Guild Wars 2

I was scouring the Thaumanova fractal screen shots in hopes of finding something interesting, and I think I did!

http://i.imgur.com/JzVmwtb.jpg

They look almost like Skritt with aetherblade armor on, but it’s honestly really hard to tell. I wonder what this could mean for the lore/mechanics of the fractal.

Original, larger image: https://d3b4yo2b5lbfy.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/93decScreenshot-04.jpg

Those look like standard skritt mobs to me.

And for the record, Thaumanova deals with chaos magic and teleports seemingly random mobs to its area. This is the meltdown of the reactor, so it is not unlikely that similar effects will occur during the fractal as well.

Yeah I’d say it pretty much looks like skritt

Who had the theory months ago about the Skritt and Thamuanova

Hi Gnat,
Are you able to work through the posts and find it?

It might have been this:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/The-Thaumanova-Fractal

Psynch.4087:

I was scouring the Thaumanova fractal screen shots in hopes of finding something interesting, and I think I did!

http://i.imgur.com/JzVmwtb.jpg

They look almost like Skritt with aetherblade armor on, but it’s honestly really hard to tell. I wonder what this could mean for the lore/mechanics of the fractal.

Original, larger image: https://d3b4yo2b5lbfy.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/93decScreenshot-04.jpg

I have deleted my previous reply to this threat because I am getting the Skritts and Dredge mixed up. In a NPC conversation it mentioned the Asuras have in historical past enslaved the Skritts or the Dredge. It is one of the 2 species. It is my fault and I’d only got them mixed up because the Asuras, the Skritts, and the Dredges were all forced to migrate up from the deeps of Tyria underground world to live on the surface.

There is not prove that the inquest is responsible for the meltdown.

There are a whole heap of NPCs, from within the reactor itself to as far away as Mount Maelstrom, who lay the blame on the Inquest. Some of them cite evidence: for instance, the discovery of the Inquest labs beneath the reactor. It would be exceedingly strange if ANet now decided to lay the blame on some other entity.

EDIT: Missed this earlier, but on the article about the Fractal changes: “You voted, and Kiel delivered! Experience the moments leading up to the catastrophic destruction of the Thaumanova Reactor, caused by the Inquest’s reckless experiments with Chaos Energy.”

Aaron Ansari.1604:

There are a whole heap of NPCs, from within the reactor itself to as far away as Mount Maelstrom, who lay the blame on the Inquest. Some of them cite evidence: for instance, the discovery of the Inquest labs beneath the reactor. It would be exceedingly strange if ANet now decided to lay the blame on some other entity.

EDIT: Missed this earlier, but on the article about the Fractal changes: “You voted, and Kiel delivered! Experience the moments leading up to the catastrophic destruction of the Thaumanova Reactor, caused by the Inquest’s reckless experiments with Chaos Energy.”

Agree completely. The main snag here is that Scarlet was technically part of the Inquest for a short time. So, even if the Inquest were at fault, it could have been a now-defected person’s actions that caused it. Kind of a quirky technicality, but still relevant.

@Stephen no it wasn’t that one, it was actually very well thought out and realistically applicable. I’ll try to dig it up.

It was largely relating to uncategorized fractal and its connection to Thaumanova.

Skritt, E.T Co. vs. Fall of the God. kitten you, people, kitten you

Actually what happened is that thaumanova was an large asuran city (about size of rata sum) There was an inquest reactor trying to get infinite energy out of elder dragon energy. (Nuculear reactor just replace radiation with energy from kraklatorrik (chaos energy and crystal theme if you for example go in the chaos caverns jp you’l see more relations just dig into it

Psynch.4087:

I was scouring the Thaumanova fractal screen shots in hopes of finding something interesting, and I think I did!

http://i.imgur.com/JzVmwtb.jpg

They look almost like Skritt with aetherblade armor on, but it’s honestly really hard to tell. I wonder what this could mean for the lore/mechanics of the fractal.

Original, larger image: https://d3b4yo2b5lbfy.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/93decScreenshot-04.jpg

Having cleared up the mixed up from memory by mental reasoning, I can say with a high degree of correctness that the mole people were enslaved by the Stone Summit Dwarves from GW1. The mole people are the direct ancestors of the Dredge. That means in GW 2 the NPC conversation I over heard less than a week ago was correct first time round. That is the Asuras had enslaved the Skritts in the historic past. The picture information from the original poster would indicate that at the time of the Thaumanova Reactor incident the Skritts were either still slaves of the Asuras or the Skritts were in the long or short process of wrestling their freedom from the Asuras and were still engaging or cohabiting with the Asuras.

Big Tower.5423:

Actually what happened is that thaumanova was an large asuran city (about size of rata sum) There was an inquest reactor trying to get infinite energy out of elder dragon energy. (Nuculear reactor just replace radiation with energy from kraklatorrik (chaos energy and crystal theme if you for example go in the chaos caverns jp you’l see more relations just dig into it

As I stated in your thread, there is absolutely nothing which conclusively points the Thaumanova Reactor to the Elder Dragons.

The Chaos Crystal Caverns is not tied to Kralkatorrik nor is Kralkatorrik tied to chaos magic.

You’re taking a theory – one which I helped develop (if not originate) in fact – and trying to present it as fact.

Avariz.8241:

Having cleared up the mixed up from memory by mental reasoning, I can say with a high degree of correctness that the mole people were enslaved by the Stone Summit Dwarves from GW1. The mole people are the direct ancestors of the Dredge. That means in GW 2 the NPC conversation I over heard less than a week ago was correct first time round. That is the Asuras had enslaved the Skritts in the historic past. The picture information from the original poster would indicate that at the time of the Thaumanova Reactor incident the Skritts were either still slaves of the Asuras or the Skritts were in the long or short process of wrestling their freedom from the Asuras and were still engaging or cohabiting with the Asuras.

The dredge have always been dredge, never called “mole people.”

Also, the asura had never enslaved the skritt in historic past. The asura have in the past been enemies of the skritt, viewing them as vermin to wipe out completely. To them it was an extermination of rodents. The skritt were slaves to no one.

Avariz.8241:

Psynch.4087:

I was scouring the Thaumanova fractal screen shots in hopes of finding something interesting, and I think I did!

http://i.imgur.com/JzVmwtb.jpg

They look almost like Skritt with aetherblade armor on, but it’s honestly really hard to tell. I wonder what this could mean for the lore/mechanics of the fractal.

Original, larger image: https://d3b4yo2b5lbfy.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/93decScreenshot-04.jpg

Having cleared up the mixed up from memory by mental reasoning, I can say with a high degree of correctness that the mole people were enslaved by the Stone Summit Dwarves from GW1. The mole people are the direct ancestors of the Dredge. That means in GW 2 the NPC conversation I over heard less than a week ago was correct first time round. That is the Asuras had enslaved the Skritts in the historic past. The picture information from the original poster would indicate that at the time of the Thaumanova Reactor incident the Skritts were either still slaves of the Asuras or the Skritts were in the long or short process of wrestling their freedom from the Asuras and were still engaging or cohabiting with the Asuras.

I’d have to ask you for a source before I could say for sure, but my gut says the slavery in question is probably the less than kind experiments a variety of independent asuran labs have run on the skritt. As Konig said, aside from attempts to crack the puzzle of their exponential intelligence, and the occasional entrepreneur seeking to harness a body of cheap labor, the asura treat the skritt as pests or vermin, to be kept as far from their civilization as possible.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

…

Avariz.8241:

Having cleared up the mixed up from memory by mental reasoning, I can say with a high degree of correctness that the mole people were enslaved by the Stone Summit Dwarves from GW1. The mole people are the direct ancestors of the Dredge. That means in GW 2 the NPC conversation I over heard less than a week ago was correct first time round. That is the Asuras had enslaved the Skritts in the historic past. The picture information from the original poster would indicate that at the time of the Thaumanova Reactor incident the Skritts were either still slaves of the Asuras or the Skritts were in the long or short process of wrestling their freedom from the Asuras and were still engaging or cohabiting with the Asuras.

The dredge have always been dredge, never called “mole people.”

Also, the asura had never enslaved the skritt in historic past. The asura have in the past been enemies of the skritt, viewing them as vermin to wipe out completely. To them it was an extermination of rodents. The skritt were slaves to no one.

Putting aside my own recollection from GW1, Wiki’s first sentence says the Dredge were once called the mole people…http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Dredge

“Once, the mole-people known as the legendary dredge were a pitiable race, enslaved by the dwarves and ready to fight alongside any who would help free them from their masters’ whips. After the Transformation of the Dwarves, the dredge gained their freedom once and for all, and established themselves as the heirs to the dwarven kingdom in the Shiverpeak Mountains, where they battle the displaced norn for control of dwarven territory. They have made their capital in Sorrow’s Embrace, formerly the main mine of the Stone Summit dwarves. "

Avariz.8241:

- snip-

That isn’t saying they were called the mole people.
To rephrase that sentence it’s sort of like saying ‘Once upon a time, the race of mole people who are called the Dredge, etc.’
Whoever wrote that article on the wiki is using “mole people” to identify their appearance and make it more obvious to readers what exactly they are talking about. It should really say “the mole-LIKE race known as the dredge”, because that is what it means – it’s giving you a real world comparison.
It’s also really important to keep in mind that the wiki is player managed, so anything that doesn’t appear in quotation marks and isn’t directly referenced can’t really be used as fact (think of it like academic writing).

Aaron Ansari.1604:

Avariz.8241:

Psynch.4087:

I was scouring the Thaumanova fractal screen shots in hopes of finding something interesting, and I think I did!

http://i.imgur.com/JzVmwtb.jpg

They look almost like Skritt with aetherblade armor on, but it’s honestly really hard to tell. I wonder what this could mean for the lore/mechanics of the fractal.

Original, larger image: https://d3b4yo2b5lbfy.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/93decScreenshot-04.jpg

Having cleared up the mixed up from memory by mental reasoning, I can say with a high degree of correctness that the mole people were enslaved by the Stone Summit Dwarves from GW1. The mole people are the direct ancestors of the Dredge. That means in GW 2 the NPC conversation I over heard less than a week ago was correct first time round. That is the Asuras had enslaved the Skritts in the historic past. The picture information from the original poster would indicate that at the time of the Thaumanova Reactor incident the Skritts were either still slaves of the Asuras or the Skritts were in the long or short process of wrestling their freedom from the Asuras and were still engaging or cohabiting with the Asuras.

I’d have to ask you for a source before I could say for sure, but my gut says the slavery in question is probably the less than kind experiments a variety of independent asuran labs have run on the skritt. As Konig said, aside from attempts to crack the puzzle of their exponential intelligence, and the occasional entrepreneur seeking to harness a body of cheap labor, the asura treat the skritt as pests or vermin, to be kept as far from their civilization as possible.

This was before I come across the Wiki http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Skritt to find confirmation to what I had previously over heard what the NPC said.

I accidentally over heard the NPC telling another NPC the Skritts were once slaves of the Asuras. That is about all that I’ve heard and remembered. At the time I was speed farming through both Sorrow’s Embrace and Timberline Falls. I did not took note of the source. So as of right now I can not pin point the source, sorry.

FlamingFoxx.1305:

Avariz.8241:

- snip-

That isn’t saying they were called the mole people.
To rephrase that sentence it’s sort of like saying ‘Once upon a time, the race of mole people who are called the Dredge, etc.’
Whoever wrote that article on the wiki is using “mole people” to identify their appearance and make it more obvious to readers what exactly they are talking about. It should really say “the mole-LIKE race known as the dredge”, because that is what it means – it’s giving you a real world comparison.
It’s also really important to keep in mind that the wiki is player managed, so anything that doesn’t appear in quotation marks and isn’t directly referenced can’t really be used as fact (think of it like academic writing).

