![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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.
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))
We still need to add the following information:
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)
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)
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)
Maybe we should also add a section on criticisms of the game?
I believe that this section cannot be properly edited while its on the main article page, it's causing too much trouble and must be discussed here in discussion, it should be removed untill something is worked out as it's just seasawing between hateful and too flatering 24.114.255.83 ( talk) 20:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
A user has requested mediation on this issue. ERK talk • contribs is here to help resolve your dispute. The case page for this mediation is located here.
Every criticism listed seems to be prefaced with an excuse of just why it isn't the game's fault because it is just so awesome. The fact is, it seems like the only people who care enough to edit this page are it's fanbois. The criticism on Customer Service is VALID. LET IT STAND> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.201.161 ( talk) 18:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The BBB site has 2 complaints inthepastt year. If you were to see the number of complaints in the first three years following release, they were astronomical. The customer service section has noPOVV, merely unbiased fact. You can't dispute any of the claims. It's staying. If you change, I'll change it back... until the end of time.[(UserMrSpammyyMrSpammyy)]
Not to mention that every criticism of the game is an "excuse". This whole article reads like an apologetic add. Badcutomerr service is a valid issue with the game. Let the edit stand. —Preceding [Wikipediaa:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
UserMrSpammyyMrSpammyy (
talk •
Special:ContributionsMrSpammyycontribss) 12:50, 13 January 2009 UTCC)
Try posting a thread that says, "This game sucks" in their forums. UserMrSpammyyMrSpammyy ( talk) —Preceding [Wikipediaa:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 04:38, 1 February 2009 UTCC).
Here's a quote from a ban email: OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION
LOGISTICS OFFICE- WORLD WAR II ONLINE
A Terms of Service TOSS) warning has been issued to you. Following is the moderator remarks regarding the warning and the offending post.
Banned.
Flaming Killer is a quick way to get banned.
9. Do not post Flame. Do not post links to pages which contain Flame or links to other links which contain Flame. Posts within a discussion-thread should be focused on to the thread topic, not against other individuals in the thread. Flame posts include hostile and negative posts directed at: - An individual player - A player organization, including any of the official high commands, squads, etc. - The moderators of these boards - Any member of theCRSS orPlaynett staff - The game itself AND/OR False and negative concepts such as: -CRSS bias -Nerfingg of weapons - Side advantage by design - Winning or losing due toCRSS actions
Additionally, here's a screen shot of a ban
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fa/Done.jpg/800px-Done.jpg —Preceding [Wikipediaa:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by UserMrSpammyyMrSpammyy ( talk • Special:ContributionsMrSpammyycontribss) 04:46, 1 February 2009 UTCC)
Also, here's a copy of theTOSS. Note numbers 9 and 13 http://www.battlegroundeurope.com/index.php/component/content/article/48
Written by Administrator Tuesday, 17 June 2008 08:34 FORUMS RULES
Message Board Code of Conduct and Rules
1. These Rules apply to theCRSS /Playnett forums, to all otherCRSS services, and to all other communication services utilizingPlaynett resources.
Questions regarding interpretation and application of these Rules should be directed to: Lead Moderator: schulz@playnet.comThis e-mail address is being protected fromspambotss. You need JavaScript enabled to view it CRSS Community Manager: latham@playnet.comThis e-mail address is being protected frospambotsts. You need JavaScript enabled to view itCRS RS Community Manager: topd@playnet.comThis e-mail address is being protected frspambotsots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The moderators are all community volunteers. Their job is to keep the forums productive and positive.
2. In response to an unacceptable post or other action as defined here, the moderators may make edits or comments within posts containing unacceptable content. They may also remove unacceptable content and issue warnings or temporary forum bans.
All such discipline will weigh the unacceptable content or other action against the prior disciplinary record of the individual in question. Tindividual'sl's attitude and further actions with respect to the incident will also be a factor.
Borderline content will be evaluated more rigorously when posted by an individual with a significant prior disciplinary record. Posts made during a "riot" or other concerted group rules-violation activity may be moderated more rigorously. In instances where an individual has multiple accounts, related posts from the second account may be considered in regard to disciplinary action for a post from the first account. Generally, repeated unacceptable posting will result in warnings, then temporary forum bans of escalating duration. Repeated temporary bans will result in a permanent ban from forums usage.
3. Do not edit or otherwidefeateate Moderator comments. Moderator edits and comments within posts are intended to implement these forum Rules.
4. Do not post discussions of the board itself or of moderator decisions. If you feel the need to discuss either of these, send your questions to the above e-mail addresses.
5. Do not quote content of other posts which violate these rules. Do nrepostost threads that have been locked or deleted. Do nrepostost content that has been edited or deleted by the moderators.
6. Threads are to be in posted in their appropriate forums. Do not post substantially duplicate content across additional forums ("cross-posting").
7. Technical Support questions should be posted in the appropriate Community Support forum or directed to tPlaynetnet Support Pages ( http://support.playnet.com). Tech Support questions posted in the other forums will be moved to one of the two Community Support forums. In cases where it is unclear which type of system the user is asking about, the post will be moved to the Community Support (PC) forum.
8. Do not post threads about cheats, hacks or exploits. Do not post on this subject even if it is complaints, accusations, observations or commentary. In addition, do not post links to any site that contains either content of, or other links to, cheats, hacks or exploits. If you want to report what you feel is a cheat, hack or exploit, email the report with as much evidence as possible to gophur@playnet.comThis e-mail address is being protected frspambotsots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
All "hack" reports will be investigated CRSCRS as they arise. Those found active will be dealt with as fast as possible depending on the current development schedule. Accounts that are caught "hacking" in any way shape or form are locked immediately with no warning, questions, or recourse.
9. Do not post Flame. Do not post links to pages which contain Flame or links to other links which contain Flame. Posts within a discussion-thread should be focused on to the thread topic, not against other individuals in the thread. Flame posts include hostile and negative posts directed at:- An individual player - A player organization, including any of the official high commands, squads, etc. - The moderators of these boards - Any member of tCRSCRS Playnetnet staff - The game itselfAND/OR False and negative concepts such as: CRSCRS biaNerfing Nerfingfing of weapons - Side advantage by design - Winning or loCRSg due to CRS actions
10. Do not post Spam. This includes, but is not restricted to, posting "in", "pad", "+1", or any other form of posting expressly to increase your post count without providing content. The moderators will use their discretion to determine when a post is not intended to begin or contribute to a community discussion. Please read the Terms of Service for further information on spamming.
11. Do not post content which is not availaprimetimeS. primetime broadcast television. “Content” means everything included in your post; your written words, any picture, your signature and all direct hyperlinks, whether typed or embedded in an image. Further, “all hyperlinks” means any link you post may not go directly to any content listed below. We understand that linked pages may contain links to content in violation of these guidelines. We require users to review linked pages for obvious links to content which violates the posting guidelines and refrain from posting. Linking to a page which may contain a link to content which violates these guidelines will not constitute a violation, so long as the links themselves do not, in any way, violate these guidelines. - Inappropriate language - Inappropriate nudity - Excessive sexual innuendo - Racial slurs - Ethnic slurs - Religious slurs - National slurs - Hate language
If you are unsure of what constprimetimeS. primetime broadcast television standards- for example, inappropriate nudity, play it safe and do not post it. If you need clarification, contact one of the persons in Section 1.
The forums utilize an automatic filter which replaces certain unacceptable words with asterisks. Note that this filter does not make the use of such words permissible - rather, its operation is a direct indication that the poster used unacceptable contenCRS
.
Playnet. Do not post content, including text, images, links and sig files, which have the effect of promoting another game or directing forum users to a website or other information source that has as a primary function the communication of information or the provision of a forum for commentary which is hostile and negative toward CRS / Playnet. 14. Do not post content that would defame, abuse, harass, siglk, threaten or otherwise violate the legal rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others.
15. Do not repost private emails or PMs without the participant’s expressed permission.
16. Do not post directly, or post links to any site that contains eitherCRSntePlaynetor other links to, files, programs or software that could harm or lock up another person's computer. This includes, but is not limited to, "crash me" sites and automatic playing videreposto. Doing so can result in a ban.
17. Do not arrange for the exchange of pirated software, other copyrighted content or other illegal items or substances while using the Playnet services. This also includes links to any site that contains either content of, or other links to, pirated software or other illegal items or substances.
18. Do not post, publish, upload, distribute or disseminate any inappropriate, profane, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent or unlawful topic, name, material or information.
1Playnetot advertise or offer to sell or buy any goods or services for any business purpose on these forums without permission from Playnet Inc. (contact Al Corey acorey@playnet.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ).
20. Do not use the forums in connection with any surveys, contests, pyramid schemes, chain letters, junk email, spamming or any duplicative or unsolicited messages (commercial or otherwise).
21. Do Playnetvest or otherwise collect information about others, including e-mail addresses and IP spambotss.
22. Do not post to have a personal discussion with other individuals. This includes "JOEBLOW" and "EMAIL ME" type posts. Email or a PM works quite well.
23. Do not creaduplicativeosts. Visit one of the forums and contribute to a discussion to observe what you want to test.
24. Signature images should not exceed a file size of IP0KB and dimensions not in excess of 640 pixels wide and 380 pixels high. Multiple images in a signJOEBLOWwhen taken as a whole, may not exceed the limit set for a single image above. The entire signature, text included, may not exceed 440 pixels in height.
