Talk:Ragnarok Online

Ragnarok Is Here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:3404:B269:E5C5:9556:8A83:7DC0 (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Version number

Could someone who understands Korean check the Korean version number? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.ragnarok.co.kr/

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 71.251.1.27 (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2011‎

Private Server Section

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: http://www.adultimum.net/rw/soappserv.htm (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. 180.193.42.165 (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

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! ^Jguy_Talk^Done 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 sure...my english is not that good...

http://www.playragnarok.com/news/updatedetail.aspx?id=173&p=1

Noted by Curious Onlooker

Private servers

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 雲‍水 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)

Verifiable

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 雲‍水 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 雲‍水 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 雲‍水 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 雲‍水 08:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Court documents

Per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:DUE, we must have secondary sources to report on a court case. We cannot use court documents for this purpose - and even if we could, the citation in question does not support the statements of opinion that are being inserted into the article. MrOllie (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding more unreliable sources has not addressed the fundamental problems of WP:OR and WP:V, as well as the POV editorializing. Reliable sourcing is the foundation of Wikipedia editing, and the content here simply is not supported by them. MrOllie (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe there was much if any POV editorializing that was presented.

"Reliable sourcing is the foundation of Wikipedia editing" that's why I also provided a official statement as a source. While they do not specifically state the names of whom they'll be taking legal action against, they do state taking legal action on private servers regardless. So with that and the addition to the court documents that follow up no more than 2 weeks after is still significant evidence of private server impact. There are 2 private server talk topics that ultimately favor the mention of private servers to some degree. 4ReeZy (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll cite a specific example: Which source categorizes this as a 'feud'? MrOllie (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, discussions from more than a decade ago do not support what you are trying to add now. - MrOllie (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, the discussions from more than a decade ago do infact support what I'm trying to add to some degree because overall, they want some sort of 'mention' of private servers. This is one of the best ways to go about it neutrally as it's simply stating factual actions that occurred against some during specific dates. 4ReeZy (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Discussion from a decade ago supports precisely nothing. You cannot claim support from editors who are no longer involved in the page. MrOllie (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

You claim 'no' with extreme surety. Does the discussions from a decade ago supports what I'm specifically trying add? No, however loosely, yes, it does. More people have expressed that they want private servers to be mentioned than not. What I'm trying to add includes the mention of Private Servers and how Gravity precisely took action against them/specific ones.; simple.

I respect your persistency and what not for accuracy, but you seem to be steadily moving the goal posts. You can't fully dismiss past posts/expression from editors who were involved.

Jan 25, 2009, user:Resplendent expressed [[Talk:Ragnarok Online#Private Server Section:~:text=[reply]-,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|"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."]]

On that same day, user:Sylvena who seem to be in a debate with user:Resplendent says "Fine, I agree that they should be included in an article on Ragnarok Online." - Do note there seems to had been a discussion that either happened elsewhere between these 2 users, or, has been scrubbed. Either or, came to conclusion that they (Private Servers), should be included.

2010, user:Hamhamman "[[Talk:Ragnarok Online#Private Server Section:~:text=[reply]-,The private servers are still not mentioned. What is up with that?,-Hamhamman (talk|The private servers are still not mentioned. What is up with that?]]"

In 2014, user/ip 174.16.193.128 says: "Mention of their struggles with private servers,"

This is 4 entities, 5 including myself that has already expressed wanting an inclusion of private servers. Inclusion of private servers are ultimately in favor. This is not including those involved on what we had on your talk page and mine, than it would essentially be 6. On the other hand, there seems to be only 1 person against this; you. As the other people (2) who came to your defense prior didn't come to put an input on Ragnarok Online and whether/how private servers should be mention, but instead to deal with our previous scuffle and enforce wp:PA and remind me of wp:editing. 4ReeZy (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It is common on arguments on the internet to claim that people who are not commenting actually support you - but that never works, and it is definitely not how Wikipedia discussion works. Feel free to get clarification at WT:CONSENSUS or WP:TEAHOUSE if you don't believe me. MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the links for further clarification, however, I will not be needing that. A lot of things are 'common on the internet'. However, what you described is not what's occurring. These are user/editor comments. Past tense. Based off these users past comments, it loosely supports what I'm trying to do now. Mentioning of. Not necessarily supporting me entirely, if that's what you're implying.

I've already acknowledged their comments don't support my specific way of going about mentioning it, but neither does it go against it either.

4ReeZy (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

it loosely supports what I'm trying to do now No. What someone said more than a decade ago in no way supports, loosely or otherwise, your edits today.

I've already acknowledged their comments don't support my specific way of going about mentioning it, but neither does it go against it either. Right - They are irrelevant. MrOllie (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

{{No. What someone said more than a decade ago in no way supports, loosely or otherwise, your edits today.}} What about it doesn't support my edits? {{in no way}} ?

{{Right - They are irrelevant.}} And how are they irrelevant? I've explained how they are relevant. You've just been saying {{No.}}. 4ReeZy (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay; while neither source specifically states 'feud' specifically, the official statement does include "Regarding" private servers. In which I'd assume you'd had already known that if you fact checked the source. I believe you are adding a harsh definition to the word 'feud' as I see no POV editorializing by using 'feud against' as a replacement. 4ReeZy (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The sources have to actually support the added content, and these clearly do not - the stuff you are adding cannot be found in the source. This is the basic requirement of Wikipedia's sourcing policies that you are not meeting. And so there are no misunderstandings later - please note that this is only the first, most basic requirement content must meet. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. MrOllie (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Alrighty then, so instead; I will ask, how do they not support the added content? What is it that I'm trying to add that cannot be found on the source? Can we start trimming down this article then and start removing anything unsourced? You seem to have kept my unsourced 'praise' of the game via the Reception segment, but yet extremely hasty to remove documented dates on actions against private servers that occurred. Why didn't you revert that edit, among the unsourced game scores as well, including IGN? Your answer(s) will determine a lot and get me to a closer understanding of not just what Wikipedia deems viable, but a seasoned editor like yourself. 4ReeZy (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

As you just said while neither source specifically states 'feud' specifically. The cites have to 'specifically' support the content. Not something kinda sorta similar. Not in combination, because that is forbidden by policy. And they must be sources that meet WP:RS requirements. Not court documents, which we don't use here. This is basic policy stuff. Again, go ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE if you have read these policies and still don't understand how to apply them.

I'm not really interested in discussing other edits that I might or might not revert with you. MrOllie (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

So I ask, if I replace the word 'feud' with 'regarding' instead, will it be fine? As then, it'll be word to word that the official source headline states.

I provided more sources aside from the court docs anyway that more than enough support the same thing I wrote.

You're not interested in discussing other edits that you did (not might), have with me? That just throws wp:editing and what you're trying to help enforce out the window. WP:WQ. You acknowledge that there's unsourced information that 'praises' the game on this page and is willing to keep it but yet seem to show persistency in trying to remove neutral dated listings. Don't you think this shows a level of selective information processing?

I truly suggest we start trimming down this article and it's other unsourced/unreliable information. 4ReeZy (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

No. 'feud' is an example, as I said. The problems run through your addition in total, from top to bottom. I provided more sources aside from the court docs anyway that more than enough support the same thing I wrote. The basic problem here is 1) The sources do not in fact support the content and 2) Adding together lots of unreliable sources does not make them reliable in aggregate. We need actually reliable sources that stand on their own.

That I have not fixed every problem on Wikipedia (or in this article) at once does not mean I cannot fix the problems with this addition. Discussing the rest of the article with you will not be productive until you gain an understanding of and willingness to comply with the relevant Wikipedia policies. MrOllie (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that the problems run through my entire addition. Top to bottom? Absurd. 1) what source(s) do not factually support what content? and 2) what are sources are specifically unreliable? Court docs can be used, but needs to be backed by a secondary source. You even stated this yourself. This allows me and whoever views this to know how much you've fact checked the information provided.

{{That I have not fixed every problem on Wikipedia (or in this article)}} I have absolutely 0 clue on why you're mentioning wikipedia as a whole when we were ever only talking about this article. The edits were extremely close in time frame that I see almost no reason why'd you avoid reverting those as well. I have an understanding wikipedia policies and to condescendingly assume I don't isn't wp:wq. Comes off slightly wp:pa. This is the most productive we've been since our first interaction as it exposes to anyone viewing this the flaws on my end and yours in terms of going about this whole thing. Especially since the account you operate isn't a moderator but have history of enforcing Wikipedia's general policies and such 'mod-like', if you will. 4ReeZy (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I decline to repeat myself further. Misquoting me to myself is not going to convince me that you are correct, I know what I said. MrOllie (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

4ReeZy, here is a basic principle to follow: start by finding the best-quality sources that discuss a topic. Read what they have written, and produce a summary that accurately captures the main points in those sources, keeping in mind WP:SYNTH. Provided the result meets WP:DUE, then consider adding it. You appear to be going about things exactly backwards: you should decide on article content based on what good sources say, *not* try to dredge up just enough sourcing to support the content you’ve already decided to add. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)