Give me the TRUE dragonborns, not hybrid abominations.
Give me the TRUE dragonborns, not hybrid abominations.
A strawman opinion I never made, but sure, if you say you think that I'm not going to gainsay you on it, either. Opinions are opinions, and not everyone sees the same things as you.
Agree to disagree.
I did say I was being sarcastic in the hopes you wouldn't take it personally, but that part of the conversation was just getting too silly for my blood.
I was talking about the different MO's of predator creatures, not comparing spiders or insects directly to dragons - I think you know that and are purposely being obtuse here. But since you brought it up as a direct comparison, are you 100% sure Warcraft dragons aren't ambush predators? They certainly have the intellect for extensive tool use even prior to their enhancement by the Titans, why waste all that energy on exhausting physical chases when they could instead trap their prey via spell-like abilities or raw ingenuity? That's what primitive humans did, after all, and even proto-drakes have human-level cognitive abilities. Maybe Warcraft dragons even have complex skills like farming and herding under their belts, befitting their advanced cognition.
Again, agree to disagree (assuming I'm allowed to have an opinion on the matter, of course).
Considering most of your replies are a litany of reasons why I'm not permitted to have the opinion I do, it's neither a strawman nor even incorrect. You would come across a lot better if you started your rebuttals with qualifiers like "I think," "I feel," or "in my opinion" as opposed to attempting to make your opinion come across as objective fact.
"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 rly don't think this is a strawman as, its exactly what is presented, a cat look more like a tiger than a dog, just like a drakonid looks more like a wow classic dragon than a dracthyr, you can see it by putting pictures on then side by side, case on point, onyxia and nefarian had the same fins and tendrils and the jaw/teeth of the drakonid, something dracthyr don't have, how in the nine hells the dracthyr can look more like then without any of their traits, being something compltely new design-wise
In other people seats that would mean trolling.I did say I was being sarcastic in the hopes you wouldn't take it personally, but that part of the conversation was just getting too silly for my blood.
And talking about spiders and insects its the definition of a red-hearing, as, they do not share the fierce traits that dragons and other reptiles or even active hunters do, even if you were able to pull out that insects are "fierce" is another matter that does not work here. In short, you want to say there is different types of fierce, sure, but does not mean the different types work for a giant reptile monster.
I was talking about the different MO's of predator creatures, not comparing spiders or insects directly to dragons - I think you know that and are purposely being obtuse here. But since you brought it up as a direct comparison, are you 100% sure Warcraft dragons aren't ambush predators? They certainly have the intellect for extensive tool use even prior to their enhancement by the Titans, why waste all that energy on exhausting physical chases when they could instead trap their prey via spell-like abilities or raw ingenuity? That's what primitive humans did, after all, and even proto-drakes have human-level cognitive abilities. Maybe Warcraft dragons even have complex skills like farming and herding under their belts, befitting their advanced cognition.
How do i know Warcraft dragons are not ambush predators? by playing the game and seeing how they attack you in different quests? even dragons that like manipulation and deceive go down to the fight with their physical strenght and breath weapons.
Stop a bit to think what you are doing, to salvage this argument, You want to compare primitive humans to the dragons elevated by the titans to a higher standart
Primitive humans did their things because they had to, to surive, dragons would the mightiest predators on earth by their physic alone, and here, they can do magic, why they would ambush their prey with traps and other silly methods when they can just go down to bussines, like a farm and get all the food they want? LOL.
You can have all the opinions of you want, i know you want to hammer down this to shift blame on me, but again, i never said you cannot prefer one than another.Considering most of your replies are a litany of reasons why I'm not permitted to have the opinion I do,
The only thing i mention is when people tried to talk nonsense, you can say you prefer dracthyr because you like how they are designed, you like their visage forms, you think they are prettier, better made, because they have many options, yada yada, thats 150% valid.
The crux of the problem is saying "i like then because they truly look like the classic warcraft dragons!" or "they sure look fiercer than other draconic things in the game", and man, we both know that ain't the truth.
I don't appreciate the idea that it makes """sense""" for the Dracthyr to be scrawny nerds because they're spellcasters. Normalize Muscle Wizards.
The Drakonid are ugly. All the art examples people keep posting as their proof of why dracthyr need to be ultra roided out beefcakes are also ugly.
There's a lot of racs in this game that can fulfill your hypermasculine power fantasies, maybe go play one of them instead of crying because one race is on the leaner side?
Last edited by Shara Ishvalda; 2022-07-17 at 06:28 PM.
Yes, those look more like dragons. Sorry, I was referring to the other one you had posted, which to me, look more like turtles:
They do exist on the black flight (as well as tendrils on the blue and both for dragon serpents - if you consider those dragons), but we also see them on a bunch of non-dragons (Naga have both, fin ears are shown on gilgoblins, tendrils on eredar and jinyu, etc.). Meanwhile, if you look at some of the standard early dragons (and most of their derivatives), you see neither the fins nor the tendrils. Some examples:
Eranikus (Vanilla)
Netherwing Drake (TBC)
Sartharion (WotL)
Aeonaxx (Cataclysm)
So while I don't think they're out of place, they just, to me, don't really mark something as a dragon.
They do have fin options if you want those (see far right):they 100% do, dracthyr are skinny lizards with tiny heads, long snout and smiled faces, they lack the bulky, the strong necks, strong jaws hell, they lack the fins and tendrils of classic dragons.
The only dragon the dracthyr look like, is the nightmare dragon with their mouth looking like a beak, i give you that, but not the classic ones
Likewise, they have ranges of snout lengths with different lower jaw thicknesses (maybe the third is more what you're looking for?):
I didn't see any tendril options, but as I pointed out above, those aren't on all dragons. In terms of necks, the base of the neck are slightly bulkier on Body Type 4, but yeah, beyond that, they're pretty much confined to the same neck regardless of other options. Obviously for bulk, we've seen what they're offering, so we're not going to get orc or draenei style builds with them, though as @Aucald has mentioned, I'm fine giving them a more elfen build given their proclivity for magic. That's entirely subjective, but given we've had skinny drakonids like Maloriak in the past, it doesn't seem uncharacteristic of the franchise.
What if I told you that I didn't even think the classic Drakonid model looked much like a dragon? Obviously inspired by them, sure; but pretty far from what I think of a true dragon in general fantasy (the lack of wings and or a sinuous dragon-like body being the most obvious giveaway)? And what if I also told you I thought the new Drakonid model looked even less like a dragon than the classic Drakonid? I crouch the above as questions, but they're also exactly what I think. You're too caught up in farcical strawman examples to understand that I don't agree with the premise of what you're saying, and probably never will. I don't expect you to change your mind, either, but then I'm also not the person who can't seem to accept that alternative opinions are valid.
Please, if some light sarcasm was tantamount to trolling these forums would be an empty ghost-town. That's a half-hearted deflection.
"Fierce" is entirely relative - I'm sure to a fly that's been trapped in a spider's web as the much larger and scarier predator bears down on them would definitely say the spider is fierce, right before it paralyzed them and left them hanging to be evening's repast. You've trapped yourself in a single frame of reference where multiple other frames exist.
That is exactly what I'm asking, though; why would a dragon (an intelligent predator with near-human intellect) bother with chasing down prey and exhausting itself when other means are easily available to it through simple tool use? You opened the door on this discussion by trying to close out my example out of hand, by the by, so I'm just making some key suppositions on the theme. You're thinking of dragons are fierce and predatory in only a single mode of thought, as if only the big cat metaphor for ferocity existed - I'm supplying additional modes you seem to think don't count, but you've provided no cohesive reason why they shouldn't or don't. If a dragon can just fireball its prey from a distance and catch up with its already roasted carcass at its relative leisure, why then would it evolve bulky and unnecessary musculature that doesn't serve it for survival? That'd be over-engineering on an epic scale, and like the Nethanderthal before it would consign dragons to oblivion because they'd be outcompeted by better-adapted species.
"I didn't say it, I just strongly and consistently implied it, and will continue to do so until you recant." Does that sum up your general approach?
On one hand, you allow me to have an opinion, but only if I qualify it by agreeing with you that Dracthyr aren't modeled along classic WoW dragons or appear more or less draconic than other examples you prefer? I hate to tell you, but that's just disallowing me to have an opinion with a few extra steps, a distinction without a difference. But to close this exercise in futility, I'll just say that in a game where these two models can co-exist easily:
and
There's more than enough room for the current Dracthyr to exist and be qualified as "belonging to Warcraft." The rest is, in my opinion, nonsensical gatekeeping.
"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
Eranikus sartharion, DO have fins and tendrils, do you realize that when you linked then right? proving my point? the netherdrake look like a shark and the stonedrake is another case scenario.
Wich breaks the entire argument of Aucard saying if they ahve fins they look like naga.They do have fin options if you want those (see far right):
None of those fit because they aren't thick enough, their snout is too thin even with different jawlines, on top of that, the head is too soft without the teeth coming out, something rly characteristic for all the dragons you linkedLikewise, they have ranges of snout lengths with different lower jaw thicknesses (maybe the third is more what you're looking for?):
The game does rly need more elven build, im sure hammering this down will bring back the game on its fit, on top of that, draeneis were MORE proclivity for magic than elves and still have decent builds.Obviously for bulk, we've seen what they're offering, so we're not going to get orc or draenei style builds with them, though as @Aucald has mentioned, I'm fine giving them a more elfen build given their proclivity for magic. That's entirely subjective, but given we've had skinny drakonids like Maloriak in the past, it doesn't seem uncharacteristic of the franchise.
Maloriak is way more well build overall, him using worgen skeleton with a wide and broad shoulder and bigger jaw.
- - - Updated - - -
Such a coincidence that would be right?
OF course they would not have those things, they aren't real dragons after all, but humanoids changed by dragon magic to look like dragons.Obviously inspired by them, sure; but pretty far from what I think of a true dragon in general fantasy (the lack of wings and or a sinuous dragon-like body being the most obvious giveaway)?
gonna remember this for the next time.Please, if some light sarcasm was tantamount to trolling these forums would be an empty ghost-town. That's a half-hearted deflection.
Yes its relative, thats why we use in the right context, as dragons are not insects, this is not "trapped in a single frame of reference" but using the right ones, you can't try to make up that dracthyr are fiercer because a fly got scarried by a spider"Fierce" is entirely relative - I'm sure to a fly that's been trapped in a spider's web as the much larger and scarier predator bears down on them would definitely say the spider is fierce, right before it paralyzed them and left them hanging to be evening's repast. You've trapped yourself in a single frame of reference where multiple other frames exist.
Ah, so you never heard about hunting for sports? they do it because they CAN, they LIKE to chase prey, to catch and eat.That is exactly what I'm asking, though; why would a dragon (an intelligent predator with near-human intellect) bother with chasing down prey and exhausting itself when other means are easily available to it through simple tool use?
you say "why they are bulky if they can cast fireball" and i ask you, what dragon does just that? you did quests with dragons, what did they to you? they just stay afar casting magic or go to fight with their mighty claws and jaws?
Last raid i played, Vexiona didn't just sit around shooting dark magic to me, she went to town and we fight
We can go even deeper in this rabbit hole, why dragons need wings if they are spellcasters? they can just use magic to fly, why they have fangged teeth and claw? why they are so big and bulky? so on, so on.
humm, nope it does not."I didn't say it, I just strongly and consistently implied it, and will continue to do so until you recant." Does that sum up your general approach?
Sometimes opinions are based around misconception and untruth, like if someone say spiders are their favorite insect, am i the villain because i say to then that, in fact, they can't be because they aren't insects?On one hand, you allow me to have an opinion, but only if I qualify it by agreeing with you that Dracthyr aren't modeled along classic WoW dragons or appear more or less draconic than other examples you prefer? I hate to tell you, but that's just disallowing me to have an opinion with a few extra steps, a distinction without a difference. But to close this exercise in futility, I'll just say that in a game where these two models can co-exist easily:
One of those, i bet you, is not a playable race material, neither will be an relevant thing in the plot.There's more than enough room for the current Dracthyr to exist and be qualified as "belonging to Warcraft." The rest is, in my opinion, nonsensical gatekeeping.
And its a nice shot of another better draconic model, the jagged teeth coming out of their mouth rly nailed what wow dragons have, just like drakonids.
And again, the undertones of "you can't actually believe that, because it doesn't work for my argument if you do."
Kind of like the Dracthyr, except the Dracthyr *do* have draconic wings, horns, etc
Again, not comparing dragons directly to arachnids, but merely underscoring that "fierceness" has more modalities than hulking, brutish, or "buff." The Dracthyr can still express ferocity without the need for hulking muscles or protruding teeth.
Spellcasters need range, and self-powered flight is the best way to get distance between you and your target. Vexiona also uses a *lot* of magic in her encounter, not to mention flying up out of range and trying to fry the raid with her breath attacks. Dragons can certainly be masterful melee combatants, too; no discounting that - but most battles with dragons mix spell-like abilities befitting the dragon's type or Flight alongside their physical prowess. That being said, dragons aren't really depicted as being brutish, either; they're sinuous and highly agile as well. A dragon's melee is usually far from their most potent abilities - those would be their inherent magical abilities and, of course, their powerfully strong breath weapons typically employed while in flight.
Something to work on, I suppose, because your words and overall tone certainly belie that stance.
Exactly what part of my opinion that I prefer the Dracthyr model to the Drakonid one is based on any misconception or untruth? The spider/insect nitpickiness is beside the point. You'd have to be a real pedant to insist someone call a spider an arachnid as opposed to just using the catch-all term "insect." Sure, it's taxonomically incorrect, but unless we're formally classifying bugs I think everyone can understand the basic gist.
The Drakonid model is also not a playable race, so that's just moving the goalposts further.
Like before, I think we're pretty much done here, at a logical and subjective impasse. You're going to think what you think, I'm going to think what I think, and we'll both just have to live with that in the end.
"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
What is the etc? because the drakonid also *do* have horns too, as well the fins and tendrils, the bulky display, the teeth coming out of their mouth too, three of those lack in the dracthyr and are present in classic dragons
they lack wings is exactly because thats their intent, but again, its easy fixed
They cannot be "fierce" like that, precisely because they are not arachinids, they are dragons, they should be fierce like dragons are, a lion cannot be fierce like a animal devouring larvae, if you are not fierce like a dragon, then you are not doing your job of a draconic race well.Again, not comparing dragons directly to arachnids, but merely underscoring that "fierceness" has more modalities than hulking, brutish, or "buff." The Dracthyr can still express ferocity without the need for hulking muscles or protruding teeth.
Vexiona uses a lot of melee fight a well, or you are going to just brush that off? like, come on, all dragons ARE depicted as being brutsh fighting in melee as well.Spellcasters need range, and self-powered flight is the best way to get distance between you and your target. Vexiona also uses a *lot* of magic in her encounter, not to mention flying up out of range and trying to fry the raid with her breath attacks. Dragons can certainly be masterful melee combatants, too; no discounting that - but most battles with dragons mix spell-like abilities befitting the dragon's type or Flight alongside their physical prowess. That being said, dragons aren't really depicted as being brutish, either; they're sinuous and highly agile as well. A dragon's melee is usually far from their most potent abilities - those would be their inherent magical abilities and, of course, their powerfully strong breath weapons typically employed while in flight.
Yeah they mix with their magic, and the dracthyr ONLY fight with magic, combined with their weak frame and model with their soft and not fierceness characteristics nd garbage visage, that explain why so many people think they are off-warcraft and need a better work, they don't scream "dragon" at all, .
Just like spiders aren't insects - and we can prove that - dracthyr don't look like warcraft classic dragons more than drakonid, and we can prove that as well by comparing their iamges side by side, like i just did with enfarian and onyxia and just like the other user did with the green dragon and sartharion., they are more close to drakonid than the dracthyr, is not a amtter of taste but fact, while dracthyr look at best, like the nightmare dragons from legion..Exactly what part of my opinion that I prefer the Dracthyr model to the Drakonid one is based on any misconception or untruth? The spider/insect nitpickiness is beside the point. You'd have to be a real pedant to insist someone call a spider an arachnid as opposed to just using the catch-all term "insect." Sure, it's taxonomically incorrect, but unless we're formally classifying bugs I think everyone can understand the basic gist.
You can love spiders and dracthyr, like i said, the crux is saying one is your favorite insect and the other "look more like a classic warcraft dragon" when we had many pictures showing otherwise.
The Drakonid model is also not a playable race, so that's just moving the goalposts further.
They aren't, but they are playable race material, because they look like something warcraft would have, cartoonish big bulky character that would use oversized weapons and armor, instead of someone from final fantasy mmo.
So much effort going into the argument that "Drakthyr need to look more like dragons", conveniently ignoring the fact that Drakthyrs are NOT natural descendants of dragons, but a result of an experiment with draconic powers - and as such, they can look as "draconish" as the artists/designers want them to. It's rather irrelevant if they look similar to Onyxia or Nefarian, because Drakthyrs are not the offspring of neither of them, or any other dragon for that matter. They are a Dr. Moreau creation; it's enough if they resemble a dragon, not necessarily look like one.
The Dracthyr, like Drakonids and a number of other draconic subspecies, would probably fall under the general label of "dragonkin." Dragonkin is a pretty wide label, as well, including nether dragons (which many Azerothian dragons hold are not true dragons), cloud serpents, dragonhawks, faerie dragons, and reanimated emberwyms and frost wyrms created by Necromancy.
"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
Are unpopular, which is false but i mean you went full mad after no tinker for the 8787 time and now you are larping as drachtyr die hard, because xmog.
Belf > Human > Orc > Draenei
Here is the most played races in 2022, that because are the best races for xmog BESIDE PVE PVP racial.
lets see the non bulky races that are popular if Teriz rambling was correct.
Mechagnomes? Lovercraftian Visual Tumor due to robotic (euphemism) limbs.
Gnomes? Too small.
Vulpera? See Gnomes.
Goblin? See Gnomes.
----
Worgen? No feet and Head Piece not fitting properly + clipping.
Nelf? Clipping ears
Kultiran and Panda? Plate belly or belly skirt is awful because it looks like bodypaint.
Tauren? No feed + same worgen head issue for xmog
Dwarves? Works only with plate + nobody play alliance + nobody play dwarf
Dracthyr? Well cant wear armor so are Tier Dogshit for xmog
- - - Updated - - -
Lets compare 2 of the most played race vs 2 of the least played and see how xmog works on them
VS
wow guys i wonder why ORCS are prefered over PANDAS
- - - Updated - - -
BONUS ROUND
WTH ARE THOSE HELM AND BACK QUASIMODO?
Actually I'm still a rather huge fan of the Tinker class concept. I just also happen to be a fan of being a playable dragon. I made that quite clear before the expansion was revealed.
You do know that people can like more than one thing correct?
Yeah, no. It goes Blood Elf, Night Elf, Orc, Human, Troll, Tauren, with 1/5 players overall being Blood Elves.Belf > Human > Orc > Draenei
https://wowanalytica.com/statistics?tab=races
Now, Tauren are up there because they were the only Horde race to be able to be Druids, and they were only the second race in the Horde to be able to be Paladins. That drove their numbers considerably. If you look at their old population numbers attached to classes, the vast majority of Tauren are in fact Druids.
Now, after Tauren, the next bulky race that shows up is Draenei, and they're worse off than Pandaren. Further, I would be willing to bet that the majority of Draenei players are playing the female model, which isn't huge and bulky, but actually rather slim.
After Draenei, it's straight to the bottom of the totem pole. Kul'tirans, LF Draenei, and HM Tauren were all legitimate failures. If you added another huge, bulky race to the roster, it would sink to the bottom of the pile. Probably right next to mechagnomes.
We need to get off this idea that people care about seeing their xmog in combat, they don't. If they did, Druids would be one of the worst performing classes instead of the best.
yeah no if you were able to read that
Belf > Human > Orc > Draenei
was regarding the xmog-ness of those classes compared to other races, your link is just useless because it mix people playing that races for PVP purpose, PVE purpose o likeness.
Also your link still prove my point since se can clearly see at the bottom
mechagnome gnome kultiran because xmog on these race is dogshit.
So "beefy" race are still the most played beside Belf because Human and Orc doesnt look like shit with any xmog compared to Tauren, Worgen, Panda etc etc
QED