Talk:Team Fortress Classic/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ref. the sniper vandal:

This guy '{*A*}>Sun-Tzu' - I thought I could remember that name from somewhere, so I checked my GTX clan archives; turns out we had a sniperwar with *A* about a month before I quit playing TFC... and his final score was 6 (SIX!) - considering the lowest score on GTX's side was 23 over a 2hour sniper war, I think 70.248.27.228 must've been paid a hell of a lot of money to list him as 'the best TFC sniper'... surely you need to be vaugely good at something to be the best at it?!

Exact entry: - Many snipers have battled in TFC. - But, the best is: - - {*A*}>Sun-Tzu

I might chase him up just to extract the urine!

Thought you guys might find that amusing, and keep up the good work, Nuffie! I'd make you a TFC barnstar if I knew how to administer the bloody things. CitrusC 05:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, vandals are always good for a laugh. Especially the vain ones. And as for a TFC barnstar, you'd have to make one in an image editor first, then upload it. But seeing as how there's only one article dealing with TFC (that I know of), it would probably be easier just to use a Half-Life barnstar (which I already have). Thanks, though. Nufy8 15:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Nahhh, gives me something to do while I'm waiting for clients. I'll knock one up for you. :) CitrusC 01:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, the proverbial "Legend In His Own Mind". What is it about the sniper class which leads so many players to drop an average of 50 IQ points...:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I know exactly what you mean - they seem to develop an attitude problem as well... the whole 'I'm going to blow your head off and there is nothing you can do about it!' - I pop out while he's typing about how he's a god among snipers, take his head off and he rushes in a foray of abuse and decisions on what sexuality I should be. It got to the point I said "Killing you makes me smile. :)" and repeating ":)" after every kill, the individual in question (not during the clanmatch, this was a generic snipeoholic) ran out of things to say and left the server... why can't vandals work in the same manner! CitrusC 01:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The sniper wannabe is back again... any way to block specific IPs from editing Wikipedia? I seriously think they should put in a 10 votes or more system for individual bans... CitrusC 03:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Admins can block and/or ban them. And my friend Nufy just so happens to be one. Only problem is Mr Anon-IP-SnipeHo-Legend-In-His-Own-Mind spreads out his ego-trips over time. If he did it more frequently, I'm sure Lord Nufy would have lain down the law by now;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
That is correct. He'll probably just lose interest eventually, anyway. Nufy8 05:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Didn't know you were an Admin, Nufy. Explains the professional approach when we re-edited some of the TFC bits, though. But yes, if he steps it up a notch, a block would certainly be benefital to this article, especially considering he seems to be the only 'frequent' vandal. CitrusC 13:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

MIRVS

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the HW guy was the only one armed with MIRVs... -- anonymous

Nope, Demomen carry them as well. Nufy8 02:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Recommended class for beginneers: I don't see how scout can be recommended for beginners unless you would want them dying constantly from everything. Soldier or HW is good for newbies since they can kill other people and not die quickly. --PrOeliuM 00:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

soldier is good for newbies, using any other class than soldier or medic is a complete waste of time in TFC for anyone, beginner or not. Richard cocks 02:00, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
I vehemently disagree. As a long-time TFC player, I contend that all of TFC's classes are extremely well balanced and useful in their respective roles, that the soldier's rocket launcher is too difficult a weapon for TFC newbs to master, and the medic's weak weaponary and armor make it equally poorly suited for beginners. The HW Guy's insta-hit firepower and massive armor is a much more accessible option for newbs. ---Jackel 18:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Seconded, the only class that doesn't seem to have any "real" use is the Pyro, although this looks set to change in Fortress Forever, as they've hinted flames will speed up the sensitivity of a player who is on fire, making it harder to aim. Makes sense, you can't exactly snipe if you are covered in napalm.
  • I would like to refute this, as I play a Pyro frequently and have found they're actually very powerful, when played right. The Pyro is very good at getting enemies ducking, and running interference/distractions for scouts and other flag-carrying classes. Its hard to ignore someone firing IC rockets in your face, after all. Basically, you're just there to be a distraction. Theres nothing that says you cant be a very DEADLY distraction, however..


This article needs some cleanup and wikification. The character descriptions are pretty much just someone's personal opinion, and aren't written encyclopedicly at all. Night Gyr 14:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) 

Agreed to 'personal opinion' bit. The whole Classes subsection is FUBAR,
nuclear cleansing advised over cleanup. --84.176.125.50 4 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)
I spent about 2 hours extensively rewriting class descriptions, and its been reverted. I don't see it in the history, either.---Jackel 13:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the class / game type descriptions need to go to the main Team Fortress page as they are very similar for all the TF-mods and TFC etc. need to only mention the differences for their particular version of Team Fortress. Anyone up for improving the main TF-article? -Slux 21:39, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Greets.

I have been playing TFC for 6 years but am a Wiki newb who only now discovered this article on my favorite game. I just wrote a new section on NeoTF, which might be better off as a separate article. I also made some changes to the class descriptions with an emphasis on discussing the challenges of playing each and their suitability for newbies. Our experiences and opinions are bound to color our contributions to this article. This is a given. But we must try, at least stylisically, to appear balanced and unbiased. So long as we do this, I see little problem with our love of the game bleeding through a bit. We want the reader to come away from this article not only familar with TFC's basics but WANTING to play. Typing of which, what names do you all play by? I'm known as BadMojo*HOPE*. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Screenshots

I was considering adding screenshots of each class to the article to help the visual aspect. Thoughts? Nufy8 23:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea, go for it! Maybe include both new and old skin versions for each?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 00:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point, I almost forgot there were two versions - long live the old models :). Nufy8 00:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
10-4 bro! I use the old models too :) --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, screenshots added. Nufy8 02:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
They look great too.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Nufy8 02:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for adding them. However, some are quite difficult to look at because of the backgrounds... If it's not too much could you redo some of them with some well-lit (maybe outdoor) backgrounds? Perhaps have the same background for all of them? Some of those screenshots are just waaayyy too dark for me to see the actual class models. 71.33.76.47 04:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
They havent been added as yet, map shots are still missing. -- RND  T  C  10:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The External links

There are way too many links.

Dead site, and the link contains a typographical error.

Mr. Who? And why is he the best mapmaker in the known universe?

A link to a single server?

Dead site. Although it might have some information.

There is already a link there, better not have two.

This is completely unrelated, there are no TFC servers in the list.

—Philip Nilsson 11:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the JMC TFC link, reworded the mapper to be "popular" instead of the greatest, removed bulletland because it seemed unnecessary, kept the TFC tips and tricks because it's still somewhat useful, deleted the redundant PlanetNeoTF link, and kept the WON 2 list because there are indeed some TFC servers active on it (I just saw one, in fact). Nufy8 13:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Nufy, once again I agree with your edits. I think this is a reasonable compromise. (BTW when I scanned WoN2 there were 2 TFC servers, one was empty, but the active server was a blast..has Neo and Foxbots!). Hi Phil! First off, this is a fairly big article, so it should have a lot of links. Perhaps a few needed trimming but it would be better to discuss it first here, k? Second, you've never heard of Brian "Zouve" Dillow but you have probably played his maps at some point. Renegade? Hadley Labs? Creek? Enclave? Osaka? Cornfield? Palermo? Dusk? Any of those look familar to you? They are some of the most popular and acclaimed custom maps ever made. If you ever get bored playing 2fort sometime, use the link, download and try them out for yourself. You can thank me later :) Also, I disagree with your labeling NeoTF a "Mod". Even its own site refers to it as an enhancement. TFC is the mod, it simply adds to it without changing the basics. NeoTF is not a stand alone game either, which also goes against calling it a Mod. By the same criteria AdminMod is not really a mod either, but a server admin tool (and sometimes toy). Again, this is why we should discuss major revisions or deletions here first. Instead of getting into editing conflicts and ending up here anyways :) Cheers --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Modification is more neutral, I don't think all players consider NeoTF an improvement. —Philip Nilsson 12:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I can't believe Nufy8 can take the time to hack links for active map/guild sites for this game but leave links in referencing the old WON system thats not only dead but one of the links doesn't even work. Especially when there is an entire dedicated article to WON2 and those external links would be 10x more appropriate under that article. Efficiency? Not! More like preferential treatment of certain data. This game is all but dead, you'd think it might be KIND OF nice to have some active relevant links for the game. Whatever. I signed up to wikipedia specifically for this article and based on this BS you can pretty much guarantee I won't be back. WTF? Lame system.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I removed (not "hacked") links to coincide with Wikipedia policy. As I stated in my edit summary, one link for maps is enough - Wikipedia is not a web directory where everyone with a list of maps can advertise their site. Also, if you find that a link is dead, go ahead and remove it; if I'd have realized it no longer worked, I would have done so myself. Nufy8 04:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I used the word "hacked" because it was an ugly edit. You take the time to "remove" extra links but not clean up the dead ones. Ugly. And it seems abusively preferential. AssaultMaps.com has far more detail on specifically assault style maps and .id guild isn't just about maps, it's about connecting players to enjoy the maps. Either way, both are very useful links to recent community activities. These aren't links embedded in the main content trying to advertise and squelch meaningful content. They are at the END of the article as follow ups and where to check things out further.
It's neat you can link me to policy, but would be actually useful is for you to interpret how you justify your edits with such policy specifically.

"What should be linked to Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews." I can't see how the links you "removed" did not contain meaningful, relevant content that wasn't suitable for inclusion in the article itself.

And by no means should you EVER expect me to edit "your" page again for you. Find your own dead links and edit them. I'll continue to laugh at how this "wiki" is anything but such.
It's not my responsibility to check every link every day on this article; nor is it any one person's responsibility. If I see someone adding an unnecessary link in a recent edit, I remove it (and yes, it was unnecessary given that it is hardly relevant when there only needs to be one link to something map-related - this is an encyclopedia, not a directory for people to advertise their links to "connect players"). There's no need to argue this further, of course, since you already denounced the site and vowed never to return. Nufy8 17:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey

The only thing I see missing in this article, is that sometimes it is better to have a sentry gun as level 2 instead of level 3 on certain maps. Sentry guns at level two have a faster targeting sequence, and will be more likely to kill airborne enemies than the slower moving level three.

this is a myth. if you decompiled the code, you'd see it is no different for the level 2 and level 3 sentries. The only difference is the model, the additional health, and the rockets, which make the level 3 better. always.

Different guy and a complete wiki-editing noob here, but I took the liberty of fixing up the Engineer section a bit; the level 1 SG is a single-barrel machinegun, and upgrading it to level 2 swaps this for a single chaingun. Upgrading to level 3 adds the second chaingun AND a rocket launcher. Also added in that cells can be gained by picking up armour OR ammo bags. Heres hoping I didn't mess anything up, but I'm sure you guys will catch it if I did. 23:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Missing example map screenshots

Last time I checked this page the screenshots where there but they now appear to have vanished. Can these be restored please. --RND 17:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sloppy

This page is filled with grammatical and spelling errors and is in need of clean-up. The syntax gets so bad in certain places that it becomes unintelligible. Because of this, I am tagging it for clean-up.

CPT Spaz 15:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Mod or game

Afaik, since the introduction of Steam, TFC has become a full game, only using the Half-Life engine, but not requiring to own Half-Life. As you can see here, TFC can be purchased as a standalone game for $10 via the game developer's digital content distribution system (Steam). --Pizzahut2 18:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's like CS in that respect. The introduction should probably be reworded in the same manner (i.e., originated as a mod). Nufy8 19:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Reworded the intro to reflect that. Nufy8 04:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to have to disagree. TFC is a modification of Half-Life. You can't change that fact. It's a game yes, but it's also a modification of another game. Counter-Strike is still a modification of Half-Life, despite being sold as a stand-alone. Second, TFC hasn't changed since it's been for sale on Steam. It's the same game. UBeR 22:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know; it seems to me that in order to qualify as a mod, it must require another game to play. TFC and CS were total conversion mods that, along with needing Half-Life in order to play, shared the same game engine. Many games use other games' engines, but aren't called mods, because they don't require another game in order to play. I understand if you're saying that once a game starts as a mod, it will always in some way be a mod, but I still think it needs to be noted that TFC no longer requires HL and can be bought separately. Nufy8 22:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

History

Apperently the author of this category is labeling TFC with CS labels. TFC 1.5 does not exist. TF 1.5 does. TF 1.5 implies the betweenness of the original TF and TF2 (hence 1.5). Therefore TF 1.5 = TFC. The update to TFC which included the additions which the author talked about were simply that: an update (albeit major). As I mentioned before, he was getting mistaken with CS, which at the time was at 1.5. Soon after, CS was updated to 1.6. However, any updates to TFC do not change it to TF 1.6, 1.7, etc. Catch my drift? There seems to be some major errors in that section.

So you're saying TF 1.5 is just an alternate name Valve used to refer to TFC? If so, it would appear as if they abandoned it with the move to Steam. Nufy8 03:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
That is correct UBeR 03:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I reworded some of the history section to reflect this information. What do you think? Nufy8 04:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks a lot better. Only thing I'm questioning about is about the claim that TFC is purchasable through Steam. I thought it has always been free with the purchase of Half-Life.
I believe it still is; however, according to this you can purchase it separately if you do not own Half-Life (or do not desire to). Nufy8 05:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clarifying. Didn't realize that. UBeR 05:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

Does the page still need the cleanup tag?

Not really. That being said, it might need some other tags. Since most of the article's information comes from the experience of veteran TFC players, it isn't readily verifiable, and most likely constitutes original research. I'm sure there are some Web sites out there that can verify the basics like class description, map description, etc., but some of the more in-depth information isn't always going to be verifiable by way of reliable sources. At least not from what I've seen. Nufy8 23:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Well most of the information can't be readily verified. Most of this information is coming from first person expirience. I'm sure there are other websites can describe class characteristics, but more than likely they would not be cosidered a 'reliable' source. UBeR 23:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up On Aisle 9!

The major problem with this article as it currently stands are the class descriptions. There has been way too much editing and most no longer have any coherient, flowing narrative. So I propose instead we create a template for TFC classes, which will focus mainly on their basic, factual attributes and keep opinion down to a minimum. For example

  • Class name/nickname(s):Scout/Speedy
  • Health(max):75
  • Armor(max):50
  • Speed:Very fast
  • Weapons:Nailgun (200 ammo max), shotgun (single barrelled, 40 rounds max), crowbar, concussion grenades (3 max), caltrops (3 max).
  • Special ability:Can locate flags or keys
  • Other abilities:Can defuse detpacks by running over them and remove spies' disguises by bumping into them.
  • Brief description: Fastest class in the game, built for speed not heavy combat.
  • Strengths: Great speed and can perform conc jumps. Can rapidly move flags, take command points or take advantage of gaps in enemy defenses. Carry least explosive ammo so are least effected by Emp grenades.
  • Weaknesses: The weakest combat class in the game, can be quickly killed by most any weapon.
  • Best against: Demomen, Spies, Emp grenades and other Scouts.
  • Worst against: Most every other class, especially HWGuys, Medics, Pyros and Sentry Guns.

If this works we can also, possibly create templates for TFC weapons, along with a seprate section for them. In fact, we might want to do this anyway, to help make the class descriptions less cumbersome. Think about it my fellow scholarly fraggers:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Normally, paragraph text is preferred over lists, but this could probably be considered an exception. I would suggest combining "armor" and "health," "strengths" and "best against," and "weaknesses" and "worst against" for the sake of brevity. Nufy8 16:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Good suggestions as usual Nufy. Though I was thinking more along the lines of some of the infobox templates we use over on [[1]]. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure infoboxes would be best, because they're usually just used once to identify the subject of the article and used on other, similar articles. Nufy8 15:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to have to disagree here. Like Nufy8 suggested, paragraphs are preferred, and look a whole lot better than lists. Mostly however, in your argument you say it should be mostly factual attributes and minimum opinion. However, looking at the strenghts/weaknesses/best against/worst against, it looks all very opinionated or non factual. Well, at least not much better than the current version.UBeR 20:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, information like "weakest combat class in game" for weaknesses and "fastest class, can perform conc jumps, and is least vulnerable to EMP damage" for strengths for the Scout is factual. What other classes it's best/worst against is debatable, though. Nufy8 15:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Just saying, wasn't much better than current version. UBeR 01:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

no mention of the physics?

there's very little mention of the physics of tfc, which is really what's it's most known for. i know there are other pages on concjumping etc, but maybe a section for gameplay? it's very frantic, prone to spam, and lots of vertical motion and bunnyhopping due to hl/quake physics, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.153.4.50 (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). ~ UBeR 17:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


External links

Regarding this diff I think if the catacombs deserves a spot so does Drippy's. Just my opinion and all but I thought I'd put it out there. JohnCub 22:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is not here to promote specific servers for players to play on. ~ UBeR 22:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Links to individual servers really offer nothing as a unique resource to the article. The only purpose they can serve is for advertising, and Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. The Catacombs, on the other hand, can be used as a more comprehensive resource with information that may not be suitable for the article. Nufy8 22:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

External links continued

The EL section has become rather bloated on links that just don't seem necessary to me. For example, why should we be linking to every league's website? I mean, one league link might be useful as an example of how leagues function in TFC, but multiple league websites serve more of an advertising purpose than an informational purpose. WP:EL suggests replacing clutters of links with the Open Directory Project template (like this: Team Fortress Classic at Curlie), and it seems to me a good idea. With this, we may not even need to link to file repositories and playing guides, since those appear to be included in the directory as well. Comments? Nufy8 15:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I would be fine with reducing the external links section. ~ UBeR 21:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I got rid of every link since the ODP covers pretty much every different kind of site. Also, Fortress Forever has its own article, so the link to that website isn't all that necessary either (especially since it's under the "See also" section). Nufy8 03:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to their TF2 counterparts

I'm just saying here, when TF2 is released why don't we in a sense, compare the old designs and armaments to the new ones? (i.e. The Scout being armed with a baseball bat as opposed to a crowbar) (Just asking if that could work)Bad-Gy 11:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mapping/Game mode concerns

The statements about various game modes (CTF, command point, etc) don't really show the complete nature of the way game modes are created for TFC. The entity system ported over from QWTF allowed massive customizibility on the part of the mapper to control how the game play flowed. It would be a bit difficult to translate this to the main article on how extensible it is, but might be worth mentioning. Along these lines, most game modes are completely dependant on what is programmed into the source code. TF(C) scoring systems were entirely up to the mapper allowing them to define all the rules for their map, something I've not seen in any other game. Heck you could program in a workable CS DE map clone in TFC using the HL map editor if you really wanted to.

HWguy discussion

This diff along with the few that were before it is simply a misunderstanding. The paragraph reads:

Due to the simple "point and kill" nature of his weapons and his high survivability, this is an excellent introductory class for new players to learn the game's basics. However, its comparative simplicity and ease of play has caused many players to refer to it derogatorily as the "HWGuy."

If one reads the whole paragraph, one can see how "HWGay" would be correct. Not that I agree with this line of thinking but the point is this is really what people call that class in that situation (and honestly in almost any situation). JohnCub 00:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Pharmboy, as John pointed out, it makes no sense to change "HWGay" to "HWGuy" in the paragraph's current context. Honestly, I couldn't care less if the last sentence is removed, because it doesn't seem that important to me. The reason I reverted the anon edit is because, as previously stated, it's just inconsistent with what's already there. So if you want to delete the sentence entirely, I personally won't complain, but I just wanted you to understand why your current reversion creates a misunderstanding. Nufy8 01:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The whole idea that "people call people HWGay" is overstated to begin with. I started our first TFC servers in 1999, and the term is seldom used. More people have called them fatties than hwgay. I won't labor the point, but the entire sentence seems unneeded unless you are going to list all the derogatory terms that have been used, which is acceptible IMO. Pharmboy 14:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Then I'm just going to remove it. Nufy8 15:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2fort tfc.png

Image:2fort tfc.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 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 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Classes section

I've copied the classes section over to StrategyWiki, so if anybody wants to prune the copy here to remove the strategy information, they can do so without fear of losing stuff. :-) --DrBob 08:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

can i get TFC?

can I get TFC I only have 512 ram Mrbeer100 (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


WP:VG assessment

I'm running an assessment for this article in response to a request made at WP:VG for assistance. I may be able to help with some of this when I get the time. I'm rating this as a start-class article, of mid importance. For examples of how best to approach articles, see the featured and good articles on WP:VG, or even just Team Fortress 2, which is rated as a good article.

  • The structure here is in need of major revamp. There is no reception section, and this section is vital to displaying the notability of the game. A good basic structure to follow is as such:
    • Lead section
    • Gameplay
    • Development (the section currently entitled History)
    • Reception
    • Cultural impact - TFC is one of the key games in MP history. It should have something here.
    • See also
    • References
    • External links
  • The link "Quake" takes you to the article on earthquakes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.239.153 (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Alright, now lets get to content. The gameplay section is far too long, and is not written from a particularly encyclopedic view point. It needs to only be a brief summary of what is necessary for a reader who has not and may never play the game to understand the subject. Do not talk about material that can be considered game guide-esque. You can use subsections for game types and classes, but the classes in particular need to be cut back - a class by class analysis with indepth information on how to play the class, the damage the class can take and what the class is equipped with is completely unnecessary. The article is not meant to cater for fans. It should be a couple of paragraphs in its entirety, outlining the role of each class very briefly. This was done for Team Fortress 2, it can be done here.
  • The competition section is unnecessary. A note that it is used for competitive play may be useful in the gameplay section (or a cultural impact section), but listing the leagues is unnecessary to a reader who has not played the game - again, this article is not here for the fans.
  • The history section also needs work. Talk about the game before release (check previews on places like GameSpot and IGN), its actual release and make some notes of after release support (release of new player models, move to Steam, etc). Again, see the example articles on WP:VG for how to do this. The stuff on bots is probably best left as a sentence in the gameplay section, and the NeoTF stuff needs to be cut down if its even notable. If it is not covered in reliable third-party sources (not fansites) it should not be there at all. The contemporary issues section is very POV, and should probably be disposed of entirely.
  • The see also section is largely redundant, as most of those should be wikilinked within the article. The only one I can imagine should be there is Fortress Forever, but only if its not covered in the legacy section, as I've mentioned below.
  • Do the moby games and open directory links actually add anything to the encyclopedic understanding of the article? In most cases they do not, and if that is true here, get rid of them per WP:EL.
  • There is no reception section. Get one, fill it with information on how the game was received by critics, awards and sales information. If you can find information to construct a legacy section discussing long term effects of the game, do so. Fortress Forever could probably be mentioned in this section.
  • The most important element is the lack of references. There are absolutely no references on anything. You need references on everything, based on reliable third-party sources. The edit page says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" just above the edit summary, so verify everything possible and get rid of anything that cannot be verified. This will affect the bits on custom content such as bots and NeoTF, if it cannot be verified by reliable third-party sources then it is not notable outside the game community and should not be there.
  • When everything is upped in quality, redo the introduction to summarise the article per WP:LS. You're looking at around three paragraphs: the first one should cover the developers and designers as well as release dates and platforms, the second should summarise gameplay while the third should talk about reception and impact.
  • Some work on the infobox is also required. The designers should be the actual names of the people (John Cook & Robin Walker and one other I can't remember), not "Valve". Reference the release date and throw in any extra fields that can be filled in with useful information. I'm also positive that there is a proper box art image out there, I recall one with the original heavy model on a Half-Life style box art (I'll dig it out later and upload it). Make sure all images have fair use rationales as well. I'd recommend getting a better shot of gameplay, and if possible a collective image of all the classes in a single shot.

Be sure to give Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines a look over, and as previously stated, the FA and GA articles on WP:VG and Team Fortress 2 itself can provide good examples. I'm going to shove up a multiple issues template to cover all of this, but I hopefully should have some time soon to help work on some issues. If you have any questions, please ask. -- Sabre (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The most important element is the lack of references. There are absolutely no references on anything. You need references on everything, based on reliable third-party sources. The edit page says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" just above the edit summary, so verify everything possible and get rid of anything that cannot be verified. This will affect the bits on custom content such as bots and NeoTF, if it cannot be verified by reliable third-party sources then it is not notable outside the game community and should not be there.
This will always be difficult on "competitive" games as the websites listed (in this case Gamespot's game guide) are written by people that play for 10 minutes then write a complete strategy guide. In this case the medic section is entirely wrong and was removed. 69.255.122.241 (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Reception - or the lack thereof.

Surprising to find a dearth of information regarding how well received TFC was. This is especially unfortunate because of how difficult filling the reception area is going to be as a result. What I have culled from the interwebs though, can hopefully help.

  • The MobyGames TFC profile lists two reviews, one from Finnish CVG magazine Pelit, the other being a review from 2404 gaming community [2]. The problem with Pelit is that I don't read Finnish, nor do I have a copy of the magazine with the review (May 1999, almost a decade ago. Phew!), and the problem with 2404 is whether we can use it as a source as I'm not sure it'd pass as a reliable source.
  • Gamerankings is a bit more comprehensive, with 7 reviews. We can certainly use the ratings found here. What we won't find though, is any usable quotes. It's got a pre-2003 Gamespot review that is non-existent due to what I assume to be a site restructuring of Gamespot in 2003, it's also got PC Gamer UK and Game Informer which are are magazines, along with PC Accelerator which is a very very defunct PC games magazine. Which leads us to the rest on that list which I can't find anywhere on the internet.
  • 1up has a feature on it though, a 2005 article that retroactively looks at the Half-Life series, including Team Fortress Classic.

So. Can we expand on what is effectively one, maybe two links as references for a reception section? Or is there a way to cite the magazines as well? Chan Yin Keen | Talk 18:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I ran into the same stuff when I looked a while back, couldn't find enough to write the section. We can't create a reception section based on review scores alone, as we're meant to provide commentary on reception, not random numbers that are meaningless in themselves. I consequently started a topic over at WT:VG, which you can see here where it was put forward that this article may have to rest on the strength of its development section and simply not include a reception section, unless a decent number of reviews can be produced, whether they are in magazines or online. A properly done development section on its own should be enough to show notability for the subject. The development section as it currently stands is rather poor, but the archived WP:VG topic I've linked to there has produced multiple sources that can be used for construction of a decent development section. -- Sabre (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I'll pop a read and see what I can do, if anything :) Chan Yin Keen | Talk 20:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Release date

I think it's April 7th online (Half-Life update)[3][4][5], and the date mentioned by GameSpy seems to be a NA or US only retail release.[6][7] --Pizzahut2 (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"rv, the sources listed on the talk page are fansites and don't meet WP:V. GameSpy does" GameSpy is wrong and has no sources or information, why that should be the release date. The article mixes Team Fortress Classic and Team Fortress 1.5 and the release-date on http://uk.pc.ign.com/objects/010/010929.html is "Release Date: Unreleased (UK)" (Tacticer 8 April 2009, 13:30)
Steam reads "Release Date: 1 Apr 1999"[8]. I think the former TF Software members working at Valve know the best, when their mod was released? --Saftorangen (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the retail release, but online, April 7, 1999 seems to be the most plausible. 

v1.0.0.9
--------
[4.7.99]

Changes/Additions:
------------------
- Team Fortress Classic first introduced in this release.

Pizzahut2 (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Classes picture

The pic is plain shit - promo image that was obviously released before the game, because the final releases' models looked quite different. can someone get together some clanmates and shoot a real screeny?

If you want to, go ahead. Without getting people to get together and pose for it with the new models, this is as good as it gets. However, you are wrong in that these were the final release's models, the current models were introduced after the game's release and you can toggle between old and new in-game. -- Sabre (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Version and its date

The most recent update that was documented with a Steam news, was in 2008. [9] Now the part where I don't know what to do. If you do a version in the console, you see this:

] version
Protocol version 48
Exe version 1.1.2.2/2.0.861.210 (tfc)
Exe build: 16:05:41 Jun 15 2009 (4554)

It just doesn't add up. No Half-Life updates, Engine update, TFC updates, not even Counter-Strike upd.... wait a second. Oh, unfortunately Valve didn't list it as Engine Update. I will post this anyways for future reference. [10] --Saftorangen (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Operating Systems

The officially listed OS are Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Windows Vista and Windows 7 are not listed! If you find a reliable source, add it, but until then I will remove WinVista and Win7. About Win95, Win98 and WinME: Steam doesn't run on those OS anymore. So TFC doesn't run on them. --Saftorangen (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Valve Task Force Re-vitalization

Attention, all contributors to the Valve Task Force and the articles it constitutes!
I am here to announce that I will be re-vitalizing the Valve Task Force, aimed at universally improving articles constituting Valve Corporation, their employees, associates and products. This specific task force has been dormant for quite some time and with two very notable releases coming out this year, I feel like this is the appropriate time to re-stimulate the general aim of this group. For those who are not already members of the Valve Task Force, feel free to add your name to our members list and contribute to whatever articles you feel your contributions may prove beneficial for. Valve, its products and notable employees have proven to be essential to the progression of the video game industry, so I'd like to make a call of arms for this cause. DarthBotto talk•cont 22:10, 08 February 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Team_Fortress_Classic/Archive_1&oldid=759514822"