Discussion on the Stormlord concept art and Charr Structures - Guild Wars Guru archive powered by Guild Wars Legacy

Mordakai

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Aug 2005

Kyhlo

W/

18 Jun 2009 at 17:34 - 1

This is unconfirmed concept art. It may be for GW2, it may not...

Assuming it's GW2 art, I doubt it would be the Iron Citadel.

I think "The Ecology of the Charr" would have mentioned it if a Dragon had taken over the Iron Citadel!

"Today, a little more than 250 years after their initial attack on the Wall, the Charr still face the threat of Ascalonian ghosts as well as natural dangers. However, they have all-but tamed most of the lands east of the Shiverpeaks, raising fortresses of their own where human fortifications once stood. One of the strongest of these, the Iron Citadel–raised on the ruins of the city of Rin–stands protectively, overlooking the haunted lands. From there, the Charr may one day retake Ascalon City, finishing the conquest begun so long ago."

This, of course, does not mean the picture is of Augury Rock.

It could not be GW2 concept art at all.
or
It could be another dragon, in another area.

Mod Edit by Konig Des Todes: I have moved two pages worth of posts from a thread meant for the Ancient Dragon's location because it was getting too off-topic. The concept art that let to this discussion was added to the top.

Obrien Xp

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Jan 2009

Canada

The First Dragon Slayers [FDS]

19 Jun 2009 at 00:47 - 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

After thinking more about this, I doubt it would be the Iron Citadel.

I think "The Ecology of the Charr" would have mentioned it if a Dragon had taken over the Iron Citadel!

Yeah, its definetly not the iron citadel. I think that would be made to look more sinister and menacing than just a big rock. The charr architecture is more in the form of small huts and large metallic structures.

Gmr Leon

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Apr 2006

19 Jun 2009 at 02:46 - 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obrien Xp

Yeah, its definetly not the iron citadel. I think that would be made to look more sinister and menacing than just a big rock. The charr architecture is more in the form of small huts and large metallic structures.

That is, of what we've seen thus far. I'm still fairly certain what we saw were merely camps in comparison to their actual towns and outposts.

Konig Des Todes

Ooo, pretty flower

Join Date: Jan 2008

Citadel of the Decayed

The Archivists' Sanctum [Lore]

N/

19 Jun 2009 at 05:03 - 4

I doubt the location in Sacnoth is a simple camp. The other locations, possible. Though I think comparing the architecture in Saul's mission from the BMP to the EN structure suggests that the large metal structures are more permanent things. Which would mean we see 3 Charr Settlements. And 3 are hardly enough to call the "normal structures" of a race - especially since 250 years pass.

draxynnic

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Nov 2005

[CRFH]

19 Jun 2009 at 05:21 - 5

Still, the impression I've always had of the Charr is that they aren't really great builders - the impression I've always had is that Sacnoth is supposed to be one of their major military strongholds, and it is rather... primitive. At least at the time of GW1, they seem to rely more on magic and beastmastery than architecture and engineering.

This may, however, stem from a question of need. With Siege Devourers available, they don't need to make mechanical catapults and trebuchets, and being furred creatures in an apparently temperate climate, the Charr probably don't need good shelters to live in as much as humans, Norn, or dwarves do (the former due to relatively low resistance to the cold, the others due to living in the Shiverpeaks). Thus, such skills may not have been developed as the Charr concentrated on others that they found to be more important.

Still, as has already been mentioned, 250 years is a long time, and in most of that time they've been sitting on the ruins of Ascalon's former fortifications - it's likely that in that time they've at least figured out how to patch up what was destroyed in the Searing.

Gmr Leon

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Apr 2006

19 Jun 2009 at 05:46 - 6

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konig Des Todes

I doubt the location in Sacnoth is a simple camp. The other locations, possible. Though I think comparing the architecture in Saul's mission from the BMP to the EN structure suggests that the large metal structures are more permanent things. Which would mean we see 3 Charr Settlements. And 3 are hardly enough to call the "normal structures" of a race - especially since 250 years pass.

