Talk:Myth (video game series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Video game series merge

Perhaps this needs to be made "Myth (video game series)", similar to the Halo article Halo (video game series), and then separate articles for the three games? What do others think?

I think that the Myth games are close enough together in time and design that a separate article for each game would be repititious. At this time, I think we should focus on this article and describe the details of the games as separate article "topics". --G3pro 13:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed; see my post below about an impending merge and check discussion at Myth II for details. Argyrios 07:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think, as we have seen the content of this page expand to become quite lengthy, that this page _should_ be separated similarly to how the Halo articles are, per game, with a legend to navigate between the three games. Myrdred 20:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That problem has been mostly solved by making a separate article for the story of myth, and should be further helped by LordNaughty's pending summarization of the units section. I think it is much more coherent to divide the article in this way, by topic (as was done) especially since the MAIN difference between Myth and Myth II is how the story unfolds. Argyrios 22:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot

this screenshot is not from Myth The Fallen Lords as that game only supported 640x480 resolution. Please delete and replace with a better shot. 23rd November 2004.

This level is indeed from the Fallen Lords, but the screenshot was taken from the Myth 2 engine using a patching program developed by Project Magma. The patch allows all of the single player levels from TFL to be used in Myth 2. I will edit the caption. --G3pro 15:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, the latest update to TFL does let it support resolutions above 640x480.

TFL 1.5 allows you to play at desktop quality. I'd say M2 pic would be more appropriate since its where 99% of all Myth games happen. getmyth.com has a fair selection.

TC Daimyo

I added som information about the TC Daimyo. Although there are no proper sources for any of it, most of it is as far as I'm concerned reliable information and is certainly worthy of mention, considering how excited the community was about it when it was announced. When I was at the height of my TFL-playing frenzy I remember visiting the website and accidently stumbling upon a mindlessly clumsy security breech which allowed me to gain access to one of the project members' private files. I am by no means a hacker or even that computer savvy and there was nothing like an actual attempt to find it, but find them I did. Although nothing really mind boggling, I did remember that among the files I managed to d/l with the 28.8 kb connection I was on at the time was a still unreleased beta of a Myth-update and some assorted files that had to do with the game. My thanks for alerting the project people without telling anyone in the community was a measly screenshot of a samurai archer and a few kind words...

Oh, and this is my first proper edit here, btw. Yell at me if necessary. karmosin 1 Feb 2005, 00:28 CET.

Homeland conversion added

Sunday, May 1, 2005 I added a small bit on Homeland, a conversion whose existence more or less facilitated the creation of a new kind of Myth conversion. Simply put, it was the first Solo Campaign to make extensive use of new units, intricate scripting, well-thought-out storyline, detailed mapmaking, and a voiced-over intro. While only 1 level, it prompted a sequel, whose units/characters were eventually used in The Seventh God. Basically, it was the first real breakthrough hit in the Solo Campaign field, and remains one of the most-downloaded solo campaigns to this day. I like it, so I wrote it in.

It's my first edit, so feel free to fuss at me if you like! :)

I had forgotten, but yeah Homeland did have a lot of that stuff first. It should stay, I suppose. Thanks for the contribution to wikipedia; hope it's the first of many:) Argyrios 07:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Impending merge

I believe that Myth: The Fallen Lords and Myth II should both redirect to this page; hence what little content is currently at the stub for Myth II will soon be added here, a subheading section will be made for each game here at this page, and the Myth II page will be converted into a redirect to this page. A warning to this effect has been up on the Myth II page for a couple weeks now, and relevent discussion should go to the thread I started on the talk page there (although I'll check both places). So far I have gotten no objections to this plan; if this is still the case in about ten days, I plan on doing the merge myself. If you feel that each game deserves a separate page then please speak up and make your case :). I respect the Myth series very much, but I feel that this is the best way to compile the information about it. Argyrios 07:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Name for earlier Myth game

There is an earlier computer game called Myth. It is a platform game from the early 1990s. If I were to write an article about it, what should be its title? — JIP | Talk 11:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Detailed Storyline

OK, that section is a total mess. It's just a tedious level-by-level synopsis. First, the specific events of every level aren't particularly important compared to the bigger picture of the course of the conflict. More importantly, the casual reader has no f'kin clue who Rabican, The Watcher, etc, are AT ALL so talking about them for the first time by saying someone defeated someone else is totally meaningless to them. The backstory is missing too. It needs to be completely redone. A good place to start would be to describe the structure of the world (the comet, the light/dark cycle, etc,) and some history that occurs before the events of the game. Then describe major characters, and THEN give the larger narrative course of events, leaving out the irrelevant, tedious details of each particular level's mission objectives. Argyrios 22:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent Revert Justification

First off, thanks for cleaning up the detailed storyline. It really needed it. Also thanks for catching some errors on the units page and adding the ones I missed. However, I had to remove a lot of your material. The idea is to give readers an overview to help them understand the game, what it's like to play it, and why it is important. Overly specific details are not encyclopedic. The exact behavior of the dispersal dream comes to mind; all the reader needs to know is that it blows shit up in a chain reaction, because that's cool, but the mathematics of how it specifically does this is of little interest to the casual reader. Wikipedia is not an in-depth game guide and there should be a cut-off point of what is relevent for the purposes of writing an encyclopedia and what is not. I could have deleted a lot more than I did and been justified, but I think there is wiggle room.

There was also an abundance of repeated information. Experience was covered in the "gameplay" section, for example, and it was already stated that healing destroys undead units, not Dark ones, so there's no need to repetitively state exceptions to a rule that was never stated or implied. I also caught a couple innaccuracies and at least one example of opinion being stated as fact. Please discuss any plans to re-add anything I deleted, so we can discuss it. I'm a reasonable guy :) Argyrios 12:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Changes

Okay! First off, my apologies to Argyrios for my recent changes. I've never before made a significant contribution to Wiki, and thus was unaware of proper etiquette and things such as the discussion page and the minor edit box.

I heartily approve of you undoing some of my recent edits in the units section. When I read the edits, I noticed that most of what was filtered out was either my opinion which I'd stated as fact, repetitive information, or simply information not appropriate for the Wikipedia (which probably encompassed the inaccuracies).

I will probably restrict future edits to the Detailed Storyline section, and I'm going to create a character section to help readers identify the characters within. After this, I may rework the Detailed Storyline section as some information therein may become redundant. If I'd read your suggestion about the character section before I made my changes, I'd probably have done that from the beginning, but as it is, all I saw was the mess you previously described and I decided to clean it up a bit.

When looking at the detailed storyline, please pay special attention to tense agreement. I know I've been through it a dozen times, and each time I find a tense error that I missed during the last run-through. I think that I want it to be in the past tense, and while some present tense mixed in there won't blow the narrative, it needs to flow smoothly. If you think present tense would be more appropriate, we can discuss it. [edit]Ah, I see that you noticed the tense agreement issue in this section several days ago. Well, your assistance is appreciated.[/edit]

I will endeavor to cooperate in further improvements to the page. And I'll start commenting on my changes immediately. -LordNaughty 2005/11/26 23:49 (GMT)

Character Section Complete

I've completed a character section with brief biographies of the major (and a few minor) characters. I might have put a bit more information than necessary into some of the bios, so feedback on the subject is appreciated. As expected, this does make some information in the Detailed Storyline redundant. Some of the details I've concentrated into the bios are spread throughout the storyline, and so this makes referencing the characters easier. However, eliminating the appropriate information from the detailed storyline may affect the flow of the narrative (which I'm not certain about anyway), not to mention making it difficult for people who don't read the character bios. I figure that the people who will take the time to read the detailed story will take the time to read the bios, but there's still the issue of flow.

Oh, and I'm torn on the subject of putting the Character section before or after the Detailed Storyline section. I see good arguments for either placement. Feedback is appreciated. -LordNaughty 2005/11/27 04:29 (GMT)

Possible Typo

In the write-up, there is a character referred to as "Baeldun". I don't remember a character by that name, nor do many hits come up in google. I believe you mean Maeldun, however, IIRC, all the avatara save Alric died in Myth: TFL.

Be'lal ~tTh~

Regarding the Possible Typo

It's not a typo. Baeldun and Maeldun are separate characters. As you thought, Maeldun presumably died in Myth: TFL (it's never explicitly stated, but you get a pretty good idea of it; the Myth 2 manual states that he was wounded, but not whether he survived). Baeldun is mentioned only once that I can recall, in the prologue for Walls of Muirthemne, level 14 of Myth 2, where he leads the Seventh Legion in an attack. Good eye, though. That could easily have been a typo.

-LordNaughty 2005/12/27 09:44 (GMT)

Elfoid: I confirm this statement

godcops stuff deleted

Wasn't by me, but if the guy puts that trash back up, remove it.

godcops has no place in the history of myth.

Patches

I've kept it current. Don't expect many more changes tho for a while.

Myth 3: How to include it.

Okay, first off, the reason I removed the information on Tireces is that the passage referred to is from the Myth 3 manual. In its current iteration, the Characters section states that info from the Myth 3 manual would not be included, so this was to maintain consistency.

However, it would be asinine to completely ignore Myth 3 in the Characters section. Yes, the game is somewhat reviled, but Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, so in all fairness it should probably be included somehow. Originally I was thinking a separate Characters section for Myth 3, leaving the Legendary Figures where they are. However, that's a lot of extra page space that is probably unnecessarily used. As much as I would prefer that option, it is unfortunately not the best way to organize the information.

My suggestion is that any info added on a character from a Myth 3 source be explicitly marked as coming from Myth 3. There is precedent for this in the other character sections, as bio info from Myth and Myth II is disambiguated within the specific character's writeup. Because some of the info from Myth 3 flatly contradicts things learned from the previous two games, I would suggest that the original writeups remain unchanged, and then the Myth 3 info be tacked on afterwards. I realize this is ugly, but when presenting two contradictory biographies of a character (Shiver/Ravanna, for example), both forms should probably be present.

For Example, the Tireces Section could read: A hero of ages past, Tireces defeated an unnamed incarnation of the Leveler and ushered in the Age of Reason. He was fated to return as Moagim a thousand years later to undo this golden age. (Myth II) A poet and philosopher, Tireces defeated Sorangath the Flayed, the Leveler during the Age of Darkness, in a duel during a battle at the city Tiruth'Dannor. (Myth III)

In this fashion, the information could be added in such a way that it doesn't interfere with the information from the previous games, while still fully exploring what was learned in Myth III. Obviously, this is just my opinion, and since I won't be the one to do those writeups, all I can do is offer my opinion. I highly encourage discussion if someone does want to make those changes.

-LordNaughty 2006/01/02 06:57 (GMT)

Article size

I recommend trimming this article considerably and removing many details from story, characters, and units sections. The alternative is to split up the article. It is too big. We could have a separate page for "story and characters of Myth" if people are against a massive summarization effort.

-Argyrios 09:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree that as it stands, the character and story summary sections alone warrant a separate article going by the 32k rule. That could also allow for endnote source citation (something not feasible under the current layout). If the problem is perusal, then a split article would seem to be the best choice as well because the unit, characters, and story sections comprise about 80% of the article right now. Those sections could be replaced by very brief summaries with links to the detail pages. While that would essentially gut the article, if a massive summarization effort isn't what people want to read, that's what should be done.

What would be left behind needs to be re-examined anyway. The Third-Party Mods section could and should be trimmed a bit, and the Updates section could be made more concise and readable (list form, or a chart with versions, dates, and developers). I'm not entirely sure why the MWC has its own section; speaking as a participant in several of them, it's really just a footnote deserving a few lines, if that (my lack of objectivity on that is the reason I've not edited it myself). A list of tournaments (minus organizers and winners and the dramatic bit about someone crying "1000 tears") seems more appropriate. The section currently labeled Storyline (as opposed to the much larger Detailed Storyline) covers thematic elements and should remain, but it needs a different title (something better than Thematic Elements, preferably), and some of it should be moved into gameplay. The release dates section should be near the bottom, and I'm not sure why Worlds, the Total Codex, and Green Berets are in that section(re-releases and third-party mods really have no place there). The Gameplay section looks good, as does the opening of the article (though that bit on Linux should be moved into the Updates section).

So the page could be the opening (largely unchanged) followed by the "Thematic Elements", followed by Gameplay, followed by Units (or a summary of units with a link to a detail page), followed by the Character list (if it's going to be split off, that whole section may want to be skipped and included with the detailed storyline page), followed by a new short story summary with a link to the detailed storyline, followed by a trimmed Third-Party Mods section, followed by a tournament list, followed by a reworked Updates list, followed by external links and other Bungie games. Whatever the order turned out to be, there wouldn't be much there, so the page would be very readable, with links for people craving details. That's just one take on it, anyway.

-LordNaughty 2006/01/02 11:03 (GMT)

RE: Myth III/how to include it

I'd suggest working to include GURPS Myth before Myth III, since its Bungie lisenced and also was a Myth III sourcebook. However, Myth III is a historical record written years after the events happened (hundreds even?) and would havebeen written by those who wanted to tell Connacht's side of the story. Therefore, Myth III I like to see as 'accurate from a point of view', not worth including.

---

Well, I'm neutral on including the GURPS Myth (assuming we don't decide to just trim the whole shebang) because that's a book relatively few people have access to. In addition, it's one thing to summarize from the game, observing the story and reporting, but I would think that the GURPS is already a summary, and it can't just be plagarized or paraphrased. If someone wants to take the time to do it, then I would suggest that the same disambiguation regarding the source material that I suggested for Myth 3 be done. Argyrios is right, though; the Detailed Storyline is far too large for an encyclopedic article. I wrote much of it, so it pains me to say that some of it should go, but he's right. Adding more info probably isn't the route to take here, unless the Detailed Storyline section is going to be split off from the article.

LordNaughty 22:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Article size

To do it justice, the story needs to take up a lot of space. Its as epic as LOTR.

" I'm not entirely sure why the MWC has its own section; speaking as a participant in several of them, it's really just a footnote deserving a few lines, if that (my lack of objectivity on that is the reason I've not edited it myself). A list of tournaments (minus organizers and winners and the dramatic bit about someone crying "1000 tears") seems more appropriate."

You clearly are not an active member of the Myth community if unaware who Grim is (tho that comment about him was probably a joke...probably), since he organised MWC03 and 04. If you have not participated since 01 or earlier, you have no idea how important MWC is. Number of games per day increases 10x in number and it is a huge centre of the community.

"The release dates section should be near the bottom, and I'm not sure why Worlds, the Total Codex, and Green Berets are in that section(re-releases and third-party mods really have no place there). The Gameplay section looks good, as does the opening of the article (though that bit on Linux should be moved into the Updates section)."

Codex was the first commercial release of Chimera and many 3rd party mods included, tho it was Bungie published. Green Berets was financed by Take 2 - its not 3rd Party. Worlds allowed 56kers to play stuff like The Seventh God. Also I know people who've wanted copies of M2 and gone checking eBay. A complete release list was useful.

WWII deserves its own section. Definitely. It gets played more than regular Myth II in ranked, and its almost a seperate game. Its had a huge impact on Myth.

Please start signing the end of your posts by typing four tildes.

I agree with your comments about the release dates section and the importance of MWC. However, regarding the story, I think some perspective is needed. The goal isn't to "do justice" to the story; the goal is to write an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Some things just aren't important outside of a very small circle of Myth story fans. Many elements of the story, when it is this detailed, fail the Google Test. This is primarily why I favor summarization over splitting the article.

Also, I take issue with your assertion that WW2 needs its own section. As a compromise, I would be in favor of reformatting the "third party mods" section. I envision a list that has the name of the mod in bold, followed by a one-sentence description. Below this, there is a separate introductory paragraph explaining the introduction and prominence of modern warfare TC's, starting with ww2, and then a shorter list of the same format listing the major modern warfare TC's. Argyrios 19:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

---

True, I didn't follow the MWC after 2002. I'm aware of its importance to the Mything community, though; I'm just not really aware of its importance relative to the game itself (and I do know who Grim is, I just didn't see a reason to mention a name there). If the MWC and the history thereof is so rich and storied, then perhaps it deserves its own page, because if people reading the page are not interested in the story of Myth, they're probably not here to research the tournament history either (there's plenty of original tournament websites and forums that do a much better job of this, to which many links are already provided).

As for Total Codex, Green Berets, and Worlds, if a list of them is handy to people, then said list should be included. I think they should be disambiguaged from the other releases, though; Green Berets was a TC and just used the Myth engine (Powered by Myth II), Total Codex was a re-release (Chimera was available for free online, so that lessens its importance relative to the Total Codex), and Worlds may have been handy for 56kers, but where did it fit into series? TFL, Soulblighter, and The Wolf Age constitute a series. Green Berets is a sidestep out of that, Total Codex is a re-release, and where does Worlds fit it? So why not keep them in a list, but separate them from the offical first releases that were actually Myth.

As an ex-WWII ranker who played in games with Santa's Head back when it was new, I'm well aware of the impact it had on the community. But that about sums it up. It had a huge impact on the community, changing the nature of ranked play. You could give a play-by-play of each effect with each new map if you wanted, go on about the units and tactics and the like, but that would be a quite a narrative, and not one that people perusing this page for info on Myth would be looking for. A short summary would be valid, but why would it need its own section in the Myth article itself when it is, when it comes down to it, just a third-party mod?

Regarding summarization over splitting, why not just do both? Summarize the Detailed Storyline (far too long for wiki, as Argyrios pointed out) and link to a new page with the meat of it (redone with citation). That way the page is no longer weighed down by the section, but people can still access a detailed summary if they desire.

-LordNaughty 2006/01/02 21:57 (GMT)

---

An MWC dedicated page is something that would be very useful. I can make begginings writing it but my extensive research cannot make me as much of an expert as someone who was there. Anyone who can help should contact me (theelfoid_TFS@hotmail.com). Tournament websites do not speak of the evolution of the thing, and 00's webarchive is unreliable and slow. MWC03's site isn't even up - can't rely on MWC sites for the history.

In answer to information on commercial releases, I was listing commercial Myth gaming releases, not a list of games in the Myth series. Green Berets allows you to play Myth II maps with the Green Berets units, and would connect to Bungie.net in the same way as a regular Myther would, communicating with Mythers as standard.

WWII's impact on Myth has caused a greater divide as time went on. It was not 'just a 3rd party mod' due to the inspiration it caused, and the fact that so many players play it. XIII uses the UT engine and its a different game. I'd say the difference between rega and WWII is about as huge. The difference has increased since the days of SH as less 'reg and ww2ers' are around. You speak as if you do not know of The Elfoid so clearly do not frequent Myth forums or log on to PlayMyth.net much. In which case you cannot talk about its current impact.

A link to my Myth timeline (http://www.tfs-online.vonetwork.net/legends&lore.htm) could be used for most story information. It uses Myth, Myth II, Myth II: Chimera and GURPS as well as manuals.

~The Elfoid

WW2 was the most popular third party mod, but it wasn't the most popular third party mod by as much as you seem to think. IIRC, at the time The Mill closed down, WW2: Recon was the most downloaded third party map with something close to 12,000 downloads, but second place had something like 10,000, and there were many many others that topped out at over 5,000. This just isn't enough of a difference. The thing is, many of the other popular downloads in the top ten were solo campaigns, so the fact that WW2 is so much more prominent is just an artifact of selection bias: You don't see games on b.net of the third party solo campaigns, because people play them offline. WW2 may have been an exceptionally popular third party mod, but fundamentally, it wasn't any different from other third party mods. It wasn't objectively more brilliant, better designed, more fun, etc... in fact a significant factor in its popularity was that people could effectively rank whore with it by playing very short games, to the extent that a normal Myth player could not attain a high rank due to the influence of WW2, which caused a lot of resentment. It should definitely not have its own section, especially when other third party mods only have one sentence each. Giving a separate introductory paragraph that explains its large impact is more than enough. Argyrios 20:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I like the new formatting of the Third Party Mods section. It's considerably more readable in list form. The bold font kind of makes the WW2 heading look like a headline (albeit one a few years late). Kudos, Argyrios. I'm curious, though; is the Vaporware section really necessary? The whole point of the section is to discuss software that never materialized. Given that all games with mod capabilities have vaporware, and that people reading this part are likely to know this, why include it? I do remember the stink over Daimyo, but unless Daimyo disappointment somehow changed the shape of the modding community, maybe it should be trimmed. LordNaughty 00:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right. How about now? Argyrios 01:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks great. Making it a footnote to the list like that was the way to go.LordNaughty 04:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The Units Section

It definitely seems like splitting off the storyline was the right choice; the page seems much more navigable already. The Units section is still really bulky, despite the paring down. It presents something of a quandary. It doesn't merit a page of its own, it doesn't really fit in the new stoyline page (it could with significant reworking towards the story elements of the characters, away from the game elements, but that'd be a chore), but leaving it as is... well, its really more than necessary. It was always more than was necessary for Wiki, but I like it a lot and have been loathe to see it reduced. I'm not saying it should become a series of one line blurbs about each unit, but... Well, I look at the entry on Avatara, and even though it has been cut down to a third of what I originally put there, and it just seems so long-winded. Unless there's objections, I think I'm going to write up each unit again and make the descriptions shorter. A lot shorter. I simply put too many game features in there unnecessarily; the length of the warrior entry seems ideal. I'll hold off a few days in case there are objections or suggestions. Argyrios is a good influence. Seriously, he's kept this page from growing out of hand (something to which I would have been a large contributor). Kudos again for his efforts in that area.

LordNaughty 08:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Go for it brotha. I'll review the changes. Argyrios 21:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks for actually doing this. I know I proposed it, but I got so tied up in other things that I forgot about my comittment here. LordNaughty 02:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The units section still seems very long and encumbered with unimportant details. The distinction between light and dark is confusing. Some of the units are rather neutral (trow, warlocks), with alignment changes as the story progresses. As such this part doesn't seem correct:

Light and Dark does not necessarily denote their alignment; sometimes in the campaign the player will control Dark units or face off against Light units.

I suggest the units be divided into light, dark, and neutral, with an explanation that light and dark forces are composed of melee and artillery of different types, with various strengths and weaknesses. The units could be listed briefly, then the section could provide some specific unit details as examples of the tradeoffs that occur in gameplay. This would perhaps illustrate the depth and subtlety of gameplay, and be more informative to a non-player. Also there could be a section for special or unique units. This might clean up the line that Alric is the "only Avatara used in Myth I/II." The player controls Deceiver, after all. Also I don't see any of the Myth III units mentioned. Gimmetrow 18:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Tiny Text

Whats with the tiny text at the beginning of the article? I had to increase the text size in my browser three times before I could read it.--Windsok 10:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's tiny because it has absolutely nothing to do with the article itself. It's just some disambiguation. The large picture at the top of the article made it look like the disambiguation was a paragraph in the article. I shrank the text because I wanted it to be clear that it was less important than the rest of the article. If you had to up your text size to read it, that was an unintended side effect. I'll just put the text above the picture the way most disambiguation seems to be placed (I'd have done it initially, but I don't know how and it didn't occur to me to try). The problem will be resolved. Sorry it troubled you.

LordNaughty 12:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Metaservers

I think the article needs a section on multiplayer in Myth, specifically bungie.net and the metaservers, since these are and have been at the heart of the Myth community. A short paragraph about the original bungie.net - perhaps with a contrast to battle.net, and also information about playmyth and mariusnet. Myrdred 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Probably not worth noting down Gamespy or Game Ranger. They weren't terribly important. Otherwise, yeah.

Poll for Units to be Deleted

I have completed significant revisions and cleanup. I feel that the article is now much more readable, and as a bonus, it is no longer larger than 32 kb ^_^

I still feel that the units section is too long. I plan to include the sentence, For the sake of brevity, some uncommon units are omitted from this list. Then I would delete the corresponding entries. Vote below on which units to delete. I'll start with these suggestions. Please vote by typing a number sign and four tildes (# ~~~~) below your position for each unit. Improperly recorded votes will be erased. If you wish to comment your vote, do so on the next line and indent with a colon.

Forest Giants

• Delete

1. Argyrios 14:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC) :Only appear on two single player levels in TFL, very similar to Trow
2. LordNaughty 02:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC) :Their importance in multiplayer notwithstanding, the entry contributes little to the Units section. They could be mentioned as a footnote under the Trow heading, as they're both heavy melee units. Of course, this could blur the Light/Dark sections together.

• Keep

1. Myrdred 17:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC) :They are very important to the storyline.
2. [[User:The Elfoid|The Elfoid] :Very important in multiplayer, and used in quite a few TFL mods.

bre'Unor

• Delete
• Keep

1. Argyrios 14:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC):Unique unit and subject of a significant third-party campaign.
2. Myrdred 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
3. LordNaughty 02:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC) :Their function as both ranged and melee units merits at least minimal explanation.

Consensus Reached: KEEP

Wolves

• Delete

1. Argyrios 14:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC) :Only used on one level and not substantially different from other melee units
2. Myrdred 17:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC) : They're just animals. There's no need to have a section on Deer, Chicken, Squirrels, etc separately. Though a Wildlife section might be good.

• Keep

1. [[User:The Elfoid|The Elfoid]:Multiplayer used in stampede. I'd say the manual can cope without them, but you guys should remember multiplayer - this means you Argr.
2. LordNaughty 02:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC) :They are rather heavily used in multiplayer; one line on them would suffice.

Mahir

• Delete

1. Argyrios 14:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC) :Interesting unit, but just too damn uncommon and irrelevant. Not used in multiplayer, only used once in solo campaign, not used in third party maps hardly ever.
2. LordNaughty 02:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC) :Agreed. Interest in them is academic at best.

• Keep

Consensus Reached: DELETE

Merge Ghasts into Wights

• Merge

1. Argyrios 14:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC) :Only used on two levels and not used at all in multiplayer; not significant
2. LordNaughty 02:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC) :Not significant overall, but they are the very first enemy a player will face in the single-player Myth II.

What about combining Ghasts into the entry for Wight? "Briefly at the start of Myth II, the player faces off against much less dangerous undead units called Ghasts, which are the first step in what will become a Wight. Ghasts are faster, and stun units they touch, but do not explode." Combining entries doesn't save a lot of words, but it does cut down on white space and the perceived length of the list. Argyrios 15:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good call. If they're to be combined, I change my vote to "Delete." (Vote moved accordingly) LordNaughty 21:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Separate

Combine Brigands and Dark Archers into one entry

• Do it

1. Argyrios 14:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Myrdred 17:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
3. LordNaughty 02:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep them separate

Consensus Reached: COMBINE

Combine Myrkridia and Myrkridian Giants into one entry

• Do it

1. Argyrios 15:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Myrdred 17:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
3. LordNaughty 02:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC) : Each unit serves a very different function on the battlefield; that notwithstanding, this isn't a player's guide.

• Keep them separate

Raid's distinguished almost as its own gametype. KEEP.

Combine Dwarves and Dwarven Mortars into one entry

• Do it

1. Argyrios 15:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC) :Similar enough to be talked of together.
2. Myrdred 17:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
3. LordNaughty 02:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC) : Artillery is artillery.

• Keep them separate

Consensus Reached: COMBINE

Merge mention of Shades into Avatara

• Do it

1. Argyrios 15:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep them separate

1. Myrdred 17:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
2. LordNaughty 02:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC) : This would really blur the distinctions between light and dark units. If those section headings are to be retained instead of a simple alphabetical list, they probably should remain separate. (Yes, I'm aware that I'm being inconsistent (see the Forest Giants poll). A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...-Ralph Waldo Emerson- What works for one unit entry may not work for another.)

The posts of mine that were deleted

I forgot to sign in, but a lot of the things I posted were deleted by Argyrios Saccopoulos. Not all of it was worth removing, and I intend to put a large part of it back. I've talked to other current players, who agree with me. We hope this page can help encourage new players to join the community if it reads interestingly, they agree you also reduced the chance of this.

Can I have a list of other myth pages on wikipedia (I know the storyline got one, any others?), and it'd be cool if you guys all gave your Myther-name so I know who you are (my MariusNet and PlayMyth.net name is The Elfoid so I'm not needing to do so myself).

Please list the specific areas of contention so we can debate them. I should point out that your goal is incorrect. Wikipedia is, above anything else, an encyclopedia. Its purpose is to inform on noteworthy topics, not to encourage new players to join the community. This goal is not open to debate. That having been said, I don't think that this goal is in opposition to yours. If the page is well-written and CONCISE, it will be interesting and will encourage new players to join. The thing is, some information is detrimental to the goal of making the article interesting. Trust me, the average reader doesn't give two shits about the fact that Badlands made Chimera or that Creation made The Seventh God or that Blades and Clem got the source code. These are random made-up names to third parties, and they are tedious, trivial details compared to the big picture. They don't provide any relevant information. Perhaps it will lend credibility to my argument if I give my Myth name. I was known as Ares, and I was the founder and coleader of Creation along with Clem. I personally know Clem and Blades. I went to a hockey game with them, went to Clem's house, met his son... I deleted references to my own group and to my friends along with references to others. That is and should be the spirit of wikipedia: Neutral point of view, not letting your personal loyalties get in the way of writing a good article. I summarized The Seventh God in one sentence, just like the other plugins listed, despite how enormous of an undertaking it was. I poured my heart and soul into it, perhaps a thousand hours of work, and its legacy on wikipedia is and should be one sentence. Think about that.

The proper place for Myth groups is at the bottom, in the external links section. Most other references to them within the article are repetitive. Project Magma and Mythdev may be the exceptions, as they are mentioned in the Updates section.

The story page is the only other Myth page, which I feel is as it should be.

Argyrios 19:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, did you get my message? Argyrios 20:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I got your message.

My apologies. If I don't recognise a name and don't find someone's already identified themselves, I tend to asume its a nobody. You're a legend man, and I respect you to the utmost. I'd love it if you inactive guys submitted to my photo gallery by the way :)

I'm out to make this an encyclopedic reference, just may as well put it in a way that encourages growth too. And those authors are a key part to the history of Myth. I'm always getting questions like 'List all the old great map-makers who made this stuff we're playing in tournies', and I'd rather here answer it for them.

In terms of key stuff deleted, I think plugin information's the most important. AvA, WWII and B&G all deserve a quick paragraph each, just as they have now but bigger.

I have a sub-goal, and the same goal at the same time man. So many updates I made un-logged in since I was at school though, it'll take me some sifting to find it.

you flatter me :) I'll go ahead and submit a pic to the galleria. Go ahead and make any expansions and revisions you'd like and I will review the changes and comment on them here. I promise I won't change the substance of your edits without first debating anything I think is inappropriate. I tend to give edits from unregistered users less weight and respect, which is why I immediately reverted many of the ones you made from school.

Regarding the third-party maps section, I just look back on alot of the old mapmakers' feuds and I want to avoid that sort of thing here. Obviously some projects and groups and individuals are more important than others, and some are not notable at all, but how do you make that distinction without offending the non-notable and less important groups and projects and people? I think I am too invested in the world of mapmaking to be viewed as impartial, so if mapmakers are discussed at all, I would want someone else to draft it and I humbly suggest ordering and discussing groups by some objective standard, like chronological emergence onto the field. The order as I remember it is 1. Badlands 2. Vista 3. Creation 4. Project Magma (and of course other, less prolific groups scattered in there.) I am still very uneasy about mentioning individuals.

Also, please sign comments by typing four tildes (~~~~). Sorry but it's just bugging me! Argyrios 20:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to flatter people, makes them listen more. theelfoid_TFS@hotmail.com's me for gallery photo. I know Magma are totally happy with their stuff being talked about, 2 or 3 CPers said Santa's Head can be mentioned (he's an institution in his own right too) and Zeph's ok with AvA which is among the most important recent works. Clem [apparently] doesn't really care much about Myth anymore, he's done with it so I can't see him caring what is said about him as long as it doesn't involve any legal issues to do with copyright infringement. His hating me means I don't really want to talk to him either.

thx for listening, I'll work out what I'd like changing and post it here : )

(The Elfoid 13:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC))

IMAGE

I sorta messed up the image insertion. If someone could change it, it'd be cool.

I thought a higher resolution, more carnage filled (a dwarf running along a bridge hardly summarises the style of Myth does it?) shot was better, and this is Myth II instead of Myth I - Myth II is 'the' Myth people talk about when they say 'Myth'.

(The Elfoid 14:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC))

Done :D

It is a much better image

Argyrios 18:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

GetMyth.com click 'more images' or whatever it is. Its got a really nice selection. I think we could consider puting a WWII shot in for the 3rd Party Mods.

(The Elfoid 19:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC))

Number of minor edits

1) Wrote briefly about Take2's publishing of Worlds/GB. I don't think its terribly important, if someone reviews and decides if its needed or not that'd be cool.

2) Added to the point on no more serial numbers being needed. '(Note: game serial numbers are no longer required to play on the online multiplayer servers anymore, so you may play again if you have lost yours.). If you log on to MariusNet with username/password = 'guest', you can play without an account. PlayMyth.net previously had a policy of having ISP e-mail adresses only, now freebie e-mail adresses CAN be used for unranked ('restricted') accounts.'. This is what I meant about encouraging community growth, and I'd say its pretty useful information.

3) I think a new Wikipedia page should be added for Myth Community. This can include map-making groups, and other community projects (e.g. MWC, Running the servers, Dev Teams, possibly my Galleria), allowing us to have a brief note on MWC in the main Myth section, but cutting it and the 3rd Party Mods section down. This could also include information on Myth in-jokes, such as HoHo Goldfish, Gallery of Elfoid 2005 (yeah, I became co-mascot to MWC05 somehow...), THOR, smileyspam, and people posting in blue anytime they want to laugh about Zappo. This page would be more useful for people who used to Myth and want to catch up on the culture more than anything else. I'll write it up, post some stuff here and guys can tell me what they think, and older players than me can no doubt add stuff (all my research can't make up for joining in Janruary 2004, no matter how hard I try).

4) Ares (I gotta call you that from now on...), if we do a community page can I add in authors there? It'll just be teams as opposed to individuals (plenty of Magma stuff's individually credited on the site, but its all regarded as 'Magma' stuff in general). I'll need a list of map-making groups I might have forgotten. I think Idiots Map Making Collective, Santa's Head and Flying Flip are all that I didn't see in your list. Your call.

5) http://www.getmyth.com/screens/ww2.jpg - That's Magma's WWII: Titans screenshot. http://www.clanplaid.net/misc/recon/images/dropzone.jpg - CP (SH was a CPer) http://www.clanplaid.net/misc/recon/images/seventh.jpg - Another CP shot http://www.clanplaid.net/misc/titans/images/screens/ninth.jpg

I think at least one should be used under info for 3rd Party Mods. I know the authors will allow their usage. I am considering making a page on WWII (Total Conversion, not the war), both culturally and as a plugin. I'm not A WWIIer by trade so I'm gonna see if I can get someone else to do it within the community though.

(The Elfoid 20:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC))

World Cup

The posting of the world cup events seems much too in-depth for the average reader, or even the average gamer. If there was a Myth Community article, this would be an appropriate place to post such an indepth summary and chart. Also, I'm sorry for my hasty edit and deletion of the Updates section. I merged most of the information into the Post-Bungie section.

(Conchuir 21:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC))

Your recent edit seems fair. I second the motion to move the MWC section into a forthcoming Myth Community article. I would recommend beginning the article with a description of how the Myth community was unusually dedicated and close-knit, as such an article seems like the sort of thing that could easily be nominated for deletion by someone who doesn't understand how our community may have been different from that of most other games. Argyrios 04:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Some MWC stuff should still be in general Myth. That table covers most of it though.

The updates section should include MythDev's name somewhere. I mean, they were the most important developers to date, and still hold the rights to the Source Code. Brief version history could be made as a paragraph. GameRanger still supports Myth TFL v1.3 and Myth II v1.3.1 for Mac play, and Gamespy you can still log on for Myth III games - that should have a note, along with the information that no one actually plays there.

The Community stuff can be sorted soon, I think the post-Bungie should be done first as it has been started. Needs Dev history (who did what version, since Myth II 1.5.1 is arguably MythDev and Project Magma both), along with server birth dates (death dates obviously not needed for now). Also the lack of MWC02, and the dates for server deaths. I think TFL was 2000 and Myth II was 2001, but I don't know for sure and don't have anymore detail than that.

I added to the end of the solo section.

Is it worth mentioning that certain plugins added gametypes? e.g. Fetchball, Ghol Rugby, Manistee Paintball Challenge?

(The Elfoid 18:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC))

Fetchball, etc, would be under Third Party Mods if we think it was important enough... generally I've tried to only list the biggest projects, with lots of new units, popularity, or innovation. Fetchball was pretty damn innovative, but not sure if it was innovative enough to make up for the fact that it was a single underplayed map with no new graphics (except those funny ads).

Also, I deleted your latest addition to MWC because I feel it is a pretty clear violation of wikipedia policy. Think of this as an encyclopedia, not a website. Also, at that point I feel that the information is going into a level of detail inappropriate for the article. "Now let's take a moment to write a couple hundred words about the quality of the websites for the tournaments for the actual subject of the article."

Argyrios 19:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't about the quality, just that a lot of the original content was gone and it would be difficult to navigate. It wasn't quality related, just that Archive.org fails to capture a lot of the original site. The rest I guess was a waste of time in retrospect though.

Is it ok if we add an extra column for number of teams competing? If we did the information in the paragraph about numbers would obviously have to come out. It'd show the shrinkage of Myth that's been talked about more than once well.

TFL98: 80 MWC99: 96 MWC00: 94 MWC01: 67 MWC02: N/A MWC03: 32 MWC04: 37 MWC05: 30

I know MWC05 site says 31, but that includes one who registered after registration teams.

(The Elfoid 19:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

Done! Good idea. Argyrios 22:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, feel free to disagree with me or re-add stuff I delete if you feel I misunderstood the purpose or context. Just take my concerns into account, maybe compromise a little, and explain here your reasoning. Be Bold! Argyrios 22:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No worries man. As I said, it was pointlessly long.

I'm gonna work on getting 'number of players total', and using that to work out average players per team sometime, but that'll take ages for 99/00 so I'm not in any hurry. Hope to just do 03 - 05 anytime soon, rest will follow slowly. If anyone wants to do 99 or 00 for me it'd be cool :O

(The Elfoid 10:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

318 players in MWC05. I got 285 for MWC04 which has to be wrong - someone please check me. If I do 03 and 01, thats a total of about 160 teams. Someone could do me afavour and count up MWC99, someone else 00 :|

(The Elfoid 18:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

Flying Flip

No offense to anyone intended, but I have a problem with Flying Flip being described as "Creators of the current main Myth III mod tool (Ballistic) as well as maintainers of Myth III."

The second part is true, and should be kept. But "Creators" of Ballistic? that's too much. It's based of open source Vengeance, more like updating and rebranding - which is still a good contribution, but I don't think merits "Creators" just like Project Magma doesn't merit to be called "Creators" of Loathing even though they updated it with new features and Carbonised to work on OS X. Myrdred 04:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Changed to "developers" -- better? Argyrios 05:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

They created Mac Vengeance I think, in the form of MythDev and created the tool known as Ballistic - that is who the tool is credited to.

Hope that clears up discussion a little, but 'developers' is a better idea :)

(The Elfoid 16:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC))