Talk:World War II Online

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World War II Online article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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.

World War II Online was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: October 19, 2006

	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.	Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
	A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by WikiProject Video games.
VG To-do: edit  Peer review: Video game, Crash of the Titans, Xbox Live Arcade, List of Final Fantasy compilation albums, Metal Gear Solid, Shigeru Miyamoto, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess‎, Myst III: Exile, Blade Runner, Zanac, Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game) Cleanup: List of characters from The King of Fighters, Hellgate: London, LeChuck, Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon Featured article candidates: List of songs in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s (FLC), Halo (series), List of Sega 32X games (FLC), Alleyway Good article nominations: Ayu Tsukimiya, Music of the Final Fantasy Tactics series, Super Smash Bros., Music of Final Fantasy XI, Day of Defeat: Source Article status review: GA Review – None; FA Review – The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, 3D Monster Maze; FT Review – Final Fantasy titles Articles for Deletion: Participate in video game related deletion discussions. Images: Add box-art and screenshots to articles. Make sure to include a valid non-free use rationale. Monitor the following related changes pages: changes to WP:VG and changes to this to-do list. Announce your new articles Sign up for the new VG Newsletter.

I just stumbled across this article. It's a good start, but it needs some work. It seems more (up-to-date) details, and could stand to be made a bit more encyclopedic. I'll do some work on it when I have some free time.

Well, I suppose if we're going to do this, we might as well do it right - I'll try to work on a new section that picks up from there and expands on the development of the HCs. (That's when I joined anyway, so I'm fairly familiar with the progress from there.) If anyone can remember what they involved, we should include a revision history, including the major points of development. Is a consolidated readme included with each update, or does it only explain that revision? Don't need to go into volume, but major highlights would be cool. Opusaug 17:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A while back there was some material about the company behind the game that was guesswork and not very accurate that I modified; there were also some attempts at technical insight into the game which I corrected. There were also a few ranty sections that attacked the game in the recently-disgruntled fashion which I reworded without trying to hide the underlying complaint/issue. I thought I ought to "own up" :) Kfsone 02:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Branching Off 2 Things to do 3 Clarification 4 Deleted POV. 5 STFU? 6 Criticisms? 7 Screenshots 8 Playable Equipment 9 2001 vs 2006 screenshots 10 Moving Along 11 Advertisement 12 Virtual Battlefield 13 Largest map 14 Speed tree 15 Axis bias 16 Needs a section dedicated to the HC 17 Just a minor thing but.. 18 Squad info 19 Failed GA 20 Equipment designation standards 21 Initial Launch colo facility 22 Fair use rationale for Image:Picture 7.png 23 Player Guide 24 Removing speculation 25 Verifiable References 26 Rfc: Acceptable references 27 If you have concerns about additions or changes to the article 28 Fair use rationale for Image:Mmogmaps 001.jpg 29 Server

[edit] Branching Off

I have started a very short article on CRS, and plan on doing the same for Playnet. Please help add information to these pages, as well as link the WWIIOL article to them whenever possible. (USMA2010 05:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC))

The page was deleted because practically nothing was on it, so how about we develop the Developers section of this article then try again with the CRS page. DocVM 17, November, 2006

[edit] Things to do

We still need to add the following information:

• Current state of the game (out of bankruptcy, future plans, etc.)
• A gameplay overview
• Description of game community

I personally think that one can find this information in the main body of the article, but I will start to work on a seperate section about the game's community. (USMA2010 22:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Gameplay Overview and Game Community could use a treatment by branches of the player base; Army, Navy, Air Force. This MMPOLG offers some of the best and worst content at various patching stages depending on which branch one player dedicates themselves to. I can chime in on Air Force and recent haze & fog implementations. Man-hi 20:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

so does everyone who plays this game play against each other? and its constantly updating based on what is happening? it is dynamic... so who is winning the war? and what happens once one side establishes total dominance over the other (effectively "wins" the war). Does the game just die? Or is the game statically reset every once in a while? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.126.207 (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to clarify these points once the article is opened for further editing (it's currently locked for a dispute). But, to answer them briefly here: Yes, it is a player-versus-player (PVP) game, so the majority of play is against other players. There is some computer-controlled AI you can fight against, but this is a minor part of gameplay.

The side which is winning the war depends on how well each side collectively plays. There are campaigns ranging from around a month to several months, and the winner of campaigns has varied over time - some axis wins - some allied wins. Once a side establishes significant dominance, the campaign ends with the winner declared, and then the game map is reset, typically after an "intermission" in which there are some changes to gameplay for a few days, for fun.

Hope that answers your questions, I'll try to make sure the article addresses these questions, where it doesn't already, since I think these are pretty typical questions people would want answered by this article.

Warthog32 (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted POV.

There is a ton of comments in this article that do not suggest neutrality. I have removed them. This isn't a player's guide. It's for general information only. - XX55XX 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STFU?

FTFA : "players often find themselves in a situation of communicating directly with developers which many of them need to learn to STFU." lol, someone has to edit this. I wouldn't know what to edit it to tho.. --62.147.133.191 17:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the comment has been removed. (USMA2010 22:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Criticisms?

Maybe we should also add a section on criticisms of the game?

A fair idea, I'll start to work on it. Off the top of my head I can think of it being highly taxing on a computer, vastly outdated graphics, and certain vehicles that are missing that simply shouldn't be. I will, of course, provide the counter viewpoint for each of those criticisms. (USMA2010 22:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

There, added the section. Hope this helps! (USMA2010 22:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Although I agree with some of the critisism in the new section, I don't like the way it is presented. It seems to make its claims using weasel words. Maybe the critisms could be presened more plainly: "The graphics engine is outdated", rather than "Another popular complaint is that the graphics engine is outdated" for example. Briancollins 07:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Any statement this general will create criticism. I think if you want to end any debate, you need to provide some technical details to back it up. Stating that the graphics engine is outdated needs to be followed up with details like "No pixel shader support, no bump-mapping", and so on. I'm not a graphics expert, so I'll leave this to the inspired, but try to remain unbiased... Warthog32 10:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots

I have added four screens of gameplay taken by me during the game. One manning a 40mm gun, one commanding a Churchill tank, one flying a Spitfire V, and one working with a Churchill and a Bren gunner as rifleman. Unfortunatly, being a BEF player, I do not have any non-official screenshots of the German and French armies that are of any quality. If someone could add a few of the other armies to go along with mine, that would be great! (USMA2010 05:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC))

Thanks to whoever took the initiative and rearrainged those images! (USMA2010 04:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC))

I'll try and get a couple of axis shots.--Ashmole 23:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Appreciated. All those that I have are very out of date. (USMA2010 03:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC))

Hey if you going to place your own screenshots in, at least turn gourad shading on. I know you may have a slow computer but there is no need to make the game look worse then it already does.

I value FPS over looks, and it works fine for me. That, and it seems to make tanks stand out better in bushes. Flat FTW. Phong soon though, new computer coming. (USMA2010 02:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

I have a few screenshots of some axis equipment and action shots.Please take a look to see if they're worthy for article inclusion:

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/2182/sshot9oi0.png A few tanks wait as a bridge is being repaired.

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/5499/sshot5aj2.jpg

German paratroopers on the coast of england.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/6501/sshot13zx0.jpg A ju52 flees after unloading its fallschirmjaeger squad.Note the anti-aircraft fire.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/17/sshot11hf4.jpg

A stug3g claims victory on a m10 tank destroyer. --Ashmole 00:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, those are really nice screenshots. I particularly like the first one with the axis tanks - gives a great view both from commander and a nice variety in axis tanks. I also like the fourth one, under the scope taking out the m10. I think both shots reflect the real game experience, better than some of the Developer provided shots which are a little bit staged.

I'd propose we replace the existing "Scope" shot, with the fourth screenshot; The old "scope" shot didn't give a very good view of the target - in fact I think a lot of people unexperienced with the game would assume theres nothing there. I'd like to fit in the first screenshot too, but not sure where it would fit best. I'd sort of hate to add it as a new shot (as opposed to replacing an existing one), but we could consider either. What do you guys think?

Warthog32 05:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to add that these are from the latest patch (1.24). I think some weather shots are in order as well.--Ashmole 14:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Very nice screenshots, feel free to include them. Just try to keep the balance between Allied and Axis shots. The only reason all mine were all BEF was because I'm a strong BEF player, and lacked any decent Axis shots. (USMA2010 23:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC))

very good shots, I'm turning this in to a general screen shots section. We can use this section to take down and put up screen shots without them dissappearing into the either. I'm going to start by replacing the Tank destroyer shot, And the fighter Shot. They have graphics glitches in them, and while current players may like the "kill" shots I don't think they are of as much use here.