The location in Sacnoth contains very little Charr architecture, I'd say, although I may need to revisit it, and more of the Charr taking advantage of the natural features of the land. Also, how would comparing the structures in Saul's mission to what we see in the Northlands suggest the metal structures are permanent? Not that I completely disagree, but if the architecture seen in Saul's mission is anything, it would be that of an encampment, rather than anything permanent. After all, the Charr didn't live north of the Giant's Basin, they were just there to prepare for the invasion of Kryta. Nothing more, nothing less.

..Although, one has to wonder how they were aware of the human presence there..And in Orr..But that's beside the point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draxynnic

Still, the impression I've always had of the Charr is that they aren't really great builders - the impression I've always had is that Sacnoth is supposed to be one of their major military strongholds, and it is rather... primitive. At least at the time of GW1, they seem to rely more on magic and beastmastery than architecture and engineering.

And I don't completely disagree. However, prior to, I'm wanting to say, Nightfall, players assumed the Charr were dull-witted beasts incapable of speech, and simply having a violent drive like many of the other creatures we encounter. There were a few who thought otherwise, and they turned out to be correct, and I'm maintaining a similar standpoint except in regards to their architecture. What we see is primitive, yes, and I do not disagree, but I also do not think what we see comprises the rest of their architecture.

For an example, it would be like thinking all of Italy's architecture looks like the Vatican, or that all British architecture resembles castles, or that all German architecture has a Gothic style about it. Do you see my point? We've only seen a section of the Charr's land, assuming that all of their architecture will resemble what we've seen so far is far too presumptuous.

Konig Des Todes

Ooo, pretty flower

Join Date: Jan 2008

Citadel of the Decayed

The Archivists' Sanctum [Lore]

N/

19 Jun 2009 at 06:03 - 7

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

This may, however, stem from a question of need. With Siege Devourers available, they don't need to make mechanical catapults and trebuchets...

During GW1, I'm sure. But I would think that, between the time of GW1 and GW2, they learn from Ascalonian structures and trebuchets how to make permenant. Afterall, Pyre himself says that Siege Devourers are a sign of weakness and intimidation - which we find out is because the devourers will follow any new master. So having non-sentient sieges would be more beneficial in some ways. I'm thinking only the Iron Legion would delve into this though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GmrLeon

Also, how would comparing the structures in Saul's mission to what we see in the Northlands suggest the metal structures are permanent? Not that I completely disagree, but if the architecture seen in Saul's mission is anything, it would be that of an encampment, rather than anything permanent.

That is what I meant. In Saul's mission, there are no large metal structures - just the wood, smaller metal huts, and tarp-like things (never could figure out what that is, a thick parchment-like tarp? Skin of animals? Could never figure out myself

)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GmrLeon

..Although, one has to wonder how they were aware of the human presence there..And in Orr..But that's beside the point.

I'd say the Titans told them, seeing how the Titans, according to the Nightfall quests, ordered the Charr Shamans to attack at least Orr, most likely Kryta as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GmrLeon

And I don't completely disagree. However, prior to, I'm wanting to say, Nightfall, players assumed the Charr were dull-witted beasts incapable of speech, and simply having a violent drive like many of the other creatures we encounter. There were a few who thought otherwise, and they turned out to be correct, and I'm maintaining a similar standpoint except in regards to their architecture. What we see is primitive, yes, and I do not disagree, but I also do not think what we see comprises the rest of their architecture.

I understand that we only see a portion of the Charr Homelands, and thus a portion of the Charr buildings. The structures found in Ascalon and in Saul's mission are more of "camp" structures, and those in the Charr Homelands - while still primative - are more... secure. Thus supporting being more than simple encampments.

Again, the spot in Sacnoth, as it is the central meeting place of the Shaman Caste, would (assumingly) be including one of the most favored locations. Either the Charr have no interest in architecture to include their "fancy" things in the leader's seemingly main fort, or their architecture really is primitive.

Of course, this is most likely to change due to their view of the Ascalonian structure, most likely the Charr will be merging what we've seen and Ascalonian structure, making their own style of the same kind of buildings, with similar infrastructure to allow the size.

Edit: While vanquishing Dalada Uplands, I saw various settlement areas similar to Doomlore, just a little smaller. Same structures, which made me think.

With the Charr's nature, what if all of the Charr's structures are encampments? That there are no true "structures," just camp spot after camp spot. That is, until the Charr take over Ascalon as a whole, where they then use the Ascalonian structures for "bases" of the Charr's new structures like the Iron Citadel.

nilzardo

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Jul 2007

OtDL

D/W

19 Jun 2009 at 18:54 - 8

So, about that big black northern Island: I think it's the Fissure of Woe. There are krytan shipwrecks on the shore in FoW which should prove that the Fissure lies in the world of Tyria and not in some other realm. So maybe whe'll see more about that Island in gw2?

Free Runner

Forge Runner

Join Date: Oct 2005

GW2G

Knights Of The Sacred Light [KSL]

19 Jun 2009 at 22:18 - 9

Its too small to be the Fissure of Woe. Plus we know the FoW is somewere in the Mists/Rift. The ships sharing a Krytan skin is due to it being the early days of Prophecies when only one or two destroyed boat models were around.

draxynnic

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Nov 2005

[CRFH]

20 Jun 2009 at 15:15 - 10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konig Des Todes

During GW1, I'm sure. But I would think that, between the time of GW1 and GW2, they learn from Ascalonian structures and trebuchets how to make permenant. Afterall, Pyre himself says that Siege Devourers are a sign of weakness and intimidation - which we find out is because the devourers will follow any new master. So having non-sentient sieges would be more beneficial in some ways. I'm thinking only the Iron Legion would delve into this though.

Actually, I thought that was just his pointing out that the placement of the siege devourers was a weakness - and non-sentient siege should really be easier to take over.

Still, I did say that in 250 years a lot could have changed.

Quote:

With the Charr's nature, what if all of the Charr's structures are encampments? That there are no true "structures," just camp spot after camp spot. That is, until the Charr take over Ascalon as a whole, where they then use the Ascalonian structures for "bases" of the Charr's new structures like the Iron Citadel.

It would explain why some of the Charr Legion capitals are built on Ascalon's ruins instead of in the Charr Homelands. On the other hand, if that is how all Charr live, one wonders why we don't see the Charr women in those encampments. Where are they?

And there's a question that could scupper all these arguments, if the answer is "in the real Charr cities." We're assuming that the Hierophant's stronghold is, well, an actual stronghold, when it could just be a particularly secure, but still temporary, camp being used as a holding zone for both the prisoners and the Destroyers. And if it was really the centre of the Hierophant's power, Pyre might not have needed the interrogation to guess that the Hierophant was there.

Of course, this begs the question of why such a large region deep in Charr territory doesn't have any more permanent settlements, but that might simply be an aspect of Charr culture we have yet to learn - they might, for example, have heavily secured fortresses for their noncombatants (cubs and, during GW1, females), while the warbands use the camps as resting places for long-distance hunts and patrols across their territory.

Or they may just have evacuated when the Ebon Vanguard started operating.

Idly, regarding the island in the north... I can't remember just how big the FoW is, but that island is bigger than the entire Fire Island chain (in fact, it doesn't compare too badly with some other entire regions such as the Prophecies section of the Crystal Desert). This isn't to say it is the FoW, as we do know that it's in the Mists and, further, the topography doesn't match, but it probably is actually big enough.

Konig Des Todes

Ooo, pretty flower

Join Date: Jan 2008

Citadel of the Decayed

The Archivists' Sanctum [Lore]

N/

20 Jun 2009 at 19:00 - 11

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

Actually, I thought that was just his pointing out that the placement of the siege devourers was a weakness - and non-sentient siege should really be easier to take over.

Still, I did say that in 250 years a lot could have changed.

He says, "I also said the siege devourers are out front. A good place for scaring people off. A bad place for actual defense. We grab them first." I read that as siege devourers are bad for defense but are better for offense - and they are used more for intimidation in defense.

Also, while non-sentient sieges would be easier to take over, they are harder to move and thus have to be pre-set or given a lot of time to set. So, for defense at least, they would have stationary sieges. Offensive sieges would probably be Devourers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

It would explain why some of the Charr Legion capitals are built on Ascalon's ruins instead of in the Charr Homelands. On the other hand, if that is how all Charr live, one wonders why we don't see the Charr women in those encampments. Where are they?

And there's a question that could scupper all these arguments, if the answer is "in the real Charr cities." We're assuming that the Hierophant's stronghold is, well, an actual stronghold, when it could just be a particularly secure, but still temporary, camp being used as a holding zone for both the prisoners and the Destroyers. And if it was really the centre of the Hierophant's power, Pyre might not have needed the interrogation to guess that the Hierophant was there.

Of course, this begs the question of why such a large region deep in Charr territory doesn't have any more permanent settlements, but that might simply be an aspect of Charr culture we have yet to learn - they might, for example, have heavily secured fortresses for their noncombatants (cubs and, during GW1, females), while the warbands use the camps as resting places for long-distance hunts and patrols across their territory.

Or they may just have evacuated when the Ebon Vanguard started operating.

I just recall, in the Ecology of the Charr, there is the mention of Fahrar camps - those are most likely permanent. And that the cubs and females and wounded take care of herding animals to eat.

draxynnic

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Nov 2005

[CRFH]

21 Jun 2009 at 11:16 - 12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konig Des Todes

He says, "I also said the siege devourers are out front. A good place for scaring people off. A bad place for actual defense. We grab them first." I read that as siege devourers are bad for defense but are better for offense - and they are used more for intimidation in defense.

Ah.

No, it was the positioning that made them good for intimidation and bad for actual defense. Good for intimidation because you have two big scary devourers that anyone approaching the front gate cannot fail to notice, and it's a demonstration of strength besides (the owner of the fortress is confident enough in their strength to leave their siege in a vulnerable position). For those who aren't intimidated, however, it IS a vulnerable position, while putting the devourers inside the fortress - on the bluffs, say - would make the mission considerably more difficult.

In short, Pyre wasn't commenting on the devourers themselves, but on how the Hierophant was using them.

Lishy

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jan 2008

21 Jun 2009 at 19:16 - 13

This kind of brings up a good question though:
What are Charr like outside of War? I mean, they seem to have a close relation to animals and beasts, being very animal-like themselves.
I imagine beast masters and tamers.

Free Runner

Forge Runner

Join Date: Oct 2005

GW2G

Knights Of The Sacred Light [KSL]

21 Jun 2009 at 20:01 - 14

I'm guessing that Charr life outside of war would consist of preparing/making things for war.

This thread seems to have come under the Guru Lore Forum Curse of any lore thread having more than 4 pages turning into a discussion on something that had very little to do with the original post or thread theme

Neo Atomisk

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Dec 2008

State College, Pennsylvania, United States

Zealots of Shiverpeak [ZoS]

W/

22 Jun 2009 at 04:46 - 15

oh yea, the ancient dragons.
I'd imagine the Charr to be like Orcs or w/e and live for the war... it'd explain why they have a military "goverment".

Konig Des Todes

Ooo, pretty flower

Join Date: Jan 2008

Citadel of the Decayed

The Archivists' Sanctum [Lore]

N/

22 Jun 2009 at 11:55 - 16

Not really live for war, but live for fighting. In all of Charr history, that we know of thanks to the Ecology of the Charr, the Charr have been focused on fighting the biggest threat to them - internal and external.

Outside of wars, I'd guess the military (which is all but the wounded and *in GW1* the females, for the most part), would be training and getting stronger. There would, presumably, be those who focus not so much on fighting, but on helping others fight (smiths who craft armor/weapons, technicians/architects who set the siege devourers, build towers and other buildings). Then there would be those who manage the herds of their living meat.

draxynnic

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Nov 2005

[CRFH]

24 Jun 2009 at 12:04 - 17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konig Des Todes

Not really live for war, but live for fighting. In all of Charr history, that we know of thanks to the Ecology of the Charr, the Charr have been focused on fighting the biggest threat to them - internal and external.

And they consider everything to be a (potential) threat.

Konig Des Todes

Ooo, pretty flower

Join Date: Jan 2008

Citadel of the Decayed

The Archivists' Sanctum [Lore]

N/

24 Jun 2009 at 13:35 - 18

They consider everything stronger than them a threat.

If they cannot control it, they want it dead (similar to Stone Summit).

Mordakai

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Aug 2005

Kyhlo

W/

24 Jun 2009 at 15:44 - 19

But the Charr respect the Norn.

And they have had a "pseudo-alliance" (quote from Movement of World") since pre-searing, when the Norn allowed the Charr to cross their territory to attack Kryta.

Konig Des Todes

Ooo, pretty flower

Join Date: Jan 2008

Citadel of the Decayed

The Archivists' Sanctum [Lore]

N/

24 Jun 2009 at 16:26 - 20

Hmm, that is true. Perhaps the Shamans originally saw it as a better chance to remove the more hated foes (humans and their gods) first? With the intention to then attack the Norn? After all, the Charr do attack the Norn as well.

Gmr Leon

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Apr 2006

24 Jun 2009 at 20:13 - 21

That sounds likely to have been the Shaman caste's plan, but it would seem that most of the Charr, after the Shaman caste was cast down, were more than comfortable enough with the idea of maintaining that pseudo-alliance. After all, once they seize control of Ascalon, we don't hear anything of them raiding the Shiverpeaks.

Although, there are still humans in Ebonhawke, but I don't think they would be a large enough threat to distract them from killing the Norn if they really wanted to. Then again, consider how their pseudo-alliance was formed in the first place, the Norn slaughtered each warband thrown at them.

Mordakai

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Aug 2005

Kyhlo

W/

24 Jun 2009 at 20:20 - 22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konig Des Todes

Hmm, that is true. Perhaps the Shamans originally saw it as a better chance to remove the more hated foes (humans and their gods) first? With the intention to then attack the Norn? After all, the Charr do attack the Norn as well.

Yes, I think you're right. I missed the first part:

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_...t_of_the_World

"Many expected the initial Charr expansion through northern Tyria to become a tide of blood that would crash upon the Shiverpeaks, drowning Charr and Norn alike. The reality proved different. When the Charr reached the foothills, the Norn drove them back with a single crushing blow, completely decimating every warband sent against them.

Although it is certain the Charr could have destroyed the Norn resistance if they but turned their entire army—or even one full legion—to the cause, warbands and smaller raiding parties could not overcome the individual strength of the Norn. These initial skirmishes taught both sides to respect the strength of the other.

From this accord of mutual respect and strength arose a strange pseudo-alliance that has yet to be broken. For nearly two hundred years, the eastern border of the Shiverpeaks has been stable. The Charr are allowed passage through Gunnar's Hold, and the lower canyons where the Norn had spread.

In fact, during the Searing, the Norn allowed the Charr armies passage through the northern pass from Ascalon into Kryta, setting the stage for the Charr invasion of the central human lands. Although this was not a sign of any alliance, it set the stage for the two races to live within a watchful peace.

No peace accord was ever signed; a treaty would have been meaningless to the individualistic Norn and no Charr would even spit upon such a paper. However, the two races allowed one another passage and trade, while keeping their borders secure. Occasionally, a warband (or a Norn hunter) might cross the line into the other's land, only to be cut down without prejudice...but these skirmishes do not disrupt the accord reached by mutual consent between these nations."

I suspect that the Dragons will force the Charr and Humans to ally for awhile.

(I also feel compelled to add that the probable reason this "psudeo-alliance" business sounds untrue to Charr character, is because it had to be written as a kind of "ret-con" to explain how the Charr got to Kryta unmolested. That's what happens when you add new characters to a story already written...)

Konig Des Todes

Ooo, pretty flower

Join Date: Jan 2008

Citadel of the Decayed

The Archivists' Sanctum [Lore]

N/

24 Jun 2009 at 21:45 - 23

I had actually forgotten about that line in the Movement. As for "the probable reason this "psudeo-alliance" business sounds untrue to Charr character, is because it had to be written as a kind of "ret-con" to explain how the Charr got to Kryta unmolested."

I would kind of have to agree. Though it does seem like the Charr did get a little "molested" on their way to Kryta - at first that is. Perhaps there was a rare more talky Charr (as opposed to the kill-all Charr) who made a truce to let the Charr legions through (and, due to Norn culture, had to prove himself worthy by fighting first). If that were the case, than it was probably a Shaman - as they seem more like talkers and less like fighters to me - that is, of those we see.

