Talk:Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
MMOG logo This article is within the scope of WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of massively multiplayer online games. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the the assessment scale.



Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Terms in game

As there seems to be an acceptance of the current version I am removing the Disputed tag I put in.

I have never heard "ransacked" however nearly everytime I am in a party someone is spouting shiney though I rarely hear sparkly I do on occasion. Why do the terms Shiney and sparkely keep getting removed?

Just because the developers didnt design it doesnt mean its not part of the game, once you allow players to communicate you add a element to the game that is beyond the programing. Developers didnt coin the term "nerfing" reffering to changes in MMORPGS but everyone knows what a "nerfed" item is after a patch.

Citing new terms created by the game reeks of subjectivity. It's akin to saying that the game is creating new pop-culture terms or something. While terms like "nerf" have become common among MMO gamers, citing that a relatively new game has created terms is too forward. I recommend the section be slashed out entirely, as it has little to no bearing on the game's article. TotalTommyTerror 07:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no refferance to any other game having the terms Shiney or sparkely used to describe mob dropped loot/collectables. In this game however the terms are prevolant, the point of "nerfing" was that it too was a term created by MMORPG's that is now commonplace but was not written into the code of the game by the developers. The two terms are constantly and consistantly used, they should be included, they are as much a part of the day to day gameplay as alignments, you could say moreso than alignments as with the exception of a few rare weapons that most players will never use alignment plays no role in gameplay.

Further it is not subjective at all, to say that it is the best game ever, or that it was the worst DD game since the first edition red dragon boxed set would be subjective. The terms did not exist in thier useage prior to the game now they do.

Edit: I think the main problem lies with the section title "New Terms Created by Game". While the term "ransacking" may have found a new use in computer gaming terminology, a quick Google of the term will show that the word "ransack" originated from the Old Norse "rannsaka", which was adopted into Middle English as "ransaken". This word was around for many hundreds of years before the concept of PnP DnD was invented.

Edit: Perhaps a better title might be in order for that section? Different games really do tend to generate their own references, especially to mechanics peculiar to them.

[edit] Changes

I took the liberty to reformat the presentation of player races and classes. I'm not extremely comfortable with a bullet point presentation but it looks better than just listing races and classes in a paragraph and gives it a cleaner look.

Also, I'm thinking it might be nice to add a section that either details or notes differences between the pen and paper eberron game and this one. There are differences in the rule set and it may actually be of interest for people familiar with the 3.5 pnp rules.

I also removed the paragraph listing monsters in the game. I think it might be better to create a separate page for monsters that appear in DnDO or just put a referrer to the DnD monster list. I'll cite the World of Warcraft page as an example in that line of thought. Another mmo; it doesn't list every race on the page, albeit the game seems to be large enough to demand that every single race and monster get it's own freaking wiki. (rolling eyes)...

TotalTommyTerror 09:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Added the alignment section. I can't honestly remember what all the available alignments are, so if anybody knows for sure feel free to add/subtract to the list.

TotalTommyTerror 10:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Took the liberty of adding a paragraph mentioning that there are differences between the DDO rules and D&D 3.5 tabletop rules. Rule differences in general were an important topic of discussion both during beta and after release, so I thought they deserved a sentence or two. DDO is also unusual among computer games in that a fair number of its players also play the tabletop game, so are prone to noticing rule differences between the two.

In addition, I removed a sentence that commented that about "a notion contrary to claims made during the Beta period of the game in which players were told that they were not included due to graphic and balance issues." It's not obvious the statement is verifiable, and in fact the reasons for why Monks and Druids aren't in the game are debatable. It's quite possible, for example, that it was early graphic and balance issues that kept these classes from advancing past the concept stages. So the statement that it's a "contrary notion" is the authors opinion, not necessarily a fact.

If such a statement is desired, I'd suggest instead including an objective factual sentence. For instance: "The fact that Druids and Monks are missing from DDO has been discussed and debated frequently on DDO related forums, with some players concerned about the reasoning behind their absence."

Just a suggestion.

Dugwiki 20:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The DDO Wiki details the primary differences between PnP D&D and DDO (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/PnP_differences). All in all it would amount to a pretty significant addition to the DDO article here, one which I suspect would distract more than anything from the main thrust of the general information about the game here. Having said that I was pondering, earlier, that a link or some minor section that points to that information in the DDO Wiki might be appropriate. If for no other reason than the fact that someone there is dutifully updating the information there and likely would become stale if repeated here without the same ongoing attention.

I would also remark that DDO isn't alone in having significant numbers of D&D PnP players. Pretty much any D&D video game finds a notable amount of said players who manage to debate, often at great length, about rules implementation regardless of the game. It certainly isn't a facet that DDO can claim all to its own *grin*.

Finally, regarding the Monk/Druid class not be included; the druid class itself was more or less deferred due to both graphic and balance issues during the beta period (I don't recall what the issues were for the monk, or that Turbine ever mentioned anything for the class specifically) though I for one remember (with 95% certainty) that Turbine did make a post to that effect regarding the Druid class.

Unfortunately they removed the beta forums so there are MANY things they said that can no longer be substantiated now -- at least, not very easily. With that in mind, it's just as well that the "contrary notion" portion was removed even if accurate, due to the inability to verify it, unequivocally.

I'm also not all that convinced that your suggested "objective factual sentence" provides any real information, and think it would be better to just leave a comment absent (from either direction) until something more substantial can be provided to verify the reasoning for the Monk/Druid absence. If we were talking about the Kennedy assasination or something, some mention about doubt or hints of conspiratorial notions might be worthwhile, but it doesn't seem to have much value in the DDO article (IMHO).

-D

I agree with the above suggestion that the DDO article here doesn't need to go into great detail on the differences between DDO and D&D. A link to, say, the DDO Wiki would work fine.

And as far as the Monk/Druid information, I think it's probably best to simply leave it as saying the Monk and Druid classes aren't in DDO. If someone finds a dev quote they can footnote that explains why the devs say they're missing, include that too. I'd stay away from speculation, though, on whether or not the devs are "lying" about their reasoning, etc. I was in beta myself, and I do remember the devs vaguely mentioning some general issues with the Monk and Druid, such as a problem implementing shapechanging and concerns about Monk loot and abilities and animations. If the "Book of Dev" is still around somewhere, it might have some of those quotes. Dugwiki 15:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monster Compendium

the ddo article doesn't seem to be the right place for this as it's getting way too big very fast, it is also just a copy paste from the forum mainly. creating a seperate article seems better in my opinion. Boneyard 09:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree, this is not the place for the Monster Compendium. If it is moved and more monsters are added, it might also be a good idea to scale it down slightly i.e. less detail, with a link to the ddo forum. --Smautf 13:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Doubly agreed.Doidimais Brasil 04:54, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
i pointed it out twice to the person doing it on his talkpage, but he ignores that and just keeps adding monsters. Boneyard 08:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. So I was and deleted the section. The "Monster Compendium" was deeply flawed. First, it's pretty obviously a copyright violation. For example, the Minotaur entry was directly copied from " Samera, Community Specialist" over at ddo.com. Second (and more minorly), the section title is based on D&D terminology; an encyclopedia entry should speak plainly, "List of Enemies in the Game". Third, the list was woefully incomplete (unsurprising given that the game hasn't been released). "An very incomplete list of enemies in the game" isn't very useful. Fourth, by quoting the original developers comments and strategy tips, you aren't adding factual information, you're adding the claims of one group of people. The resulting entries had a serious Wikipedia:Neutral point of view problem. Finally, the entries simply aren't encyclopedic. Unfortunately I can't clearly describe what's wrong with their presence, but if I'm going to a a reference work to look up a game, I really don't care about a list of monsters in the game. I care about who designed it, what is noteworthy about it, if any other games were influenced by it and what it was influenced by. Alan De Smet | Talk 22:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
well thanks i guess, stuff like this is in my opinion tricky choosing between be bold and don't bite the newbies. Boneyard 08:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
nice one. i'll remove the "attention see talk" sign from the article - you solved the problem we had. i'm sure the article will receive some attention when the game enters beta. Smautf 20:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
On the subject of the monster compendium, there is a wiki all for ddo where that would much better be placed, ther an interwiki link for something like 'list of monsters' and such, perhaps some wikifying of the article with links to definitions of things like class enhancements on the DDOwiki mught be on order - it seems pretty developed 24.237.6.216 22:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

