Talk:Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands

message: Well, as long as it's based upon linked data, it's alright. We just don't need any "some people say" statements. --(unsigned)
I really feel that the last paragraph of the article (in the "Reviews and reactions" section) needs to be reworked. Unfortunately I don't have the time to be constructive at the moment, but if time allows, I'll look into it (if someone else hasn't already done it).
I have reviewed some of the references cited towards the end of the paragraph and feel that some alterations are in order.
"Also, the text-based environment and strong player vs. player focus are not appealing to all players, leading to unfavorable comparisons to more recently-produced titles such as Guild Wars."
Rather than forcing you to go read the review, I'll post the entirety of what is said about Achaea here.
"A couple of years ago I was able to find Achaea, a text-based MUD populated by people that not only wanted to roleplay, but who were also more than happy to indulge in gratuitous (but relevant) PVP on continental scales. To become skilled in this game required a knowledge of programming for the various MUD programs used, plus there were no graphics which proved to be a big downer for me towards the end."
I don't know which WikiLaws to cite here but in the absence of more references, the opinions expressed in the cited review can be regarded as no more than one person's opinion. Stating the features of a game are not appealing to all players is a tautology. Stating that players have criticised the need for programming knowledge in order to become a skilled player is worth noting. Also, from the above excerpt I can not unequivocally determine that the "gratuitous" amount of PvP in Achaea is a negative thing.
I'm deleting the sentence from the article. The line of criticism regarding the programming skill sounds interesting to me but I feel that it requires more work before being put in the article.
Next is the last sentence of the article.
"Finally, results of a recent in-game poll sponsored by Iron Realms Entertainment indicated some dissatisfaction amongst the player base, with a full half of those surveyed rating the state and progress of the game as "so-so" or worse."
After reviewing the poll results on the website I not only find them statistically questionable but I also would not call them "an in-game poll sponsored by IRE." They are public referendums and seem informal at best (I'm not an Achaea player, so I may stand corrected, in this case I'm presenting my impressions only).
While I don't feel I have grounds to outright dismiss the relevance of the poll, the analysis made in the article is biased. My take is as follows:
* 13.4% Fantastic (18/134)
* 36.6% Pretty good (49/134)
* 29.1% Not bad / so-so (39/134)
* 17.2% Bad (23/134)
*  3.7% Terrible (5/134)
This break-down indicates that more players feel positive about the game than negative. The multiple conclusions that can be drawn from these results embodies the old phrase "lies, damned lies, and statistics." I'm changing the last sentence to more accurately reflect the statistics rather than draw conclusions from them.
--The Extremist [User, Talk] 21:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique 

message: Hi, I've removed this again as I don't think it's a notable and widespread issue that player's have with the game. While I appreciate that rules may have become more developed recently, I don't think they have become more inhibitive. The market channel example is one isolated thing, and I don't see evidence of 'dictatorial' policies the admin have implemented anywhere else.
Furthermore, as a long time player, I have seen people complain about the admin's rules for years - saying that every change made is bad/inhibitive. This isn't a recent thing, and has not recently become a more major issue. The development of the rules of the game has been and still is a steady and slow process, where every change is endlessly questioned and complained about. In other words, this is nothing new. 
Having said this, if you have links to any sources that support your view (beyond someone complaining on the forums), then please provide them.
And finally, sorry for removing the passage before without giving a reason - my bad. =) Lor 13:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Control of Administration Criticism 

message: Hi Maxgrin, I've removed the passage you contributed, that reads as follows
"A different aspect of the game has been raised by a large number of former and current players of Achaea, stating that the game has a potential to cause a severe form of addiction. Apart from the large sums of money the player has to spend in order to become successful in PvP combat, ranging up to 15 000 USD, the players tend to spend lengthy periods of time in the virtual universe. A large number of players have spent many years playing Achaea on a regular basis, therefore neglecting their real lives."
As an active player in Achaea, and an active poster on the forums, I can say that I have not heard this view expressed by 'large numbers of former and current players.' I am extremely scepticle that there are any significant number of people who would consider Achaea to cause a 'servere form of addiction.'
Furthermore, the idea that one needs to spend $15000 to become successful in PvP combat is entirely unfounded. I would like to see what evidence you have that 'large numbers of players spend many years playing Achaea on a regular basis, therefore neglecting their real lives.'
Please cite all of your sources before reincluding this in the article, or discuss this here. Thank you. --Lor 14:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maxgrin, your contribution

message: I am removing the Wikia external link with this guideline as my cause for action.  There were only 3 edits at this backwater wiki in the past 3 weeks.  -- JossBuckle Swami 22:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Wikia link 

message: I am aware that there is quite a bit of discussion about Achaea's revenue system within its player community.  With that in mind, however, in the absence of more reliable material than forum posts, Wikipedia has to address the issue with the content that we have available.  I understand that this issue is important to players of the game, but I do not see any way to distinguish the forum posts about this issue from forum posts at every pay-per-month MMORPG complaining that the system is unfair for one reason or another.  Serpent's Choice 03:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenue and sourcing 

message: I've moved this add by User Talk:Pentharian:  "The Administration responded by appointing a number of staff members to address these concerns and give more attention to player input.", and while I would normally just revert it and go to the user talk page instead and suggest a good read of WP:NPOV and WP:PSTS, it's worth also mentioning here to avoid an edit war.
There are all sorts of problems with both this opinion, the contents, and who added it.  At first glance it violates WP:NPOV, WP:PSTS, WP:NOR, WP:REF, WP:COI, and WP:V.  If I got really picky I could probably find a few other things, but I'm into Wikilawyering, just someone who believes in the concept of building an reference database that tries to keep NPOV.
Let's start with the easy part, WP:V.  Here's the citation:
Pentharian has kindly agreed to act as divine liaison between this forum and me/the rest of the coding and administrative team. Thank you Pentharian! That means he will monitor this forum and give feedback on feasible ideas. That does not mean he will be responding to every single topic, but he will at least help to funnel ideas to the top.
There are many ideas that have to do with combat abilities, combat balance, game balance, politics, and broader infrastructural concerns. There are restricted boards and a pinned thread in these forums for that kind of advanced discussion (the Leaders forum, the Combat Council, and Dyzanru's sandbox), and while you're very welcome to engage in such discussion here amongst yourselves, Pentharian will not be giving feedback on most such ideas. Instead, he'll be concentrating on the smaller improvements that improve the fun/ease/depth of play. An example of this would be the recent suggestion to remove titles from the WHO list. He is also currently reviewing and culling the very long list of ideas submitted in-game via the IDEA command and will soon be posting to invite feedback from you on some of those ideas.
What is supported by this citation would be:
1. "A staffer named Pentharian has been named to monitor a forum of suggestions and concentrate on suggesting to the coding and administrative team ideas to improve the fun/ease/depth of play."
What is not supported in this statement that was added to the article is:
1. "The administration responded": I don't see any support in this citation that there has been a response to the poll.  An official release stating "we are taking actions x, y, and z" - not a forum post (but I'll get into that in a minute) - would serve as better support.
2. "a number of staff members": The citation refers to one staff member being appointed. 
3. "to address these concerns": I don't know which concerns are being referred to, but let's say for the sake of argument that it is the concerns of the players who voted negatively in the survey.  Can you definitively state that the concerns of those who voted so-so or worse are being addressed by the administration with these actions, since the concerns were not cited in the poll?  And even if you knew, are they being addressed?  Incredibly subjective and POV, unless really well documented.
So the add fails on WP:V alone.  But that's not my biggest concern.  Besides the use of the forums as a reference - which fails the WP:NOR guideline - User Talk:Pentharian is apparently the staffer in question which brings up WP:COI.  I have no problems with a staffer for a company editing a Wikipedia entry; they often add to factual context nicely, even if their largest contribution so far to Wikipedia has been to explain to someone on this talk page why they can play this game.  
But when the staffer in question posts their own appointment as proof that problems are being solved?  Lesse, that doesn't jive with WP:PSTS among other things, and certainly pushes WP:NPOV and WP:COI - especially when the initial post was referred to - correctly - as a "comment" on "criticism".  The citation of the ingame poll wasn't a criticism, but a documentation of fact.
The proper place for a "comment" is back on the Achaea forums.  Leave the Wikipedia article to fact and not opinion.  Old64mb 23:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources, opinions, and NPOV 

message: modified to read: "won't be able to advance as much as the person who has the funds, without a considerable investment of time"  which is accurate, where the original wording was not.
Players must invest time or money to advance, but there is NOTHING in the game that is closed to only those that pay.--144.59.12.138 (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique 

message: :Image:AchaeaLogo.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) 06:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AchaeaLogo.jpg

message: Hi! I'm not a frequent editor of Wikipedia, but I noticed what I believed to be a problem with a part of this article and felt this forum would be the best place to air it.
The "Consumer Complaints" section is entirely predicated upon two complaints, placed online at Ripoff Report and the Better Business Bureau by the same person. The Ripoff Report complaint appears to be the unedited complaint placed there by one customer, with no official ruling, comment, or statement by either Ripoff Report or Iron Realms Entertainment. The BBB profile gives IRE an F rating due to the following: it has one outstanding complaint, and IRE has not given BBB its background information. I should note that the BBB states that no business is under any obligation to provide this information, and a large number of small businesses do not.
As such, it appears to me that this entire section of the article is written by a disgruntled consumer who had what he or she felt was a bad experience and decided to use two websites and Wikipedia in an effort to air his or her grievances. Wikipedia is not and should not, in my opinion, be used for this, and therefore I would suggest that the section be deleted. 71.246.152.88 (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "Consumer Complaints" section 

message: I have tracked down the required citation for the June 10, 2004 episode of The Screen Savers which spotlights Achaea. It can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X_wZZgIRyc 69.47.132.66 (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  TechTV spotlight (citation needed) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070104190807/http://www.wired.com/news/business/0%2C1367%2C38340%2C00.html to https://www.wired.com/news/business/0%2C1367%2C38340%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906113207/http://www.achaea.com/credits.htm to http://www.achaea.com/credits.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified