Talk:DoWpro

Neutrality

Ok, I just want to ask, blatantly, should this article even be here at all? I mean really, it's blatant advertising, even more so with the "awesome" tag on top of it (which I personally don't think it deserves). Further, even though this is not a Wikipedia-esque wiki with any pretensions of being neutral, most articles do try and point out "the other side of the coin", and this article (as well as all the advertisement for it in other articles, e.g. the "Dawn of War" main article) looks like it was written by one of the bloody makers of the mod.

Just to give my two cents, I didn't think that the mod was that good at all. It's pretension of "fixing" the game is utterly horrendous, for a number of reasons; allow me to try and compile a few of them in a short and concise list in case anyone cares or perhaps even agrees.

1. It adds LOADS of unnecessary complexity and abstraction layers (while complexity is, in and of itself, not a bad thing, and can (especially in strategy games) often enhance and improve the experience, in the case of this mod it's mostly obtuse and in the way), especially to certain races' tech-trees.

2. It doesn't fix balance nearly as well as it claims to do (e.g. remember Wraithlords? Yeah, the rapetrain slowed it's pace, but it's still steamrolling your shit up).

3. Some things it claims are simply not true, e.g. "New units and cool options for every race".

These are just a few of the things I've noticed so far, while trying the mod out for a while. I could make a longer and more exhaustive list, but that would probably just make people go TL;DR. I'm not trying to hate on the mod as such, I'm quite sure it has it's dedicated fanbase and loyal fanboys, I'm just saying not everyone out there thinks that this mod is the shit, but just shit.

Basically, my proposal is, either add "the other side of the coin", or remove the blatant advertising that certain people apparently like to think of as an "article".

Sincerely yours, incassum. --81.227.82.87 02:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Damnit, edited for errors in my formatting /incassum --81.227.82.87 02:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you liked your games hopelessly broken or unbalanced. There is no "other side of the coin" here- except for your nitpicking, it seems. And it's awfully strange that nobody else had a problem with this article until you showed up. If you don't like the page, don't look at it.

Insincerely yours, --Newerfag 04:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I never said I did; you're accusing me of things I never claimed (in itself not uncommon amongst incompetent ::people), as well as making ad-hominem arguments (which I too just did, only in response however)... I did not say ::that the original DoW was well-balanced (it isn't), I just claimed that this mod does not, amongst many things it ::does not, deliver on it's promise of nigh-complete balance between all races, and the Eldar especially.

And there is, provably, another side of the coin, since not everyone likes this mod, and it's not awesome; there ::are many other mods out there, but none of them get this amount of space or advertising on 1d4chan or /tg/ in ::general, and none of them are so ridiculously fanboyish when they're mentioned. Heck, I can only assume that you're ::either one of the makers of the mod, or it's most rabid fanboy ever.

This mod is not perfect. Many like it, but just as many dislike it, and prefer other mods or even (the horror) ::to go modless. Apocalypse (or ultimate apocalypse or whatever it was called) is/was briefly mentioned on some ::article or other, how come that the mention of that mod is suddenly gone from the DoW article? Are there are ::actually devs from DoW"pro" here, making edits and wanking themselves off with adverts made for themselves by ::themselves?

Sincerely yours, incassum --81.227.82.87 13:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Godamnit, editing errors again... I can't seem to do any writing right /incassum --81.227.82.87 13:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there is a lot of advertisiment there (actually, someone just linked me this), what however, does not make sense, is that you are trying to put your opinions as facts, without even bothering to do research; should we go by parts?.

- First point: Why does it add that (for you) unnecessary complexity?. Due to the already number of races presented and how they are played (seems likely that Eldar is your race, cant blame that you cant into a hit-and-run playstyle).

- Second point: It DOES add new units, but only for the sake of keeping the balance compared to vanilla. "Why does an Ork player has Ard Boyz?" - you might ask for example: To deal with a matchup such as Eldar on which the Eldar player has complete advantage over the Ork player due to the armor rating of the latter units, which is strickly based upon light/medium infantry. Its about adding flexibility; but of course, if you want to understand that, then I should just stop.

- Third point: Id really like to see that list and how much true are just those opinions you want to pose as facts, without going for the TL;DR way. Go ahead and try please, be my guest.

- Fourth point: Like the other guy stated above, if you dont like it, dont bother. If you seem to be so frustrated then just be on your way, but please do not look like you are asspained. Yeah, it is reason to after all the advertising which looks like viral, but so does every goddamn game/modder out there.

Awaiting for a solid reply, best regards. - H

Don't feed the troll. Ignore it. Why should this article be here? Because it is of Wh40K and not shit.--141.23.65.250 16:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, am I now?

I would say quite the opposite... My opinion is that this thing isn't the greatest thing to hit PC since non-monochrome screens, but neither that it's the greatest scheit ever (I might've sounded like that in the first post, but Khornate RAGE filled me at the sight of all the rampant fanboyism and ridiculous amounts of fanwank), but that it is very much over-hyped and recieves far, far to much praise. That said, I do believe that it does some things very right, and even improves in some ways, but I do generally feel (and this, ca/tg/irls and fat/tg/uys, is what is called "subjectivity") that this mod does far too many things wrong to be any fun to play, or to be an overall improvement over vanilla or many of the other mods out there (besides balance obviously, which might actually be impossible to do worse than vanilla Soulstorm). And besides this, which is my opinion, there are however many facts about the mod, too, which aren't all positive.

The facts, as you'd have them, is that I'm not alone; i.e. that not everyone consider this mod to be made by the Buddha himself, and that is a fact. Seriously, you're not trying to say that I'm the first person ever not to think that this mod is great, are you?

Further, allow me to reply to your (very erraneous (perhaps even intentionally misinterpreted)) statements;

First Point: No, it does simply because many, many of the "upgrades" for certain races are merely the same upgrade applied over and over (e.g. the damage for many of the Tau's troops), which is not good game design, that's just sticking a fixed amount of increased damage on top of itself a number of times and calling it "balance" because you have to click the button a couple of more times. Not to mention the fact that certain units require certain numbers of certain other units.... You seriously don't see how this adds unnecessary complexcity? Not to mention that this means that, in many cases, a player is forced to sit tight with his armies safe back home because going out with them might mean that they die and that he as such can't produce that other unit that he wants. (To counter your factually incorrect (funny how you claim my to want to make my opinion fact) statement of both what races I prefer and what playstyles I can and cannot handle (funny how personal attacks are thrown around so much by people who lack proper arguments, eh?), allow me to tell you that I play most races, since I find that most of them have fun mechanics and offer different playstyles. Addmittedly though, as everyone, I do have my main group, which would be the Tau, the Dark Eldar and the Necrons. Seriously, how could you think that I was an Eldar player when I claimed that certain Eldar units are still slightly overpowered?).

Second Point: Again, you are either intentionally misreading me, or... Actually, that pretty much must be the case. If you read what I wrote, you'd see that I never, ever complained about any new units or why they were there etcetera - rendering your entire second half of point 2 moot. What I did write, which is still true, is that it does not, as promised, deliver "New units and cool options for every race", e.g. the Tau. It changes how many units function, and gives certain commaders the ability to have a retinue, but it does not add a single new unit.

Third point; Sure, I haven't played all the races to their respective cores yet, so rest assured I can fill this list out even more as I go along (which I, if you're serious, can and will do), but to put forth some other things that I find to be rather odd/plainly wrong about the mod, please do read on (I will not re-list my previous statements here; you can very well read them up above (and notice that they, except for the first point which is debatable, are not opinions but rather, fact (I'll re-iterate anyway; 2. It does not make the balance in the game nigh-perfect (though certainly a lot better than in vanilla, something which I never said it didn't). 3. Some claims that it makes are, factually, not true.);

-a. It's pretention of adding (or re-adding) "Wargear" is ridiculous; while it does add some nice new features for most of the commanders, it doesn't "re-add wargear (or add)"; it just takes upgrades that were previously mostly done directly on the commander itself (e.g. Tau) or added in research-buildings (e.g. Necrons) and moves them around a bit, and adds some new ones (which in itself is very nice and fun, but it's mere pretention that it adds/re-adds "Wargear").

-b. It's filled to the brim with (known) bugs (some of which can completly ruin a game if you miss them when they occur (and a few which can break a game even if you do notice them)), something the related pages are, for some odd reason, avoiding to mention (heck, it's even in the manuals; e.g. the Necron manual has a whole chapter dedicated to bugs).

-c. While claming to add lots of new options and different ways to handle every threat by every race, this does not seem to be the case for Necrons. Again, proof of this can even be found in their manual, on the section about handling Daemons; "Your best and only options [...] If you know you're facing DP or BT, they are an absolute necessity".

-d. While a minor complaint, neither in the manual nor in-game does it explain when, where and why you can create slag volcanoes, and the first impression that I had of them was "umm, a bit random, but maybe they're limited in number by the amount of Obelisks I have, and I have to build them right next to obelisks or my main HQ?" (Call me personally stupid or lacking in intellect all you want, that does not invalidate my point of insufficient documentation).

These are just what I could come up with on top of my head, and then (as mentioned) I haven't even played it all that much, since it initially did not "speak" to me (again, that (the "feel") is something that is purely subjective, whislt my other claims are not).

Asspained? I Never mentioned any such thing(s); indeed there are many words and deeds that I am accused of but never did... However, the wiki suffers from this as it is blantant advertising, just like if someone would make an article about a certain beverage made from dew and moutains or cocoa-leaves and claim that it was in every concievable way superior to any other drink - it just wouldn't have any business being on this wiki (not to mention that just as beverages in and of themselves do not belong on /tg/ (though certain beverages are certainly enjoyed more than most), just like this is something that belongs more on /v/ - and while I do know that we tolerate a degree of /v/-related articles if they are related to /tg/-related things, one could probably even make the point that this advert disguised as an article is pertaining not to a specific game, but a specific mod to a specific game; this is very deep in /v/-territory).

Also, while I intend no offence (surely the reason I don't get it is my own incompetence), but I don't understand the following sentence; "Yeah, it is reason to after all the advertising which looks like viral, but so does every goddamn game/modder out there.". If what you mean to say is (and this only applies in case I interpret your sentence correctly) that this "article" might look like an ad, but that all articles about games/mods do, then your point is moot; that has no relevance (and is no excuse), as one could, in that case, just as well say "oh, there is no grammar editing or semblance of order on a lot of pages, so let's just make everything look like shit". Again, if I misinterpreted your sentence, disregard what I just wrote (but please do explain what you meant by your sentence "Yeah, it is reason to after all the advertising which looks like viral, but so does every goddamn game/modder out there.").

And I am not a troll. Not even a concern-troll. Please refrain from reffering to me as such; I am genuinely concerned about this article and feel that it either should be heavily edited or removed altogether, for reasons I've stated multiple times. Are there only fanboys of the article/the mod reading this? Anyway, as I said, I've stated several times what my concerns with the article is, and I think you should ponder them and see if they are not in actuality worthy of being taken seriously.

Sincerely, incassum --81.227.82.87 23:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)