Talk:Warzone 2100

Inaccuracy in the Gameplay section

Also, its resource system is quite different from mainstream RTS games; Oil Derricks are established over specific, scarce locations which constantly provide a slow, fixed rate of income. Combined with a mission time limit, this resource method prevents players from simply waiting for long periods of time to amass surplus resources and ridiculously large armies.

• The section in bold is highly inaccurate - with proper time management, it is possible to do both. However, doing it in the traditional manner (simply waiting in your base and letting enemy forces come to you and be shredded by your defenses and in-base units, a/k/a "turtling") is not possible. Thus, I've changed the bolded section in the main article to reflect this. --Special Operative MACAVITY^{Debrief me} 16:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to briefly define the traditional RTS tactic that is impossible in this game, as the uninitiated might be unfamiliar with the practice of "turtling." Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be exact, this is quite possible in some of the earlier missions with no time limit. The first half of Alpha 3, for instance, is nearly ideal for this kind of thing. --Zarel (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've finally gotten around to rewriting the section in order to clarify the situation regarding traditional RTS gameplay and WZ2100. --Special Operative MACAVITY^{Debrief me} 01:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Earth 2150 references

All these Earth 2150 references are really inappropriate, bordering on original research. They're not directly related games; they're just in the same genre. A mention of some similarity according to reliable, third-party sources is fine, but the point by point comparison that takes place later in the document seems to me a violation of policy, not to mention pretty pointless. Xihr 23:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots

Not a single image for this game? Hmm... ^Oddity-_{User Talk} 06:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you add some? We'd appreciate it. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Commercial or proprietary?

User Fleetcommand doesn't seem to know that commercial isn't the opposite of free software. Proprietary is. There is plenty of commercial free software.

He reverted my changes with a hostile comment "Non-constructive edit with an unacceptable reason". Palosirkka (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

lol edit wars.

Either term is fine to me. "Commercial" may not be the opposite of "free", but Warzone in 1999 was both commercial or proprietary. "Proprietary" is probably slightly better since it's contrasted to Free software. --Zarel (talk⋅c) 03:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, Palosirkka

First and foremost, although I do understand that it is quite common to see newcomers misinterpreting reversions as hostile actions, you should understand that there was no hostility involved; it is simply a routine in Wikipedia called BRD cycle. If you stay with us for a while, you'll see that we Wikipedians revert each other's edits with confidence and then discuss it in a very friendly manner. What we never do here is edit warring. You'll get used to it. Also, we are quite used to sending curt messages to one another and we know that it is neither impertinent nor an act of hostility.

Second, discussing antonyms is completely out of context here. It is the message of the article that must be considered. The message is that the computer game was originally sold for profit but the company further changed it into a community project. Replacing "commercial" with "proprietary" damages this message because proprietary software that are available free of charge are quite common and upgrading the license of such software into GPL is merely a form of advertisement.

Fleet Command (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and by way, please mind your message title. Don't use such vague title as "edit waring", "hi", "explain yourself" or "Help!" in your messages. Message heading should briefly explain the problem, not your interpretation of what the problem is or who is to blame. In Wikipedia we often focus on what the problem is than who is to blame. Doing so make disputes resolution easier for all involved parties. Fleet Command (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to the BRD cycle but the tone of the quoted comment, re-read what I wrote above. And the price is not the issue or interesting in any way. I'm happy to economically support people making high quality software, as long as it is free software. On the other hand, even if you'd offer me proprietary software for free, I wouldn't have any use for it. Curiously many misunderstandings here. Palosirkka (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

First, if you think my tone of "Non-constructive edit with an unacceptable reason" is hostile, report me to Noticeboard; they will ban me for eternity if they too think it is hostile.

Second, you are the first person to say such a thing about software and I'm happy to get to know such an open-minded person. In time, I think it is best to reach a compromise by writing "proprietary commercial" and be done with it. What do you say?

Fleet Command (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

BRD doesn't work that way. :P

"BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense."

"BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing."

Your first revert was not edit warring. Your second revert was. BRD doesn't change that. :P --Zarel (talk⋅c) 08:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember even mentioning BRD as a reason for my second reversion. My second reversion was reversion of an undo (of a non-vandalism edit) which had no edit summary. We are now talking peacefully and are close to reaching a consensus and no edit war is currently in progress. If you wish to help, I really think you shouldn't fan the flames: Concentrate on the problem not on the blame. Fleet Command (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with using both terms together. Palosirkka (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ecessive removal of the later hisotry

Eik Correl removed excessively the later hisotry of the legal and authorized open sourcing of the game. I will fix this unfounded removal. Shaddim (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Source

• https://web.archive.org/web/20000521110240/http://videogames.gamespot.com/features/universal/warzone2100_dd/index.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyBlackwing (talk • contribs)

Reviews

• Envoyer #34

207.229.139.154 (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

References