Talk:PlanetSide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the PlanetSide 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.
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.
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.
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] links

let's leave outfit links off of this, also, the Sturmgrenadier entry is WAY non-npov.--Txredcoat 00:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe you're correct. The writing style is definitively not similar to the rest of WP, though I don't think (especially in light of the recent addition of a paragraph about a splinter group from SG - Sunder) that it's written in a "pro-Sturmgrenadier" style. Of course, if someone wants to edit it into more WP-style, that would be marvelous. I think Chrono and I are a little too close to topic to do so even-handedly. If there were many such articles, I would suggest a link to the SG one, but I don't know of any others. I do think that some discussion of outfits should be included on this page, even if no examples are given. --Habap 17:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-- Just as a Side note, The splinter group Sunder, Does not have nor Will have a Planetside Portal.

[edit] Vehicle Descriptions

Well I've gone ahead and incorporated all the data from the Planetside Tanks and also added all of the other vehicles and such. Do you all think that is too much data or? --Eirek 24:39 11/09/05

I think the vehicle specs are a bit much for a simple encyclopedia article. Anyone who plays the game will already know where to find that information and anyone with a casual interest won't care at all. I think the text descriptions should suffice. You can call me Al 13:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Alright, I've gone ahead and updated the vehicles with just the descriptions. Also there is one flight variant and the BFR's that I didn't have descriptions for if someone can put those in(The flight variant doesn't even have a name up there atm.) Eirek 14:15 11/9/05
I added descriptions for the Fury and the Skyguard, i'll get to the BFR's in a bit. ChronoSphere 05:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Subscription fee??

Isnt there a subscription fee for this game (seeing as its online I thought it might have one) if there is, is it listed on the page? and if it isnt listed shouldnt it be?

There is a subscription fee, but is it worth mentioning? MMOs pretty much by their definition charge a few. There are only a few exceptions. Aeverett 19:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I would argue that it is still worth mentioning explicitly; even if the specific amount is not relevant, the existence of a monthly subscription fee is relevant in the description. Additionally, there have been hints from the developers of the game that they may be adding low cost or even free accounts (albeit with limitations) in addition to the monthly subscription accounts. This might be worth noting. --anon 06:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.153.56 (talk • contribs)
It is entirely relevent to mention the normal subscription fee, perhaps more-so than much else in the article. Airhead8324 (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning READ THIS!!

Ok someone deleted all the talk for no reason (and added his a own vulgar phrase I might add). I found the previous version of this discussion page and copied it here. From User:Psi edit

Did you happen to track an IP Address down and found out who did that?HideAndGoSeek 12:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politics

The "Politics" section, recently added, seems rather like original research to me. I'm active in the game and the forums, so I don't think it's inaccurate. I would just like to see some neutral third-party cites for that section. Al 14:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

...and with no third-party attribution, I've removed that section as original research. I am including it here if anyone thinks any of it is salvageable. You can call me Al 16:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Within the game, there is a great deal of casual discussion as to which sides are ostensibly good and which ones are bad. Some claim the Republic are intended to be the villains, due to their theoretical similarity to Fascism, although it may be argued that neither the Republic nor Fascism necessarily are evil, given that both feel they are doing the right thing on the whole, and that it is their duty to protect the people from their own incompetence. These same people largely tend to claim the New Conglomerate as the heroes, although this is also contestable, as the Conglomerate are also rabidly anti-everyone and they see no room for other beliefs aside from their own, and also because of the fact that, living in a Liberal Democracy, one might be pre-inclined to see the idea of liberty as paramount to other concerns anyway (this may explain the large number of NC players, as most PlanetSide subscribers live in the United States). Often it is a common claim that the Vanu are at least partial villains, due to their embrace of many technologies today seen as immoral, and their intentions to replace human beings with machines. This also may be contested on the grounds that morality judgments on issues of technology are largely relative to public understanding of that technology, and that currently, public understanding of such things as cloning, genetic engineering, nanotechnology and cybernetics is very much limited to the contents of the latest science fiction film. Ultimately, it may be argued that all sides make valid points in one form or another, however they are all too fanatical and one-sided in their beliefs to be taken seriously as points of political debate. For example, the Republic makes a good point in acknowledging that most people, most of the time are pretty generally not as qualified to decide important issues of policy as well-educated, well-informed professional policy makers are, but they go on to overstretch this truism and use it as justification for a system which concentrates all decision making power into a handful of over-educated individuals who only know the world of books and rarely get to experience the direct consequences of their own decisions, and ignore the latter fact. By contrast, the New Conglomerate make a good point in that individual experience often suffices in matters of individual decision making, and that knowing ones own situation is generally a sufficient prerequisite to making healthy choices for ones self. It is, however, often ignored that what is good for one person's well-being is rarely good for the well-being of society, and allowing people to do what they want, when they want to often leads to autocracies and/or oligarchies in which the needs of the majority are subservient to the needs of the minority, and being brought up, the favoured theories are often hastily defended with claims such as that freedom is not truly freedom unless it is a total liberty. Finally, though the Vanu Sovereignty make many valid points about technology and the fact that man's greatest capacity has always been his ability to make his knowledge work for him through feats of engineered efficiency, they then leap head-first into the premature conclusion that the knowledge of how to re-engineer human beings into superior life forms is in fact the justification to do so on the sole basis that the new species will be, admittedly, far more efficient. In doing so, the fact is often neglected that many people would elect to remain simple humans and in fact, in game terms, this expresses itself in that a major war has already broken out on the basis that advanced, alien technology has destabilized a society and polarized the population largely in accordance to the distinction of those who have access to and make full use of said technology, and those who do not and would not in any case, respectively. Naturally, it is simple to see why the debate continues, as it touches on many real and politically sensitive issues currently being discussed in world politics, and quite accurately so.

The long paragraph above seems to be well written and npov enough. It would be nice to have it integrated in the article. manu3d (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This should be incorporated, well written and non-bias. Though it would be nice to see it broken into paragraphs to be a litle less "run-on" Airhead8324 (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outfit links

It is inappropriate to add Outfit links to this article. So, let's keep them out, shall we? You can call me Al 16:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I just removed another outfit link for Azure Twilight from the article. ChronoSphere 06:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

They're adding links again. Anyway to prevent this, or just keep an eye and remove outfit links when they occur? ChronoSphere 18:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose contacting their Outfit Leader might get them to stop. I used to even know who it was. I'll see if I can reach out to them. Reverting is always a tool here, and if a particular IP address persists we can work to have it banned. (Or whatever the appropriate policy is around here. We certainly aren't the only article with such a problem.) You can call me Al 18:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I posted on their forums and asked them to stop. Someone replied that they would. You can call me Al 13:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
They did it again. [1]. ChronoSphere 01:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(HideAndGoSeek 14:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)) PCP AKA Psychedelic Clown Posse is listed on the page (4 year event) however its not being linked, and it should stay that way.

[edit] banned players

Al, have you come across this while updating wikipedia w/ information? If a developer comes across this, I need a favor. This is alicairo & I am banned. Please, I'm tired of playing alts. Guys, I been hardcore since the start & I could use some assistance coming back. Additional | I've had some brilliant ideas that have been incorporated into the game. I put some of my implant, cert, & ability ideas in back when the thread about game development was open. Under another name of course as I was banned at the time. -alicairo420 4:34, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

This isn't really an appropriate or effective way of trying to get in touch with the development team. You'll want to go through the contact information on http://planetside.station.sony.com anyway. Not only that, but as far as I know none of the devs frequent this talk page and, to be frank, they have little to no input on player bans; that's the customer service department. You can call me Al 02:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I can not do anymore. Customer service has a vendetta against me. I used my in game abilities & was stripped of my abilities for it. All I did was global a troop allocation order. I've been playing since june 03 & what I was doing would of only transfered a small population. The place I was transfering the troops from, was already won. It was a preliminary move that benefited the Vanu of Emerald. I watched from my other account & things turned out as I suspected. Customer service did not recognize this & Dan B over reacted. So I sent a /tell about it & Dan B silenced me without a comment. So I did an /appeal & Dan B banned me because I broke my silence. After which I wrote PS about it & they refused to respond. This is an over reaction by customer service & in my opinion abuse of a player. The developers know me, even if they act as if they do not. To tell me I should contact customer support when it's known I am being ignored is more acting. Discussion is discussion on wikipedia. This is an open source for all information in regards to all entries. I have merely informed anyone who cares to look that I was banned for unjust reasons. If this game wasn't controlled in the manor that it is, a long term player like myself would not see such abuse. Ask around, I had friends of friends contact certain developers to see what they could do. No one wanted to take the challenge of Dan B & were content to run around in their groups, ali free. I've been right about users using SPEEDERXP for over two years. I have reported more exploiters & found more bugs as any one person not involved in game development could. I recognize your point, however, I need this assistance. I do not want to have to go further, even if I could. -alicairo420
I've been playing online games since online games were first available. I played the first muds, muxes, mushes, muses, & even BBS games before practically everyone was on the net. Throughout the history of online games, it is shown, developers & admin actually playing the game, is what corrupts & ultimately destroys a game. It may be these admins are good enough to not cheat, despite their ability, & perhaps want, however, that doesn't seem likely. It just doesn't happen. What they do is just more secretive. -alicairo420
Ali, while it is a shame you've been banned for what sounds like silly reasons, no one here has any more power than you do to get you "unbanned". If choose not to unban you, it's their loss (especially as user slowly drift away from the game)..... Wikipedia is an even less successful and far less approriate place to beg forgiveness than their own forums.... --Habap 22:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

SOE and its CSRs are known for being over-reactive when banning players. While your story is biased, its not unlikely that you did anything that would normally be a bannable offense. But by signing the EULA, which can change at any moment, you sell your soul to SOE and agree that they can do anything they wish, including cancelling your account without rebate. There are many things like this that will not go on this page and that would take a real player and someone involved in the community to keep abreast of. This page, while biased, is less biased because it covers the game from a software standpoint and not from a player standpoint. Zanduar 19:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vehicles, what about weapons and armor, especially MAXes

I've cleaned up the Vehicles section. I think it's far too long and should be trimmed. This isn't an ad for the game, after all.

We have a section for vehicles, but none for weapons or armor, two other things that make this game distinctive. We need to add those, but I hesitate to use the vehicles section as a model per my comments above.

You can call me Al 16:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The vehicle page, even trimmed as it is, is certainly too long for the primary article, which perhaps should focus on what the game is about, the general methods of play, and other less specific information. Perhaps a seperate 'equipment and vehicles' page? --anon 05:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Further edit: I just noticed that there used to be a 'planetside tanks' article. I do feel that the primary article could be fleshed out more in several areas; resurrecting a seperate article for equipment details would probably be a good idea, for organization purposes. --anon 06:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.153.56 (talk • contribs)
It is too long. The article should provide an overview of the game, not get bogged down with details. That there are so many vehicles of so many types is notable, but the individual vehicles aren't. The whole thing should be trimmed into a short summary, perhaps touching briefly on one or two unique vehicles. --Wrathchild (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If someone would go ahead and start an "Armor types in Planetside" article or somesuch, I'd be more than happy to offer my (embarassingly) considerable knowledge on MAXes. I'm not sure how to start a new article, or I'd do it myself. teh TK 18:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recommended System Specifications

In simply removing (rather than editing) pervious comments regarding recommended system specifications, Wrathchild-K has removed accurate information about appropriate recommended system requirements, and replace it with the old misleading information.

