Talk:World War II Online/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about World War II Online. 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.

Archive 1

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

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

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

Branching Off

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

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

Things to do

We still need to add the following information:

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

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

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

Clarification

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

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

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

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

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

Deleted POV.

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

STFU?

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

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

Criticisms?

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

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

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

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

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

I think we should just remove the criticism section, it's just too much to keep unbiased and an encyclopedia article should not be like some sort of review. It's the biggest target for spammers or people with a grudge against the game. DocVM (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

You can't just delete the criticism section because you don't like it. If there are weasel words or unsourced claims, fix them, don't delete the whole thing. Ideally a link to a review or something complaining about the issue needs to be given. I'm replacing the section. TastyCakes (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

BIAS

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)

Not only does the customer service section reek of an unbiased viewpoint, it does not have any references. The BBB page on CRS only has two complaints, one being resolved and the other not followed up by the customer. This is not enough to warrant such a hateful and unbiased section in an encyclopaedia article DocVM (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

this section SHOULD be taken off, it's crazy bad and needs to be wroked out here, I took it off, we got to fix it up becausei tt's just attracting all sorts ofcrisisismss 24.114.255.83 (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2009 UTCC)

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)

...if it can be supported by reliable sources. I have cut down this part of the criticism and if no source can be given the rest of it should go as well. UserTastyCakessTastyCakess (talk) 15:41, 29 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.

- - - - MODERATOR REMARKS **********

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)

Sounds like you were banned for "flaming", exactly what this entailed is not clear from what you've posted. Being abusive towards moderators doesn't seem like a bad reason to ban people, the bit about not posting links to competing content seems a little troubling but I don't think you've presented any reliable evidence that this was the issue. TastyCakes (talk) 18:57, 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).

It doesn't sound like they acted unreasonably. Flaming is flaming. As the owners of the forums, they have every right to ban anyone for anything. SOE has done this, Blizzard has done this, dozens of other companies do this. The e-mail explained why you were banned. It is a common sense policy that is enforced by any forum moderator. Stop trying to shape this article to create a false description. If you don't like my changes, bring it up with a moderator. DocVM (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You're not being intellectually honest here. Merely MENTIONING a forum that they think doesn't like them will get you a BAN??? Cyptically mentioning the forum gets you a BAN??? Seriously, man. We all know you play the game and love it. That's great. But their approach to customer service is noteworthy, and serves to inform the reader of what to expect if they choose to play it. Just be objective. This is a COMMON complaint of MANY people who have left the game. LET IT STAND! MrSpammy (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

/* Criticisms */ I've linked to the TOS, which supports the customer service criticism, but am curious as to what you would consider credible citations for the other complaints. I'm curious as to what you would deem credible citations for something so *qualitative* as the criticisms. There are many reviews by video game websites that state as much... would that be acceptable? Also... I'm not brilliant on wikiediting... as if that weren't apparent... so I'm not sure on the format of how to present the citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSpammy (talk • contribs) 22:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think credible citations for the other criticisms would be reviews in recognized magazines or websites mentioning the problem. The link you give does show that their forums policy includes confirmation of some of the things given as problems, but does not support things like them "squashing dissent and criticism of the game", banning from the game etc. Also, I don't know at what point it stops being criticism of the game and criticism of the games' forums, or the company behind the game. Further, the section is written in a clearly partial manner that leaves the reader in no doubt it's from someone that has an axe to grind with the forum moderators.

As for references, if you surround them with "<ref>" at the beginning and "</ref>" at the end, it makes it a reference at the bottom of the page. TastyCakes (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would call your attention to items 4 and 9 of the TOS. They include in their definition of flame posts that they deem hostile to the game. In practice that has included criticisms. And thanks for the advice on the ref tag.MrSpammy (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

I edited the Customer Service portion to appear more neutralMrSpammy (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

According to MMOG charts, http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart3.html, subscribers have been consistent from 2001 to mid 2005. No more data has been collected since then, however a recent post by the server admin KFSONE states that "...the servers have since been running continuously for 50 days with the highest populations for 3 years" http://kfsone.wordpress.com/2009/01/30/its-on/ those reviews are out of data. As for the poor customer service, you still don't have any proof and it still seems like its a biased section of the article. DocVM (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The TOS is the source. You obviously haven't read the revised section. It's fairly supported by their TOS. The Small player numbers is supported by reputable video game reviewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSpammy (talk • contribs) 23:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes but there is also such thing as being out of date. If the situation has changed, that should be reflected. TastyCakes (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Many of the references are relatively recent. The sad fact is that this game is not considered relevant by the industry, hence it is not reviewed often. It seems as if the industry and the market have both decided that this game is obsolete. If they release a new version, I'm sure it will be reviewed again.MrSpammy (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC).

MrSpammy, there isn't enough evidence to warrant these sections. The personal experience from one player is not enough to support these sections, especially such ones with a harsh tone and when there is evidence to the contrary. These edits are not in good faith, and do not uphold the standards of wikipedia. If you still believe that these edits should stand, then we can arrange an arbitration by a moderator to discuss our points. DocVM (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

DocVM, these edits are absolutely valid. It's NOT one player's opinion. The Terms of Service, put our by the company itself, state that they do not allow posts critical of the game or developers. How can you get any more unbiased than that. Furthermore, the lack of players and dead game play are extensively reported. Let the edits stand.

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)

Request for Informal Mediation

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)

So... um... When does this "mediation" start?

I don't know, I left a message on the mods talk page 24.114.255.83 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I got a new moderator, it should start up in a day once the new moderator gets up to speed 24.114.255.83 (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Good. I'm actually willing to collaborate on this. Datenschleuder is really getting rediculous.MrSpammy (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Screenshots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

German paratroopers on the coast of england.

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

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

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

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

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

Warthog32 05:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

File:Sshot11hf4.jpg

Two tank destroyers clash, with a StuG III Ausf. G claiming victory against the lightly armored M10 Wolverine.

File:SShot3.jpg

With smoke and fuel pouring from the enemy Bf 109's engine, victory is near, but not yet achieved. Leaning into his gunsight, this pilot gets ready to place the final shots.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Playable Equipment

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

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

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

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

2001 vs 2006 screenshots

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

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

Moving Along

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

Virtual Battlefield

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

64.174.34.251 17:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

64.174.34.251 17:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

A. a term that has existed for a long time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Largest map

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

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

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

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

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

64.174.34.251 16:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Aritta 23:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

*World War II online uses a ½ scale map of Western Europe.*

File:Big07kb7.jpg

This map was created by a player, only posted on the WWII forums, who never named his source, exceeds even CSR's marketing claim that they model 350,000 km² (NOT 350,000 mi²!), and was clearly hand-edited with a black block paintbrush. And yet, we're supposed to base a wikipedia article on it?? Here's the CSR marketing link http://www.wwiionline.com/scripts/wwiionline/be_features.jsp. This map is a compelation of in game map screenshots. The black area's are missing data, not black block paintbrush. The source is a player named bushman who lives in the middle of a swamp, ownes a bunch of guns, and likes to blow things up. If you don't believe it's actualy this big then you can download the game and pan around the map yourself. Its a free download.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aritta 18:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nhorning's Original:

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

My Copy-Edit:

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

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

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

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

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

Speed tree

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aritta 18:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Axis bias

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

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

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

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

Needs a section dedicated to the HC

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

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

Ok,just looking for approval.Thanks :).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to the WWIIOL wikipedia page!.

Warthog32 07:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor thing but..

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

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

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

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

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

Squad info

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

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

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

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

Failed GA

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warthog32 16:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Luckily, CRS approves of our using these images.

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

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

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

Equipment designation standards

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

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

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

Warthog32 01:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Initial Launch colo facility

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

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Picture 7.png

Image:Picture 7.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Note: This image has been renamed File:World War II Online, new campaign.png. —Bkell (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Player Guide

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

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

Removing speculation

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Continued graphical and performance improvements.

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

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

Warthog32 21:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warthog32 17:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Warthog32 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

I took time and re-edited it to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warthog32 03:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Verifiable References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rfc: Acceptable references

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

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

Developer discussion on game-calculated ballistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have concerns about additions or changes to the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Mmogmaps 001.jpg

Image:Mmogmaps 001.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

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

Server

Is this one huge map,or are there different servers

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

Small Player Base

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)

SEVERAL DOZEN PLAYERS??? wow.... in a game the size of WWIIOL that means you could literally wander around for hours and never have a worthwhile engagement.67.90.87.194 (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You would know that players concentration is automatically adjusted by the AO/DO system if you had an idea what you are talking about and if you would have actually read the reasons stated. You "could literally wander around for hours and never have a worthwhile engagement" in virtually every game if you are dumb enough. --Datenschleuder (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks don't support your arguments67.90.87.194 (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Who has been attacked personaly? You might want to try to understand what is being said. --Datenschleuder (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Playing ignorant doesn't exonerate you either. 67.90.87.194 (talk) 03:02, 24 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)

External Links

[1] Better Business Bureau's Rating of CRS

This link has nothing to do with subject. I see no reason to keep this here. --Datenschleuder (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's a link that was added in bad faith. 24.114.255.83 (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Explain how the BBB rating of "F" is not relevant?

CRS has had two complaints in the last 3 years, and none in the last year. Of those two, 1 was resolved, the other wasn't. That one complaint is not statistically relevant to provide proof that CRS acts in a bad manner towards its customers. The burden of proof is not to prove why this link shouldn't be on the page, but why it should. The credit rating of the company is just not relevant in this article.24.114.255.83 (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look at CRS's history since 2001 it is RIDDLED with complaints. The BBB doesn't give out horrible ratings arbitrarily. They have to be earned. It's entirely relevant and current. 67.90.87.194 (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Where? Where are these complaints? Are these complaints legitimate or are they just whines? 24.114.255.83 (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This meaningless "rating" results out of a single customer complaint that was unanswered. This has absolutely no meaning for the article. --Datenschleuder (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That is absolutley untrue, and now you've completely tipped your biased hand. CRS has a history of poor customer service that goes back for YEARS. I challenge you to call the BBB and find out for yourself. YOur edits are not in good faith. Your are obviously defending the game while myself and others are merely trying to bring the truth to light in a biased article.67.90.87.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 14:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC).

The BBB states itself that there were only two customer complaints in the last 36 month. Put this in the relation of thousands of customers. Btw., you have quite a sad history of infantile vandalism on Wikipedia as everyone can see. --Datenschleuder (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely do not. This is a shared IP. I'm at a hotel room, Einstein.67.90.87.194 (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is your registered account name that you login with. No one but you is using this account that is frequently being used to vandalize Wikipedia. --Datenschleuder (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Um... this is an UNREGISTERED IP address, not an account. You are demonstrating, once again, that you have no idea what you're talking about.67.90.87.194 (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What is for sure is that you repetitively vandalize this article, which several people complain about. Will you ever realize that Wikipedia is not a complaint forum of individuals against subjects?! --Datenschleuder (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The issues that customers are having with CRS don't seem to exist, no reliable proof can be found. To put a section up describing 'poor customer service' would go against the principles of wikipedia. This section does not stand any amount of scrutiny. DocVM (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring: warning

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)

Realistic vulnerability

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)

claming that something is baseless doesn't make it so. 67.90.87.194 (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you show me your viable source that backs up this claim if you have on? --Datenschleuder (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This section must remain unbiased/neutral, it assumes that one cannot learn from their mistakes, this is completely untrue, not only is there info available to players after their missions, but there is also an entire group of players dedicated to training and also a training mode. DocVM (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

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)

Reviews are not accurate sources as they express opinion, not fact. DocVM (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Technical Support

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)

Edit warring

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)

I understand your position, but I was mainly waiting for the mediation to start. I'm rather new at this. MrSpammy (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Informal mediation

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?

World War II Online: Battleground Europe review - Jim Rossignol, Eurogamer.com, December 19, 2005
Gamevortex review

Could I ask Datenschleuder to explain if he objects to these sources, and if so why? PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Are others also able to contribute? Or just after Datenschleuder and MrSpammy have given their opening arguments? 24.114.255.83 (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, others are most welcome to contribute. PhilKnight (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out PhilKnight. I look forward to resolving this issue. I'll wait for Datenschleuder's input and then respond accordingly.MrSpammy (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks MrSpammy. PhilKnight (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't object these sources in general. However (I think that) they are not relevant to the Small Player Base section because they contain no up-to-date and objective informations regarding it.

