From 1d4chan
Jump to: navigation, search

I cleaned this shit out. Every single Mod for Dawn of War deserves its own page, detailing its origins, upsides, and downsides, so that elegan/tg/entlemen can check them out for themselves, learn why various mods were made, etc. A shitton of people put a shitton of work into these things, and as such, they are worthy of note, since they're great examples of /tg/ doing what it does best. -- Jaimas, October 16th, 2013, 20:33 PM (EST)

New Races Mods[edit]

Just a question - Is it a good idea to just make a single page for the single-race mods? Since they only add in one race and leave the rest untouched, I feel it would be a bit wasteful to give all of them a single page covering only what they do and nothing else. The bigger mods will still have their pages. --ThatOneBruvva, October 17, 11:39 AM (EST)

  • I think it's a good idea to, especially given that we already have tactical articles for each race and subrace in tabletop 40K. It allows every one of the mods to express their development history and the process that went into them, as well as give them a bit of a voice-box regarding each mod's playstyle and discussion of each new added race. Each race added does have major implications for the metagame as a whole, after all. -- User Talk:Jaimas, December 27, 10:44 AM (EST)
  • Pages for all the other major mods in question may be useful as well. ModDB doesn't really list out the changes each one makes to the main game, so more articles like this one would be useful for educating people looking to add their first mod (like myself).--Newerfag (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

A notification of the changes made to the page.[edit]

Yoo-hoo, it's your favourite anti-fanwank-elegan/tg/entleman here, again!

I did a few small changes (mostly wording plus adding in the one fact that the mod still possesses game-breaking/crashing bugs) to the page (use the "view history" function to notice them), but left most of it intact seeing as to the reactions from yesteryear when I tried to make the page less of a flamboyant ad-page/fan-or-devwank. I still find that, even with my modifications, it's ridiculously over-praising and subjective, e.g. seriously, saying that its basically one of the best RTS-thingies out there, ever, amongst everything? Really? If that's not the definition of a subjective and exceedingly biased view, I don't know what is and should probably consult a dictionary. Since all of the previous discussion on the matter was baleeted (I don't see why other than to hide old evidence, but hey), I thought I'd mention that I did change it here since someone is sure to consider this the offence of offences worthy of nothing short of exterminatus, and start to flame again like last time. But hey, while improbable (considering the state the page was in when I noticed it), maybe people have cooled off now?

Stay elegant, gentlemen. 01:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should actually say what the flaws are instead of just saying that there are flaws. It may not be fanwank but it's equally lacking in anything resembling genuine information. --Newerfag (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, this dude has done literally nothing but shitpost against this one Mod for years now. I'm choosing to re-write the article in its entirety as a result, since I'm the one who originally wrote the first one and there's been no justification for its entire deletion beyond this one guy bitching about it. I was never a fan of how the original mod description was set up anyway. --Jaimas (talk)

Re-adding of the article.[edit]

Well well well, it's me again! Well, rather, it's the fanboy again, which has made me appear again. Basically, all the relevant information is in the deletion-tag - but to summarize. It was discussed at length - a discussion which has, of course, conveniently *not* been restored by said fan-boy - whether this article was incredibly biased (protip; it was), and whether it even belonged here, at all (even beyond the fact of it's bias, it's a specific page for a specific mod, for a specific - however, /tg/-related - video-game. V, anyone?), and it was decided that no, no, it does not belong here. Newerfag (and others, myself included, obviously), chimed it, and it was decided to have one big page for DoW-mods (which still exists, by the way), and that was that. The page was deleted, it was added to the "general" page for DoW-mods, and all was well. But apparently, not forever. Seriously, this mod - like all mods - has it's own heading on the DoW-mods page, where it belongs. It should *not* have it's own page (especially since the creation of the "general mods"-page; seriously, it basically, then, gets *more* than a whole article to itself (this page, plus the mention on the "general mods"-page). It has been discussed previously, and decided on, previously, through a long, long discussion. That's that, really. I get that a fanboy - or a actual dev on the mod, what do I know - want it here, free advertisement and whatnot, but it does not belong here. Period.

Would you be so kind as to stop putting words into my mouth? I never said it had to be deleted, merely rewritten. Not like you'd know since you apparently never even read what I said.--Newerfag (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Newerfag, could I get your insight on what exact problems the article, post-re-write, has, if any? Almost every mod on the DOW Mods list now has their own pages now to talk about their features (something this guy seems keen on ignoring), so this one dude's argument that DOWpro uniquely deserves to not have a page based on criteria he refers to elaborate on, and acting like his deletion of this mod's page somehow constitutes a mandate while the discussion page itself pretty openly shows a desire for each mod having its own article is confusing the hell out of me. I re-wrote the article specifically to cover its upsides, downsides, and relevance to DOW as a whole (I'd have provided citation links for the Buggo thing but Relicnews has been removed completely and I can't find caches of the article). If it's in error, please let me know so I can correct it. -- Jaimas (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2018
Wait, you rewrote it? It looks exactly the same as it did before that other guy blanked it. In any case, just make it look more like the Firestorm Over Kronus page- nobody cares about the history of the mod or about the opinion of some guy nobody here has heard of , only about what it does. I also note that no other mod beyond those two even has a page, which reeks of bias if you ask me.--Newerfag (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, Newerfag, I didn't, and don't, put words into your mouth, if you read what I write. What I said was that you chimed in, which you did; I never stated what you said, one way or the other. So yes, I did/do read what you said/say. No need to get flamey (and I obviously didn't intend to come off as flamey either; if I did, I apologize). However, the discussion was here, as it seems that everyone involved remembers. However, as Newerfag pointed out (and I too had noticed), it's interesting that Jaimas would claim that almost every mod on the mod-page has it's own page; I can count two that has. So, Jaimas, either it's you being willingly ignorant, or knowingly/deliberatley lying. (And indeed, I have no problem having a sensible discussion where we address one-another, as opposed to throw random insults).
And further on that same note, Jaimas, you must be aware that you restored a very old version of the page, without the actual, full discussion that was originally held on here. So, what is your reason for that, then? Deliberately choosing a version that lacks the full discussion, and then referencing this old version, saying that "it clearly shows this and that" - when it fact, it's not actually the full, old discussion? That'd warrant an explanation, I'd say. Oh, and on the topic of putting words in peoples mouth; please, please, cease acting like a fanboy. I never stated - in any way - that DoWpro in particular didn't deserve anything that any other mods get, and that's quite evident to anyone who just plain reads my edits here on the discussion-page (the previous deletion-notes). Further, I agree with (what is at the time I'm writing this) Newerfags latest message on here; I'll try and edit it a bit and remove the irrelevant parts. Ah, and on that note, I also already edited it to be a bit less biased, and above all, less smugly written (essentially having an air of; "oh, newfags are stupid and won't get it" and "oh, real tacticians love this mod, but stupid people might not"). incassum (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Overtly detailed...?[edit]

This is starting to look like something from an entirely different wiki. It's overtly long, and severly over-detailed - or so, I would say. Literally, pages and pages of detailed stats in the game/mod; does this sort of thing really belong here? incassum (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC) I was thinking the same thing myself. I have to wonder if the person adding all of these details is trying to actively advertise it at this point. --Newerfag (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)