Talk:Conquer Online

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conquer Online article.
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.
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on November 12, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.
This is not a forum for general discussion of Conquer Online.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

Contents

[edit] Rebirth

If someone could add a section on rebirth, that would be swell. I'd do it, but I'm tired after rewriting the entire article ;). I don't know how to make a post... so w/e... but ill make a rb section.. -- Rediahs 08:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

Last time I read this, the article was a little bias to the archer as the best class. IT is not the best class, even though it can level faster than most classes. its considered to be weaker than the tao(which is my character type, but i personally chose it to be one of the better class's since it has increased attack and it has the range) on dream. My tao is only level 79 and it can take out a level 90 archer, do more damage than it, and have more health than it. Half-life guy

Yeh archers pretty much suck 69.167.179.163
I don't find it biased in archers being the "best" class. I do, however, find it biased in many other areas, which I've been trying to clean up, but I am only one person here. Bad grammar NEEDS to be removed or reworded. And comments such as "The unhelpful GMs" should never occur here.
I think the problem is that most of the people editing this page are from Conquer's fanbase, which mostly consists of little kids... we need more encyclopedic people here. -- Rediahs 23:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah that might be the problem... but if you re-read the paragragh it does clearly state that an archer levels the fastest, are the better hunters, best at power leveling. That is not true in some cases. If, say, some one goes to mystic castle to get power leveled, they would want a warrior or a trojan to do it for them. For hunting, fire circle does about the same thing as scatter, only its stronger. Also who ever said that they are the only ones trying to clean this article point of view problem, your not the only one who is trying to clean it up... people like Rediahs and I are trying our best to help. Half-life guy
I think i fixed most of the grammer problems in the warrior paragraph. If its not fixed, just shoot me! Oh and who deleted the reflect information in that paragraph... that skill is a very good one that should be in there.Half-life guy
It was me, and I said that "I am only one person here". Read it carefully. :) My message spanned two paragraphs. By the way, you indent again for another reply. Think of email. -- Rediahs 21:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
ahh, im sorry for the misunderstanding... Talk to you later Rediahs Half-life guy
I have re-written about half the article, up to about the water taoist section, in both clean up and to attempt to remove the NPOV dispute. Discuss whether this has been acheived - is there a justification to remove the warning? I will finish my re-write tomorrow. Comments appreciated - it may now need further correction. Ale_Jrb 21:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

Some people who have been editing this article have been introducting horrible grammar and spelling mistakes to the article.

I'd just like to ask that, if you are going to add content to this article, please do one of these things:

a) Run a spellcheck on your addition, and proofread it several times for grammar.
b) If english is not your native language or you just aren't very good at grammar, get a more literate friend to review your changes before you enter them.
c) Finally, you can't do either of the above things reasonably well, or can't produce an encyclopedia-quality article, please completely refrain from adding to the article.

Thanks,

Rediahs 21:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Rediahs, you can start by spelling "introducing" correctly.
Most I think is done off translations from the chinese articles. I am not one to be an editor but it does need a cleanup. Obleku 10:19, 20 April 2006
Thanks for the coy remark - "introducting" was simply a typo. People make those. -- Rediahs 22:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Great Gatsby ~ Over this weekend, I will review and edit this entire section for improved grammar. If time allows, I will also add additional information that is lacking within this page. If possible, somebody please upload the Conquer logo. If desired you may search for my posts on the official forums for "Great Gatsby". I do not play this game anymore, but I sparingly visit the forums for entertainment.

[edit] Things to add

It would be nice if someone could add a section on marriage, obtaining a house, and mining / gem types. --Porqin 12:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • There are currently a section on gems. However, keep in mind we don't want to make the wiki article so detailed that it becomes an exact copy of the original site. --Steven 15:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Mentioning the possibility of getting married, obtaining a house (general idea) can be done in a few sentences. It isn't needed to give a walk-through on the precise steps in obtaining a house for example. --Porqin 12:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I need somone to finish up what i have done to 2nd reborn. --Webstrand 04:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we re-add the section on staff? I understand it has been subject to vandalism but I believe the section - in it's non-vandalised form! - is of relevance to the article. Discuss? Summoner Marc 19:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should add a Criticism part as other games have that aswell. Plus it might reduce the vandalism because we'd acknowledge that CO is not perfect. ~~Gunshin

  • I like this suggestion. It's commonly found in other game articles so I don't see why not.--SummonerMarc

[edit] Notability not asserted

Hi - I'm not sure this article satisfys Wikipedia's required assertions of notability. Wikipedia isnt a game guide (see: WP:NOT). MidgleyDJ 21:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Whilst is is possible that some areas of the guide need rewriting, I do not believe that WP:NOT applies enough here to allow an undiscussed deletion. For notability, websites such as onrpg.com, mmorpg.com and mmosite.com hold sections for the game, which has a reasonably substantial number of players. As such, I am contesting your proposal for deletion. If you wish a deletion to still be considered, it can be listing in WP:AfD. Ale_Jrbtalk 17:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Since prodding the article I've done further googling and think the subject is notable. The trouble is 1. Notability isnt asserted in anyway in the current version of the article and 2. the article is unencyclopedic. Wikipedia isnt a game guide - and that's sadly the current version is just that - a game guide. MidgleyDJ 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with the system requirements

Intel Pentium III 800 MHz equiv. CPU, 128 MB RAM, 16 MB or higher 3D graphics card such as GeForce 2 or better, 1 GB hard drive space, DirectX 8.1, Internet connection of at least 56 kbit/s; and DragonBalls

[edit] Conquer is Notable!

If anyone has ever logged onto the game, and notice the wide amount of players playing, they would notice that Conquer Online is actually quite notable. I suppose, for the refrences, we'll just have to look at [ignoring all rules] for the time being. Conquer Online should not be excluded from an Encyclepedia! Kopf1988 01:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There, I ignored all rules... for about 2 minutes, then found you a couple of sources. If you need more... maybe you should look for them and use them instead of complaining that there aren't enough of them. Kopf1988 02:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)YEAAAAAAAAAH!

[edit] Conquer Trojan Virus

Perhaps there should be a note about the trojan virus in conquer online a few years ago.. The one that screwed up several peoples computers.. Does anyone remember what the name of the virus was? It was a really nasty one. Karozoa 05:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not part of the game itself and not notable enough to put into the Wiki. That would be like putting every virus that the Kazaa client has had in its lifetime in its article. If it has one. FlamingZelda (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Upgrading Equipment

I think this section in the article is very lengthy and full of information that's not required in the Wikipedia article. I can shorten it. Discuss ^^ --SummonerMarc 08:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Removal.

I think the copy editing and tone labels at the top of the article should be removed. Some work has been done on the article and I think these don't apply so much anymore. --Summoner Marc 03:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude, the grammar is out-of-control atrocious. I'm halfway through (mostly) fixing it, but even when I'm done, I don't intend to remove the copy editing label. The thing is broken and needs more help than I can give it. Jessicapierce 21:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. After I had posted the above, I read the article again and totally took back what I said. I just didn't delete it. I've read your modifications and that's some nice work. You clearly have more patience than I do. Good stuff. SummonerMarc

It's not patience so much as being stuck at home sick with nothing better to do than fix every single broken comma on the internet. I mean, thank you! Jessicapierce 05:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Please don't add in your personal opinions. Wikipedia has a policy of a neutral view point and I'd like to eventually see the grammar label removed from this page. Cheers. Summoner Marc 04:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elite Pvpers

There should be some mention of them in the artical, for the notable negative effect they have had on the conquer online comunity, i have made a small mention of them, i added it under critasiums, It is the primary source of the hacks and cheats in conquer online, and with the constant strugle with bots, and hacks, such as CoTobo, CoPartner, Ect Ect, The list goes on, it is worth mentioning somthing about them.

  • I disagree. I don't think it's worth mentioning these things to any great length, especially to the length of naming the programs causing the issues. To start, the issue itself is TQ's problem and not Wikipedia's. Naming the programs on the page could encourage the searching of them [as well as naming the site to actually get them!]. I'm aware that this too isn't exactly wikipedia's problem either, but I don't think it's good to name them 'cause it could be seen as actively promoting it. I do agree there should be a mention of them, and there is in the Criticism section of the article. Summoner Marc 22:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree as well. If we did this, then the WoW article here would need a mention of all the sites that host hacks etc for WoW. It's just something we cannot start. FlamingZelda (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

I'm going to submit this page to be semi-protected due to vandalism. Any objections? Summoner Marc 03:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reworked the page.

I've reworked all the sections in the page to an extent, some more than others. Questions? Comments? Reverts? --Marc 06:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability (again)

I have found some sources independent of the company who produce Conquer Online, affirming it's notability [in my opinion!]:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

I understand that popularity is bad grounds, so I've tried to get some secondary sources for you. See below also for my discussion on other sources.

For the moment, I have left the tag :) --Marc 10:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(I have corrected your links) These are all sites that list tons of games, and aren't an indication of any notability (if you don't believe that almost every game out there is notable, since most games are listed on some of these sites). Is the game reviewed in e.g. PC magazine, or Gen4, or other general or game-only magazines (preferable not online-only magazines)? Has it been reviewed in any newspapers? Has it received any serious awards (not the "pick of the week" of some website)? Compare the links given in EverQuest, with e.g. some BBC stories. I have to say that looking through the MMORPG category, there are many unsourced (externally) articles, and some truly dreadful ones (Intialy Online?). However, that doesn't change the fact that this one is not independently sourced and has no indication of noatbility (as defined in WP:NOTE), and that the sources given are not really an improvement. Fram 11:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I corrected my links myself, but thanks anyway. Leave your tag on, then. Also, what's Gen4? Marc 11:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Gen4 was the major French gaming magazine until it disappeared in 2004[6] (yep, I'm not really up to date on this :-) ) I just gave it as an example of major gaming magazines, of which there are enough around, without having to rely on online sites which list tons of games and do not really make a distinction between them.Fram 11:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Then you are correct regarding it's notability. Marc 12:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, it is refreshing that someone who has worked on an article recognises its problems as well. I'll leave it alone for now, perhaps someone else will have good sources for it: it looks more notable (or potentially notable) than the similar articles I have nominated for deletion today at least. Fram 12:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

For the time being and duration of this discussion, I have removed the unsourced tag upon the article.

I think that the article is sufficiently sourced throughout. The facts that the sources are attributed to are indisputable. They are aspects of the Conquer Online programming, things coded into the game. Hence they are indisputable facts which one can experience by playing the game first hand. If and when these things change, the current sources will change, and the article will be altered.

I understand that the sources used are a primary source, but keeping in line with WP:NOR, the sources can be read by anyone who will conclude that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Marc 10:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the sources are being used only in an article about themselves Marc 10:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section.

Due to Seraphimblade's very valid argument against the crit section in this article, it has been removed for the time being. It should be readded when suitable sources can be found for what is said in it. Additionally, the entire section needs to be reworded to comply with a neutral view point. Please source it correctly if you're going to readd it :) --Marc Talk 05:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I have a look at Seraphimblade's argument? I'm surprised that there isn't a criticism section. In my experience, there is plenty of criticism of the game and the developers from within the playing community. BabyJonas 02:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It went something like this:

Me on his talk page: "Instead of deleting the section in Conquer Online, perhaps you could find sources for it? It was flagged as being NPOV and unsourced. For now I've deleted the entire section as it was pointless to have such a small part [which you left] in a section, especially the way it was worded [which you didn't correct, either]. Finding sources, rewording the section etc. would've been more productive. --Marc Talk 02:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)"

His response: "As far as an existing enterprise goes, that's very similar to WP:BLP, in that unsourced and controversial information should get gone quickly and come back later if sourceable. I've had a look for sourcing, but I really can't find a thing but a few forum postings, which of course are not reliable sources. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)"

My experience reflects yours with Conquer. There is severe crits from the games community but the section we had was very biased and unsourced to a very large degree. It's hard to find valid sources for this section for Conquer. Seraphimblade deleted the vast majority of the section that was present, and what he left seemed pointless on it's own [it was like, one sentence] so I deleted the whole thing. --Marc Talk 12:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Its true, there are few acceptable sources of criticism. It's difficult, since criticism of the game and developers is abundant and none of it can be reflected in the article. I think games (as opposed to Developers) are subject to more liberal criticism because they are essentially products, subject to reviews and critics. If this were about the developers, I would understand. Let me know if I'm out of line with this thinking.
I googled '"Conquer Online" sucks' and found that captured some of the criticism of the game. I think it could count as a source.
BabyJonas 18:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In MY opinion, your thoughts aren't out of line at all, in fact their dead on track [assuming I'm understanding you correctly] but it's hard to find valid sources to justify the liberal criticism - which is something we really need for it. I like your source you found there. It's focusing on the Dragonball crit. point which is one of the worst, hence it should be in the article I feel. Go for it :) --Marc Talk 01:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reborn Section

Yay I found out how to do this... Any ways, I added one.. So yea.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chomps268 (talk • contribs) 15:45, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing this section for now until it's rewritten to Wiki standards. I've left a note on your talk page! --Marc Talk 00:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Okay

So what do we do to stop all the disgruntled players from editing the article and adding bullshit and/or horrible grammar?

Is there maybe a sign we can put at the top of the page that will influence these people to leave or be more encyclopedic? --Rediahs 13:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that does become a bit of an issue at times. However I think it's managable so I don't think we need anything drastic. --Marc Talk 16:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)