You can find my reasons for my changes on this sub-section on this discussion page and I wonder on base of what arguments MrSpammy is reverting my changes over and over. --Datenschleuder (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The articles do not provide a proper source for three reasons, first, reviews express opinion, second, they're a tad old, third, and the most important, it's not the fact that there are no players, it's the fact that new players may find it hard to find fights, due to the AO system and such. The most likely compromise is that instead of stating that the game suffers from a small player base, which is refutable, we can state that it is difficult to find a battle, as new players are faced with spawning in with any of the division, most of which may not even be fighting at the moment. DocVM (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is no surprise that MrSpammy didn't respond yet because arguments are demanded now. Changes performed by (numerous) contributors on the other hand were reverted almost immediateley by him. In his first response on a suggestion to a rewrite (by someone else than me) he already made it perfectly clear what his intent of contribution on Wikipedia is: "...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)]". Just like his user name suggests. --Datenschleuder (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think DocVM's compromise about being difficult to find a battle is a good suggestion. Also, if we are going to use the reviews, it's important to indicate when the review was and that they are an opinion. PhilKnight (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with that. --Datenschleuder (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

However I think that the problem with the more complicated user inface is not an issue of a "small player base", so it should be listed under a separate category under criticism. --Datenschleuder (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow Datenschleuder, some people work for a living, myself included, so you'll have to excuse my "tardiness" in responding to your arguments. I would like to start, however, by addressing DocVM's point that reviews express opinion. Industry gaming magazines and websites, and the writers they publish are considered to be experts in their field. That is, it is reviewers who, do to their breadth of experience and the sheer volume of games which they review, who are the single best "authorities" on the matter. If you wish to include some disclaimer, identifying the source as a professional industry reviewer, I would concede to that, bt hardly think it necessary due to the very nature of the articles cited. Secondly, being old- the sad fact is that new games, or games that add significant improvements, patches, or expansions get reviewed more often, as "news" develops. There are scant reviews for WWIIOL in the recent literature because not many ground breaking changes have been made. It would seem, by the industry's silence, that the game is considered old, obsolete, or not very noteworthy anymore. Finally, of course the reviewers are players. They are players of a very many games from all genres. They are as close as you can get to "professional gamers". They even recount their experiences, IN GAME, in the articles.

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)

Your incorrect claim, "that there are MANY times when a player simply can NOT find a single "worth while" engagement in game", is nothing but your incorrect opinion that you do not backup by sources. One can for example observe using the game monitor that battles with many players are are always present on the server - even at times with the lowest server population. --Datenschleuder (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Before we continue to invest our time to mediate this dispute, I want to ask if it is really worth it. MrSpammy made it clear that he was banned from the games forum because he violated the TOS. His first statement on this talk page that I have already quoted makes it clear that he is not interested into a democratic and objective contribution on this article. It appears very clear and obvious to me that his only intend is to damage the game as much as possible in order to avange his banishment. --Datenschleuder (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

PhilKnight, as you can see, mediation really is necessary, as Datenschleuder insists on attacking me personally and pretending to know my motivations.MrSpammy (talk) 15:11, 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)

- Do you now suddenly say that you haven't been banned? If not, why do you repeatedly complain about the TOS and banning policy of the forum/game with your edits and on the talk page?

- Why do you think that your comments like "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)]" does not clearly violate several Wikipedia policies?

- Why do you revert edits without reasoning it on the talk page, where these edits were explained by contributors? --Datenschleuder (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I am hoping for a fair and balanced article that includes criticism on the subject. Your edits however are with almost no exception baseless and contain no information that are of interest in a quality article on the subject.

You do not reason your edits and reverts on the talk page but rather tell every other contributor that you will "change it back... until the end of time", which makes your shady intend perfectly clear. --Datenschleuder (talk) 15:47, 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)

I am sure that you can enlighten me about what points I supposedly haven't addressed? All I can see is that you haven't answered to my latest reply on the 'small player base' subject that is currently in question in the mediation.

Btw., no surprise that you remove all the cricism from your user comment page.--Datenschleuder (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As per WP:DRC users are allowed to remove any comment they wish from they're talk page (except declined unblock requests while the block is still in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry notices, and shared IP header templates for unregistered editors.). It indicates that they they been read. —Smilers ☺^Talk 19:30, 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.

Let's debate the definition of massively multilayer then if that's what the argument is coming down to. WWII online is a large scale persistent world were thousands of players can play at the same time, albeit usually over battles that are scattered across the map. WWII online fulfills the definition of MMOG as defined by wikipedia. The definition does not change as population rises and lowers. WWII online is still a MMOG during low population as it is during high population. If a server is empty, does it make World of Warcraft any less of a MMOG? I think not. The fact that it does take time to find enemy players is the nature of the game, it is the path that the developers have chosen for this particular MMOG. 24.114.255.83 (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that [[2]] contains a recent screen shot that shows 400 players present on a single spot in the game world. This by itself proves that the game is (still) a MMO. (Not that any person with integrity and insight wouldn't see that.) --Datenschleuder (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Ummm... yup. I won't deny it. However you are completely wrong about 'counter my arguments/edits.' What is posted on Facebook, and I quote "Hey guys, there seems to be a dispute on the WWII Online page. If you have a wikipedia account or would like to put in your two cents, please do. The link is..." So please stop making this argument seem that it's us vs you, we're trying to work together to improve the article. DocVM (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already responded to this and also explained it before I did the original edits that you reverted. You didn't responded to any of the repeated arguments.

Again: What you say is nothing more than what you want to say - without backing it up with sources. Existing sources like the mentioned game monitor prove you wrong. There is no reason to claim that the game does not qualify as massive multiplayer game. --Datenschleuder (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the article says:

"Though CRS has declined to list it's current number of subscribers, current and former players have complained that the number of people still playing the game has dwindled over the years, taking the "massive" out of "massively multiplayer". 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."

I think a possible compromise is to say that it can be difficult to find a battle. Or at least it can involve a significant wait before reaching a battle, which is mentioned in the reviews. PhilKnight (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree to this compromise. Especially the part about finding a battle.24.114.255.83 (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable, PhilKnight.MrSpammy (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This problem is however related to the brigade spawn system, which sometimes makes it difficult for new players to join the battles that are going on. So this should be a different category. The time to reach a battle during game play has in most cases been eliminated by the introduction of mobile spawns and new ways of control point spawning. --Datenschleuder (talk) 12:07, 5 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)

That player numbers went down in the first years after the first realease in 2001 is true. However a developer stated last year in the forums (didn't find the post yet) that subscription numbers in the past few years have slightly increased. That you cannot find "a worthy engagement" in the game at some time is not a problem of player numbers, because there are always at least over a hundred players in the single game world instance when observing the amount of AOs/DOs, EWS infos, and player infos using the mentioned BE game monitor.

Anyway, I am not the one who has to back-up that player numbers do not constantly go down so that one isn't able to play the game anymore. You have to provide the evidence for what you claim! --Datenschleuder (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll refute the argument that the subscriber base has dwindled. It has been stated by the developers that they've stemmed the tide of falling sub numbers. Sadly, no link as it was an old post. DocVM (talk) 18:45, 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.

The accolades section has had some edits about it not being genuine as the developers encouraged players to vote.
That the forums are ruled with an iron fist.
That the Forth Worth’s Better Business Bureau rating of an F is relevant for the article.

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)

Hi DocVM, thanks for that very constructive post. I agree that assertions such as developers encouraging players to vote should be removed unless sourced. Also, I think we should discuss the Forth Worth’s Better Business Bureau link. Lastly, I've unprotected the article, however, obviously if there is a sterile edit war, then I'll have to protect again. PhilKnight (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Addressing the points raised by DocVM- For the players choice awards, there was a stickied post in the wwiiol forums by the developers actively recruiting players to vote for the game. If you were around then than you know this. Unfortunately, this post, if it still exists, is on a subscription required site, so I cannot source it. But really- be honest about this one. The developers actively recruited people to vote, and anyone who was active in the forums at the time knows it.

"But, but they said this ... and did that..."

Wikipedia is not a Kindergarten forum for accusations made by individuals. State your sources for your claims if you want to make a point. --Datenschleuder (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why the Forth Worth’s Better Business Bureau rating is of relevance to this article.

The site does not state what informations were acquired for a particular rating. The only information the site states is that there has been one resolved and one unanswered costumer complaint in the past three years. This low level of information is obviously of no relevance to the article. --Datenschleuder (talk) 12:00, 10 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)

It is absolutely normal that it is not allowed to promote hatred and competition against the particular game on the game's forum.

Would you allow ads to the competition or meetings of hatred against the company in your business rooms, where every costumer can see it?

They deliver a game and a forum to clients - with a terms of service like every other company. Accept the TOS or simply don't buy the product. Every intelligent being shouldn't have a problem to understand and to accept this simple and common concept. --Datenschleuder (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The terms of service by other game companies like Blizzard for example are much more radical, which state that they can terminate accounts even without any reason or notice given [3]. --Datenschleuder (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

MrSpammy just reverted the removal of the Subscriber Forums section again without going into the arguments or even mentioning specific reasons. Could someone else make his stance on this clear again please, so this is not going to be a 1on1 edit war again? --Datenschleuder (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think to justify including this section there would have to be an independent source verifying the assertions, otherwise it counts as original research. PhilKnight (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

He didn't deliver an independent source and/or reasons for his revert seven days after his revert yet. I am not the only one who complained that this section should not be in this article (as one can see on this talk page). --88.72.61.48 (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What would you consider proof regarding the intolerance of mentioning independent websites which CRS libelously deems "hostile"? Datenschleuder or DocVM could prove it right now merely by posting a thread on the forums that says, "I LIKE SOT". It would be deleted within minutes and they would recieve a TOS. Would either of you be willing to try this for me? In the interests of objectivity, of course?MrSpammy (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I can provide proof if you like, there are many game threads in the Off-Topic section of the forums. I'll upload some and link, I'll see if I can get that done tomorrow. 24.114.255.83 (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well crap, my sub has run out. I can't access the forums anymore. Can someone who has an active subscription take some screen shots of gaming posts in OT and then link them? Thanks!24.114.255.83 (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think an independent reliable source is needed, such as game review commenting on the forum policy. PhilKnight (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Removing a whole section without describing why it should be removed is abuse of Wikipedia. Arguing that a section should be removed simply because it is unreferenced is just wikilawyering. On the other hand, if two parties disagree on content and one provides a reference which is more "independent" than another reference, then that gives weight to the independently referenced argument. In this case, there's no justification for the removal of the text, and no constructive discussion at all to argue even why it was removed. That's not acceptable. Warthog32 (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Warthog32, I'm not sure what you're saying, however the verifiability policy is very clear, that is, content must be attributed to a reliable, published source. Consequently, a reliable published source is most definitely required. PhilKnight (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No. It doesn't say that everything on wikipedia must be attributed to a reliable, published source. It says that everything that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source. In this case, we have no idea what fact is even being challenged, or even if the reliability of the source is what is being challenged. The section was just deleted without debate. Furthermore, sections should never be removed without notice - there should be time for people to provide a reference. I can also play wikilawyer if you like and quote policy left and right, but we all know that deleting sections without fair debate is just a waste of everyone's time and efforts. Warthog32 (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Very obviously, the material has been challenged. I suggest you carefully read the discussion before making any further comments. PhilKnight (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Dozens of arguments by several contributors were made against this section. It is only MrSpammy who thinks that this section should exist, because he says that he got banned in the game's forum. Please read the talk page. --Datenschleuder (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Subscriber Forums

The subscriber's forums section has, as it's objective third party source the TERMS of SERVICE hosted on CRS's website.MrSpammy (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That is hardly a 3rd party source. PhilKnight (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought we took care of this already? The forum section is biased against the game. If someone could get a screen cap of the Off-Topic forums, you'd see Mr Spammy that there are tons of threads about other games. The TOS is just there to stop people from posting negative comments about WWII Online. 24.114.255.83 (talk) 16:46, 12 April 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)

Again, a third-party source is required. PhilKnight (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The company's OWN Terms of Service confirm this fact.

Confirm what? That you have to agree to the right of the company to prevent you from using their public service as a platform of hatred against them?! What is your frickin problem with that?! Get a life or play any of the majority of MMOs where you have to agree to a TOS that allows them to ban you for no reason at all! --Datenschleuder (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the article, because of the edit war over this subject. In my understanding of policy, those editors who want to include criticism are required to provide a third party source. PhilKnight (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Has all the 'bad' edits been disproven then? Are the above pics enough to prove that CRS is not acting in bad faith? If editors keep on adding bad sections, they will get banned then right? As it has all been discussed correct? No third party source has been provided, but if editors keep on doing what they are doing, then it will need to be escalated right? 24.114.255.83 (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Complicated Spawn System

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)

Well then state your arguments why you do not agree with it. --Datenschleuder (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There should be some mention to the effect that there is never a guarantee that a sufficient number of people will be online to constitute a "massive battle", and that there are, indeed, times when the action is completely dead. Also, there should be a mention of both European and American "prime times", as well as the corresponding "dead times". Do you think that is fair?MrSpammy (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It was explained several time already that there are always sufficient players online that are necessary for complete game play and that players are spatially concentrated by the AO/DO battle concept. You are the one who has to deliver an independent reliable source that backs up your claims which only in your opinion should be a part of this article. --Datenschleuder (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So now we moved the discussion from finding a battle to the fact that there aren't any battles? The fact that the population does fluctuate is not relevant, even to the point if there isn't that much action sometimes. If, for example, the map was empty for the vast majority of the time, THAT would be relevant, however that is not the case. The game is moderately successful with a solid and active player base. 24.114.255.83 (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)