Jump to content

Talk:Eve Online/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Regarding Factional Warfare

As stated here[1], CCP wont integrate Factional warfare into the new Expansion. Can someone edit the paragraph regarding Revelations III? I dont consider my english good enough.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.141.122.201 (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

To me that sounds like an excuse. I suggest you edit the article by yourself. When there's something to improve in your style somebody will gladly do that. I'll give it a try. But just asking for someone to do it (in clean and flawless English by the way) isn't the right way to go. That sounds like you don't want to write it - not like your English isn't good enough. Aexus 19:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. I didn't realize that Richard Slater had already edited the article accordingly. Aexus 19:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I just got edit conflicted trying to reply to you, I will duly steps away from keyboard -- RichardSlater (About) / (Talk) 19:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It's okay, there's nothing to be sorry about. Personally I wouldn't have edited the article. It's your decision to do so and I don't complain about it. By the way the ip address 85.178.6.140 was me. I just edited the main article. Aexus 20:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again Goonswarm seeks publicity

It is really becoming tiresome reverting the Criticism section back to a non biased encyclopedic format. Biased Criticism or Goonswarm booster clubs will not be tolerated and will be reverted back. This isn't the place to tell urban legends on how the upstart Guild stuck it to the corperate entity. Martinj63 02:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

so rather than edit what the actual misconduct was to a NPOV, (which is citeable), you just remove it and accuse editors of being Pro-Goonswarm? One could argue that your editing is Pro CCP. If this article mentions misconduct, then it is only reasonable that the nature of this misconduct is briefly mentioned. I'm suspecting COI on your part here as well as the editors that are pro-goonswarm. --The internet is serious business 10:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


It's removed because it's non-encyclopedic,opinionated, biased and has nothing to do with what EVE is...which is the purpose of an encyclopedia. Again this is an encyclopedia, not a soap box for gamers.

Martinj63 21:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The information you have removed is accurate, well-cited and encyclopaedic, even being confirmed by CCP (who form many of the citations). What you have done is nothing short of biased vandalism resulting in a completely inaccurate picture (you simply refer to allegations, while making no mention of the fact that some were proven and admitted to be true. See this), which I have reverted. This is nothing to do with Goonswarm, it is do with an encyclopaedic, accurate, informative and unbiased log of events. This has everything do with what Eve is, and has been the major cause of press-coverage of Eve over the last year.


No it's not it is news and news reporting and encyclopedic content are two separate things. Remember Wikipedia is not a news service or news report archive. Yet more and and more attention is paid to appending articles for stories which have only received news coverage, without considering the difference between news and encyclopedia content. Martinj63 23:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Reading your edits, I cannot help but feel you are attempting to whitewash the whole affair by removing facts and implying that they are untrue, despite accurate and reliable confessions being cited (or were cited, right up until you deleted them). Please do not vandalise this page again.80.189.248.109 16:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you are making way too much of old news,(Notice the word news, which carries a differnt meaning than that of encyclopedic conetnt) that really doesn't have anything to do with what EvE is. The streamedlined version is best, it touches on the incident without soapboxing or tales of ribaldry. Just because you found another instance doesn't make it encyclopedic. Many users agree with this, you seem to just want to push the story or urban legend as it were.

Martinj63 21:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this comment in the right page? What does Urban legends and tales of Ribaldry have to do with the discussion? Alatari 18:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Martinj63 is probably refering to to the Goonswarm discussion, so yes it is in the wrong place. Moved the conversation up the page! -- RichardSlater (About) / (Talk) 19:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you making edits for another main account? Please do not remove links to the Eve Online article without taking part in the discussion or giving a valid reason. Alatari 00:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

you are not an administrator and we disagree about whether the link is valid. We need to goto arbitration. Alatari 07:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me very clear here. I believe this belongs on your page along with the many of the complaints about your reverts but here it goes:
Do you have any connections to EVEInfo, Battleclininc or other paid advertising site related to Eve Online or Wikia the ex-host of http://eve-wiki.net/? I am trying to determine if you are in COI. As for me I have gone through the entire W:COI list and do not meet any of the criteria. Another editor who has reverted the link has admitted to working for Battleclinic. You have no information on your page and all your history shows is that you revert external links every day so one must ask if you are being paid in some way for your work. Alatari 09:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Alatari, please calm down. You keep adding a link to a Wiki that has been removed by multiple editors according to the external links guideline. Additionally you have admitted an apparent mild conflict of interest in contributing to this Wiki. I don't even know what Eve Online is, and could not care less really. I do know that the encyclopedia has two clear guidelines on that you seem to want to ignore, regardless of what multiple neutral editors do or think. Take a breath, realize that Wikipedia is not a link depository, and understand that an official site and Dmoz link is plenty for an article. 2005 11:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The editor that removed the link was in COI by working for Battleclinic and EVEInfo. I have never admitted to any COI so please point out why you believe this. The site is already linked on 4 or 5 other pages and has been for months. There are other examples of popular fansites being linked i.e. Starwars pointed out by User:Dark_Shikari. An admin of Wikipedia believes the link is appropriate. And I noticed that you completely sidestepped the question of whether you have any financial interest here (i.e.representing Wikia or it's interests). I tried to have this conversation on your talk page but you got hectic about removing it from your page. Finally I challenge you to find any external wiki link which wasn't linked originally by an editor at that wiki. If that is a COI then be more diligent in removing all of those external wiki links. Alatari 15:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
You said you contribute to the Wiki you keep linking. That is a conflict of interest. You should let neutral editors consider whether a type of link merits a 1 out of 100 exception to linking to wikis. And what do fansites have to do with anything? Please stay on topic. The issue here is linking to a wiki which the external links guideline should normally not do, not fansites. As for finacuial interests, please stop this silly stuff. As I said, I haven't the slightest interest in this topic or anything having to do with it. And finally this is amazing statement ... "I challenge you to find any external wiki link which wasn't linked originally by an editor at that wiki"... spamming is another topic. Likely virtually all those external wiki links should be removed. What is unlear here? The guideline says wikis should seldom be linked, and obviously common sense dictates the same as they are unstable from even minute to minute. Now one last time, you have a conflict of interest with this wiki. At least two neutral editors have pointed out the innapropriateness of this link to you. Please follow the EL guideline, and move on. The article has adequate external links with the official ones and the dmoz one. 2005 22:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Your statistics are way off. The number of MMORPG articles with external Wiki links are 48/148 not 1/100. Fansites are the topic. These are depositories of Cruft not to be placed on Wikipedia. See the history of the Wookiepedia. Then if you believe all the external Wiki Links to the other 48 articles about MMORPG's are invalid then be more diligent about removing them. Go right over to the Star Wars article and remove the Wookiepedia link. Include the featured articles like Halo 2 that have external Wiki links. Your inconsistency is annoying. There are other editors including one admin that have no objections to the link. I noticed that I'm not the only editor putting the link back in. I'll watch and see what you do with the other links. Alatari 07:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Having an externally linked Wiki means the Eve Cruft is not getting posted on Wikipedia which is a distinct possibility as EVE gets increasingly popular. And this method is used for WoW, Runescape and Second Life which have an external Wiki links. I didn't go through the entire list of MMORPG's but did notice EVE Online article is having the strictest of external linking guidelines applied to it while the other MMORPG have top 3 fansites listed directly and other styles or external linking. (EVE Online isn't in the MMORPG list. An oversight to be corrected.) Looking through the recent changes WoWWiki is a monster with 500 edits a day, RuneScape Wiki also is a heartily used site while the second listing Dark RuneScape Wiki has significantly fewer edits than Eve-Wiki has, and Second Life's Wiki Second Life Wiki has about the same amount of edits per day as Eve-Wiki. All I am asking is that this article be formatted in a way as so many of the other popular MMORPG articles are. Alatari 16:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You should be asking that this article be external linked in accordance with WP:EL. 2005 22:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The Wiki I linked this article to has significantly more contributions than most all the other externally linked Wiki's which satisfies #12 of WP:EL Mathematics.... use it. Alatari 07:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Alatari, please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility. By accusing 2005 of having a conflict of interest just because you disagree about an edit, you're not assuming good faith, and you're also not being civil. Not the best way to make your case. Rray 13:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think he is not acting in good faith by reviewing the history of his edits. And by the removal of discussion on his talk page which were discussions between him and I ('Either contact the other party on that user's talk page...'). Also the clear animosity he has shown me thoughout this discussion. And his inconsistency of external link edits by refusal to review other MMORPG articles external Wiki's. He refuses to see the other editors COI and keeps focusing on my perceived COI. Alatari 07:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

An edit war has broken out involving Alatari and several editors over the application of WP:EL in the removal of the link to EVE-Wiki in the External Links section of the article. -- RichardSlater (About) / (Talk) 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am currently going through every article on Wikipedia involving MMORPGs to see if the handling of this page is in accord with the others. So far this article is being treated in a non-standard way. I will post my data on the subject in a bit. Alatari 16:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Completed the research on how wiki external links are handled for MMORPGs on Wikipedia.
  • Number of MMORPG represented on Wikipedia: 148
  • Number of articles with externally linked Wiki site: 49 (32%) (note that the majority of future unreleased MMORPG have private or official Wikis as an aid to help desk relief).
  • Number of articles which have their external links relegated to Open Directory Project: 3 (2%)
  • Number of Wiki's with more activity over the last 30 days than http://eve-wiki.net/ : 14 (Eve-Wiki ranks above 70% of the others)
  • Number of Wikis located on the top two paid Wiki hosting sites: 12 (25%) (A growing market in the helpdesk industry)
Linking Wikis to MMORPG articles is typical if not universal practices on Wikipedia and eventually a Wiki site dedicated to EVE Online will need to be linked here or all the 48 above mentioned links will have to be removed. If CCP opened up and official Wiki site today I would migrate my current articles there tomorrow. If another site becomes dominant and less controversial I will move there. I just want to contribute EVE Online articles somewhere without creating a cruft controversy here at Wikipedia.
I will remove the link for now until more discussion takes place but it is obvious from the data that the external linking on this article is not being handled in accordance with the typical approach to comparable articles. Alatari 18:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that the data you've posted indicates that there are more external links sections to fix than anything else. Most external Wikis wouldn't be appropriate to link to. (Just because something is done a certain way in 32% of these articles doesn't indicate in any way that this is the correct way to do it.) Rray 20:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
It is done this way on featured standardized articles: see Halo 2 There is not much more to say since that is a model page held up for the rest of us editors to emulate. Alatari 21:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The caliber of the wiki linked to from the other article could be significantly different. The wiki in the other article might not be listed in the corresponding DMOZ category. Just because something is a featured article doesn't make it perfect and isn't an excuse to blindly do something here. (Honestly, the article could be a featured article in spite of featuring a link to a wiki that shouldn't necessarily be there.) Rray 23:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the appropriate guideline can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided . Please read #12: "# Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Rray 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Been there and researched the usage of the Eve-Wiki site. It has more edits over the last 30 days than 35 of 48 of the other linked Wiki's to MMORPG articles. Only Wiki's like [[WoW], SecondLife and Runescape have more usage. And about not being linked into the DMOZ; Eve-Wiki is not linked to DMOZ. To settle this I'll go through all the featured Gaming articles looking to see how many also include external Wiki links. Alatari 18:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Just because another article has or has not got something does not mean that every article should or should not have something. The process is not perfect every article does not conform to the guidelines perfectly, by proving that another article has a Wiki of lower usage than EVE-Wiki does not make it right for it to be included. So far the link has been removed by 2005, SiobhanHansa, Speed Air Man and Myself that is 4 separate editors who don't believe the EVE Wiki link belongs in the article.
Would most likely support you if the Wiki seemed like it was in common use, however if someone asks in a public chat channel what site to go to for mission information the response from the chat channels I frequent tends to be EVE-Info or Chepe Nolon's guides, I have never seen anyone refer to EVE Wiki for this information, equally for rat information most people suggest Grismar's, EVE-Info's or elFarto's NPC Database again no mention of EVE Wiki. Of course this could just be the 3 year + players who I talk to most often using the tools that were around 3 years ago or it could be just the community dosn't even know about EVE Wiki. It is because of this that I don't beleive that EVE Wiki has a substantial number of editors and thus falls foul of Wikipedia External Links - Links Normally to be Avoided #12. -- RichardSlater (About) / (Talk) 20:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I don't want to get involved in this argument generally, I would like to point out that PC Gamer (UK version) often runs articles on EVE Online and has mentioned EVE-Wiki before, most recently in the October 2007 Edition for some background info on EVE Gate. While that isn't important in itself, it does show that EVE-Wiki is known about. User:Cncplyr 15:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
EVE-Info is a poor representation for they have advertisements for companies that sell EVE Online virtual money in direct violation of CCP's EULA. Advertising EVE-Info in the Help Chat channel is a bannable offense. It could be that with CCP's own official Wiki site not yet ready they will refuse to list Eve-Wiki on their fan site list but if you search for Eve-Wiki on the forums you will find many references. I wouldn't be opposed to linking Grismar's Wiki to bring this article in line with the feature articles guideline and 1/3 of the other MMORPG articles. It seems Wikipedia External Links - Links Normally to be Avoided #13 and some of the feature gaming articles are in conflict and Wikipedia External Links - Links Normally to be Avoided #13 needs some quantification in order to avoid future disagreements about this matter. Most of the discussion is about what is 'substantial' and viewpoints differ leaving the 8 editors who have commented equally divided. Alatari 19:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinion from Guild Wars Wiki

" ... A couple of years from now, we hope that all of our games have wiki support integrated into the game as a built-in help system. We think it would be fantastic if a player could select 'help' and then click on any quest, mission, skill, etc., and get complete documentation about that item in-game from the Guild Wars wiki site. This is a long term vision but something we should start working towards. ..." Alatari 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a precedent by the fact it is a featured article: Halo 2 Alatari 19:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Undo of yet another drive by IP edit

To the criticism section

Martinj63 00:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the edit you reverted was made in good faith by a user who was not a regular contributor to Wikipedia, rather than a deliberate act of vandalism and in all fairness they do have a valid point EVE being open to scams and CCP deciding not to act against the perpetrators is an integral part of the "sandbox" game style. For sections like that it would be prefereable rather than to just revert to the previous revision to welcome the editor with {{subst:welcome-ip}} ~~~~ on their talk page, and then go on to explain to them why their edit was reverted. -- RichardSlater (About) / (Talk) 08:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that to be wholly fair you should replace "Fact of life" with "Part of the game". It's true that this stops it being everyone's idea of a fun game but it also ensures it a hardcore fanbase of adrenalein junkies who enjoy the excitement of knowing that they could be set back months of gameplay is they're careless enough.
I fondly remember the first time somebody tried to scam me. He offered me a cheap Ferox (battlecruiser) then opened a trade window for a destroyer he had named 'ferox' - fortunately I had spent so long drooling over the icon for the ferox so I knew on sight that the picture was wrong. I clicked on the info button beside the picture and what do you know, an info box for a destroyer popped up. I undocked and flew away.
Twice in my time playing the game I have been so scared by the value of my cargo I have actually taken it to sell in a combat ship instead of either a fast ship or a hauler. You could never get that excited running to the auction house in Stormwind.
No, Eve will never be ideal for everybody. It's a simulation of a big bad world where you have to watch your own back from friends and enemies alike. You either want that or you don't.
I'm suprised there's nothing in the Criticism section about the decision to allow players to trade timecodes for ISK though. That's effectively swapping money for in-game currency. One player buys a month-long timecode and another buys it from them for in-game money. There's a lot of people think that is a bad idea.
81.179.128.46 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC) (Yes, I'm unregistered)
A section on how real world money plays a part in EVE Online needs to be added to the article to widen the POV. ISK sellers are part of EVE whether it violates CCP EULA or not. Trade macro and mining macros are player misconduct and also need to be discussed to widen the POV. This is Wikipedia and not an extension of CCP's website. Alatari 07:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like it would be good for a whole new page comparing how it affects different MMOs. I'm sure we all heard about the person who lent a sword to a friend who sold it leading to a realworld fight and injury. I also remember people saying that invention would increase the number of gold farmers in City of Villains. Be interesting to know if it's true. 81.179.128.46 07:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

EVE Online page deletions from Wikipedia

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallente Federation (EVE Online)
All but this page and the Ships of EVE ONline are now deleted and in the discussion it was suggested: 'Delete all. per my nom and User:Corpx. better suited on http://www.eve-wiki.net than on Wikipedia--User:Hu12 20:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)'

Sources for the "Citation needed" parts of this article

Hi, fellow contributors. I'd like to use this section to discuss sources that people have added to the article. Especially those sources that had been explicitly requested with a "Citation needed" template. Feel free to use this section to inform other authors of what you have added and why you think it's appropriate. Or ask for their opinion on whether you can safely add certain information.

I start with the source to the statement that a Rifter frigate is about the size of a Boeing 747. I've read an interview with EVE Online Associate Producer Arend Stührmann on tentonhammer.com, here. Cody Bye, Managing Editor of tentonhammer.com, interviewed him during this year's Games Convention in Leipzig, Germany. In that interview Arend Stührmann describes the detail that the so-called Trinity II engine allows. And he states that the "sense of scale in the game has been increased. A Rifter is supposed to be the size of a 747; you can imagine how big a cruiser is."

I've added the interview as a reference. I'm confident that you too think it's appropriate. If not, please let me know and feel free to discuss the issue with me.

Aexus 19:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Faction Names and Insignias

The faction names don't match the names imprinted on the Insignia of each faction. Hence the confusion. So the Caldari State insignia just has the word 'Caldari' in bold silver print underneath. *shakes a fist at CCP* Meh... Alatari 10:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Same goes for the Jove Empire. Although the badge in the EVE Online Backstory reads Jovian directorate the faction is actually called Jove Empire. The directorate is just "believed to be the highest governmental authority in the Jove Empire." (See here). Aexus 15:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


Mac and Linux

In the game info box it has mac os x and linux as (planned) when in fact they are in closed beta currently. Should I go ahead and change it to closed beta and should the citations be changed as well if that is done as those pages do not mention the closed beta. Ergzay 05:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have a reliable citeable source for the Mac and Linux versions being in Beta then the references and the info box should be updated. A citeation should also be included for the section you added to the article reagarding the clients being in beta. -- RichardSlater (About) / (Talk) 14:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added the "Citation needed" to the text. Aexus 19:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mac and Linux clients will be available upon release of Trinity. --Steamfraiser 13:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Universe" section

Somebody added the section about the universe (IP address 202.213.150.190). It's a paragraph about the general look and feel of EVE Online which I personally think is a good idea. However, the section was a mess in its initial state. I enhanced it - tried to fix it - but I'm lost at what to improve next. For example the section introduces the principles of corporations, jump gates and security status before they are fully explained. For starters I've included a link to the anchor of the "Security index system" section.

Other than that statements that a player can be alone in a system as well as together with more than 600 other players are difficult to prove. If the reader has experienced this himself - okay. But he probably hasn't. If he questions the reliability, he doesn't get a source to check the info. Any idea what to do about this? How to prove that a player can really be together with 600+ players in a single system?

I wrote that planets are currently not explorable which implies that they might be someday. I'm referring to the video that CCP showed at a Fanfest where a ship entered a planet's atmosphere. Does it make sense to add this possible future to the article? Aexus 09:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


-thanks for the cleanup. I wrote it when I couldnt sleep at night from a heavy cold. so I apoligize for the mess. I have no citation, but anyone can install a trial account and fly to Jita, or use ingame map function and display number of players in system, they will get a big red blop on Jita. peak time weekends might even see more than 700 in the system. "corporations" could be linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_%28computer_gaming%29

but good point, a own entry about in game corporations could been interesting. They provide both the a start for new chars to share knowledge, as they are assigned to a NPC corp according to their race and career choices, they provides a platform for industrial/science operations, and last they form up the big alliances clashing together in wars with several thousand players on each side.

For now I've linked the term "corporation" to the article "Clan (computer gaming)". That's the same that "Guild (computer gaming)" redirects to. Aexus 09:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


sections needs rewrite

On a sidenote, I feel some parts this article could need heavy rewriting/structurizing. for example about the economy. a death in EVE is basically just loss of isk/resources, in eve you can't wage war without an industrial backbone or/and other business models (like make small corp pay rent to live in the systems big corp controls), market speculation in minerals and items, IPOs, Bank services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.213.150.190 (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also notice no mention as to how the Agent system works. I understand the need to streamline, but this is a big part of what EvE is There really isn't a need to go into explicit detail, just a paragraph or two describing what the agent system is and how it works while refraining from terms like carebear, wussgamer, and n00bcakes. Martinj63 21:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Maintenance Downtime

The listed time range of 11:00 - 12:00 gmt is incorrect, although it agrees with one of two representations of the downtime given in the source document (the other, indirect, reference in that document states that before accepting "agent missions", one should "...ensure you leave room for an hour-long break at noon GMT."). By direct observation and on the basis of in-game system warnings, the correct downtime window is 12:00 - 13:00 gmt. I'm updating the page to indicate that. I am not certain how to address the contradictory information given in the source document, however. I'll leave that to an editor, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.199.248 (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that GMT and BST are in disagreement. Jouster  (whisper) 00:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I was aware downtime was still 1100 - 1200 GMT as it has been for as long as I have been playing, from my point of view it switches between 1100-1200 and 1200-1300 local time as I live in the UK which switches between BST and GMT in March and back again in October (Last weekend in fact). Iceland however is always on GMT regardless of the time of the year and EVT (in-game time) is matched to GMT. I would suggest that the reference is misleading as I seem to remember it phrasing it differently. I shall investigate further tonight. -- RichardSlater (About) / (Talk) 13:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Note that Iceland is on GMT year round. 194.80.51.47 23:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eve_Online/Archive_11&oldid=208165830"