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)

No, not everyone considers this mod great. But pretty much all the best DoW players have played the mod at some point and considered it an improvement over the current incarnation of DoW vanilla (the mod exists since DoW vanilla). If you want proof read it up in the dowsanc archives. During SS relics community manager Buggo told everyone to go play DoWpro when they ceased patch support for the game.

The reason not many people picked it up is threefold:

1. Many players at that time didn't remember the vanilla game so they don't know why it was considered more fun (although it still had its flaws) eliminating the main incentive to try the mod.

2. Many players simply didn't care about the competitive aspect of the game. 3v3 Kasyr QS games attracted a lot of players and people just wanted to see big armies clash.

3. Many players were very mod-averse. This notion stems from forum threads where we were trying to promote the mod and many people basically responded with "sounds great, but its a mod so i dont want to try it". Despite this the mod had a religious following among top players. Right, True, Servant and Baneboss are some of the more well known players who stuck with the mod for a long time.

Now before I address the other points let me point out that the mod support for DoW is pretty terrible. There never was a proper SDK and everything a modder can do is pretty much adding custom units and limited scripts, editing/adding SCAR code or change numbers. Anything hardcoded had to remain the same and this is the cause for many of the bugs and problems with the game.

First point: You're referring to Tau, which are designed to have two tech paths, Montka and Kauyon. They branch out starting t2. This forces the Tau to make a lasting decision and to make up for that the t2 and t3 units are really cost-effective compared to other races units of that tech level. To make up for this strength out you have to commit to a tech path which can be countered more easily and you can't mix your t2 units immediately (not counting vehicles). Likewise you can't immediately combine kroot carnivores with broadside suits or fire warriors with krootoxen, both of which would be incredibly strong combinations.

Second point: I don't see your point. The mod does add units where they are deemed appropriate. Just because Tau didn't receive any new units doesn't mean they don't have any new options. In fact, they are probably the most flexible race in regard to unit composition and strategy.

Third point:

a- Wargear is a very important mechanic in the mod. The only wargear present in DC/SS were weapons, necron relics and drones for the tau commander iirc. DoWpro factually adds more equipment from the campaign and turns it into a game mechanic that matters. Hero matchups play an important part in deciding a battle and by extension controlling a relic so you can give your commander the edge becomes a lot more important as well.

b- All the bugs are based on the DoW engine and can't be fixed without a SDK. That being said there are functioning workarounds.

c- Necrons are designed around attrition. If you know anything about starcraft, they are quite similar to zerg in that they want to throw their army at the enemy to keep him down while they can revive for free. Based on this they lack some of the hard counters other races get relying more on their powerful commanders to deal with specialised threats. Even with these limitations the games has infinitely more possibilities to deal with a threat than any of the expansions, where the only option oftentimes was to tech up or win the game before a certain threat arrives.

d- Not sure on this, it might say on the tooltip. They just can't placed within a certain radius of another slag volcano. By the way, the slag volcanos were a necessity because the minimum distance couldn't be attached to the gens directly, so you can blame the lack of a SDK for that.

-ain

Good, then we agree on something, it seems; This mod it not universally considered great. There are differing opinions out there. Couldn't we then also agree (and this is a question) that that ought to be reflected in the article, or that the article should at least tone itself down and mention some of the many, many problems with the mod?

That is not a valid argument, since I think even you will have to admit that pretty much all of the larger mods out there are an improvement over vanilla (considering balance especially); that is not a unique feature for this mod. Furhter, I do indeed know that many of the "bigger" players tried the mod out, but as you yourself pointed out, only 4 of them stayed for any extended amounts of time (not to mention that not all of the major players liked it; sure, everyone tried it out, but then again, considering how broken vanilla was, most "serious" or "big" players would desperatley seek out any mod that promised to fix the major issues (balance etcetera)).

Those three reasons are merely excuses; valid excuses, perhaps, but excuses nonetheless; the fact is (again, as you yourself say) that "not many people picked it up". That is, I'm afraid, cold hard fact.

I see more excuses... Other mods have less bugs, so apparently it's fixable, and even if you'd argue that it's fixable because they do things differently, then even this mod team (which I'm seriously starting to think that you're part of) could also "do things "differently"". I am well aware that there never was any sign of an SDFK being released (and indeed, one was never released (and it wasn't really expected to if you know your way in the business, as Relic doesn't exactly have the best of reputations amongst people/players)). But I digress; the point is, sure, they might be there because of tit and tat, but they are still there, and many other mods suffer from far less, or at least far less game-breaking, bugs, so it is apparently possible to do things differently and avoid most hard bugs.

First Point: Yes, I am, as I stated.... And you completely ignore my point; sure they are flexible, and yes they have two different tech-paths and whatnot... But that does not in any way meet or counter my point about complexity. Several identical upgrades right after one-another, needing a certain amount of a certain unit to get a certain other unit out etcetera. This is still unnecessary complexity from a game-design standpoint.

Second Point: Sure, where deemed appropriate. I never said anything against that... Seriously, do you even read my bits before you write your gubbins? What I said was that it does not deliver on it's promise of new units for every race, as e.g. the Tau does not get a single new unit.

Third Point, A: Sure, but again, you must really skip reading my points... What I wrote was that it doesn't add the mechanic back, as it claims to do "on the tin"; the mechanic was there, it's just expanded on in the mod.

Third Point, B: Firstly, you can blame whatever you like, all you like; that doesn't change the fact that it's very bug-ridden, now does it? Secondly, there are not functioning workarounds for all the bugs; some of the game-breaking ones (e.g. the slag-volcano bug) are even nigh impossible, if not impossible, to notice until they actually crash the game on you. This can also be read in the Necron manual. To mention a few other, less severe bugs without functioning workarounds; 1. the Duplicate Monolith bug 2. The Formation Bug (which instead has the lame excuse "you shouldn't be using your units like this anyway, so if you don't, you won't experience the bug") 3. the Lag Gen bug (which the manual even openly states is beneficial to the Necron player to whom it occurs).

Third Point, C: I do know Starcraft (the original + Brood War))... However, that has nothing to do with my main point, which is that even if they have more options than in vanilla, there are still several situations (for most of the races, but Necrons especially) where you have only one single choice of strategy if you want to survive, and again, that is fact, now isn't it?

Third Point, D: You really, really must ignore my writing huh? I write down again... "[...] neither in the manual nor in-game does it explain [...]", so no, it's not on the tooltip, it's not anywhere; there is literally no way to find out other than asking someone who knows or finding out by trail and error.

Further, I have to wonder; are you honestly trying to de-rail the discussion, or are you just a fanboy/dev trying to defend the scheit out of your favourite mod/magnum opus? As we've both agreed, the mod is not perfect, and as I'm sure you'll see by reading what I've written above, actually has quite a large number of problems, and was never a huge hit in the first place (blame it on whatever you want, but as even you stated, "[...] not many people picked it up [...]". That is not to say it wasn't very popular in certain small circles or had/has a rabidly loyal fanboy-base (this discussion is proof of that). And the fact that it isn't perfect, that it's not the end-all, be-all of DoW and that it was never hugely popular amongst the playerbase (even if it was amongst many top-tier players) and that it has many, many problems and even game-breaking bugs, not to mention that some points are blatantly exaggerated (e.g. the aforementioned "new units for every race") should be reflected in the article, or the article should be removed altogether. As it is now, it's just advertising space written by some fanboy or dev.

And a last point; Did that "H" guy do as all the illogical fanboys and run off for lack of being able to properly counter my arguments, or are you "ain" the same person as "H" (seeing as he apparently wanted some "solid responses", which I gave him)?

sincerely, incassum --81.227.82.87 15:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

but you didnt reply with solid statements as he wanted you just ignored the points ain gave and gave more accusations about "excuses" which you repeat over and over to again state yourself as someone superior or smthng; also, you want to learn how the mod works? you sure read the manuals, you didnt watch any replays etc; what i see here is a strong line of entitlement (and much worse, accusing Jaimas - one of the guys who contributed a lot not only all around this page but in many more into a rabbid fanboy) - melkhor

Interesting, you are back; quite fortunate for me actually. However I am pretty much afraid that you are now blatantly obvious, not only insulting freely (like you did in your first paragraph) the work done on this mod. Alright, maybe it has been praised big and blablabla, thats just about it. What it seems to me is that you are starting to have a huge grudge about it, seriously, let it go already.

Ain has stated not once, but many points which you ignored them wholeheartdly, by repeating that are just excuses. A mod which it has been worked in more than almost seven years and yet someone to comes on and tells that everything told by a certain user is just an excuse is, at least, to something to look at; specially when most of the mods you "mention" (because really, I dont see any mentions) also have many issues, maybe even bigger ones.

Tau, wow; you had to choose Tau, really, the only race which almost didnt need anything important except some revision on their rules and their antivehicle options. And yet you complain that is too unnecessary complex. If those options were not removed, then perhaps Tau would be just another Space Marine army, but that is just another "excuse" to you right?. Carry on.

Many of the issues for Necrons are adressed due to ENGINE limitations, read again; ENGINE-LIMITATIONS. Again, those mods which you dont even say must have those (Necron units getting in close combat automatically, the Monolith bug, etc) as well, then we are going through another vicious circle here, because you will counter again with even more "excuses", Imirite?.

And in last instance, I haven run really, I am just here sitting my ass and read through all of those points you are trying to pose as facts. Wow really. I applaud your complexity to not understand everything.

Sincererilly yours, H

*Sigh*.

Considering that at least "melkhor" and "H" has about the same frequency of grammar and spelling-mistakes (and style of writing in general), I'm starting to think that this is the work of a samefag (perhaps even ain, though that's less likely considering that his grammar and spelling holds an overall higher quality, though it is interesting to note that none of these fa/tg/guys ever leave their signature or any sort of IP-mark or any other way to prove that they are "themselves", or so to speak). This can be further supported by the fact that they both seem to be out to bash me and nothing else. However, to see how I counter their "arguments" (most of them are ad hominem, really (i.e. not real arguments)), please do read on.

I did reply to every single statement, heck, even you speak of certain things I said in reply to what he wrote, "melkhor", but if you sincerely believe that I didn't reply to them (and are not just fanboy-raging on a Khornate level), please, make a concise list of what I "ignored" and I'll be more than happy to counter/reply to each and every point. I am serious, please do, and I'll reply to them again.

I didn't "accuse" him of using excuses; he did. He excused the bugs by saying that it isn't the devs fault, he used loads of excuses as to why the mod never got popular, etcetera... They are excuses; if not, what would they be? The fact is, the mod is buggy and was never very popular; that we have established, heck, even ain admitted to that (to which I give him due kudos for being honest in at least that regard), and everything after that are excuses, ways of trying to say "but it's still best" etcetera; if there were no excuses, he would've just said "Yes, the mod was never that popular, and yes, it is has some bugs" (which he, as established, admitted (again, kudos)), now wouldn't he?

More lies... *Sigh* melkhor, did you even read my post? Allow me to quote myself; "Did that "H" guy do as all the illogical fanboys and run off for lack of being able to properly counter my arguments [...]?" That, my dear friend, is a question. A question as to what H did. Further; "or are you "ain" the same person as "H" [...]?" That, too, is a question; not a statement. I did not call neither ain (which I assume is who you call "Jaimas") nor H rabid fanboys - I asked if H was one, indirectly, and earlier I mentioned that this whole discussion is proof of that there are indeed fanboys out there. Please, if you could direct me to where I, as you (erroneously) claim called ain/Jaimas a fanboy?

All in all, your post did not counter any of my points or arguments (or even made any arguments), but rather, just bashed me as a poster; now that, i might (please do note the usage of the word "might" here, ok?) consider a typical fanboy-action (i.e. a thing that a fanboy would typically do).

If ain really felt offended by what I wrote, then it is his thing to bring up, and, if so, my thing to apologise for. You have, essentially, nothing to do with it (unless you want to contribute to the discussion at hand in some constructive way, of course).

Now then, moving on to H's post;

Quite fortunate for you, eh? My congratulations then, I suppose...

Ok, now you sink down into ad hominem and lack of arguments again; don't just make statements, prove them. Where did I insult anyone/anything? My first paragraph is not an insult, it is fact; not everyone liked the mod. Fact, not insult.

A grudge? Hmm, well, as my original point in this discussion page was, and still is, that I'm not sure I think it's a good thing for /tg/ or 1d4chan to have this article here... If you want to call that a grudge, be my guest.

Ok, I write unto you what I wrote unto melkhor; I did reply to each and every single one of his statements (though both you and "melkhor" (if you're not a samefag)) completely ignore all of the points in my post. And I write again, as I did unto melkhor, that please, don't just make statements; prove it. Make a concise list of every single point that you think I "ignored" and I will gladly reply to each and every little thing.

Ok, no offence intended, but I only understand half of what you write in the second half of your second paragraph, but if I understand you correctly, you want me to mention some other mods? That i can gladly do;

1. the Apocalypse mod

2. the Firestorm over Kaurava/Kronus mod

3. the mod that adds Tyranids

4. the mod that adds Witchunters

And these are just off of the top of my head. The valid counter-arguments I could see one employ against these are that they are all smaller in scope (invalidated by the fact that what I mentioned where a smaller amount of bugs), or that they have bugs of their own (invalidated by the fact that I never claimed that they were bug-free, just that they did not have as many game-breaking and/or unfixable bugs). So, my point is thusly made. Oh, and just to make sure that this point gets across; I did never claim that these were bug-free, I am well aware that there are bugs in them too, just not as severe and/or as many.

Now that, ca/tg/irls and fa/tg/uys, is a typical of an excuse; "Tau, wow; you had to choose Tau"... The Tau are a playable race in the game, now are they not? What you say means absolutely nothing; "oh, you had to choose the Tau"; that's like saying to someone complaining that the engine in his car is broken "oh, you had to go for the engine, didn't you?". It is part of the game. It is covered in the mod. The mod does not deliver on it's promise. Fact.

Further, yes, I do indeed claim that it is unnecessarily complex. And what you say ("[...] perhaps Tau would be just another Space Marine army [...]") is indeed a typical example of an excuse; calling yourself out on it does not change that fact; what you say is an excuse; it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and does not further any point.

Ok, firstly, the issues for Necrons are not addressed, that is the problem. Further, yes, they are excuses; or, if you'd prefer that term, let's call them "explanations"; but even if they are explanations as to why the problems occur, they do not fix the problems, now do they? All they do is explain why the problems occur in the first place. Don't you at least realise/agree with that?

Again, your sentences are incoherent, but I'll do my best to try and understand them an reply to them (if English is not your first language/mother-tongue, do know that I intend no offence by this (and please take note on that; no offence intended); I'm merely saying that you compose your sentences in a, for me, hard-to-understand sort of way. But let's move on to my reply.

They are facts, even ain, as you so gladly defend, agreed to most of them, and further, I think even you will if you actually read what I've written and think about it; is it not fact that the mod has bugs? Is it not fact that it was never hugely successful or popular? Is it not fact that not everyone thinks that it is the best mod out there, or even great? Is it not fact that, while whether it is unnecessary or not is a different matter (as I've said earlier, and would, from a gaming-design viewpoint, gladly discuss), the mod adds complexity? If you'd stop bashing and actually think and read for a minute, do you not see/agree that you are just plain wrong in your last paragraph, and that all of these things are indeed facts? And it's funny how you claim I have a grudge and whatnot, when you slip down to a level of not only bashing, but personally insulting me, by saying that "I applaud your complexity to not understand everything" (which I assume is meant to say "I applaud your ability not to understand", but if I'm wrong (which I might very well be), please, do tell me what you meant).

And please try to actually say something against the arguments I've stated, instead of just talking around them (or agree with them).

Sincerely, incassum --81.227.82.87 21:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This coming from the guy who can't even be bothered to make his own account. I have no relation to the other people here, but I can say that if all you're trying to do is point out flaws, it's backfiring and making you look like you have a grudge with the mod, its developers, or both. It is also clear that your opinion is in the minority and that your arguments are not accepted here. I'm personally neutral about all this and just want to stop an unnecessary flamewar. So let's all just agree to disagree and move on. (In the meantime, I'm thinking of just asking that the article and talk page be protected before this spills over any further.)--Newerfag 22:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

AssistantWikifag has been informed of the situation here. I'll let him decide who's right and who's wrong here.--Newerfag 22:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to make a quick reply to Newerfag; Bothered? I identify myself quite accurately every time (as opposed to certain other people, whom you seem content to leave unharassed), now don't I? Further, I could make an account, but your point is moot as I doubt that that would make any difference as to your stance, now would it? Even further, that is an invalid argument; whether I have an account or not has nothing to do with the validity of my claims, now does it?

Even more interesting, I have to point out, is the fact that not only did you call me an "idiot" in your edit of the page, Newerfag (which I should not have to point is rather inappropriate behavior), you do the exact same thing you accuse me of (i.e. you said "The skub is coming from you [....]" followed by you adding the "editwar" mark... Now, isn't that ironic? (Just for the sake of clearance if anyone actually reads this, I did a single edit, the first in a long time, which was to remove the "awesome" mark, and never did anything after that, i.e. I never undid anyone's changes after my change).

I'm not trying to do that, that came after other people started talking about the mod, if you actually read what I've written, you'd see that I even mentioned the whole thing derailing and that the topic at hand was the validity of the page; any other things I've written have been in reply to what other people have asked/written, now has it not?

I do not care how I am perceived (especially not when the perception is erroneous); I care for the wiki. My opinion might be in the minority here, but certainly not (if you're referring to the opinion of the mod) in the community as a whole (as has been admitted by others; read e.g. ains posts. If however, you're actually staying on track (i.e. discussing my opinion of the article itself and not the actual mod), I might be in the minority, but that has no value in relation to whether my claims are right or not; further, it seems there aren't many people even participating, do you really think that those having debated the matter here are representative of /tg/, and that I'm the only dissenter?

My arguments are not accepted? Now that seems very dangerous... "not accepted", no matter their validity?

I doubt that you're neutral (should I really have to point out that I intend no offence here?); partially because of your original post in the matter, which was not only hostile towards me (unprovoked), but also clearly showed your position in the matter (e.g. pro-article/pro-mod and it's promotion); allow me to quote your first post;

"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)"

That, coupled with the fact that you are now taking the stance that the article be left as it is and nothing changes, quite clearly shows that you're not neutral, I would say (especially your original post, which is ironically very flame-y), but I'd be glad for any proof of the contrary (or at least get an admittance that you're not at all neutral, and where the first one to incite flaming with a hostile post).

I hope that AssistantWikifag reads through this from start to finish, and remains open to discussion on the subject; if he/you reads this, I am very open to debate, as I hope I've shown.

-Sincerely yours, incassum --81.227.82.87 01:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I will admit that I have been overreacting to your posts (both then and up until this point in time) and that my overreactions were responsible in part (if not the major role) in making things what they are now. I merely wished that the article did not undergo any major change without some kind of review, and the fact that you were editing from an unregistered IP address rather than a proper account made me assume that your intentions were not what you claimed them to be. That being said, I am willing to let the issue go if you are, and I apologize for causing things to be blown out of proportion.--Newerfag 03:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

To be frank, I have to admit that I've never played the mod, let alone the vanilla game. In retrospect, I should have left the debating to the people who actually have experience with it. I apologize for all the trouble and will just let it go now.--Newerfag 03:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed most of the obvious praise and links on the article now- hopefully everyone will agree that it can remain in its current state.--Newerfag 03:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Never played the mod, never played Dawn of War, etc., etc., but I find that an article about a project is incomplete without a link to the project's web site. I don't see that as advertising or endorsement; it's just common courtesy. --Not LongPoster Again 15:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

There, I Fixed It

When I first posted the DOWPRO article, it was around the time I spent a lengthy period of time homeless. As such, I updated this relic of my Hobo days, since it's not nearly as well-written or put-together as the rest of the articles I've worked on. As such, I brought it more in line with my standards, made it read less like a ModDb entry, and added some historical content and justified criticisms. --Jaimas 11:09, 11 January 2013 (EST)

No, you didn't

To Newerfag; Well, I didn't edit the article until far into the debate, but I see your point and thank you for the apology; and if I were at any point percieved as being horrid towards you, which I assure you I did no intend to be, I too apologize. Hopefully however, I've proven that my intentions are (and were) good now.

As to the next matter... While not perfect as far as I'm concerned, I did think the last edit by Newerfag was indeed very good, and I did not have any noteworthy objections to it (and were prepared to leave it as it was), and neither to Not LongPoster Again's suggestion that at least a link to an official website or forum could stay, I would say that that's fine (and that the article as a whole was ok). However, and this is a big "however"...

The next edit by Jaimas made the article into a, and I'm not sure I know of any way to express this without sounding offensive, load of fanwank.

Seriously, did anyone read it? It is by any and all standards worse than the orignial article! Now it not only praises the mod, but puts it on a pedestal and worships it, and any "criticism" that's in it is either openly iroinic or "criticising" the mod for being basically too good and/or too popular, making people jelaous and/or mad about it. Seriously, I can barely find anything good to say about it besides that it's properly formatted, albeit lacking an index.

That might sound harsh, and I intend no personal offence here (maybe Khorne got the better of- BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD), but seriously, have anyone besides me (and Jaimas, obviously) even read the damnable thing? It is, in short, organized fanwank. I don't know any better word to describe it. Seriously, we are all elegan/tg/entlemen here, but really, read the article as it is now, and then tell me I'm wrong.

Hoping to Tzeentch for a change, Sincerely yours, incassum (new IP since I'm using my mobile broadband). --37.199.73.159 15:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Formatting again... --37.199.73.159 15:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that there's a seperate Dawn of War Mods page, it would be best simply to replace this page completely. I think this would solve most of the problems here.--Newerfag 16:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• For Emprah's sake, really? There's ample room here for every mod to get its showing here (and I honestly encourage this, because the DOW mod community works its tails off), and to be perfectly honest, no reason that the article itself causes any issues here. It's relevant because it gives info about the mod and the history behind it (I can try to get the actual quotes, but that might be difficult considering it came out during WA's time), it criticizes its major issues DoWPro has (people don't like how different races in it were handled, the game is legitimately slower, tech tree changes all over the place, Necron need for Slag volcanoes, etc), and hardly worships the damned thing. It does point out legit things about it: It did have the HW Teams before Dark Crusade hit, it did re-add the slashed content (Chaos Heavy/Special Weapons, for example), and it was, literally, born out of how people felt about WA's handling of Dawn of War. It gives info about the history and purpose of the mod, it gives pros and cons, and that's pretty much what it's intended to do. The way you described it in the paragraph above, the page alteration was literary masturbation over the mod itself. Every DOW Mod worth its salt deserves some info about it (I'm hoping some of the Firestorm Over Kronus vets add their two cents to their article), since (A) It's a Warhammer 40K game that is frequently played by /tg/, (B) It's a popular mod therefore, and (C) Information about the Mods is being made available for everyone, regardless of Mod. Yet you constantly say this page needs to be scrubbed and purged from 1d4chan, citing everything from relevance to to the article "being an advertisement for a Mod." It comes across, at the very least, like you have an axe to grind. -- Jaimas 2:07 PM, 12 January 2013 (EST)

Yes, really. I very much agree with Newerfag; I read through the Dawn of War Mods page, and I consider that to, by and all, be an a lot more well-written page; it's mostly a good article, actually. I have no major issues with it, and think that it's a good article to have here on 1d4chan. However, your page, Jaimas... Oh, where to even begin? Seriously, if you think it's neutral, you are either blatantly lying or fooling yourself (and interestingly, taking up the fact that it's slower-paced as a pro-thing, when accusing others of being subjective; wouldn't a slower game-pace be a very archetypal example of something that is not objectively good, but subjective?); for one thing, it does not take up the valid criticisms, it still praises (and worships) the mod, and it's oh-so utterly biased. It's quite clear by now, I would personally say (subjectivity), that you are a fanboy; I mean really, if you wanted to make it neutral, you might have actually done, oh, say, a pro's and con's part, which actually takes up the cons? It might look a little something like this;

Pros and Cons

Pros:

• Heavily rebalanced, with balance far, far superior to that of the orignal Dawn of War (and it's expansions)
• Lots more eye-candy (new skins, textures etcetera)
• Adds new units to some factions
• Includes the Camera- and AI-mods

Cons:

• Laden with bugs, some of which are game-breaking and unfixable once they occur
• Does not add new units for every faction
• Lacking documentation
• Some of the balance stems from stacking identical upgrades on top of each other; e.g. having one upgrade increasing the amount of damage that unit X deals, then having another identical upgrade right after.

Things for which Your Mileage May Vary;

• A lot slower-paced then the original DoW and expansions, making for a more tactical, but less strategic approach to gameplay
• Some factions (e.g. the Tau and Necrons) have been completely overhauled, playing almost like new races compared to vanilla
• Many gameplay mechanics completely changed

And that is just an example of a real Pros and Cons list (though I just wrote it off the top of my head, so it's obviously not perfect), that at least attempts to be neutral. Your article is not neutral. It's fanwank. No offence intended to you personally, but your article is fanwank, and so heavily biased in favour of the mod it's ridiculous. Where's the mentioning of the game-breaking bugs? The lackluster documentation etcetera? Why is everything written in such a wording to make the mod seem perfect? Why is every little thing that's bad about it blamed on something else so as to make it look more awesome (e.g. the complaint that it was removed from certain forums by mods because it was too popular)? Further, you blatantly lie even here in the talk-page; I've never said that the page should be "scrubbed and purged from 1d4chan", heck, my original question was whether it should even be here, after that I mostly discussed making it more neutral, and after that, I even supported keeping the page in the way that Newerfag made it (then, seeing the nice lil' "DoW mods" page, I once again agree with Newerfag and change my opinion to that this page should be removed), so that is obviously mere fabrication; I would say that I if anyone (well, I and Newerfag) have proven that we do not have axes to grind, but care for the wiki and behave as elegan/tg/entlemen. You, on the other hand, very much seems to have a personal gripe with me (and probably anyone who would dare speak out at your favourite mod) - you come across as the worst kind of fanboy, I would say. Think about it. And while thinking, please, either fix ( RIP AND TEAR ) the current page, remove it, or restore it to the way it was once Newerfag fixed it.

Sincerely, incassum --81.227.82.87 22:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC) (back home)