Talk:Navy Field

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Navy Field 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the the assessment scale.
Map of Korea WikiProject Korea invites you to join in improving Wikipedia articles related to Korea.
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
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
CVG To-do:
To-do list for Navy Field: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  1. Add subsection regarding trade and Area 13
  2. Add more references
  3. Give a better description for Sailors section
  4. HA is no longer an upcoming feature, so there are now six battle modes

Contents

[edit] Is Navy Field a MMOPRG?

In my opinion, NF is more like MMORTS than MMORPG. Can anyone prove that NF IS a MMORPG? I'm confused.

RTS games are usually defined by army-level unit command, resource production and/or base building. Navy Field has none of these. Its combat system is more reminiscent of team deathmatch, instead of a strategic battle. It also has a ship customization and sailor stat system that borrows many features of modern RPGs (accrued EXP affects attack & defense stats, stronger items/weapons are available with increasing level, etc). Tronno 20:58, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

---MMORPG is Massivley Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game MMORTS Is what now? Massivley Multiplayer Online Real Time Strategy? yeah anyways...yes U are totally right it is a MMORTS..it even says it when u start playing...REAL TIME STRATEGY or NAVAL TACTICS GAME... just wanted to point that out. YEP...its really addicting...plaing it.

---Yes, I added it to the list of MMORTS's on the MMOG list.

[edit] Security

Someone should write about the lack of security (no encryption of passwords, not on the internet site nor to the log in server) also about the numerous macros etc. that has been tried... and also remember the guy who got banned after getting 72k xp pr game in BB missions? Here is the post made after he got busted for sending "false" packages to the NF server. http://www.navyfield.com/board/view.asp?Num=17053&Sort=C06 . -- cKaL 19:49, 4 January 2007 (CET)

[edit] Please, maintain a neutral tone as you write a Wikipedia article

Quote from the stub: "Belt Armour: This armour is for direct shots from close range. If you love close range combat is valuable armour for you!!"

Keep in mind that this is not a game manual or a gamer's guide to Navy Field. Keep personal opinion to yourself, and write in a factual tone. Thank you. (AWPerator)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Navy_Field"

[edit] About the new server

The new server Yamato is opened, but was promptly merged with Iowa server due to lack of players to create the Missouri server.


[edit] Read the article first!

To anyone who wishes to edit this article, please READ the WHOLE thing first, so that we don't duplicate statements, such as the fact that NF is now free. Also, the standards of grammar and spelling acceptable on the NF site are definitely not high enough for Wikipedia, which means that sloppy grammar and punctuation will be purged. Thank you. JodoYodo 12:58, August 25, 2006 (UTC)

I added the "game balance" section, like it was added for other games (see city of heroes for example). I think i mantained a NPOV but if you disagree we can talk about it. Sir_Dante

I added Soft Defense under the "Armor and Defense" section, seemed like the most appropriate place to put it. --Lord Kelvin 02:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

New Airplanes section added. --Lord Kelvin 05:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Added Weapons section. --Lord Kelvin 06:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Gave an overhaul to the Sailors/Crew section, and added a chart of abilities. --Lord Kelvin 19:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False claims made by SD Enternet

Shouldn't we also report the false claims made in the past by SDE about veterans (they couldn't change the veteran system due to a developer leaving the company- while it was changed in retail by charging players for veterans), harbor assault (which was supposed to go out at retail), BB5 (which were announced at 100 in a post by game master which was then deleted)? I think we should do it under the SDE section- they're facts, not POV Sir Dante 10:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Dante, I would definitely call those errors very bad miscommunications rather than lies.. And there is a big difference between the two. As for including them in the Wiki, imho the only purpose of including a section called "False Claims by SDE" would be to serve as a way to criticize SDE and the game itself. And honestly I don't see how anybody can maintain an NPOV while judging or criticizing something or someone. Archer <}- 21:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to point out all the lies, it should be sufficient to show how input is being treated (see the 'Balance' section) to show SD's behaviour from a Neutral POV. Obst & Gemuese 01:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If you can cite sources, yes. Until you can do that, you're engaging in libel. Rogerborg 12:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
You can't cite sources always, besides they deleted all the sources. But you can't just drop it: they happened, if someone wants to take them off he's free to do it after all.