Rather than get into a tedious debate about it, users may wish to note that more useful system specifications should be considered as:

  • AMD XP 3200 / Intel P4 3.2 Ghz or better (especially important if you enable maximum resolution textures)
  • 1 GB RAM (this is 2 GB for maximum resolution textures)
  • 128 MB VRAM or more (this is 256 MB minimum for maximum resolution textures)
  • High-Speed Internet Connection

As was updated, the game uses in the region of 750+ MB while fully loaded (note that it loads progessively, on-demand), rather than in the region of 450+ MB as stated (making the minimum 2 GB, rather than 1.5 GB for reasons explained originally).

While this may seem a small issue, a lack of appreciation for actual technical requirements has been the source of consistant misunderstandings of 'stuttering' problems over the last two years in the Technical Support forum on the offical site (this is something users are extremely sensitive to, not least given it's FPS nature and that swapping to disk mid-battle is never fun).

I'd caution that anyone who tries to actually play the game with any the higher detail options turned on is in for a nasty surprise if they go by what's currently there (RAM and VRAM requirements aside, an older '2.0 Ghz' Intel CPU, for example is nowhere near sufficent for decent gameplay with a reasonably busy screen). —Preceding unsigned comment added by FridayUK (talk • contribs)

I play on a 1.8 Ghz machine that can only hold 512MB RAM, though I do have a 256MB video card. I have to take detail way down and it still can become a slideshow at times. (That's why I'm not hitting many of you!) --Habap 22:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree that their listed recommended specs are not nearly powerful enough. However, that information comes from the software package and the official website, so is verifiable. Throwing up someone's personal take one what the system specs should be is original research, so unless someone has a reliable and verifiable third-party source for the "new" recommendation it shouldn't be part of the article. The blurb about the listed specs being widely believed to be insufficient is the appropriate information to have. --Wrathchild (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
For this particular context, would citations from the official Planetside forums count? I don't have direct URLs handy, but I'm fairly certain that the memory needs of planetside being in excess of the 'official' minimum requirements has been confirmed in postings by devs or tech support. I can research that if such a citation would be sufficient. --anon 05:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.153.56 (talk • contribs)
Postings from developers or tech support would probably be okay, but if they really believe those should be the new specs then they would post them on the website. If you could find such a post, great. --Wrathchild (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the official system specs are located here.
This is not origional research at all (any more than it is to point out that 2+2=4, or that the sky is blue). It's an observable fact, based on how much RAM and VRAM the application requests (which is always consistant, thus there is a fixed minimum amount required, beyond which there will be no benifit from adding more RAM or VRAM, which is where the logical conclusion for the required amount comes from). As it's a straight forward computer program the results are consistant, no matter how many times the test is repeated.
1 GB is not sufficent to load into memory the application with maximum detail on and at least one full map loaded (not an opinion, but a fact). On any modern system have 1.5 GB RAM is slower than having 1 GB (because with 1.5 GB, your DDR RAM drops out of Dual Channel mode completely, as you can't have two '750 MB' DIMMS, on account of they don't exist), which is where you get 2 GB as the minimum from (you will swap to disk less often, but your system will stutter slightly every few seconds, which is of course worse), having 4 GB of RAM will, quite litteraly, make no difference. The required VRAM is dependant upon the texture level used, and you need at least 256 MB for maximum level detail - this is also a boring and consistant fact, rather than purely an opinion of mine.
