Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
  1. #121
    Elemental Lord Hyve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Great Britain
    Posts
    8,406
    This entire thread stems from a huge lack of understanding about the words used.

    You're able to conquer something, and not retain ownership of it in the long-term. In the Alliance version of the Siege of Orgrimmar, the Alliance do conquer Orgrimmar. They rip through the defenses, and kill all in their path. For that week, in that instance, they have conquered Orgrimmar.

    In terms of Lore and Story, they did conquer it while the Horde liberated it. Just look back through history, France has conquered the U.K, Germany has conquered France and the U.K. has conquered Germany. Yet here we all are, still in our own nations ...

    Conquer =/= Ownership

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Hyve View Post
    This entire thread stems from a huge lack of understanding about the words used.

    You're able to conquer something, and not retain ownership of it in the long-term. In the Alliance version of the Siege of Orgrimmar, the Alliance do conquer Orgrimmar. They rip through the defenses, and kill all in their path. For that week, in that instance, they have conquered Orgrimmar.

    In terms of Lore and Story, they did conquer it while the Horde liberated it. Just look back through history, France has conquered the U.K, Germany has conquered France and the U.K. has conquered Germany. Yet here we all are, still in our own nations ...

    Conquer =/= Ownership
    The problem is they didn't do it alone, unlike the examples you mentioned. It was a combination of Horde and Alliance forces that siege Orgrimmar. The Horde is doing the same thing the Alliance is - why are they not "conquerors?" Further still, I don't think Alliance are ever in full control of Orgrimmar - a requirement for "conquering" something. The Horde with whom they fought alongside are there claiming Orgrimmar for themselves. It wouldn't surprise me if the Alliance tried stabbing them in the back, as they have the Blood Elves and Forsaken, but until you do that, you have "conquered" nothing. The citizens of the Horde are still present, still unopposed, and continue to lay claim to what is theirs: Orgrimmar. The Alliance has "conquered" nothing.

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathranis View Post
    Conquer implies "take control," however.
    No, it does not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryve View Post
    No. Perhaps the people arguing definitions should consult their dictionary first?

  4. #124
    ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US.

    I thought both titles are kinda meh, I'll be using "Brawler" for a good time still. I fancy it. It's a SOLO, timed, hard thing to get rank 10 (even though you can bear the title with rank.. 8?).

  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Rucati View Post
    Out of curiosity, why? I've played since vanilla and always kind of assumed Horde were the bad guys while Alliance was the good guys. I don't read quests or lore or anything, but from a common sense standpoint it makes sense that Horde are the bad guys. Trolls, Orcs, Undead, not exactly good things.
    Remember, when you assume you make an ass of yourself... Like you're doing right now

  6. #126
    The Lightbringer Belize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Standing in the Fire, as always.
    Posts
    3,897
    I dunno, ravaging Ogrimmar and butchering any leaders encountered is pretty conquering IMO.

  7. #127
    Horde, UMADBRO?

  8. #128
    Elemental Lord Hyve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Great Britain
    Posts
    8,406
    Quote Originally Posted by Jediguy View Post
    The problem is they didn't do it alone, unlike the examples you mentioned. It was a combination of Horde and Alliance forces that siege Orgrimmar. The Horde is doing the same thing the Alliance is - why are they not "conquerors?" Further still, I don't think Alliance are ever in full control of Orgrimmar - a requirement for "conquering" something. The Horde with whom they fought alongside are there claiming Orgrimmar for themselves. It wouldn't surprise me if the Alliance tried stabbing them in the back, as they have the Blood Elves and Forsaken, but until you do that, you have "conquered" nothing. The citizens of the Horde are still present, still unopposed, and continue to lay claim to what is theirs: Orgrimmar. The Alliance has "conquered" nothing.
    While the Horde & Alliance are co-operating to deal with Garrosh, in a raiding format, excluding the Lore, it is the Alliance in their own battle, and the Horde in their own as well. Believe it or not, gameplay is more important then Lore.

    The fact is, for the Alliance, and all the Alliance players that do this raid, they do conquer Orgrimmar.

    The fact is, for the Horde, and all the Horde players that do this raid, they do liberate Orgrimmar.

  9. #129
    A Horde player being upset about not being favored? Wow... Just..

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Rucati View Post
    Trolls, Orcs, Undead, not exactly good things.
    And Humans in game and IRL are good? Open your eyes. Humans created gods and orcs, so they can feel good about themselves.

    - - - Updated - - -

    For realsies, if Alliance get this title, Orgrimmar should no longer be a horde city. Warchief Lor'themar needs to have the remains burned to the ground.

  11. #131
    whoa.. tough one here.

    What's worse? the retarded child that gets a gold stars to make them happy.. put a smile on their face.

    Or the "regular" child that then crys and whines because the retarded child got an extra sticker?

    That's right pig horde, go back to wallowing in your shit pools.
    You will always be seen as a second-class animal on Azeroth.

  12. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by slime View Post
    That's right pig horde, go back to wallowing in your shit pools.
    You will always be seen as a second-class animal on Azeroth.
    Smells like white america. I didn't even vote for Barracko, but there you have it.

  13. #133
    Dreadlord the0o's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Zangarmarsh
    Posts
    834
    Quote Originally Posted by ItachiZaku View Post
    Smells like white america. I didn't even vote for Barracko, but there you have it.
    WTF? this...... wtf?

    What does, how did obama end up in this?

    "Humility defeats pride, Master Yang has preached. Pride defeats man"


  14. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryve View Post
    No, it does not.
    Oxford disagrees with you:

    conquer |ˈkäNGkər|
    verb [with obj.]
    overcome and take control of (a place or people) by use of military force: the Magyars conquered Hungary in the Middle Ages.
    and so does Cambridge:

    conquer
    verb [T] 1 to take control or possession of foreign land, or a group of people, by force: The Spanish conquered the New World in the 16th century

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylphen View Post
    Oxford disagrees with you:



    and so does Cambridge:
    Wait, so you quoted 1 antiquated meaning of the word? There's a reason they would have appeared near the bottom of the listings, and used middle age/16th century examples... In spite of the fact that every damn other meaning you will find makes no mention of holding land, simply closer to "victory". I guess well done for selective examples. -40 points for those examples being about as relevant as arguing we should use "thee" and "thou" in conversation these days.

  16. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by Deathgoose View Post
    The title is a bit over the top. It seems to me that "Conqueror of XXX" should be awarded by killing the faction leader, as well as killing X number of defending players while in that city.

    Conqueror of Org, Conqueror of SW, Conqueror of Undercity, Conqueror of Ironforge, etc.

    Get all of the respective Conquerors, and then you get Conqueror of the Horde vs Conqueror of the Alliance.
    That would actually make perfect sense, and would make the title a suitable reward for what you have to do. People don't seem to get that it's not the title I take issue with, it's how little work you do to get it and the lack of appropriateness to the task at hand.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •