Talk:Ragnarok Online

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Version number[edit]

Could someone who understands Korean check the Korean version number? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Episode 13.2
Katsura (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Current version number is 14.3. 2 more patches after bifrost came out in 2010 with new mounts and sprites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2011‎

Private Server Section[edit]

Those removing this section need to give a reason for doing so, or I'll just keep on reverting it. --Resplendent (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no way to argue that private servers have had a huge impact on the game, and leaving them out of an encyclopedia article about RO is frankly irresponsible. Just because it's "bad" doesn't mean we can't talk about it. Articles on murder, genocide, bombings, etc. aren't deleted because they're "bad." Wikipedia's job is to give an accurate overview of the subject, and by not mentioning private servers, it leaves out a big piece of the puzzle. --Resplendent (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I agree that they should be included in an article on Ragnarok Online. It should be heavily implied that they are illegal, however. For the sake of my "private servers are the devil" argument, I'll just post an article that more than sums up my opinion: (This is not my article and I take no credit for it. All credit goes to Irish Lightning Studios.) Sylvena (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The private servers are still not mentioned. What is up with that? Hamhamman (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure private servers might take some business away from gravity but most also make the game even funner than it already is. Others (super high rates) take all the fun out of the game and sell every single item including the god items in custom shops and card drops are between 75%-100%. On a side note I know of a really bad private server its very perverted and uses naked sprites. Pyrolord777 (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No matter how fun you do mention it, they are still illegal. Nice try. (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats the same thing I said about downloading music but for some strange reason people argue that it boosts sales. Pyrolord777 (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, I don't know how to post here right now but there is a very important issue here in regard. Ragnarok Online had its official server software stolen and used to host private servers. A legal precedent was set after legal action was taken, and most of the people I've asked about it say 'wikipedia says nothing and I can't find any other information'. Mention of their struggles with private servers, especially in regards to this court case, SHOULD be here174.16.193.128 (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, as long as there are sources for it. --Resplendent (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Article needs much improvement[edit]

Hello, I'm a relatively inexperienced editor. That said, I feel that this article needs much work. I love RO as much as the next guy, but the article as it is now would baffle non-gamers. I plan to work on this over time, any and all help is appreciated. Here's a list of issues I can spot so far:

  • Writing needs extensive copyediting
  • The gameplay bits appear to be approaching WP:GAMECRUFT
  • The third class info is backed by an unofficial translation on another wiki, failing WP:SOURCES
  • Article lacks a basic explanation of the MMORPG gameplay, yet details aspects of PvP and WoE
  • A consolidation of Job System, Class Progression, PvP and WoE under a concise Gameplay section might work better, as per Lineage II
    • What do you guys think about spinning the info into a separate article, as per Gameplay of World of Warcraft?
    • Also what about a separate article for Ragnarok (series) or Ragnarok (franchise)?
  • Needs more out-of-universe perspective - the real world impact it has had
  • Article suffers from dearth of references. E.g. references for regional release dates
  • Could use an image or two, perhaps a screenshot.
  • Maybe provide a link to a RO wiki for those looking for game guides?

I propose the following section changes:

  • Lead & table of contents
  • Setting
    • Story (Basic synopsis. May be hard to source)
  • Gameplay (Needs brief explanation of basic MMORPG gameplay)
    • Player vs. Environment
    • Player vs. Player
      • War of Emperium
    • Job System (merge Class progression into here, making it concise)
  • Regional differences (Perhaps also listing the different regional licensors)
    • Pay to play
    • Free to play (Should NOT be confused with private servers. Should discuss micropayment and freemium)
  • Controversy
    • Private servers (This section sorely needs sources, and maybe examples of legal action taken. Also the general statements there now are WP:OR)
    • Botting
  • Audio
  • Development (Discuss expansions; perhaps noting that Gravity is still working on updates while Ragnarok Online 2 is stuck in development hell?)
  • Reception (Number of subscribers, profits, international success, longevity)
    • Awards
    • Legacy (The impact it has had on the MMO industry, spawned RO2 and an anime, etc.)
  • Related media (A list of related media, including the mobile phone games)
  • See also
  • External links
  • References

Sorry if this clogs up the talk page. But I feel it's needed to revitalize this article. Suggestions, comments, are highly welcome. And does anyone wants to work together with me? Thanks. BlazerKnight (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. All of that is valid criticism of the current state of the article, and any work to fix them would be appreciated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, added a long overdue screenshot to begin with. I'll probably be doing the major edits over the weekend. Before I begin though, here are a couple of concerns:

  • This being EN Wikipedia,
    • should all terms be addressed as they appear in iRO? Or any particular version?
    • should a section about regional differences be created? (This looks to be tough to verify on foreign-language sites)
    • not bother with regional differences and just list regional licensors in infobox?
  • Job system section
    • Right now has the most info - to the point of bloat. Condense into 1-2 paragraphs?
    • What do I do with that (rather nicely formatted) class table?
    • Should I follow Final Fantasy XI's example, since it's a featured article?
      • Its job system section looks unencyclopedic, though
  • Should there be an external link to an RO wiki?
  • How in-depth should the updates/expansions be covered?

Hope to get opinions on this. BlazerKnight (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I can help with info from the french franchise if anything. Batouchu (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean? Isn't France covered by euRO? BlazerKnight (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
It is, but there is frRO as well. Elostirion (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, is anyone actively working on this article? A couple of suggestions:
  • Look at the World of Warcraft article. It makes no mention of any of the jobs or classes in WoW. I don't really think that the RO article needs the VERY lengthy section on all of the job descriptions. I think the chart illustrating the job paths that you can take in the game is sufficient. We can make a section(s) explaining how the game progresses job wise by explaining how you level into each job. Novice -> First class -> Second Class -> Rebirth, etc. I'm pretty sure just about anyone with "Half a brain" can figure out what a priest or Theif does. Jmanfffreak (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have skimmed through the article and have seen that it is horrifyingly crufty. I believe this article needs an entire overhaul, starting from getting appropriate real-world references and the article rewritten so that anyone, Ragnarok Online gamer or not, can understand what was described about the subject in this article. IAmSasori (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi IAmSasori, thanks for your input! I am starting to work on a rewrite of this article in my sandbox. Maybe you can offer some assistance or pointers? Thanks again! JguyTalkDone 21:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
You should look over the material, checking to see which ones would have an interest to a non-Ragnarok Online player. After doing so, find an appropriate source for it and reference it. It should do the trick.
Unfortunately, I do not know much about Ragnarok Online, so I cannot really improve it myself. IAmSasori (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And it seems that recently the Official English RO Server have made everything free? I am not so english is not that good...

Noted by Curious Onlooker

Private servers[edit]

Here's the reason why I reverted it: Look at the sources -- First source is a direct link to a what looks like the code repository of a private server, with no other sources to underscore its notability, the second is legal mumble jumble, while the third source is to a blog. To me it's a clear-cut case of WP:V, and WP:OR. WP:OR because of the cited legal stuff - That source does not mention private servers being legal. Eik Corell (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here's the reason I reverted it back: The first source is a direct link to a code repository for eAthena, which is the emulation software used for all private servers that are legal based on the second source. If you have questions about what it means, ask a freaking software engineer. You don't go around reverting astrophysics articles because you don't understand the equations they use in their papers, do you? Do you even understand how the law works? 17 USC 102(b) CLEARLY states that methods of operation are not subject to copyright. Check Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. for precedence. Just because you can't understand law, does not mean you should revert changes. Ok. If you don't feel the third source is verifiable, go ahead and delete that portion. Zeteg (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The legal stuff is irrelevant, and it's being misrepresented. WP:OR says: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.", but that's not even the real issue, which is that eAthena has not, to my knowledge received coverage from a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question. That is the primary criteria for information added to Wikipedia, and from what I see, it fails this. Nutshelled: Unless it has received such coverage, it shouldn't be mentioned. Eik Corell (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Your inability to understand a clearly stated law does not mean it's irrelevant, or that it has been misrepresented. The legality is A. The fact that the eAthena source code shows it is clearly an emulation, and not the original Aegis software is B. String A and B together, and you don't even need any sort of original research. This is a clear connection of two sources, and it uses simple logic. Don't even start with me, with your ridiculous argument of coverage. If you want to make that argument, you can delete this entire article and almost every single game article under WP:V. So far on the site, I see iRO (original work) cited, and even a god damn wiki page cited. Zeteg (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how else to explain this, and I'm not gonna bother when you're taking this tone. Instead of repeating myself, I'm gonna link you to an article with a section like what you want to add, only that one is compliance with WP:V - here [1], second paragraph in that section. I have also called for another editor to come and have a look. Eik Corell (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Eik Corell has asked me to take a look at this as a neutral party, so here's my take on this issue. This actually looks clear-cut; I'm sorry to say Zeteg, that this is pretty much the definition of WP:SYNTH. What you're doing is taking two sources that say different things ("eAthena is an emulator" and "methods of operation are not subject to copyright") and using them to form a third conclusion ("eAthena is the only legal private server"). It doesn't matter that this may be blitheringly obvious to you; what's needed is a reliable source that explicitly says "eAthena is the only legal private server". That gets your content included, the current sources do not. Indeed, I'd query their reliability; the eAthena project link doesn't verify anything to anyone not versed in programming, and Shenglong's Posterous is a blog, failing WP:USERG. Find sources that support your statements, without the need to create a logical axiom to interpret the data. Then there's a case to be made. At present, though, this is not suitable content. Yunshui  00:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, you're right. I'm going to go ahead with your argument, and delete segments of this article that do not cite credible sources. Oh, and your claim above is mistaken. "eAthena is an emulator" + "methods of operation are not subject to copyright" = "eAthena is not subject to copyright" because by definition, an emulator emulates methods of operation. Rather than discount sources that require you to understand code, perhaps you could--oh, I don't know--learn code. In either case, I understand your argument perfectly. As such, I've taken it upon myself to help you clean up this page. I've deleted all material that has no reference, or only has a primary reference (violates WP:PRIMARY). Even though, you know, there's a big banner noting it on the top of the page. After all, these infractions are the same, no? Zeteg (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


See above section on private servers. Taking Yunshui's arguments, I've deleted portions of this that violate WP:PRIMARY, even though there's a banner. Zeteg (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Yunshui  07:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Please explain to me why non-private server information on this page, can violate WP:Primary. Zeteg (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Primary sources can, and are often used to support info in video game articles. The issue as I understand it, is that there are no secondary or third-party sources to support it. This is a general problem on video game articles, one that is largely tolerated. I just found out something much more problematic than any of this, though - linkrot in the References section; most of them are dead, and when they were already primary ones, that doesn't bode well for the article's quality. Eik Corell (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, now, please tell me why my private server edits were not accepted, while these are, even though they violate WP:V as well. The last part, I can understand. The first part, not at all. "eAthena servers are legal in the USA because of 17 USC 102(b)" is justified by "law saying emulators are legal" + "source code showing OBVIOUS emulation" Zeteg (talk) 07:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Becuase making that leap of logic requires an interpretation of data which is not advanced in any of the sources. Per WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Interpreting data in this way, whether the conclusion is correct (as is almost certainly the case with your eAthena example) or incorrect, is not permitted on Wikipedia; it is considered original research. The reliability of the sources is a secondary issue; the problem is your synthesis of sources to reach a conclusion which neither source actually claims. Yunshui  08:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Does this serve as "explicit" proof? Zeteg (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Possibly; I can't view the full article without buying it. If it contains a statement such as "eAthena is the only private server which is legal in the USA" or similar, then yes, it would be ideal. Yunshui  08:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
If one article said "Murder is illegal" and another one said "Dan committed murder", would it be inappropriate to say "Dan committed murder, which is illegal"? Zeteg (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Not at all, but that's because the statement "murder is illegal" is not likely to be challenged. To use an example directly from the No original research policy: "That "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed." Replace "Paris is the capital of France" with "murder is illegal", and you have your answer. Yunshui  08:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)