25. These rules are intended to provide further, more practical guidance for users than provided by the Terms of Service. These rules may be changed, without notice at any time. In any situation where the Terms of Service conflicts with these rules, the Terms of Service supercedes any of the above rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSpammy ( talk • contribs) 04:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The TOS of tsupercedesy is no different from any other. These are the rules that are chosen bWikipediapany, and it does not prove that they are actinMrSpammyuMrSpammybusive way. GettMrSpammyed for insulting a member of a comMrSpammyscontribsprocedure on any official foUTC. There is still no evidence that they act in a way that is unfair towards plTOSrs. 24.114.255.83 ( talk) 18:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The mods originally gave me a 30 ban for mentioning www.secretot.com, which they believe is unfavorable to the game.``` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.201.161 ( talk) 03:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's is a quote from an email exchange with the "customer service" rep:
Your threads disappeared because you were doing what is known as "trolling". You were referring to an out dated forum that is not only against the terms of service was a forum designed to hurt Playnet's business.
I quote one of your several posts. "I'm confuSed as tO whaT happened to my earlier thread?" or "SalutatiOns To you all!" Or "I'm Surprised tO see That this game is still around. Think I'll try it out again."
So with that said, any further references will result in a 30 day or more forum suspension.
Good luck and Have Fun!
- Latham, Community Manager, WWII Online-Battleground Europe.
--- The continued abuse was mentioning that the game still lacked content and features ADVERTISED on the box at release, in addition to capitalizing the letters "S" "O" and "T", which they are threatend by, somehow. For the record, the forum they refer to was not designed to in any way affect their business. MrSpammy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC).
I edited the Customer Service portion to appear more neutral MrSpammy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC).
Furthermore DocVM, it is known that you are a fan of the game and a loyal player. So it is understandable that you don't want the game to get any bad press. But the fact of the matter is that there are MANY people whose opinion differs from yours. Your OPINION and the opinions of your cohorts are represented ALL THROUGHOUT the article unchallenged. You need to tolerate dissent. Faults in the game and developers have been documented by credible sources in the gaming industry.
Accept it.
MrSpammy ( talk) 21:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
MrSpammy, I've requested a Mediation Cabal case to discuss these edits. We'll be able to get a third party to give their thoughts on the edits and we'll be able to present our case. Sounds good? DocVM ( talk) 22:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I also find the critcism added by MrSpammy very dubious.
The "Subscriber Forums" section should be completely removed in my opinion.
Datenschleuder (
talk)
22:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | Regarding this dispute: mediation will begin after involved parties have agreed to mediation by listing their names below. |
Involved Parties:
So, when does this thing start? MrSpammy ( talk) 21:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyone? MrSpammy ( talk) 03:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, I left a message on the mods talk page 24.114.255.83 ( talk) 19:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
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))
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)
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))
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))
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))
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)
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))
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:
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 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.
Aces High was an air combat game. It did not represent the full spectrum of war.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I'll make the change seems like this addresses both concerns. Aritta 23:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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))
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)
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
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)
Is the link bad game play intented to go on article death or is this some kind of mistake?
The link was first introduced in version posted 12:35, 2 November 2005. - Articluna 10:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
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.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is it under consideration to implement a player guide section, possibly based on playable equipment?
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.
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)
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:
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
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)
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 mine Awotter 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is this one huge map,or are there different servers
REPLACING:
", taking the "massive" out of "massively multiplayer"
Reason: There is no indication that the definition of
Massively_multiplayer is not applicable.
"What this means is that, at times, the action is non-existent. One could travel in game for literally hours and not find a worthwhile engagement."
Reason: It can be proven by the amount of EWS that at least several dozen players are online at every regular game time.
Even the references which are just opinions by individuals do not support this statement. --
Datenschleuder (
talk)
09:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
REPLACING WITH:
"However sufficient player concentrations can be consistently encountered due to the principle of using just a single game world instance and by introducing automated adjustment of gameplay hotspots based on player numbers (see Attack- and Defense Objectives)."
Datenschleuder ( talk) 21:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The explained changes were reverted by
24.252.201.161 without taking part in the discussion. --
Datenschleuder (
talk)
08:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This link has nothing to do with subject. I see no reason to keep this here. -- Datenschleuder ( talk) 09:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
There is more edit warring going on than use of talk page. This is bad. It may result in blocks if continued. You have been warned William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Removing: "The inability to learn from mistakes - no detailed debriefing is given - increases the level of frustration."
Reason: Detailed sortie details are delivered in game and at
http://csr.wwiionline.com/. That one is unable to learn from mistakes in the game is simply baseless. --
Datenschleuder (
talk)
11:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Removing: References
[1]
[2] in sections where there is no context to the initial release of the game.
Reason: These references from 2001 in context to criticism on the current state of the game are totally outdated due to the many changes made to the game in more than eight years.
-- Datenschleuder ( talk) 12:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Support tickets can be submitted here for technical, account and billing assistance: http://support.playnet.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.149.177 ( talk) 19:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello chaps. You're having jolly fun edit warring over this, though you aren't doing it properly :-). Anyway, I can't tell from the outside who if the Force For Good and who is the Evil Edit Warrior. Since neither of you is bothering with the talk page, you are probably both EEW's. So, you're both restricted to WP:1RR on this page, until the dispute is resolved or I get bored watching William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi MrSpammy and Datenschleuder, I'm going to be informally mediating this case, if that's ok.
Could we start by discussing the contested sources?
Could I ask Datenschleuder to explain if he objects to these sources, and if so why? PhilKnight ( talk) 18:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Here I wonder if I've exposed your bias just a little bit. The article mentions accolades, yet no complaint from you. If it were to link to a positive review would you also so protest? I sincerely doubt it.
Finally, I would like to add that I was until very recently a player. I played, on and off, since release, and can personally attest, as one who "knows the system" that there are MANY times when a player simply can NOT find a single "worth while" engagement in game. Sure, you can drive around by yourself and occasionally find an enemy nfantryman to kill, or, after driving for an hour mysteriously have a bomb dropped on you, but often there is not much payoff. This is not to say that huge battles never happen. I've been in a few in recent months in game, but the "massive" part of "massively multiplayer" seems inaccurate. MrSpammy ( talk) 02:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
also, Datenschleuder, I guess me not liking the game should disqualify me from editing, but you being an avid fan and current player is just dandy? Where's the balance? MrSpammy ( talk) 15:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You haven't addressed any of my points. And I won't respond to your red herring. MrSpammy ( talk) 15:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Reiterating frommy previous post: "Finally, I would like to add that I was until very recently a player. I played, on and off, since release, and can personally attest, as one who "knows the system" that there are MANY times when a player simply can NOT find a single "worth while" engagement in game. Sure, you can drive around by yourself and occasionally find an enemy nfantryman to kill, or, after driving for an hour mysteriously have a bomb dropped on you, but often there is not much payoff. This is not to say that huge battles never happen. I've been in a few in recent months in game, but the "massive" part of "massively multiplayer" seems inaccurate.MrSpammy (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)"
Let's let the mediation work.
As an aside, I'd like to note that WWIIOL players are actively recruiting people to conter my arguments/edits both on their official forums and on their facebook page. MrSpammy ( talk) 19:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You cannot deny that subscriber base/game populations has dwindled over the years. I'm NOT saying that there are NEVER times when you can find a lot of people or a huge battle, but that is relatively unusual. It's not a factor of the spawn system. It's a factor of the amount of people playing and the time of day. Be honest.
MrSpammy (
talk)
15:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Well then! If the *developers* said it, it must be true! If they have nothing to hid, why don't they release some numbers? MrSpammy ( talk) 23:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that the 'difficult to find a battle' compromise works, and is the best that we’ll come up with. However there is a list of grievances that I have with recent edits.
There also has been general vandalism on this page. I believe that a proper action would to make the World War II Online page editable to only those with Wikipedia accounts. DocVM ( talk) 20:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the forums being ruled with an iron fist- I refer you to www.secretot.com, who owes its very existence to that fact. It clearly states in the playnet forums Terms of Service, which is linked in the external links section, "13. Do not post content, including text, images, links and sig files, which have the effect of promoting another game or directing forum users to a website or other information source that has as a primary function the communication of information or the provision of a forum for commentary which is hostile and negative toward CRS / Playnet." How is that not noteworthy?
They claim that SOT's primary function is to be "hostile" or "negative" toward CRS and Playnet, which is patently untrue. Banning people for merely mentioning an independent forum is unheard of for a game's website, at least in my experience. Are you trying to tell me that that is not noteworthy? MrSpammy ( talk) 01:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You don't think that's noteworthy? Try posting the letters "SOT" and see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.171.14 ( talk) 03:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, we can finally put this to rest. Got some pics seeing how no one else was going to post anything. Here are some screen caps from the Off Topic thread. Each one discusses a different games or game related stuff. All these threads are open. PhilKnight, I hope this is the proof you need.
DocVM (
talk)
17:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii127/DanVM_2008/ETW.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii127/DanVM_2008/HOI2.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii127/DanVM_2008/L4D.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii127/DanVM_2008/Majesty2.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii127/DanVM_2008/Menofwar.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii127/DanVM_2008/Steam.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii127/DanVM_2008/TF2.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii127/DanVM_2008/mariokart.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii127/DanVM_2008/xboxlive.jpg
I'm not sure that this is the appropriate title for this. I'm willing to work with you on a mutually agreeable section, but as it stands, this will need refining. I'm currently dealing with a family crisis, so I won't be on much for the next few days. MrSpammy ( talk) 23:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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.
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))
We still need to add the following information:
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)
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)
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)
Maybe we should also add a section on criticisms of the game?
I believe that this section cannot be properly edited while its on the main article page, it's causing too much trouble and must be discussed here in discussion, it should be removed untill something is worked out as it's just seasawing between hateful and too flatering 24.114.255.83 ( talk) 20:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
A user has requested mediation on this issue. ERK talk • contribs is here to help resolve your dispute. The case page for this mediation is located here.
Every criticism listed seems to be prefaced with an excuse of just why it isn't the game's fault because it is just so awesome. The fact is, it seems like the only people who care enough to edit this page are it's fanbois. The criticism on Customer Service is VALID. LET IT STAND> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.201.161 ( talk) 18:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The BBB site has 2 complaints inthepastt year. If you were to see the number of complaints in the first three years following release, they were astronomical. The customer service section has noPOVV, merely unbiased fact. You can't dispute any of the claims. It's staying. If you change, I'll change it back... until the end of time.[(UserMrSpammyyMrSpammyy)]
Not to mention that every criticism of the game is an "excuse". This whole article reads like an apologetic add. Badcutomerr service is a valid issue with the game. Let the edit stand. —Preceding [Wikipediaa:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
UserMrSpammyyMrSpammyy (
talk •
Special:ContributionsMrSpammyycontribss) 12:50, 13 January 2009 UTCC)
Try posting a thread that says, "This game sucks" in their forums. UserMrSpammyyMrSpammyy ( talk) —Preceding [Wikipediaa:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 04:38, 1 February 2009 UTCC).
Here's a quote from a ban email: OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION
LOGISTICS OFFICE- WORLD WAR II ONLINE
A Terms of Service TOSS) warning has been issued to you. Following is the moderator remarks regarding the warning and the offending post.
Banned.
Flaming Killer is a quick way to get banned.
9. Do not post Flame. Do not post links to pages which contain Flame or links to other links which contain Flame. Posts within a discussion-thread should be focused on to the thread topic, not against other individuals in the thread. Flame posts include hostile and negative posts directed at: - An individual player - A player organization, including any of the official high commands, squads, etc. - The moderators of these boards - Any member of theCRSS orPlaynett staff - The game itself AND/OR False and negative concepts such as: -CRSS bias -Nerfingg of weapons - Side advantage by design - Winning or losing due toCRSS actions
Additionally, here's a screen shot of a ban
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fa/Done.jpg/800px-Done.jpg —Preceding [Wikipediaa:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by UserMrSpammyyMrSpammyy ( talk • Special:ContributionsMrSpammyycontribss) 04:46, 1 February 2009 UTCC)
Also, here's a copy of theTOSS. Note numbers 9 and 13 http://www.battlegroundeurope.com/index.php/component/content/article/48
Written by Administrator Tuesday, 17 June 2008 08:34 FORUMS RULES
Message Board Code of Conduct and Rules
1. These Rules apply to theCRSS /Playnett forums, to all otherCRSS services, and to all other communication services utilizingPlaynett resources.
Questions regarding interpretation and application of these Rules should be directed to: Lead Moderator: schulz@playnet.comThis e-mail address is being protected fromspambotss. You need JavaScript enabled to view it CRSS Community Manager: latham@playnet.comThis e-mail address is being protected frospambotsts. You need JavaScript enabled to view itCRS RS Community Manager: topd@playnet.comThis e-mail address is being protected frspambotsots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The moderators are all community volunteers. Their job is to keep the forums productive and positive.
2. In response to an unacceptable post or other action as defined here, the moderators may make edits or comments within posts containing unacceptable content. They may also remove unacceptable content and issue warnings or temporary forum bans.
All such discipline will weigh the unacceptable content or other action against the prior disciplinary record of the individual in question. Tindividual'sl's attitude and further actions with respect to the incident will also be a factor.
Borderline content will be evaluated more rigorously when posted by an individual with a significant prior disciplinary record. Posts made during a "riot" or other concerted group rules-violation activity may be moderated more rigorously. In instances where an individual has multiple accounts, related posts from the second account may be considered in regard to disciplinary action for a post from the first account. Generally, repeated unacceptable posting will result in warnings, then temporary forum bans of escalating duration. Repeated temporary bans will result in a permanent ban from forums usage.
3. Do not edit or otherwidefeateate Moderator comments. Moderator edits and comments within posts are intended to implement these forum Rules.
4. Do not post discussions of the board itself or of moderator decisions. If you feel the need to discuss either of these, send your questions to the above e-mail addresses.
5. Do not quote content of other posts which violate these rules. Do nrepostost threads that have been locked or deleted. Do nrepostost content that has been edited or deleted by the moderators.
6. Threads are to be in posted in their appropriate forums. Do not post substantially duplicate content across additional forums ("cross-posting").
7. Technical Support questions should be posted in the appropriate Community Support forum or directed to tPlaynetnet Support Pages ( http://support.playnet.com). Tech Support questions posted in the other forums will be moved to one of the two Community Support forums. In cases where it is unclear which type of system the user is asking about, the post will be moved to the Community Support (PC) forum.
8. Do not post threads about cheats, hacks or exploits. Do not post on this subject even if it is complaints, accusations, observations or commentary. In addition, do not post links to any site that contains either content of, or other links to, cheats, hacks or exploits. If you want to report what you feel is a cheat, hack or exploit, email the report with as much evidence as possible to gophur@playnet.comThis e-mail address is being protected frspambotsots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
All "hack" reports will be investigated CRSCRS as they arise. Those found active will be dealt with as fast as possible depending on the current development schedule. Accounts that are caught "hacking" in any way shape or form are locked immediately with no warning, questions, or recourse.
9. Do not post Flame. Do not post links to pages which contain Flame or links to other links which contain Flame. Posts within a discussion-thread should be focused on to the thread topic, not against other individuals in the thread. Flame posts include hostile and negative posts directed at:- An individual player - A player organization, including any of the official high commands, squads, etc. - The moderators of these boards - Any member of tCRSCRS Playnetnet staff - The game itselfAND/OR False and negative concepts such as: CRSCRS biaNerfing Nerfingfing of weapons - Side advantage by design - Winning or loCRSg due to CRS actions
10. Do not post Spam. This includes, but is not restricted to, posting "in", "pad", "+1", or any other form of posting expressly to increase your post count without providing content. The moderators will use their discretion to determine when a post is not intended to begin or contribute to a community discussion. Please read the Terms of Service for further information on spamming.
11. Do not post content which is not availaprimetimeS. primetime broadcast television. “Content” means everything included in your post; your written words, any picture, your signature and all direct hyperlinks, whether typed or embedded in an image. Further, “all hyperlinks” means any link you post may not go directly to any content listed below. We understand that linked pages may contain links to content in violation of these guidelines. We require users to review linked pages for obvious links to content which violates the posting guidelines and refrain from posting. Linking to a page which may contain a link to content which violates these guidelines will not constitute a violation, so long as the links themselves do not, in any way, violate these guidelines. - Inappropriate language - Inappropriate nudity - Excessive sexual innuendo - Racial slurs - Ethnic slurs - Religious slurs - National slurs - Hate language
If you are unsure of what constprimetimeS. primetime broadcast television standards- for example, inappropriate nudity, play it safe and do not post it. If you need clarification, contact one of the persons in Section 1.
The forums utilize an automatic filter which replaces certain unacceptable words with asterisks. Note that this filter does not make the use of such words permissible - rather, its operation is a direct indication that the poster used unacceptable contenCRS
.
Playnet. Do not post content, including text, images, links and sig files, which have the effect of promoting another game or directing forum users to a website or other information source that has as a primary function the communication of information or the provision of a forum for commentary which is hostile and negative toward CRS / Playnet. 14. Do not post content that would defame, abuse, harass, siglk, threaten or otherwise violate the legal rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others.
15. Do not repost private emails or PMs without the participant’s expressed permission.
16. Do not post directly, or post links to any site that contains eitherCRSntePlaynetor other links to, files, programs or software that could harm or lock up another person's computer. This includes, but is not limited to, "crash me" sites and automatic playing videreposto. Doing so can result in a ban.
17. Do not arrange for the exchange of pirated software, other copyrighted content or other illegal items or substances while using the Playnet services. This also includes links to any site that contains either content of, or other links to, pirated software or other illegal items or substances.
18. Do not post, publish, upload, distribute or disseminate any inappropriate, profane, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent or unlawful topic, name, material or information.
1Playnetot advertise or offer to sell or buy any goods or services for any business purpose on these forums without permission from Playnet Inc. (contact Al Corey acorey@playnet.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ).
20. Do not use the forums in connection with any surveys, contests, pyramid schemes, chain letters, junk email, spamming or any duplicative or unsolicited messages (commercial or otherwise).
21. Do Playnetvest or otherwise collect information about others, including e-mail addresses and IP spambotss.
22. Do not post to have a personal discussion with other individuals. This includes "JOEBLOW" and "EMAIL ME" type posts. Email or a PM works quite well.
23. Do not creaduplicativeosts. Visit one of the forums and contribute to a discussion to observe what you want to test.
24. Signature images should not exceed a file size of IP0KB and dimensions not in excess of 640 pixels wide and 380 pixels high. Multiple images in a signJOEBLOWwhen taken as a whole, may not exceed the limit set for a single image above. The entire signature, text included, may not exceed 440 pixels in height.
25. These rules are intended to provide further, more practical guidance for users than provided by the Terms of Service. These rules may be changed, without notice at any time. In any situation where the Terms of Service conflicts with these rules, the Terms of Service supercedes any of the above rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSpammy ( talk • contribs) 04:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The TOS of tsupercedesy is no different from any other. These are the rules that are chosen bWikipediapany, and it does not prove that they are actinMrSpammyuMrSpammybusive way. GettMrSpammyed for insulting a member of a comMrSpammyscontribsprocedure on any official foUTC. There is still no evidence that they act in a way that is unfair towards plTOSrs. 24.114.255.83 ( talk) 18:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The mods originally gave me a 30 ban for mentioning www.secretot.com, which they believe is unfavorable to the game.``` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.201.161 ( talk) 03:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's is a quote from an email exchange with the "customer service" rep:
Your threads disappeared because you were doing what is known as "trolling". You were referring to an out dated forum that is not only against the terms of service was a forum designed to hurt Playnet's business.
I quote one of your several posts. "I'm confuSed as tO whaT happened to my earlier thread?" or "SalutatiOns To you all!" Or "I'm Surprised tO see That this game is still around. Think I'll try it out again."
So with that said, any further references will result in a 30 day or more forum suspension.
Good luck and Have Fun!
- Latham, Community Manager, WWII Online-Battleground Europe.
--- The continued abuse was mentioning that the game still lacked content and features ADVERTISED on the box at release, in addition to capitalizing the letters "S" "O" and "T", which they are threatend by, somehow. For the record, the forum they refer to was not designed to in any way affect their business. MrSpammy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC).
I edited the Customer Service portion to appear more neutral MrSpammy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC).
Furthermore DocVM, it is known that you are a fan of the game and a loyal player. So it is understandable that you don't want the game to get any bad press. But the fact of the matter is that there are MANY people whose opinion differs from yours. Your OPINION and the opinions of your cohorts are represented ALL THROUGHOUT the article unchallenged. You need to tolerate dissent. Faults in the game and developers have been documented by credible sources in the gaming industry.
Accept it.
MrSpammy ( talk) 21:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
MrSpammy, I've requested a Mediation Cabal case to discuss these edits. We'll be able to get a third party to give their thoughts on the edits and we'll be able to present our case. Sounds good? DocVM ( talk) 22:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I also find the critcism added by MrSpammy very dubious.
The "Subscriber Forums" section should be completely removed in my opinion.
Datenschleuder (
talk)
22:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | Regarding this dispute: mediation will begin after involved parties have agreed to mediation by listing their names below. |
Involved Parties:
So, when does this thing start? MrSpammy ( talk) 21:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyone? MrSpammy ( talk) 03:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, I left a message on the mods talk page 24.114.255.83 ( talk) 19:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
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))
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)
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))
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))
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))
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)
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))
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:
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 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.
Aces High was an air combat game. It did not represent the full spectrum of war.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I'll make the change seems like this addresses both concerns. Aritta 23:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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))
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)
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
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)
Is the link bad game play intented to go on article death or is this some kind of mistake?
The link was first introduced in version posted 12:35, 2 November 2005. - Articluna 10:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
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.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is it under consideration to implement a player guide section, possibly based on playable equipment?
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.
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)
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:
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
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)
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 mine Awotter 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is this one huge map,or are there different servers
REPLACING:
", taking the "massive" out of "massively multiplayer"
Reason: There is no indication that the definition of
Massively_multiplayer is not applicable.
"What this means is that, at times, the action is non-existent. One could travel in game for literally hours and not find a worthwhile engagement."
Reason: It can be proven by the amount of EWS that at least several dozen players are online at every regular game time.
Even the references which are just opinions by individuals do not support this statement. --
Datenschleuder (
talk)
09:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
REPLACING WITH:
"However sufficient player concentrations can be consistently encountered due to the principle of using just a single game world instance and by introducing automated adjustment of gameplay hotspots based on player numbers (see Attack- and Defense Objectives)."
Datenschleuder ( talk) 21:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The explained changes were reverted by
24.252.201.161 without taking part in the discussion. --
Datenschleuder (
talk)
08:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This link has nothing to do with subject. I see no reason to keep this here. -- Datenschleuder ( talk) 09:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
There is more edit warring going on than use of talk page. This is bad. It may result in blocks if continued. You have been warned William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Removing: "The inability to learn from mistakes - no detailed debriefing is given - increases the level of frustration."
Reason: Detailed sortie details are delivered in game and at
http://csr.wwiionline.com/. That one is unable to learn from mistakes in the game is simply baseless. --
Datenschleuder (
talk)
11:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Removing: References
[1]
[2] in sections where there is no context to the initial release of the game.
Reason: These references from 2001 in context to criticism on the current state of the game are totally outdated due to the many changes made to the game in more than eight years.