I think an air combat shot is important to maintain, since it represents 50% of the game. Lets face it, paratroopers, while cool, really are comparitively a much smaller part of gameplay.

Similarly, its a shame to get rid of the periscope shots. We already have an external screenshot which shows armor & infantry. I'm thinking we should get rid of the BE marketing shot, since it's really doesn't reflect the game very well and is highlight staged, and put back the air combat shot. Sure, it's not a great screenshot, but its the best we have. I don't have the flight skills to generate a better air combat shot (Although I'm sure I can get a good one of my death spiral) - but I'm sure someone from the forums will oblige. 64.174.34.251 15:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I put up a thread on the discussion forums asking for air combat images. Lets see what we get: http://discussions.playnet.com/showthread.php?t=127568

I agree on the changes to put back in the periscope shot & axis tanks. Only complaint is that its getting slighly axis biased. I asked for allied screenshots in the air combat thread. I'll work on getting a nice screenshot myself, maybe to replace the other BE marketing picture. I normally run with low graphics settings, but I'll turn them up for a while and see what I can come up with. Warthog32 17:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what we need to do is get side by side shots of the different (basic) gunsights.IE the stug ones,normal panzer,US,Brit,etc.I also think a demonstration of the UI would be a good idea too.--Ashmole 19:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree about a screenshot showing the UI (I assume you mean outside of play, in the mission selection, right?), but I disagree on the screenshots of gunsights. This is an encylopedia article, not a reference. Including every possible gunsight and describing the differences between them all is overdoing it. The article gets too complicated for the average reader who is looking for an overview. We should be looking for screenshots which demonstrate the most important aspects of the game, not the minor details. Gunsight differences is a pretty detail-oriented thing, IMHO. Aritta 22:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of the screenshots that have shown up in the thread are from the axis so far. I really like this one:

http://jg52.com/public/Whoofe/kiwiblen.JPG

It is at a low altitude so it shows the ground well, there are some nice angles to it, the target is flaming, there is a friendly in the picture, it has a nice partial view of the cockpit, doesn't have any chat text with bad language (like our previous air combat shot), and was taken with reasonable quality graphics options. Seems like a good candidate. Only downside is it's axis and we already have tons of axis shots.

What do you guys think about using this one? Aritta 22:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I like that shot, but I don't think the paratrooper photo should have been taken down. I'm going to replace one of the other shots with it. I think either the other marketing shot or the AA shot. Paratroopers are a small part of WWIIOL, but the paratrooper photo is a good example of what sets WWIIONLINE apart, Not that their are paratroopers, but that there are para troopers dropping in the DISTANCE, over a town, with a couple K of visability, each one of them being a human player.Nhorning 10:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In order to have a more balanced group of screenshots, I changed the image of a StuG killing an M10 to a Churchill killing an Panzer IVG. Until better looking Allied pictures take up at least half of the screenshots on this page, it must stay up in order to have at least some balance. (USMA2010 13:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

Sure seems to me like the AAA shot was from a distance, and I prefer a AAA shot over a paras shot, since it demonstrates a much bigger part of gameplay (ground vs. air), but I can live with the paras shot.

I don't like the new tanker shot, compared to the previous one. Sure, it's allied shooting axis, but otherwise the shot is very poor. Most of the screen is black (it's not using the zoom view), it doesn't demonstrate fog effects, you can't clearly see the range markings... the front-on angle of the target makes it harder to see (and a little bit dull)... it's highly pixelated (compare with, say the axis tanks shot), it seems like the graphics options aren't at full, or the photographer had a bad video card...

I totally understand the need to keep balance, but lets work on getting a better screenshot. Aritta 16:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone posted a pretty decent screenshot of a Hurricane taking out axis aircraft, and I put it up replacing the previous one, for balance. I'm not positive from the screenshot, but I think it's a ju-87. I'm mostly a ground player, can someone with a better eye for aircraft confirm it's a ju-87?

Yes, lets find a better tanker shot, that one that is up now is bad. It's too bad the old one was on the axis side, it was a really nice screenshot. Warthog32 19:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the visuals are quite poor, but I did not intend for that shot to be a perminant one. Just something to use until a better quality allied picture came along. (USMA2010 00:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC))

Look, there needs to be an adjustment of priorities here. Having better quality screenshots is far more important then having "balanced" shots. Readers of this article who don't play the game arn't going to look at the shots and say "Thats axis biased." But they will look at the shots and stay "Those graphics suck!" If you are going to use placeholders, use a good looking axis shot as a placeholder until you can find a good looking Alied one. Don't put a crap allied shot in until you can find a good allied shot.Nhorning 11:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Any allied players have decent computers?What you need to do is play with just the chat on your UI and the vehicle icons on.That way,all you need to do is press those buttons once to get a clear un marked shot.--Ashmole 02:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the map shot to the current one, in order to more accuratly represent the starting line. If anyone has a shot of what the map looks like exactly when the campaign starts, please replace the current one with that picture. Thanks. (USMA2010 00:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

Hi guys, I recently upgraded my machine enough to finally be able to generate some screenshots of my own that are reasonably presentable, and replaced the allied on axis tanker screenshot we had as a placeholder from back in August. Hope you guys like it. Warthog32 07:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Playable Equipment

I have added a section for playable equipment, listing the major equipment in the game, with links to other Wiki pages. It could use a little more work - I didn't have references for a few pieces of equipment, if anyone is inspired. I imagine the formatting could use improvement too - I'm still learning the right way to do wiki markup. Warthog32 17:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

The list is, for the time being, complete. (USMA2010 02:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

I have added the M4A3 76(w) to the French vehicle list, with the note that it is currently being tested. Will update when needed. (USMA2010 18:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

Added new ATGs that come with 1.25 as well as the Lebel. PpPachy 14:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2001 vs 2006 screenshots

Someone posted the before/after screenshots from 2001 vs 2006, which is great - but it's way too large to sit in the middle of the article, in its full size. I reformatted it as a caption, making it enhance the article, not dominate it. Warthog32 21:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks nice mate. (USMA2010 04:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Moving Along

Great to see so much progress on this article in the recent weeks. Thanks to whoever rearrainged my screenshots, and added captions. I also noticed more detail in several sections that needed it the most, nice job with that. Keep up the good work. (USMA2010 04:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Advertisement

Someone added the advert tag, at the top of the page, without taking the time to add any discussion why they thought that was the case. In my mind, the article is pretty even-handed, and there are a number of criticisms of the game - something you wouldn't find in an advertisement, for instance, a few that come to mind:

• Detailed criticism of high system requirements, and performance issues
• Detailed mention of the dated graphics
• Mention that technical support is scant to non-existant from the developer.
• Financial difficulties of the developer (meaning slow game development)
• A detailed history of the game's flaws at launch in 2001
• A criticism section, pointing out that, in several ways, the game wouldn't appeal to all players
• Mention that bugs are often introduced along with patches

I'm going to drop the advert tag - please give some details of what you think needs change to make it less of an advertisement, before re-adding the tag, so it can be debated and corrected. Be specific on what negatives of the game you think are missing, so we can correct the problem. Warthog32 23:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The wording of the introductory paragraph does sound a bit like an advertisment, using descriptions such as "action-packed". I'll go ahead and remove them. (USMA2010 03:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Virtual Battlefield

" the first (currently only) video game to qualify as a virtual battlefield".

I'm going to back up earlier decisions to remove this statement.

There have been many games which take place on a virtual battlefield, before and after WWII Online. This statement is a highly contested advertising statement from the company, and disregards many past and present games: the Total War series, the Combat Mission series, Harpoon.. there have been too many to name.

I beg to differ. Harpoon, Combat Mission, et cetera, all have virtual battlefields. No question about that. However, the statement, at least as how I read it, implies that this game has the first virtual online battlefield. In other words, where as other MMOGs might take place in a kingdom, the entire map of WWII Online is an international battlefield. I'm putting it back up, but I'll tac on the bit about it being the first online battlefield, for clarification.

Additional discussion on this point is needed. Can someone provide an external (to wikipedia) reference where the term 'virtual battlefield' is held in public discussion? I too want to make sure we aren't inventing terms for the purpose of advertising this game. The only time I've heard the term mentioned in association with computer games was with WWIIOL, and that was from the Cornered Rat's own advertising. Take note that the only mention of this term in Wikipedia were added in the last few days by only one user. It is not included in the Computer and video game genres page.

Note that the term 'virtual battlefield' is highly misleading, since "virtual" and "battlefield" covers numerous games, while only the virtual battlefield wiki page seems to be constantly evolving to single out only WWIIOL.

Even if we do support a term whose definition includes "online" "virtual" "battlefield", "simulation" and "persistent", WWIIOL is definitely not the first, or only game in the category. How about Aces High? There have been numerous online games, even predating the internet, that fit in some way into this category.

Please, no more reverts until we come to consensus. Aritta 20:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Aces High was an air combat game. It did not represent the full spectrum of war.

How many new qualifications will emerge for this new term? I think it would be easy to argue that WWIIOL doesn't address the full spectrum of war. It doesn't include submarines (and has a very simplistic naval model in general), has a very inaccurate model of supply, doesn't consider civilian casualties (much less human cost in general), has a stark imbalance of deployed forces (far more armor than realistic, for instance), has no artillery or mortars, weather is scarely existent and primarily cosmetic.... 64.174.34.251 23:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. What bothers me even more about this new genre than its vagueness, is the fact that it only applies to one game. What advantage is there to creating a new genre when it isn't really a genre? Warthog32 01:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It increases sales. ;) (USMA2010 02:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

A virtual battlefield isn't a Genre of video game. It is the digital simulation of war through the combination of vehicle simulators into a large common envirionment together with infantry. This term existed long before WWIIONLINE came out. It was not used to refer to video games, but to a simulation environment that the U.S. military (probably among others) was looking for. The first environment to fulfil this purpose was likely VSB1 (Virtual Battlespace) by Bohemia Studios . If you do a google search for virtual battlefield the first result is VBS1 and VBS2, Not WWIIONLINE.

"Virtual battlefield" is not a vague term. products that do not include infantry are not virtual battlefields, they are vehicle simulators. Products that do not include vehicle simulation are not virtual battefields, they are infantry simulators or first person shooters. Products that do not have a large enough map or enough simutanious "players" to simulate a war or at least an acurately sized battle cannot be virtual battlefields. Products that take place in fictional environments are generaly not simulators (unless they use completely acurate physics) and are therefore not virtual battefields. Again, this term was used before WWIIONLINE came out it has not been modified to describe wwiionline. It can be, and is, used to describe other products such as VSB1 and VSB2.

the comment about Aces High is correct, it does not contain playable infantry. I did not make that comment though. Navy is not necissary, because a virtual battlefield could presumably take place on land. If it ONLY took place on water it would be a naval simulator.

The problem is, you're creating a definition of a 'Virtual Battlefield' category so narrow that it only refers to two products (VBSn and WWIIOL), so it seems really strange to me to say WWIIOL is the first of that category that happens to fit another limitation (that it's an online game). Our role as Wiki editors isn't to invent history, but to document established fact. So, please provide some external references where 'virtual battlefield' is a term in general use to define a class of software, and limited to:

• Must be a computer simulation.
• Must be "online" (networked)
• Must include infantry
• Must be a combined arms simulation (but not necessarily Navy)
• Must include air? (You didn't say this, but I suspect its next)
• Must have a single person controlling a single piece of equipment
• Must have a realistic ballistic model and realistic damage model

yeah, that about describes it there. I think the Inclusion of air would depend on the theater and the era simualated. But yes, a simulation of War would have to include just about all of these things. To clarify a little bit more here, the idea of the Virtual Battlefield orignated for the desire to conduct War Games or War exercises in a simulated environment. In order to do that you need all of the above. I'll work on finding an external link, but it may take a short while because they may have to be from a few years ago, at a time when their were no examples to point to.

Please note that "virtual" and "battlefield" are very generic words often used together to mean something very different than what you are describing:

• http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/aircombatcommandfighteropsworkingtitle/index.html
• http://johnsmilitaryhistory.tripod.com/cwvirtual.html
• http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=948906&dl=ACM&coll=&CFID=15151515&CFTOKEN=6184618
• http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=24486

I did not come up with the term so I am not responsible for their vagueness of the words contained it. What the term MEANS however, is very specific. If you think this term is to vague, I have a question for you. What term do you use to describe what that bulleted list up there describes? Do you have a term for it? In other words, What Genre Does VBS1 (Virtual Battle Space 1) fall into?

Virtual battlefield is a fine classification for VBS1. But you seem to be missing the point entirely. Genres are not absolute. From the wiki on [genre]: "genres are vague categories with no fixed boundaries.". "Virtual battlefield" is a fine descriptive grouping, but it is impossible to assign absolutes without excluding significant mebers of the group. By doing so, you've excluded a number of virtual battlefield simulators that really deserve membership. 64.174.34.251 17:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, theres a link to another virtual battlefield. http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/asian/asian_04/d3_virtualp10.html and another http://www.irconnect.com/noc/pages/news_releases.mhtml?d=45031 "The five-day integrated strike warfare exercise, conducted in mid-July, was funded by the Air Force's Electronic Systems Center, Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass. It was hosted on Northrop Grumman's Cyber Warfare Integration Network (CWIN), a nationwide, virtual battlefield environment. " the emphasis is mine. Noticec the context, its a nationwide integration of different simulator platforms. Here it is in military context again, notice the reference to training. http://www.uhd.edu/academic/colleges/sciences/ccsds/reports/1997/cont.html#15 the northrop gruman one in pdf http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/media_news/2003_data/mn03_mprtip_9_15.pdf#search=%22virtual%20battlefield%20define%22 Oh, and here's a really good one. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.01/virthell_pr.html

NetCos is a virtual battlefield, but doesn't simulate infantry. Why did you include it? CWIN doesn't simulate infantry either.

So, according to your definition, these aren't virtual battlefields. Even though, in the military, they're considered to be virtual battlefields. Are you starting to see the problem with your exclusive definition? I would hope so, by now.

Tell us again why AirWarrior III and Aces High aren't virtual battlefields, but WWIIOL is?

64.174.34.251 17:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason is Airwarrior III, Aces High, And Warbirds are all "online Air combat simulators." If you ask the developers, some of whome went on to create WWIIONLINE, they will tell you as much. Some of these games do include models of ground vehicles. However, these ground vehicles are used to fight over AIRFIELDS. There are no front lines, there is no urban combat, they are simply used as a suplement to the Air combat.

Now, I will consede the point on infantry. obviously from the military definition a virtual battlefield need not include infantry, and I'll take that out of the virtual battlefield page. While that will make it harder to define the catagory, it still will not modify WWIIONLINES (probably short lived) exceptionalism. I think it is clear from those articles that I didn't make up the term.

A virtual battefield is a combination of various vehicle simulators into a common digital environment. If you do that with primarily Air you have an Online Air Combat Simulator. If you do it with primarily infantry you have a MMOFPS (of which there are about 2 by the way, you didn't seem to have a problem with that term.) If you do it with primarily vehicles you have an Online Armored combat simulator (of which there are none). But if you combine 2 or more of these things using a more or less equalivalent aproach you have a "virtual battlefield." The reason you have that is because when you combine them the other terms (air combat simulator etc.) are no longer sufficent to desicribe what you have.

So, again, you're arguing that CWIN doesn't qualify as a virtual battlefield. There are no front lines in CWIN, there is no urban combat, and ground platforms are there to supplement air simulation. Stop and think for a while before responding.

64.174.34.251 17:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Pehaps you would like to define a new Genre called Massive Multiplayer Combined Arms Simulator, the usage will still revert back Virtual battlefield. None of the flight simulators you have listed claim to be Virtual battefields. WWIIONLINE does. They make this claim because calling them an online flight sim doesn't make any sense, limiting them to a MMOFPS doesn't make sense, and calling them a tank sim (although Bilton may desagree) doesn't make any sense. So, they used a term that was already in use by military simulators. I think we can agree that Virtual Battlefield:

A. a term that has existed for a long time

B. Describes the combination of simulators into a common combat environment.

I think it may be open to discusion what that term means in relation to video games, but the competitors you mentioned do not claim to be Virtual Battlefields. WWIIONLINE does. Armored Assault probably will.

No, I don't advocate a new genre "MMCAS". I don't have any problem with a "virtual battlefield" genre. Since throughout this discussion, WWIIOL's wiki introduction has contained the term "virtual battlefield", without anyone editing it, I suspect nobody else does either. Well, maybe Warthog32 did, not sure.

If anything, I would have used the term Survey Simulator, but again, I have no problem with using the term Virtual Battlefield.

I do, however, challenge the claim that WWIIOL is the first and only virtual battlefield, and the restrictive definition of virtual battlefield on which that assumption was based.

The point I've been trying to make to you is that the limitations you've imposed were overly restrictive, and didn't reflect popular or professional use of the term. It's a good way to define the genre to say that virtual battlefields are systems which often have: (online play, a first-person interface, air/ground/sea weapon system modeling, command and control features, supply models, simulated weather, realistic ballistics and damage modelling, ...). It is a bad way to define the term by saying that they must have these features. Doing so excludes systems which have many or most of these features but not all, and so would be considered to be virtual battlefields.

I can't speak to when the term virtual battlefield came about - but my first experience was in the late 90s, when 3DFx took 3d hardware to the consumer, so it doesn't surprise me if simulators from the early to late 90's simulators didn't make the claim - the term wasn't in widespread use yet. Note that most, if not all, of the responses in your "where did you hear the term..." thread, in the WWIIOL forums, were also quoting experiences from the late 90s to early 00's. 64.174.34.251 06:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem here with 'virtual battlefield', especially in light of other posts, in particular the use in military simulators. I agree, everything I read seems to give evidence that there is a lot of variation in the genre. As it should be! Lets face it, technology in general is so fast moving that innovation and differentiation are a fact of life. That's a good thing. If every virtual battleground, or every piece of software in general, had exactly the same features, we'd be very dissapointed.

The fact that no marketers or developers claimed Aces High was a virtual battlefield, during its time is irrelevant. Nobody called Wolfenstein 3D a first-person shooter at its release either (the term didn't exist yet), and yet it is commonly referenced as being the game which popularized the FPS genre. Similarly, nobody used the term Impressionism to describe the 1860s french art movement until 15 years later, following a similarly titled painting by Claude Monet. Clearly, virtual battlefields are still in their infancy, particularly in the arena of computer gaming.. an important factor to keep in mind. Warthog32 17:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Largest map

WWIIONLINE has the largest terrain. This is not desputed. If you want this verified refer to the graphic in the main article. Any game that can claim terain size mesuring 120km by 230km is free to have the title. EVE online does not have terrain so don't start with that angle.

I just looked up dark and light due to the edit comments. dark and light boasts 15,000 sq KM "without seas." the square root of 15000 is about 122, meaning that Dark and light is roughly half the size of WIIONLINE excluding the seas. If the seas take up more then half the game it is larger than WWIIONLINE. Please verify before you change it.

WWIIOL does not have the largest world. This is not disputed. The graphic in the main article doesn't have Dark and Light in it, does it? I invite you to add Dark and Light to it.

The Dark and light is 40,000 square kilometers. I'm not sure why you would exclude seas, since they are navigable. Here are two links which discuss the world size, including one which compares to other games:

• http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/455/455316p1.html.
• http://www.stratics.com/content/portals/dnl/content/guides/geography/index.php?PHPSESSID=8c934195220903

This compares with WWIIOL at 120km*230km = 27.6 sq km

64.174.34.251 16:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, why use "terrain" size rather than "world" size, especially since terrain size isn't terribly easy to calculate (what is the terrain size in WWIIOL?), and in this case travel isn't exclusive to land in either game. But even if limited to terrain, it seems too close for comfort to say its the largest "by far". Warthog32 18:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The 15,000 number being quoted for DnL is incorrect. DnL has 15,000 square miles of land (seas excluded), which is equal to roughly 40,000 square kilometers of land. Do the math. The difference between 15,000 and 40,000 is a difference in units, not of what is being measured. The 40,000 km² already excludes seas.

Other online games that pass WWIIOL in size (or are close)

• Flight Simulator X = 510,065,600 km²
• Auto Assault = 300,000 km²
• Irth Online = 39,204 km²
• Face of Mankind = 23,000 km²

There's another one at the 100km² mark I'm having trouble remembering.. I'll follow up with it later.  ::But yeah, WWIIOL is "by far" not the largest.

Aritta 23:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all 120km*230 = 27,600 sq KM not 27.6 km

Ok, so the big black blob thing is the actual map size of WWIIONLINE, the black areas include terain but the player who compiled this map didn't take screen shots of them. This entire map is "traversable" but the area with cultural objects and detail is expanding into the traversable area. If I revert the largest map claim I will make mention of this, as it is obviously clear from the above posts that there are now games that are larger than the play area of WWIIONLINE, though this wasn't true in the past. I guess this article was started a bit late.

Note that the first map is 123KM by 120 KM and makes a rectangle slightly larger then the square in the second map. The play area in WWIIONLINE is currently (according to current player made maps) about 250km by 120Km (it has letters A-Y along the bottom and 1-12 along the sides; 10km each) That makes the play area roughly 30,000 Km² which eliminates face of mankind whatever that is. the 40,000 Km² land area in dark and light does infact envelop WWIIONLINE play area, but it drawfed by WWIIONLINES map size.

WWIIONLINES total map size estimated using my advanced finger measuring(tm) is about 812km on a side, making the total map area about 650,000 Km²

btw, the official marketing on the WWIIONLINE site has it at over 350,000 mi². So, incase you doubt my finger measuring you can do the math on that.

yeah, sorry about that. I went to the page, saw 350,000, then latter someone in the forums said miles, so I just assumed they were right. I'ts OVER 350k.

You need to start using references. At the Battleground Europe marketing site, http://www.wwiionline.com/scripts/wwiionline/be_features.jsp, it has it at 350,000 "km". Although, I can only assume they meant km². So, where do you get 350,000 mi²? That's not the first time you've changed the unit of measurement to support your theory. Since everyone knows that the game is limited to 30,000 km², and even your own previous documentation and maps showed only that, do you really think the game should claim the largest map, just because you can find a bigger map of europe?

I also think your dominating the introduction with a qualification of your claim is unreasonable - introductions are supposed to be introductory, not defensive. 64.174.34.254 15:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh... does ANYONE think that WWIIOL map really includes scottland, northern italy and the west coast of yugoslaive (modern day croatia) as indicated in the map that was just posted? Sorry, but this is pretty blatantly wrong and misleading. Hey, I can provide a map of the whole world, and limit the game play to my home town and set a new record!

Aritta 18:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, this is getting ridiculous. The caveats and debate within the gameplay section about the size of the map make the paragraph deranged and almost unreadable. The reader is here to learn about WWIIOL and doesn't care about Dark and Light and other games, let's just change the claim to "one of the biggest" and leave it at that. The point about play being restricted to only a subset of the map is BS too. If you regularly play naval or air you'll find yourself all over the place. I'm gonna clean it up, but please read this and respond before reverting. - H0G

Hear! hear! Your edit looks just fine and I hope it stays that way and ends this nonsense. The 350,000 sq. km looks like garbage to me too (I've sure never sailed out of Scapa Flow or flown over Turin), but I can play dumb if the "biggest, baddest game on the planet by far" weasel word advertising is dropped. Warthog32 20:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess you missed the player expeditions to the Alps then!!!. It takes litterally hours of flying at 300k an hour to reach the edge of the map, It's just that there isn't any reason too, (besides seeing the alps) The data is factual. You can't just take it out because you don't believe it's really that big. The map was compiled by taking screen shots from the in game map and stitching them together. Thats why it looks like crap. I'll make sure it doesn't sound like advertizing when I put it back in.

It seems ridiculous to dominate an article with clarifications, as everyone else but Nhorning seems to agree, but since you edited everything back in, ignoring everyone else's opinion, I'll at least fix your edit to be correct. Aritta 15:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This new section is garbage, its dominates the gameplay section with all sorts of bizarre clarifications. Wikipedia articles are encyclopedic documents, not in-depth reference documents. And where the hell did 600,000 km^2 come from. Even the CSR marketing says 350,000 km^2. Not 350,000 miles^2. Haven't we gone over this enough?

I'll add my vote to go back to HOG's edit, or remove the paragraph entirely. Everything that needs to be communicated is already communicated with the map image. 64.174.34.251 18:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote the same. Is this a joke? "New cities are occasionally added at the fringes of the map, expanding the 30,000 km² core, which was originally less than 10,000km², and may in the future be bigger than 30,000 km². The original development plan was to detail the entire 350,000 km² map". Warthog32 20:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Nhorning's Original:

Play occurs on a 1/2 scale map of Western Europe. It is technically largest map of in any other MMOG, at roughly 350,000 km². However, only 30,000 km² of this map contains cities and modeling detail to make it useful to players, and this play area has recently been superseded by other games like Dark and Light. It has always been smaller than online simulation games, like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which models the entire planet with sattelite-based data. New cities are occasionally added at the fringes of the map, expanding the 30,000 km² core, which was originally less than 10,000km², and may in the future be bigger than 30,000 km². The original development plan was to detail the entire 350,000 km² map, and also model other areas of the world (Japan, Africa), but the speed at which this happened has been far less than anticipated, primarily due to lack of staff. Though vehicles can travel anywhere in the 350,000 km² (It can take hours to fly to some places, and vehicles are likely to run out of gas or break down), play generally takes place around the cities at the front line. This means at any given time battles happen in a small subset of the full map. However, as the front line moves through the course of an entire campaign, the battles visit the majority of the 30,000 km² core.

My Copy-Edit:

Play occurs on a 1/2 scale map of Western Europe. It is one of the largest MMOG maps, at roughly 350,000 km², with most play occuring in a 30,000² central area in which capturable cities, airfields and ports have been placed.

the above is not my (Nhorning) edit someone added a bunch of useless crap to it. The marketing claims OVER 350,000 km not roughly 350,000 km. the actual map size is roughly 600,000 km. If you don't believe me please do a careful comparison of the two maps posted above. I think I like you edit though, and I'll leave it as is (well, I'll change the "roughly" to over to maintain accuracy) unless I decide to add a "Unity I/II" section to explain how the engine works. I am glad that you are all challenging me on my facts here, as it creates a better article.

Glad we finally came to agreement. Regarding documenting Unity I/II: please note that the article is over the 32k guideline (see article length), and we starting to get bloated. As such, I'm very relieved that we ended up with a short and concise edit. If you start to go overboard on documenting the engine (and it would be very easy to do this), consider adding a seperate article, dedicated to it. Many readers aren't going to give a damn about a graphics engine's details - they can see the screenshots. But, going into depth in a secondary article would be a very good thing!

Also note that there is already some discussion of the engine, particularly in the criticisms section. 64.174.34.251 06:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This map business certainly did get out of hand, but I noticed one thing that never got mentioned, although it seems to have bearing on the whole "how big is the map vs. how much terrain is detailed" part of this discussion: I began playing this game the first day it came out, and at that time the entire world was mapped-- but only this limited area had fancy textures and modelling of features. One of the guys in my division flew an aircraft to America, just to see if it was there (at that time fuel consumption was not modelled). It took hours, but sure enough--- it was all there. So when this topic gets all absolute about "biggest", let's keep in mind that WWIIOL can fairly lay claim to having a total area equal to the surface of the earth/2. It's definitely an arguable point about which is the ultimate biggest there ever was, but obviously half the area of the entire world does establish that WWIIOL being "by far not the largest" is an utterly fallacious statement. Let's try to keep a bit more moderation in these claims, whether for or against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.227.194 (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speed tree

If can't see how speedtree is more than a graphical improvement then you have probably not played WWIIONLINE. Yes, in most games trees are graphics. In WWIIONLINE they are invaluable cover and concealment. Before Speedtree had unenterable "Hard Forrests." That could be flown over but not walked through. Speed tree replaced rows of "X trees" Which were rows of trees created by placing what looked like cardboard cutouts of rows 10 trees or more in the middle of a field. The trunks were 1 dimentional and were like plywood that people had to hide behind. Speedtree was a gameplay change far more than it was a graphics improvement.

Wrong, I'm a day 1 player, and a very active player, I just considered these different issues, although I can't speak for the other editors. Keep in mind though, that this article isn't for day 1 WWIIOL players, it will primarily be read by people who don't know what WWIIOL is, and want to learn. So, we need to make these sorts of distinctions as clear as possible.

I see your point about the tight relationship about graphical improvements and gameplay improvements, but that goes way beyond SpeedTree - SpeedTree is only a single example of this relationship.

SpeedTree, at least to me, is a graphical technology. As SpeedTree technology has gotten better, the rats have had several releases of SpeedTree improvements. For instance, even now, SpeedTree just released version 4.0, and there is speculation that WWIIOL will eventually update to use the latest technology.

True, graphical improvemetns often provide cover and concealment improvements, but that goes beyond SpeedTree. X-bushes provide concealment too - they just look real bad. Higher polygon bushes, without speed tree, also provide additional concealment. Some of the old 2D buildings, which didn't provide cover, were also improved, but that has nothing to do with SpeedTree technology.

Similary, the removal of hard forests seems to me like an independent feature and it seems to me like that deserves its own bullet on the feature list.

I'd suggest we put SpeedTree back in the graphical category, and add new bullets for cover/concealment improvements and navigable forests.

I'll wait for the revert though, since its already bounced back and forth a few times. Warthog32 17:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll make the change seems like this addresses both concerns. Aritta 23:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nhorning here. While I'm satisfied with this as a compromise, note that speedtree is mentioned 3 times in the bullet list and that looks a little ridiculous.

I totally agree, clearly that was intended to please you and end your edit parade. 64.174.34.254 15:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Me too, i just put speedtree in all over the place to try to satisfy Nhorning, but its good to know he thinks its excessive, I'll put it back in graphical improvements where it belongs.

Nhorning, seems like you're new to Wikipedia. You can put your discussion tag by typing four tildes in a row, and keep the discussion more readable. Like this:

Aritta 18:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Axis bias

As of right now, we have virtually no shots of Allied play in the article. I ask you to upload your own shots, as will I. Except all of mine are taken with low settings... Just get it done, or the pictures will get pretty damn ugly. (USMA2010 14:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

Agreed. I just got an air combat shot up, donated from the forums, which is pretty decent quality (and british on german). I wish I could personally contribute a ground shot - but my rig is sub-par, and my screenshots just don't do justice. Warthog32 20:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries, that air combat shot is perfect. We're back to being fairly balanced. (USMA2010 00:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC))

Gophur has assurred us that he is indeed Axis bias. Which is why he got his ass kicked in paintball at the con! LOL! (Chris66 08:45 20, June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Needs a section dedicated to the HC

I think that the HC concept is one of the more unique parts of the game.We should work on a new section for it.--Ashmole 02:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then mate, this is your chance to get used to editing Wikipedia, go for it. (USMA2010 14:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Ok,just looking for approval.Thanks :).

I quickly wacked up a very basic overview of the HC. It of course needs a lot more added to it and a lot of editing. Just thought I'd get it started for now.--Wdywtk

Sweet, thanks and good work. (USMA2010 20:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC))

Another person edited the section and it sounds good, but they moved it to within gameplay. I personally think it deserves its own section called High Command and things such as Attack and Defend Objectives, Movement of Brigades, Dot Axis and Allied, etc messages should have their own sections under High Command. A well detailed piece on the High Command would be quite long and would look "funny" I would think if it was just a "small" section in Gameplay. What does everyone else think?Wdywtk 20:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wdywtk, Thanks for stepping in to work on this section. I moved it to gameplay, because this is just one element of gameplay, not really a seperate entity. This is a common template to the WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games project. Please remember that this is a wikipedia article, and is meant to be encylopedic. It isn't a WWIIOL reference. Some of the details you're putting in the article are a little overboard. An average reader trying to get to know what WWIIOL is all about won't want this much detail.

Most readers will lose focus quickly when they start seeing a lot of new terminology (AOs, DOs, brigades....) that they aren't familiar with. It's important to try to keep this in check and communicate the major features without the particulars.

Please try to rework the section to cut down on the game terminology details and instead talk in simple terms. Also try to keep article length in check, we're already well over the 32k guideline.

If you feel the topic deserves more than a short section, then you might consider making a full length subarticle: "World War 2 Online : High Command". But also keep in mind that this sort of thing is already a work in progress on the forthcoming battleground europe wiki from CRS.

Welcome to the WWIIOL wikipedia page!.

Warthog32 07:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a minor thing but..

Is the link bad game play intented to go on article death or is this some kind of mistake?

1. 1 It's a mistake. Please, could someone who's more familar with wikipedia fix it? (There doesn't seem to be any article about bad gameplay nor bad game play. And I'm feeling myself way too shy and new to this to mess with it all by myself. Created an account to talk about this a moment ago.)

1. 2 It's on purpose. Please, explain me what's purpose of this? Ofcourse death is result of bad game play, but the link is kind of out of topic (while the article is about WW-II online). Yet again, this is just my opinion and I'd like to hear general opinion as well.

The link was first introduced in version posted 12:35, 2 November 2005. - Articluna 10:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It was clearly intentional - the author (not me) intentionally entered "death" as the redirection for that text. But, I agree, it's bad practice and misleading... it bothered me in the past too and I didn't bother to fix it. Will do so now though, since I'm clearly not the only one Warthog32 21:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Squad info

Maybe we can add in some info about the players squads and list of squads. Kinda of a record of all the squads in game and what side they play on. It would show how big the WWIIOL community is.

First of all, please sign your comments in the future. You do this by typing (~~ ~~), but without the space in the middle.

Having information on this topic might seem nice, but it could be problematic. Squads might get angry because they are not included, or not enough attention is paid to them. Though I agree that a section on squads would be nice, I personally feel that it should be oriented towards how squads function, rather than a list of the different squads. (USMA2010 03:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC))

If added, this should be its own full length article. I don't think there's any way this could exist as a subsection of this article while doing justice both to this article, and squads in general. Warthog32 07:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

As of 19 October 2006, I am making a speedy failing for this article to reach Good Article status, per WP:WIAGA, because of the following fatal reasons:

1. This article is totally unsourced. Please provide your reliable sources according to WP:CITE to support the three pillars of Wikipedia: neutral point of view, no element of original research and verifiable. I've put a template in this article for editors to fill in their references. Please do not consider it as discouraging.
2. A lot of the images used are copyrighted (including screenshots) and no fair use rationale given. Please provide images suitable for Wikipedia, per WP:ICT, or give fair use rasionale, per WP:FAIR.

If all of those matters above have been fixed, this article can be renominate it again. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 02:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This game is not like most others, but that goes without saying. The majority of the news we get about this game is from information posted in the official forum, which requires and active subscription to even view. I, however, will try to talk with CRS to help get sourcing taken care of. As for the screenshots, I will check who uploaded them and get back to you guys on that. I know that at least two of the frequent editors of this article are memebers of the development team. (USMA2010 03:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

Most of the screenshots are player or developer submitted.-Ashmole

We need CRS's explicit approval to use the screenshots, actually. This is pretty typical. I'll try to get some discussion with them to approve the use and update fair rationale statements. Otherwise, sadly, the images do need to go away.

Warthog32 16:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Luckily, CRS approves of our using these images.

Here's a statement of approval from RAFTER, the marketing director for CRS, giving us permission to continue using these images:

http://discussions.playnet.com/showthread.php?t=170333

I'll update the images fair use statements, accordingly. Warthog32 20:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Equipment designation standards

Not sure why editor decided some weapons should be centi (cm) and some milli (mm) - the WWII German military expressed the calibre in centimeters for all their weapons starting with 20 mm and above, whereas other metric nations used millimeters. Many recent publications use the local standard. PpPachy 15:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My bigger concern was that even the german equipment list had become inconsistent. After the edit, some equipment was listed as mm and some was listed as cm.

Since to the casual reader, it makes sense to have everything in the table use the same units, and since, well, it sure looks funny calling a flak36 an 8.8 instead of an 88, I sure prefer mm. But, I guess I won't complain too much if you revert german equipment back to cm, as long as it is at least consistent units for that country.

Warthog32 01:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the international standard in the defence industry is to use mm. Therefore, I think it is better to use mm. Mecanita 14:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Its a freaking video game with one source. Any comments are original sources. Geez chill.70.176.5.79 22:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Initial Launch colo facility

In the Initial Launch section, there is no reference for the mention of the colo facility going bankrupt 3 days before release. I worked at the colo facility NOC at the time, and as far as I know the colo facility Inflow did not go bankrupt during the WWIIOL launch. There were network issues related to both the facility and the game, and in my opinion there was a lot of misinterpreting of the information by the userbase. I believe the mention of bankruptcy and the faulty fiber optic cable are untrue and/or unrelated to the gameworld servers and their performance. As I understand it, some time after I left the company the game servers were moved to a competing colo facility, and later Inflow sold the Dallas data center whose building is now occupied by The Planet.com. I recommend removing the faulty mentions of bankruptcy and the bad fiber, but there were definitely problems on and shortly after launch day where eager users were unable to reliably connect and play. 24.182.106.175 11:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll edit it, as per your recommendations, until someone can provide a reference. It's not a part of the article that should be taken lightly, and if there's any debate on the subject, my feeling is it needs to be referenced or removed. Warthog32 18:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Picture 7.png

Image:Picture 7.png 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 09:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've initiated some discussion with the game developers (where all of the images on the page originate), to confirm it's OK to use these images). I believe it is, but I'll get a written confirmation, and update the fair use statements once I've found out for certain. Warthog32 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a statement of approval from RAFTER, the marketing director for CRS, giving us permission to continue using these images:

http://discussions.playnet.com/showthread.php?t=170333

I'll update the images fair use statements, accordingly. Warthog32 20:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Player Guide

Is it under consideration to implement a player guide section, possibly based on playable equipment?

No, and I would object to adding this. Wikipedia is not a reference, it is an encyclopedia. I think the kind of guide your proposing really belongs in CRS's own wiki (wiki.wwiionline.com), and in fact there is some amount of that material already included in that wiki. Warthog32 18:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing speculation

Someone recently edited in a number of reference requests. I've resolved many of them, but there are two remaining I feel would be nearly impossible to find a reference for, and furthermore, I think they're pretty inappropriate, since they both come down to speculation, which really doesn't belong in a encyclopedic article. I've removed the text on these two points. For reference, the removed text is below.

Speculation is widespread[citation needed] about future introduction of new features. Among those new : features speculated are:

* New playable armies ( such as U.S. Army, Canadian Army, Imperial Japanese Army, etc.)

* New theatres of combat (African, Italian or Pacific theatres)

* New vehicles (late war tanks, including the Panther, and the Cromwell).

* New infantry equipment (panzerfausts PIATs and Bazookas, or land mines)

* Continued graphical and performance improvements.

Introduction of new features will be largely dependent on the continued financial success of the game[citation needed], in particular the success of the recent Battleground Europe re-release.

Some of the removed text has to do with upcoming features, which I believe does have a place in this article. However, CRS hasn't yet announced what features will be included in 1.28, and until that announcement is done, I don't think speculation is reasonable.

Warthog32 21:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm... Have you ever been on the playskool forums? Have you ever spoken to the developers? This so-called "speculation" dates back for several years, and includes some goals of the developers. Much of it has no source other than that the developers have said it in chat and on the forums. Excluding it is just plain stupid just because you think it's "speculation". KCMODevin —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"UMMMM"... Ok. First to address your unproductive questions. Yes, I'm a day 1 player. Yes, I'm active on the playnet forums. Yes, I've had private discussions with Doc, Rafter and Gophur, as well as forum discussions with them. Do I qualify for your criteria to continue contributing to this article? I've contributed about 1/3 of this article's content, if not more. You've contributed nothing. So, if anyone needs to be justifying their qualification...

Now, to address the issue at hand. You seem to be new to the article, and so you aren't aware that we've twice been rejected for good article status because the article is unverifiable, and has a lot of biased language. We've been cleaning up both, and I think we're making good progress. One area that has been cited is that paragraph containing speculation on what features are upcoming.

Yes, I agree, that most (not all) of the features that were listed in this section have been talked about by the players or even developers. The point is that none of these have been announced as upcoming features by the developers.

I'm fine with leaving any bullets where we can find recent developer references saying the work is in progress. But other items really add no value to the article. If we are to add every item that players have wanted or speculated the developers should add, or even items that the developers have said they'd like to do, then we'll have an entire article's worth of content, with no value.

Putting information in about features that may never arrive is simply spreading rumors, not providing fact, and that's not what Wikipedia is about.

Warthog32 17:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Warthog, I have contributed to the article, I have updated and changed things. So to say I haven't contributed anything is plain bs. I also wasn't questioning your qualification to edit the article, I was questioning your knowledge on the subject. Also, those items are not "speculated" by the players. I have heard the developers themselves say that those are longterm goals for the game. Even though none are immediate goals. Does something have to be immediate and upcoming in the next year in order to qualify for this article? I think not. It also is not spreading rumors, it is including information from statements by the devs for longterm goals of this game. Also, who cares about "good article" ranking? This article is in Wikipedia, and that is good enough. Trying for anything more is just wasting time and worthless. KCMODevin —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you think improving Wikipedia content is a waste of time, but I simply don't agree. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, in particular the section on Burden of Evidence. It's your responsibility in adding new content to be able to back it up with a source. If you don't wish to contribute to Wikipedia under these guidelines, then please don't. This section has been cite tagged for quite some time (and not by me), and it's time to provide the reference or remove the text.

New features which aren't being worked on aren't going to be added to the game until the developers put some effort into them. If you have statements from the rats stating that these items are in being worked on, then you shouldn't have any trouble providing a reference. I've seen similar statements on many of these items saying that they would like to do these things, but they are not currently in plan. I've seen that for thousands of player suggestions. Again, there is no point in listing them in an encyclopedic article. If you can prove any of these items are being worked on, with a reasonably current external reference, then I agree, they belong here.

Warthog32 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So you don't think that they should be added just because they aren't being worked on? That makes no sense at all... And how do you provide a blasted reference when it was said by a developer in chat or on the forums? Also, making Wikipedia or any other online related thing your life is just simply retarded, you could be doing better things, just add truthful things and let it go. This encyclopedia doesn't have to be good enough to put in a book. And do you think I'm going to waste my time finding a stupid reference for something when I could be partying, studying, having a social life, etc...? I think not... I'm simply here to post facts, and someone else can spend their time finding a reference, I'm not going to do it. I have better things to do in my life.

I took time and re-edited it to say:

Discussion among developers about any future long-term goals has included:

• New playable armies ( such as U.S. Army, Canadian Army, Imperial Japanese Army, Italian Army etc.)
• New theatres of combat (North African, Italian or Pacific theatres)
• New vehicles (late war tanks, including the Panther, and the Cromwell)
• New infantry equipment (Panzerfausts, PIATs and Bazooka and land mines)
• Continued graphical and performance improvements.

However, few of these long-term goals are reaching short-term status.

Yet you continue to be stubborn and stupid and delete it, even though it says something far different than what the previous one said, and even though it is 100% truthful. Like I said, not every single Wikipedia article needs to have references for every single statement. That belief is just plain stupid, and Wikipedia won't ever be a citable encyclopedia... It is simply a place to get an idea about a subject, and find references that you can cite. It is also place for truthful things, which the above edit is 100% truthful. The developers HAVE said that those are long-term goals, yet few of those are immediate goals within the next year or so. Just because they aren't immediate does not mean they shouldn't be added.KCMODevin

Again, features that the rats have expressed interest in, but have no plans to implement, really have no place in this article. They are misleading, irrelevant, and so abundant that there is no way to agree on what is more important.

I'm not going to continue a dialog mixed with personal attacks. Wikipedia is most definitely not my life. But I do believe in contributing in the manner in which Wikipedia policy encourages. Please clean it up, we can discuss this without insults. I see from your talk page you've been warned on this in the past.

I think it's time for other editors to chime in. Please discontinue your revert war and personal attacks and let the discussion I initiated take place.

Warthog32 03:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Warthog32, it's speculation that has no room in the article. I say keep it out. DocVM 00:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DocVM (talk • contribs)

[edit] Verifiable References

It needs to be pointed out to those of you editing this article that it is meant to be an encyclopedia article that only includes facts that are from readily verifiable sources ie OTHER than company run paying subscriber access only web forums. If you would like to include information about how the program works please use objective outside sources that come from acceptable and verifiable sources. thanks Awotter 22:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize how little attention this game gets outside of just it's forums? It gets very little, as it has very little money to advertise, and it's mostly been advertised overseas. Not to mention all of the specs and important parts of the game come from the developers themselves. They are verifiable and reliable sources. They exist on the web even if you don't have immediate access to them. The FACTS are staying as they are. --KCMODevin 01:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

KCMODevin, I need to point out that I first tagged specific areas needing attention in this section in August 2007 (and also tagged the article for specific referencing). I looked my self for outside articles that discussed the game engine and could find none. I then came back to it, checked the references that were added and then posted this discussion box before removing the section. The section I deleted is without a single, verifiable independent resource at this time. Someone reading this article cannot even access those section references without paying CRS, those are not acceptable references. Unless you can provide better please don't revert this section back, because it simply doesn't meet Wikipedia article guidelines.Awotter 09:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Battleground Wiki is accessible to everyone and contains the information of the damage model. Game sites mention the ballistics engine (http://www.matrixgames.com/games/game.asp?gid=324 http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/battlegroundeurope). The game can be played for free 'offline,' and although there are no enemies, it shows off the game engine and weapons. Need anything else? DocVM 17:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So what if they cannot verify them? Who gives a crap anyway? No one ever checks references, and the references are just there to keep people like you from removing FACTS. There is no blasted reason for you to remove it. These are FACTS with reliable sources. Who cares if someone cannot view them immediately? Don't you have to subscribe to newspapers online in order to view their articles? Don't you have to pay them to view their older newspapers? What is the difference here? There is none! --KCMODevin 16:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you keep thinking that your personal belief trumps the standards, here is the direct information on references, at this point I am going to ask that the page be reviewed and locked if necessary, I think you really need to think about what Wikipedia is, not what you say it should be, of the additional "references" you posted two are commercial sites (Matrix is the publisher of the game I believe) and one has no mention of any of the "facts" you are citing and the links are broken. Here are the relevant policies, this section does not come close to meeting them, nor at this point does it belong in this article:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Web forums and the talkback section of weblogs are not regarded as reliable. While they are often controlled by a single party (as opposed to the distributed nature of Usenet), many still permit anonymous commentary and we have no way of verifying the identity of a poster.

Wikis including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources.

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. (italics mineAwotter 20:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page."Awotter 20:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking Awotter is detirmined to remove all content from this article... --KCMODevin 20:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate that you not make personal attacks. I conducted another search for corroborating, acceptable refences on the game engine (Unity/II per press release proprietary to CRS) and have found none on sites like Gamasutra etc, that are reputable and no references to it other than non-specific CRS press releases and the non-accesible and non acceptable inline article links. I have asked some developer friends to research their published literature for possible references and I will check my personal library for same. At the end of thirty days if that search is not sufficient enough to improve this section then I will delete it again.Awotter 21:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a big fan of improving the accuracy of this article with references. Video games are particularly susceptible to inaccuracy since people have a tendency to fill articles with personal impressions and hearsay. That said, third-party sources for video games are extremely limited, and third-party peer-reviewed journalistic sources are nonexistent. Media which covers video games that does exist is highly biased and has major conflicts of interest (taking the majority of their income from the video game publishers which they cover).

Following strictly the basic tenets of Wikipedia, most video game coverage would be deleted. As such, it has been accepted that primary sources are acceptable for video game coverage. And that means the developer - meaning public developer discussions and published materials from the developer.

People that love to quote Wikipedia tenets and rules always seem to miss this very important one: Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. You must keep in mind that our goal is to provide useful and accurate content on Wikipedia. It is a waste of time (both yours and others) to challenge the content of something when you have no reason to believe it is wrong. When there is a developer discussion where a developer divulges the workings of the game, and when you've experienced that yourself when playing the game, and you have no reason to believe that the text you are reading is wrong, then it is a major disservice to delete the text simply because it has not been referenced. It is an even more grievous disservice to delete text that has been referenced, because you the reference is not a third-party peer-reviewed source.

Certainly, if you can find anything to dispute what the developer is saying, then this should be individually addressed. But quoting rules and deleting text with a broad sweep of the hand is very disruptive to those that put in a lot of time trying to improve the article, and work hard to find sources (even though they "only" primary sources) to backup the accuracy of the article.

Warthog32 (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please point out to me where it has been accepted that primary sources are acceptable for video game coverage? I'm not into wikilawyering, but wiki is about consensus, not just doing your own thing or using any non-verifiable sources that you feel like, which is why the policies pertaining to the discussion were posted here. The fact is that the sources listed are not accessible to non paying customers of CRS and that alone makes them unacceptable, under any circumstances, for any article. The policies exist for a reason. The claims made by CRS are most likely exaggerations and unless and until you or someone else provides an independent source for those claims (true or not, simply provide references that can serve for the reader to decide) in the article they do not belong.Awotter (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Awotter, lay off the page. It has been pointed out the sources are in more than just the forums, but the forums are acceptable references. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean anything. IT also has already been stated that you need to also look here: http://wiki.wwiionline.com/index.php/Main_Page You apparently have not done so, and I suggest you do before you edit any more the stuf on this wiki page. --KCMODevin (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you again, please refrain from taking this personally or telling me what to do or to assume that I have not attempted to find acceptable references for the challenged material. Pay only web forums and outside Wikis are not acceptable references for articles. Awotter (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion, which certainly does not make it a fact on Wikipedia. --KCMODevin (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Pay no attention, we argue on the forums more then actually play the game. We even argue about arguing. You guys are the best community, I will never forget you. We've had great arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.6.225 (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc: Acceptable references

Are the references in the Damage Model section acceptable under verifiability guidelines?

Developer discussion on game damage model, with detailed pictures from testing.

Developer discussion on game-calculated ballistics

More developer discussion on damage model, showing individual components on a Tiger, with diagrams showing fragmentation and spalling from a 76mm AP penetration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awotter (talk • contribs) 22:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently direct links individual threads are disabled (without logging in), yet I can see threads via the search menu or browsing. Is there a simple search string I can use to find these posts quickly? Usually posts made by the developers are reliable enough to be used as sources, but I want to take a look and make sure. Nifboy (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I went to the main page and typed in "damage model" and found one developers post supposedly regarding a damage model test run by a beta user in 2006, there was no other reference I could see similar to the links using other searches. No posts that I could see were older than 2006 (2005 on the Archive list) The image that appears in the section comes from another game web forum and has no information about where or when it was provided. I still think that stronger references need to be given, I haven't checked the history to see when this section was first added, but if you notice this text ("Because rounds may fail to penetrate or damage critical components, the complexity of the damage model can lead to incorrect beliefs about opposing vehicle's invulnerability, particularly amongst new players. seems to indicate it was added as justification for player complaints about game play") it is making a statement that needs to be easily verifiable if someone is here reading the article for specific game information. It's not enough to say "my software cures cancer" because I say it does, especially if the claim seems far fetched. How many computational cycles would this game engine require on the server side to do the calculations for x number of users causing damage simultaneously (not to mention how do you then pass that information in real time to the client), especially when that number of users is supposed to be in the hundreds? It's a fun game, I played it for years beginning the week it launched but I've been skeptical about the developers claims from the beta because they often didn't pan out or were exaggerated.Awotter (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Skeptical about the game and the developers? You have no reason to questino ANYTHING that they say. You simply don't agree with them or think they aren't telling the complete truth about the game, and you want the information removed because you think they are somehow not telling the complete truth and that the game really doesn't run on that damage model. Well listen here, they have no reason to lie or twist the truth, the damage model graphics and section is complete FACT whether you like it or not. --KCMODevin (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

KCMODevin Apparently you've been warned several times to refrain from personal attacks. I've asked you twice not to take this personal and you continue to do so. If you cannot or will not contribute to improving the article then I suggest maybe you go play the game and not hang out here with people who are. Awotter (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not attacking you, I'm calling you out. I'm sorry but there is a big difference between playing a game and being loyal to it and the developers. --KCMODevin (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

KCMODevin, you really need to cool it down. No offense to either of you, but rather than talking about Awotter's edits cooly, and getting other opinions to discuss this calmly, its turning into an edit war, and quite frankly a big mess. In response, it seems that Awotter has taken it under his stride to, well, butcher the page, reorganizing years worth of contributions for many authors, and in the progress throw out the points that are being debated. You've been warned on personal attacks multiple times in the past. Can you start to see now why it's not productive? Please cool it.

As a personal plea, from someone who as put a lot of time and effort into this page, could both of you please cool down a bit and take this a little more slowly and professionally?

Awotter, I know you were trying to clean up some other aspects, but in a addition to throwing out the points that were being debated, you've made it impossible to revert them, and have severely damaged the article by removing the standard video game template format. I think you've gotten enough outside confirmation that these references are legitimate, so I think we need to start again going over this point by point.

64.174.34.250 (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To respond more directly. Yes, these are reasonable references.

1) These come from developer discussions in which the developers have given details on the game's engine internals.

2) True, these links are only accessible to paid users. The same could be said for references to newspapers and magazine articles, yet these are acceptable works. That doesn't make the reference invalid.

3) Developer statements are acceptable, as long as there is no reason to doubt them. In the case of the points you're trying to get references for, these can also be easily verified by simply playing the game and observing. Do you have reason or external sources to debate their accuracy? Awotter, If so, please give some specific details on what points you doubt the accuracy of and your reasons for doubting them.

4) You commented that the ballistic calculations are unrealistic because they couldn't possible be done server side. You're right. The developers have said they are done on the client side.

64.174.34.250 (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you choose to simply delete my contributions anonymously and again resort to personalizing an issue I'm forwarding this on. Thanks so much for ignoring everything about Wikipedia that makes it unique. I acted in good faith, made significant changes for the better after 3 months of notice in the article and whoever you are you just erased it. Including legitmate and verifiable information referenced and presented with a bow. Awotter (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, but your edits needed significant rework. You split the history section apart, leaving most of its subsection under the wrong major section. You reverted several recent edits from other editors. You deleted all the text that has been under debate here for referencing. You ignored the video game article template. This simply had to be reverted.

64.174.34.252 (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Then work on the article. You are not allowed simply to undo good faith changes and legitimate additions or deletions to an article. As of now you folks are being highly disrespectful of me and the process which is why I have asked for informal mediation. i have responded here, on individual talk pages and on the video game project page. This process began in August with a simple request for inline citations. three months later none of you responded until I deleted the challenged material. Since then not one of you has made a serious attempt at compromise or even been willing to acknowledge legitimate concerns. If this page again before there's even an attempt at mediation then I'll ask that it be protected. Awotter (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. You put cite marks on the sections. We provided references. you deleted the sections despite our references. We responded to your concerns in the talk pages, and you kept deleting them. It is you that is being very disrespectful of our edits. Your most recent edit was just the same thing over again with more changes mixed in to make it more difficult for us to restore our original text. 64.174.34.250 (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If you have concerns about additions or changes to the article

Then address or change them only. No one has the right to simply revert an entire article simply because they disagree with what an editor or editor's have contributed. Mediation requested is not related to content but by actions people are taking without regard to any guidelines or policies. Awotter (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Awotter, your edit has several significant problems, it was not reverted simply because of the damage model changes (although you're very outvoted on that change too). Here's a list of problems:

• You've moved only one portion of this history section forward, leaving the rest of the history subsections in their original place. The rest of the history subsections are now under the "Screenshots" section, which is obviously not appropriate.

Since a game's present state is more interesting to more readers than it's history of past changes, I don't see any reason the history section should be moved to the front of the document, at all, let alone the small portion on the initial release.

• You decided to move several of the screenshots into a section of their own, where they make a huge hole in the document where there is no longer any text to describe what these screenshots depict. Screenshots should enhance the document text, not stand on their own. There was previously a good flow of the text around the screenshots.

• As part of the change, you deleted much of the text that we have been debating about removal (that is, the text describing the damage model). This is valuable text that describes important aspects of gameplay, and has been referenced. This is also under mediation and has been reverted by you several times. Please let mediation continue.

• You moved several sections around, making it very difficult to review your changes to those sections. When you're moving large sections of text, please make these changes as separate edits and make it clear the sections are unchanged, and only the order is changing. Furthermore, please discuss section changes with the rest of the editors to let us know why you think it's required.

All together, you made so many edits in one large batch, including several very contentious ones (and under mediation) that there's simply no choice but to revert the thing. Please fix the above concerns when you restore your edits. I saw there was some valuable content in your changes, but it was nearly impossible to edit out the good stuff. Please at least consider avoiding outline changes, for now, so we can more clearly see what changes you're making.

Warthog32 (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to anything further. There are ways to correct the article outside of an outright revert even if a number of changes were made. It's not that hard. Awotter (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Because of your section moves, it was really difficult to see what you'd even edited, so yes, it really was that hard. And given the recent revert war, and ongoing mediation, it seemed like careful dissection of your edits would be wasted time. I think I made the right choice. Anyway, we'll see what the mediation you initiated brings.

Warthog32 (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mmogmaps 001.jpg

Image:Mmogmaps 001.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Server

Is this one huge map,or are there different servers

It's one map. There are two other servers; one for training events, and one for beta testing, but the main gameplay takes place on a single server (a single map). Warthog32 (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)