Talk:Eve Online/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ships

The ships section drastically needs an overhaul. There are numerous gramatical errors, as well as copied information from a specific Wiki page dealing with ships. Titans have been seen in-game, therefore, that part of the article is outdated. The added information about Band of Brothers winning a Mothership is irrelevant. Zugor 04:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the second paragraph that has the references to not seeing Titans in game and Band of Brothers winning a Mothership. If you see any reason to keep it let me know.....--Fenrig 15:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed Neutrality Tag

Given the general consensus that the page is now much less POV than it used to be, and since there are no POV problems currently being argued, I've removed the neutrality tag. Please comment here if you feel this is in error. Justin Johnson 17:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Muthsera's additions

Are a huge step back in overall quality/neutrality of the article. Am I the only one that thinks this? --86.2.153.77 02:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I agree with you. As complimentary as his changes are, they're not NPOV and they're not really encyclopedic. Justin Johnson 21:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Cost

EVE currently costs €14.95 / $14.95 a month (the European cost is higher as VAT is included). However, like other MMOGs, the cost can be reduced by paying for larger subscription intervals.*

Ok, to what does the asterisk at the end refer? Also, the website says the monthly cost is $19.95.

What you see on the EVE account website is the cost for creating the account, that includes one month, after that the month is at $/€14.95. And about the asterisk... I have no idea :/ --Gussi 22:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Serenity" Patch

I've removed this section, as I cannot find any information on the EVE Forums or Dev Blogs to show of such a patch existing. It has been stated that Kali itself hasn't even begun production (yet), so I doubt that a new patch is in "early alpha stages." I do know that the Chinese server is said to be called Serenity (referenced in Dev Blog, unaccessible without logging in), but I can't find anything to back up a Serenity patch. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though. --Jsloan31 01:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now added a section on Serenity based off of a recent dev blog Cabadrin

Tyrell Corporation

Is the Eve Online corporation discussed in the second paragraph of Tyrell Corporation notable, or is it just someone spamming his game clan? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have certainly heard of Tyrell Corp. within EvE. I don't think it is particuarly notable you could probably go through the majority of articles on Wikipedia and note some relation to EVE, some of which could be notable and some may not be. Simple answer: perhaps notable to those who play EVE, to everyone else not notable. -- Richard Slater 20:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Addition of Windows Vista and edits to expansion

I added the recent developer blog about Windows Vista to the bottom of the oage. In addition, I included some features left out of the Castor and Exodus expansion blurbs. Cabadrin

Addition of Serenity Information

I also added on some information about Serenity from LeKjart's dev blog. Cabadrin

Third party links

Removed EVE-News.com link, this site does not work, bounces you to a hosting page. Placed EVEnews.com at the top as it seems to be the major fansite and most relevant fansite for new users.

Where did that story go?

There was this link to a story about some guy scamming a lot of other people...where can I find it now?

you mean the Guiding Hand Social Club scam. I'll see if I can find it. Cabadrin

Just google Guiding Hand Social Club scam and you'll get lots of hits, including scans of the original article in PC Gamer. Justin Johnson 02:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Affiliate Link

I have changed tha affliate link from AffiliateID 100661 to AffiliateID 100001 which is CCP's own link (thus money won't be paid by CCP to other people for traffic generated from Wikipedia). --Richard Slater 21:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Have reverted yet another change to the free trials section, this partuclar free trial was veiled by a fowarding domain. However the domain eve-online-trial.com is not registered to CCP hf. --Richard Slater 17:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Buddy Spam" edits have been comming from three different IP addresses all with the netname NEOSTRADA-ADSL (A polish ISP). I would assume that this is the same user with a DHCP ADSL connection. Shall we continue to revert to a neutral affiliate link? or would it be more helpful to remove the official link in its entirity? --Richard Slater 18:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the official link too, hoped it would stop giving people ideas. Up to you --86.2.153.77 05:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Races

When I first started playing EVE, I had a lot of difficulty finding the differences between races in terms of combat and play style anywhere on the official EVE online forums or fan pages. The only available online text to my knowledge would be the background chronicles, but those only give extremely vague descriptions of each races' game play style.

I recommended adding a short section on the strengths, weaknesses, and abilities of each races' ships and weapons. While I know one could argue that abilities are heavily based on the player (and his/her skills) in specific, I'm simply suggesting we add at least some basic information on the key differences between the races. At least enough to help out starting players.

Paul Hooper 18:40, May 09 2006 (UTC)

The only difference between the races are their starting stats, I know these were listed in the retail manual, and presume they're listed someone on the eve site. --86.2.153.77 20:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that what you fly and how you play is not dictated by your race. There are 4 playable races (Gallente, Caldari, Amarr and Minmatar) and 4 different ships types (Gallente, Caldari, Amarr and Minmatar). It is by no means set in stone that Gallente players can fly only Gallente ships. Some special (faction) ships even require skills from 2 different races. So, styles of play are determined by what you fly, not who you are. Those are: Gallente are armor tankers and fight with drones and hybrid weapons. Caldari are shield tankers and fight with missiles (hybrids too, but very rarely). Amarr are armor tankers and fight with lasers. Minmatar I have no idea about. Find out about Minmatars and put this. But be sure to note that none of this is set in stone. Shinhan 15:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Limitations on free trial?

Last I checked free trials are now restricted in more ways than just transfer of ISK. For instance, I believe they can't fly Mining Barges - possibly other ship types either, in order to disencourage ISK farmers.

Not so sure on what exactly else is limited or I'd modify the Cost section accordingly.

159.51.236.194 11:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know/recall, Mining Barges, Industrial Ships, Assault Ships, Battleships, and Heavy Assault Ships cannot be flown on Trial accounts (the skills can't be trained by them, as said in their descriptions.) I'm not sure if these are all that are restricted, or even if they are (having a bit of doubt about Assault Ships/Battleships), but I do know that Mining Barges and Heavy Assault Ships can't be trained on trial. --Jsloan31 00:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked Destroyers we're also restricted, bad move in my opinion, Destroyers is usually what players buy after getting bored of the frigates. --Gussi 21:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

30k players in Serenity beta

I've added a paragraph in Serenity section about the new world record. Just hours after launch Serenity got over 30.000 concurent users. I've included main news source, and here is Google News search for more sources: Google News search for Serenity Beta launch -Shinhan 14:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesnt anyone else find the PCU stuff stupid? It's a record/stat CCP made up because it gives them good press. I dont see Blizzard going on about PRO(Peak Realms Online), PIA(Peak Instances Active) and other meaningless stats that would make them look better. --86.14.132.122 17:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems relevant to me. EVE has one world everyone gets to play in. That significantly changes gameplay, makes it more convenient to meet up with friends, and is a major differentiator from most other MMOs. When most other MMOs are doing a couple thousand people in the same world, EVE doing 30,000 is, at the very least, notable, and possibly quite significant. --Battlehamster 00:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I dont really get the difference. As long as theres no limit to how many people can play on a single server in multi server games, how does it really affect individual players or grossly change gameplay? It used to be 3-5k playing eve, would it have made a huge difference at that time if it was 3-5k on each server with several servers? I dont really think so but I can see a point where a game has a large world, but it's underpopulated due to multiple servers. Yes having a single game world(woops, two now) is noteworthy, but I think the huge brouhaha over PCU/single realm is more a marketing tool(or a way for FANS to market the game to a genre where it doesnt account for even 1% of total players and is pretty much under the radar) than anything else.

But that's beside the point, my point was that the PCU "award" seemed to be made up by CCP for press opportunies more than anything else - and comes across as a pretty crass and almost childish way to try get headlines/attention. --86.14.132.122 20:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It makes a difference. A lot of bits have been expended whining over WoW's restrictive character transfer policy, and the fact that their multiple shards allow for different types of game worlds also affects things. You're more interested in PvE, but your friends all want PvP, so you go on a server you're not crazy about to be with your guild, end up hating it and quitting early.

It's not a huge factor, but it makes a difference in the overall perception of the game, especially when you're faced with wait times to play on your chosen server, but see other low-pop servers available.Justin Johnson 23:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There's a big difference between sharding and clustering. For example, it's a pity to find out that your friends play the same MMO but happen to be in a different shard. As a student, character transfers are almost always an issue of cost, so despite having acquaintaces on the same MMO, there is no way or very limited ways to interact online.

Now, on the other hand, when you stuff everything into a single server cluster (the largest server cluster by the way), you end up with loads of people playing together. You must acknowledge, too, that Eve Online did not share the same magnificent launch and rapid growth of WoW. So, it is really the challenge to stuff everybody into a single server network and enjoy the game, as compared to WoW's relatively simple job of setting up new servers without having to upgrade the hardware of existing ones. Furthermore, it ensures that all of the player superpowers are able to reach one another, unlike WoW where the most powerful guilds are in different shards. It's quite sad, considering it would be fun to see them clash. In Eve, that is possible, and more.

I agree with most of your points, but you leave out a lot of the good things about sharding, and a lot of the bad things about one world :) --86.14.132.122 09:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides, you also having the differing game mechanics to consider. WoW retains the archaic leveling system, and so shards are required to give top players new grounds to work up from scratch without squeezing out the true newbies. Eve, on the other hand, does away with the leveling system and continually expands its own environment, so older characters are not as "uber" as compared to the newbies, and cannot restrict their freedom either. Although they are definitely stronger, that is only relative to certain aspects, as the experts more often work on large ships, and are still possible to defeat if countered properly. Ariedartin JECJY 06:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldnt call WoW's levelling system archaic, I would call it normal. Beside that, eve's levelling system isnt that special, it just replaces "effort" with "money". In MMO's with normal levelling, you spend your time to increase a chars skills/stats/level. In eve you pay more monthly fees. Pretty smart business decision(but a fairly poor game one after they started adding really long skills imo - and dont get me started on tech2), especially with new skills all the time that take even longer to train ;) --86.14.132.122 09:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, given that the World of Warcraft article has a separate section just for the sales numbers it is perfectly normal for the EVE Online article to mention the PCU. I don't want to get dragged into the blackhole of "EVE vs WoW" debate, I'm just trying to point out that the PCU capabilities of EVE is as important as the total sales of WoW. CCP never tried to appeal to the same masses as WoW, while Blizzard never tried to establish the single largest MMO server ever. But they both succeeded in what they did try, and they both deserve a mention in that sense. Take care --Xasf 13:16, 11 July 2006 (GMT+3)

Um, sales numbers have always been important(or at least noteworthy) in gaming, PCU was something CCP seems to have made up because their sales werent that great and it was good PR(I certainly never heard of it beforehand). I'm sure most MMO's can find some feature/number thats highest for them, but none seem to bother.

PS, if you think CCP dont want 6.5million subscribers, I think you have a screw loose, and if you think they went into a niche market purely because they loved the subject matter, you have an even bigger screw loose :p --86.14.132.122 16:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It may not be called the specific term "PCU" before, but the amount of online users in a server was always one of the top concerns of any MMOG as long as I can remember, and I remember Meridian 59. I just can't get what's wrong with mentioning that a MMOG aimed to get the highest number of players in one server and succeeded at it.

And as for CCP wanting 6.5 million players.. I'm sure they'd very much like to have that kind of money (who wouldn't?), but their design reflects other priorities than breaking sales records worldwide as well. Or else they wouldn't bother creating one of the most hardcore MMOGs the market has ever seen now, would they? A steep learning curve, relatively loose storyline content, very harsh death penalties and open-PvP, tons and tons of mind-boggling data sheets etc. aren't exactly the best way to sell your product to the masses.

Once again, I want a "L33t CCP vs greedy Blizzard" debate about as much as I want an "EVE vs WoW" debate, which is to say I don't. If a MMOG hosts the largest single game server ever created, you mention that in the related article. If another MMOG becomes the best selling online title of all times, you mention that in the related article as well. It is as simple as that. Both information are factually verifiable and carry encyclopedic value for their respective titles. This is Wikipedia. I think it adds up pretty nice. Take care --Xasf 20:26, 11 July 2006 (GMT+3)

Expansions

Sorry if this shouldn't be under a new section, but here goes. Should "Cold War Edition" and "Red Moon Rising" really be considered expansions? Based on my understanding, they are only major Content Patches (according to a few dev statements), but not full-scale Expansions. --Jsloan31 11:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• There is no significant distinction to be made. Alex Bartho 07:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Gameplay Jargon

This section is far too large. I can see several entries that are generic MMO jargon, a few more that mean the same thing, and quite a few that aren't all that useful, or could be moved to a different location like the ship nicknames. Does anyone have any opinions on what to do with the section? --Tom Edwards 09:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Remove it, like a lot of the article it's bloated/pointless. I'm going to have a go at updating and streaminlining it, but it might be controversial. --Bastion 15:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I ran through it two days ago, some horrid errors in there, fixed 'em and added some content. Now when it's gone, well, the article looks alot better, I wont miss it. --Gussi 09:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Be more careful, you removed most of the article! --Tom Edwards 10:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• I removed the a)useless, b)extraneous and c)incorrect/out of date parts. It's massively bloated and needs to be trimmed down, for example copying the backstory verbatim from the eve site when it can just be linked. --Bastion 19:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, you removed all the jargon from the main page and might have relocated it. However, someone seems to have deleted the page it was referencing. I have recreated it at the link that magically disappeared. EVE Online terms and acronyms will be the new home, and hopefully it will stick around this time. I found it very helpful when I was a newbie. If anyone else has to surf the history to find it, it's here[1].--GoNINzo 20:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Top 500

Because it's PR nonsense and has as much relevance as "after the upgrades are complete eve will probably be the best lager in the world" - Bastion

"PR nonesense" is POV, so I'll skip over that. You claim that claiming that hardware upgrades will place a computer cluster in a ranked list is irrelevant as saying that something the best in the world. I think that is completely illogical. Being 'best' is relative, but having enough processing power to enter a ranked list is not. It is a fact, and it is as relavant to the article as the jump to 64-bit and Kali. --Tom Edwards 20:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'd have to say that if the EVE cluster makes it into the Top500 list, it is indeed useful info. But it hasn't yet - I dont see how "speculation" on behalf of the developers helps - it basically demonstrate that the cluster is "fast", which is already a concept that the reader can grasp (I hope). Also - a link to the google cache of the dev blog. --ShakataGaNai 00:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly, it's a claim unsubstantiated by any fact, which is designed as a PR piece to appease pissed off fans.
• If eve gets into top500, re-add it, until then it's nonsense. --Bastion 19:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Players Online

I've been watching the number of "players online" bit of the article, with some intrest. It seems to change every week (At least) with nothing to back it up. As a suggestion I'd say stick to the news releases from CCP. (I changed the article to match the last news post jan 2, 2006). --ShakataGaNai 18:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that 100,000 players is more than SWG has is highly suspicious, since as far as I know, no one has recent reliable numbers for SWG. Powers 18:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that EVE Online has more subscribers than Star Wars Galaxies should be removed unless it can be cited. DJMalone 09:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

CONCORDOKEN

The text 'This is known to the player base as a "CONCORDOKEN"' has been added and removed more than once. I've been playing EVE for more than 2 years and had never heard of this term until I saw its use here. Should this text be included or not? DJMalone 18:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Having also played for over two years I must admit I wouldn't consider it in the normal list of EVE phrases, however google [2] comes up with a reasonable list of sources. I personaly would say if it must be included include it in a glossary of EVE terms - something I don't think is partucarly required in this article. Richard Slater 21:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• There used to be a list of EVE slang on the page. It has been removed and I think most of us are fine without it. --Sindri 11:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Been playing for over 2 years... and 10 months ;] And yes, I've heard this term used before, only on few occasions though. --Gussi 23:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• You've never heard "CONCORDOKEN!"? Have you ever been in a 0.0 alliance? David Corbett 02:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Serenity question

Considering the Chinese influence in the Serenity EVE expantion, I wonder if there is any relation (influence...) between this EVE Online project and the Firefly (TV series) (where Serenity is an important ship and name of pilot epiosde and movie, and where the universe is much influenced by Chinese)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

While EVE has been compared to Firefly/Serenity countless times, I think that Serenity follows a natural progression for live server names:

- Tranquility: 2) the absence of disturbance, 3) the absence of stress.

- Serenity: 2) a lack of agitation or disturbance.

Also an apt oposite for the test servers:

- Entropy: 2) The tendency of a system that is left to itself to descend into chaos.

- Chaos: 1) A state of disorder.

- Singularity: 5) (physics) a point or region in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density; associated with black holes.

However I don't recall reading anything about the choice of names for the new server, it is doubtful that you would be able to get any official source to say that it was related to Firefly (TV series) due to the legal implications --Richard Slater 07:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Nope no influense from a tv series. CCP always names everything after something In human history or when it comes to the servers names of mental conditions (Deng 05:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC))

• The Chinese server's name actually is 晨曦（Chinese pinyin: Chenxi) means the first sun rays in the morning,then CCP give it a English name which is as known as Serenity. I think there might be some slightly different, like there will be 60 newbie sysytem to counteract the huge amount of player pool which already made a 10k breakthrough in the closebeta and Translation maybe alter the original flavor in someway to pleasure the authorities.Toby 09:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Bit off topic, about Singularity being defined with physics, I've always looked at the technologically definition of Singularity: A theoretical point in the development of a scientific civilization at which technological progress accelerates into infinity or beyond prediction.. But on topic, I think it's just coincidence that CCP names their servers that resembles to names in any TV shows, movies or even other games, it's all about the exact definition --Gussi 21:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Weapons

New page about it please?(Not that I believe it deserves to exist mind, but if it has to at least get it off the main page)

• I agree. To the Wikipedia user seeking a general overview of EVE, I feel there is too much information about weapons. The first paragraph on its own does an adequate job. DJMalone 12:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support this. It's pretty fancrufty. Twinxor t 07:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe move it to a new page and make the following changes? 1. Remove the how Hybrid railguns and blasters "work"(i.e. "Hybrid ammunition consists of a metal round that contains an ionized plasma...") it isn't relevant enough to include and all the other weapons don't have that information (not that they need it) 2. Add defender missiles under "Missiles" section. Also indicate the effect of target size on missiles damage. 3. Mention that projectile weapons have ammo for all the damage types. 4. Better missile descriptions, perhaps? Overall the whole weapons section can use some work. Maybe only show info on ranges, damage types, and weapon characterization--Fenrig 15:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are webers and stabs in the "Weapons" section? Wouldnt it be better put in a "Combat" section? (If at all)--Fenrig 15:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)