Talk:Mortal Online

Optimistic release date?

This wiki article is fairly short, which isnt surprising given the general lack of info available for this game. The only video footage claiming to be an ingame trailer, looks like a pre-rendered video. Given the release date is slated for summer 2009, does anyone else think this release date is massively optimistic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.90.200 (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The release date is the officially announced one, what other release date could be used in this article? The in-game trailer is rendered using the Unreal 3 engine, and looks characteristically like something made with the U3 engine. The engine can easily handle graphics like that in real time, but of course, that doesn't tell us that those are the real graphics of this game. --Drabant (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The developers says it is and so it is. There is no reason not to belive them. --MrStalker ^(talk) 14:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I know it is the officially announced release date. My point was - given that there appears to be no game architecture yet, no in game footage of people running around - I just wondered if anyone else thought this release date was somewhat optimistic? I wasnt attacking the article, or suggesting another date be put in instead, I was merely curious. Re the trailer, I wasnt actually referring to the graphics at all. What I meant was that all the animation - of the human, and of the dragon, looks like it was animated by hand, instead of being actual in game 'footage'. I know there is a lot of talk claiming that this is actual live game footage, which seems rather dubious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.90.200 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Húergar

Húergar aren't confirmed as playable yet. they shouldn't be in the playable races section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.33.83 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect and Misleading Information

There's some information put in this entry that is both a twist on the words of the developers and simply not true. The fact that there are no actual levels is a misconception with the skill based style. There are actually levels if you think about it more. As skills and attributes improve, there is in a sense a form of level-up. That also means that some activities will be made for those that have improved their skills and attributes. They also made small mention of equipment as well as its own importance. When you reach the pinnacle of what you can increase with skills and attributes in conjunction with the "best equipment", you then are faced with content made for those people, which is known as end game content. Through reasoning, it's obvious that there -will- be some form of end game content. Saying otherwise is misleading and misinterpreting the developers. Krivvin (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

New races

Mortal Online now has two new races added to the list, the Blainn and Sarducaans. Also, mixed race characters have been announced. I'm not an article-writer, but here's the link to the info: Mortal's news for May 9th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.5.132 (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Game "beta" controversy

While I have been following a larger gamers forum I have stumbled upon the Mortal Online thread. A few details struck me as a bit weird here. For now I will just cite the resources, but I guess this should be incorporated into the article soon. First of all the NDA has been lifted after the current state of the game leaked repeatedly. You can find some of the gameplay videos on YouTube. The game itself seems more like some technological demo than a game in later stages of the beta to me. I might be entirely off here it would be nice if someone with the correct information speaks up. I can cite the resources but those might be dubious and one-sided. Both sides should be equally represented I guess.

Again after watching most of the YouTube footage available and reading tons of comments, seems that game is still pretty much unfinished and also that the team is taking this most unprofessionally. While this is usually not a problem in this case it is. The problem as I see it is that devs might be selling preorders of something that will be completed in 2-3 years claiming they are only months away from the release. Is the game finished when devs say so when it seems so for most of the people?

Nonetheless here are the links:

• http://moleaks.blogspot.com/ blog with the leaks and some discussion, ingame footage
• http://www.mortalonline.com/news/nda mortal online NDA lifting
• http://gamegpu.ru/Mortal Online BETA теsт GPU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.189.139 (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  

The blog at moleaks.blogspot.com/ (which as someone notes below, cannot be used as a reference) "has been removed" according to the message at that URL. There seem to be archived versions of it, but perhaps the Wayback Machine is a little busy right now-- because I can't seem to find one at the moment that has any content; otherwise I'd update the link so it pointed to one. Just a note in case someone tries looking for it at this late date. Nlaylah (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted that in no way I am directly claiming MO (the game in question) is crap. I don't know that. But from what I know I can say that people should watch out. If I am mistaken I guess some footage of the game disproving the materials in question will surface. Might be we need to contact the devs themselves to get accurate info from their end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neikius (talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The blogspot link can't be used as a reference per WP:RS - Blogs are generally held to be unreliable because of their very nature. However, I don't understand what exactly it is you intend to add or edit? Could you be more specific? Eik Corell (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll be brief. It should somehow convey the current state of the game. The article was written more like some gaming wiki than a proper article. But it see it's been cleaned up. The current state of game should be mentioned. And since the NDA has been lifted some material should be around. Mostly youtube though. The official information sadly is very old and limited to trailers/teasers. The developer says they are in beta stage so it must be beta, but from what I have seen this is NOT beta. This is pre-alpha. Features are still added to the game. One sentence with that should be enough (game being very incomplete). --Neikius (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

From more recent YouTube footage it looks to me like the game has shaped up considerably since the time you made your comment about it being in "pre-alpha" shape. Although it is not in "beta" stage in the most modern sense of the word (basically, free trial), they clearly say this on the introduction to the beta, and therefore I think there is no need to try to convey some sense the game is somehow sub-par or unusually insufficient.

(Sir Tristram (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC))

Removed material

Okay, I looked with more detail at the removed information, and agree that it does not belong in the article. However, this is not because it's vandalism--see WP:VANDAL for the definition of that term. However, the information does violate WP:OR and WP:NPOV, so the IP was correct to remove it. However, the IP has announced on my talk page (see [1]) and implied in the last edit summary, that xe is a representative of the company. The owners of the company should note that, as a general rule, Wikipedia very strongly recommends against people editing articles on which they have a Conflict of interest. What happens is that it's nearly impossible to follow policy like WP:NPOV when you're associated with that company. It was fine of you to remove the info you removed. However, if someone else adds negative information that is supported by reliable, independent sources, then that information will be allowed to stay in the article. In fact, I recommend that, in the future, if you have concerns about something in the article, rather than making the edit yourself, post your question/comment to this talk page and other neutral editors can make a clearer determination. 03:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Trivia addition

An editor, User:Eurohunter has been talking to me on my talk page (see User Talk:Qwyrxian#Mortal Online) about a link to a video made by Swedish singer Basshunter (note the possible conflict of interest). This video made by Basshunter features Mortal Online, and was cross-posted by the MO developers on their Youtube channel. Eurohunter wants to add a link to that video into this article. Now, there is no question at all that this video cannot be linked--it's a direct violation of WP:ELNO, since the link is purely promotional. However, it is theoretically possible for us to include a sentence that says, "Swedish singer Basshunter recently created a video featuring Mortal Online, which was later posted by the company on it's official Yooutube channel." Personally, I don't think even that sentence is appropriate, because it seems like WP:TRIVIA to me. However, if other editors think it should be included, I can live with it. Anyone else have an opinion on the matter? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is not a trivia. Link will only source for the information: "Swedish singer Basshunter recently created a trailer featuring Mortal Online, which was later posted by the company on it's official YouTube channel. The trailer was a world premiere song Basshunter "Mortal Online". Eurohunter (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Pricing

Is it really necessary to have a pricing section? Doesn't seem like it adds to the article at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.189.12 (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Forums as a source

The forum posts cited are from customers who experienced the problems listed, and include links to Star Vault representatives' posts. Since the game does not have a large enough customer base to register on general gaming news sites, I am wondering why you refuse to accept official posts made by the company and customers as a suitable citation? The forum is SV's main mode of communication.

If no reply forthcoming, I will re-instate the section with added citations for the parts tagged as requiring such. Altan001 (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Because forums are never reliable. We have no way to tell which forum posts are actually made by the company and which are not. And even if they were legitimate, if the information wasn't important enough to make it to "general gaming news sites", then its not important enough to be in the Wikipedia article. Our job is to summarize and report what is already notable, what reliable sources have already said on a subject; our job is not to cover ever little internal issue that may be important to the users of that site. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Those forums are owned by the company making the game. Official posters have tagged accounts (red names with title underneath) and regularly make official announcements via posts. So your first point is wrong and can be safely ignored.

Your second point appears to be that something which does not make the general news is not worthy of comment or an article on Wikipedia. If that is the case, quite a lot of content on the site would be inadmissible. Are you going to take issue with each of those cases?

If you do not take official statements from the company producing the game as a valid source of information, this article needs a dramatic edit as ALL the links mentioning game features come from the same site. The first reference given is from the same forums you deem not worthy of citation for example.

Your position needs to be consistent or it of no value. You have not convinced me of the validity of your case. I will leave this a few days to let other editors comment then act accordingly. Altan001 (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that I've already clearly objected, acting accordingly would be a waste, since I will simple revert your edits, and your next required step will be to come back here and discuss more (before going ahead with dispute resolution processes if I can't persuade you).

Okay, knowing that the statements in the forums are clearly official is a step in the right direction. However, we still have to make editorial decisions about what is or is not important enough to be included. You are correct that most of the content now in the article does come directly from the company. Personally, my opinion is that we should scrub anything out of the article that is not either absolutely critical to understanding the basic outline of the game or is cited to an outside source. So, if I really cared, I'd go in and take out about half of the information in Gameplay, all of the Player-made content, possibly part of Development. Just because info is there now, doesn't mean it actually should be.

I decided that the fairest thing I could do would be to look at the actual "controversies" and see each one. Here's my analysis:

• Game Discs: The company answered that, in fact, the equipment the customer already had would do exactly what he wanted it to do, just through a series of two steps. That's not a "controversy", that's a user who fails to understand how the program works.
• Debiting cards without permission: The company never officially says that it happened, never admits to doing anything they shouldn't have, and, in fact, the non-company people imply that OP simply failed to pay attention to both the terms of service and a follow-up email that he received. In any event, since the only official information there is "Send in a ticket", we have no way of knowing whether or not the alleged controversy ever occurred, whether the company or the poster was right or wrong, and, even if it occurred, if it was an isolated incident or something that happened to many people. No source, no info in the article.

So, if that's what you wanted to add, it can't go in. Was there something else deleted based on forum content you thought should be added? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to remove 1/2 the content in the article to be consistent, go ahead. If you are not consistent you have no case. Either/or is fine with me, but you can't pick and choose.

Game Discs : the original discs have never worked, and there are official posts promising new discs and then saying no discs will be sent. I was trying to avoid initial links that needed logins (though that is allowable, see anything referencing the London Times for eg which is behind a paywall) but, as a I said, will find other citations. Your assertion that the user misunderstood the program is wrong, and you have provided no evidence for it. The official forums (and other sites) have multiple mentions of the issue.

Debiting cards: Again, the official forum posts/emails state ALL beta accounts would be activated at launch, whether authorised or not, and an email to a possibly 2 year old address without further authorisation is not legally sufficent in the EU for eg. As mentioned, not only unethical but illegal in some countries.

These issues (along with the unwanted changing of customer subscription packages and charging non-active accounts) are notable as several are illegal practice and affected large portions of the customer base.

You have objected, and I discussed your objections. I then left it open to others to comment. You then concede some points but refuse to accept any change or compromise. You are not the sole arbiter of what is allowed, and I have no interest in your threatened edit war. If necessary I will invoke conflict resolution.

If no other editors comment, I will do exactly as I stated above - "act accordingly". Altan001 (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh...you can, of course, act accordingly, but since the standard editing pattern is Bold, Revert, Discuss, if you boldly add info, then I revert it, the next step is for you to come to the talk page to discuss it. I was just trying to save you the step, and just do all the discussion first.

If there are more sources, please give them. The sources that were already in the article don't verify what you want them to verify. Without additional sources, that info can't be in, because it fails WP:V and WP:NPOV. If there are other sources, please, again, produce them here. If they are behind a paywall, fine, just quote the relevant sections (here on talk, not in the article), and, again, we can go from there. Note, though, that one person saying "This bad thing happened to me" and the company responding "We will fix it this way," or "We won't fix it" is not sufficient to add to the article--that's only one person's experience. You need an official statement from the company or an independent, reliable source that verifies that this happened to many people, and that the company reacted in the way that people claimed. Note that even if you have 3 or 5 or 10 posts saying the same thing, that still is not acceptable, because that still doesn't verify that the problem was widespread. Adding up 5 or 10 or 20 complaints and calling it a worldwide problem is original research. Similarly, saying that the practice is illegal is very much original research, unless, again, you can get a reliable sources verifying that it is illegal. In fact, even if the company said "What we did is illegal in this country," I'm not even sure if that would be acceptable, because I'm not sure that they would be a reliable source for what is or isn't illegal in various countries. That, however, would be a judgment call that we might need to check on a noticeboard for input. Finally, I'm not objecting to including any specific material, but I am objecting to adding new, non-neutral, unverified info. As for the info already in the article, I just don't feel like going in and doing the edit myself. That, however, doesn't mean you can add policy violating material on the grounds that there's other bad material already there (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If the controversies are properly sourced with official spokespersons recognizing them, then they should be able to stay. Sampy88 (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm saying. So far, no such sources have been provided. The official spokesperson would need to say not, "We see that's a problem for you (one user), here's how to fix it." They would need to say, "We recognize that this has been a problem for a large number of users. Here's how we are fixing it (or refusing to fix it, as the case may be)." The only thing I'm saying that the spokeperson may not be able to accurately talk about is what is legal or illegal in any given country; that wouldn't fall within the exceptions to WP:SPS. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

They have been properly sourced, do not delete them again without giving SPECIFIC reasons why each source is invalid. You are arguing in bad faith (threatening an edit war and falsely accusing me of failure to discuss the issue) and attempt to put words into other editors mouths ("Adding up 5 or 10 or 20 complaints and calling it a worldwide problem"). The sources I have used are from the official forum of the game developer and reference posts made by employees. I will absolutely ignore your efforts to paint those sources as "inadmissible" as they are the very essence of "well sourced" - ie from the mouth of the game developers themselves. If you are incapable of reasoned discussion on this subject then take it to arbitration by all means. I have no interest in pandering to your inconsistent views on this topic or listening to your invectives against other editors. Altan001 (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Rs30g

Please do not simply undo edits without explanation. If you have a problem with my contribution, discuss it here first as my edits were sourced. If you revert again without discussion, I will get mediation involved as edit wars are not allowed. I also notice you are a single topic account, something you may wish to read up on before reverting again.

Altan001 (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversy section removal and dead links

This article is littered with dead links. To only remove criticism, due to SV deleting critical forum posts and it's own statements, while leaving only favourable statements that are sourced from equally dead links is veering into NPOV violations.

Either the article is rewritten with new sources for all dead links by 68.103.208.212 (who, it should be noted is yet another single topic editor removing criticism in this article) or the controversy section should be restored. We must be consistent across the article.

I will leave this for discussion before undertaking any edits of my own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altan001 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe there is as I write no link left that points to nothing-- Don't know how to put this-- every link either has a live target on the other end -OR- an archived version of the originally live target, for what either of those in any case may be worth. An observation from the background (I have been using the Mortal Online forums since 2009) that may help explain the difficulties at mortalonline.com/forums is that their software and the formatting it supplied to post URLs changed several years ago from

http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/<specificnumber>-<words-in-title>.html

to

http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/threads/<words-in-title>.<specificnumber>

making it possible but requiring some editing of links & bookmarks to find the same material even if it has/had not been removed by Star Vault.

No idea what I'm doing here. Nlaylah (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

As a followup of this date, many of the links that did point to something on the official site before now, now do not.

The site (frankly, and as I understand it, under repeated & successful attacks by someone 'hacking', if the defacements and breached data I have seen are all as factual as they appear) has moved to a different server. Some basic pages (i.e., "Features") are currently missing. At least some of them do not seem to have archived versions. The forums are gone for now; many but by far not all of the forum pages which might be relevant here are archived in the Wayback Machine, if someone wishes to search for them.

To sum up, there _are_ links now that point to nothing. (**This is only my opinion, but...**) Since it's possible that the site and the game may never recover from this incident and its effects, or do so only slowly, if someone wants to try improving the connections of this article *at this time*, it won't be me. Feel free. Nlaylah (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Later follow-up about Mortal Online's official forums and its post URLs:

http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/threads/<words-in-title>.<specificnumber>

is no longer the current URL pattern; it is (at this time)

https://www.starvault.se/mortalforums/threads/<words-in-title>.<specificnumber>

Due to the ultimate effects (including an almost complete breach of customer / account information _aside from_ credit card numbers) of the "repeated & successful" attacks noted above, many things about the site have been changed by Star Vault once again. The forums, in particular, have been restored from a backup that went only as far forward in time as some time in 2015-- meaning that all posts from the date of the backup, through 2016, up until the date of restoration in 2018 are gone, unless by happenstance or individual action they were archived in the Wayback Machine. The ones that are still online have changed their URLs and may redirect, or not. Don't know if that affects any links given in the Wikipedia article; just a caution. Nlaylah (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mortal 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://web.archive.org/web/20110404114204/http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/60550-server-patch-2011-03-30-a.html to http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/60550-server-patch-2011-03-30-a.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6D1QBW6cD?url=http://www.mortalonline.com/stories to http://www.mortalonline.com/stories

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) 00:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Mortal Online 2

The sequel will be released on January 25th, 2022. Information should be added to this page or a separate page. -Artanisen (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

MO2 page merged with MO

On 11 April 2024‎, @Alalch E.: copied information from the former Mortal Online 2 page to the Mortal Online page. Then Alalch E. removed around 95% of the content. Now it only describes when it was announced, launched and the upgrade to Unreal Engine 5. More should be kept to better describe Mortal Online 2 to readers. -Artanisen (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Please restore more from history, yes. —Alalch E. 07:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)