Sir Dante 14:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can't cite sources, then accusations aren't suitable for Wikipedia. You are free to host them elsewhere. -- Rogerborg 11:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Anyways, i didn't add the section yet, that's why i'm asking here if that should be done. Probably the best thing to do is doing like archer suggested, we should call them "communication problems" and add one line to report them. I don't see why we should't do it after all! Sir Dante 14:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Rogerborg, since there are no books or links related to the matter i don't know how can you cite sources. This is a videogame, not an ancient battle over which there are dozens of sites and books- citing sources is just impossible here. You have to do what de facto happens, talk about how the game works and the community evolves: look at the other wiki pages for videogames (one above all, city of heroes) Sir Dante 10:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
That's unfortunate, as it's the standard that Wikipedia requires. Look, just below the editing window: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". You can allege what you like elsewhere, but you can't present original allegations here. The thing is, I agree completely with these allegations, and I know that they've been made elsewhere, but this is Wikipedia, and we need to play by Wikipedia rules and to Wikipedia standards, regardless of whether other entries happen to do so at any given point in time. Shall I drop you a hint? You don't have to show that the allegations are true, you just have to present them as allegations, and link to an external reference source where they are made, which may, but doesn't have to be, the Navy Field forums. It could be your own personal web page, for example. -- Rogerborg 15:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem here is that you're right, there are no verifiable sources that talk about Navy Field. But doesn't this mean that the whole article is speculation then...? Sir Dante 14:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The biggest thing is that SD is trying to predict things. I still think that they should stop coming out with new things and work on older problems.

[edit] We need more structure in the Ships Section

Currently the list of available ships is way too long, some kind of table should be used instead.

Anyone up for the job?

Obst & Gemuese 01:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's good as it is, someone should add links for the japanese ships- i did it for german ships but i'm too bored now to start the japanese ones! Sir Dante 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Done :) And now, since the whole page looks a bit longer the shiplist doesn't look that bad anymore to me either. Obst & Gemuese 17:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I might be able to start putting the ships of each nation into table format like Obst did with the classes when I get some time...Archer <}- 22:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
You forgot to put all the links for the kuma and remods and in the remodels of mogami ;) Fix my table if you find problems- this is even for you archer Sir Dante 07:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding ship table

I'm making the table for ships and i'll try to do it at my best, so if you can make it look better i will appreciate it. I also found several mistakes in the ships and a few broken link. For example, Mogami CA is listed as CA1 and Myoko CA2, while it's the opposite. PPro1 is listed as CA3, and there is no such class. Spaehkreuzer D40 was listed as DD2, it's a CL1. Sir Dante 07:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, CA1/CA2/CA3/DD2/CL1 aren't definitions used by Navy Field. They are player-created definitions. Cite sources! -- Rogerborg 11:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
They are indirectly used by game masters for clan wars and if you remember they actually called the new ships "BB5" Sir Dante 13:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
ORLY? Then cite the source in the article. -- Rogerborg 10:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The ship table has been moved into the new Ships article, but maybe it might be a good idea to just remove the player classifications and just bunch them all together, since that would help save space and make it more understandable for the guy who just happens to see the article randomly. --Lord Kelvin 21:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrected XP given to Free Accounts

Hi. Although SDEnternet claims that free accounts get a penalty of 40% on Exp and Credits (like stated on the wiki), it has been tested that the actual implementation of the system give only 40% of the regular XP and Creds to free accounts, (thus, the penalty is not 40% but 60%). On NavyField forums is disccused whether this is a bug, or an intended 'feature' to enforce suscriptions. Anyway, im updating the text accordingly.

