Battle for Azeroth Alpha/Beta General Discussion

[Deleted]

Edit: Datamine Dragons pls

dragons are not coming

[Directionalk9]

Okay guys I'm back! What did I miss? Why is Marlamin a tortollan? Any leaks?

strap in altho as I type this im sure others have already filled ya in.

Guess not

4 possible subrace options have been looked at.

Tide of Vengeance is the name people like to speculate about.

[Deleted]

My guess is that the new artifact system is going to be dealing with light and void powers. And as we progress down which ever path we've chosen we become lightforged or void(ed)

hopefully not because that would mean we just all look like shadow priests?

[Fahrad Wagner]

strap in altho as I type this im sure others have already filled ya in.

Guess not

4 possible subrace options have been looked at.

Tide of Vengeance is the name people like to speculate about.

I still don't know why Marlamin became a Tortollan though haha! I'm gonna catch up on the 70+pages.

[Eurhetemec]

you clearly dont know 4chan

I will admit, the one place I'd expect to see behaviour so demented and needlessly overcomplicated, it would be there. There are definitely people there who wouldn't even think about taking out their phone to do it - that'd be too sensible and straightforward.

[Deleted]

Tides of Vengeance doesn't sound legit.
It sounds like an implication of some sorts, and not an in-universe thing. Previous expansion names didn't have that (for one exception though).

The Burning Crusade = Sargeras' self-proclaimed mission to rid the universe of void corruption
Cataclysm = Worldwide disaster.
Mists of Pandaria = The magic that kept the island continent hidden for 10k years.
Warlords of Draenor = Name of the central antagonists of the expansion.
Legion = Name of the primary antagonists of the expansion.

The only "implication" I think is:
Wrath of the Lich King = Probably an alternative name for "Scourge" or "Northrend". But it has the main antagonist's title in the name, so it gets a pass.

Not saying you are wrong. But I'd just like to remind you that we have these debates about every expansion title. Cataclysm didn't refer to the actual villain unlike TBC and WotLK, so people doubted it. Mists of Pandaria referenced a location, so people didn't believe it. And so on.

Again, not saying you're wrong, but I don't think we can read too much into old expansion titles.

[digichi]

Someone posted this on /v/ last night.



I don't think it's real (have "leaked logos" ever been real?), but I think it's a pretty cool concept for a logo. I like how the background is filled with water and parts of the font are submerged. It also looks like there's seaweed wrapped around the edges.

agree- cool looking logo, pre professional looking for what it's going for... Looks like someone put some effort into it! i say we just make it official, lol.

[Eurhetemec]

Not saying you are wrong. But I'd just like to remind you that we have these debates about every expansion title. Cataclysm didn't refer to the actual villain unlike TBC and WotLK, so people doubted it. Mists of Pandaria referenced a location, so people didn't believe it. And so on.

Again, not saying you're wrong, but I don't think we can read too much into old expansion titles.

Yeah. WoW doesn't have a consistent naming scheme for expansions. Indeed, they're very inconsistent, as people trying to "crazy wall" their way to one have shown.

So it may well be fake, but that's no a good reason to think it is (the oddness of the rest of the screen being blank is more pertinent, for example).

[Shadochi]

I still don't know why Marlamin became a Tortollan though haha! I'm gonna catch up on the 70+pages.

The presumed CE pet Tottle might canonize the Tortollan in wow.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Not saying you are wrong. But I'd just like to remind you that we have these debates about every expansion title. Cataclysm didn't refer to the actual villain unlike TBC and WotLK, so people doubted it. Mists of Pandaria referenced a location, so people didn't believe it. And so on.

Again, not saying you're wrong, but I don't think we can read too much into old expansion titles.

Cataclysm was still obvious, it referred to the event of Deathwing coming out of Deepholme causing the world to tremble causing a world wide event.

MoP was basically the events about Pandaria and if you want to get artsy, what the mist was hiding(The Sha and such)

WoD: The leaders of the Orcs on Draenor. All that stuff was more or less obvious/in front of us.

[Fahrad Wagner]

The presumed CE pet Tottle might canonize the Tortollan in wow.

I'd love that, those little tortoises are adorable!

[Steampunkette]

and someone doesnt know how law works....

By all means, Fummockelchen. Explain why "Tides of Vengeance" would be a problem while "Legion" would not.

