Difference between revisions of "Talk:Servers"

Revision as of 21:52, 25 June 2008

Busy playing ATM, so just getting the data up. Needs more work . --StarGeek 15:49, 8 Feb 2006 (CST)

Wow, that was fast, I linked to the article and immediately wrote it, and I got a save conflict because you'd already saved the stub.  :-) I added some more information to it. I might come back later and add comments about server population and "role-playingness." I can't dig up any information yet about the Korean server(s), but if I can find something, I'll add it. ---TonyV 15:57, 8 Feb 2006 (CST)

At least you found the link to the knowledge base. I've looked for that so many times! And the only reason I was able to get it up so quickly is because Lady_Athyna had just posted it on the CoH boards and I was thinking about putting that info in the wiki anyway. --StarGeek 17:27, 8 Feb 2006 (CST)

Overview paragraph

There are currently 17 servers that run the City of Heroes and City of Villains game. 15 live servers and 2 test servers. The live servers are functionally identical, as are the test servers. However your Geographic location will be a determining factor as to which one you connect to. You must also have an active account appropriate to the server you're connecting to.

In North America, the live servers are: Champion, Freedom, Guardian, Infinity, Justice, Liberty, Pinnacle, Protector, Triumph, Victory, Virtue.

In Europe, the liver servers are: Defiant, Union, Vigilance, Zukunft (future).

The two test servers are both refered to as Training Room, one is in North America, one in Europe.

Bleh, it still looks odd. It needs to be more concise. I also can't seem to properly word this statement. "These servers, like most servers on the internet, are accessible from anywhere in the world. The only stipulation is that you have purchased the appropriate box for the geographic region you're connecting to." That is not entirely true as tehre are export laws and such. Curse my ineolquence. --Konoko 23:49, 16 March 2006 (PST)

Server nick names

>.> can we mark Freedom as the unfriendly server? I have a heck of a time getting anyone to talk to me on it. I see tons of ppl in atlas there, but when a new player ask a question, I seem to be the only one willing to answer them at all @.@

o,o well, that and Guardian is apparently the kitty and Hami raid server.. --Sleepy Kitty 23:29, 17 January 2007 (PST)

While a server nickname section seems to be irrevocably mired in NPOV-land, there are a few references that leave a bad taste in my mouth. Triumph: The bit about themed SGs seems pejorative and unverifiable. Victory: The bit about 'Badge Server'. Currently, Champion, Freedom, Guardian, Justice and Pinnacle have more characters in Badge-Hunter than Victory. Not that BH is definitive, but it is telling. Protector: The bit about blind invites. Again, pejorative and unverifiable. --Sapph 19:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

o.o yeah, a number of those are pretty off, I've never heard anyone refer to guardian as the redheaded step child server either.. when it was down, it was usually along with several others.. My above posts where mostly in jest (though, Guardian does seem to have more cats on it than anywhere else..), as far as badges though, we'll certainly be able to tell soon when City Vault goes live.--Sleepy Kitty 21:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I made a few changes in response to your comments, Sapph, in an attempt to mitigate some of the bits your pointed out as well as some others. -- Sekoia 00:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Thanks. --Sapph 01:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep it positive

Let's keep the server nicknames friendly, folks. I just rolled back some changes where someone had inserted references to a "noob" server and a bunch of "dead" servers. I don't care if you don't like particular servers, I have my least favorites, too. But let's keep the trolling confined to the official forums, please. --TonyV 16:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since it wasn't clear the first time, I'm not going to have references to "dead" servers in this article. It's derogatory, judgmental, and completely subjective. The only "dead" server is one that literally has a population of zero, and this isn't the case for any server. Please do not add this back in again. --TonyV 05:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Infinity and Protector

Neither Infinity nor Protector have entries in the "nicknames" section. Do they not have any? O.O I'm an Infinity player but I don't regular the official forums well enough to know how it's known. -- Sekoia 14:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

7 Day Protection

In order to prevent the "dead server" references from returning, I've put a 7-day protection on the article. If you wish to see those changes made, please discuss them here. If you have any other changes you wish to see, please request them on the talk page and an admin can make them -- or wait until the protection expires. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Sekoia 15:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not surprising to see in something 'anyone can edit' there's always an oligarchy whose opinions are put above everyone else and will lock down anything they can to stop dissenting views. --Shinyblcklatexkitty 09:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

LOLz.--GreyDog 14:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dissent would be arguing that Triumph is 'not friendly'. The only 'dead' servers are from City of Hero (Korea). Catwhoorg 17:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Gasp! Triumph, my dear sweet home, not friendly? Well, I did get one person recently that went in to some tirade about me having a slow computer and playing slow then wanted to 'kill' me (he was quick to say not me but my character). He was immediately ignored and I have not seen him since. It was a rather disturbing incident, especially after only a day or two before he started asking me very personal questions... some people, I guess. -Blue Orchid 18:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

o.o actually, no, not "anyone can edit" we strongly discourage people who have never heard of the game and only speak piglatin from editing. Aside from that, the reason for such lock downs (temporarily too, instead of perm) is like having a camera pointed at a wall that ppl like to graffiti on. We simply require the graffitier to do complicated murals instead of just writing their name.

Marking something as dead is an opinion, and isn't suppose to be on the page.. Putting dead on their with an explanation or as a mark for a removed server.. The complaint is that "dead" is wrong, we strive for correct information, which in this case, would be "low population level" or something similar. --Sleepy Kitty 19:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not your personal wiki nor your personal soapbox, Shiny. You were being disruptive to the page. This isn't about suppressing dissenting views. This is about your refusal to enter into dialog on the matter despite being asked to, your refusal to respect or seek community consensus, and your refusal to present material in an objective fashion. If you would like to be reasonable and actually discuss this, perhaps (though not guaranteed) a compromise can be found that might express some of what you're looking to include. However, repeatedly putting questionable material back on a page and refusing to talk about it makes you look like you're just trying to instigate problems. Your response here only strengthens that appearance.

By the way, if we were trying to suppress dissenting views, why on earth are we inviting you to discuss this? If we were looking to suppress you, we would have blocked your account (which only affects you) rather than protecting the page (which affects everyone). The point in protecting rather than blocking was to give you an opportunity to actually participate constructively so that your opinions wouldn't be completely shut out. An opportunity you seem to be wasting, which is quite unfortunate. -- Sekoia 00:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion being dissenting isn't what got your edits reverted. Your opinions being pejorative is. Rest assured that if someone came here posting that your server sucked, we would exercise the same editorial control. (And contrary to what you apparently believe, calling a server "dead" carries the connotation that it sucks.) What you're doing is not editing, it's demeaning other servers, and that makes it vandalism. As administrators of the wiki, it's our responsibility to ensure that it remains a useful resource for everyone and to prevent such vandalism. --TonyV 02:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"demeaning other servers"? They aren't people... In those cases "dead" is perfectly accurate as anyone who actually plays on EU would know! Ok, extremely low population, extremely low usage, whatever, it's the same meaning, I don't get why dead is so "offensive" when it's just a fact - if you don't believe me go make a trial account and see for yourself! The other EU servers apart from Union have such a low amount of people it's a ghost town --Shinyblcklatexkitty 07:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The short version is that "dead", "low-population", and whatnot are opinions. They aren't officially designated that by NCsoft, and there's no community consensus that those terms accurately describe the servers. Describing the servers as such actively dissuades people from playing on them, and we're not going to do that. Believe me, there are several nicknames I would give other servers, but this isn't the place for that. --TonyV 13:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Overhaul

I just made a rather substantial reorganization of the article. There were two key things I tried to address.

• Repetition. The previous format listed all of the server names in three places. This seemed unnecessary. The overview does not need the server names, they can go in the main article body; thus I removed them from the overview. Also, the server descriptions do not need to be in a section separate from the server listings; thus, I merged the two sections. The net effect of this is (in my opinion) a cleaner, concise article.

• Neutrality/Objectiveness. I tried to trim out anything that seemed like it fell purely in the realm of unprovable speculation. I tried to reword other opinion-like things to emphasize that they were not fact, with phrases like "many in the community think" or "has a reputation among many in the community for". It's fine to report what people think, as long as we're not stating it as fact when it's not. (In other words, it's fine to say that people in the community refer to Triumph as a friendly server [if they actually do so], but it's not appropriate for us to state "Triumph is a friendly server.") Also, the servers are now alphabetized -- the former "nicknames" list had them in an arbitrary random order which seemed inappropriate (as who knows what people may read into it).

Hopefully this addresses some of the concerns alluded to by others about neutrality. I also mentioned for Vigilance and Zukunft that they each have very low server populations, which hopefully will sufficiently address the point Shiny was trying to include.

If you see anything in the article that you find objectionable or inappropriate, please say so so that it can be remedied. If you have any comments or concerns about the new article structure (or about anything else), please share those as well. Thanks. -- Sekoia 08:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What is with the "friendly rivalry" thing, I know you aren't the one that wrote that, you just keep adding it back in, someone else added that but I can't find who.. There can be no "rivalry" because there are practically no players for anyone to talk to! Defiant is just as dead (sorry.... "low population" in case I offend a machine made of metal or players that take anything to a computer server FOR A GAME personally...) as Zukunft or Vigilance, when the server move option got added it got even more so... --Shinyblcklatexkitty 09:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I play on the European servers, and have alts on both. Although admittedly, the majority of my alts are on Union, this is only because when I first started playing with a group of friends back in issue 4, the idea of a "roleplaying server" (which existed even back then) appealed to all of us, and so that's where we started. Defiant may not be populated as Union is, but population spikes on both servers at different times for obvious reasons, and nowhere is it 'dead'. Quick test on heroes, at 3:50pm (while people are still at work or at school) found 245 people on Union heroes and 150 people on Defiant heroes. The test doesn't include villains. Granted, Union has more people, but Defiant still has quite a number of people too. Roleplaying exists on both servers, as the name "Unofficial roleplaying server" is indeed, unofficial for such a reason. An example of friendly rivalry is the fairly regular Union vs Defiant PvP events, which take place on test servers. It's 'friendly' because nobody really takes it seriously and goes hardcore all over it (unlike the US PvP forums, yikes!), but on the EU forums, when asked which is the better server, people are always quick to defend their own servers and make quips about the other server. As to Zunkunft and Vigilance, unfortunately, I can't really find any reasons to defend them, as I don't play on those servers, so unless we can find representatives of those servers willing to post on paragonwiki...

Oh yes, I was the one who originally wrote "friendly rivalry", for your peace of mind. Sera404 15:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I play on Protector, and while there are plenty of solo players there, I don't know if we really have a higher ratio of soloing to teaming than the other servers, and I've definitely never heard it referred to as the "unfriendly server" or "lonely server". I don't know where that came from. I didn't want to just remove it, but it really makes it sound like someone is saying "Avoid this server!" Is it really considered unfriendly to say "No thanks" when someone asks you to join a team? Trickshooter 17:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In mind mind (a non-admin mind, of course), referring to a server as "unfriendly" would be only a slight step above referring to a server as "dead", and probably shouldn't be used. But, I don't play on Protector. If, in fact, the people who actually play on Protector refer to their own server as "unfriendly", so be it. From what you've stated, it would seem to be more accurate to refer to it as a "solo-friendly" server or something of that nature. A preference for soloing need not be mutually exclusive with being friendly.

Just my $0.02 --Eabrace 20:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reworked it a bit. Unless someone can dredge up some citations for Protector's community calling itself "unfriendly" or "lonely", they really don't need to be there. If there are still concerns over it, feel free to modify it further or comment again on the talk page. :) -- Sekoia 21:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)