When I say ‘called the mole people’ I was in fact para phrasing Konig Des Todes.2086. I myself did not say ‘called the mole people’. What I actually said was “…the mole people were enslaved by the Stone Summit Dwarves from GW1. The mole people are the direct ancestors of the Dredge.”.

You see I used lower case which make what I said as in adjective form which is to say descriptive.

Avariz.8241:

FlamingFoxx.1305:

Avariz.8241:

- snip-

That isn’t saying they were called the mole people.
To rephrase that sentence it’s sort of like saying ‘Once upon a time, the race of mole people who are called the Dredge, etc.’
Whoever wrote that article on the wiki is using “mole people” to identify their appearance and make it more obvious to readers what exactly they are talking about. It should really say “the mole-LIKE race known as the dredge”, because that is what it means – it’s giving you a real world comparison.
It’s also really important to keep in mind that the wiki is player managed, so anything that doesn’t appear in quotation marks and isn’t directly referenced can’t really be used as fact (think of it like academic writing).

When I say ‘called the mole people’ I was in fact para phrasing Konig Des Todes.2086. I myself did not say ‘called the mole people’. What I actually said was “…the mole people were enslaved by the Stone Summit Dwarves from GW1. The mole people are the direct ancestors of the Dredge.”.

You see I used lower case which make what I said as in adjective form which is to say descriptive.

Yes but the problem is that there is no such thing as the “mole people” – there is only the Dredge, the ancestors of the Dredge are more Dredge. If there is something further back in their evolutionary chain then we don’t know what it was.

In GW1 the stone summit enslaved the Dredge – this is plainly observable if you go into the Sorrow’s Furnace elite dungeon (the first place the Dredge appeared in GW1). All of the dredge in Sorrow’s Furnace are called dredge. The factions manuscript also refers to them as dredge (I realise now that is where the quote from earlier comes from) – the “mole-people” is, as I said, simply giving a real world identifier to something that is not implicit in the name “Dredge”.

FlamingFoxx.1305:

Avariz.8241:

FlamingFoxx.1305:

Avariz.8241:

- snip-

That isn’t saying they were called the mole people.
To rephrase that sentence it’s sort of like saying ‘Once upon a time, the race of mole people who are called the Dredge, etc.’
Whoever wrote that article on the wiki is using “mole people” to identify their appearance and make it more obvious to readers what exactly they are talking about. It should really say “the mole-LIKE race known as the dredge”, because that is what it means – it’s giving you a real world comparison.
It’s also really important to keep in mind that the wiki is player managed, so anything that doesn’t appear in quotation marks and isn’t directly referenced can’t really be used as fact (think of it like academic writing).

When I say ‘called the mole people’ I was in fact para phrasing Konig Des Todes.2086. I myself did not say ‘called the mole people’. What I actually said was “…the mole people were enslaved by the Stone Summit Dwarves from GW1. The mole people are the direct ancestors of the Dredge.”.

You see I used lower case which make what I said as in adjective form which is to say descriptive.

Yes but the problem is that there is no such thing as the “mole people” – there is only the Dredge, the ancestors of the Dredge are more Dredge. If there is something further back in their evolutionary chain then we don’t know what it was.

In GW1 the stone summit enslaved the Dredge – this is plainly observable if you go into the Sorrow’s Furnace elite dungeon (the first place the Dredge appeared in GW1). All of the dredge in Sorrow’s Furnace are called dredge. The factions manuscript also refers to them as dredge (I realise now that is where the quote from earlier comes from) – the “mole-people” is, as I said, simply giving a real world identifier to something that is not implicit in the name “Dredge”.

What you said in the end does not really matter. What I wrote is correct in that whether Dredge or mole people they were once Stone Summit slaves. That is the important thing in what I wrote. However, If you say Dredge are not mole people, then you are wrong. The Dredge are modelled on moles and people obviously. You are fraudulent in trying to discredit the artistic associated of moles and people with the Dredge when the meaning, sense, context, and artistic associate were correct and appropriate.

