Talk:Robot Arena 2: Design and Destroy

RA2 Forums (Unofficial) Ads

(5/1/06) - A user from the "RA2 Forums (Unofficial)" keeps adding in a very vanity-ish section bragging about his InvisionFree forum that he managaes. I just deleted it, it will probably show up again though. 65.68.248.105 22:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

(5/2/06) - The same user has vandalized the article again, this time re-adding the ad for the Unofficial RA2 InvisionFree website, along with removing the information for RFSHQ and replacing it with "This website sucks.". The external link to the RFSHQ Mod Database for Robot Arena 2 has also been removed and replaced with the aforementioned InvisionFree. 65.68.248.105 22:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

(5/2/06) - I restored the article, maybe we should request this article be locked? - chz

(5/2/06) - That sounds like a good idea. It is likely this vandalism will not end anytime soon. 65.68.248.105 22:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

(5/3/06) - http://s8.invisionfree.com/ra2forums/index.php?showtopic=842&view=getnewpost There is the evidence that they are going to continue to vandalize the article. Their vandalization can be seen in the History of the page. 65.68.248.105 22:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

(5/3/06) - This article for Robot Arena 2 has been restored (in whole or part) several times due to edits by user Technex. He continues to edit out "RFSHQ" because of a personal vendetta apparently. "RFSHQ" plays a key role in Robot Arena 2 because of the creation of game-expanding mods allowing significantly greater amounts of AI opponents, and hosting the Robot Arena 2 Mod Database. The aforementioned AI mods have been disassembled and used by many other programmers for use in their mods, notably The DSL Mod among others. While "RFSHQ" is NOT notable enough to grant it its own article, it deserves recognition in the Robot Arena 2 article for the community's work in expanding the limits of the game. 65.68.248.105 22:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

(5/4/06) - Technex is apparently editing the article in an attempt to attract users to his website, the link posted from 65.68.248.105 has suitable evidence that this is on purpose. Also, it seems he is trying to get the administrators to ban all those who are restoring the article. Seems that he doesn't exactly know how wikipedia works. - chz/65.190.124.95 21:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

(5/5/06) - The article was vandalized yet again, in the same manner. Parts of the article were removed and replaced with an advertisement for the previously mentioned forum. 70.255.13.25 12:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

(5/5/06) - Once again the same exact user "Technex" has blanked portions of the article. I have added the final vandalism warning (test4) to his talk page. He is also ceasing to respond to our comments and try to resolve the issue. On behalf of the community, I have a link ready with evidence discussing the notability of RFSHQ compared to RA2 Forums (unofficial). I will post this when I report him if he vandalizes again. 65.68.248.105 01:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

(5/6/06) - Look, just shut up. We're defending our right to be in here, and someone's taking us out of the links. Where's my mention, I added that link atleast 7 times. - Redline

(5-6-06) - You can keep your link at the bottom. You are not entitled, however, to your own section in this article. Your forums have done absolutely NOTHING noteworthy in the community and your "section" in the RA2 Article and in the "RA2 Forums" article reads like a horrible 12 year old's advertisement. RFSHQ is a lot more notable than the unofficial forums (that were made 2 years after the release of the game) and it doesn't have it's own article. Why? Because while it's notable in RA2 Land, it ISN'T world-wide notable.

I see your link at the bottom of the page. I do not see your little advertisement article. That is fine. I don't see any vandalism here anymore. I'm not going to remove the link. If you would have replaced the RFSHQ section with "This Website Sucks" then yes, I would have done so because you all are acting like immature kids. RFSHQ has produced many high-class mods for the Robot Arena 2 game, and any way you cut it, it is landmark in RA2.

Technex is on his last straw anyways with Wikipedia Vandalism warnings. If you quit screwing up the article and actually DO something really big for RA2, then you can earn yourself a spot here. 65.68.248.105 21:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

(5/8/06) Even we're confused down our forum. Technex (down there? Is the Wiki account fake?) apparently isn't doing this at all. But if you call us immature then I will stand to your challenge. Maybe we are actually kids but in the virtual world wisdom owns all - I've been camping at my computer 67 hours a week for the last year. 24455 hours on the PC, read it and weep on it. - Redline

(5/9/06) The fact that you "camp out" at your computer frightens me. Whoever keeps adding in the SECTION for your forums, stop. You can keep the link, but the forums themselves (and users) are not notable enough in the community, unless of course you want to be noted for the problems the forums have caused. 70.255.13.25 18:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

(5/8/06) (Uh... its still the 8th in UK) Yeah, it is frightening sometimes, but incases like these it helps to be on all the time. In the case of Tactical Ops (Another Infogrammes/Atari game) I hung out on servers for 14 hours with only 2 stops, 10AM to dead 12. I destoried everyone, and the time online gives me a advantage of no-break learning and familiarization. There are somethings that can require patience, like Robot Arena 2, where building skills come in... - Redline once more.

(8/15/06) - Since I don't do anything anymore, I'd thought I'd update the Technex forum link. 'Twas broken, in case anyone cares. -Duh102

(11/25/06) - There is a lot of on and off modifcation regarding the Unofficial RA2 Forums and RFSHQ sections in this article. I suggest the users that are removing each other sections and/or replacing each others sections to cease. Wikipedia is not your war waging sandbox.--65.188.226.131 07:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

(12/6/06) - Thank you very much for saying that. However, RFSHQ and it's creators are all notable modders in Robot Arena 2's history, and even though the website is no longer an all-RA2 website, the history of the site remains. The Unofficial RA2 Forums, which semi-alive today, have done absolutely nothing to help the community, and for the most part, the forum's owner is not well-liked at all in ANY of the remaining communities. Wikipedia's been notified SEVERAL times about the vandalism that Unofficial RA2 Forums has been doing, and nothing has been done on Wikipedia's end. (URA2F at one in time added in a lengthy advertisement to both the Robot Arena and Robot Arena 2 articles, along with taking out other sections of the articles just because they do not like or agree with them.) Please see this link here for what was sent to Wikipedia: http://www.rfshq.com/rfs_stuff/uploads/technex.doc RadioFSoftware 04:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Trouble With Sitations

I Suck at citations? can anyone clean the citations up for me, i need the [1] next to where the current link is the the BBEANS part

cheatbot

can someone tell me how to use the cheatbot thing on teh game? Ootmc ^{SignhereTalktome} 16:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You need the downloaded Patch to upgrade the game. Once you have it, type in your robot's name as "cheatbot2" and hit Enter. You will hear an evil laugh and the screen will blink. Check the Mechanics section and you will have 4 secret parts. Hope this helps. - Radio F Software

AAM removal

somebody (infiniteinertia i think on the forums) keeps on removing the information of AAM. At first it was a reasonable, professional looking removal, but know it had become "the mothos of aam'ing shall be revealed to no-one". i think we should protect this page from edits, as AAM is a valid technique and should be common knowledge. Wouldyoulikeacookie 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Game Glitch

Exit the screen where you repair your robot between battles, then load the saved game. You will have the full repair time and any repairs you already made will be saved. This effectively gives you infinite repair time between battles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.175.173 (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum--Jeffery (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I was just wondering if it should be included in the article as I have never seen it mentioned before 69.92.185.49 (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC).

Lack of Citations

Why is this supposedly true? 84.92.140.217 (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of material

I just removed a whole chunk of material from the article -- extensive information about fan pages, unofficial mods, non-notable tournaments, etc. Most of it was unsourced and none of it was particularly relevant to an encyclopedia entry. There might be a lot going on with the game but it doesn't all belong in the article. If there are some reliable third-party sources that talk about any of this then it can be re-added. Until that point it's what we call WP:FANCRUFT. ... discospinster _talk 20:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the article, but I was not aware of the Fancruft policy. If you could keep the info up while I look to rewrite it to meet guidelines better, I think we'll come to a better agreement. 84.92.140.217 (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

All of the prior versions are available in the article's history. You can see what was written before and then re-add any notable information. ... discospinster _talk 00:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good

IMO we should leave it be now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sypher878 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wiki as source

I read your edit summary. Wikis aren't allowed as sources here except under very special circumstances. For example, if the wiki was totally controlled by the producer, with no public editing, then it might be acceptable as a source. Otherwise players will just have to find that type of information on the wiki and other websites, not here. That's not what Wikipedia is for. It's for a short description based on reliable sources. For gaming that would be producers and gaming magazines. They could be used as sources to justify inclusion of some content. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what makes wikis unreliable sources. Our RA2 wiki can only be edited by established members of the gametechmods community, which is now effectively the official forums. 84.92.140.217 (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. To get clearance for including that link you'll need to get approval at this board: WP:RS/N. Start a thread there and present your arguments. If they approve, great. Until then we can't include it. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. 84.92.140.217 (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Now, I don't want to look like an idiot or anything, so hear me out.

I have been lurking on this page once every 2 months or so for the past 6 years and have begun to notice a recurring patern in the recent edits and talk threads being started on this page. I am an avid player of this game so I know the gist of what I'm talking about but I am attempting to be unbiased in the next several paragraphs.

The first thing I would like to get across is, are the people that keep reverting the article into the cut down version that it has been in for the past 2 years actually knowledgable about the game in question? There are multiple yet very good reasons why you wouldn't pick a gardener off the street and demand him to become a professional dancer in a televised competition within a week, and I strongly feel the same should apply to Wikipedia. Now if the person performing the reversions knows this game sufficiently and has played it long enough to get the gist of it, then I apologise for dragging you into this mess, and you can disregard everything after this full stop. If this group of people I'm referring to HASN'T, however, then I'm sorry, but who are you to judge what is notable about this video game or not? 1 of these 3 things that I'm about to mention NEED to happen to this page ASAP:

• A) This page is deleted, in accordance with WP:IMPORTANCE
• B) This page is reverted to a similar state as it was before December 2010, when a certain person got his unrelenting hands on it.
• C) The page is extended, as many people feel it does not cover the game in sufficient detail.

Any way you look at it, this article is way too small to provide even the simplest details of what it is about. Look at these examples of smaller, considerably less known games below to see what I'm talking about:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD_%28video_game%29
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeneRally_%28video_game%29
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwirk
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Tomato

Notice a recurring theme here? I doubt that these games have a higher notability rating compared to Robot Arena 2, yet their respective articles contain a whole host of information about the game despite not having much to talk about. I wouldn't want to add a considerable amount to the article, but at least allow enough to make a generously sized article. What the official forum would like to add is detailed below:

1. Pictures, at least 2, preferably one of the cover and one of gameplay, as currently there are a stunning figure of zero, yes zero, images displayed on the article.
2. Information about the history of the game, as the article mentions almost nothing about official forums, absolutely zero on the AceUplink or Radio F Software communities, and doesn't seem to mention the V1.3 patch that was later released to fix Multiplayer and Tag-Team modes.
3. More citations and links, as the article only contains a staggering amount of 4 in total at the moment. May I suggest links for Gabriel Interactive and the RA2 TV advert from early 2003?

I mean, I don't want to look like an idiot or anything but this video game's article is simply underwritten, especially when compared with games of more obscurity or similar notability. I would like a response as the entire official community is waiting for a decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.71.117 (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added two additional references. I will try to find more if possible.Timur9008 (talk) 9:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)