Hi. "It has been tested" is not a reference. Hi. I'm changing your "in fact" to a claim. Hi. The substance of your change is preserved. Hi. But if you want to present it as fact, you need to cite an external source. Hi. -- Rogerborg 15:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't believe you need to be immature(constant use of "Hi.") to get your point across to people.

You're right, I don't have to. -- Rogerborg 00:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harbour Assault

I think someone should write a section on this, and edit the part about Harbour Assault not being released yet. As I haven't participated in one, I don't think this is for me -- JodoYodo

I'll be doing that when I have time, which may or may not come this weekend. --Lord Kelvin 01:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Done, revamped the section and added in the new BBs as well. --Lord Kelvin 01:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BO = Bridge Operator

BO stands for Bridge Operator in the game, not Bridge Officer. Shouldn't this be changed in the article? I understand that calling it a Bridge Officer makes it easier to understand, but everything else is properly named, so why not the BO? --Lord Kelvin 02:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NF Userbox[es] Now Available!

Insert the following code into your wikipedia user profile to show that you support NF!

{{Userbox |border-c = #000 |border-s = 1 |id-c = #fff |id-s = 12 |id-fc = #000 |info-c = #8ce |info-s = 8 |info-fc = #000 |id = [[image:Nflogo.png]] |info = This user plays '''[[Navy_Field|NavyField]]'''. }}

image:Nflogo.png This user plays NavyField.





(More userboxes possibly coming soon.. if i feel like it :P )
Archer <}- 04:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, i added it- my first userbox ;) Using your template i made an own one for my old university Sir Dante 09:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Individal Clan/Fleet Advertising

I noticed that the bottom of the article has been expanded on with links to individual fleet sites.

The question: Should or shouldn't individual fleets have the opportunity to promote and advertise their sites here on Wikipedia?

I believe that the links should be removed, for a few reasons. A) This is a reference article, not a link directory. It should be used ONLY for informational purposes, not to get more hits to another website.

B) This article is about NavyField. Fleets certainly do not have any direct association with NavyField or TeamNF/GMs, or how the game works. They are external groups of players that unify within the game; but do not define the game.

C) All or none. In the interests of fairness and equality, I think it is necessary that IF there is an extremely valid reason to lists fleet and clan websites here, ALL fleets and clans need to be included in this article. It is not fair to exclude a fleet (either intentionally or not) because if the entire fleet population is NOT represented in this NEUTRAL POV article, it could easily be seen a promotion for specific groups.

D) Fleets are not necessarily permanent. As such, why should an consistent, informative, and authoritative source like Wikipedia provide a listing of things that are not constant within the game?

Archer <}- 22:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

we should follow wiki guidelines and not link to clan/squads.Sir Dante 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
List of moderators should be stripped out. As Archer has mentioned already, moderators are not necessarily permanent, and similar demonstration of the wisdom behind that statement can be seen in the lack of presence of moderator listings in any other online game described within Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.219.102.200 (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
They're not permanent, but the mods are still an essential part of the game. And besides that, they change at nowhere near the same pace as fleets, and all or none is moot, since all mods are easily verifiable. --Lord Kelvin 06:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with keeping them, as they rarely change. WoW has what patch they are upto which basically changes weekly too... so a more permenant mod list is workable. Hellman109 01:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NEW BATTLESHIPS

The article has a section on new battleships (bb6s ?) is there a source and link to the pics as stated in the section?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.116.189.199 (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

First off, they're technically not BB6's, since their historical counterparts are nowhere near powerful enough to go toe-to-toe with the current BB5's, my opinion is that they're meant to be filler BBs in the 1-3 range. Second, no, I don't have links to the source or pics, but pics were posted on the NF forums a couple months back. --Lord Kelvin 07:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

BB6's? Those images were not official in any way. For all we know they could be user/fan created. SDEnternet has not said anything about new ships; so there is no reason to put fictional rumors into a wiki article.. Archer <}- 22:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like they became the PBB's, and they are now included. Hellman109 01:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs More Sections

