Talk:Massively multiplayer online first-person shooter/Archive 1

message: It would be worth mentioning Tabula Rasa, as it is a FPS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.20.69.237 (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tabula Rasa

message: This is a bit of a nitpick but the article states worst-case packet count increases at "(n-1)2 + n" packets for each new player and then goes on to state "the 'cost' of each additional player becomes exponentially greater as numbers rise." This is a misnomer; (n-1)2 + n means that it increases quadratically. An exponential increase would look like 2n, making the problem essentially intractable considering it's MMO.
* This is kind of moot, because I think most of the paragraph is too technical even for the typical gamer. It would probably be more informative to list the general problem (sounds like some type of graph traversal to me) along with a link to the corresponding page.Cj Gaconnet 02:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical Limitations

message: "Its gritty graphical style and gameplay mechanics are praised by its fans but have been heavily criticised by the community."  Please improve the clarity of this sentence if you know what the original writer was trying to convey.  Tommy.rousse 02:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incomprehensible

message: Question: The article on MMORPGs is at that page... shouldn't this article therefore be at MMOFPS instead of here? - Estel  (talk) 16:57, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Answer:I believe that the MMORPG article had the title because that was what they were most widely known as. MMOFPS is not an as widely used term. Greeves 01:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MMOFPS?

message: neocron is not justa rpg game with a fps view, like project entropia??
Should GunZ even be on this list? It's a third-person game not a first-person game and the article is about MMOFPSes. - DNewhall
Wth, there are a million different MM*** articles.  Someone should do some serious merging.
Well the MMOFPS's I play nobody RP's in them.
Huxley and PlanetSide are MMOFPS, Face of Mankind and Neocron are MMORPG, so 4 of the 7 mentioned games are not even in this category(the other 3 I have not heard about, so I can't comment about them) and I hear about the term XORG for the first time. Also the company that "inventioned" the term, has no site or anything, if you google it's name it gives you only 1 result - this article, so the whole XORG "article" is more of a joke, than anything. It must not be merged, but DELETED.
Neocron is a nightmare. It's extremely picky about the system it's running on and the tech support is useless. It took me over 2 months to unsubscribe (during which they charged me). Don't go here.
Planetside is the only true SF MMOFPS I've found. Huxley looks OK, but the devs have already made a fatal mistake: "....and of course if players don't wish to engage in PvP battles, there is always a plentiful amount of NPC's to help their character level up..." That just SCREAMS MMORPG to me...
a new, MMOFPS is under developement... Versus: Conflict Defines Existence... www.versusthegame.com alpha version for q4 2006, retail q4 2007
WTF is this company trying to subvert MMOFPS.. Everyone knows what MMOFPS means this failed startup is trying to pirate the term and twist it to their own meanings. Why is this article meant to be merged with spam from some gay ass company?
The article on XORG should be deleted. Most of the playerbase in WWIIONLINE would (and probably planetside) would object violently to being catogorized into "Extreme" online roleplaying games.  It's a marketing gimic not a genre. Perhaps a page on "Virtual Battlefields" could be added to replace it.
Uh wait, we want to invent a new term "virtual battlefield" (which really is a term used to mean something very different by the military) in an attempt to combat someone inventing another term "XORG"?
Fine, I was just thinking outloud. Created a page on virtural battlefields anyway. HAS xorg been deleted yet? Nhorning 11:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEOCON IS MMOFPS ??

message: Battefield 1942, Battlefield 2, and Battlefield 2142 are all NOT MMOFPS.  These games allow no more 60 people in the largest types of servers with the mode average being about 16 people per server. 216.165.16.184 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battlefield series. 

message: I'll try to put my comment here instead, since it apparently was wrong to put it the main article.
This game only support 16 players in FPS, and should not be in this article.
A suggestion would be to put max number of players on each game, with max numbers of players I mean the actual FPS part of a game, not people logged in some kind of lobby. MMirkovic 15:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exteel 

message: I'm pretty sure Gunz falls into this category. anyone else agree?
Uhh... if it has a twitch factor (reticule to aim) with persitant environments and character development than yes.
(I think it's room-based style precludes persistant environs, and the round system. Ditto with War Rock...) 76.179.150.59 21:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gunz 

message: The following are components beleived to create an MMOFPS game. Any component is open for rebuttal:
- The game must have a twitch factor: A reticule to aim is prefferable. Clicking on the character to commence in turn based attacks shouldn't count. Controlling the burst of your weapon should be a must. 
- The game should have a persistant environment: Large amounts of characters should be on the same servers, log into the same environment, with the same community. If a story line is involved, ALL characters share the storyline. 
- Persistant character devlopment: You should be able to log into the same character that you logged into the day before and have existing stats (represented in any form) that you have earned.
I don't believe that the 3rd point actually must be a factor. Obviously this type of game is most commonly compared to RPGs, however, this type of game in itself should not have to be one. For instance, having a Battlefield sort of spawn should still work; you don't neccesarily have to character. Also, considering how some of these games try to emulate real life situations (Like WWII)being the same character over and over wouldn't even make any sense. So really, I think that this is more of a characteristic of and FPS and RPG hybrid. 67.71.45.60 17:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The criteria for an MMOFPS is that it be described as an MMOFPS in a reliable source. Marasmusine 00:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lost colony alpha now seems to be open to anybody that wants to take a look.  The download link is right on the main page.  There are also regular updates to the forums and the game code.  If it ships as advertised it should meet all requirements for MMOFPS.  Can we add this game to the list now?--Dj245 05:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Has it had any independent coverage yet? If it does meet the notability guidelines, then go ahead and start an article and add it to the list. Marasmusine 07:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MMOFPS Criteria  

message: Would War Rock be classified as an MMOFPS? After reading about it in EDGE, it sounded a lot like a persistently developing, online FPS. Any views on this? --Tr33zon 12:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tribes 2 was able to handle 64 players on mid range hardware eight years ago, and IIRC Planetside does several hundred per continent. Warrock's player cap is a design decision, not a hardware limitation. It's not a MMOFPS. - MrOllie (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bottom line; WP:V. If multiple reliable sources call it a MMOFPS, then we do. If they don't, we don't. Marasmusine (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Anything with an MMOG or MMORPG status has to have a Persistent world, meaning a single server which is always on. The mere fact that online play is always going on does NOT make it an MMOFPS, if play takes places in widespread game arenas for 32 players. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, there were certainly a lot of points put forwards there, but I'll reiterate that WP:Verifiability is the bottom line, because that is Wikipedia policy. If there are no multiple, reliable sources describing the game as being a particular genre, then we don't either. Marasmusine (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I've never seen any reputable organizations label it as an mmofps. Also the official site doesn't even say it's an mmofps. It clearly says FPS.
"War Rock is a tactical online multiplayer FPS (first-person shooter) with a modern military theme. Players side with either the Derbaran Military or the NIU forces, and participate in a variety of scenarios across a wide range of maps and gameplay modes."
Easy enough. The largest point I think is that people actually go to the discussion page and understand why it isn't there. Easier than arguing with people trying to add games that are obviously not an mmofps. 69.221.246.5 (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I hate to sound like a stuck record, but: If multiple reliable sources are calling a particular game a MMOFPS or MMORPG or whatever, then we do to; if they don't, then we don't, per WP:Verifiability policy. There shouldn't be any original research going on in trying to work out if something is of a particular genre or not. Marasmusine (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: That's not how it works, I'm afraid. You'll need to provide a citation for inclusion as the party what wants to material added. See Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence - MrOllie (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please do not blank the comments of other parties in this discussion. - MrOllie (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text: In case it's not clear, you need a reliable source saying that war rock is an MMOFPS. Bridies (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Rock? 

message: In the section reguarding the game Planetside: "A free demo version of PlanetSide was available from March 23rd, 2006 though March 24, 2007." should be removed since it does advertise what used to be a free "trail". It doesn't offer anything productive to this article and I think it should be removed. (HideAndGoSeek 00:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and I made the change to remove it.  Thanks for the suggestion. Warthog32 22:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a great idea, we'll have to see what material about the genre in general there is. Marasmusine (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This article or section is written like an advertisement" comment. 

message: Face of mankind is not an FPS, in fact it is probably one of the purest examples of rpg there is. While it has FPS elements, I definitely feel it is more of an RPG.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titan124 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What factor of MMOFPS was it missing then?  The twitch aspect? -Aknorals 11:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  face of mankind is not an fps 

message: I really don't think huxley should be on this list.  The world is not persistant, the battles are instanced, and the max players in a battle is 200.  There is also battles against AI.  Anyone else think the same way, or am I totally off base?  Gulfy32 (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a reliable, independant source that calls it an MMOFPS, so it goes in. Bridies (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: It's in the article, at the end of the huxley section.Click on the little number at the end.Bridies (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Link: 'Huxley Goes Beta' Bridies (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Huxley

message: I was thinking about changing the last sentence in the description of PlanetSide.  No other mmofps on the list has a sentence describing their number of subscripitions and how the number has steadily declined. Gulfy32 (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: PlanetSide

message: :Image:Fom gameplay.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) 06:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Fom gameplay.jpg

message: The image :Image:Be004.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      Image:PlanetSide Liberator bomber followed by a Lodestar vehicle transport.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Be004.jpg

message: I added this seeing as it's 256 players and in development. We'll see if the company officially calls it an mmofps or a multiplayer game. However from the persistent stat system it sounds similar to Huxley. We'll see.69.221.227.182 (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive Action Game (MAG)

message: Hate to nitpick. But Online Shooters are not the same thing as MMOFPS. If it has "matches" and "game modes", it is NOT a MMOFPS.  For that reason, I am removing AVA and Sudden Attack from this page.
A MMOFPS is basically a MMORPG, with a Twitch-Shooter Gameplay style. It's a constant persistent world. There no "matches" or "game modes" involved. You would not classify Oblivion or Fable as a MMORPG in the same list as World of Warcraft. Therefore we should not do the same with FPS.  JMWhiteIV (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Our criteria for inclusion is whatever WP:RSs have described as MMOFPSs. A brief look at the publisher's sites of the two games you mention show that they aren't described as massively multiplayer, so I think you are correct in removing them. Marasmusine (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify what is and isn't a MMOFPS. 

message: I am going to remove it since it only has elements of an FPS 
"Global Agenda is technically a third person shooter..." - Todd Harris, the Executive Producer for Global Agenda
Interview with Todd Harris  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaon94 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Global Agenda

message: MMO?  I have not played Hellgate, so would like a ruling by someone that did.  
Answer the following questions and we can decide to let it stay or not.  The first three I know to be true.
1.  You can be in First Person (THIS IS TRUE)
2.  You have a Reticule with which You must aim at an object to shoot it. (THIS IS TRUE)
3.  twitch style gameplay (THIS IS TRUE)
4.  Persistent world (?) by tooling around the web I say no though some have also said yes
5.  Massive amount of players per server. (?) this would be the most important of course
A couple of things I have seen about this game is
The game is completely zoned. Even the safe zones in the game can only hold 50 or so people.
There is no persistent world where thousands of people can inhabit the land together.
If the answers to 4 or 5 is no we should remove it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaon94 (talk • contribs) 
:Your criteria require original research, which policy says we aren't supposed to do. All that matters is if reliable, third party sources call a given game a MMOFPS or not. - MrOllie (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, with that said then I guess it does have to stay.  It is definitely listed as a MMO on many reliable third party sites, and it is definitely a FPS which would make it a MMOFPS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.128.156 (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hellgate London

message: ===Donnybrook===
Microsoft's research project on "Systems issues in networked multiplayer games", codenamed Donnybrook, has some interesting articles which are somewhat related to the topic. In short, to quote the latest article (from Aug 08) "Donnybrook [is] a system that enables peer-managed, large-scale, high-speed games by supporting epic battles involving hundreds of players" - considering the games they are referring to are FPS's, I'm sure there's a connection here somewhere. In any case, it has been mentioned in the press as the background of a possible Halo MMO, and that paper quoted above also says the authors are currently working on the "Internet deployment of a large-scale game using Donnybrook". It's all at most tangentially related, but it could be useful in the article... somehow. --VPeric (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article material 

message: Microsoft's research project on "Systems issues in networked multiplayer games", codenamed Donnybrook, has some interesting articles which are somewhat related to the topic. In short, to quote the latest article (from Aug 08) "Donnybrook [is] a system that enables peer-managed, large-scale, high-speed games by supporting epic battles involving hundreds of players" - considering the games they are referring to are FPS's, I'm sure there's a connection here somewhere. In any case, it has been mentioned in the press as the background of a possible Halo MMO, and that paper quoted above also says the authors are currently working on the "Internet deployment of a large-scale game using Donnybrook". It's all at most tangentially related, but it could be useful in the article... somehow. --VPeric (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Donnybrook