Talk:MechWarrior Online

Plot

With MW:O changing greatly from the original design, I highly doubt that this plot information is accurate. Mostly because the game is going to take place starting in 3049 not 3015. 174.79.125.71 (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Developer Q&A 1 – The Reboot of MechWarrior® --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Pointless comment

Excited. 207.210.29.71 (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Excalibur Mistake"

The tomahawk is mislabled an excalibur (a typo seen in the pallidium roleplaying games) I'm going to change it. Limejello10512 (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"reboot"?

There is no evidence saying it is a reboot. The people over at MekTek.net said that it merely takes place before the other games and is not a reboot.--24.240.186.162 (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

MechWarrior page on Piranha Games site: "Smith and Tinker and Piranha Games are developing a full reboot of the acclaimed MechWarrior franchise for Xbox 360 and PC." --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a reboot. It is in keeping with the battle tech universe. However, since they're going to reset the counter (this will not be called mechwarrior 5) and because it's a prequal it's being called a reboot by everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limejello10512 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

10+ years is long enough to be considered a reboot by anyone and their grandmother. Mirddes (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a reboot. It's just set in the past of the Mechwarrior setting. The setting isn't being changed, just added to. It's no more a reboot than the Star Wars prequels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.227.58 (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Plot section

I've taken the liberty of wiping the plot section because, in its current form, it is incomprehensible to the average reader. Eik Corell (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Release date

The citation for the release date no longer points to a site containing a release date. This needs to be fixed asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.220.111 (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Cancer Charity

Recently, the developer has added in a mech as a memorial to a daughter of player who died of cancer. It is being sold for $10 and the proceeds go to charity. Thought it may be worth adding. Source CBC Vancouver, 7/25/2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.112.90 (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I added it to the development section, Thanks! SG²⁰⁹⁰ 01:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

3P Community Reaction

I believe this section needs to exist, and it's covered by numerous RS's.... It, of course, needs an NPOV rewrite, but I don't think a total removal is warranted. I will try to work on rewriting as well as switching to some better RS's shortly. -- ferret (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree, I think the neutral re-write is both accurate and much better worded. Thumbs up. --BlazingOwnager (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree as well. Nice job on that rewrite and the other changes Ferret. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Had someone that was not logged in attempt to remove the section. Readded it, back to the nice edited NPOV version Ferret posted. I am concerned this is going to keep happening, though, on this issue. --BlazingOwnager (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry over that. It's typical for things to be removed, tweaked, added back, reverted, etc. Correctly sourced content that is neutral in tone will ultimately prevail. -- ferret (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe, as it stands now, undue weight is placed on this issue. I don't get how it's relevant to the article at large. Eik Corell (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue against merging the section from being stand alone, to being the latest update of the Development section. It does cover recent development decisions, as well as a significant community response to such. I was surprised at how many RS's were covering the issue when I searched. -- ferret (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this section might be better renamed "Community Controversies." To someone outside of the events, they are likely to scratch their heads wondering why there is such a backlash to warrant a section about a common game function, when in reality it is more about developer repeated claims to do one thing, while doing another. This issue extends far and away beyond third person and is one of the bigger gaming community meltdowns I have seen, to be frank, which is why it's being picked up by so many sources - most making the Slashdot front page. --BlazingOwnager (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The section has a serious WP:UNDUE WEIGHT issues and three of sources used to back up the negative claims are of questionable liability. One is clearly a blog entry which doesn't pass WP:SPS. The other two have not been reviewed at WP:RS/N or are listed at WP:VG/S, thus their reliability has not been established. I do know that there is a relatively small group of disgruntled players attempting to get their discontent into the press,[1][2][3] any negative information should be treated with a great deal of caution and scrutiny. 24.49.23.45 (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That is not the case at all. The game's launch is in less than 8 days, and you will see a considerable amount of attention then, and at the "Launch Party" event. The game lost a considerable number of players over the above events, in addition. To be honest, if anything, this article is not damning enough at the moment, since the crux of this issue - and why it is a much larger note than other game balance issues - is the sheer number of times the developers clearly stated they would never do X (in the biggest case, 3PV), only to turn around and do X against everyone's repeatedly stated wishes and making it obvious there was never a plan to do otherwise. That, in particular, is why this is a big deal, in particular with the rise of other founder-based F2P games emerging. What happens here is likely to echo for quite a while. I'd recommend you take a look at http://i.imgur.com/ew2X43u.jpg if you're interested in a timeline of events made by documenting forum posts entirely. It really sums things up in a way not much else could; this is not a small number of "disgruntled players." There's quite a few issues too petty to bring up here, including outright lying in several threads from moderator Niko Snow, such as claiming that the majority of posts came from 99 users; a quick fact-checking revealed that to be in error, with the record holding poster several times over being an affiliate of PGI/NGNG. Indeed, there's a lot unsaid here, but I think what's up covers the only things that matter in the end. BlazingOwnager (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

PS unsigned poster above, if you'd like to include links and information about the #savemwo townhalls, by all means - be my guest. With several thousand signatures, it's one of the more notable fan game-saving campaigns to happen in the last few years. So by all means, feel free to add information about it. BlazingOwnager (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Petitions are not reliable sources, and a thousand signatures is not much. I agree with 24.49.23.45 above -- The sources are inadequate to establish this as notable. This happens with virtually all games that are in development or are continually tweaked. One will, for example, find hundreds of posts in a forum thread about some unit in a strategy game that a lot of people believe are overpowered. By making enough noise, they can skew the perception of the overall community consensus. I believe this is exactly what is happening, and the Penny Arcade article hinted at this as well. Eik Corell (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobody said petitions are reliable sources; I was suggesting that if you have an article about it, feel free to post it. Also are you seriously trying to say that Penny Arcade isn't a reliable source or notable? You've been attempting to eliminate this from the very second it got brought up and a considerable number of people suspect you are an IGP Moderator attempting to influence this. At the very least this section should remain until post-launch, when there will be a considerable amount of coverage on the game, and many of these same points are likely to be revisited. This is not a normal case of people complaining about weapon balance in a game, and that is why nothing ever showed up on Wikipedia then. Again, please review the above linked image. This is a case of a F2P / Crowd Sourced project stating something repeatedly, set in stone, then going back on it; not a missed feature, not a technical failing, but a deliberate misdirection. This is fairly hard to argue: http://i.imgur.com/ew2X43u.jpg - this is why there is a backlash, and this is why it is an exceptional situation, and why there are articles about it with surely more coming in just over a week. The complaints over weapon balance are but a footnote in the larger issue here.BlazingOwnager (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You really need to stop accusing people of having a conflict of interest unless you have solid proof that you can provide. It really undermines your position, and it's clear that you may be canvasing on other sites about the revert Eik Corell did if "considerable numbers of people" are suggesting he is... You're the only one who has mentioned it here. I recommend you re-evaluate how you go about this. The image is not a reliable source, regardless. While PA Report picking up the story is good reliable source, it's just one RS, which leans towards the undue weight issue, as other RS's haven't ran with the story. As for waiting till the launch for further coverage, that's crystal balling things a bit. It can always be readded later if sources appear post-launch. -- ferret (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The sources are not reliable and the PA article was posted by the same person who wrote the blog article and read like an editorial, not a new report. You are also not assuming good faith because you accusing other editors of having a conflict of interest for simply disagreeing with you. Keep the section until post-launch? That kind of reasoning makes this appear to be a WP:POVPUSH. Are you among the players who are upset by PGI's actions? Because if you are, you need to refrain from editing the article further because that would be a conflict of interest. 24.49.23.45 (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a little Heads up - There's some canvassing going on in this forum thread here[4]. Eik Corell (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The source are reliable and from multiple authors, for one. Two, I apologize if there has been some confusion, but when looking into this matter it just so happens that one of the more prolific moderators (who specifically keeps getting brought up for editing posts) happens to have a real name extremely similar to yours. I've tracked down where that came from and it's likely nothing, so sorry for that. I've been watching this from the outside primarily, from the perspective of being interested in F2P development as it's an emerging concept with many models being attempted. From the beginning the concern was that developers would - well, with no way to sugar coat it, lie to their user base to receive initial funding, then go back on it. This is different from failing to meet design goals, and largely why the primary point of this is not things such as, for example, missed game modes. The 3PV issue caught my attention purely as the developer stated, repeatedly, in bold and underlined text that it would never, ever happen as a big part of fund raising, then simply abruptly 180'd at a later time. I won't theorize as to why, but this is a notable event, as one of the biggest "crowd sourced" games previous to Star Citizen, with a lot of eyes on it. Perhaps it can be worded so that everyone can agree with it? I hold the articles are entirely valid. 108.196.187.41 (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what makes Gamefront.com, Loaded Dice Blog, or Starburstmagazine.com reliable sources? A reliable source is defined as one with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. However, from just reading the articles, it's clear that no fact checking was conducted buy any of them. For one, a reliable source would not spread accusations of deception without first contacting the accused to get their side of the story. But none of these sources even attempted to do that. What appears to have happened was that a group of disgruntled players approached them with a set of complains, and all three wrote what are affectively op-eds about those complains. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to get into that, perhaps we should label CNN an unreliable source given how much fact checking they do. There is nothing to suggest that these source are not credible except that you personally don't believe they are. Anyway, new reviews are in from new professional critics that also talk about this, so readded and sources linked. BlazingOwnager (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

We can always bring the sources to WP:RS/N or WT:VG for review by a wider audience. However, continuing to resort to more blogs and other self-published sources isn't going to win your case. You seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel here. And even if you do find one reliable source that does briefly mentions the so-called "outrage", there is still the issue of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have never used a Talk page before, sorry if I am observing the wrong protocol for this! After reading this page and checking the linked sources, I agree that the section should exist but I also recognize that adding one more "I agree" voice to the inclusion column is worth about as much as adding one additional self-published source. I think that it would be a good idea to bring this up to the mentioned WP:RS/N and WT:VG pages - can someone more experienced than me do that? 128.198.181.162 (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Community Warfare delays

The sources being used do not support the text that is being added. The text has OR, NPOV and MOS issues that must be addressed. Please do not add this content again without discussing here first, as it has been removed by at least two editors on these grounds. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The materiel being added is definitely taking the comments out of context and statements such as statements such as "...indicate the developer is not capable of delivering on other stated deadlines"[5], "the originally promised delivery date for community warfare"[6], and "if the game webpage were truthful."[7] are meant to lead the reader into thinking that the developer is incompetent. This is a direct violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy and because it is written with a decidedly negative spin, it also violates the policies on maintain a neutral point of view. If the editor adding the content still does not understand why there is an objection to what they are adding, then they should read the section on original synthesis in WP:NOR. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Now I know who has been spinning the article negatively as he posted the exact same thing on the MWO forums.[8] This person has a long history of being negative towards PGI and MWO. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Clan Invasion

Do you want me to source the marketing materials? I think the fact that the Golden Mechs come with *1* mech, and you require *3* mechs to master it, forcing anyone interested in a ludicrous gold package to pay an additional $240 on top, is worth a note in this article. I believe this was missed in the Forbes article because it's so ludicrous it's not immediately obvious. It makes that pricetag even worse and is relevant information. BlazingOwnager (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe it needs anymore than it has now... and maybe less. That's game jargon that won't really improve the article. The fact they're trying to sell a $500 mech at all is ludicrous on it's own, and Forbes covers that. -- ferret (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps you shouldn't nuke it again? BlazingOwnager (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't nuke any content. I removed an unneeded section header, because all the sources cover is another set of promotional packages and the silly gold plated models. There's no details in them specific to clan invasion at all. -- ferret (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MechWarrior Online. 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://archive.is/20130411104918/http://mwomercs.com/game/factions to http://mwomercs.com/game/factions

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Latest additions

@SvartSwarm: Regarding these additions, there seems to be a major problem: All the sources are primary ones or sites affiliated with the project: Mwomercs.com is the official site, battletech.net is the franchise owner, the paradoxplaza link seems to be a statement from a developer, so all official sites of the game's publisher, developer, statements by people in some way associated with the projects. None seem to be third-party like the initial IGN coverage. The only stuff that gets close are the links to legal documents, namely on drive.google.com and Justia.com. This is not third-party coverage either, as these links are just places where documents and files can be uploaded; there is no analysis or opinion being given. A separate problem I would say is the overall length of the additions which seems to introduce some undue weight on a really quite separate topic from the subject of the article. If third-party sources were available, then perhaps this even if in a slightly reduced form, it could be appropriate, but as it stands now, with no third-party sources, this seems a bit excessive. I've created and entry WT:VG#Request_for_comment here to ask for additional input from other editors so that we can get a neutral perspective as well. Eik Corell (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Eik Corell: 1. Information about the development of a game will originate from the actual developers themselves as well as the publishers. That is how information about a game's development works. That applies to journalism, to wikipedia, to actual research on production side of games. Invoking the requirement for third-party sources about a topic pertaining to the inside business and decision-making of a game developer makes zero sense, especially in lieu of how many other sources throughout this article is sourced from the developer's site. Cutting this back again and again flies in the face of not only the rest of the sources in this article, but also several other articles on video games and how they came to be. Would you apply the same standard to a research book about how Deus Ex was developed because it was sourcing from Warren Spector? Would you apply the same third-party sourcing requirement to workers who protest harassment in their game company? The answer is no, and this is due to how reporting and inside information are made public. Journalists and researchers use this method of sourcing for analyzing and understanding games, so it is unfortunately not in our interest as scholars and information gatherers to somehow exclude the history of a game's development and conceptualization because of some arbitrarily invoked claim of 'third party sourcing' in this particular case. 2. The cuts you are making directly contribute to the ongoing misunderstanding and lack of clarifications regarding the origin of this game and how it came to be, as well as the lawsuit and how that was resolved around 2019. People do not have a historical contextualization of the original design conceptualization of the project pitched in 2009 and how PGI managed to secure the license. Cutting away information and clarification about how this came to unfortunately results in misinformation and lack of clarification. 3. The cuts to the information about the lawsuit also excludes the incredibly important information on how both PGI and CGL and HBS had their legal conundrums resolved and how we to this day now have the Unseen back in redesigned form. Cutting away the resolution to the whole ordeal also means excluding important information to those who were not privy to the outcome of the lawsuit.

The new additions are necessary and should not be cut away. They are important for clarification and historical understanding, and they are all properly sourced and verified, and they all have cultural importance for how this game came to be and how the lawsuits affected (or did not affect), but ultimately benefited the game itself and those affiliated with it.

SvartSwarm 29 September 2021 (UTC)