Talk:Eve Online/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22

Capitalization of "EVE"

Is there a reason we have the game listed in the text everywhere as Eve Online, when even the first sentence notes that the proper capitalization (as can be observed in all official marketing materials) should be EVE Online? -- Kyle Maxwell (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

MOS:TM reads: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of trademark owners." Fightin' Phillie (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Kyle, you may also take a look at the archives. Editors have discussed this very issue for example in April 2008 here (archive 17) and in June 2008 here (archive 18). As for CONCORD, I had initially changed all occurrences to titles-capitalized Concord only to realize that it's indeed an acronym. I've reverted my own change, added the meaning of CONCORD (Consolidated Cooperation and Relations Command) to its first occurrence and provided the appropriate source.
-- Aexus (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer, Aexus, that's a helpful response. -- Kyle Maxwell (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

BoB Collapse

I'm surprised there is no mention of the collapse of the BoB alliance and the involvement of the Goonswarm alliance. This made many major Gaming news outlets, as well as many mainstream news publications. It is noteable and verifiable, and should, in my opinion, be included in the article. Malbolge (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 17:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC).

Editors have chosen to not include information about changes in Eve's political landscape anymore. As you can see in an appropriate discussion in archive 19 power blocs change too frequently to be of the same long-term value as other information in the article. While I'm sure editors are aware of the changes Band of Brothers has been going through, political changes don't appear in this article by the editors' consensus.
The article has recently been shortened by roughly 40%. Editors are encouraged to keep or even strengthen the article's razor-sharp focus. The change Band of Brothers has been going through may be worth mentioning. Or not. Such information may as well end up as a side note similar to last year's boot.ini issue. Or it may disappear entirely. If you feel the need to have this information present right now, go ahead, knock yourself out ;-) Be prepared to add apparopriate sources. The worst that can happen is that editors disagree with your change and revert it. Be aware that information about changes in Eve's political landscape has cropped up several times in the past. Eventually it has been removed each time in favor of more encyclopedic content like what the article currently holds.
-- Aexus (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

future developments

In the same lines as the speculative nature of what CCP Hammerhead said about sov changes, the interplanetary flight information on this page is vastly more speculative, and likely to never happen. Whereas sov changes are very likely to be the main focus of the fall expansion. I moved the sov change info into the expansion page and put it under the 2009 fall expansion. I suggest that the future development section on the main article should only include CONFIRMED changes. The Ambulation patch and the blurb about Apocrypha (which will need removed in like a week. The highly speculative interplanetary flight and planetary interaction shouldn't be in the main article. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the Interplanetary Flight goes farther to show non-EVE players the scope and style of EVE than soverignty changes. I do, however, think it's worth mentioning Soverignty in more thorough detail in the Players and communities section. In general, I think that section needs some rework; it might be worthwhile explaining the Sov changes there. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
But interplanetary flight is VERY unlikely to be added to the game. They have no idea how it could or would be an added beneficial feature, due to the vast amount of development resources it would take to implement it would need a SERIOUSLY good reason and benefit to the game to justify it. Thus I think it's near impossible it would be added. So I think is disingenuous to the reader to present it here. Theres plenty of "pipe dream" ideas they have about Eve, it doesn't mean they'll ever be added. Sov is a major part of eve, no doubt, 0.0 politics is a huge aspect of the game and according to CCP it's considered the "end game." It's not very complex to understand, but it is a very hated grinding feature of the game that is going to change hopefully in the next expansion. I don't know what benefit the article would get for expanding that out since it would only be valid for a at most 6 or 7 months. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

So since the sov changes was readded back here, is there any thought of the removal of interplanetary flight? It shouldn't be kept because it's a "cool" feature, it's not very likely to happen and no serious talk has ever been presented by CCP that it would/could happen. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Raeky, you've decided to include Noah Ward's thoughts as a separate expansion within the Expansions of Eve Online article. You've also decided to omit a source that actually supports your speculation. Whether or not the sovereignty changes will come as part of an expansions, and if so, when this expansion will be released, is hypothetical. For all we know, there is no fall 2009 expansion that will introduce the sovereignty changes. Until you're able to support such claims, I ask you to not add the section again. I've removed it from the Expansions article.
You've also decided to go for an unencyclopedic writing style. The paragragh had unsourced claims as well as points of view, such as "big", "pure". The information Noah Ward conveys boils down to, "My design goal for changing [the way sovereignty works] is to have many different play styles and multiple things that can affect sovereignty." The video as a source (at least) for that information is fine. I've stripped your paragraph down to one sentence. It does not (yet) belong into the Expansions article, so the future developments section is the next best thing, just like your initial change. The sovereignty info is now part of that section. I've also fixed your reference template, used the right one and provided the necessary details for the source to be more useful to the reader than what you did. Next time, please take your time to do that yourself.
And since your change log suggests that you've been actively editing articles for quite a while, I have to assume that you were just lazy when you added your paragraph. Next time, please take your time. Also, feel free to take a moment and read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Second-person pronouns and Wikipedia:Verifiability which include tips and tricks for how to avoid the mistakes you made with your writing style.
-- Aexus (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
My editing mistakes aside (I'm not the best writer in the world but WP policy states WP:BEBOLD and to just add it, problems with wording can be fixed later. The change was added to the expansions because of this edit which reverted my change here and suggested it should go on the expansions page. (thus my creation of this section here on talk page). What source did I omit that you think is good? And the question as to weather interplanetary flight should remain here hasn't been addressed. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
As far as planetary flight goes, the last known information is from the 2005 Fanfest. Even back then, CCP clearly aimed for a release after Empyrean Age (see Oveur's devblog): "Planetary Flight will not be in Kali, [...] it's currently post-Kali." The Kali tetralogy ended with Empyrean Age in June 2008. The first expansion after that was Quantum Rise, which turned out to have other priorities that planetary flight. The way I see it, until we find a source that says otherwise, the feature is still planned, only that Walking in Stations currently has a higher priority.
As for being bold, you're of course right to add information to an article. However, please do not mistake boldness as an open invitation for low-quality changes. Even less so as someone who's been around as long as yourself.
As for the appropriate sources you've left out, I must've been unclear about that one. What I meant was, you've made claims the video doesn't support. I don't know if there is an appropriate source out there. What I do know is that the video commentary is inappropriate to support, for exmaple, "POS sieging is the number one biggest concern for players of 0.0 alliances." That's too general. Nobody in the video talks about every single player of Eve's zero-zero populace. And even if someone did, it'd still be an opinion, not a source. That's weasel wording. You can easily detect this style - it begs the question: "Says who?" In the video, EddZ says, "We hate [POS warfare], everyone hates it. The sooner you change it, the better." And that's his opinion. He disguises it as "we" in a sense of "the whole alliance". That's, however, still just his opinion, not a source to support your claim. Long story short, if "POS sieging is the number one biggest concern for players of 0.0 alliances" then there's gotta be neutral sources that verify that. Not just EddZ. For the time being, it's hot air. No big deal though, I've taken that part out.
-- Aexus (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Taking a wikibreak

I'm taking a wikibreak. Until now I was listed as "actively involved" in this article. I've removed my name from the list at the top of this Talk page. I've also added the appropriate wikibreak templates to both my main and Talk page. I may be back someday. May be a matter of weeks, months or years ;-) Cya.
-- Aexus (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

New release dates

With the new release for retain under Atari, should more release dates be added to the sidebar? I'm not sure what all countries it was released in, I know 3-10-09 for US and most of the EU, beyond that I don't know. — raeky (talk | edits) 22:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sovereignty System

What's that? --70.142.48.213 (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
In eve systems are divided up into three types, high-sec, low-sec and null-sec. These correspond to the security level of the system which directly correlates to the punishment and response a player receives for attacking someone they legally can't (not in an official war with). High-sec is 1.0 to 0.5 security rating, low-sec is 0.4 to 0.1 and null-sec is 0.0. In null-sec there is no influence from the main npc factions (Caldari, Gallente, Amarr and Minmatar). The bulk of 0.0 space is available for player alliances to claim and influence. This is done via the sovereignty system. By deploying POS's in a system over time sovereignty increases allowing them to do more things to protect the space. Currently it is influenced only by majority number of POS's in a system, and destroying those POS's with dreads, a pure combat approch. CCP wants to change it to get away from POS's and allow industral activities to weigh as much as combat activities do. How it will be done, and when isn't known yet, just SOONTM. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Seems the sovereignty is not properly explained, neither here nor in Gameplay of Eve Online. Averell (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Real reasons for separate Chinese server

The official blog noted in 2006: "the first and most obvious one is that the legal environment in China dictates an online game offered to Chinese customers should be operated from within China and by a Chinese operator." So what makes China exceptional? Their government care for the local industry? Or the desire to prevent a rise of hard-to-monitor avenues in which Chinese people could freely communicate with people elsewhere? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Would be so they can control their people more. They don't want them playing with us western people. They don't PREVENT them from playing most games oversees, but they just dictate if someone advertises a game in China the servers have to be in China. Thats communism for you. — raeky (talk | edits) 06:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Can a Chinese citizen play non-Chinese EVE? Aren't the international servers blocked? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Usually not, most game currency farmers in MMOG's are from China, they have sweat shops where the employees farm the currency for sale on various RMT trading sites. They just require that if you advertise/sell a game IN china it's servers have to be in china. Therefore theres Chinese servers for WoW and any other game that's advertised there. Someone should find a decent reference to this law/mandate of China for games. — raeky (talk | edits) 07:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. If a Chinese citizen can legally play international MMORPGs, then this should be clearly stated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of Eve Online (2nd nomination)

FYI Ikip (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No mention of the novels?

I was surprised to see a total lack of any section or seperate page concerning the published EVE novels; 'Empyrean Age' receives only a passing mention on the 'developments' page, and neither is mentioned on the main page. Note the plural there - in addition to the Empyrean Age novel, another novel tentatively named 'The Burning Life' and written by Hjalti Daníelsson, known to players by his developer ID 'CCP Abraxas', has been announced. 70.111.35.82 (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC) G.A.Thrawn.

Well if you could contribute in that regard, it would be much appreciated :) Xasf (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move

Technically, the official name is EVE Online, not Eve Online. How would people feel about moving it to the former? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't follow how the company likes their name to be written. Proper is "Eve Online" not "EVE Online" for wikipedia, see: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(trademarks). As per the wikipedia rules I'm reverting the edits back to proper MoS formatting. — raeky (talk | edits) 03:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification ^_^. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I think exceptions are made when the title in question is an acronym. So, if the letters in "EVE" each stand for something, then it could be renamed. It should also be explained in the article what the letters stand for. SharkD (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It's hinted that its supposed to be an acronym, but no one knows for what. Lowercase is fine, though. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
If it is an acronym noone knows it and CCP isn't telling. CCP is an acronym though for Crowd Control Productions.... — raeky (talk | edits) 03:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

bank heist

I'm not sure where the best place to put this would be, but editors more knowledgeable about the game may find stuff here worth including: Gamer robs virtual bank to get real-world cash. Matt Deres (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate terminology

Wikipedia articles are meant to be understood by the layman. The first paragraph includes the term "persistent-world" without explanation or linking. Could someone who actually knows what this means please correct this? Thedreamdied (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, in this contect "persistent world" is intended to record that the game world is single-instance, not sharded, and is not periodically reset, but merely maintained, so that in-game actions of one "day" remain in effect until overruled by in-game mechnisms (which in this instance do include the replenishment of basic ore sources, and the NPC provision of blueprints for production, but not undoing of military or strategic acts). IMHO. Simon Cursitor (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Some suggestions for additions/changes

Hey folks. First off, fairly well written article. Good work. If I may, the classification on the importance scale seems off. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Assessment#Importance_scale this article should really be classes as mid-importance as it has achieved wide commercial success and is also known outside its sphere of origin. As for the latter point, the sheer scale of the economy of EVE has resulted in it being the the focus of several studies undertaken by economists about character driven virtual economies (I believe the references section cites some of these, but they don't appear to have any mention in the article itself). In addition, CCP has created some waves in Computing in general by their implementation of a new fork of the Python programming language and their break with the design of other large MMORPG's (all users on one single large node as opposed to separate ones). CCP also maintains one of the largest (gaming) computing clusters in the world.

I think these would be sub-topics worth exploring. Cheers. 72.0.72.98 (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Stargates

The first paragraph says, "Most star systems are connected to one or more other star systems by means of jump gates." This does not account for systems in wormhole space which are only connected by daily shifting wormholes. That should be added here, lest the intro contain a substantial inaccuracy. BTW, those jump gates are called stargates, which I should be the proper designation here. -landen99 "I am, therefore I think." Ayn Rand 04:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Landen99 (talk • contribs)

I would say that since it says "most" and not all, that does account for wormhole systems. I'm not sure introducing wormholes in the intro is a good idea. It's not inaccurate as it stands now, it simply leaves out some information explained further down the page. I have however changed "jump gate" to "stargate" like you suggested. Feel free to edit the paragraph though... Also: Wikipedia:Be_bold :) ~Fenrisulfr (talk · work) 14:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Background

It’s funny how this section keeps changing over the years. It should be fairly static and yet editors keep mutilating the text.

  • I’ve re-inserted the EVE gate. The game (and this article) is named after it…
  • I’ve corrected some of the awful grammar and sentence structure and replaced words like “humankind” with the real word “humanity” and “seeded” with “founded” (humans aren’t plants).
  • I’ve put the empires in alphabetical order.
  • I’ve removed references to “playable” empires. Players choose characters with certain ethnic backgrounds, but none of the empires themselves are in any sense “playable”. Relevant info is provided in the next section.

It could still do with some sources and links back to the appropriate chronicles etc. Apologies for not spotting all this a year ago. I haven’t been watching this article closely enough. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

CSM corruption by Adam Ridgeway

Well I have no idea how to write about the inevitable CSM corruption by Adam Ridgway without bias. It's hard to not be biased about something that was inevitable when CCP decided to give out future game development information to specific individuals, who were then bound to remain silent about it and could not alter it, thus negating any reason for them to know about it, and since nobody else could know, it was obvious that no player could vet the actions of the CSM if they decided to exploit the knowledge. I guess we were fortunate enough that CCP saw it coming. Even so they should never have released the information that could only have ever been used for exploitative reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.131.2 (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well... with that point of view I understand you having trouble to remain unbiased. I disagree though, it was not inevitable. ~Fenrisulfr (talk · work) 11:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I was a member of the first CSM and a number of us from then were discussing this issue last night in-game. We concluded it was an inexcusable action by that individual who had not maintained the standards we had believed were appropriate when we stood for / were elected to the CSM. We did not consider that it was 'inevitable' at all. --AlisonW (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

How come there's no Criticism section? There's an Awards section, isn't there? Criticism for this game exists.162.115.108.104 (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If it exists then you should be able to find it and add it. 203.59.45.96 (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Criticism sections are in the revision history, but have been stricken. Why? 71.252.229.135 (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
If it's there and it it's well written and sourced, feel free to put it back... be bold and all that... ~Fenrisulfr (talk · work) 06:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I just had a look through the page-history and could indeed, as you claim, find criticism in the page history. What little I could find was, however, unsourced and therefore irrelevant to the article. One persons feelings about the game is neither encyclopedic nor interesting. ~Fenrisulfr (talk · work) 06:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Criticism sections are generally considered bad style - usually editors are encouraged to directly put "criticism" directly into the sections where it is relevant, together with the other information on that subject. Averell (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Hm. The style advice for criticism seems to refute "be bold" quite thoroughly. Also, the consideration that "one person's feelings are neither encyclopedic nor interesting" is quite broad indeed! With no easy resolution to that dilemma, as well as the seeming hostility packed into the eve verse, it's starting to make sense why a criticism section never sticks. 162.115.108.102 (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Let me just clarify. When I say "one persons feelings about the game is neither encyclopedic nor interesting", what I mean is that the personal opinion of the editor in question has no place on Wikipedia. If the criticism it's sourced from a reliable, notable source, however, the opinions of one person can be of interest. It is probably, as mentioned above, a better idea to include the criticism in the relevant sections, rather than include a "Criticism" section. ~Fenrisulfr (talk · work) 08:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Criticism turned into Public Perception around the time that I pointed out that many of the things presented as problems or bugs with the game were supported features and popular with the userbase. You can still put criticism into Public Perception if it's notable.87.115.46.80 (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
From the above comments, it looks like Reception or Public Perception would be decent places for criticism. I wonder if Zero Punctuation could be considered reliable or notable.162.115.108.103 (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Eve Fanfest 2009

Should it be mentioned on what CCP is planning on doing/implementing such as docking bays, Fighter Bombers, Treaties etc. after Dominion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHYcrow4ZUU&feature=related


I would think most would be mentioned on upcoming features/development...

--VertigoOne (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I added new content for future developments straight from Torfi Frans' (Senior Producer for the game) speech at the 2009 Eve fanfest discussing the upcoming Dominion and Incarna. A short stub section which was promptly deleted. Please. If someone considers it not well written - EDIT it - leave the content there. If you don't know enough about it to edit it - please watch the video where the CEO and senior producer talk about it - I even wrote down how to find it. If new content that is reliable (straight from the horses mouth as it were) is deleted then there is no way this article will stay abreast of such a dynamic game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.131.133 (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is planetary flight even mentioned if in the next sentence it is dismissed and not on CCP' prioroty list of thing to develop at this point. When at Fanfest they announced what they ARE working on and should be mentioned! --68.209.227.3 (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Table of player break down

While I was playing in 2006-2007 there were numerous references to large blocks of Korean players. Is there evidence to support this? Alatari (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Kugutsumen, t20 and BoB

The current article states that a player named kugutsumen was banned, for eula violation etc. What the article currently ignores is that Kugutsumen, who is a RL computer-security expert got aware of the misconduct through means of hacking (which is what he got banned for). It also leaves out that the alliance in question allready had given back the Items (pretty much as soon as they got aware of those items being obtained in the matter they where). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.143.58 (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eve_Online/Archive_20&oldid=1136280312"