Legion competes with at least 3 other things simply titled "Legion" that I can think of.

The hook, the thing that separates them, is that Blizzard didn't try to trademark "Legion". They trademarked "World of Warcraft Legion"

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...08:rlvv4p.2.13

By slapping their full product name onto the trademark (In this case World of Warcraft: Tides of Vengeance) they sidestep the issue that there's a TCG named Tides of Vengeance.

[Shadochi]

Cataclysm was still obvious, it referred to the event of Deathwing coming out of Deepholme causing the world to tremble causing a world wide event.

And Tides of Vengeance might be obvious after we find out more details about the expansion. (Also the original plan for Cata wasn't for him to come out of deepholm)

[Deleted]

Cataclysm was still obvious, it referred to the event of Deathwing coming out of Deepholme causing the world to tremble causing a world wide event.

MoP was basically the events about Pandaria and if you want to get artsy, what the mist was hiding(The Sha and such)

WoD: The leaders of the Orcs on Draenor. All that stuff was more or less obvious/in front of us.

As I recall, we didn't know much about Deathwing's return prior to the announcement. So it was still a pretty abstract word to us, I think. But feel free to correct me if I'm remembering things the wrong way.

[Shadochi]

I'd love that, those little tortoises are adorable!

To be honest, I would like to see them playable in a MoP styled expansion.

- - - Updated - - -

By slapping their full product name onto the trademark (In this case World of Warcraft: Tides of Vengeance) they sidestep the issue that there's a TCG named Tides of Vengeance.

Meaning that the trademark could again be done on announcement day.

[Steampunkette]

Not saying you are wrong. But I'd just like to remind you that we have these debates about every expansion title. Cataclysm didn't refer to the actual villain unlike TBC and WotLK, so people doubted it. Mists of Pandaria referenced a location, so people didn't believe it. And so on.

Again, not saying you're wrong, but I don't think we can read too much into old expansion titles.

This^. This is what I've been trying to say the whole time. The titles are so inconsistent that finding any set pattern only works 'til an expansion comes along that it doesn't work for.

Cataclysm was still obvious, it referred to the event of Deathwing coming out of Deepholme causing the world to tremble causing a world wide event.

MoP was basically the events about Pandaria and if you want to get artsy, what the mist was hiding(The Sha and such)

WoD: The leaders of the Orcs on Draenor. All that stuff was more or less obvious/in front of us.

I'll give you WoD without an argument. Mists was about events that happened in Pandaria and as a result of Pandaria. And pandaland was the setting. But prior to it's existence "Let's name the expansion after where it is" had never been done.

And Cataclysm did, obviously, refer to the events that happened in the expansion itself. No one is disputing that. We're saying that Tides of Vengeance could have no meaning at all, yet, until the events in the expansion itself occur in the same fashion.

Hell, before Cataclysm that was never a 1 word expansion title. I'm sure that raised some eyebrows, and triggered "FAKE" cries as well.

There's not enough of a link between the different expansion titles, not enough of a pattern, to say that any new expansion title is fake on it's face. Well. Unless it's something obvious like "Wrath of the Swifties"

[digichi]

I assume, naturally, that they aren't going to name something important a name as generic and common place as "Vengeance" or "Tides".

You know who's Wrath it is. What Mists they are. What Crusade it is. What Warlords they are. What Legion it is. What Cataclysm it is.

Mmm the whole point of marketing is to make it generic enough for an audience to go 'oooo' and get a general connotation of the word. I could totally see blizz use the word 'vengeance' in an expac title lol. As long as it fits the theme/its explained in the official trailer, ppl will get it.

A lot of ppl (including myself) who weren't into the lore didn't know who the 'Warlords of Draenor' were, until they watched the expac trailer and saw some official artwork.
Blizz can assign whatever meaning they want to the expac title as long as they explain it with where the story is going (as a hook to play the expac as well. Something fresh, new, and hopefully not predictable.)

[Eurhetemec]

There's a huge glaring giveaway that this is fake guys... lol. I'll let you spot it..

Look at the letters.

Do you mean how none of them appear to go over the top of the black line?

[Valysar]

I hope we'll have a way to skip ALL RP and Ultraxion's trash in 8.0 !

[Steampunkette]

Do you mean how none of them appear to go over the top of the black line?

I think he means the "Microsoft Word" style "W" in the word World.