Wikipedia

Talk:Dark Reign: The Future of War/Archive 1

< Talk:Dark Reign: The Future of War
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Castigar2000 in topic Why are you arguing about pointless minutiae when the Story section isn't even accurate
Archive 1

Online Info

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

Do people think that the online tactics and online community sections really add any appropriate useful information about this game? The tactics section would seem to be way too subjective to me, especially some of the terminology used there. The online community section just seems to be a list of clans and a way to muster players to rejoin the game. Any thoughts on this - Lewis 10:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove the Online Tactics section. It seems to have been written by an angry Dark Reign player tired of facing the tactics listed. The "Arty Whoring" section in particular seems devoted to deriding those who use that tactic. It sounds like a pretty good strategy to me. And aside from the issue of bias and the fact that no attempt is made at verifiability (a simple forum post to demonstrate the use of the terms in the Dark Reign community would do), the Wikipedia isn't a strategy guide; remove it.
Arty Whoring is when an unskilled player builds 10 or more artillery units and works their way across the map by building Camera Towers which give the player more line-of-sight. They then force the enemy back into his own base by attacking their perimeter defenses with the artillery and killing them by attrition. A player who uses these tactics is called an "Arty Whore". Many a Dark Reign game has been ruined by these Arty Whores.
(Emphasis on biased remarks)
68.9.205.10 05:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur; have been bold; Online Tactics has been deleted. Colonel Tom 04:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The clans mentioned in the "Online Community" section havent been active in some years. And i see no problem in trying to attract new players to the small loyal community that is still active. It was this Wiki page that made myself and a few others aware that the Dark Reign community was still alive and allowed us to enjoy this classic RTS once again.

Until such time that the Dark Reign community is dead, the "Online Tactics" section seems a welcome and humorous addition to me. I agree the "Arty Whoring" section was written in anger, because i know who wrote it, lol, but it reflects the feelings of alot of DR players. The language and terminology is the same as that used by the active community so seems to add to the flavor in my opinion. I think you should both download Kali and come and play the game before you make such drastic changes to a page that the community finds entertaining, after all it is an "Online Tactics" section :P

  • Thanks, User:88.107.169.161. Wikipedia has the WP:BJAODN section for deleted humor that isn't encyclopedic. I haven't posted it there as I don't think it meets the criteria (my very subjective opinion, of course). Under WP:NOT, I would suggest that the Online Tactics section is not of value to this article. The Online Community section adds some historical value; while it could be cleaned up, it doesn't have to be removed, IMO. On the basis that I'm the third contributor to this page who feels that Tactics should be deleted and there is one editor voicing support to keep, I've removed it again. I have no intention of edit warring, however; if you feel the above arguments are not sufficient to warrant the removal, well, this is a wiki and can be edited, after all. BTW, I'm a fan of the game myself. Colonel Tom 01:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • additional comment Also be aware that, as indicated above, large sections of the tactics section are WP:NPOV and would have to be cleaned up if reinserted. Cheers, Colonel Tom 01:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Four currently active Dark Reign players have contributed towards the Online Tactics section. Two editors have been primarily responsible for the wording. All bias information has been removed particularly that targetted at the use of Artillery. If we missed anything please feel free to change it. This section now also has some historical relevance as it credits those players that pioneered the now famous tactics. Other RTS articles also detail effective tactics used online, typically "rush" tactics. It is a credit to the diversity of Dark Reign that so many tactics have been developed over the years and we have the luxery of going into more detail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.255.46 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC).

I strongly feel that the online tactics section is unsuitable content. In theory anyone could create any number of humoursly named tactical moves to be used in this game and paste them here. They do not add to the understanding of the game in any way. The only way I can see them being of any use if they are describing popular methods of play in an online game, in which case they need to be backed-up with credible references.
-Lewis 09:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I would very much like to know what is a 'credible' reference, a web site? How do you decide which is credible or not?. These tactics add to the understanding of the game, they let a person interested in the game know how it can be played, what type of game it is. Not all RTSs are made equally, though RTS is a genre, each RTS has its own style. As I understand it, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I would like to find /as much/ relevant information as I can about whatever I am looking up, not as little. This information /is/ relevant. Agreed it could be tidyed in the interests of brevity and non-bias, which I plan on doing, but to remove it would be pointless. Also, removing it would mean that 99% of the game related wikipedia pages should have their content cut as well as they do exactly the same thing.
Let's take your key points one at a time:


Point 1: Firstly, I would very much like to know what is a 'credible' reference, a web site? How do you decide which is credible or not? Check here and here
So according to you this entire article is invalid. As not one single source is referenced. I mean how do you know that the story section is true? How about the Gameplay section, is Dark Reign really an RTS? How would you know, there is no source, so lets delete that. Hell how do we know Dark Reign is even playable online, no source for that, let's delete that too. Hell, how the fuck do we know that that picture is the real picture of the Dark Reign manual? Thats gotta go too.....Right?
:As I understand it, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I would like to find /as much/ relevant information as I can about whatever I am looking up, not as little. - Wikipedia is a general readers encyclopedia so the information should be a broad overview for the general reader - more than that does not below here, that is why we have WP:NOT and other policies
Also, removing it would mean that 99% of the game related wikipedia pages should have their content cut as well as they do exactly the same thing. - entirely true but there are only so many hours in the day, all that means is that someone has not got around to it yet on those pages - that's not an argument for inclusion.
Oh and please sign your posts in future. --Charlesknight 05:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
On a side note I am going to make another page Dark_Reign_units detailing every unit the game has, any objections? Or is that also not relevant.
Secondly, this is a wikipedia page, it has nothing to do with the Dark Reign community, it should not be a page to promote the game or to recruit new players. I'm an old fan of this game too, and would like to see its page an informative and reliable source of relevant information, not a page of innapropriate and pointless unsupported 'tactics'. Either provide valid references or these will be deleted.
-Lewis 15:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Pfft, how about Auran, the people who made the game? Is that reference enough for you? They have a page that the /developers/ of the game suggest online tactics. But to reference them and put those tactics on the wikipedia page should not be done because most of their strategies are no good for online play, how do I know, because for 10 years I have been playing this game, I know, can I become a reference? Of course not. However, this would be an example of perfectly referenced and cited /misinformation/. I respect the work of you people who put time and effort into maintaining, for nothing, wikipedia pages to provide a good standardized structure, however, once in a while you should listen to the people who actually provided the content in the first place. After all, it's us who provide the content, without contributors, wikipedia would be USELESS.


They are describing the popular methods of play. You will see one of these tactics in 9 out of 10 games played online. The surviving online community on Kali is only small (Around 20 players) the majority of which are veterans. Most active players have seen these tactics and have no objections. Since any new player differing from these tactics is almost certain to loose to an experienced player using one, this seems like relevant information. Any humoursly named tactical moves pasted here that are not 'tried and tested' means of victory within the online community would be promptly removed by any experienced player.

You seem to be missing the point. While they may be relevant to discussing online play, if you dont provide a credible source for this info then we have no way to verify what you say. This isn't just a page for players of the game it's an encyclopedia page intended to also be read by people that know nothing about it. Please reference this to a credible source or it will have to go, please read WP:V if you don't understand what I mean.
-Lewis 23:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you go remove online tactics information from other games listed on Wikipedia? I do not think i am missing the point, as this is useful information for anyone who has not played Dark Reign before and wants to compete on a competitive level. Surely the most credible sources for online tactics would be the players who invented and are using them? I could reference plenty of tactics from the official manuel that dont actually work online, but that in my opinion would be misleading. If you like we could quote the last Dark Reign tournament winner as a source?

I agree that this information is useful to players of the game. I don't believe it is useful for the average reader of an article on wikipedia. This is unecessary detail that belongs in a strategy guide. Why dont you create one on Wikibooks [1]? If you insist on keeping it here it has at least got to be backed up with sources.
I implore you to read WP:V and WP:NOT(#8), for clarification, its not just me being a killjoy.
-Lewis 09:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree partially with Lewis. The online tactics section needs to be removed. I really couldn't care less about the source since very few wikipedia articles actually site sources. Having a credible source is not the reason it should be removed. The person leaving unsigned comments stated that content like this would have to be removed from 99% of game related articles. That is not true, there are considerably few that have content like this. Most articles describe the units and items within the game and allow the reader to come up with their own strategy by using the information. Read the Golden Sun article for an example of this. It does not ever specifically state strategies, it just explains in detail what happens when you do certain things. It allows the reader to decide what to do and never actually states "you should do this". One article I found that had a strategy section also did it in a different way. It explains aspects of the game in a way that is hard to describe. See Total Annihilation#General strategy. If you can rewrite your strategy section more like either of the articles I mentioned, then the section can stay. Currently it is written in a very DO THIS style. Present all the facts about things in the game and allow the reader to come up with the strategy. I know that just presenting them is the easiest way, but wikipedia is really not for that and most articles do not do that. If the section is not rewritten, which I do not really think is possible, the section needs to be removed.--Kyle(K1000)(talk) 17:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Top Dark Reign Players

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On a similar note, I have some questions about parts of the "Top Dark Reign Players" section. It offers No references whatsoever beyond a clearly personal comment by one of the authors, whom I doubt can be even remotely called encyclopedic. I mean, some of the listed name sound more like someone's listing of their friends.... Examples: Ged: The upgrade-master. Never played games 1 vs 1, but was probably the best partner anyone could ever have in games with more than 2 players. Quit very early

So? Did that person win any official/major tournaments? What makes him particularly notable or worthy of mention. What made him probably the best partner one could wish for?

Demetrius (Blue): One of the best players ever. He had a knack for turning the tables on the opponent, even when he and/or his enemy were hit hard. His gameplay was amazing both in the vital beginning stages of the game and also the later stages. ~Considered by most to be the best allround player to ever grace Dark Reign.

Concidered by most? What most? Some references would be nice.

I honestly think that the entire section should be deleted unless one can provide alot of references and do some MAJOR rewriting... This is wikipedia, not a Myspace page. -Ghilz 20:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Dark Reign was never popular enough to have had any "major" tournaments that could've boosted anyone's popularity (there was one failed attempt called the COTT, clash of the titans). The only references to how good a player was are ancient (and varying) ladder rankings and differing opinions. I agree on removing the "Top Players" section, because it can never be anything but the opinion of whoever wrote it. -An old DR player (nick: Beldin), 14:30 19 August 2006

Hey, im still playing DR today and agree this section should be removed as it is nothing more than the authors opinion (milamber you queer) and refers to players that have not been active in at least 5 years. Since myself and other players dont agree with the comments made about half the players listed i vote this section be removed. If this section gets restored i am going to add my own name to the list and talk about how great i am :) -The legend that is James - Most commonly seen Reapering Fooooo's base to dust.

During the height of Dark Reign both Ged and Demetrius, and a handful of others (eg members of [E]) were indeed among some of the top players in Dark Reign all of which have been inactive since before the release of Dark Reign 2. Amongst the players during that time, it would be agreeable than less. However, I agree that it's unsuitable for wikipedia; and as written DR was never popular enough to warrant any real tournaments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.211.13 (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Shameless Self Promotion

Who the hell is this Nim guy? Anyway thats beside the point, I have a few objections to changes Nimrod has made to the page.

"As of 2006, there is a new clan that calls itself DUC (Desiccated Universe Clan) founded by Nim. The entire clan is based around a version of the game that was patched up by Nim."

Do the DUC plan on playing with themselves?? (ok dont answer that :|) You guys must be new because i have been playing DR on kali for a couple of years and never seen you around. You should know that it is rare to see more than 8 players online these days, hardly enough to be forming clans. Especially clans based on a version of the game patched by you... no offense.

Which brings me to my second point, you should not be promoting 3rd party material that is going to make the game incompatible with the official version of the game in multiplayer, especialy if your patch applies to the installation directory and not the map directories.

"The DUC version of Dark Reign has many bug fixes and aesthetic improvements that not even the makers of the game bothered to produce."

What exactly couldnt the developers be bothered to produce..? Your patch notes seem to revolve around you swapping one units audio for anothers. Whether this could be considered an actual improvement to the game would be entirely based on ones opinion. My opinion being... No.

"A new mapmaker who just recently showed himself is Nim"

Your about 9 years too late, and who exactly did you show yourself to??? :\ Was it Fooooo?

"his maps are designed with strategy, beauty, tactics, and realism in mind. For this reason many of his maps look like real places and look better then most other maps out there"

Errrrm... whos opinion would all this be in Nimbo? Is it by any chance... your own?

P.S. lmfao @ beauty

-James AKA "The Dark Reign Master"

AI

AFAIK Dark Reign 1 was famous due to brilliant AI engine.. Yet there is nothing about it in the main article

Use of 1st and 2nd person, too casual

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there. I added a little 1st and 2nd person tone Cleanup template, because there is a lot of sentences such as "You can check them out..." and "In my eyes, the best player...". Sounds more like a conversation than an encyclopedia article. That's all. Eptin 09:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

After reading Ghilz notes, I agree with him that the Top Dark Reign Players section is far too casual, may not be of encyclopedic importance. In addition to all of that, there are no references.

Significant edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am not a gamer and I have never played this game, however I have edited it as best I can to try and bring it into line with wikipedia standards.

Are they any elements I have removed that people feel should go back in?

I am performing further edits after this post.

--Charlesknight 18:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I do think the Story section could've been left; if someone could rewrite it in a more terse, legible, easily understandable manner for those who havent played the game. (Many games have entries with rather detailled synopsis in Wikipedia) But the article looks much nicer now. Ghilz 18:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Major slash of online tactics section

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

OK I have performed a big slash on the online tactics section - why have I done this?

Well, reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT

"Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes".

In theory, the whole section should go but I think that if it's included as an indicative example of gameplay that a few examples should be ok.

--Charlesknight 18:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to convince people that section was innappropriate for a while, but sadly many people treat it like a fanpage. I'd like to see it removed altogether but Ill settle for a concise summary if people feel that strongly about it. Lewis 18:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I've come to the conclusion you are right - it will just end back like a fanpage, so I have removed it. --Charlesknight 10:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

About dark reign

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After reading the front page I could help remember so many people and names about this game. People like Ged, Beldin, Reptile, Mattman, Panther, Pimpdaddy, Mars, etc.. and im sure im missing many others. This game was amazing fun, great multiplayer games, good maps and a great idea. -VeNoM(VuP,PK and a few other guilds)

goddam, its been so long...those names bring back memories, what would it take to get all the old players back for one big competition
Among other things, point people at stuff that lets them play if their version of DirectX is higher than 3.0 -- 72.49.109.236 10:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

We should re-write article to sound more professional

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi - I have no argument with what the article says, but Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia,
and articles in Wikipedia are supposed to sound like articles in an encyclopedia.
We should re-write this to make it sound more professional.
The articles at Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style can be helpful.
Have a good one! -- 201.51.252.63 18:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up strategies section

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I changed it to use Wiki markup and cleaned it up a bit so it doesn't say `you' as much. There were also notes about the contributor using a particular strategy, basically saying `I do this to accomplish that'. I reworded the section to remove that. Personally, I don't think this section, while possibly informative, belongs in the article. But I didn't want to remove it willy-nilly. Comments? -- Neil 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Reasonable vs CPU strategies section.

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed this section for now as the consensus on this talk page seems to be that the section should not be there. It needs to stay off unless it can be rewritten, as I said near the top of this page. As far as I can tell there are only a few people that are campaining to keep the section. --Kyle(K1000)(talk) 18:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Added new content

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I added a whole lot - cleared up the story section, added the expansion outline to the story, detailed the gameplay a bit better, and added a features section to help explain what makes Dark Reign notable. Feel free to edit harshly as I pretty much typed it all in one pass and I don't have time to self-edit, but please justify any removal of content as I don't feel the article is too long or detailed. 121.45.3.244 (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dark Reign Cover.jpg

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Image:Dark Reign Cover.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) 21:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Abandonware phrasing?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The "released as abandonware" perhaps should be rephrased; it might give the impression that this was given sanction by the copyright holders (as in "we won't actually help you, but we don't care what you do with it anymore, either") while a perusal of the forums on that site suggests that they lack such consent. It is no more "released" than would be an unauthorized DVD ISO of "Batman: The Dark Knight" floating around on BitTorrent one week after release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.139.249 (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you arguing about pointless minutiae when the Story section isn't even accurate

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm afraid to edit the page lest the Wikipedia piranhas tear me apart in the comments, but, correct me if I'm wrong:

I believe the story of Dark Reign 2 takes place in the same time period as the first Dark Reign, it's just dealing with rebellious citizens (Sprawlers) still on earth. The Freedom Guard were the prisoners shipped off into space to Io, Ganymede and other places who also rebelled against the JDA (Imperium).

Also, his name is spelled "Alpheus" Togra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Castigar2000 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Source

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dark_Reign:_The_Future_of_War/Archive_1&oldid=1214699986"