Talk:Roma Victor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roma Victor article.
Article policies
MMOG logo This article is within the scope of WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of massively multiplayer online games. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the the assessment scale.


Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussion before considering re-nomination:

Contents

[edit] from Vfd

On 4 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. There was no consensus. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Roma Victor for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 18:09, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In the news

Roma Victory was in an AFP news report. See Internet game site stages 'virtual crucifixion' for rule-breaker. BlankVerse 01:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

we are trying to update this article so please dont delete it. I went through and added as much info as i could. tommorrow when i get some sleep and am fully rested i'll add a list of all the bugs and bad things about the game so as to try and maintain some neutrality.

[edit] Planned features

There is still alot of information about features currently not implemented, I think all mention of planned features either should be removed completly or moved to a separate place dealing with planned features.

[edit] Criticism

The criticism section contains a list of features planned before launch which hasn't been implemented as of this date, it's very common for computer games in general and even more so for MMORPG's that features gets scraped or delayed prior to release. This list is also written in a certain point of view on some of the features while others can be considered objective. Therefore I think the list can removed as it doesn't live up to the standards of Wikipedia in opinion.

Windoze80 09:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. The difference between other games that get features that are "scraped or delayed prior to release" and Roma Victor is that these features are still on the main page of the game being advertised as if they were in the game when they are not. I think the list should stay.
I agree on that the article should mention the fact that the official webpage is wrong, but atm it is a list of unimplented features. What would be more proper is telling the reader that the official webpage hasn't been updated with what actually got implemented and maybe a list of differences beetween the live game and the official webpage. Windoze80 14:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Issue is that RedBedlam does not seem to have any intention of updating that page to reflect the lack of those features. There have been many discussions about it (even ones that have gone as far as calling them scammers) and yet they've done nothing. Perhaps re-wording it to something like "A list of features advertised but not currently in the game" instead of "promised features". Promise sounds subjective.
Most of the features that had been listed here as not implemented are in fact implemented and some are planned - as has been stated clearly by the game's developers at http://www.roma-victor.com/sotw/. Note the "Upcoming features" section. Complaints or criticisms of the game's features are surely best directed to the developers themselves rather than hijacking the Wikipedia article.
The ill-considered deletion of an entire section because you think some parts are wrong shows that you are too invested in RV to be fair, Mr. Brighton. :) Roxorius 18:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well you don't need to be in Brighton to be unfair it seems. The section was deleted because almost all of it was either factually incorrect, or entirely subjective personal criticism.

I see no eagerness to discuss the 'unfair' parts in detail by these vandals. Funny that you should use the word 'subjective'. You have even deleted one of the few mainstream reviews of this game, perhaps because you thought it was too 'subjective' as well. Only statements saying there are 6000 man legions in the game will be 'objective' enough for you. Roxorius 18:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


It is not vandalism to removed unfounded and incorrect information.
Some examples:
  • Craftable legionary gear and barbarian armour. - exists
  • Land conquest features - exists
  • Economy that functions correctly - subjective opinion with no support
  • Production process that requires interaction of specialised trades - it does
  • Diverse animals and functioning skills for handling them. - cows, chickens, pigs, wolves, bears....
  • Less emphasis on grinding than other games. - entirely subjective opinion. Many might argue that there is little "grinding"
Red Bedlam has been accused of ignoring their customer base sometimes. For example, Kerry Frasier-Robinson, their lead developer, stated in September of 2006 that he would inform the community of the progress in game development every month, and then did not update his 'State of the World' blog for six months. Reasons for this long delay varied from its lead developer getting married, having the flu (Several times) or having a broken modem. - The name of the developer is wrong and he's been married for years. These "facts" are not facts, not verifiable and mostly nonsense. So one developer didn't blog as much as he said he'd try to do. This is extremely common within the games industry and hardly worthy of a mention here.
Roxorius, why are you insisting on doing a hit job on this independent mmorpg developer? From the blatant negative bias of the information you have tried to bring to this article, it's pretty clear that you have a personal grudge and/or an agenda of your own. Please don't bring your one man crusade against Roma Victor and its developers here simply to use Wikipedia as your chosen battleground.
To now-registered user VictimofaStalker; If you have opinions about the article, try submitting less drastic edits, instead of removing 90% of the critisisms section. Now some details:
  • Craftable legionary gear and barbarian armour. - Only to a certain extent, certainly not fully implemented.
  • Land conquest features - Doesn't exist (yet). After escallation, if it works, then it will exist.
  • Economy that functions correctly - This could be phrased in a better manner.
  • Production process that requires interaction of specialised trades - Agreed, this is in the game.
  • Diverse animals and functioning skills for handling them. - "cows, chickens, pigs, wolves, bears.... " - Animals are incredibly rare, and the handling system doesn't work (KFR said so this week).
The critisisms / public relations section could use some better, more neutral language, and maybe some minor reductions, but removing 90% of it is not called for, as it is largely composed of relevant facts (And yes, KFR did claim to have the flu twice during his six month's inability to write two A4 sheets' worth of text). It is entirely relevant to relate this empirical history on Wikipedia.

