Talk:Ragnarok Online

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ragnarok Online article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
The article List of Ragnarok Online locations was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 2008-02-08 with a consensus to merge the content into Ragnarok Online. If the merger is not completed promptly, List of Ragnarok Online locations might be re-nominated for deletion.

To discuss the merger, please use this talk page.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Class Information

It's terrible. You can do fine by just listing the characters, and if you have to add a summary for them, just use the ones on the official site. The part in thief summary, "they are often not very physically strong and are generally not the primary attackers in parties if a swordman is present."? Thats a load of bull and anyone who has played a decent server, official or private, knows how flawed that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.73.174 (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Private Servers

I disagree with search keyword "eAthena" being linked to Ragnarok Online because eAthena is an organization responsible for creating a Ragnarok Online emulator. The last thing we need is an article with a bunch of copyright infringers merged with the original creators.

Does Anyone else notice the Double edged sword on providing the link to a private server listing? People can find private servers this way, but Gravity might stumble across this page and find the servers(which in my opinion, is unlikely). Zero1328 08:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm back with the link now. If someone disagree, post your opnion. --Mateusc 03:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone removed the link but I put it back. If Gravity were to take legal actions about private servers, wikipedia would be the last place to start it. There is just no rule on wikipedia saying it's forbidden to post that link, so just leave it there IMO. I suggest writing a topic about private servers. It's a fact that half RO players play on private servers, if not more. If Gravity tried to fight against it on the beginning, it was a lost war. I think it gave up already so no ned to worry about lawsuits. (btw pardon my engrish xD) Raquel Sama 16:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I just came back with link today and was removed again by User:Zero1328. I think hide the Private Servers reality turns article very POV. --Brazil4Linux 00:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Simply put, Private servers are deemed illegal. If Wikipedia provides access to illegal content, Wikipdia will get in trouble. Lets just keep the link off until we reach an agreement. - Zero1328 05:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Modchips are ilegal too. This isn't a reason for you remove the link. And respect the fact that we are 3 users here that want Keep the link against you. --Brazil4Linux 13:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I can see the only way to decide if we keep or don't keep the private server link is to vote. I know there is a tag to post on the article telling people to vote on the talk page, but I don't know exactly what is it, so if you agree with voting please put that tag there, if you know what I'm talking about ^^'
Do you think we should keep private server links and informations on the main page?
  • Keep - I already explained why I think the links should be kept. And I highly agree with Brazil4Linux statement. We have a page about pedophilia and this is also illegal. Removing the private Top 200 using the argument it's illegal makes absolutely no sense. Half the RO players play on private servers, if not more. Even who play on official servers know about privates. It's a reality, no need to hide itRaquel Sama 20:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The top servers list for Ragnarok should be kept. Gravity surely already knows it exists. I would even guess most American players play on private servers, not "real" servers... It's a useful and popular website for finding info on the various private servers. - Stoph 20:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - I give up, just leave it there, I don't care anymore. Someone go put a link to a modchip shop in the modchip article. Advertising rules! - Zero1328 23:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that Brazil4Linux put the link back in before we agreed to something, Just because it's 3:1 doesn't mean you're right. - Zero1328 23:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I put the link back until you can convice with Wikipedia:Policy or Wikipedia:Consensus you're right. --Brazil4Linux 00:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, emulated private server software and the code for the server side stuff is not illegal, as it is code developed by people outside of Gravity, so those are in the grey (but closer to white) area. However, those running the leaked AEGIS software is liable for Copyright infringement and trade secret violations for taking the software and that is clearly in the black area. As for why Private Servers are illegal, except the case of using AEGIS, the servers themselves are not illegal, but using the name Ragnarok Online is a trademark violation, and telling the users to use the RO client is what makes private server use illegal. The client is also copyrighted. If the "private servers" use their own drawn sprites, and their own emulated client software, and emulated server software, then they would mostly be in the clear as they aren't using much (if any) of the code or images from Gravity. (But then, that would make it something else and not RO). So basically the reason that private servers are illegal, is not as much as it is the servers themselves, but people who play who use Gravity's client.

Keep - In all cases, I would say keep it. I am pretty sure that Gravity knows about this, and putting this up or not would make no difference so long as we do not "advertise" it, causing the article to go POV. -- Akosygin 20:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I just put the link back in because it appeared that someone removed it against the consensus. 66.92.144.74 00:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get some of the reasoning. Of course private servers are part of ragnarok online, and should be covered in the article. I don't think however that we need to be linking to servers that describe or require illegal modification of the game client. At very least, linking to specific private game servers isn't doing any service to people wanting to learn more about ragnarok online.

Doddler --167.1.163.100 00:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is just stupid; do you see the Lineage 2 page linking to private servers? Do you see the World of Warcraft page linking to private servers? Do you see the BattleNet page with a link to the "top 200!!!!" page? The answer is no to all of these. Also, I see little point in trying to destroy the game any further by guiding people on how to do such things, this link is a blatant case of advertisement and should not be in here. Relena - 02:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

eAthena isn't illegal. Gravity fought against them and lost. It's only an emulator.

Yes, but modifying the Ragnarok Online game client is illegal. It's clearly defined in the EULA. Any modifications to the game client violate the EULA. I'm tempted to agree with Relena and Doddler, there is no reason why specific private servers, or even the top 10, or 100, or whatever should be linked in this article. 67.140.73.253 05:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, perhaps an area on Gravity's battle against eAthena and action it has taken against privately owned, emulated servers. this way its not advertising the private servers and stays neutral as its purely informative. Add some generic but not to specific information about how its illegal as it uses Gravities client and so forth, leave out anything not directly related to Ragnerok Online (as how to setup a server, where to get the software, links to private servers, etc). Leaving this inforation out is very very well... I donno just doesn't feel right. --Chase-san (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Whether private servers are illegal or not doesn't matter. The link is to the Top 200 page, is it not? A link to another link is hardly a direct path to illegal things. The problem would be if we linked directly to say, Rebirth. Even if the link is opposed, there should at least be a reference that they do indeed exist, considering the number of them suggests something rather serious. Ryuugaki (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Characters/Classes?

why not make a page for every jobs of RO? Ragnaroknike 18 May 2006

Agree: It doesn't make sense when most of the things on RO is restricted to Cheating and crimes... and there is no other articles for RO jobs/classes

Couldn't I just make one? - X omega 2 Oct 2006

So make one =3 --Wirbelwind 22:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is a bit old, but I've begun doing just this. The first article is at Rogue (Ragnarok Online). I intend to write articles for Sage, Assassin, and Blacksmith next. Daedalin 06:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

These types of articles do not belong on Wikipedia per Wikipedia is not a game guide. I suggest you use your talents somewhere where your writing would be more helpful, such as on the StrategyWiki. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
As I stated on the discussion page for the article, I fail to see how that is considered a game guide. All in all, it's not specific as to how to play a Rogue, where stat and skill points go, what sort of armor is used, etc. It is just intended to give an overview of the class so as to expand the information within Category:Ragnarok Online and what is linked here. If you could tell what exactly makes it fit the criteria of "game guide," then I'll gladly edit it so that it can remain.Daedalin 03:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ragnarök or Ragnarok?

The logo says that it is called Ragnarök. I think the article should be renamed to Ragnarök Online and "Ragnarok Online" should become a redirect. What do you think?130.83.161.49 14:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It should not be done only because it will be a redirect all the time because the O that you propose cannot be entered easily on a standard keyboard. -- Akosygin 05:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be done since it clearly says Ragnarök and that is the name of the game. --Slushq 01:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


Ragnarok is the english word, Ragnarök is the original word from the nordic myths. and its german.

Ragnarok is the english word, like the anonymous writer said. The logo comes from the korean website. This is an english wikipedia, and we use the English terminology. Please switch it back. Thank you. Also, the international server uses "Ragnarok". Disinclination 19:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I put it up on Requested moves, since Disinclination edited the old page after the move, and I am unable to move it back. The umlaut is used only on the logo, it is not used anywhere else in the game. - Zero1328 Talk? 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I tried to move it back, since there had never really been a discussion on it. Didn't go so well. Sorry. :) Disinclination 23:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nifflheim? Niflheim? Nifelheim?

All three forms are used at random... I think one of those should be used throughout the whole article. But which one? Official site says Nifflheim, but Niflheim gets most Google hits. Ideas? Iachimo 10:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In game, Niflheim is used. Take a look at the map names. And I believe "officially" in Norse mythology, Niflheim is the correct spelling as well. Scurker 15:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct on the correct spelling, but there are some NPCs in game that refer to it as "Nifflheim"- note the double "f"- and even "Niffleheim". When you type "/where" it comes up as "Niflheim". Which one should the article refer to? Daedalin 03:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
(This discussion is from July 2006.) I decided to use "Nifflheim" back when this came up. I guess it could be considered the latest "official" source, that's how it's spelled in the The memory of RAGNAROK booklet.—ウルタプ 04:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] eAthena

Why does eAthena redirect here? eAthena is a open source server emulator software for Ragnarok clients. See here. Aubray1741 19:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

See Ragnarok_Online#Conduct, and it isn't legal. --Wirbelwind 21:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
From what I understand, reading the above comments, most of the problems with eAthena are a server list? Why can't we have a page on eAthena that describes what eAthena is? Surely there is nothing wrong with a page describing the software itself - it doesn't have to point to the server lists at all, which are not affiliated with eAthena. When someone looks up eAthena (the software) they should be sent to a site that describes that software, NOT to a site that describes a game, or a server list, or anything else. There is no reason a Wikipedia eAthena page cannot exist separate from the RO page, and be kept clean of private server lists at the same time. Glacialfury 03:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
eAthena is legal - nobody can be stopped from writing emulators, at least in my country. And, yes, I agree with Glacialfury, eAthena is software package, so why don't we have information about it ?
This article is on the game. eAthena is a software package designed to emulate a server for the game. At best a small mention of it could be placed in the article but that's about it. This article is on the game and only the game. A typical gamer would not be interested in reading information about server software. - AVX 15:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
If they are interested only in the game, then they would be looking up the game itself and *not* the name of the server software. My point is not that this article should cover eAthena, but that eAthena ought to have its own, and separate, page, for those who DO want to learn about the server software. Wikipedia should not restrict its content to satisfy niche groups. Glacialfury 02:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Official server software Aegis has its own page, why not eAthena? There's even mention about Freya.84.40.134.230 19:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
As a dead link. It's mentioned, but the page about it doesn't exist. Miyuki 03:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Story

I read the story part and went "WTF?". None of this is in the game. The game itself has no storyline to speak of, its a hack and slash using the "grind" economy model(force people to play as long as possible for minimal gains in order to make money off monthly charges). It sounds like the story part was either completely fabricated or taken entirely from fan made(or non-game) sources. - Question2

The background story is listed on all RO websites under the Game Guide sections. See here and here. --211.27.203.234 01:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

-- there was no in-game storyline to the game, imo, i believe most people play the game to be in the community, and then it became competition with the introduction of the guild system and war of emperium system. (NeoDeGenero 18:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC))

The story is generally more background than in-game, though there are segments that can be revealed through certain quests- "Hellion" and "Murder in Einbroch" being two of the more recent ones.Daedalin 03:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Game Basics Section Needs Cleanup

I feel pretty strongly that the game basics section gontains information not basic to the game. Bongun/munak story should be removed, Any geographical area not rune-midguard should be put in a geography section and removed, or implied by being referanced in the cities section. Any ideas? GemJulian 17:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People Subscribed?

this article does not mention how many people acually play this game; i need that info to compare how much better RuneScape is to any other MMORPG--131.109.43.30 18:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Gravity doesn't release any official numbers, and since the /who function stopped working, no one really knows. (Besides, there are technically more than 10 official RO servers and countless private servers, counting that will be very hard.)
Miyuki 05:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
an estimate then? dependent on how saturated each server there is? or even maybe a rounded # such as 2 million atleast? SOMETHING?131.109.43.30 17:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it was mentioned somewhere that iRO has around 1k to 2k on both Chaos and Loki, a little less on Iris and some 500 or so on Sakray? Seriously, it's hard to tell. Especially when some of those other official ROs out there has crap load more servers than us. (twRO and jRO comes to mind. Last time I checked, twRO has 19 servers.)
Miyuki 09:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
then i guess i will just round up to 1 million users for my presentation even tho its due in like a month. lol --131.109.43.30 17:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
If you use a packet sniffer when you log into RO, you get all the user counts on each server (Chaos, Loki, Iris, etc). They simply aren't displayed in the client... 203.122.241.109 07:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
problem being.. i dont play this game lol so i will just estimate at 1 million, still.--131.109.43.30 18:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Then shut up for god's sake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.45.96.127 (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monster Database

I want to propose that we start building the monster database, it has been a long time since i have played the game, and alot of their stats i dont remember or are confused (main due to private ro, and my old old private ro server) There were are few websites before that had comprehensive monster database with HP, Experience, spells, drop/droprates and so forth. (NeoDeGenero 18:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC))

I my view making a database would take a gigantic page. maybe we can better put a link to a already existing database like | Rocards. --Sjefke13 09:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup and rewrite

I more or less completely rewrote the article today, removing all of the cruft and condensing the article into something encyclopoedic. Any commentary/criticism is welcome. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 02:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Content wise it's much better than before, though it needs some slight layout tweaking (the images don't line up properly on my widescreen). It could really use some sources that aren't by the creators. Apart from that, I'd suggest peer review by the cvg people. -- Prod-You 05:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not that big of a game in the US, so finding English sources other than the creators and fansites (the latter of which are notoriously crufty) is remarkably difficult. I'll put it in the peer review process for more ideas content-wise as I'm not the most creative writer here. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parodies section?

There is only one entry in the Parodies section in this article. Unless there are more examples by different groups or people, I would suggest that the section be removed completely. Anyone agree? AVX 19:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd support that. I was reluctant to remove it during the rewrite because many articles have a "_____ in popular culture" section or something to that effect and I felt that the section deserved some expansion rather than removal. I'm not sure what to put in it, though, so if you think the section should be removed completely (i.e. if we can't think of anything else to put in it), go for it. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 23:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Frankly as a former player I've never seen any parody other than those examples anywhere else. I'll give it another day maybe, then remove. AVX 02:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amazing

Amazing how one of the most influential games in asia was given the scantest of descriptions. But then, perhaps the term "has little to no relevance to western culture" is true after all. Izaak 13:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you see ways for the article to be improved feel free to edit it. Remember, Be bold! Kari Hazzard (T | C) 17:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, perhaps mention its track record here in the U.S. of A. or how much its exploited (bots and such) or perhaps that it is probably the most illegally copied games in existance (e.g. piles of free servers, just cause it's illegal doesn't mean its not relavent to the article). Though most of this has been discussed above, I still think it should be mentioned, even in passing, but I don't wish to bring up old arguements, so i'll leave it to all of you. MY bold editing always seems to end up being reverted or deleted after all. ;D Chase-san 05:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem with including such things is not the fact that it is illegal, it's the fact that there's really no way of citing it and thus such is unverifiable. Certainly we cannot discuss individual private servers as that would be linkspam, but if you can find something documented and legitimate regarding private servers, go for it. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Engine

Hi,

at the Infobox it says Engine: AEGIS, but that's only the Server Engine. Not the Game Engine HolySheepy 21:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the game engine itself have a name? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Perhaps a one click?

That actually works, instead of dead links? Kthx. In before 23:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

== For qRO that is. In before 23:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't see any reason to link to a private server. Miyuki 19:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No controversy on private server sections?

I don't mean to poke a bee's nest (well.. I sort of do, but not negatively), but where are these sections? I know that there have been bankruptcy, and information being stolen (a large discuss on private servers at a forum I was on discussed this more in detail). The same goes for private servers: it's is probably the most hottest debate amongst RO fans, and I stopped play almost two years ago. I understand we're not supposed to link to private servers, but does that prohibit us from reviewing these subjects? Even Lineage 2 has a section on them. I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to write a section, as I'd probably be horribly biased. But ignoring these aspects of RO would be ignoring a very large part of debate within the community. I encourage those who are willing to work this out and help provide a non-biased an enecyclopaedic way of introducing this to the article. I think it is greatly needed. :)Disinclination 04:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to reiterate: I am not proposing to put private server links on the page, I am only saying that we should include a section on the controversy surrounding private servers.' Disinclination 04:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Such a section would be appropriate only if it were (reasonably) unbiased and stating properly cited facts. History of server software being leaked to the public and other examples would have to have some sort of citation or it would not be allowed in the game's article.
From what I can gather, most of the controversy seems to be from those that play on these servers versus those that play on the "official servers"; the issue of whether to pay to play or play for free. I'm not sure if it is a large enough issue to consider it being placed here or not. - AVX 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Would it even warrant a sentence or two? I could try finding a reliable source on the matter. Disinclination 19:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not implicitly against including this as it is a noteworthy subject, but finding reliable sources on the matter will be incredibly hard if not impossible. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 22:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classes section

I think we should have a section briefly describing the different classes, more informative than a list gut not a game guide. Any ideas on how such a section should work? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A list on the base classes and them being able to job change to higher classes, then give a link to either iRO's actual job listing or places such as RagnaInfo's wiki. Miyuki 17:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ragnarok On DS

Yah it was annouced today or yesterday, someone look into it more 99.245.123.252 02:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I made an article about it yesterday: Ragnarök Online DS - Raquel Sama 15:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's confirmed via Famitsu and Gung Ho, although I can't read Japanese >_<. Perhaps the DS article should be merged into this one until more information is released? For the moment we have to assume that it will simply be a port of the PC version. - AVX 15:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it deserves it's own article. Since it's for DS it's expected that it will be more than just a port to the computer game, unlike the cellphone version. - Raquel Sama 15:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] private servers section

Private Servers section has no sources and is not verifiable. Its language is also extremely biased against Private Servers.

I believe that the section may have "weasel words" that may lead readers to take stances on the issue. Much of it does lack citations and have a lot that cannot be verified ("people today see no problem with playing on a Private server" cannot possibly be good for this article). My opinion on the matter is that it the entire section be re-written commenting on the facts (and only facts) surrounding servers that are not run by Gravity or any other authorized game provider AVX 15:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC) -
As it seems to me, not only is the section made up of quite a bit of OR, but it is quite inflamatory. I'm going to remove it pending citations and a much more encyclopedic rewrite. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 17:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subscribers

Is there any reliable or known data concerning the subscriptions to Ragnarok Online? The only data I could find was the 2 million North American subscribers, which does not include Europe, Asia, etc. Currently World of Warcraft is considered the most successful MMOG of all time with over 9 million subscribers. I'm wondering how Ragnarok Online compares. I came across something about 20 million + but soon learned that developers in the orient calculate not by current subscribers but rather everyone who ever subscribed, whether still subscribed or not. 72.49.194.69 04:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua

There is no way to know, unless you can somehow get Gravity to do a report for you. Miyuki 15:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Great. I don't know why that info is considered top-secret. 72.49.194.69 16:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua

Who knows. Most of us never tried, and doesn't need to know about that, so we never asked. If you contact Gravity and ask formally, maybe they will tell you. Miyuki 19:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't 'need to know' about it? It could very well effect WOW's position as the #1 MMOG in terms of monthly subscribers. I do think that's extremely important, I mean both WOW and RO have over 2 million North American subscribers. I'm willing to bet RO compares to WOW in other regions aswell, if not exceeding it in Asia. 72.49.194.69 08:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua

That would be years ago. We all know the amount of players for RO is dropping, no one is denying it. RO is not a threat to WoW in terms of current subscrption, sadly, unless Blizzard abandoned WoW all of a sudden and work on whatever future game they have planned. (Like they did with D2.) Miyuki 14:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and, it would really help that if you just reply with one : more than what's in front of my replies to your's and only uses one line break. That would make talk pages much easier to read. Miyuki 14:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's not overstate WOW's importance or greatness. Also, let's not assume such things without hard numbers at hand. We have the numbers for World of Warcraft but without the numbers for Ragnarok Online, we shouldn't make a judgment since Blizzard is the only one releasing numbers. That's like only hearing one side of the argument. So to say that WoW is the #1 MMORPG in terms of monthly subscribers is unsubstantiated without comparing all the numbers. 72.49.194.69 03:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua
This is just an opinion, however, for a company to release numbers, means that they are very proud of it. If RO does indeed have a great amount of subscribers, then shouldn't Gravity be bragging about it also? What could be more competitive than comparing the publisher's numbers with WoW? Besides, I don't think, especially at the amount of MMORPGs in Asia, that Ragnarok is dominating. The competition is strong, one example is Lineage II. Ragnarok is, what, 5 years old? 124.106.132.160 06:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
RO is definitely not dominating over in Asia. There are just way too many MMORPGs out there, especially games that gives the same feeling as RO that's currently in market. (Trickster being one. Although not as popular over here, it is extremely popular in Japan, and probably already exceeded in players when comparing with RO.) Miyuki 07:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been wondering, actually, why bring this up on a wikipedia article's talk page? I thought a talk page's purpose is to discuss the article and information directly related to it (and/or how to improve the article). It should not be used as a general fan site forum kind of thing for random questions, like how you've been acting on all talk pages. This is not a gaming fan site, please save these kind of questions for fan site forums of that specific game. If you still have question about what should and should not be discussed on a talk page, please take a look at the talk page guildlines, thank you. Miyuki 07:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Dude, all I asked was for information pertaining to RO subscriptions, that was all. Adding such information was going to contribute to the article, but since no one wishes to help, I don't care. If you'd like, feel free to delete this talk from the discussion page. I'd rather you do so than complain it has nothing to do with the article (and I beg to differ there, but again don't care). 72.49.194.69 17:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua

This had everything to do with the main article and concerned articles on MMO's but you chose to resort to ad hoc and meaningless and irrational arguments, if you can even call them that. Obtaining subscriber information for a game can be used in the game's article just as is done with World of Warcraft. As far as what I do on other talk pages, are you stalking me or what? You have to find every post or discussion of mine? That seems rather weird to me, did you look up my IP address location while you were at?208.102.181.15 (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Joshua

I wold definitely agree that the number of subscribers is certainly a relevant matter, noting that it is already something contained within the article.[1] Now, that being said... whoever posts next should probably take a peek at the Dispute Resolution page before proceeding with a response, then think slowly before posting. Hopefully, this'll help keep peoples' heads cool. We're all trying to be helpful, right? Let's stay on the same side, here. X-Kal (talk) 06:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death Knight and Dark Collector

Death Knight and Dark Collector are speculative classes based on assumptions from analysis of the game data files, They are not in the game at all at the moment and should be removed from the wiki.

HappyDragon 04:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.72.49.203.96 17:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Joshua

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:RagnarokMobileMage.gif

Image:RagnarokMobileMage.gif 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 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 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Strategy Wiki link

I've checked the strategy wiki, and I believe it should be removed. Most of the links are either non-existing or incomplete. While there are a few notable pages, and possibly some helpful ones, as a whole it is just embarrassing and some of the more helpful information are simple things that can be acquired from other fan sites. And if you doubt what I said, check this link and judge for yourself: Blacksmith Guide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.63.119 (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Reliable Sources

I've noticed that more than half of the citations used in this article come from Ragnarok Online itself, either through their International Server or through Gravity LLC, the company that owns them. This disagrees with Wikipedia's policy on Self-published sources. "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as... the article is not based primarily on such sources. An online game as popular and notable as Ragnarok Online should have more sources than this.

Also, on a related matter, Reference #2 on the reference list could use a quick fix. Not only does it clash with the layout, completely obscuring one of the other reference links, but the link seems to go to something entirely unrelated to its intended destination. X-Kal (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ref #2 was quoting off the first paragraph in the article where they mentions the number of subscribers for Ragnarok Online.Miyuki (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Aha, now I see it. I've reformatted the link then, so it meshes well with the layout, and there's not the whole problem with it overlapping with the next reference column. Hopefully, I've done it all correctly. (It seemed okay in the preview) X-Kal (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Free Servers

In response to the latest edit, I do want to point out that there were, in fact, legal free servers to play. Admittedly, they were just the test "Sakray" server associated with certain servers - there was an official oceanic Ragnarok server that allowed free access to the test server. However, I don't think we can include the free servers in the article, unless someone can find some officially licensed free servers out there to cite. X-Kal (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that revert was badly-worded--they probably meant "private servers" as opposed to "free servers in general". If the server is legal and free, by all means linking is fine.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 15:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Got it. MalaysiaRO has a separate free-to-play server available to those who have a valid Malaysia or Singapore ID. It is not available to outsiders. The link doesn't exactly present itself to be a legitimate link, but it is linked from the official MalaysiaRO site, and THAT site is linked from ragnarokonline.com. Though I worry, if we link it in the article, what the risk is that we would accidentally cause people to go about and try to steal or falsify local ID numbers in order to play on an official server for free. X-Kal (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ragnarok Online iRO Wiki link

