Talk:Battle for Lordaeron
Massive
If anyone thinks the losses of the Horde were massive, I'd like to hear your opinion. Because how things turned out I cannot see how it was "massive".
Putting side to side this events with the Burning, in which way is this massive? Civilians had already been evacuated, a thing it was not achieved in Teldrassil. The city itself, which was already in ruins, was destroyed partially by the Alliance and almost completely by Sylvanas. She raised equally Alliance and Horde soldiers. The battlefield extended only to the central part of Tirisfal, which its inhabitants are said to have been evacuated (there are Brill NPCs in Ogrimmar), not three zones which were completely destroyed and some, if not a majority, of its civilians were killed by the Horde like it or not. This is how Blizz has been writing the events. The novels even talk that there are only few night elves left in the world. Does it say the same for the Forsaken? Massive should only be used when the force has been almost entirely wiped out, a thing that did not happen here. --Ryon21 (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Or maybe we could remove the casualty line altogether. Most of the time, it is something that wiki users put based on their thinking and definitions, instead of using Blizzard's words - when there are not Blizzard's words. --Mordecay (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- So I haven't chimed into the discussion before but after reviewing this little edit war, I'm not sure I understand why this can't be described as a "massive" loss.
- Firstly, "very heavy" is basically a synonym of "massive" in itself.
- Secondly, the Horde lost a capital city. If this does not count as a massive loss, I don't know what does.
- Finally, it sounds like the opposing argument relies on the fact that, since the night elves' losses were "massive", and they lost more than the Forsaken, which is true, then the Horde's losses in the Battle for Lordaeron can't be "massive", which is wrong. Just because Teldrassil was a massive loss to the Alliance does not mean losing Lordaeron was not a massive loss to the Horde either. Yes, the night elves did lose more civilians. But both cases are still massive losses to their respective factions.
- (I'm italicizing the "to.." stuff to highlight the fact that it is all relative. If we were to compare all events in absolute terms, then almost nothing would be described as "massive" because they couldn't possibly compare to, say, the Kaldorei Empire's or the Kingdom of Lordaeron's losses.) -- MyMindWontQuiet 13:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that "very heavy" can be a synonym of "massive", but using that last word emphasizes a lot the meaning. The thing is, when talking about casualties and losses, it is more about the numbers of troops, machinery etc. not about places. In any other wiki it is done like this. I'm not completely sure though. But, as Mordy said, we do not have the numbers so maybe it would be better if we just got rid of the casualty line altogether or at least clarify it as only meaning the general number of deceased. --Ryon21 (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I just put massive, because it seems that most of the horde forces end up dying, blight gets dropped on them, alliance kills the darkspear trolls, the spider tanks slaughter nathanos's dreadguard, thought to be honest, do casualties really matter, no matter how many die there will always be "enough" as the plot demands. --tboss2447 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- The same can be said in the Alliance side. I think very heavy is a good high enough number for it. Although we are not entirely convinced on how to deal with this infobox line. There will be always a high number of casualties. --Ryon21 (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- I personally wouldn't mind removing the casualty line from the infobox template altogether, or at least making it so it's not mandatory to include on pages. IMO it never really provides any helpful information that can't already be seen from the "Outcome" section, with the exception of the rare cases when Blizzard officially states exactly how many soldiers died in a battle, in which case it should obviously be included (like how they mention in Chronicle Volume 3 that around 5,000 Alliance soldiers and 4,000 Horde soldiers were killed at the Wrathgate). --
DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 12:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- I personally wouldn't mind removing the casualty line from the infobox template altogether, or at least making it so it's not mandatory to include on pages. IMO it never really provides any helpful information that can't already be seen from the "Outcome" section, with the exception of the rare cases when Blizzard officially states exactly how many soldiers died in a battle, in which case it should obviously be included (like how they mention in Chronicle Volume 3 that around 5,000 Alliance soldiers and 4,000 Horde soldiers were killed at the Wrathgate). --
Images
Note: since AFAIK the scenario can't be easily replayed, we could eventually grab a few screenshots from MMO-champion to populate the page and the related quest pages Xporc (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's the BfA intro quest so it can be replayed on any new 110 character, just like the Broken Shore scenario. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)