And Leon, I was actually thinking that (and thought I implied that) as well.

Mordakai

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Aug 2005

Kyhlo

W/

25 Jun 2009 at 18:50 - 24

I thought it would be cool to put these two pics together...

not because they look alike, but just to compare.

Stormlord:

Unknown GW art, posted by pumpkin pie here http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/n...eply&p=4708493

Could the latter be the Iron Citadel?

Konig Des Todes

Ooo, pretty flower

Join Date: Jan 2008

Citadel of the Decayed

The Archivists' Sanctum [Lore]

N/

25 Jun 2009 at 21:09 - 25

IMO, that looks like a better candidate for a more human structure - like Divinity's Coast.

Mordakai

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Aug 2005

Kyhlo

W/

25 Jun 2009 at 22:01 - 26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konig Des Todes

IMO, that looks like a better candidate for a more human structure - like Divinity's Coast.

I'll have to re-read ecology of the Charr, but isn't it possible the Iron Citadel was built by humans?

(EDIT: Nevermind, built by Charr on the ruins of Rin.)

Anyway, the foliage around it is Ascalon looking, not Krytan.

It could just be an unused pre-searing concept art for all we know!

Konig Des Todes

Ooo, pretty flower

Join Date: Jan 2008

Citadel of the Decayed

The Archivists' Sanctum [Lore]

N/

25 Jun 2009 at 22:41 - 27

That is true, the trees and leaves look more like Charr Homeland/Non-seared Ascalon. It could be the Iron Citadel - if it is highly influenced by human building. Or it could be concept for Pre-searing Ascalon, possibly a structure meant to be off of the aqueduct-like structure in Regent Valley.

draxynnic

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Nov 2005

[CRFH]

27 Jun 2009 at 02:00 - 28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konig Des Todes

I had actually forgotten about that line in the Movement. As for "the probable reason this "psudeo-alliance" business sounds untrue to Charr character, is because it had to be written as a kind of "ret-con" to explain how the Charr got to Kryta unmolested."

I would kind of have to agree. Though it does seem like the Charr did get a little "molested" on their way to Kryta - at first that is. Perhaps there was a rare more talky Charr (as opposed to the kill-all Charr) who made a truce to let the Charr legions through (and, due to Norn culture, had to prove himself worthy by fighting first). If that were the case, than it was probably a Shaman - as they seem more like talkers and less like fighters to me - that is, of those we see.

And Leon, I was actually thinking that (and thought I implied that) as well.

That is possible, yes. Alternatively, it could simply be a leadup to demonstering the Charr so they can become a playable race - demonstrating that, yes, they are capable of coexisting with other races for a time. Considering that the Charr were really fleshed out in the leadup to EOTN (previously, they were basically just 'generic aggressive race to serve as the Titan's catspaws', pun not intended) they could easily have made them not quite so aggressively paranoid. Instead, they did, but also gave the Norn as an exception.

It's not explicitly stated, but the Grawl seem to be another exception - possibly because the Charr find them easy to manipulate in turn.

The real deciding factor could well be in the observation that if the Charr had thrown everything at the Norn, the Norn would have fallen. If the Charr knew that as well, than the pseudo-alliance could simply have formed from the Charr deciding that the Norn are strong enough not to be worth conquering for economic reasons (they'd be unlikely to make good slaves, and the snowy terrain probably isn't of much interest to the Charr) but not strong enough to be an actual threat. This probably means the days of the Norn would be numbered according to how long it took for the Charr to decide to turn on them, but while they have humans to fight they won't... and we know that before they finish mopping up the remains of Ascalon (the ghosts in Ascalon City, Ebonhawke) the dragons will awaken, drive the Norn south, and present the Charr with another threat.

Regarding the Charr getting to Kryta - that could easily have been explained without the pseudo-alliance by simply having the Charr stomp through any opposition while the majority of the Norn remain in their homesteads. While the Charr might take some casualties along the way, enough of them would get through.