Dredge comes under the category of mole people because they have been intentionally modelled on moles and people.

Yes, I was simply pointing out that there is no separate category of “mole people” in the GW universe as was suggested by your statement that mole people were the ancestors to Dredge…
I recall stating that the use of the term mole people was only used to draw attention to the real world association, so I am not “fraudulent” in anything thanks…

FlamingFoxx.1305:

Yes, I was simply pointing out that there is no separate category of “mole people” in the GW universe as was suggested by your statement that mole people were the ancestors to Dredge…
I recall stating that the use of the term mole people was only used to draw attention to the real world association, so I am not “fraudulent” in anything thanks…

I apologies for defending my self excessively. From my recollection of GW 1 the mole people were a very primitive specie. Now in GW 2 the modern Dredge are substantially different from the mole people of GW 1. This is always in the back of my mind like subconscious understanding. So yes subconsciously I do differentiate the mole people of GW 1 from the Dredge of GW 2. If that is now what you are pointing toward then you are correct.

The mole people from GW 1 are almost three times the size of modern Dredge of GW 2. The mole people use animal pelts, and bones as attire and adornments going about in the world half naked like primitive savages. Where as the modern Dredge in GW 2 wear high tech armour suits in one form or another. The mole people in GW 1 don’t use technology at all instead they utilise a form of primitive magic. Where as the modern Dredge of GW 2 is all about technology and next to nothing about magic. The GW 2 Dredge are small and surround themselves with machinery. The difference is so great between the mole people of GW 1 and the modern Dredge of GW 2 visually, PEST, anthropologically, anatomically, morphologically that I would definitely categorise them as 2 different races under the scientific term. I would speculate that it could come under the scientific term speciation as well.

Avariz.8241:

Putting aside my own recollection from GW1, Wiki’s first sentence says the Dredge were once called the mole people…http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Dredge

“Once, the mole-people known as the legendary dredge were a pitiable race, enslaved by the dwarves and ready to fight alongside any who would help free them from their masters’ whips. After the Transformation of the Dwarves, the dredge gained their freedom once and for all, and established themselves as the heirs to the dwarven kingdom in the Shiverpeak Mountains, where they battle the displaced norn for control of dwarven territory. They have made their capital in Sorrow’s Embrace, formerly the main mine of the Stone Summit dwarves. "

You overlooked the comma. With the comma there it goes from your interpretation of “once the mole-people known as the dredge” to “Once (upon a time), the race, (whom are mole-people) known as the dredge, were a pitiful race.”

Besides, that’s fan-made. And by someone who makes a lot of weird writing in articles. There’s actually a missing comma there I think which would clarify it – should be placed after “mole-people” (which has never been used in-game, I believe, but they are clearly mole-like hence the usage (Edit: Okay, not in-game but in Factions manual)).

I have gone and edited the wording to hopefully prevent confusion again. (Edit: I see this particular confusion was caused by the said someone’s love for integrating NPC dialogue and manual text verbatim (or near so) into the wiki descriptions which causes fallacies and confusions).

Avariz.8241:

When I say ‘called the mole people’ I was in fact para phrasing Konig Des Todes.2086. I myself did not say ‘called the mole people’. What I actually said was “…the mole people were enslaved by the Stone Summit Dwarves from GW1. The mole people are the direct ancestors of the Dredge.”.

You see I used lower case which make what I said as in adjective form which is to say descriptive.

“the mole people are the direct ancestors of the Dredge” mean that you were stating – intentionally or not – that the dredge’s ancestors were called “mole people.”

It should be noted, by the way, that race names are lowercased. It is not Dredge, but dredge. It is not Skritt, but skritt. It is not Asura, but asura. Etc. etc.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Avariz.8241:

Putting aside my own recollection from GW1, Wiki’s first sentence says the Dredge were once called the mole people…http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Dredge

“Once, the mole-people known as the legendary dredge were a pitiable race, enslaved by the dwarves and ready to fight alongside any who would help free them from their masters’ whips. After the Transformation of the Dwarves, the dredge gained their freedom once and for all, and established themselves as the heirs to the dwarven kingdom in the Shiverpeak Mountains, where they battle the displaced norn for control of dwarven territory. They have made their capital in Sorrow’s Embrace, formerly the main mine of the Stone Summit dwarves. "

You overlooked the comma. With the comma there it goes from your interpretation of “once the mole-people known as the dredge” to “Once (upon a time), the race, (whom are mole-people) known as the dredge, were a pitiful race.”

Besides, that’s fan-made. And by someone who makes a lot of weird writing in articles. There’s actually a missing comma there I think which would clarify it – should be placed after “mole-people” (which has never been used in-game, I believe, but they are clearly mole-like hence the usage (Edit: Okay, not in-game but in Factions manual)).

I have gone and edited the wording to hopefully prevent confusion again. (Edit: I see this particular confusion was caused by the said someone’s love for integrating NPC dialogue and manual text verbatim (or near so) into the wiki descriptions which causes fallacies and confusions).

Avariz.8241:

When I say ‘called the mole people’ I was in fact para phrasing Konig Des Todes.2086. I myself did not say ‘called the mole people’. What I actually said was “…the mole people were enslaved by the Stone Summit Dwarves from GW1. The mole people are the direct ancestors of the Dredge.”.

You see I used lower case which make what I said as in adjective form which is to say descriptive.

“the mole people are the direct ancestors of the Dredge” mean that you were stating – intentionally or not – that the dredge’s ancestors were called “mole people.”

It should be noted, by the way, that race names are lowercased. It is not Dredge, but dredge. It is not Skritt, but skritt. It is not Asura, but asura. Etc. etc.

I can take Moletariate to mean mole people.
From wiki http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Moletariate
“The moletariate is the government body of the dredge people.”

Hence, mole people = Moletariate = dredge people
The latter being from wiki.

The Moletariate is the dredge government…
The dredge are the dredge, you can identify them as mole-people only in that they look like moles. But they have never been referred to mole people, except in such a way that gives people a real world comparison. They would not call themselves mole people, they call themselves dredge.

Moletariate is just the name of the body of government. A lot of the dredge naming is a series of puns off of the word “mole” and the Soviet Union (Molenin, Molachev, etc.). Moletariate = Proletariate

To argue that you can call dredge “mole people” because of Moletariate is like saying the people who lived within the Soviet Union were not Russians but “pro people.”

Besides, that article you quoted is also fan-written. Written solely by yours truly, in fact.

And again, I am not saying dredge are not mole-like people, or “mole people” if you prefer. Merely that the original implication of your wording that said the dredge were once called “mole people” (in the same manner in that, during GW1, the hylek were called “Frogmen”) would be incorrect as the dredge were never actually called “mole people” – they were always just simply “dredge.”

Side note: it wouldn’t even make sense to call dredge “mole people” from an in-universe prospect as far as we know, seeing how moles are yet to be known to exist in the Guild Wars universe’s lore.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Moletariate is just the name of the body of government. A lot of the dredge naming is a series of puns off of the word “mole” and the Soviet Union (Molenin, Molachev, etc.). Moletariate = Proletariate

To argue that you can call dredge “mole people” because of Moletariate is like saying the people who lived within the Soviet Union were not Russians but “pro people.”

Besides, that article you quoted is also fan-written. Written solely by yours truly, in fact.

And again, I am not saying dredge are not mole-like people, or “mole people” if you prefer. Merely that the original implication of your wording that said the dredge were once called “mole people” (in the same manner in that, during GW1, the hylek were called “Frogmen”) would be incorrect as the dredge were never actually called “mole people” – they were always just simply “dredge.”

Side note: it wouldn’t even make sense to call dredge “mole people” from an in-universe prospect as far as we know, seeing how moles are yet to be known to exist in the Guild Wars universe’s lore.

Proletariate means human working class people in a human urban complex. Then the obvious conclusion is Moletariate means mole working class people in a mole mount/warren complex.

facedesk It feels like you’re either toying with me, or you have highly selective reading.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

facedesk It feels like you’re either toying with me, or you have highly selective reading.

Proletariate does not mean government of the human people. It means human working class people in a human urban complex. If Moletariate is to equate to Proletaritate which Anet artistic team did intended then the only conclusion is Moletariate means mole working class people in a mole mount/warren complex.

They look like moles in our perspective. They relate to the concept of proletariate per how their society works. However, they are NOT moles from a Tyrian perspective because they don’t exist as such in Tyria. It’s a playword from Anet with a comic degree, nothing else.

“Pro” means one thing, “letariate” means nothing. Your logic is that “pro” means “human” when it does not. You can’t butcher the word and argue that because they replaced “pro” with “mole” it means “mole working class people in a mole mount/warren complex.” Tyria knows no moles. They know Dredge.

Anyhow, new topic:

In the recent livestream, it was said we take the role of an Inquest infiltration team.

Avariz.8241:

Konig Des Todes.2086:

facedesk It feels like you’re either toying with me, or you have highly selective reading.

Proletariate does not mean government of the human people. It means human working class people in a human urban complex. If Moletariate is to equate to Proletaritate which Anet artistic team did intended then the only conclusion is Moletariate means mole working class people in a mole mount/warren complex.

The Moletariate is a play on the world proletariat COMBINED with the fact that the dredge have a communist socialist society.
Bourgeoisie and Proletariat do not function in a communist/socialist society in the same way as they do a capitalist society.

I’m honestly not sure what point you are trying to make anymore because you’re making no sense…

Avariz.8241:

Konig Des Todes.2086:

facedesk It feels like you’re either toying with me, or you have highly selective reading.

Proletariate does not mean government of the human people. It means human working class people in a human urban complex. If Moletariate is to equate to Proletaritate which Anet artistic team did intended then the only conclusion is Moletariate means mole working class people in a mole mount/warren complex.

Each and every point I had made on the topic still stands.

Including the post you quoted in responding to this.

I never questioned what Proletariate meant. So why you keep at that is unknown to me. What I pointed out is that getting “mole people” from “Moletariate” is an illogical step, because you would not get “people” from “pro” in Proletariate. What Proletariate means is irrelevant, since your original argument was the Mole in Moletariate signifies that dredge are, in-universe, “mole people.”

Now, as I said, yes the dredge are mole people from our perspective, but they are not mole people in-universe because, as said, there is no evidence that moles existed.

Now, all of this started from you stating that the ancestors of the dredge were called mole people. I think I and FlamingFoxx have proven by now that this is not the case.

If you continue this argument without responding – and therefore effectively ignoring – the real core points rather than focusing on these side snippets that have been included in posts, I am going to assume you are merely trolling at this point and will therefore shut the heck up in this discussion because further posting is pointless.

Stop right there I did not say ‘pro’ meant human and ‘letariate’ meant people or other ‘nonsense’. Please quote your source where I said that. The word mole do show up in universe as in the compounded word Moletariate from the two words mole and proletariat.

…

I never said you said that. Perhaps you should try re-reading the posts in this thread. All of mine, specifically, since you seem to be responding to a very skewed version of what my posts are saying.

And compounded words like Moletariate do not count, suffice it to say, because I was talking about the animal being mentioned or not.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

…

I never said you said that. Perhaps you should try re-reading the posts in this thread. All of mine, specifically, since you seem to be responding to a very skewed version of what my posts are saying.

And compounded words like Moletariate do not count, suffice it to say, because I was talking about the animal being mentioned or not.

His response was towards me.

@Avariz

/Facepalm

Believe what you want. You’re too stubborn and can’t grasp simple logic. Not wasting any more time on this.

Eluveitie.1290:

Konig Des Todes.2086:

…

I never said you said that. Perhaps you should try re-reading the posts in this thread. All of mine, specifically, since you seem to be responding to a very skewed version of what my posts are saying.

And compounded words like Moletariate do not count, suffice it to say, because I was talking about the animal being mentioned or not.

His response was towards me.

@Avariz

/Facepalm

Believe what you want. You’re too stubborn and can’t grasp simple logic. Not wasting any more time on this.

Sorry I have to be strict here. You have attributed to me a statement with a false logic, as you yourself point out, which I did not make. That statement with the false logic is in fact created by you and which now you can not source to me. I think you owe me an apology for that.

I do believe your wrong attributed statement with the false logic was influenced and running parallel to Konig’s multiple lines of argument. Yes, Konig had influenced you in making the error.

Back to the original point of this thread, I gotta say I’m disappointed. Not only did they shoehorn Scarlet in as the culprit, they ignored that Thaumanova was supposed to be a normal asuran facility with an Inquest lab working in secret beneath it, and instead turned it into an entirely Inquest complex. Non-Inquest personnel? There should’ve been, but we saw none of them.

Although there were dredge after all.

Not to mention that for being an underground facility, it sure has a lot of sky sights. But fractals are not exact replicas, so I’ll let that pass.

Eluveitie.1290:

Not to mention that for being an underground facility, it sure has a lot of sky sights. But fractals are not exact replicas, so I’ll let that pass.

Since when was thaumanova underground? We’ve seen the facility already in Metrica Province. :S

@Aaron: We only saw that lab underneath. We never saw what was up above it.

@Eluveitie: I didn’t see sky sights. But it’s probably mechanical like being able to see the sky from Abaddon’s sunken temple in the story instance.

@FlamingFoxx: The Inquest lab was beneath the city, which is where we go through in Metrica.

The entire central area seems open to the sky. Still, I seem to have misremembered something about the overworld version of the place. I stand humbly corrected.

I didn’t pay too much attention to the sky but I could have sworn there was a ceiling.

In other news:

What do other folks think of the final room after defeating the Anomaly? That enclosed room with a giant sphere of light (which you enter in order to get back to Mistlock Observatory in story mode) where you get your chest.

That and the anomaly itself were perhaps the most interesting aspects of the fractal to me. Subject 6’s appearance – compared to Subject 7 in the Queen’s Gauntlet with similar (but more) functionalities was also interesting; proves the common thought that Subject 7 is tied to the Inquest like Subject Alpha was true.

On another note, Scarlet’s dialogue seems to confirm the theory that Thaumanova was studying draconic energies too: “I told the Inquest chaos energy was a misnomer. Mind you, dragon energy is tricky, so I can see how they flubbed it.” Furthermore, it seems that the chaos magic they’re studying is the dragon energy – one and the same. Which makes me wonder which dragon they took the energy from, or if the chaos magic is a result of multiple dragons’ energy.

Also calls into question the nature of the anomaly, given the place studied chaos magic and dragon energy.

The way I understand it is that we learn that the facility was initially intended to study chaos magic but the Inquest pushed the direction of the facility towards dragon magic. They learned that there was a link between the Elder Dragon energy and chaos energy. They concluded that the chaos energy and dragon magic may have a link or even be the same. They also concluded that this magical energy follows a course through the globe and crisscrosses at certain areas. One of these areas was the Thaumanova Reactor. So their study of the two energies at this interception of magical energy is what caused the meltdown.

If you talk to Kiel in the Crow’s Nest afterwards, she helps with the interpretation bit (at the moment I’m going to assume she is correct). Basically Thaumanova was used to study the energy circulating through the globe, which the Inquest at the time believed to be chaos energy, and which Scarlet believed to be dragon energy. Upon Scarlet’s arrival they ramped up their experiments, which, due to Thaumanova’s location, had adverse side effects- the meltdown.

I didn’t put too much stock into the white room- by Dessa’s dialogue it sounds like it wasn’t part of the reactor, but created by her attempts to get us out.

The anamoly was fascinating, doubly so since it’s possible that there’s a real world one that wasn’t destroyed. Don’t know what to make of it, though.

Has anyone gone through it in higher levels? The patch notes said there were alternate endings based on the levels, which I suspect have to do with the story-mode inaccessible dormitories.