Talk:MechWarrior 4: Vengeance

Yo

Yo somebody that isn't lazy :3 give info on veng, merc, and black knight rereleased (free downloads of the games... can find info on IGN)

There hasn't been any new info on the re-release. There's been a single status update along the lines of "We're still working on it! Our new LAN system needs to be functional at launch.", but that's about it. So the this page is, in fact, actually up to date. Unfortunately. --JamesGecko (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I made changes to the article because it doesn't reflect what is actually being released. What is being release is Mercenaries and the IS/Clan expansion, not veng or black knight. I'm a beta for MekTek and its stated on the recent front page article. The free release info is on the Mercs page. Thisisentchris87 (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

But as I know Mercenaries contains all meks from Black Knight. Will this meks in free release? --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes those mechs will still be in. Thisisentchris87 (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This also includes MekMatch Thisisentchris87 (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot synopsis

A basic plot outline is needed for this game. I'll be willing to write it if others won't.Theodorel 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've added the plot section. Theodorel 17:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Multiplayer

however, you can find other server IPs online that can be added to the ingame server brower in order to play online, as an active community still exists

I think if we will find citation about this info - it can be included in the article. --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll go through it point by point - First off, addresses reader directly as "you". Then it starts explaining that other server IPs can be added, that's a breach of WP:NOTMANUAL. Next, it boasts that an active community exists, but there are no reliable sources to back up this claim. Simply, all of it is unverifiable. In layman terms, it's a community of players[1] who are trying to keep this game's multiplayer alive by advertising, however subtlely, on this article. Just out of curiosity, how many of you guys are meatpuppets? That is to say how many of you were brought here by other editors, or forum members? Eik Corell (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all - you are very offensive. About "you" - english is not my native language, please help and correct this text. About servers IP - main idea that servers still exists after 8 years of game running (please help to explain this in article as native english speaker). And yes, it is not a manual where and how to add this IP into ingame browser. reliable sources and unverifiable - sources are added. All other (meatpuppets, forum members) - stuped offence from you. Check my contributions, especially in in Russian wikipedia. --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not notable that servers still exist. It would be if independent, reliable sources had covered it, but they haven't, which is why it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. And it IS instructions. Let's do this again: "you can find other server IPs online" ok, now we're already into WP:NOTMANUAL's territory. Right after that, you insert a link to indicate where it can be found. It's absolutely clear that this is instruction/game guide stuff. It tells the user that server IPs are available online, where it can be found, and that they can be added to the ingame server browser. Next: "as an active community still exists". The claim needs to be supported be a reliable, independent, third-party source. Microsoft is an authority on this subject, but the source[2] you're using is just a list of fansites - It doesn't support the claim that an active community exists. Eik Corell (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not agree with you in all your points. List of working servers indicate that game is still active in multiplayer. List of fansites - easy to check that community alive. Probably you are fan of new Crysis mod MechWarrior Living Legends and want that all forgot about MW4 and play only MW:LL. Are you meatpuppet? MW:LL forum member? --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please try to refrain on speculating on each other's motives, it doesn't help the discussion.

I am leaning more towards Eik in thinking we need better sources for this material. Some guy (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

My point: Zonematch closed, but game still exist online because MekTek now is official MW4 distributor (source IGN) and MekTek running list of servers for online play (list of servers from official distributor). What is wrong? If only english gramma ("you", etc) - please help me to correct. --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No independent, third party sources have picked up or covered MekTek the fact that the site contains a separate server list. Until they do, it's not important enough to mention. Mektek having received permission to distribute the game doesn't make everything else on the site notable. Eik Corell (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Added independent sources. --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You can't use a wiki as a source, because it's a self-published source. Also, the source you're citing is a derivative of the Wikipedia article, so what's happening here is circular sourcing. Eik Corell (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I hate you. Ok. Step back. "Mektek having received permission to distribute the game doesn't make everything else on the site notable." I am not agree. Please check WP:POINT.

If someone deletes from an article "unimportant" information which you consider to in fact be important to the subject...

• do argue on the article's talk page for the material's inclusion

Online services is very important part of the game. Information that online services still running, and running more than 8 years, even after closing official online support - important for subject of this article.

If you have added a reference which someone then removes because the source is self-published...

• do explain why the use of the source in question was appropriate in that instance

"Mektek having received permission to distribute the game" - source ok. "Mektek running their own community master server" - source is MekMatch Server List. I think its enough. Sun is shining - look on to the Sun, you don't need "independent, third party sources" whith references "yeah, Sun is shining". WP:POINT- Okey? --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if we're hitting a language barrier here, but I'm pretty I know what "I hate you" means. It mostly means "Don't take anything I say seriously". I'm gonna try this one last time. You've argued for its inclusion, and so far you haven't presented anything appropriate. You say that it's important, but your argument for including the information is... that it's important. I have explained why I've dismissed the sources you provided. Now, the first source - This is already mentioned in the multiplayer section(for God knows what reason, should be moved), using an IGN.com article as a source, so that is already covered.

Also, Mektek released a Java-based patch "MekMatch" that replaces the "Zone.com" server with their own community master server[4][5][6], so that players can still locate games to play online.

Source #5 is a blog post, and #6 is a PDF version of a post from MekTek - You're doing the circular reasoning thing again, in this case using the very website whose certain section you want to mention, as the reliable, third party source to justify mentioning the aforementioned section of the website. Basically, it's a case of: "This man is important!" - "But why is he important?" - "...because he himself says so!". #4 would be fine if #5 and #6 were reliable sources, but they are not. Rather, they're self-published sources. And yes, reliable sources ARE needed, because as the policy on verifiability says:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source

Eik Corell (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok about #5 and #6. But not agree about #4 MekMatch Server List. WP:POINT - Ok? --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The re-release is already mentioned in the lead paragraph, so there's no need to mention it again. The article you want to use, from g4g.it, is a mirror from the Battletech site, which got it from MekTek. By themselves, now bear in mind, none of these sites - Battletech, Mektek are not reliable sources. G4G.IT isn't, either, but it is independent in the sense that it's not a website dedicated to the Mechwarrior series, but other than that, it, too is no more notable or reliable than the other two. Again the problem boils down to a lack of sources that are not either directly or indirectly affiliated with the the things you want added. Eik Corell (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

1) Any way, WP:POINT! Link to list of servers is sufficient proof of existence of this list of servers and match making service. WP:POINT! 2) G4G is independent site dedicated computer games - so it is notable source for article about computer game. --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The real issue is that it isn't notable. You can still find Quake 1 servers, and that was the late 90's. So what? --Teancum (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm, it is not right. It is dedicated article QuakeWorld which mentioned in main article as "QuakeWorld was released as a free, unsupported add-on to the game". In QuakeWorld we can read even about 2009 year battles and competitions. But yes, MekMatch is not so notable for dedicated article, several strings in Multiplayer section enough. --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is still the same. QuakeWorld has received significant coverage from several reliable sources. MekTek has not. And I don't think you understand the premise of WP:POINT. It doesn't apply at all here. Proof of existence does not merit inclusion into the article. At best one external link to MekTek.net can be added per WP:ELMAYBE. --Teancum (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is not about notable Mektek/Metmatch or not and made link to Mektek, etc. My point that "Multiplayer" section have to contain info about game multiplayer (including history and current status) and not only one phrase "official support for multiplayer was suspended". --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In other case, we have to find all games with "Platform Xbox" and remove multiplayer section, living only one string "On February 5th, 2010, Marc Whitten posted on gamerscoreblog that Xbox Live support, for the original Xbox games will be discontinued as of April 15th, 2010." Yes? --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Teancum already explained everything; I'm sure the Russian Wikipedia has the same policy...?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm, why you ask me about Russian Wikipedia here? --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Additional sources.

After this independent support groups Mektek and NBT released several patches and enhancement for the MechWarrior 4 series of games. Also, Mektek released a Java-based patch "MekMatch" that replaces the "Zone.com" server with their own community master server and match making service, so that players can still locate games to play online.

• Catalystgamelabs.com: MekTek
• Games For Games: From BattleTech.com…
• NBT / GigAve Server Statistics

3 sources. Notable? --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Free MW4 "Very Shortly"

MekTek.net ... update their matchmaking software that's taking the place of Microsoft's now-defunct Zonematch service

And please - stop reverting! --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added the info about MekTek wanting to replace the master server under the multiplayer section as a single paragraph. I'm kind of leaning toward including the master server list, but I'm not really sure so I've asked some of the previous editors involved the debate here for their opinion. Eik Corell (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thx. Current state is okey for me. --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Misleading information

The information regarding MekTek and the free release only pertains to MechWarrior 4 Mercenaries, not MechWarrior 4. While it has been said that it MechWarrior 4 the download in the MTX download manager program only allows downloads for MechWarrior 4 Mercenaries and the Administrators have said this as well. I'm suggesting that the information dealing with this needs to be moved into the Mercenaries article and omitted from this one. Thisisentchris87 (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Be bold and do it yourself, you're more knowledgeable on this subject than I am. Eik Corell (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC

Well I'm hesitant to edit myself because I'm a beta tester for MekTek, isn't that sorta frowned upon? If it isn't I can simply move said information to the Mercenaries page, with some editing. Thisisentchris87 (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What about Black Knight and Clan/Sphere Pack's? Will it be available via MTX? As I listen about Clan/Sphere Packs - yes, but we even don't have such articles about this expansions. --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes they will be included, although Black Knight only works on this version of MechWarrior (Vengeance) so no to that one. If there are not objections to me editing the Vengance page and the Mercenaries page to reflect my suggestion I will proceed with it. Thisisentchris87 (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do this, but we need references in article about "support of Mercenaries and Clan/Sphere Packs and not Vengeance with Black Knight". Thx. --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Also the MekMatch information will need to be moved to Mercinaires as MekMatch doesn't support vengeance. Thisisentchris87 (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes made please keep MekTek references in the Mercenaries article. Thisisentchris87 (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

72.155.155.248 edits

Personaly I think it can stay up as long as its accurate. Although it isn't really accurate in the first line becuase we (MekTek) never announced that Vengeance was the game to be released. We announced it as MechWarrior 4. Vengeance doesn't represent the entire series. The rest of the information he added is fine, its the information regarding the free release that matters. If some one feels that it should be deleted they can be the judge of that, if they feel that it is necessary I will vouch for a topic lock. They should get the idea that the information isn't accurate if we keep deleting it, but they are not, they should post in here to support their edits, not act like a vandal.Thisisentchris87 (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The latest edits are reverting the article back to the point it was at before all the lists were removed per WP:GAMECRUFT, #6 specifically. Lists of weapons, maps, and mechs fall under that guideline. Such content is to be avoided because its primary function in an article is just to make it longer; bloat it, if you will. If any of the details are important, such as writing about how rocket launcher from the Quake series allows players to navigate the map more easily through rocket jumping, but that's provided that it's added to Gameplay section, and not as part of a list. Hope that clears it up. Eik Corell (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

OK that clears it up. So if he does it again, we'll revert it yet again. Would it be possible to protect or semi-protect the topic?Thisisentchris87 (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest edits

The latest edits have been restoring the article to a horrible version. The version in question has gameguide info; mentioning server IPs, WP:GAMECRUFT in the form of a giant long list of weapons, mechs, and their weight. It then delves into bad tone by referring to the reader as "you", and stuff like that. The multiplayer section is not encyclopedic either; it's written as bullet points and not as prose. So that's why the new(actually the old) version is not acceptable. Eik Corell (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed completely. Some guy (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

• https://web.archive.org/web/20020204040926/http://www.gamespot.fr/stories/news/0,1610,2009524,00.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/20020204040816/http://www.gamespot.fr/stories/news/0,1610,2009525,00.html