should there be a limit on how much is added here? or the language of the links being added? people often see wiki as a nice advertising spot and before you know you have more links then actual content here. wiki isn't meant as some link storage site i believe. as for the language thing, i mean this is the english wiki, why have links to a german site for a topic that isn't german. Boneyard 13:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - one of the other sites listed on the page is a wiki, but it's completly dead (no edits in past 60 days when I checked) and no content - people removed it twice, and I agree with them, so am removing it again. Please leave some reason here before adding it AGAIN. The other other wiki seems active (at least a bit) so I'm leaving it on - feel free to comment. -Peerless too lazy to login, 137.229.184.161 06:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm adding descriptions for the site, explaining why they are interesting. A list of sites without such descriptions is nearly useless. This also emphasizes which sites aren't useful reference sites. On that note, I plan on deleting the following, barring anyone explaining why they are of value: 1) DDO Guild Forums - they provide a nice service (free forums for DDO guilds), but it doesn't seem like reference material. 2) DNDOGURU - just looks like a generic fan site with announcements. No sigificant reference material. Also, a little stale. 3) DDO @ Ten Ton Hammer - generic news site. Some reference material (guides), but not a lot. Alan De Smet | Talk 00:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Per above, I pulled the DDO Guild Forums, DNDOGURU, and DDO @ Ten Ton Hammer. Alan De Smet | Talk 23:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More analysis

I think this article could use a section analysing the differences between the implementation of the 3.5 rules in DDO and the official 3.5 rules, as well as a comparison to other computer games that have attempted to implement the same rules (e.g., Neverwinter Nights). This would explain how this game differs from its predecessors, and how close it is to the actual "paper" version of the game. I'm not part of the beta test, and I have no idea if enough data is available to do this sort of analysis. Canonblack 19:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't say this. That's the place for the version 3.5 article (or whatever it is), not this article. bob rulz 02:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there might be a place for commonly appearing criticism of DDO, just as there is for City of Heroes in its wikipedia entry. One commonly appearing criticism is that Dungeons and Dragons Online has moved away from many standard and traditional features of D&D, features that have appeared in other computer games based on D&D, but rather emulates those D&D games that also moved away from the normal ruleset to the detriment of the gameplay. Also, there is criticism that it has little to do with Eberron's unique flavor and theme.
Of course, a place for praise would also be good. (Anonymous)
Already exists: http://en.ddowiki.ws/w/PnP_differences - add it as a external link if you like. 66.58.239.135 06:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The link you suggest is on another website, and is not a Wikipedia site as far as I can tell. There is room within this article for a succinct list of apparent flaws (such as mentioning that many players who are dissatisfied with DDO express that it differs too strongly from PnP rules for their taste, others expressing that it also differs noticably from the Eberron Campaign World setting that DDO derives from).
... 'A Wikipedia'? What the heck is 'A Wikipedia'? It's running on MediaWiki software if that's what you mean. And it sure is a wiki, working on the same basic principles that founded wikipedia.

[edit] Name change

Shouldn't this be Dugeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach? bob rulz 02:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah... hemmm... hahh... I'm not sure. My guess is that Stormreach is only the name of the initial release (like Star Wars Galaxies: An Empire Divided) and that D&D Online will be the overreaching name. But that's my opinion. Donovan Ravenhull 03:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
could be indeed, perhaps make a reveral from the complete name to here, but changing doesn't seem needed. Boneyard 09:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Heh, I just made a redirect from Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach since I thought it was odd that it was a red link in the upcoming video game releases list. Didn't even know there was already a discussion about the naming in the first place.  :p --TheKoG 15:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If the official title is Dungeons and Dragons: Stormreach the ":" means it's a subtitle, doesn't it? Either way that's a lot of freaking syllables. TotalTommyTerror 09:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Need to adda few pictures.

that would indeed be nice yes. Boneyard 08:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solo content and PvP section is wrong

The section on solo content and PvP gives the wrong impression. Turbine announced they would add more solo content... not that you would be able to solo the entire game. Also, PvP was never said that it would not ever be implemented... only that it wouldn't be in the game at release.

http://www.ddo-europe.com/faq.php?type=About%20Game&page=15

Finally... co-operative gameplay is very possible in PvP... when you play Team vs Team.

--J-Star 10:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

While you are correct to a certain extent, the URL (and answer in it) is a bit misleading. It was made very clear during the alpha/beta periods of DDO's development that so-called "heavy PvP" would never be a part of the game. While "light PvP" was considered (and "not to be included at launch"), several times during the beta period it was made extremely clear that the community shouldn't hold their breath for even that much. The widely suggested position of the Turbine staff was that PvP of any sort had no real place in D&D or DDO and they had no plans at all on the table for its inclusion in the game -- at best it was a very distant possibility.

The following letter to the community gives an idea of the general tone that they introduced the notion of no-PvP with:

http://www.mmhell.com/news/101404/920_cp2.html

(Note that the URL to the original board post pointed to the Beta version of the forums, which no longer exists, so you can't see the original anymore as per the deletion of those forums in entirety).

Furthermore, despite a "team vs. team" situation calling for co-operation between members of the same team, that by no means fits the commonly understood definition of co-operative game play; rather, co-operative game play is defined by all human players sharing a co-operative and non-hostile game experience with one another. Team vs. Team PvP is PvP, plain and simple.

--D

[edit] Beta information in the introduction

The details on Beta testing should not be in the opening paragraph. The beta is over and done with, and while its a notable part of the game's history, it's not so important that it should be in the introduction. See WP:LEAD for the manual of style on the lead paragraph. If there's disagreement on this issue, let's discuss here and try and come to a concensus. -- MisterHand 14:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but move it higher in the article. That kind of information should either be before or after discussion of gameplay mechanics. Not right in the middle of them.

Actually, I'll move it.

TotalTommyTerror 08:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section needs ref.

The criticism section is full of POV opinions. That section needs references to show such criticism or it has to go. --J-Star 08:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that the references that were there have been removed by subsequent editors
So put them back... or take out the section.--J-Star 08:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Well you could write pages on how the game breaks with D&D rules and through that often spoil the interest of pen and paper players, you dont need many references, player's handbook, monster manual etc etc take a look at the core books, and you'll see that D&D Online is only D&D in the name.
This has been nagged to death on the forums... don't bring such unencyclopedic nonsense to Wikipedia. And let me just point out that you do not decide what is D&D or not. WotC owns the brand and they have given Turbine the go-ahead. Hence, DDO is D&D, whether you like it or not. --J-Star 12:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The criticism section currently consists of a header and a box indicating issues with the now non-existant text. Time to erase it? Or does someone have relevant non-PoV criticism to post? --Junior612 22:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Nuked. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CORPG

This game seems to fall into the heading of CORPG, would it be correct to move it into this genre? The typical amount of players in a combat instance in D&D Online is 6 players, with 12 players being maximum for special instances. --Wormywyrm 22:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems to meet the definition in CORPG, but note that the CORPG article appears to be an unreferenced stub. There is no verfication within the article that the term has any sort of widely accepted use within the industry. In fact, as it stands, the article admits that only two games, Fury and Guild Wars, officially use the term to describe themselves. Therefore, with the lack of references, it's quite possible the article could fail to meet WP:V policy and might end up being deleted. Dugwiki 22:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] do u have to have a subscrition?

i was wondering whether this game needs monthly fee to play like Wow. could u say if it does need a monthly fee or not?

A monthly fee is required. I don't know if that's worth mentioning in the article, however, given that a monthly fee for a game of this type is generally considered to be the norm. --Junior612 21:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/u/n/Talk%7EDungeons_%26_Dragons_Online%7E_Stormreach_55dd.html"