10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
People who think like that exist in real world. I bet we all sometimes felt like we are the "special one" and are destined for sometihing great until reality slaped us in the face. That kind of mindset (hero complex) I find more realistic than for example Malfurion the avatar of self righteousness.
I am not native English speaker so maybe I missused holier-than-thou I meant that jerks who think they're world's salvation are more realistic than for example Uther, the guy who never loses his faith and is always honorable and righteous no matter how big a tragedy he's facing.
Huh? I would hardly call Danath, Alleria, Kurdran and Auric (if he even counts) 'bestest' characters. The faction itself is my personal favorite, and I like all its members by extension, but the only two Sons of Lothar that I would rate high are Khadgar and Turalyon, and I would vote 10 for each without hesitation.
I would rate the others highly there as well due to their affiliation as a result, but that would be more about the fact that there is no criteria to rate the characters in this game; the player sets their own criteria and that has always been the case.
Case in point: I rated Khadgar 10, twice. Kurdran 9, and Alleria 6. That was purely based on personal preference; if I want to rate them objectively, I would still rate Khadgar 10, Kurdran 5, and Alleria ... maybe 6.
Last edited by mmoc4dd871e486; 2017-02-28 at 02:47 PM.
That's because you don't know any better. I mean, Kurdran? Come on, that guy is a legend. Him getting captured is one of the most significant story developments in all of Warcraft. And take this guy as an example: http://wow.gamepedia.com/High_Elf_Ranger Instant 12/10 at least.
@Mehrunes, your meme levels are so advanced they're passing right over @Archmage Kalec's head
I don't think that being a well written or developed character has anything to do with how you're supposed to rate them in this game, otherwise I would have rated a lot of characters lower than I did so far. When I asked Kalec about it the very first day of this season, he told me he rates based on his "feelings" towards the character, so I adopted the method because it felt appealing to me.
If that's how you want to rate though, I think you can. There's no rule against that, so more power to you.
Last edited by Starshade; 2017-02-28 at 03:32 PM.
This is the part in your post that I got the impression you were under that impression. You were trolling and it went over Kalec's head, but that's what it implies:
You specifically mentioned the significant development he had, albeit satirically.
That said, in my eyes, if you rate "Moron Zhu" 1, who I personally rated 8 I think, because you loath him, then that's a fair notion.
10/10.
My rating has gone up based on how much he annoys some people now. My actual feelings for the character have stayed the same.
Xe'ra can die in a fire.
x)
Another example of how one rates characters in this game, me thinks.
- - - Updated - - -
Having been close to Kalec recently, he's either playing along or it honest to goodness went over his head. I've seen both happen in different occasions when we were talking.
Either way, it's funny when it happens.
It is difficult to rate Illidan apart from the baleful influence (in my personal view) Xe'ra has had on his character - but if I were to separate the two characters entirely the I would give Illidan high marks for being believable, engaging, and realistically flawed. I think a lot of people tend to rate things based solely on their visceral reactions to characters on an emotional level - forgetting that if a character can truly prompt those emotions then they are a well written and finely crafted example. My personal approach is to rate the character both subjectively (my enjoyment of their personality, actions, and in-game story) and objectively (their worth as a character, the way they're written, etc.) and take a rough average of the two.
"We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." ― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
I think that's a very decent method personally.
Then all I have to say is that, if you're correct, and considering that our roles are usually reversed when it comes to pointing things out to the other, I find it both funny and a reason to be proud that I've caught on something he didn't.
Maybe I should torment him about it when I get home.