Talk:Dungeons & Dragons Online

Terms in game
As there seems to be an acceptance of the current version I am removing the Disputed tag I put in.

I have never heard "ransacked" however nearly everytime I am in a party someone is spouting shiney though I rarely hear sparkly I do on occasion. Why do the terms Shiney and sparkely keep getting removed?

Just because the developers didnt design it doesnt mean its not part of the game, once you allow players to communicate you add a element to the game that is beyond the programing. Developers didnt coin the term "nerfing" reffering to changes in MMORPGS but everyone knows what a "nerfed" item is after a patch.

Citing new terms created by the game reeks of subjectivity. It's akin to saying that the game is creating new pop-culture terms or something. While terms like "nerf" have become common among MMO gamers, citing that a relatively new game has created terms is too forward. I recommend the section be slashed out entirely, as it has little to no bearing on the game's article. TotalTommyTerror 07:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no refferance to any other game having the terms Shiney or sparkely used to describe mob dropped loot/collectables. In this game however the terms are prevolant, the point of "nerfing" was that it too was a term created by MMORPG's that is now commonplace but was not written into the code of the game by the developers. The two terms are constantly and consistantly used, they should be included, they are as much a part of the day to day gameplay as alignments, you could say moreso than alignments as with the exception of a few rare weapons that most players will never use alignment plays no role in gameplay.

Further it is not subjective at all, to say that it is the best game ever, or that it was the worst DD game since the first edition red dragon boxed set would be subjective. The terms did not exist in thier useage prior to the game now they do.

Edit: I think the main problem lies with the section title "New Terms Created by Game". While the term "ransacking" may have found a new use in computer gaming terminology, a quick Google of the term will show that the word "ransack" originated from the Old Norse "rannsaka", which was adopted into Middle English as "ransaken". This word was around for many hundreds of years before the concept of PnP DnD was invented.

Edit: Perhaps a better title might be in order for that section? Different games really do tend to generate their own references, especially to mechanics peculiar to them.

While the term "ransacking" was not created by the game, it is the first MMO to use the concept. It consists of looting a chest enough times that eventually, you don't get anything out of it. "Nerfing", however, is almost never used in DDO, that originates from other MMORPG's. Watersoftheoasis (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes
I took the liberty to reformat the presentation of player races and classes. I'm not extremely comfortable with a bullet point presentation but it looks better than just listing races and classes in a paragraph and gives it a cleaner look.

Also, I'm thinking it might be nice to add a section that either details or notes differences between the pen and paper eberron game and this one. There are differences in the rule set and it may actually be of interest for people familiar with the 3.5 pnp rules.

I also removed the paragraph listing monsters in the game. I think it might be better to create a separate page for monsters that appear in DnDO or just put a referrer to the DnD monster list. I'll cite the World of Warcraft page as an example in that line of thought. Another mmo; it doesn't list every race on the page, albeit the game seems to be large enough to demand that every single race and monster get it's own freaking wiki. (rolling eyes)...

TotalTommyTerror 09:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Added the alignment section. I can't honestly remember what all the available alignments are, so if anybody knows for sure feel free to add/subtract to the list.

TotalTommyTerror 10:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Took the liberty of adding a paragraph mentioning that there are differences between the DDO rules and D&D 3.5 tabletop rules. Rule differences in general were an important topic of discussion both during beta and after release, so I thought they deserved a sentence or two. DDO is also unusual among computer games in that a fair number of its players also play the tabletop game, so are prone to noticing rule differences between the two.

In addition, I removed a sentence that commented that about "a notion contrary to claims made during the Beta period of the game in which players were told that they were not included due to graphic and balance issues." It's not obvious the statement is verifiable, and in fact the reasons for why Monks and Druids aren't in the game are debatable. It's quite possible, for example, that it was early graphic and balance issues that kept these classes from advancing past the concept stages. So the statement that it's a "contrary notion" is the authors opinion, not necessarily a fact.

If such a statement is desired, I'd suggest instead including an objective factual sentence. For instance: "The fact that Druids and Monks are missing from DDO has been discussed and debated frequently on DDO related forums, with some players concerned about the reasoning behind their absence."

Just a suggestion.

Dugwiki 20:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The DDO Wiki details the primary differences between PnP D&D and DDO (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/PnP_differences). All in all it would amount to a pretty significant addition to the DDO article here, one which I suspect would distract more than anything from the main thrust of the general information about the game here. Having said that I was pondering, earlier, that a link or some minor section that points to that information in the DDO Wiki might be appropriate. If for no other reason than the fact that someone there is dutifully updating the information there and likely would become stale if repeated here without the same ongoing attention.

I would also remark that DDO isn't alone in having significant numbers of D&D PnP players. Pretty much any D&D video game finds a notable amount of said players who manage to debate, often at great length, about rules implementation regardless of the game. It certainly isn't a facet that DDO can claim all to its own *grin*.

Finally, regarding the Monk/Druid class not be included; the druid class itself was more or less deferred due to both graphic and balance issues during the beta period (I don't recall what the issues were for the monk, or that Turbine ever mentioned anything for the class specifically) though I for one remember (with 95% certainty) that Turbine did make a post to that effect regarding the Druid class.

Unfortunately they removed the beta forums so there are MANY things they said that can no longer be substantiated now -- at least, not very easily. With that in mind, it's just as well that the "contrary notion" portion was removed even if accurate, due to the inability to verify it, unequivocally.

I'm also not all that convinced that your suggested "objective factual sentence" provides any real information, and think it would be better to just leave a comment absent (from either direction) until something more substantial can be provided to verify the reasoning for the Monk/Druid absence. If we were talking about the Kennedy assasination or something, some mention about doubt or hints of conspiratorial notions might be worthwhile, but it doesn't seem to have much value in the DDO article (IMHO).

-D

I agree with the above suggestion that the DDO article here doesn't need to go into great detail on the differences between DDO and D&D. A link to, say, the DDO Wiki would work fine.

And as far as the Monk/Druid information, I think it's probably best to simply leave it as saying the Monk and Druid classes aren't in DDO. If someone finds a dev quote they can footnote that explains why the devs say they're missing, include that too. I'd stay away from speculation, though, on whether or not the devs are "lying" about their reasoning, etc. I was in beta myself, and I do remember the devs vaguely mentioning some general issues with the Monk and Druid, such as a problem implementing shapechanging and concerns about Monk loot and abilities and animations. If the "Book of Dev" is still around somewhere, it might have some of those quotes. Dugwiki 15:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Monster Compendium
the ddo article doesn't seem to be the right place for this as it's getting way too big very fast, it is also just a copy paste from the forum mainly. creating a seperate article seems better in my opinion. Boneyard 09:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is not the place for the Monster Compendium. If it is moved and more monsters are added, it might also be a good idea to scale it down slightly i.e. less detail, with a link to the ddo forum. --Smautf 13:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Doubly agreed.Doidimais Brasil 04:54, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * i pointed it out twice to the person doing it on his talkpage, but he ignores that and just keeps adding monsters. Boneyard 08:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Be bold in updating pages. So I was and deleted the section.  The "Monster Compendium" was deeply flawed.  First, it's pretty obviously a copyright violation.  For example, the Minotaur entry was directly copied from " Samera, Community Specialist" over at ddo.com.  Second (and more minorly), the section title is based on D&amp;D terminology; an encyclopedia entry should speak plainly, "List of Enemies in the Game".  Third, the list was woefully incomplete (unsurprising given that the game hasn't been released).  "An very incomplete list of enemies in the game" isn't very useful.  Fourth, by quoting the original developers comments and strategy tips, you aren't adding factual information, you're adding the claims of one group of people.  The resulting entries had a serious Neutral point of view problem.  Finally, the entries simply aren't encyclopedic.  Unfortunately I can't clearly describe what's wrong with their presence, but if I'm going to a a reference work to look up a game, I really don't care about a list of monsters in the game.  I care about who designed it, what is noteworthy about it, if any other games were influenced by it and what it was influenced by.  Alan De Smet | Talk 22:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * well thanks i guess, stuff like this is in my opinion tricky choosing between be bold and don't bite the newbies. Boneyard 08:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * nice one. i'll remove the "attention see talk" sign from the article - you solved the problem we had. i'm sure the article will receive some attention when the game enters beta. Smautf 20:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * On the subject of the monster compendium, there is a wiki all for ddo where that would much better be placed, ther an interwiki link for something like 'list of monsters' and such, perhaps some wikifying of the article with links to definitions of things like class enhancements on the DDOwiki mught be on order - it seems pretty developed 24.237.6.216 22:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

More analysis
I think this article could use a section analysing the differences between the implementation of the 3.5 rules in DDO and the official 3.5 rules, as well as a comparison to other computer games that have attempted to implement the same rules (e.g., Neverwinter Nights). This would explain how this game differs from its predecessors, and how close it is to the actual "paper" version of the game. I'm not part of the beta test, and I have no idea if enough data is available to do this sort of analysis. Canonblack 19:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it shouldn't say this. That's the place for the version 3.5 article (or whatever it is), not this article. bob rulz 02:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, there might be a place for commonly appearing criticism of DDO, just as there is for City of Heroes in its wikipedia entry. One commonly appearing criticism is that Dungeons and Dragons Online has moved away from many standard and traditional features of D&D, features that have appeared in other computer games based on D&D, but rather emulates those D&D games that also moved away from the normal ruleset to the detriment of the gameplay.  Also, there is criticism that it has little to do with Eberron's unique flavor and theme.


 * Of course, a place for praise would also be good. (Anonymous)


 * Already exists: http://en.ddowiki.ws/w/PnP_differences - add it as a external link if you like. 66.58.239.135 06:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The link you suggest is on another website, and is not a Wikipedia site as far as I can tell. There is room within this article for a succinct list of apparent flaws (such as mentioning that many players who are dissatisfied with DDO express that it differs too strongly from PnP rules for their taste, others expressing that it also differs noticably from the Eberron Campaign World setting that DDO derives from).


 * ... 'A Wikipedia'? What the heck is 'A Wikipedia'? It's running on MediaWiki software if that's what you mean. And it sure is a wiki, working on the same basic principles that founded wikipedia.

Name change
Shouldn't this be Dugeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach? bob rulz 02:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah... hemmm... hahh... I'm not sure. My guess is that Stormreach is only the name of the initial release (like Star Wars Galaxies: An Empire Divided) and that D&D Online will be the overreaching name.  But that's my opinion. Donovan Ravenhull 03:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * could be indeed, perhaps make a reveral from the complete name to here, but changing doesn't seem needed. Boneyard 09:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, I just made a redirect from Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach since I thought it was odd that it was a red link in the upcoming video game releases list. Didn't even know there was already a discussion about the naming in the first place.  :p  --TheKoG 15:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If the official title is Dungeons and Dragons: Stormreach the ":" means it's a subtitle, doesn't it? Either way that's a lot of freaking syllables. TotalTommyTerror 09:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
Need to adda few pictures.
 * that would indeed be nice yes. Boneyard 08:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What Other pictures would be good? I added 2, but I can get more. Watersoftheoasis 21:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.202.137 (talk)

Solo content and PvP section is wrong
The section on solo content and PvP gives the wrong impression. Turbine announced they would add more solo content... not that you would be able to solo the entire game. Also, PvP was never said that it would not ever be implemented... only that it wouldn't be in the game at release.

http://www.ddo-europe.com/faq.php?type=About%20Game&page=15

Finally... co-operative gameplay is very possible in PvP... when you play Team vs Team.

--J-Star 10:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

While you are correct to a certain extent, the URL (and answer in it) is a bit misleading. It was made very clear during the alpha/beta periods of DDO's development that so-called "heavy PvP" would never be a part of the game. While "light PvP" was considered (and "not to be included at launch"), several times during the beta period it was made extremely clear that the community shouldn't hold their breath for even that much. The widely suggested position of the Turbine staff was that PvP of any sort had no real place in D&D or DDO and they had no plans at all on the table for its inclusion in the game -- at best it was a very distant possibility.

The following letter to the community gives an idea of the general tone that they introduced the notion of no-PvP with:

http://www.mmhell.com/news/101404/920_cp2.html

(Note that the URL to the original board post pointed to the Beta version of the forums, which no longer exists, so you can't see the original anymore as per the deletion of those forums in entirety).

Furthermore, despite a "team vs. team" situation calling for co-operation between members of the same team, that by no means fits the commonly understood definition of co-operative game play; rather, co-operative game play is defined by all human players sharing a co-operative and non-hostile game experience with one another. Team vs. Team PvP is PvP, plain and simple.

--D

Beta information in the introduction
The details on Beta testing should not be in the opening paragraph. The beta is over and done with, and while its a notable part of the game's history, it's not so important that it should be in the introduction. See WP:LEAD for the manual of style on the lead paragraph. If there's disagreement on this issue, let's discuss here and try and come to a concensus. -- MisterHand 14:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but move it higher in the article. That kind of information should either be before or after discussion of gameplay mechanics. Not right in the middle of them.

Actually, I'll move it.

TotalTommyTerror 08:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section needs ref.
The criticism section is full of POV opinions. That section needs references to show such criticism or it has to go. --J-Star 08:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting that the references that were there have been removed by subsequent editors
 * So put them back... or take out the section.--J-Star 08:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well you could write pages on how the game breaks with D&D rules and through that often spoil the interest of pen and paper players, you dont need many references, player's handbook, monster manual etc etc take a look at the core books, and you'll see that D&D Online is only D&D in the name.
 * This has been nagged to death on the forums... don't bring such unencyclopedic nonsense to Wikipedia. And let me just point out that you do not decide what is D&D or not. WotC owns the brand and they have given Turbine the go-ahead. Hence, DDO is D&D, whether you like it or not. --J-Star 12:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The criticism section currently consists of a header and a box indicating issues with the now non-existant text. Time to erase it?  Or does someone have relevant non-PoV criticism to post?  --Junior612 22:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nuked. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

CORPG
This game seems to fall into the heading of CORPG, would it be correct to move it into this genre? The typical amount of players in a combat instance in D&D Online is 6 players, with 12 players being maximum for special instances. --Wormywyrm 22:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to meet the definition in CORPG, but note that the CORPG article appears to be an unreferenced stub. There is no verfication within the article that the term has any sort of widely accepted use within the industry.  In fact, as it stands, the article admits that only two games, Fury and Guild Wars, officially use the term to describe themselves.  Therefore, with the lack of references, it's quite possible the article could fail to meet WP:V policy and might end up being deleted. Dugwiki 22:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really seem to fit CORPG. CORPG concentrates on competition, but DDO concentrates on cooperation. If you try to compete for things such as the most kills, you usually won't make it through the dungeon, unless of course you're a few levels higher than the dungeon level. Watersoftheoasis (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

do you have to have a subscrition?
I was wondering whether this game needs monthly fee to play like Wow. Could you say if it does need a monthly fee or not?


 * A monthly fee is required. I don't know if that's worth mentioning in the article, however, given that a monthly fee for a game of this type is generally considered to be the norm. --Junior612 21:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is worth mentioning. It's one of the first things I generally look for when I see a Wiki on yet another MMORPG. Sometimes the information can be relatively obscure on the official game sites, buried under manuals and whatnot. 202.61.229.2 15:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that Eberron Unlimited is released,Dungeons & Dragons online is now free to play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.103.0.1 (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The current situation now is that in the US it is "free to play" and players have the option to subscribe to a VIP status. In Europe it still remains subscription based. One reason for this is that the game is run by Turbine in the US and Codemasters in Europe. (26, September 2009)


 * S'cos Europe's used to having their money taken from them. --86.29.123.222 (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Expanded Future updates
To include the most recent events Martinj63 21:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Characters per account?
Shouldn't there be information on how many characters a single account can have? And also more information on player accounts in general, when looking for info on an mmo, that's generally one of the first things i look for. I'd add it myself, but I don't have the game.

The max characters a single account can have is 40 per server. I am maxed out. Davidchance2000 (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed from article
The following content was removed from the article for a good reason, but I believe that a fair bit of it can be merged in with the other content on the page if someone has the time to do so, so I'm putting it here for now.

If you think this info needs a separate page then fine. But it needs to be easily accessible. I came here looking for this specifically and had to dig through history to find it. Bad form and laziness to just remove it and store on the talk page.

Updates and modules
Turbine releases major content updates to the game as "modules", named after the module concept in the pen-and-paper version of D&D. Additional content is release between modules as "updates"



Module 1: Dragon's Vault
On April 5 2006 Turbine released its first module, "Dragon's Vault," which included a new dungeon; this new area included additional content and quests as well as the chance for players to battle a red dragon. Also included were a number of fixes to the combat system and minor tweaks to the user interface.

Update 1.1: The Harbor
This first update include changes to the low level Harbor quests.

Update 1.2: Solo Enhancements
More changes to the Harbor area, including the addition of several solo-only quests there.

Module 2: Twilight Forge
The "Twilight Forge" module, released July 12 2006, added a new player race: the Drow (playable only if certain requirements have been met), as well as new enhancements, spells, a patron system, in-game mail, and adventures set in the Restless Isles, a new outdoor area.

Update 2.1: Litany of the Dead Part 1: The Necropolis
In August 2006, an update called "Litany of the Dead Part 1: The Necropolis" was released. This update is the first part of the Litany of the Dead series that carried into next year. The update has five full quests as part of the first part of Litany, and culminates in an encounter with a powerful vampire. 

Update 2.2: Stormreach Under Siege!
This update for September 2006 introduced the first quests above level 10, other than the Twilight Forge raid, including a level 12 quest in the previously low-level only Harbor area.

Module 3: Demon Sands
This module, the largest one at the time, was released on October 25, 2006. With this update, Turbine attempted to alleviate many of the player base's most acute concerns. Primarily, it introduced some more meaningfully explorable areas to the game in order to give the world a feeling of greater breadth. It also introduced some consensual PvP (Player vs. Player) elements to the game (in the form of "Tavern Brawl" arenas and objective-based quests; Capture the Flag, Indoor and Outdoor Deathmatch), as well as an auction house, and the first level-cap raise from ten to twelve.

Update 3.1: Evil Resurgent
This December 2006 update included a rework of the social panel, many bug fixes, and six high level quests. Most of these new quests, all of which are rated at level 11, are sequels to previous quests, extending the storylines of the characters involved.

Update 3.2: Litany of the Dead Part 2
Five new monsters (phase spiders, shadows, umbral worgs, umbral gargoyles, and invisible stalkers) were released in this update, along with five quests for party level 8-9. These quests continue the storyline of The Necropolis from Litany of the Dead Part 1.

Update 3.3: Academy Training
This update completely revamped the Action Point enhancement system. Also, in celebration of DDO's one-year anniversary, all chests were at +1 level from February 28 to March 4, and all XP awarded from March 2 to March 4 was +50%.

Module 4: Reaver's Bane
Introduced in April 2007, Reaver's Bane brought the level cap up to 14 from 12 and introduced a new terrain mechanic along with many new spells and abilities for characters of all levels. Two new areas (the Cerulean Hills and Gianthold Ruins) use the new mechanic that includes entrances to traditional quests plus three new types of quests : slayer quests (where you get experience for how many monsters you or your party have killed), explorer quests (where you get experience just for visiting a new part of the area for the first time), and rare encounter quests (where you get experience for killing infrequently spawned named monsters).

Update 4.1: Mark of the Dragon
The May 2007 update included, among other things, the implementation of Dragonmarks and the addition of a new encounter area: Ataraxia's Haven.

Update 4.2: Searing Heights
This July 2007 update revamped the Menechtarun desert landscape and the Waterworks adventure area. There is an added landscape for level 4 characters to battle the Sulatar firebinders, new spells, abilities, and enhancements including Holy Sword and Warchanter. Players get three more weapon set configuration slots for a total of seven. Also fixed were several bugs. Many new spells were added for all spellcasting classes. Extra enhancements were also added. One additional level 4 dungeon was added.

Module 5: The Accursed Ascension
Released in September 2007, this module includes parts 3 and 4 of the Litany of the Dead; by doing so, it doubled the amount of quests in the Necropolis area. It ends with a new high level raid. Apart from the addition of new enhancements and some minor corrections, the metamagic system went through a major revision and the item tooltips were vastly improved. Some new additions are collectable and gem bags, made to reduce the cluttering of inventory space. 

Starting with this module, the development team made the decision to stop releasing interim updates. Responding to the players' feedback that the interim updates do not provide enough new content, the developers will instead focus on creating significantly larger modules.

Module 6: The Thirteenth Eclipse
The January 2008 update, the Thirteenth Eclipse, raised the level cap from 14 to 16, and opened a previously locked area that was partially accessible by players, The Twelve. Also with this area is a new set of quests and a new raid located in an area connected to The Twelve, called the Vale of Twilight. Included as well with this update is allowance for subscribers to customize the player interface as is available in Turbine's other MMO "Lord of the Rings Online". 

Update 6.1 (released on 27 February 2008) introduced a new, ongoing live event, as well as a slice of anniversary cake. The anniversary cake summons a Djinni that will grant a wish (as the Wish spell)

Module 7: Way of the Monk
This update, released on 3 June 2008, introduced the Monk class to all servers. It had previously been in testing for a time on the Risia preview server. Included were various city upgrades, bounty subquests that involve collecting remains of monsters, and UI interface tweaks. The Monk class is planned to be updated in the near future.

Module 8: Prisoners Of Prophecy
This update, released 6 November 2008, introduced a new low level area called Korthos Island. It currently has replaced the starter area in the Harbor, as well as most of the low (level 1, 2, 3) quests and four new high adventure areas. They have also integrated DirectX 10 into their graphics with this update.

NPCs known as hirelings have been tested on the Risia server, and also had a preview to get more feedback on the main servers. They have been integrated into Stormreach.

–Drilnoth (T • C) 13:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a game guide. Cover the major features of each release; the details and the minor revisions aren't notable to me. If you can't decide easily, stick to the rule of three's: pick three features to describe in detail and just name off the rest. Release dates on updates aren't notable unless it's a controversial release that the playerbase/media individually call out for attention (e.g.: Star Wars Online's "NGE" is a notable release, since mention of it elicits a broad reaction to both players and media. The other updates simply aren't.)

I'd keep it more of a primer and less of a manual. 209.180.155.12 (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

New Changes
With the game now 3 years old, I think it's time to update this article to reflect the game as it is today. I have taken the liberty to expand a paragraph on the introduction. I also want to give it a better format, so that it will be more pleasant to read. Some of the information is clumped together. I hope to give this article a breath of fresh air. Although I do not want to destroy anyone else's work.Vernash (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC) I added a second paragraph to the introduction detailing somewhat of an overview of the article to help with the Ambox at the top. I would like to get a approximate total subscriber number and relationship of the game in regards to the marketshare of DDO with a third paragraph.Added a table to the character class section. I feel it corresponds better to the D&D article than bulletpoint style, and reflects how the game has special paths you can follow. I do not see the reason to add every path to each class, as their names have changed more than once. Also added another paragraph there and added to the Alignments section paragraph. More to come.Vernash (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Condensed the information in Section 8 into a more readable format. It does not make sense to have subsections within subsections when they are only a couple sentences long. An update to a module does not require its own section. Deleted a couple screenshots that did not work in that section as well.Vernash (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Also added in the Feat, Skill and Enhancement section. It was much needed to inform about how characters' can be diversified. However, I do not have any references at this time. Feel free to add in any info you see fit.Vernash (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Combined Mechanic, Quests and Difficulty into 1 Gameplay section. It is much more readable.Vernash (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)I will not update anything else until at least 2010, when hopefully the company that owns this property will fix the problems with the IP.Vernash (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC) April-August 2009: Added in Alignments, condensed the Module section, deleted a couple screenshots, added Feat, Skill and Enhancements system, combined Mechanic, Quests & Diffuculty into 1 Gameplay section. Reformatted, but still need references and I want to get an approximate total subscriber number and relationship of the game in regards to the MMO marketshare.Vernash (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Screenshots
I would like to get some screenshots in here, specifically of the different additions in each mod. I'll work on getting some, but if anyone else could help, I'd appreciate it. Watersoftheoasis (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC) I believe that eight pictures would be a bit much just for one article. A limit of four or less would be more appropriate.Vernash (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Crafting
Now that crafting has been added into the game, I think it would be a good idea to add a separate section in the article discussing a brief overview of crafting, or forming an entirely new article with detailed information. Watersoftheoasis (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Good idea. Still working on condensing all the information into a Gameplay section. I will add a subsection for Crafting so anyone can pick that up.Vernash (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)If anyone writes a crafting overview, please put it under Gameplay section.Vernash (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

reception/success
This article lacks both a reception section (what grades did it get at release) as well as notes on its current success (or lack thereof) 78.82.29.77 (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Free 2 Play
Someone should add a section concerning the game's switch to F2P. http://content.turbine.com/pages/www.ddo.com/beta_signup/index.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.241.0.6 (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I'm on top of it. Most of the info will be put in the Future Updates section after I am done reviewing the press releases and forum articles within the next couple days.Vernash (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

- I added the relevant information, giving the difference in content between free players and subscribers as well as actually putting in the reference. --Paperbard (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The current situation is that only in the US the game has switched to "free to play". In Europe it still remains subscription based. There is not much official information from Turbine or Codemasters concerning the future of the billing/subscription system for Europe though. (14:00, 25 September 2009)

Orc class delayed indefinitely
According to the developers on the recent DDO Cast.

http://hostedwith.cyberears.com/7404.mp3

--VertigoOne (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Limited how?
I notice that in the comparison chart it states that Chat, Auctions, Mail and Gold Storage are "limited" but doesn't expand on exactly what that means. Can someone elaborate on exactly how they are limited? 203.211.121.53 (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

System requirements
The game lists no plans for a Linux client, but many Linux players do play DDO and LotRO through a custom launcher and Wine. The official site used to have the links, which is why I mention it, but I can't access them as I am behind a firewall right now. Prince of Cats (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Reversions of removal of game guide information
Wikipedia is not a game guide, so I removed the information in this article that is not encyclopedic, but rather only suited for a game guide. In reverting that removal (of data which does not need to be revised, but should be deleted), the reverters have also lost other copy edits and clean up information, and restored external links that are not encyclopedic (WP:EL). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Future updates" senseless
The paragraph named "future updates" was about vapourware from 2007. Now it's 12/2009 and either those things didn't happen or already happened, so the paragraph itself was senseless anyway. I've completely removed it, I don't think there was anything worth saving.

If you DO think there was something worth saving, then re-write it in a proper manner, because restoring it as it was would be just restoring something wrong and obsolete.

I have spoken.

--Lo&#39;oris (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Who's the publisher? (Turbine v. Atari lawsuit)
Turbine alleged in its August 2009 lawsuit against Atari that Atari failed to hold up its side of the publishing agreement, so Turbine assumed the publishing, marketing, and distribution duties itself. See complaint pages 8 through 10. Whether Atari is the publisher appears now to be in dispute, so may be due for a fact check... I'll see if I can locate Atari's response to the allegations... Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great - let us know! 24.148.0.83 (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"Reception" section
I must echo the person earlier who got no reply. This needs a section on its reviews and critical reception. 88.105.53.90 (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite, not copy edit
Wikipedia articles need to be comprehensible to general readers, and when that isn't possible provide helpful information to people who are experts. The article in its current form doesn't do either well. It's incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't know what D&D is, and is a collection of partly trivial, obvious and uninteresting factoids for those who are experienced players.

Also, there's a problem that editors are talking off the top of their head, without references, sometimes about things that are no longer true, or that (to my knowledge) were never true. This example sentence is among the many that are a combination of ill-defined, informal language, and misleading information: "Hard and Elite increase the XP bonus the first time the quest is run at the given level, and generally provide a much more challenging experience to the players." (E.g., higher difficulties don't "generally" provide a bigger challenge, they always do.)

Probably there needs to be two kinds of sections and paragraphs, one for people with no knowledge of D&D, and the other for people who know a great deal about DDO, and are interested in little-known information that wouldn't come to them in the course of months of game play.

Overall, the material in the DDO Wiki is better written, more focussed. The material here that's borrowed from Turbine's commercial site doesn't meet Wikipedia needs, and for that information, such as section "Eberron Unlimited" I would encourage Turbine itself to rewrite it with complete infomation, since the Wiki page gets 11,000 hits in a month. (The editors who do this should identify their contributions as being from Turbine employees here, as a courtesy.) 67.188.213.223 (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there would be a COI problem to have employees come here and rewrite the article. Although, you are probably right in that it does need a rewrite from someone. The story/plot section was removed, so we could use a new one. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is in pretty bad shape. I reorganized some sections and trimmed a little here and there, but it still needs a major overhaul in the gameplay and characters sections.  There is far too much detail in those sections, and it's unbalanced in terms of covering all aspects of the article evenly. —Torchiest talkedits 15:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

mmorpg.com quarterfinals
I'm busy with finals at school right now, but I came across  where DDO is in the quarterfinals of the competition for their best MMORPG of 2014 if someone is interested an willing to make a note on the article and watch the progress to see if they make the semi-finals and/or win. Thanks. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 18:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dungeons & Dragons Online. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140321180701/http://darkcardking.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/myddo-does-the-new-enhancement-system-really-enhance-ddo/ to http://darkcardking.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/myddo-does-the-new-enhancement-system-really-enhance-ddo/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091222082339/http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/78203/page/6 to http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/78203/page/6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dungeons & Dragons Online. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140522122415/http://www.turbine.com/en/company/press-releases/eberron-unlimited-launches to http://www.turbine.com/en/company/press-releases/eberron-unlimited-launches

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)