Talk:War Rock

message: I have put the article back to a version from its history that looks more factual, and less.... shite.  Oayk 15:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: What is this? I mean this is a Wikipedia article for goodness's sake! The little DO NOT DOWNLOAD thing at the top of the page? The "It blows" comment? Wow, shesh! Someone please fix up this article! Wolfie001 17:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is totally corrupt

message: Another more detailed (albeit less formal) article already exists at Warrock.
--Fixen 07:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another article already exists 

message: This really needs to be updated.Nimrod1234 00:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help

message: I've noticed that at least Pargona (an archipelago map) is missing from the article, as well as the Little Bird and both the heavy and light boat, so there may be other things missing that weren't in the game when the article was last edited or were simply forgotten about. However, Pargona and the boats (Pargona is the only map to feature water vehicles) leads me to believe that the information is just outdated, entered in a previous version before Pargona and Ravello 2nd Street were put in.
Grumbles 15:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing content? 

message: 'cause there is... and did they fix the Mark V's grenade launcher? I haven't been able to get on to check and the last time I did I got repeatedly massacred by PunkBuster going crazy.
Grumbles 11:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New patch. 

message: Who thinks that we should change this to patches only and talk about what is added and deleted with each new patch?
:No cause we cover all the history in that section, but i think we should add the Korean part of WarRock in their too.Nimrod1234 20:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The history section 

message: People need to stop making direct connections with Warrock and Battlefield 2. Warrock was created before Battlefield 2. Warrock is a fast pace game while BF2 is more slower paced. Just because they both have the same millitary theme does not mean Warrock was influnced by Battle Field 2.
* War Rock gained popularity in the USA because of a post on digg about it, less than a year ago.  This was well after the relase of Battlefield 2.  Do you have a way of proving that War Rock was released to any country before Battlefield 2?  It doesn't help that they closed the beta temporarily to people outside Korea, and then reopened it.  In my eyes, it's a good free alternative to game that Electronic Arts will probably stop supporting anyway once the next game in the Battlefield series is released.  Chief1983 21:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, War Rock was released for beta after Battlefield 1942, which contains similar gameplay elements to its successors. --Scottie theNerd 04:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the last time 

message: Seems kind of...pointless...
Yeah, might as well give a link to patch notes or something. Darkwaffle (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need a section detailing the changes from installing the patches? 

message: The maps 'Veluf' and 'Montana' were removed in the latest patch to fix various glitches. Veluf has been removed from the article recently. Should these maps remain in the article and mention that they are currently being re-done? These maps are still in the Korean version and are only being fixed in the International version. AVX 03:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should maps taken out to fix glitches still be part of the article? 

message: How about making it clear near the beginning of the article whether this is a multiplayer only game or if it has a single player element? I dont know, so I cant do this myself. Robinoke 17:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details 

message: There seems to be an inherent phenomenon with video game articles that causes people to unload as much as know about the game as possible. This results in what appears to be a great, detailed lengthy article to the editor or editors, but in the process they forget about the readers. For a person who wants to find out what the game is, the first thing they see is a whole bunch of weapons, maps and other jargon that will make no sense. Please see WP:NOT and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Scope_of_information. To make it clear: Wikipedia is not a game guide and should not contain information specific to players; it has to be accessible to everyone. If you would like to contribute this level of detail, consider contributing for StrategyWiki or e-gamia. Please discuss here before reverting back to the full list. --Scottie theNerd 02:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that it's been five months since I posted this, I have gone ahead and replaced the ever-growing instruction manual of game modes with a more meaningful, encyclopedic description of the gameplay. Remember that an encyclopedia explains what something is; not how to work it. There is no need to write an extensive set of rules for Wikipedia; such information will be more useful on StrategyWiki. I have also added the relevant references to the gameplay section. I ask that future additions also be referenced using reliable sources. --Scottie_theNerd 11:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: Does anyone think that details regarding the new conquest mode should be added? Scorcher117 03:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conquest Mode 

message: Evenin. I'm a player of half a year in War Rock, and a review writer for Gamespot.
I started playing War Rock on July the 14th, this year, right as it came out to open beta. It was nice back then, I loved it. Then, some weeks later, I suddenly couldn't log in. While I do admit to being an MPC forum member, I do *not* hack War Rock (What's the point?Any hack is too obvious and you'd get caught, plus it ruins the POINT of the game. Hacking Maple Story for instance is acceptable IMO, because it's pure grinding past LV 40, which is annoying).
Now, nobody told me I got banned. Nobody told me why, or when. I re-registered, not knowing what happened. Played another week or two , and lo and behold! I was banned again! At THAT time, I was sure I got banned. It's almost impossible getting into contact with the admins - if you leave a message on their forums they doN't like, they ban you from the forum AND the game WITHOUT WARNING OR A PROPER REASON GIVEN.
When you confront them about mysterious bans, they most likely just shrug and go " you must have cheated durrrrr", or bring up vague excuses like "I dealt with you several times in the past" (Aeramil).
check out my written review on Gamespot for War Rock - I'm Dragonotaku7 .
Or just check their forums. K2 networks administrates the game - and look at how. Tens of topics spring up daily about diffirent bugs, errors, but mostly mysterious bans or inabilities to log in. K2 also advocates a "Hardware ban" they want to set in motion - which is HIGHLY disrespectful of online user rights (Using information collected of one's PC against him is all but fair and acceptable).
I sit here now, on December 23, 3 PM exactly. And I have 35 banned accounts behind me. From July to now, 35. And no, I didn't deserve even one of them. What happens is, you log off , go to sleep, and find you suddenly can't log in anymore. Your username ans pass entered and login pressed, the screen won't switch to the servers. I also find it highly annoying that nobody will ever tell you why you got banned - or that you even got banned!
It's easy to change your Ip and make a new account though, takes 2 seconds or so, but the fact does not change. A known hacker, persia59 also posted his own hacking video on the forums - which admins replied on (Submitter name on Youtube said persia59), but he was still not banned from the game, despite using the popular and infamous "Easy Heli Hack" (Somewhat private, it makes control of your heli far easier and gives hP recharges every ten seconds like it was a person).
Overall, K2 is corrupt, a power-abusing society focused on getting money and nothing else. They excuse every bug with saying "it's still in beta", and not doing anything proper about it. Administrators also give misleading, or incorrect information. Such as, a user complaining about high ping will get banned, or if a reply is given before that, it will usually be "Don't play anything else when you play War Rock" (How does COMPUTER lag and INTERNET lag mix?no-how...).
In short, these people have no f*ckin clue what they are doing. And I do pray to dear, sweet, sweet god that the game be taken away from them or acquired by a far more competent company before these lunatics really, REALLY f*ck it up. I love War Rock but the administration is rotten and filthy.
I mean, look at Knight Online 2 years  ago and look at it now ;_;.
Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.54.211 (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted above, this Talk page is for discussion of the article, not a place to rant about the game. --Scottie theNerd 02:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read what I just said: this Talk page is for discussion of the article, not a place to rant about the game. --Scottie theNerd 13:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Rock Corruption 

message: We need to see guns and lvl's-ranks, badges, etc. Crazykid777 20:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we just removed all of that. See: WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not a game guide and should not contain lists of indiscriminate information. Guns, levels and ranks are only helpful to people who play the game, which means it's worthless to people who don't. If you would like to add lists of weapons, consider contributing to StrategyWiki. --Scottie theNerd 07:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it needs some more information, but it was too much like a game guide and needed to be cleaned up. Perhaps something like the battlefeild 2 article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_2) would do (although personaly, i think that is too much like a game guide too). Mattyatty 19:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The BF2 article is definitely against the WP:NOT policy. --Scottie theNerd 03:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats what I thought, yet it is listed as a good article. Wikipedia confuses me?!?!?! Mattyatty 12:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More stuff 

message: A couple of people have drawn direction comparisons to the Battlefield 2 article, which contains far more detail than the current War Rock article. As the BF2 article has a good article status, it is somewhat confusing with standards. I've looked into this a bit, and there are points for editors to gather from this:
*The peer review was conducted in May 2006. Presumably, the version of the article is something similar to this archived version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battlefield_2&oldid=53590593
*The peer review can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Battlefield_2
I presume at this stage that the CVG project was not as active as it is now, so the peer review process was barely existent, with only several editors picking over certain details and focusing on WP:CITE instead of WP:NOT. The reviewed article, in my opinion, still contains too much fancruft for it to be of encyclopedic value. Nonetheless, the article has changed substantially since the review, becoming more inflated with gameplay instructions rather than encylopedic information. Perhaps another review of the BF2 article is in order.
As for the War Rock article, once the game is released and/or more sources reveal the workings of the game, please be aware that Inclusion is not a measure of notability. Just because BF2 lists out random stuff doesn't mean other articles should. See Perfect Dark for what a Featured Article (and therefore one that meets all requirements) looks like. --Scottie theNerd 09:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Content vs. ''[[Battlefield 2]]'' 

message: Unless they are official.  Just adding the word official to them does not make them official either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.93.12.88 (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not add communities to the list 

message: Not only is it poorly written but makes statements without backing them up. I agree with Scottie theNerd in that if references are not provided the section should be removed.
AVX 10:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: "K2, is regarded as one of the worst companies in the online community. Not listening to customers and charging obscene prices for a game that does not merit them. With their members in revolt, they have been forced to award months of free premium, hackers dominate the servers when they are actually working. 25% of the time you won't be able to log in due to server errors, f2p and P2p alike. Filled with lag, the Warrock servers are deemed some of the worst online."
It doesn't say WHO regards them as such, and because of that I can only assume the person who added that bit. It may very well be true (I just stumbled across this page), but without a reference to who deems it worst company, and actual citations for the percentages of downtime and such, I don't think it should be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.55.41 (talk) 
:Plain old vandalism. No biggie. --Scottie_theNerd 02:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Obvious and Overt Bias 

message: Does this article really need a section on how to control the game? If anyone is interested in how to control the game it would be best that they visit the official site or try out the game. I highly doubt this section is relevant from the point of view of a Wikipedia article.. -AVX 16:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controls? 

message: What this article needs is a gameplay section. Currently, the article only contains a list of game-types that are over-described and leaning towards game-guide information in violation of WP:NOT. We needn't go into so much depth about each game type; rather, we need to focus more on explaining the gameplay of War Rock and summarising the game-types. I will look into this major change in the upcoming days, but anyone is free to help out. --Scottie_theNerd 00:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The deed is done. See above. --Scottie_theNerd 11:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gameplay section 

message: I'm going to work on citing the sources.  Mark anything that requires a source, and I'll try to find one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scarrier5931 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Sources 

message: Odd enough, I saw a criticism with proper citations and sources yet it was removed. I think someone from the actual company is monitoring this article. The game does indeed have serious issues that need to be addressed but it is extremely difficult to obtain proper citations because most of the findings are done by players (such as myself). If someone from K2 is actually modifying it, then we should add in the criticism section (while being properly cited) then lock it to prevent corporate modification or vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.233.134 (talk) 
:No references were provided for the criticism section, so it was removed according to Wikipedia policy. If there's no proof, there's no truth. Wikipedia works with reliable sources, and opinions from players such as yourself are not only unreliable, it also constitutes original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you have credible, third-party sources, by all means contribute criticisms to the article. If not, you are in no position to define what the truth is. Don't even accuse other editors of vandalism and suggesting an article lock when you don't even have an account. --Scottie_theNerd 10:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a Reception section, drawing on reviews from IGN and GameSpot. These reviews evidently don't speak too well of the game. If there are any more professional reviews, especially reviews that challenge the mediocrity of the game, please include them and reference accordingly. --Scottie_theNerd 11:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why does every edit need a citation? So does that mean that someone who wants something added just needs to post the info somewhere else and cite it? Self research is by no means less accurate than cited ones.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.55.209 (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the citations have to be from reliable sources such as newspapers or academic papers. Self-published sources are specifically ruled out under WP:SPS. --McGeddon (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone is trying to hide the truth. 

message: Added a fuckload of information to the article. Where did I get it? An older version of this articl.
now of course i just copy pasted the code so i'm sure theres typo's all over.
fix it and you got a better article.
at least keep some of it.
later. Phoenix
:Most of the information was either removed due to violations against WP guidelines such as WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA, as well as the WP:VG guidelines for game articles. As much information was possible was compressed and rephrased to form the current article. Reverting all edits to re-incorporate instruction manual content is not beneficial to the article. --Scottie_theNerd 08:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't. A level/rank chart is game guide material that can easily be found on the official War Rock site, other game sites or game wikis. It doesn't matter if the Korean article has an experience list; the guidelines here do not endorse such content. --Scottie_theNerd 09:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: Can anyone solve this, I would do it if I could, but I'm not very good at the Wikipedia script.
Gawanti 17:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article messed up 

message: I know for a fact that players who purchased the retail package do NOT gain an extra 33% experience after their 2 months of gold premium run out.... I'm fixing it 70.249.155.91 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  33% constant experience gain for premium?! 

message: I made some edits to it to make it a bit less.... biased.  I really don't think its even needed, TBH.  Maybe if someone can come up with some good citations for that section, it could work out, but ATM, its biased and has little base in truth.
--Grnberet2b (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Controversy Section 

message: Man,this article is terrible! Right From the start "There is a mediocre selection of weapons".This article need MAJOR help! Basically this isn't a WP article,this is a rant complaining about how terrible the guns are!--Fireaxe888 (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major issues! 

message: Removed: "considering the damage dealt by guns is the same for every part of the body, even for the parts seemingly covered by armour."
This statement is completely false and easily proven wrong simply by actually playing the game. Shooting someone in different body parts does in fact do different damage. Head is the most damage, body and upper leg are second, arms, lower leg and feet take the least damage. (graphical representations of armor have nothing to do with it)
Some weapons even receive bonus damage to specific body parts: the PSG and barrett rifles do instant kills with 1 shot to the body or head, other snipers are only instant kill shots to the head. --97.77.9.130 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong info 

message: Many months ago, I wrote up the "Reception" section, referring to reviews from IGN and GameSpot. I've noticed that the section has been removed, but that is beside the point. The current "Controversy" section (which I have renamed to "Criticisms") is largely unsourced and appears to be based off personal experience (see WP:NOR) rather than referenced from professional review houses. Unless definitive, credible sources are provided, I will remove this section and restore the previous Reception section, as standard according to WP:VG article guidelines. --Scottie_theNerd 18:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy/Criticisms 

message: This article seems to be relatively crap-free, let's try to keep it that way. I just removed the Maps section, and I'm hoping that before, if at all, it's brought back, we can talk about it here.83.92.244.246 (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup 

message: I have been previously been involved with whether or not MMOFPS should be "Persistent World."
The result was close to something like this. Since they are no gaming association or community or a majority that agrees that MMOFPS must be Persistent World. Also since MMOs by nature targets mainly on the online audience, it would be impossible for everybody to have the optimized hardware requirement and it also doesn't make sense for some game to make it Persistent World since FPS are made to be fast pace.
Explanations
Since each types of FPS mode: Online, single player, multiplayer, MMOs all have different sets of design orientation aspects, and applying them whether or not they must meet the Persistent World guidelines doesn't make any sense. Also as of current there is virtually no technologies in the world that can host such a large enviroment, since the magntidue of interaction and numbers of players is measured in hundreds thousands. For single playere, the reason why they are usually played in same enviroments (as the cinematics), the game genre and mode are story-orientated and Persistent World would make sense.
Each industry has its own developement process and that is just reality. So in this case it is inapplicable. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is counter to the consensus arrived at by Talk:Massively_multiplayer_online_first-person_shooter#War_Rock.3F, where it was widely agreed that you should not describe War Rock as an MMOFPS without a reliable source to back that up. Kindly provide such a source, or I'll be forced to revert to the old description. - MrOllie (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

text: That's not how things work on Wikipedia, I'm afraid. I don't need to prove a negative, you need to provide a source for your preferred wording. In the meantime, I'll change the intro to the less specific 'multiplayer first person shooter'. - MrOllie (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

text: That's backwards. Sources are for information that's going in the article, not for information that isn't going in it. - MrOllie (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

text: An explanation of what an MMOFPS is isn't helpful either way. All that matters is a reliable source that says 'War rock is a MMOFPS', or the lack of same. - MrOllie (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MMOFPS 

message: I have taken the liberty to re-instate it.
DO NOT try to screw it up this time.
If you have read it, you will know that my
citations come directly from the official
forums, which I cannot access. If you
would be kind, find them for me, and
keep the section.
Edit: I Told you nubs not to touch it!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasgsgh1132 (talk • contribs) 12:01, December 4, 2008
The details you're adding are not relevant to the article. This article is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, and you're not contributing anything useful. Read the reasons people give when reverting your changes; unsourced, addresses reader directly. Furthermore, details on internal controversies about weapons in the game are irrelevant. You have to imagine people reading this article without knowing anything about the game. The data you've added about the weapons only serves to confuse and make the article more exclusive to people who are in the know. You see, when you look at it like that, it's hard to find a reason to include this stuff.83.92.244.246 (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: I've added in the new zombie mode. Could someone please expand on this... Also, there's probably quite a lot of information missing on this now.
89.241.57.255 (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New updates to War rock