I hereby request that the link to International Ragnarok Online Wiki be added to the article's External links section. Please note that a similar page, the World of Warcraft article has a similar section, on which I have tried to base a previous edit on, but making the mistake of not bringing the suggestion here first. Also note that googling for "Ragnarok Online Wiki" results in a link to iRO Wiki third placed, right after the Ragnarok Online article itself. Not only that, but it's the last bastion of comprehensive English information on everything relating to the game (along with it's sistersite FutureWiki/R.O.D.E headed by the same person). It has a limited amount of empty articles (16/926). It is also much more than a simple fan site, the Game Masters of the International Ragnarok Online have acknowledged it as a reliable source of information, and they themselves post on its boards and edit the wiki articles [2] [3] [4] [5]. Thanks in advance. :) --Wolf Koch (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The link would be appropriate if really the biggest amount of game information was available. This however is not the case by far; The wiki seems to lack of an active user base (10-15 edits a day can be counted as none) which directly reflects on the totality of the wiki and the quality of articles. WoWWiki however (to explain why your comparison does not work in this case) is really, really huge. Not only does it have thousands of edits every day, also pretty much every detail of the game is covered. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 02:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
WoW has 10mil active subscribers worldwide, highly doubtful that Ragnarok Online itself surpasses 500000 if you count all the various regional versions. iRO and euRO themselves have a 3k and 4k active users respectively, which could be counted as english speaking users [6] [7] (albeit most of euRO is german). Clearly WoW and RO, a game that has been on the decline for years, are not comparable in this aspect. Regardless, this article cites iRO numerous times, and unarguably iRO Wiki is the #1 fansite for that region, and the most comprehensive RO-Wiki in english language. --Wolf Koch (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it? I've been following Ragnarok for many years, and have never heard of the iRO wiki before. If I were to cite a fansite as an external link, there would be a good number of other sites I'd mention - Merchant Guild's RagnaMART, for one. And I do really wonder - what purpose does it serve to compare Ragnarok to World of Warcraft in the article, anyways? I think we're getting off-topic by bringing WoW into this discussion. X-Kal (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Where was anything said about comparing RO with WoW in the article? The two games were compared in talk, only because someone brought up that wowwiki, which belongs to the unarguably most popular MMO has thousands of edits daily, whereas a game with maybe 50k english users has only 10-15. "I've been following Ragnarok for many years .. Merchant Guild's RagnaMART" - sensing a contradiction here, RagnaMART essentially closed in 2003. Let the numbers speak (from Alexa): RagnaMART, RagnaMART.tk, iROWiki.org. CEU freeloader 09:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Upon further review, I've noticed that the reference of World of Warcraft, within the article itself, was actually removed - though it has been there for some time before, as noted in a previous revision. Also, it was mentioned repeatedly in the first posting of this talk discussion, which is why I brought it up in the first place. I could bring up responses on RagnaMART and Alexa, but I really don't think that is going to be very productive in terms of resolving the original topic. The main point was to call to question its notability - and I'm not sure if it really meets notability criteria. X-Kal (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
iRO Wiki is perhaps the most credible, and certainly the most well known fansite for information pertaining to the current Ragnarok Online.. that is in English at least. RagnaMART is outdated information, as are numerous other sites. It doesn't matter how few people update iROWiki, it matters how accurate the information is. There are a -TON- of pageviews. That last response was quite the cop out, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.231.187 (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that iRO Wiki is edited and updated by the player community as required by the changes to the game content. It is undoubtedly the one-stop shop for anyone who has any questions about quests, classes, skills, etc. in the game. The comparison of iROWiki to WoWWiki honestly cannot be made, given the sizes of each community. What irks me here, though, is that people are dismissing an extremely useful and valid link based solely on numbers, and not on the accuracy of the content. Being a veteran RO player myself, I will admit that I did not hear about iROWiki until well after it had been established. Now I go there first if I have any questions regarding anything in the game. I would suggest that this link be included, as it provides a better view of the game and it's mechanics than the official website. Kristian Rose (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)