Not understanding why something is so, doesn't mean it's an opinion rather than fact. When someone explains why it is so, it doesn't follow that the explanation is OR either.
To save anyone's time trying to find quotable info, as anyone who's been familer with PS for some time probably already knows (a) the origional forums were taken down ages ago, some time in 2004 IIRC (perhaps late 2003), and so they simply can't be referenced (b) the system specs vary from box to box, including on the origional boxes - not just on newer boxes vs. older ones (which makes the suggestion it's verifyable from offical sources wryly amusing).
There might be something in an archived version of the PlanetSide-Tracker (as I've saved quite a few quotes from developers on there), but as that's run by me and not the offical site (which sadly has historically contained quite a bit of bogus and out of date information itself) the source might be considered 'of dubious repute'...
FridayUK 03:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but it IS original research. Who is doing the observing? You? That's the definition of original research here. The source has to be a verifiable, reliable third-party source. A posting by a developer; a related (reputable) gaming website or magazine. Anything like that.
I am more than passing familiar with PlanetSide, having played continuously since closed beta. I'm also quite aware of the myriad complaints in the official forums (both the current ones and the old ones). But that's not good enough for here. Oh, it's good enough for a "it is widely felt that the official recommended specifications are sub-optimal" (paraphrased) comment in the article, but to put an unsourced set of recommended specs is just "someone's" idea of what the specs are, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. —Wrathchild (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I have to concur with Wrathchild here. Personal observations are original research. If this is the first place that the 'observable facts' have been published, that makes them original research.
The optimal specifications for the game also would not be the same as the recommended specifications, and are assuredly not as obvious as 2 + 2 = 4. While I follow the logic and reasoning of your recommendations, it's hard to figure out how to word the recommendations of one person. Certainly, there is some kind of documentation of Sony's recommendations, but deterining what is "accceptable performance" is a tricky business. For me, 24 fps with minimal detail is acceptable because I am unwilling to buy a new PC and get a brand new video card (got my 9200 on eBay for $30). So, while it is startlingly obvious to you what the optimal specifications are, the recommended ones either have to be from Sony (whose recommendations will be affected by the marketing folks as much as the developers) or labelled as being from some reputable, verifiable source. --Habap 14:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Note, however, that the PlanetSide Syndicate Wiki welcomes original research such as this and would certainly welcome this data. (I do some work there, too.) —Wrathchild (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
As "Tech Guru" on the Official Planetside Forums, a post or two of mine would come up if you were to site OPF forum posts for minimum and recommended specs. I feel it important to note that while you won't be playing with the super "nice" textures and all effects on, the recommended specs WILL get you decent performance. Also, possibly of interest, the stuttering problem mentioned in this old series of posts is for the most part resolved (a patch that year solved it apperantly) - RAKninja 72.150.99.82 (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major reorganization of article needed

The entire Vehicles/BFRs sections need to be moved to a new article, named "Vehicles of Planetside" or something similar. Also, if someone would be so kind as to start articles for Armor/MAXes and Infantry Weapons I'd be more than happy to contribute everything I know. I just don't have any images to add, but I can definitely flesh the info out. teh TK 18:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the vehicles section needs to be trimmed back. All that detail isn't needed and borders on cruft. This is an encyclopedia article, after all, and is not supposed to be a detailed game guide. —Wrathchild (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a lot of the vehicles stuff is copy-pasted from the official website (and outdated at that, some of the vehicles no longer have the same weapons/configurations/etc as they did when the website was published, and the official website was never updated, or only once when the Liberator/Skyguard were added anyway). Anyway I agree that the vehicles sections could do with a rewrite if for no other reason than they're horribly outdated. teh TK 14:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I have split the Vehicles section off into a seperate page at Vehicles in PlanetSide, thus cutting the main PS article size in half. Hope that helps. Ourai т с 22:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seperate Articles and a Reception part

The article in my opinion is far too long and would benefit if seperated into different pages. Also a reception part of the article should be required as most of the video game articles I've seen have one.

[edit] Gameplay

There is a comment in there about new players causing hacking and this causing a massive drop in subscriptions. Whether or not this is true (no reference) it should not have been added like it was. Come on, wikipedia is not a forum, don't treat it like one -Hellkyte

I'n gonna remove it, especially seeing how the new anti-hack measures have wiped out the hackers. FredTheDeadHead 02:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MMORGchart

We should not be using this as a source - it's self-published by an investor in WW2O, does not cite its sources, and to my knowledge is widely considered a joke within the industry. Accordingly, I've removed the subscription information. Phil Sandifer 02:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technical Issues

Planetside always seems to have a few bugs that are commonly experience by players. Would it be appropriate to add known issues? Adding this section may be useful to people thinking about purchasing the game, or people who already play it and would like more information on the defects. People might even provide workarounds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.82.101.185 (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Recent 2007 updates

Hi! I'm going to be deleting a mass of information from this article. Wikipedia is not a guide, and there is a limit to its intended scope. Cheers. Ong elvin 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Wikipedia is not a dump of information. Ong elvin 13:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done. If you wanna bring back that information, go ahead. But you'll have to trim it down and integrate it in an encyclopaedic manner. Ong elvin 13:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone's got a problem with my mass blanking of info. Let's just go through what's wrong with it then.
  • Levelling and Experience - this section should be shortened massively and consolidated with other sections under a Gameplay heading. You are also listing the levels at which the awards are given out, how to get them, and also what bonuses they provide, which falls under WP:NOT#GUIDE,
  • Planets - Oh, this part's fine for the most part. I must've accidentally highlighted it.
  • Bases - Basically, this just is a game guide to the various modes of gameplay, their maps, and of course the bonuses provided by completing these objectives.
  • Towers - You are describing what Towers do in this game. Which in the end is saying they're a smaller version of a base, and describing how you play while inside them.
  • Vehicles - This section you could keep since Vehicles are important to PlanetSide's gameplay, but would need to be consolidated under a Gameplay section.

Ong elvin 01:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, another point I should note is that Wikipedia's function is not to introduce newbies to the game. In the scope of gaming, it should provide information that is relevant to a non-gamer. About the only gamer-relevant information that should ever be included is a Storyline and Gameplay section, and those shouldn't take more than 1 page each. Ong elvin 02:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's some quotes from the scope guidelines.

Articles on computer and video games should give an encyclopedia overview of what the game is about, not a detailed description of how to play it or an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia.

A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable.

Lists of statistics, items, or other minutiae:

  • The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the swords available in the game.
  • Articles about Xbox Live and Xbox Live Arcade games should not contain a list of their Achievements.
  • Specific point values, time limits, character behaviors, etc. also fall into this category unless they are essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.

So there you have it. Why that information is not suitable for Wikipedia. Ong elvin 02:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI, this page was my baby for awhile, and it's sad to see alot of the work I put into it go away. However, I do agree, it was a lengthy article. The edits are good and shortens it to what it should be, a factual article about a great game. Not that it needed to be done, these edits have my blessing. --Txredcoat (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I just added a section about the new CE and Sunderer updates from my school and also fixed it a bit at home. Anyone can add to it if they want. OKAY, I did not post a guide nor an introduction to newbies. I posted new info about the huge 2007 updates. I think that info was well suited for the article, since Reserves and CoreCombat was also there. I'm too lazy to add the info in again, so you win. Thanks for deleting my info! I APPRECIATE IT!

That would've been me I think. The thing is, just because it's true doesn't mean the information is encyclopaedic. Y'gotta keep the information relevant to someone who isn't playing the game. The simple sentence in your latest change works, while the previous version had some two or three paragraphs dedicated to the reserves program, as if describing its history, which is not Wikipedia's scope. Ong elvin 10:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User box

Attention, soldiers. Notice this info box you can put on your personal page.

This user plays the PlanetSide Massive Multiplayer Online FPS. 


Fvdham 13:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


Why a real planet? there are fair use images that have been made available for promoting planetside that feature the logo. -RAKninja 72.150.99.82 (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 14 Day Trial

It seems instead of reinstating the Reserves, they're offering a 14 day trial instead. 70.113.81.53 04:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Box Art in Infobox

Is there a reason that the box art image was deleted from this article? Other articles for video games all feature the game's box art in the infobox and they have a valid fair use rationale, so they have not been removed. I don't understand why the PlanetSide box art is any different than those. I believe that we should re-add the image. --Credema (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)