[edit] Defending the list

I believe that there is an implication in Anonymous' new name selection that I am a stalker. This also further implies that he is involved in development.

The first of these implications is false: I do not know any of these developers; I have not made efforts to contact any of these developers except once or twice in reply; I have no interest in their personal lives; i have not killed a rabbit and cooked it in KFR's kitchen ala Fatal Attraction. :)

The second implication is troubling in that he would come here and begin deleting balanced coverage of his game. We all benefit when the impartial truth is told. You have fewer refunds to provide, but more people entering the game with eyes wide open. I came here merely to strip the article of its heavily pro- slant for which it was tagged for deletion and to state the facts. Wikipedia is not an advertising forum.

Now, defense of the list:

* Craftable legionary gear and barbarian armour

There are no craftable scuta, legionary helms, shirt_chain, breastplates, mirmillo helms, or hoplite helms. A person must not be allowed to think that he can go into RV and dress as a fully equipped legionary or a proper byrne-clad barbarian. And every noob wants and expects to be a fully equipped legionary.

* Land conquest features

There is no way for Romans or barbarians to claim land yet. The same boards are fought over as at release.

* Economy that functions correctly

A price increase of 20 times base price for a simple ingredient of much construction (dung) is not a healthy economic indicator. Key areas of the economy are broken.

* Production process that requires interaction of specialised trades

From the sotw page: Anyone trying to be a gladiator/cook/farmer/smith/potter/priest/carpenter/whatever-type character will find it near impossible to become highly adept at all of the involved skills. This is readily doable. It has been done in various combos by many characters. Most of the production in RV involves minimal interaction--there are no skilled trades.

* Diverse animals and functioning skills for handling them.

BenSkii has covered that thoroughly.

*Less emphasis on grinding than other games.

Crafting skills require near-mastery to accomplish anything worthwhile. No one attaches a 30Q pole to a 90Q spearhead. They grind up carpentry to max or near-max. This is about 20 hours of repetitive play, and is only one of the many skills that each serious crafter learns. Your game is a grind. Everyone is grinding.

Victimof writes:
The name of the developer is wrong and he's been married for years. These "facts" are not facts, not verifiable and mostly nonsense.

That was not my edit in. However, that remains verifiable on the forums, which I daresay you have access to. It was not the lead developers but Janus... or whoever is the brazilian dev, I think. Some key feature or another had that excuse attached to its delay. Not my edit, however. Roxorius 01:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attacking the list

Now, attack of the list:

  • Craftable legionary gear and barbarian armour

There are no craftable scuta, legionary helms, shirt_chain, breastplates, mirmillo helms, or hoplite helms. A person must not be allowed to think that he can go into RV and dress as a fully equipped legionary or a proper byrne-clad barbarian. And every noob wants and expects to be a fully equipped legionary.

Scuta are now ingame, platemail is ingame, scalemail is ingame, chainmail is ingame, auxiliary helms are ingame, hideshirts are ingame, fullkilts are ingame, falcatae are ingame. That seems like enough to me.

  • Land conquest features

There is no way for Romans or barbarians to claim land yet. The same boards are fought over as at release.

Guildhalls are implemented, people can claim land now. It's not optimal (yet?) but it's there.

  • Economy that functions correctly

A price increase of 20 times base price for a simple ingredient of much construction (dung) is not a healthy economic indicator. Key areas of the economy are broken.

The price has been fixed.

  • Production process that requires interaction of specialised trades

From the sotw page: Anyone trying to be a gladiator/cook/farmer/smith/potter/priest/carpenter/whatever-type character will find it near impossible to become highly adept at all of the involved skills. This is readily doable. It has been done in various combos by many characters. Most of the production in RV involves minimal interaction--there are no skilled trades.

This is true.

  • Diverse animals and functioning skills for handling them.

BenSkii has covered that thoroughly.

