Talk:Massively multiplayer online real-time strategy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
This article has been the subject of the MMOGCM, a collaborative effort to improve MMO and MMO-related articles. To see other past collaborations, please see our collaboration history page.
Knight chess piece This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy 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.
Strategy games To-do:
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.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:


    • Add history.
    • Add development information.
    Priority 1 (top) 

    Contents

    [edit] Move again

    I agreed that the location of MMORTS was a bad location for this stub. But words in an article title shouldn't all be capitalized unless it is a proper name (such as George Washington). So I moved it to the appropriately named location. See also the similar discussion on MMORPG. —Frecklefoot 16:57, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

    It's a name of a category, no one refers to an MMORTS as "massive multiplayer online real-time strategy", everyone uses "Massive Multiplayer Online Reak-Time Strategy". The same thing happens with Arecibo Observatory and Massive Multiplayer Online Game. --Maio 20:14, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

    See my comments on the talk page for MMORPG. This article move should stand and the other should be moved. —Frecklefoot 21:18, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

    [edit] Mech Crusaders

    My apologies for including Mech Crusaders game under the heading of MMORTS - however, I am a little confused as to why it should be edited out - can someone enlighten me? Mech Crusaders is a real time Strategy game, and it is massively mulitplayer too... only its medium is a browser window rather than its own executable. Can it not still be included? Kouros 18:08, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

    I haven't played it yet, but I couldn't see how a browser game could be a Real-time strategy game. Looking at the definition again, such browser games are indeed Real-time strategy games, like pretty much every other browser game in which you get ressources and can build armies etc., therefore all of these games should be mentioned here, or none of them. I'd vote vor the latter one, and list games like Mech Crusaders here. I'm unsure of my actions now tho, because technically spoken, you're right. I just think people never thought of browser games when they invented the term "Massively multiplayer online real-time strategy". --Conti|✉ 18:50, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
    Thanks, ContiE. Admittedly, I had the same thought - sometimes these new definitions are given too freely, and, if I may be blunt, someone really needs to give a firm statement that X is really part of Y family or whatever.
    If I had to choose, I would suggest that browser games would not be given their own subcategory, but should be placed within the genre that the actual game is placed, and not its medium. Kouros 19:16, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

    [edit] Sole Survivor

    Although I cannot remember it very much, infact I never owned it as it didn't get a European release, but didn't Command and Conquer Sole Survivor allow a lot of players at once? Yeah you controlled one unit and all, but it's still a real-time strategy in a MMO setting. - Ferretgames 15:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Shattered Galaxy in External Links?

    Uh... Shouldn't Shattered Galaxy be included in the external links section? Or is that not needed since it's mentioned in the second paragraph..

    [edit] Battle For Middle Earth 2

    Wouldn't this game fall under this category?

       No BFME2 is just an RTS game, not MMORTS.

    [edit] Rewrite required

    Apart from the opening paragraph, this article is just a mess of adverts and random facts about random games. I don't know enough about the genre to rewrite it heavily, but we should be shaping this into at least a coherent history of the MMORTS - how the genre began, what developments its made and what the most notable examples of it are at the moment. --McGeddon 12:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] ASSAULT 3.0 MUD

    This was the first RTS DikuMUD. It's code was never publically released. 70.5.234.118 06:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] {{to do}}

    Can we please fill in the to do list (I predict it will be very long)--Exarion 00:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] MMORTS Titles

    I need help gathering popular released and anticipated announced titles for more examples of content in the genre. Will also try to clean up the article as a whole.ITZKooPA 19:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

    I can help with that but I've only been able to add three more popular active MMORTS. I think that's all we can add considering how little MMORTS there is. (UTC)

    Maybe use google sometime and actually visit a MMORTS site? Seems we have no MMORTS players deleting stuff here but MMORPGers. Boundless Planet and Time of Defiance deleted? Saga? Beyond protocol? This is meant to be an information source not a version of history dreamed up by specific contributors. --Stoneface1970 00:30, 12 January 2008

    Stoneface1970: What would you say are MMORTS sites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.57.190 (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

    I would challenge that the definition of a few things need to be described. First: When did having masses of marketing constitute that a game is meant to be included? If mass marketing was the example, there are MANY artists in the renaissance period that would not have been included. If you remember the beginning of the FPS genre, it was a couple of guys in a garage. Perhaps we should go and delete DOOM and Wolfenstein from the FPS genre because they didn't get a number one hit on the google search or had tons of advertising in their period? If you insist on the amount of marketing material, then perhaps we need to get the gaming magazines and television ads, run through their advertisements and figure out which ones are an MMORTS?

    Second: MMORTS is a genre that is still in its infancy. I think that MMORTS.com is a pretty reliable source for figuring out what games are in the genre and have current relevance. MMORTSGamers.com is another site that is player led that shows a number of titles in the genre. So instead of adding and deleting the same content over and over. Perhaps its time that we explain what an MMORTS is and it is not. To do this, we need to break apart the MMO from the RTS and answer the questions seperately and then discover what an MMORTS really will become.

    Third: Google is a known scam that if the site owner works extremely hard on their links, they can get to the number one slot. It is absurd to think that Google is the end all of knowledge. As much as their stockholders believe it is, that is still left to debate. --Interested Observer, 1/12/2008

    I removed those titles because this is an article about the genre, not a list of games in the genre. They were listed as "announced titles," and the genre is also in its infancy as stated, so I don't think it's really prudent to include them. Even so, mature genres still don't get this listing. (eg, FPS and RTS.) In the case of Boundless Planet, it was inserted at the very top of the list, with a description that was almost certainly vanity of some sort, although I think someone else deleted that entry. All that said, this article is not a list. It shouldn't list every single released game in the genre. However, I think it's fine to keep them on this page, at least until the genre matures a bit and we can start seeing a wider variety of titles; but not the titles that are still in development.
    As McGeddon says in the Rewrite Required section above, this article just looks like a messy collection of advertising with the title list. Ong elvin (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    For a genre that is completely internet based and (for the titles listed) does its distribution on the net, Google is a perfect way to judge inclusion. While simply having sufficient hits does not mean it should be included, not having sufficient hits means it doesn't belong. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 14:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

    Well being as it consistently gets edited by many who know nothing about the genre- this has led to it being ignored bar google. How do you explain the MMORPG and WoW entry? Would it be fair - having not played it - for me to edit it according to MY views on the genre? More history will be added as will more relevant genre specific information but until this is put together you leave the genre with an impression of inactivity. The comments on history and problems are inaccurate and misleading but we haven't culled it until we have replacement text. The inclusion of the word avatar speaks volumes about the authors actual knowledge in the genre as only one game has such a feature - Dreamlords - and this is still in beta. So? Let us evolve the content without barbaric editing - guide us fine but continued deletions according to a genre newbies whim will lead to more strife here. Small developers have more riding on this than Blizzard and their HUGE WoW walkthrough you have left unedited. Disgraceful double standards.

    As to the contention that Boundless planet was pumped up - set up by two devs in a room it held its own and defined many areas of the genre for innovation. Maybe the mankind fan stroked you all up the right way but the article is only about Mankind and Shattered Galaxy - A MMORTT !! Let the experts arguye over this and see how busy it gets. Leaving it to wiki to define has led to very little activity and led to wanna be admins acting like gods. BTW - the author asking me to define the genre thought I had posted the comments above mine - the ones who seemed to think no MMORTS games existed. ie the genre newbs. Stoneface1970 22:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

    Well, even genre newbs can know when something absolutely isn't right. "HUGE WoW Walkthrough" got a whole lot of their articles deleted a while back, don't have to be a genre pro to know they didn't belong (just able to tell what is and isn't encyclopaedic). Even if it weren't, you can't really say it's double standards; it could just be that there's no-one who can be stuffed cleaning up. With the BETA titles, I still think they shouldn't be there, even if they're pretty much guaranteed to be released soon; although like I said, genre is still in its infancy, so I'm not gonna balk at it. Should probably keep the lists in alphabetical order, or some other similar criteria. Ong elvin (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    Stoneface, it seems you want us to ignore all Wikipedia convention regarding verifiability and notability just so you can have your precious MMORTS games listed? If only so called MMORTS-experts know about them, then they're not very notable are they? (Also, if you bothered to read the article it says that MMORTSes DON'T use avatars.) --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

    TheSeer, wikipedia is always balancing such conventions and there are many areas that need attention. There are entries here for soft drinks with a list of ingredients and nothing else!! Come on - you obviously are annoying the actual gamers here and relegating wiki to nothing content wise. Why do you keep referring to lack of notability? Surely the more notable the less need for wiki? Everything on the wiki entry for WoW is duplicated on actual WoW wikis! So relevant? The point also highlights the opposite of your argument in that without notability surely those seeking knowledge would need the links to game pages to get more information about such an obscure subject. As to the deletion of Boundless Planet - many games in your browser game list have far less subscribers or warrant pages of their own. The point of the games list is relevant then as it points to information not given in the main entry. btw - check out mmortsgamers.com - you made the forum :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneface1970 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

    This latest series of edits by some user has expanded on the history of the genre. Not that I think the information is bad per se but... it's style just seems wrong. I dunno... Ong elvin (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    Again I repeat - a whole bunch of WoW articles were deleted a while ago. The ones that remain were shown to fit under alternative policies for inclusion, such as WP:FICT. Notability is a criterion for inclusion. Yes, you can argue "the more notable the less need for a wiki" but then that means that I myself should have an article, doesn't it? Ong elvin (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    I agree, the style is too informal and ... strange. I've removed a paragraph about "community" issues that weren't unique to the MMORTS at all and rewritten a lot of the other paragraphs. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 04:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    If you think the games on the browser game list article don't warrant inclusion, then remove them. However, you'll likely find that they probably have a larger player base than most of the MMORTSes mentioned due to their ease of playability. Also, just for the record (since you seem to want to assume too much) I've played Boundless Planet... long long time ago, I think I even attacked your base once. Also, as to the forum article:
    • "As for the Boundless Planet entry - they seem to think I owned it - shows how much they bother actually finding out about things. The deletion states.." -- Twinkle automatically informs the creator of the article, that doesn't mean that you own it but as the creator you were likely to believe that it warranted inclusion and hence it warned you.
    • "though as this is hindering our genre and the developers who are3 banking on providing us with amazing games to play." -- This makes it exceedingly obvious that your only purpose is not to improve the wiki, but to advertise the MMORTS genre. Infact, every comment you make on the forum post is twisting my intent and I cannot believe you could draw the conclusions that you have from my comments (you can't even seem to identify sarcasm).
    • What MMORPG interests? I play KoL casually (it's a browser based game, do you see me trying to delete every non-browser based game? I think not.) -- I also play The Universal which has like ... 50 players, and doesn't have a Wiki article. Did I try to defend it in the AFD? No! What? So you mean all your misconceptions are baseless? Oh wow, stoneface is fallible... impossible!
    • And, the deleting administrator doesn't need to leave a comment. They deleted it via speedy deletion! To use one of your own arguments back on you, you obviously have no idea how to use Wikipedia, and should go away. This statement doesn't have any merit, but it's using the exact same YOU: MMORTS-expert, Me: MMORTS-newb argument you use. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 04:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

    I will only reply to this point ""As for the Boundless Planet entry - they seem to think I owned it - shows how much they bother actually finding out about things. The deletion states.." -- Twinkle automatically informs the creator of the article, that doesn't mean that you own it but as the creator you were likely to believe that it warranted inclusion and hence it warned you." Actually this is one of many occasions that folk have removed Boundless Planet for dubious reasons - you rewrite our content elsewhere yet this gets deleted outright lol. On all previous occasions Boundless was removed and the reason given was interested parties and self promotion. This last time he didnt bother and used a catch all for admins...zzz. You then justified it in pm to my Talk thus inferring you knew the reasons. At this point I was unaware some nitpicker had deleted it, thus this was a joint effort not a response to my incredulity. I am a gamer and the only link ive put on is to my genre specific site - trust me - we are usually above wiki in google and MSN search so its not a begging bowl - quite the opposite - we have much more verifiable info than your amateur online encyclopedia. And I placed the competition in first - not quite as unfair as your ethos here eh lol. Stoneface1970 (talk 14:30 16th January 2008

    Please see the external linking and conflict of interest guidelines - we generally do not allow editors to insert links to their own sites. - Ehheh (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


    Self-promotion Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates. Examples of these types of material include: 1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links). 2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. 3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

    Ok - I set up www.mmortsgamers.com to ensure we have an adequate supply of victims for our games - very naughty of me to be sooo greedy eh lol. What an evil agenda I have MUHAWHAHAHWAH etc etc. We only carry verifiable content and strictly edit our material - unlike 99% of wiki. We are one of two sources for this genre on the web and I published the competitive site above my own as it has been around longer. I don't make money - far from it - the site costs me money in hosting and software permissions. The games on our lists are not up to anyone to decide if they are noteworthy - its up to the families that depend on them and the banks that fund them. State those opinions if you hold a position that lends itself to such authority - or leave alone. And anyone who believes mmorpg and browser MMOG's subscriber stats are naive beyond belief. They never delete old accounts and offer incentives for one off joins to impress advertisers.

    And your stats for Fragmented galaxy btw are false as one article about their game has had over 1600 hits on our site alone. In fact it shows the highest interest for any alpha so far. You know what opinions are like and everyone has one.

    Do you seriously expect me, with my opinions on the utter wastes of time that are MMORPG games, to even go there? 1/ I have no interest in them 2/ I loathe the fake RPG element - so imagine the hack job i could do! That is how everyone I have spoken too views your edits. Unwanted and ignorant and biased. Two folk have asked me to calm it down but not give up - personally I don't care - they want to step up to the plate let them. Funny but you deleted one of their contributions after it was corrected to make sense grammatically.

    Then i find this which makes no sense lol

    A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia free from original research, and the aims of an individual editor.

    Now please go edit that gibberish which implies wiki only contains information if it is free from original research lol - thus not verifiable surely? I have no interest in this so will leave it for those with time on their hands :) Stoneface1970 (talk 18:43 16th January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 18:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Fair use rationale for Image:SGscreenshot.jpg

    Image:SGscreenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

    Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

    If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Travian-type games

    It seems to me that games like Travian (ex.Tribal Wars) would also fit under this category. I'm not saying we sould list them all, but Travian is larger than Ikariam and I think it would provide a good picture of what these games are like.

    P.S. Sorry but I haven't looked up how to hyperlink yet. Travian: http://www.travian.com/index.php Tribal Wars: http://www.tribalwars.net/ Derekristow (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

    A browser based game would have to make more use of AJAX than Travian does (or be flash/java) to be included here. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] List of released titles

    Okay, I'm going to make this clear. Mankind and Shattered Galaxy seem to have been bumped to the top of the list after I put it in alphabetical order. If I see them at the top of the list again, I'm going to assume that it's ADVERTISING, and remove them from the article. Same goes for other titles being changed around after I re-alphabetise them. Ong elvin (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

    Oh wait, I see it now. They've been arranged chronologically by release year. I'll just make a hidden comment then. Ong elvin (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)