Talk:Sins of a Solar Empire/Archive 1

Archive 1

Introduction

The introductory paragraph seems more like an advertisement than a introduction, and doesn't flow very well. Could someone please rewrite it? ^Talk User:Fissionfox 06:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Grid Box for the ship list

The title explains it all Estarrol (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Genre

I havnt seen any source that indicate that this is should be a RTT. I know that it not in the spirte of wikipedia to do original research but i have seen the beta(version 3) of the game have and it look and plays like a RTS. --Peter.Wille 23:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Beta Section

Removing the beta section because the game is gold and hits retail in 2 days. Beta section is pointless and irrelevant.66.26.82.58 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.82.58 (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently I have to submit to some idiotic draconian registration scheme before an edit like that could be permanent. Maybe someone else could do what some idiot's automated bot prevents me from doing.66.26.82.58 (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not a bot and you must fill your edit summary with a reason when you remove content, or link to the talk page. You don't need to create an account for editing but I assure that it's very easy to create an account. Concerning the beta section, it's part of the history of the game, no? -- Cenarium (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a part of the history of the game, it's part of the development of the game. That may seem like a silly distinction to you, but the game doesn't really have any history because it hasn't been released. No other game article that I've ever seen contains dates for private betas. We could fill article upon article with all sorts of useless information having no connection to anything in the real world, I guess. By the way, you weren't the bot I was referring to. After I came here and explained the removal and removed the beta section again, an automated bot re-inserted the beta section AGAIN.66.26.82.58 (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaking, User:Aitias is not a bot either and the edit summary was empty [1]. Concerning the beta section, I tend to agree with you. By the way, what do you mean with "the game is gold" ?-- Cenarium (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Gold" is when pre-retail software development is complete: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_release#Gold_or_general_availability_release 66.26.82.58 (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would someone with no knowledge of video game jargon bother arguing a point in a video game article? 99.160.9.165 (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I was not arguing about the content of the article, I was arguing about the fact that content should not be removed without explanation. Cenarium (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Demo?

Does anyone know if/when a demo will be release? -- Imperator3733 (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Why should we care about the demo if the game is already out >.> Estarrol (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Because some people like to try things before they buy them. Hence the entire freaking point of a demo.67.100.31.30 (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC) The demo is just a smaller,simpler form of the game it has no unique features to the real game, so we dont have add stuff to the demo aside from the Date Estarrol (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

the demo is free dude. duh? that's why people get the demo first and not the game. not everybody is goddamn rich. some people have to you know, pay for lots of bills and stuff, and so you know, actually buy a 40$ game is kind of expensive, whereas a demo is free. harharhar. thats why we care about the demo. so we dont have to shell out forty irreplaceable dollars on a game that might not be to our taste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.209.42 (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the demo link was removed? I just undid that edit. I would think that some people would want that link available. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for it. If they want the demo ask them to use search engine. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiplayer Features

We should add that

Definitely. Online multiplayer is a very important aspect of the game. Perhaps the section could eventually be expanded to tell folks where they can find the online multiplayer community--on Stardock's IRC server and other places, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhipperSnapper (talk • contribs) 16:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ship list?

Is this really nessacery? Remember, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a game guide.67.100.31.30 (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a game guide, but descriptive content is okay. We have a lot of stuff on chess gambits and football rules. Shy away from giving tips and you should do fine.
That said, I disagree with having a ship list on other grounds. It doesn't really tell the reader anything but their names. --Kizor 07:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if someone can create another page that contains the capital ships names i can fill in the respected info,weapons etc. Eve online has a similar page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estarrol (talk • contribs) 17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two english wiki's that would probably be a better place to include a detailed ship list. They are included in the External Links section. The standalone wiki already has a ship page that could easily be expanded with details for individual ships. Nipoez (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations

I have twice removed content from this article that was taken from other websites, in violation of copyright. Please be very careful that any content you add is not taken from elsewhere. Of course, Wikipedia does not allow original research, but that just means information should be cited via a reliable source. Also, it is worth reading WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information so, say, a list of ship names would not be appropriate here. That's not to say that critical commentary on a specific ship would be out of place, of course, provided that this is not original research. But Wikipedia is not a game guide; there's at least one other wiki site set up for that wrt Sins. --Yamla (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Wikipedia is not, as Yamla keeps pointing out, a game guide. There are 3 other sites that are building game guides. Two are English language wiki's with comparable levels of content. One is a German language wiki with much more content than either English wiki.

I think that all three pages should be included as external references. After all, if Wikipedia is not a game guide, but rather a reference, shouldn't it provide access to the game guides? Yamla requested that I discuss this change on the Talk page before including the links. What do people think, should all links be included, only the English links, or only one? If only one should be included, how and who should choose which one should be used? English wiki 1: http://www.soasewiki.com/ English wiki 2: http://sinsofasolarempire.wikia.com German wiki: http://soase.wikidot.com

Nipoez (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Mass Effect article at Wikipedia is a good example, in my opinion, of providing access to all viable game guide wiki's in the External Links section.

Nipoez (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to link to a foreign language source in most cases, and definitely so here. See WP:EL. It may be appropriate to add a German link to the German version of this article, however. Mass Effect is not a good example of an appropriate set of external links. In fact, it is a rather bad example. Indeed, it is generally inappropriate to link to external wiki sites, though in some cases an exception may be appropriate. --Yamla (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the issue with the German language wiki; that is an excellent point. If I may ask for further clarification, why is the English Wikia alright to include as an external reference, when the standalone English wiki is not? I confess to still being a bit confused by the intersection of the stance against both Wikipedia becoming a game guide, and Wikipedia becoming a set of external links. It seems to me that one way to avoid the game guide tendency is to provide access to the appropriate resources. When there is more than one viable resource, I don't see why only one should be included. Nipoez (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL, Links normally to be avoided, point 13. I'm not sure which specific links fall prey to this point, I'm just pointing it out. --Yamla (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to point 13. This is a new game, and the official documentation lacks specific details that new players need. Considering the game released the first week of Febuary, it is doubtful that any wiki (or guide site) could possibly meet the criteria of point 13.

After reviewing WP:EL, I still believe that in this context the links to the two english wiki's are appropriate. Consider "What should be linked" (points 3 & 4), and "Links to be considered" (point 4). Both English wiki's have relevant, meaningful, and accurate information. Because there is no official location for the relevant information, we cannot provide a link to that (which would be preferable). As shown by the history of edits you have been removing, there is a strong community desire to have access to a game guide and reference (or to develop one because there is no official version). Unless Wikipedia provides an outlet to the appropriate resource, it will probably continue to be used in this undesirable measure. Specific game details are pulled from the game itself; there is no more knowledgeable source for factual information in this context. Nipoez (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If the consensus of the other editors here is that these two should be added, I will not oppose it. However, this would require a positive affirmation. Let's give it a week. If a few other editors pipe in with support in the next day or so and there's no substantial opposition, I'm happy to accept the addition at that time (i.e. I'm not saying a week is the minimum time or anything). --Yamla (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

With the weekend coming up, I imagine many more people will be picking up this game & needing access to a reference. Unless I see any new editors raising objections by noon pst today, I think I will add the wiki links back in.

Nipoez, there was no consensus whatsoever to add these links which violate WP:EL back to the article. Please do not readd them unless you can get a consensus of other editors. --Yamla (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about concensus, but I for one think the links would be a good idea (although I am biased, as I edit on one of the wikis). All of the information and fancruft that really shouldn't end up here on the Wikipedia article is being entered there, making them a valuable resource to the community, certainly as valuable as links to reviews of the game are. Strideth (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I support the presence of both English wikis as external links, for now at least. The German wiki should be included on the German version of this article. GreenReaper (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone rewrite this

Finally Capital Ship crews are needed to Field Capital ships are like Supply Points you need to research them to increase the amount or research Military Technology in the tech tree, to Field more crews but unlikes Supply points increasing the Crews will not Increase your upkeep as your typical Capital ship needs a lot of supply points. 83.228.34.75 (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Forget what this guy just said rewrite the entire thing. Its writen like a advertisment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.41.21 (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, many sections need completely reworking. Zapateria (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Modes

This article does not mention gameplay modes, such as single-player and multiplayer, or document the differences between modes, such as Internet, LAN, Player vs. Computer, etc.

Something like this (although I have NO idea if anything I've written here applies to this game, as I have never played it):

===Modes===
There are two modes, single player and multiplayer.

====Single-Player====
The single-player mode is based on a story... blah blah blah...

====Multiplayer====
Play online via Battle.net, over LAN... etc...

=====Conquest=====
Gametype where the last player standing... blah blah blah...

=====Supremacy=====
etc.

It would be extremely helpful if someone could add a section like this. -- OranL (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there aren't any modes besides single player and multi UEF Soldier (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

The article look so boring without any images. Someone please add boxart and ingame pictures. I personally am bored of adding pictures to wikipedia. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Reception

Added a line about the player critism and 4x, referenced to an official Ironclad thread with replies from company staff and game developer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoalaMeatPie (talk • contribs) 16:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC) --69.55.244.171 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Romeving a line about "RTS on the box" as it is not accountable for the majority of game sales threw downloads, and the fact that On the inside panel it says "4x" in big bold letters. --69.55.244.171 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

- Forum source reliable as it is a conglomorate of the criticism of players. --69.55.244.171 (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Europe

I'm surprised that there is no mention of there not being a publisher for anywhere outside of North America. I've just spent the last 30 minutes trying to see why I can't seem to buy SOASE anywhere to finally find that it's impossible other than via totalgaming.net! --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 23:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You make this sound like a problem. We do offer international shipping. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I now know this, but having looked for 30 mins (and wiki being one of the first places I looked!) I think it could be something useful to include in the article. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 05:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

They have hired an european vendor, and it will be available in europe shortly. UEF Soldier (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Factions

the factions section needs to be cleaned up a lot, but i'm not sure how to word it correctly. [2]

UEF Soldier (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Factions

It sort of looks like the factions in this game resemble those of Supreme Commander. Someone might want to point it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.117.226 (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

MMORPGs in Space?

Does anyone know why this game is listed under the aformentioned category?

Radora (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Production costs, no supporting information

There is a claim that the game cost "less than 1 million dollars to make", eg Gamespot. This is widely published and quoted here. The supporting link, from Gamasutra, simply says:

Sins of a Solar Empire cost less than a million dollars to make

So is there a geniune source for this with supporting evidence? I'll mark it up as a questionable fact. It sounds to me like the distributor, Stardock, maybe paid the production company, Ironclad Games, 1 million USD for the exclusive rights for the game? This isn't really the same thing as saying it cost 1 million USD to make. Anyone got info to add? Pbhj (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Entrenchment Update

I updated the section on the micro-expansion "Entrenchment" at the bottom of the page to reflect that it HAS BEEN released since mid-December. I'm currently at work so I was unable to do sufficient research to find a source to quote. If anyone will take the time I'd appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.110.232.190 (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's in Beta, not due for release until 11 February. Canterbury Tail talk 23:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Pirates

Shouldn't there be some mention of the pirates on the "Races" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tortinshaar (talk • contribs) 16:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Expansions

The page says that there will be two expansions but I'm fairly sure in one of the interviews about entrenchment they said there would be three Tortinshaar (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)