This is partly true. You can now handle animals and feed them, to make them drop dung, breeding/hoarding is only one step further.

"cows, chickens, pigs, wolves, bears.... " - Animals are incredibly rare

This has been fixed.

  • Less emphasis on grinding than other games.

Crafting skills require near-mastery to accomplish anything worthwhile. No one attaches a 30Q pole to a 90Q spearhead. They grind up carpentry to max or near-max. This is about 20 hours of repetitive play, and is only one of the many skills that each serious crafter learns. Your game is a grind. Everyone is grinding.

Can someone link where it says RV has less emphasis on grinding? I can't find it anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.219.150.77 (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] My Valiant Defense of the List

Actually, it's been 6 months since I wrote that. All points were true when written, as evidenced by the silence that followed for many months. Are they true now? Well, to be honest, I haven't even played in months and haven't checked this page in much longer.

I note with humor that the very day I load up this page, Mr 213.219.150.77 is "attacking" a very old list. I guess we both read the comments to Bruskie on the RV forums advising him to read the wikipedia article, hmm?

My spidey sense is telling me that much of the info in the list remains essentially true, even if the ugliest parts have had a cosmetic change in the intervening months. However, I am no longer in a good position to verify this, since I do not play.

Here is my bold attempt at a renewed "defense" of a list that was proven true by silence long ago:

  • Craftable legionary gear and barbarian armour

Scuta are now ingame, platemail is ingame, scalemail is ingame, chainmail is ingame, auxiliary helms are ingame, hideshirts are ingame, fullkilts are ingame, falcatae are ingame. That seems like enough to me.

Of all the things cited as missing and causing a lack of flavor, only scuta are in now. Legionary helms? No. Shirt_chain? No. Breastplates? No. Mirmillo helms? No. Hoplite helms? No.

You've got some squamata and plumata that look miraculously like a poorly retextured hamata (which is not a shirt_chain, btw) but nothing truly different from the date that the list was typed up. In fact, since the date it was typed up, artificial limits on who may wear an item have in fact had the effect of limiting options even further.


  • Land conquest features

Guildhalls are implemented, people can claim land now. It's not optimal (yet?) but it's there.

I believe we can both agree that you've jumped the gun here. We both know that the guildhalls are mostly cosmetic even at this stage, with limited LLM control of the boards through an almost entirely umimplemented command set and no ability to destroy the guildhalls.


  • Economy that functions correctly

The price [for dung] has been fixed.

The price has been lowered, probably manually, but the mechanism for its (and other goods') unrealistic price increases has probably not been reworked. The problem is that merchants have limitless supply and yet sell each successive item increasingly dearer. Price relates inversely to supply in economic theory: if supply were infinitely large, price would be at a fixed low that is the cost of production. Only when supply is low does it become a seller's market and sellers can begin increasing the price due to scarcity. In RV, supply is actually unlimited, but price just keeps going up and up... It leads to upward spirals in price in certain key goods, in ways that history has never seen. Sure, when money is debased, we might see massive inflation across all markets, but that is another phenomenon entirely.


  • Diverse animals and functioning skills for handling them.

This has been fixed.

I had heard that animals still teleport about. It is necessary to reach an animal before it can be attached and fed apples for dung. Also, no killed animal gives meat. The chickens do not lay eggs. (I have seen eggs--two years ago--so I know they exist, but they are not coded to be dropped by chickens)

All these things are implied when a claim is made that animals are "in". Players expect animals to do the things for which animals are kept and handled. Farms are not petting zoos. Handling has to have a purpose, and it still largely does not.

  • Less emphasis on grinding than other games.

Can someone link where it says RV has less emphasis on grinding? I can't find it anywhere.

Try the sotw. "No leveling treadmill." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxorius (talk • contribs) 01:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on the List

Seems rather too "inside" for an encyclopedia article. Regardless of how factual or how one might feel either way about the list items, it makes that section read more like a Gamer's Blog than an encyclopedia article. I think it's perfectly clear from the prose portion of the Criticism section that many features are lacking... is the list really necessary? ArakunemTalk 15:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Say what you will about the tone of the article, as an ex-player, it is honest and does indeed give a good idea as to what Roma Victor, its history, and playing the game is all about. Wiki is both first hand experience and an encyclopedia, giving it a kind a relevance that is a new form. I say leave it. Jason Parise (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Ethnicity List

Hello, I added an ethnicity list with each ethnic group from Roma Victor featured, and a link to their corresponding homelands. -Lucius Julius —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucius Julius (talk • contribs) 22:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)