Konig Des Todes

Ooo, pretty flower

Join Date: Jan 2008

Citadel of the Decayed

The Archivists' Sanctum [Lore]

N/

03 Jul 2009 at 08:03 - 29

I have moved two pages worth of posts from a thread meant for the Ancient Dragon's location because it was getting too off-topic. The concept art that let to this discussion is the one of the dragon in post 24 of this thread.

Winnies Bro

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Jun 2009

W/R

05 Jul 2009 at 18:32 - 30

I dont think that ascalon theme concept art thingy is human made, it is made out of metal and looks very un-humanish.
edit: where the hell did you get that first picture from? holy hell that dragon thingy and whatever the hell else is there.

Operative 14

Forge Runner

Join Date: Nov 2006

Arizona, USA

[OOP] Order of the Phoenix I

05 Jul 2009 at 20:23 - 31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winnies Bro

I dont think that ascalon theme concept art thingy is human made, it is made out of metal and looks very un-humanish.

Although it does bear a resemblance to Divinities Reach in a way, and it would make sense for a fortification.

Konig Des Todes

Ooo, pretty flower

Join Date: Jan 2008

Citadel of the Decayed

The Archivists' Sanctum [Lore]

N/

05 Jul 2009 at 21:29 - 32

That concept art doesn't really look Ascalonian or Charr. So hard to tell.

And that Dragon concept art, which was first brought up in the forums by myself in the dragon location thread, was found on one of the artists' websites, I believe.

Winnies Bro

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Jun 2009

W/R

06 Jul 2009 at 16:21 - 33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Operative 14

Although it does bear a resemblance to Divinities Reach in a way, and it would make sense for a fortification.

No it doesnt really look like that at all...

Konig Des Todes

Ooo, pretty flower

Join Date: Jan 2008

Citadel of the Decayed

The Archivists' Sanctum [Lore]

N/

06 Jul 2009 at 17:25 - 34

Perhaps you'd like to say why it doesn't look like a fortification. Because I think it kind of does. That is, a kind of citadel, which are used as fortifications.

Free Runner

Forge Runner

Join Date: Oct 2005

GW2G

Knights Of The Sacred Light [KSL]

06 Jul 2009 at 17:47 - 35

It reminds me of Ascalon purely from the Autumn theme. Also the bridge leading into the building reminds me alot of the building in pre searing Ascalon city.

Operative 14

Forge Runner

Join Date: Nov 2006

Arizona, USA

[OOP] Order of the Phoenix I

07 Jul 2009 at 09:29 - 36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winnies Bro

No it doesnt really look like that at all...

Care to elaborate?

Winnies Bro

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Jun 2009

W/R

07 Jul 2009 at 14:44 - 37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Operative 14

Care to elaborate?

..because they are both completely different...

Konig Des Todes

Ooo, pretty flower

Join Date: Jan 2008

Citadel of the Decayed

The Archivists' Sanctum [Lore]

N/

07 Jul 2009 at 16:52 - 38

You are comparing the two concept arts, I take it. It should be noted that the first one isn't said to be a fortification in any theory except that it is the Iron Citadel - the other theory is, assuming it is even GW2 concept art, that it is Augury Rock.

What you said is - in no way, shape, or form - saying how the bottom picture, and the bottom picture alone, doesn't look like a fortification.

Free Runner

Forge Runner

Join Date: Oct 2005

GW2G

Knights Of The Sacred Light [KSL]

07 Jul 2009 at 19:48 - 39

I'm getting confused here. Isnt Winnie saying that the concept art of the metal fort with the bridge and the concept art of Divinities Coast look nothing alike?

Gmr Leon

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Apr 2006

07 Jul 2009 at 20:26 - 40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Free Runner

I'm getting confused here. Isnt Winnie saying that the concept art of the metal fort with the bridge and the concept art of Divinities Coast look nothing alike?

I'm pretty sure that's what he(she?) is saying as well. Konig seemed to think he was saying it didn't look similar to a fortification, rather than that it didn't look like the supposed Divinity Coast concept art.

It also doesn't precisely help that Konig's second response's last sentence lacks a doesn't before look, which is what he initially assumed Winnies was saying.