Some important things about the game are still missing from the article. As far as I can tell, we still need some stuff about the training areas, trade (Area 13), missions, and maybe stuff about in-game humor (server hamster, ship nicknames, Obst gimp fetishes, etc.). Also, maybe a section about current game balance issues (ie. BB5 guns, IJN support, KM's "uberness", and so on) rather than simply saying "Game balance is a continually and hotly contested subject amongst players" would be beneficial. --Lord Kelvin 08:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL.. More sections?!?!?! Ahh the article is bulging at the seams already >.< Remember.. this article isn't supposed to be a manual for the game.. it's supposed to be an encyclopedia entry ;) Archer <}- 22:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The large number of sections seems to come from a generally poor organization, from what I can see. For example, the Weapons and the Aircraft sections can probably be combined, and some of the smaller sections, namely Gameplay, Game Balance, Ships & Designations, Payment, Game Modes, and SDE can be rolled into other sections, or turned into subsections for more generic main sections. --Lord Kelvin 06:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just did an organizational overhaul, cut the number of main sections down by 40% or so, so now there's only 11 main sections instead of 17, though the overall size remains about the same. I still think that there should be at least a section discussing Area 13 though, since it's very important in the game. --Lord Kelvin 08:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
One more thing, if the article really does get too big, we can split it into sections, such as giving Ships, Nations, Sailors, and Weapons their own articles, like they did with the EVE Online article. --Lord Kelvin 08:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ships and Weapons have been given their own articles, which has more or less cut the size of the article in half. I also plan to give Sailors its own article, but I'll do that when I have time. --Lord Kelvin 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bannable activites

Wouldn't it be jolly to maintain a list of all the activities that SDE and their creatures 'ban', but which they can't be bothered coding in fixes for? SDE will clearly never do it, but it would be helpful to players to know what the latest whims are. Remember, citations are necessary, even if you have to copy and host announcements elsewhere in case they're 'disappeared'. -- Rogerborg 00:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and start a subsection under Gameplay if you want. I currently have no access to playing (or the forums for that matter) right now so I can't contribute to it. Just keep it as neutral as you can. --Lord Kelvin 01:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Tish, I don't play NF any more. I just think it would be a wheeze to document the inconsistent ramblings and blustering threats for posterity. -- Rogerborg 16:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Are we sure they really *ban* people as I have been TKed sent images to a mod and the same day, and the day after they are still in the game despite assurances that these people will be banned. So if someone makes a section like that maybe you should add the following: "Although the moderators and GMs claim that they ban players who violate the rules above, it all comes down to if you pay for your account or if the moderators have a grudge against you." -- cKaL 19:37, 4 January 2007 (CET)

[edit] To-do List Added

I added a to-do list at the top that anyone can add to, to help better organize what needs to be done in the article. If anyone wants to add to it, feel free to. --Lord Kelvin 07:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ships, Sailors and Weapons: Big Move Completed

I've finished moving the Ships, Sailors, and Weapons sections of the article into their own articles, which has essentially cut the size of the main NF article down to a third or so. Easier to read now IMO. --Lord Kelvin 22:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, can someone give the Sailors section a look-over and make it better? I was sorta in a rush when I moved it, so the current description there sorta sucks. --Lord Kelvin 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please read all of the articles first!

I have to stress this again. If you're going to edit the article, please read the entire article, and also the other articles as well, to make sure that you're not duplicating information already in those sections! --Lord Kelvin 05:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] GM names

Should the GMs be named at all in this article? There are two issues here at hand:

1. Their real names aren't important as to their roles in NF 2. Not all of the GMs can be named, because not enough information is available

I think that we should do an all-or-nothing approach here. If all the GMs can be named, then go ahead and put their names there, but otherwise it interrupts the flow of the article if you can name some but not others. --Lord Kelvin 18:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/v/Talk%7ENavy_Field_90f4.html"