)
Wait, wait. Back up. And your argument to the defence is... what? Anyway, how can it not be a mutated Ogre? It's got bloody great spikes growing out of its neck, pointing to the fact that it may, on the off chance, be a mutated Ogre. Why is it mutated? Because of demonic corruption. Anyway, you're still not coming up with a coherant argument. Why would Blizz make a bloody armoured mutant creature model if they knew that they had a player model lined up right behind. And I don't see any other races having seperate models, except for those used in Beta.
My point still stands. The fact that there is a new 'creature' model remains as proof against the possibility of an Ogre race. --Vorbis 22:31, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)
"Anyway, how can it not be a mutated Ogre?"
I'm not disagreeing about the "mutated" word, nor agreeing about the "creature" word. I mean that THESE OGRES that you see on THIS panel from Blizzcon are THE Ogres from Draenor and were not at all modified, because of any corruption or Portal passing ! Red spikes are not a proof of corruption in any way, because there were boars and many other creatures having red spikes (I know it, I'm sure of it because I finished Warcraft 2 and it's expansion less than 10 minutes ago) a decade before demonic corruption. I mean that the Ogres we know LOST their spikes and are now the ones we see. You understanding or me having to repeat once again ? (just kidding :P). Although I agree that it could remain as a negative point, but that it should be italicized.--Kirochi 18:39, 21 Jan 2006 (EST)
OK, we all know how much I love ogres for the expansion, but the only evidence we have of creatures changing by passing through portals is something Caydiem said that Metzen won't confirm (see Garona). --Kakwakas 18:46, 21 Jan 2006 (EST)
The New Ogres ARE mutated. Of course they are. Azeroth's Ogres can't be mutated, they've been like that since WCI. Draenor's Ogres ARE mutated, why? Remember that huge explosion of Draenor in WCII that mutated the Draeni into little potatoes with legs? Yeah, well a planet collapsing onto itself is going to mutate more than one race.--Zorgoth 6:43, 21 Jan 2006 (EST)
It isn't just passing through a portal that causes the mutation, else every Human, Orc, Elf, and all the other creatures who have travelled through the Dark Portal in past Warcraft games would have been mutated in the process. The mutations seen in the Draenei are said to have been caused by the energies that destroyed Draenor, not portal travel. My understanding is that the 'corruption' travelling through portals supposedly causes is only in relation to the Draenei and their homesickness/madness when away from Outland, so it isn't really relevant to the other races who don't show signs of crippling homesickness.
As for the "mutated ogre" model, did Blizzard actually SAY that the image was of a "mutated ogre"? Maybe it's just me, but I think it looks more like a possible model for a "Grom" or whatever - the giant race mentioned as living on Draenor at one time or another, whose bones were used to build the original Deathknight temples.--Caeyn 22:25, 21 Jan 2006 (EST)
Again, the only evidence we even have of the draenei being mutated is from what Caydiem, and she said that it was from portal travel and that Garona is half-draenei. This should be treated as HER OWN theory, not something official. As far as we know, the draenei might have always been how they are. --Kakwakas 23:42, 21 Jan 2006 (EST)
I'm just basing myself on what an OFFICIAL Blizz informator said, not on the opposite of what she said >:-(.
Caydiem didn't present the idea of Draenei being mutated as her own theory, she stated it as "the way it is". And since she is an official Blizzard rep, with easy access to Metzen and future plans/storylines, I tend to accept what she says until proven otherwise. Her statement is somewhat supported by established lore, which says Garona is the child of an Orc and some unknown human-like species on Draenor - and Orcs, Ogres, and Draenei are the only significantly intelligent races known to exist there. There is also the fact that Metzen didn't refute Caydiem's statement when directly asked about it, he simply said we would have to wait and see. As for mutation via portals vs. mutation via explosion, I remember atleast one instance following her statement where Caydiem actually did say that the Draenei were mutated by the explosion of the planet (otherwise how would you explain the Draenei on Outland, who never went through a portal, who look just like the ones on Azeroth?) with travelling through the portal causing additional damage (which I take to be the homesickness and mental decline, as I haven't noticed any significant physical differences between those on Azeroth and the ones on Draenor) --Caeyn 23:34, 22 Jan 2006 (EST)

Azeroth's Ogres can't be mutated, they've been like that since WCI Hey, you are WRONG because Ogres have NEVER BEEN LIKE THAT ! They have always had two heads ! The one-headed Ogres we know weren't seen before WC3 (or WoW, don't exactly know) ! And Azeroth's Ogres didn't mutate because they were ALREADY mutated ! And the other races didn't mutate cause they didn't come from Draenor ! And the Draenorian Ogres have never been seen ! (oh well you could tell me that in WC2: BTDP the Orcish civilizations train the same Ogres as the others, but don't you remember that the two-headed Ogres were created by Gul'dan ?). Your arguments don't stand !--Kirochi 12:33, 22 Jan 2006 (EST)

Ogres in Warcraft 1 only had one head, they were neutral creeps and not allied with the Horde (therefore they hadn't been magically altered to have two heads). Also, if you say that the reason the Alliance forces didn't mutate as you claim the Ogres did is because they weren't originally from Draenor, then how do you explain the Orcs? Orcs came from Draenor just as the Ogres did, yet the ones who travelled through the Dark Portal (multiple times in some cases) looked exactly like those who never left Draenor...--Caeyn 23:22, 22 Jan 2006 (EST)
You keep mentioning ogres and Draenei mutating from being on Draenor when it died, but at the same time you defend Caydiem's statement. Caydiem only said it was portal travel. She never even MENTIONED Draenor dying. =p --Kakwakas 08:46, 23 Jan 2006 (EST)

Pandaren Edit

This talk really needed a part dedicated to the Pandaren. First of all, how do we know that the screenshot showing the Pandaren as the new Alliance race is a fake ? When did Katricia say that "Pandaren will not be a playable race ... at this time" ?--Kirochi 17:57, 2 Jan 2006 (EST)

It's a tauren model with a panda face. =p Pandaren are a neutral race, much like the goblins. If pandaren became playable, EVERYONE would roll one, thus negating the blood elves being on Horde to encourage more people to roll Horde (this is not speculation; Blizz has openly said this). --Kakwakas 18:05, 2 Jan 2006 (EST)
You can search for the Katricia quote in news.thottbot.com, it goes quite a while back. Here is ever Pandaren related Blizzard annoucement. However, I can not get a post for "pandaren became playable, EVERYONE would roll one". I've searched these archives to find my official Blizzard sactioned information. --Xmuskrat 18:37, 2 Jan 2006 (EST)
Can we agree however that with the evidence arrayed against it that the Pandaren are at least 'unlikely'? --Vorbis 17:39, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)
I can agree that they are Unlikely. Based on logic alone, they will not and should not be playable. --Anticrash 12:57, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)
Xmuskrat, Kat said that back even BEFORE beta. Look at the map posted on this same page (by you, I think) and look at what's there. Naga and goblins. Things change. --Kakwakas 16:36, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)
Don't argue with that at all. The point is, Blizzard has a bunch of races they like. Blizzard wants to put in races people love, there are about 8 races that people can't/won't stop talking about. Over the next few expansion packs, THEY will be the ones they will add. You really don't have any evidence anything changed, still. That map was from old footage on the behind the scenes dvd, filmed in beta. Kat's comment was in 2004, and that was while it was in beta. --Xmuskrat 10:17, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
Urk, yeah, usually when I think beta, I think ST1/OB, since that's when beta started for me. XD --Kakwakas
I can understand the argument about Pandarens someday being an expansion playable race, but based on the intro of the Rumored Races page, the races listed are those rumored to be in Burning Crusade and not those to appear in WoW at some point in the future. Maybe the arguments about Pandarens are because some people are looking at the Rumored Races page as listing those that may ever appear in WoW?
--Fandyllic 4:23 PM PST 17 Jan 2006
It's always said on the first page, "One of these races may be be selected for the Burning Crusade expansion pack, or possibly saved for future expansions." I know, cause I wrote it there a long time ago, back when I started this page. This page will last for more then this one expansion pack. It'd be nice that all of this really was just misunderstanding and words, just a scope issue of the page itself. --Xmuskrat 19:50, 17 Jan 2006 (EST)
Okay, that probably explains alot. It really shouldn't say, "or possibly saved for future expansions," unless the likelihood entry clearly points out it is either: A) The likelihood that the race will appear in Burning Crusade (which I assumed) or B) The likelihood of the race ever appearing in WoW. There is a HUGE difference between the two. It's sort of like the difference between saying there will be a new Start Trek TV series next year v.s ever.
Now that I know there is this possible misinterpretation, I'm going to make it more clear what the likelihood settings apply to.
--Fandyllic 5:58 PM PST 17 Jan 2006
My goal when I put this page together was to make a list of races that had the likely sources Blizzard might pick from for possible races. Additioanlly, I wanted to take all of the rumors and arguements out there and list them with each race so people didn't have to dig through nasty flaming threads to read them. Some of the stuff I dug up and brought here were from some pretty rank discussions. I'm not against classifying an expansion pack that a race might fit "best" in, if we're willing to use the Rumored Expansions page to pick future ones that might come out. Still, I'm not 100% sure we can really ever come to terms and have everybody agree about possibility or not, at least not without a forumula. Again, it's just bound to make fights.--Xmuskrat 09:17, 18 Jan 2006 (EST)

Redridge Settlement and Katricia Comments Edit

Here is an explanation why I unbolded (from strong to normal) the Redridge settlement point and italicized (normal to weak) Katricia's comments about pandarens:

  1. The link provided after the Redridge settlement point probably refers to the Pandaren#Region section which makes no mention of Redridge (in Eastern Kingdoms), but does mention a splinter group somewhere in Kalimdor. It starts with "Pandaren hail from distant island nation of Pandaria...", so Redridge doesn't really qualify as distant, I think. So this point could actually be called misleading and removed, but I chose to just unbold it.
  2. It takes quite a convoluted and hopeful interpretation of "Pandarens will not be a playable characters .. at this time," to become a + point. Instead I just made it italic.
  3. The second Katricia comment, "Do Pandarens exist in World of Warcraft? Maybe they will be found in the beta or retail version of the game and maybe they will be granted a special place in an expansion," only indicates a possibility that Pandaren might appear in WoW, no hint of a playable race. Remember, Pandarens can't even be found as NPCs for the most part in WoW, so a comment about them appearing sometime is a very weak positive for the more involved possibility of them as a playable race.
--Fandyllic 4:21 PM PST 17 Jan 2006

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki