Talk:Legions: Overdrive

So was it released in June 08 or is it still in development? The wiki conflicts itself. 98.24.91.109 (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning Up
I am going to try to go through this article and clean it up a little bit and fix some of the wording. I removed this text from the Sniper Specialist class description text because I don't think that the information is important to the class description (it is more of a gameplay hint): Although there is little close range combat, some snipers snipe close up. This manoeuver is effective if you know how to use it. Some snipers target the flag and release the laser when a capper makes a move on the flag. Due to the fact that the gun emits a beam at the target the sniper can be found easier. A tip for all snipers: Aim for the head!

RocketJacker

Sorry for changing order, but I wish to admit to the removed quote above. I understand completely why this quote has been declared unacceptable. My addition of 'aim for the head!' is out of line. However, as a die hard fan of Legions since launch in 2008, and the predecessors in the form of Tribes and Tribes 2, I would like to be able to describe the updated loadout system, new class features and weapon additions without it being deleted by non-players who think the game hasn't changed. In my revisions I try to be unbiased... (with much difficulty, may I add) I attempted to supply details of the new classes and new weapons, with no reference to effect, but to the common purpose they are put to. I returned 48 hours later to find my incomplete revision (i.e. missing the overdrive) to be deleted. The editing policy for this type of material is too strict, and that is why all game descriptions such as Fallen Empire: Legions are vague. No users can reference the game details without having some knowledge of the game, and consequently, they become a biased source, therefore an innappropriate source. Is the InstantAction blog a suitable source for Overdrive information? The user Eik has deleted many of my revisions, which have been accurate and up to date, without considering trying to reword my work or neutralising any biased comments. If my revisions are unsuitable, please inform me with what needs sorted before deleting them. RocketJacker 14:43 10 November 2009)
 * Please read WP:NOT and WP:GAMECRUFT. The material has been deleted because it really doesn't belong here.  This is an encyclopedia, not a source of information about how to play the game or an in-depth list of the game's features and changes.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I will work some editing later. I am just trying to condense the material and remove unnecessary information that does not really describe the game.--Dylan Mikus (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Eik, could you please rework the movement into gameplay instead of deleting it entirely and annoying other users? As per GAMECRUFT the gameplay should be described - however you've deleted essential parts of it. Overdrive is a game defining feature which needs to be explained. 87.194.16.91 (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The stuff I removed was a list of weapons, an external link and the "movement" section. The weapons list is inappropriate per WP:GAMECRUFT, the link violated WP:EL. The movement section was actually ok, but it should be part of the gameplay section in order to avoid filling the article with numerous categories. For example, as it's a contrast to the previous games in the series, it is indeed notable, but it doesn't warrant an entire section. It should be part of the gameplay section, and cut down as it was. Players need to know the difference, not be fed original research -- WP:OR -- about how its exact speed is an homage to something. The Overdrive thing could possibly be included, but one again, there's no reliable source for any of this, that's why I'm hesitant to expand on the gameplay section; With unreleased games, it can lead to unfounded speculation WP:CRYSTAL to expand the article too early. Eik Corell (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is the problem when you start cleaning up content for articles where you don't know about the subject itself. The game is certainly not in an unreleased state - it's been available to play for over a year now, the "open beta" launch is comparable to a Google beta, they just never officially claimed a post-beta launch.  I'm not arguing for weapon/class descriptions back, as that certainly is WP:GAMECRUFT.  However the gameplay section certainly needs more detail about the jetpack/skating (essential parts of Legions movement), along with overdrive (a unique feature which sets the game apart from its "spiritual successors").  You'd be better off trying to salvage as much usable content as possible instead of outright deletion of sections which do contain some useful information - these are provoking fans of the game into reverting your edits. 87.194.16.91 (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The beta thing does provide a problem, because while it might be pretty close, by their own admission it is a beta; need to be watchful watchful since things can change. But you are right that I don't know about the game, and it does need some additional elaboration on the gameplay part, but once again, gameplay details must be kept to minimum, as part of the Gameplay section. If a part of the gameplay is significant enough, it can possibly be added as a sub-category, but at this stage that should probably be avoided. But if you have details you want added about the overdrive, and you can find find a source for it, that's all well and well. Eik Corell (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Beta is finished but live development continues... I'll fix this one up!!! Overdrive will be sorted soon and all new class and weapon notes updated!

madbowler 12:13 4 November 2009 (GMT)

LegionsOverdrive.com as the official site
Recent additions stated that the project was picked up by fans, but the only info I can find when searching for this new website, are links leading to reddit.com, and one comment on a thread in the gamespot.com forums. We need a source that actually states that this website/new team is authorized to take over development and so on. Eik Corell (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have documentation stating as such. You will not find any official posts by InstantAction personnel as most of them were informed at 11am on Thursday that they needed to be out of their office by 3pm. An announcement was slated for the following Monday before the company was closed down. Former employees have encouraged the project on the Legions Overdrive forums, but if you need a point of contact, I can direct you to the former Lead Designer as well as the former Community Manager for InstantActon/TorquePowered. You have my contact information on your user talk page. BugsPrae (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Problem is, such documentation would constitute original research. We need a reliable source confirming that this new version is indeed: A successor, and an official one at that. By the way, we need to keep this debate on the talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.gameshrine.org/forum/index.php/topic,2612.0.html You think this could be used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.148.239.102 (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's also a Ventrillo conversation with the guys making it from a few days ago. EvanVolm (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this is still in the realm of original research. Eik Corell (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Would a post on the TorquePowered.com website, by a Torque employee who is also a representative of InstantAction, constitute a valid reference? BugsPrae (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking about this one. Forums specifically are not reliable sources, unless a post is by a recognized authority on the subject, like in this case, employees.

"'You can follow LegionsPlayers for information, but as it stands Legions is indefinitely on hold until legal conditions are resolved.'"
 * LegionsPlayers links to the Legions Overdrive site, but it's hard to draw a line from the initial post to them actually endorsing a link that's present on that site. Furthermore, the second sentence would seem to be strong evidence against Legions Overdrive being an official, or endorsed, sequal/remake/whatever of the original. One last thing: We don't know in what capacity the employee wrote this. Is he a representative, is he a forum moderator, or does he just mop the floors on wednesdays? The point with that speculation is that we don't know what his actual role is, and hence his opinion can't really be considered notable/trustworthy.


 * Anyway, the post I referenced above was the only one I could find. If you were talking about another one, post the link and I'll have a look. Eik Corell (talk)
 * Oh please. Whatever the information source on the internet can be written by the local maid for all we know. The fact that the site is guite brutally claiming to be a licenced community project of the game is already enough. If such info is indeed wrong the host company is more than likely to force them down. Also we have verification of such project by an employer form the company. (Do note they are still part of the company although the offices have been cleared.) As another note, please do not go blunt revert if valid information was changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.148.239.102 (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't a time limit on writing this article. We can afford to wait until reliable sources point us toward the official site. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not referring to that post. There may be another post happening shortly by an authority. I was just double checking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BugsPrae (talk • contribs) 18:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Legions: Overdrive = Fallen Empire: Legions
This really shouldn't be an issue, but I guess it is. IA handed the game over to the community to develop(IAC still owns the game, however). Overdrive is literally the same game that was on the IA platform, just out of the browser. Same engine, same models, same guns, same everything. The only thing lacking are the features that were part of the IA platform, such as the lobby and friends list. Other than that, it's the same game, so any new developments on Overdrive should be allowed on this wiki page. If this means renaming this page to Legions: Overdrive, so be it. EvanVolm (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If the game is still being developed or supported by a different publisher, then yes, I'd say we should change the name of the article. As it stands, the article makes it sound like a group of people from the forums were given the code and they slapped a different name on it, essentially forking the game with the permission of the original content owners. That's the type of material we typically don't care about. Wyatt Riot (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)