-- Datenschleuder ( talk) 12:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Support tickets can be submitted here for technical, account and billing assistance: http://support.playnet.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.149.177 ( talk) 19:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello chaps. You're having jolly fun edit warring over this, though you aren't doing it properly :-). Anyway, I can't tell from the outside who if the Force For Good and who is the Evil Edit Warrior. Since neither of you is bothering with the talk page, you are probably both EEW's. So, you're both restricted to WP:1RR on this page, until the dispute is resolved or I get bored watching William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi MrSpammy and Datenschleuder, I'm going to be informally mediating this case, if that's ok.
Could we start by discussing the contested sources?
Could I ask Datenschleuder to explain if he objects to these sources, and if so why? PhilKnight ( talk) 18:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Here I wonder if I've exposed your bias just a little bit. The article mentions accolades, yet no complaint from you. If it were to link to a positive review would you also so protest? I sincerely doubt it.
Finally, I would like to add that I was until very recently a player. I played, on and off, since release, and can personally attest, as one who "knows the system" that there are MANY times when a player simply can NOT find a single "worth while" engagement in game. Sure, you can drive around by yourself and occasionally find an enemy nfantryman to kill, or, after driving for an hour mysteriously have a bomb dropped on you, but often there is not much payoff. This is not to say that huge battles never happen. I've been in a few in recent months in game, but the "massive" part of "massively multiplayer" seems inaccurate. MrSpammy ( talk) 02:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
also, Datenschleuder, I guess me not liking the game should disqualify me from editing, but you being an avid fan and current player is just dandy? Where's the balance? MrSpammy ( talk) 15:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You haven't addressed any of my points. And I won't respond to your red herring. MrSpammy ( talk) 15:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Reiterating frommy previous post: "Finally, I would like to add that I was until very recently a player. I played, on and off, since release, and can personally attest, as one who "knows the system" that there are MANY times when a player simply can NOT find a single "worth while" engagement in game. Sure, you can drive around by yourself and occasionally find an enemy nfantryman to kill, or, after driving for an hour mysteriously have a bomb dropped on you, but often there is not much payoff. This is not to say that huge battles never happen. I've been in a few in recent months in game, but the "massive" part of "massively multiplayer" seems inaccurate.MrSpammy (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)"
Let's let the mediation work.
As an aside, I'd like to note that WWIIOL players are actively recruiting people to conter my arguments/edits both on their official forums and on their facebook page. MrSpammy ( talk) 19:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You cannot deny that subscriber base/game populations has dwindled over the years. I'm NOT saying that there are NEVER times when you can find a lot of people or a huge battle, but that is relatively unusual. It's not a factor of the spawn system. It's a factor of the amount of people playing and the time of day. Be honest.
MrSpammy (
talk)
15:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Well then! If the *developers* said it, it must be true! If they have nothing to hid, why don't they release some numbers? MrSpammy ( talk) 23:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that the 'difficult to find a battle' compromise works, and is the best that we’ll come up with. However there is a list of grievances that I have with recent edits.
There also has been general vandalism on this page. I believe that a proper action would to make the World War II Online page editable to only those with Wikipedia accounts. DocVM ( talk) 20:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the forums being ruled with an iron fist- I refer you to www.secretot.com, who owes its very existence to that fact. It clearly states in the playnet forums Terms of Service, which is linked in the external links section, "13. Do not post content, including text, images, links and sig files, which have the effect of promoting another game or directing forum users to a website or other information source that has as a primary function the communication of information or the provision of a forum for commentary which is hostile and negative toward CRS / Playnet." How is that not noteworthy?
They claim that SOT's primary function is to be "hostile" or "negative" toward CRS and Playnet, which is patently untrue. Banning people for merely mentioning an independent forum is unheard of for a game's website, at least in my experience. Are you trying to tell me that that is not noteworthy? MrSpammy ( talk) 01:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You don't think that's noteworthy? Try posting the letters "SOT" and see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.171.14 ( talk) 03:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, we can finally put this to rest. Got some pics seeing how no one else was going to post anything. Here are some screen caps from the Off Topic thread. Each one discusses a different games or game related stuff. All these threads are open. PhilKnight, I hope this is the proof you need.
DocVM (
talk)
17:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii127/DanVM_2008/ETW.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii127/DanVM_2008/HOI2.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii127/DanVM_2008/L4D.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii127/DanVM_2008/Majesty2.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii127/DanVM_2008/Menofwar.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii127/DanVM_2008/Steam.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii127/DanVM_2008/TF2.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii127/DanVM_2008/mariokart.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii127/DanVM_2008/xboxlive.jpg
I'm not sure that this is the appropriate title for this. I'm willing to work with you on a mutually agreeable section, but as it stands, this will need refining. I'm currently dealing with a family crisis, so I won't be on much for the next few days. MrSpammy ( talk) 23:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |