Talk:Eve Online/Archive 1

Empires
I changed five to four and removed jovian empire. There is no such race in the game. I have played eve for the last year, only four races. There are several incorrect references in this article. I am going to attempt to fix as many as I can find.


 * I guess you need to play for longer then. There are five races - be more observant and you might see some Jovians. Give you a clue: they often have yellow text in Local and fly scary ships. Perhaps if you'd be kind enough to discuss changes to "incorrect references" in the talk page before making them. Wiki-Ed 19:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You can't play them. So what diffrence does it make?  You only get to play one of the main four races.  Why not stick some of the rat races up there?  A note should be made that you can't play it, or it should be removed.


 * Race, not faction. There are only five races (which is what it says). Factions, bloodlines, corporations and individual characters are not listed. It's not about what is playable at the moment. Besides, some people play Jovians at the moment and apparently normal players will be able to at some point in the future - as well as use the large area of space that they occupy... it won't stay locked forever. Wiki-Ed 22:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok I will go with that. Sorry to just edit...


 * If we were editing on the basis of ugliness I'd remove them too :P Wiki-Ed 08:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL, I was removing them on their irrelivence in the game. My personal opinion is Jove is where the Developers play on the live server.  Thats my 2 cents.


 * The Jovians are a Race, Listed on the website, and a Faction, as tehre is Jovian Space. never been there, but it exists. You can also have standings with the Jovians

Gameplay and Billing

 * From Gameplay and Billing section:

"One drawback is that new players cannot catch up with older players; another is that the system is not entirely balanced between career paths."

-I'll agree that a new player does not have any hope in catching up to a 1 year old player, but the 1 year old player doesn't necessarily have that great of an advantage. This is one of those cases where more isn't necessarily better. A Veteran player will be able to fly more types of ships, use different weapons, and mine, produce research etc... i.e. have more options but it won't give him an overwhelming advantage in any single aspect.

-I'm not sure what "the system is not entirely balanced between career paths" means. Is it in reference to the initial character creation "career paths"?

"Early choices may have significant implications months or years later when a patch introduces new content that may (or may not) benefit players equally."

-Huh? Usually the skill requirements are giving before new ships/modules are introduced and nothing surprising about them (i.e. level 5 industrial for transport ships) and unless you're a total idiot it's very hard to "gimp" your character and even if you manage to do that it can be easily rectified. Unlike games that make you do quest to respec your character.

"Therefore, unpredictably large numbers of players in one system tend to cause lag, and large-scale events (such as fleet battles) can be made impossible."

-I've read on several patch notes that they have been trying to reduce lag as much as possible via patches and server upgrades. Are they making any progress? I haven't been in large scale fleet battles...--Fenrig 15:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Older players have more skills and, if they've generalised, will be able to enjoy more aspects of the game than younger players. More options are advantageous and make the game more enjoyable. Not really debatable.
 * Up until recently most skillsets/implant favoured gun-using PvP players. With some recent changes there have been increases in the number of other skills in other areas (and components/implants to match), but there are still inequalities.
 * Early choices in character selection fundamentally influence your career path. Eg. Civere naturally tend towards high perception so they are good at learning ship-flying skills; Intaki have great intelligence/memory, but they can't fly ships easily. The signficance of these attributes is not clear in character selection. It is not easy to rectify a max (non implant) skill of 13 and swap to another profession. You'll always be "gimped".
 * Lag has completely crashed nodes twice in the last week. Wiki-Ed 10:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Ofcurse a new player can catch up if the older player has not trained learning skills or even if he has and does not use implants then a new player can catch up. I will change the sentance from cant to something like hard or very hard, just need to put the music to it. But the word cant is an absolut and that is just plain wrong ofcurse you can catch up. Also you might not be able to catch up in everything but some parts you can atleast become equal or even better it all depends on where you and the other guy put your skill points.

You cant catch up easily, but being at a high level doesnt instantly let you win. a swarm of frigates can take out a battleship with relative ease, espcially if the battleship pilot isnt being intelligent

Deng 2005-12-10 02.15 CET

Added source to the information about a Chinese shard, although I couldn't find a very good reliable external link. This section was originally called Gameplay and billing but is now simply called Gameplay (a separate Cost section was created) so I have struck through this part of the talk section heading. DJMalone 12:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Have removed the section added recently regarding skill training that was duplicated from two paragraphs up and information about ship bulding which was POV and inacurate, the maximum length for a manafacturing job is 30 days, capital ships and their components do take a long time however not as long as the author indicated, --Richard Slater 13:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Update box shot?
The box shot is very outdated now, and I think it gives people the wrong impression about the game. I tried replacing it with Image:Eve rmr logo.jpg but it didn't work out...has anyone got an opinion? --Tom Edwards 13:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * They released a boxed version for sale via the EVE store which uses a silver box with embosed black writing saying EVE Online. maybe a high-res screenshot is in order? --Malard


 * This one ? It's not exactly descriptive. ;-) --Tom Edwards 09:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Big changes
Here you go.


 * Removed the quoted backstory and replaced it with link to eve's webpage(and to the best of my knowledge, it's frowned upon to copy images/text directly).


 * Reworded gameplay to a)remove generalties, b)remove incorrect information c)remove or reword information that was only partially correct(like daily downtime for maintenance, which is also used for hotfixes, re-seending roids/market and many other things)


 * Removed criticism as critique has no place on this article(and can also be seen as biased)


 * Renamed expansion to content patches, as expansion has no specific definition and the term is often mis-used by fans(To the best of my knowledge, devs also steer away from calling them expansions for the most part)


 * Reworded/Removed some of the RMR sentences as they talked in future tense and/or were out of date.


 * Removed server infrastructure/single world as it contained no meaningful information, and the upgrade to 64bit is mentioned elsewhere.


 * Removed that the cluster was straining from it's architecture, as the RMR update was supposed to cut down on the strain and has done the opposite - it's pretty nonsensical.


 * Removed eve-db as its content hasnt been updated in years(i miss you ganja <3)


 * Removed evegate as it hasnt been updated in 6 months, and the only information found there is around 60,000 bot posts sending users to sites that install sypware


 * Moved evenews to the top as it's basically the replacement for eve-i


 * Fixed eve-alliance wiki url and name.


 * Moved WDA to third party fansites

PS, isnt the great scam known to be a hoax? --Bastion 20:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I've seen, there are some players who have briefly mentioned the great scam to be a hoax. I personally think this is true, but I haven't seen anything to back this up. It does have some events occur in it which are not possible presently (missiles hitting objects which aren't targetted), but may have been in the past. --Jsloan31 10:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is known to be a hoax - the players named in it, in most cases, do not exist. One player who does exist has a line in his bio saying it is a hoax and the writer was born well after the article was written. I'm afraid i didnt get very far into it before getting annoyed with the poor writing style and blatant lies, so i cant refute it in more detail.

Criticism?
Aside from the last bullet, the criticism as of now (2222 GMT 9 November 2005) seems rather odd and is largely aimed against PvP and is highly subjective. Indeed some of the points listed as criticism are claimed by some to be the game's strongest points. There are several more effective criticism of the game that are more 'objective'.

I don't think criticisms of the game are objective at all by nature, also if they want to find out what some people perceive as "wrong" with the game they can just stop at one of the various forums or give the free trial a shot and see for themselves. --Fenrig 13:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

My understanding of non-objective point of view is that the information is presented in a way that allows the reader to draw their own conclusions. The criticisms that I will maintain are never stated as "good" or "bad" - although others have added a lot of other inflamed and slanted criticism which was rightly and rapidly stricken. In fact, as someone said previously, many of these game aspects have been interpreted as assets to the game (e.g. newbies being unable to enter 0.0 immediately) by many of its players. Does this mean a heading other than "criticism" is called for? In what way is the criticism subjective? I feel it would be much less NPOV to have the article present no potentially negative viewpoints on the game whatsoever. Please stop striking the first three bullets - that's what this discussion page is for.

"EVE's overall design philosophy favors PVP over PVE at each opportunity." This is your point of view, positive or negative it's still just your point of view and doesn't really belong.

The rest aren't really criticisms they're facts and should be included inside "billing gameplay" heading. Check out other MMOG pages (i.e. Dark Agexampe of Camelot, World of Warcraft) do you see any criticism headings? Does that mean there aren’t any? Please stop posting you POV thats what forums are for... ---Fenrig 17:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Not so. The quote is a paraphrase of something the lead developer said and so can be considered accurate Alex Bartho 04:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC) Do you play the game? Have you read any of the dev blogs? (Those are available from the main site, by the way.) You mentioned forums, do you read those either? Being even mildly conversant with the game's design (e.g. possible to be attacked in any system whatsoever, developers trying like hell to get players out of empire) should make it reasonably clear that the game is in fact designed to emphasize the PVP aspect and discourage committed PVE play. This is something that people considering joining EVE should know. If, as you say, everyone "can just stop at one of the various forums or give the free trial a shot and see for themselves", then what's the use of having a wiki at all? Please take the time to acquaint yourself with reality before you act like I'm projecting my POV and saying it's NPOV.

The PvP VS PvE I dont think eve favours PVP so much over PVE only people who are dumb/lazy/ignorant and do not do all the traning missions and therfore do not get 1.0 in faction standing will most liekly not do missions and only see mining and gate camping as the whole of eve BUT those who do all traning missions do get 1.0 in faction standing which gives access to all level 1 agents in that faction can see that there is a big part of pve. Also traning the connections skill to level 1 will give you access to low quality level 2 missions.

More PvE includes complexes and cosmos and just plain rat hunting. Ofcurse for the best missions you need to do missions for pirate corps which in turn do not require you to do the traning missions. They are harder and only located in 0.0 space but these does not mean you HAVE to pvp.

I myself never pvp only sometimes on test server and i am still happy, yes i might be a mission runner complex runner and rat hunter but this does not mean i do NOT play the game, as I often say in eve there is more to eve then mining and gay pvp.

Also mining which is a huge part of eve is not pvp so saying pvp is the biggest part in eve is wrong it is a part but not the only part and since there are so many more things you can do then pvp and most likely do you can not say eve favours pvp.

Tradeing is also a part of eve, I think who ever wrote that EVE favors "PVP over PVE at each opportunity" has not done the traning missions does not do missions and does not understand the game and is most likely a gay gate camper.

Next time you play eve, take a stop-watch and time your self how often you actually pvp, gay gate camping and just siting dosent count only the fighting time counts not the sitting and waiting, count the time you actually pvp and compare that time to all the other things you do like missions, complexes, cosmos,mining setting up orders and just browesing. Do all that and you will clearly say PvP does not take up most of your time. Deng 03.05 CET

Eve does not favor PvP at every opportunity plain and simple; if it did do you think the death penalty would be so high? You lose your ship, your clone, implants and mods. Does that make you want to PvP? Would people play Planetside for example if it had death penality as high as Eve? Since you brought it up I’ve been playing for about 2 years now. Numbers of times poded: 2 and that was at a 0.4 system and I was AFK both times. I now spend most of my time (90%) of it in 0.2 space, have had a couple of run ins with pirates but none the worst for wear. I’m making a profit and I am not PvPing. You want to talk Dev blogs? Explain to me how tech 2 mining Barges favor PvP or the new mining skills? I usually stay away from the official forums, you should know why.

I choose not to PvP and :gasp: I can still enjoy the game!

PvP is usually a means to an end in Eve and is usually not done just for the hell of it. --Fenrig 14:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The developers disagree with you. Just because you dont PvP doesn't mean you define the point of the game. They have repeatedly said that PvP is the basis of the game and PvE is there to keep people entertained/earning isk when their buddies arn't online.

Let's talk about the Criticism

Let's try to stick to our point ;> No offence guys but it seems that you two are arguing if eve is more of a PVP or PVE game, well, I want to bring the topic back to that damn "Criticism" in the article! I've argued about this before, and somehow my discussion thread has disappeared :| The well known NPOV warning has been put up and down here so many times, and there has been way too much fuzz about this tiny segment. It's probably useless for me to remove or rewrite it, it's just gonna pop back up anyways. So this is my final statement about this matter, ofcourse I will answer if anyone responds :-)

I'm gonna explain the situation from my point of view, please read this carefully, and respond properly if you disagree with me.

First things first, who am I. I've been EVE player for two and a half year now, started at week one playing EVE, know every aspect of the game, from being a freelance solo player, mission runner, bounty hunter, mining ;] or to fight against or side to side corporations & alliance both in south, west, and north of the eve universe. Never missed a subscription, so I do know what CCP [EVE-Online developers] have been doing for the game since its birth. But don't think I favor EVE or CCP, there has been times where I hated the game soooo much, and times when I loved it ;D Knowing that, I'm not just saying some gibberish here below, it should be neutral, and I actually know how the game works and what CCP has done in the past and will in the future. Alright, that's out of the way, on to the lovely criticism.

Put up as a fact, and is indeed false. A user said some CCP official stated this, well I'm not finding that exact quote but please, show me where it is. Far as I know is that CCP does not favor PVP over PVE, yes they do want to create the "ultimate virtual reality" like Reynir (If I remember correctly) said at the FanFest'05, that doesn't mean the game should be all PVP. Last year expansion was a BIG boost too PVE, LVL4 missions and complexes. It's a fact that players actually made more ingame money by doing those missions than anything else in EVE, (except trading, but that's largly NPC controlled anyhow). Than that became a problem, people left the dangerous zones of EVE to solo some LVL4 missions, so CCP did some balancing, made NPC bit tougher to beat, forcing the player to make friends and do missions together, "oh teh horror!". Also they letting agents in safe zones give less ingame money, and agents in dangerous zones more. And then it happened, this balancing was somehow an eeevil conspiricy to force players moving to dangerous zones thus more PVP! In next expansions to come the number of NPC types and their ability will be increased, so in my opinion this is false ... What To Do: It's a plain negative false fact, remove!
 * "EVE's overall design philosophy favors PVP over PVE at each opportunity."
 * Oveur is quoted as saying "Eve is a PvP game with PvE side elements" Alex Bartho 07:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This one has two points, corporations and alliances do have strong border defenses, I wont argue that, it's called gameplay... The latter one about new players being barred from "meaningful participation in PVP", I know it's harsh, but.... yeah! A day old character can't jump in a fight with a character that's two years older and expect to be as good or better as he is! That applys to [almost] every other game, both MMO and SP games. EVE is no different, but don't think of that as the end of EVE, I've trained newcomers before, some it takes within a month to become a proper PVP player, all depends on the will to learn and time spent playing ;] ... What To Do: Rewrite, or remove, or have it like that and add this point [almost] to every other game on wikipedia... ;D
 * "The game's design forces corporations and alliances to maintain extremely aggressive border defenses. Newer players are thus barred from meaningful participation in PVP."
 * This is essentially bollocks and betrays your lack of understanding. I've regularly seen 1 week old noobs in gangs taking down 2 year old vets in BSs. Its ALL down to player skill, not skillpoints. Eve IS different from every other MMO. You can start a charachter with pretty much all the skills neccessary to fly a tackling frigate and jump them in at the deepend. Furthermore, "one month old charachters" ARE new players. Alex Bartho 07:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What you wrote is essentially bollocks, put a 1 week old noob up against a 2 year old bet with a BS, and tell me "Its ALL down to player skill, not skillpoints."
 * Yeah right, dont insult others when you're point is so ludicrous. --86.14.132.122 20:55, it.

WoW, when doing dungeons, its in another instance so players don't actively compete for the complex, because a gang just enters the same complex a few minutes after another group and they end up in another world until they exit it again, never meeting the first group, thats pure PVE. In EVE, its you and your gang ONLY and by going in first, you are preventing someone else from doing it.

PVP means Player versus Player. It simply means conflict between players in ANY KIND OF WAY. It can happen in any aspect whether its killing, trading or stealing someones loot. As far as I am aware, EVE is the first MMOG to incorperate the most PVP aspects therefore making it a hardcore PVP game. But if you do know another game that has more PVP aspects, then go ahead. Also please explain why.


 * Crap, PVP has always meant player vs player combat, never has it meant player vs player interaction, or player vs player competition.
 * Using your examples, Planetside isnt a PVP game because it has infinite equipment? What the hell? It's not PVE either because you arent doing ANYTHING to get that equipment, so I dont know what exactly your point is.
 * WoW dungeons not being competitive? I'm competing with the next player for a certain item that drops, according to you thats PVP.
 * Let me ask you two questions - do you play eve-online & do you consider yourself a fan? I think those answers will be VERY enlightening. --86.2.153.77 18:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What the person ment by favoring PVP is that PVP is a major part of the economy in eve, and is treated differently that other MMO's In Eve, you can get killed at any time. Empire space is ment to be safer, not safe. there are sucide gankers in empire. in low sec, you can get killed even more often. the GM's and Dev's wont hold your hand and give you your stuff back. how much you lose is directly related to how well youre prepared. the GM's arent going to give you battleship escort or whatever. if there were no PVP in eve, the in-game economy would collapse.

I can not speak to what any of the posters "meant" I can only speak to what they said and how I interpreted it. The original "criticism" section had one line stating that "EVE's overall design philosophy favors PVP over PVE at each opportunity." which is wrong. I'm not saying that PvP isn't a great part of Eve, I'm not saying that PvE "is favored at every opertunity" I'm saying that PvE is of equal importance as PvP in Eve. The above poster gives several interesting examples. "In Eve, you can get killed at any time. Empire space is ment to be safer, not safe. there are sucide gankers in empire." True, but with the recent defensive boost given to all the ships (not to mention the response time decrease for Concord) it's become far more difficult to pull it off. So unless you're a macro miner the chances of you actually getting killed in a suicide attack in empire space are slim to none (by killed I mean poded, not just losing your ship)

"in low sec, you can get killed even more often." I have lost more ships in empire to PVE mission due to changes than I ever had in low security. And while low security definitely has the potential of being far more dangerous than empire, more often than not once you get by the gate campers (or avoid them totally) it's pretty empty and hence without danger from PvP combat.

"the GM's aren’t going to give you battleship escort or whatever." Funny I thought that was what Concord is....

"if there were no PVP in eve, the in-game economy would collapse." Would PvP survive without PVE elements in the game? Especially since the main benefit in PvP is the PvE content in low security (i.e. the minerals, high level complexes, Faction rats and loot)--Fenrig 14:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "Criticism" is the wrong heading. But the article as it is doesn't really give players any realistic idea of what playing the game is like. Isn't it important for players to know that if they sign up, they'll spend somewhere between two weeks and two years in the game BEFORE they're able to take part in pvp? This is why that old bulleted point about CCP's design philosophy (namely: PVP > PVE as far as content focus is concerned) was so important.


 * I think it comes down to what Wikipedia is and is not, I don't think Wikipedia should be an advert for eve-online it should be a neutral text that describes the notable elements of the subject. i.e. what is EVE? why is it notable? this article shoule be an unbiased representation of the facts; arguments over PvP being better than PvE are irelevant surely? Wikipedia should also be verifiable thus weather our oppinions and views are the oppinons and views of the community or the developers, it should only be presented if it is published elsewhere. --Richard Slater 21:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct. That is why it's kind of funny that the statements once claimed as "criticism" could be described, as someone said much earlier, thus -  ...some of the points listed as criticism are claimed by some to be the game's strongest points.  That's true.  A different section header really is called for, but I think it's a notable element of EVE that so much of the game is non-consensual PVP.  I think the heavy death penalty is a notable element.  People have all kinds of conflicting points of view about these things, which is why we should find some way to mention them while maintaining NPOV..   right?


 * I suppose so, but fans tend to edit these lists of "notable features"(even that sounds positive) to make them into good things about the game, while people who dislike the game do the opposite. --86.2.153.77 18:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And Wikipedia's structure doesn't really give us any way of preventing that. Many people seem to make changes to the article without even checking the discussion first.  Sigh.  Furthermore, even if some well-meaning person added controversial elements to the article in the most NPOV way possible, someone else would take them back out claiming biased POV.  Even that completely value neutral assertion, "EVE's overall design philosophy favors PVP over PVE at each opportunity." was repeatedly juggled by others who read it to be good or bad.  Changing the section header would help this problem but by no means eliminate it.

re: changing 'player' to 'avatar'
I'm pretty sure the same account can't be logged in to twice... --Tom Edwards 18:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't use the term 'player' because a single player can have multiple accounts, so you don't know exactly how many players are logged in at any time. Feel free to change it to an alternative wording if you wish though. --Davril2020 18:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont think it matters. "Players" which could be wrong because of multiple accounts - is what the eve website says itself.  You can't have more than one avatar per account on at the same time, so "avatar" also works.  And of course "accounts" work too (and I think makes the most sense.  Just my .02USD.  --ShakataGaNai 17:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Motherships replaced with Dreadnoughts
The word motherships was replaced with the word dreadnoughts in the Red Moon Rising section recenlty, according to this page Dreadnoughts were introduced in Cold War Edition, and motherships were introduced in Red Moon Rising, this is also supported by the patch notes for RMR  (you will need to be logged in to eve-online.com to view the patch notes) they are duplicated here. I will revert the article to say Motherships rater than Dreadnoughts. Richard Slater 18:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet Another NPOV...
So I quote a wikipedian user who "NPOVd" the EVE Online article, "I know that EVE players are stupid drooling fanboys, but this is an encyclopedia, not your stupid sandbox". In my opinion, and with all due respect, that NPOV should be removed with no debate. NPOV should not be used even if the article is edited and updated by EVE players, and in such details. Giving that knowladge to the public is not fanboism... Also, I want to correct that user, for his statement that all EVE players are stupid drooling fanboys is not correct... Any comments? --Gussi 18:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Agree with this, I beleive the article needs some work and does contain some items that could be considered biased, however being an EVE Player myself it is difficult to judge. I asked the wikipedian to make further comment on his talk page, however as yet he has not replied. -- Richard Slater 19:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please be careful not to confuse "NPOV" (the concept of neutral point of view) and "NPOV dispute." In my opinion, certain aspects of this article (mainly in the gameplay section) used weasel words that could have been construed as an attempt to promote EVE and therefore violate the NPOV policy. The other possible gripe is that to me, the article reads as though it is written by a passionate EVE player rather than from someone with a neutral standpoint. Several citations were missing (the concurrent user record, for example). If you are stating something disputable as fact, it should be cited. Having said all that, it looks to me as though the person who raised the NPOV dispute did so for no good reason. From this person's talk page, it appears that he/she deliberately adds inflammatory remarks in order to annoy or frustrate. The correct thing to do is to add an explanation for creating an NPOV dispute to the talk page so that we can all at least discuss the best way forward. At least we're now doing that. DJMalone 14:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's hard to really credit such a comment when the original complainant fails to back up his comments and also violated WP:NOP in the process. --Davril2020 17:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see why the NPOV tag is still on there. I've played EVE, and the article is a fairly straightforward description of the game without trying to sell it.


 * NPOV doesn't mean you can't say something good without also saying something bad. If there's no real problems with EVE, we don't have to struggle to find something wrong with it. Justin Johnson 04:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Blood
I have modified the section on the new Blood patch, so that it matches the stile of the paragraphs above and below it, I have also left a message on the authors talk page asking him/her to provide a verifiable source for his/her assertion that the changes are in anticipation of the creation of a Chinease server; I agree however I can't find a link. -- Richard Slater 19:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?
Seriously, so talking about something wwith a positive aspect makes it NPOV, i don't think so. I am assured that the EVE Online Wikipedia Page is just as clearly neutral as other game pages. Yes it points out more good things than flaws and goes into details of game mechanics... but isn't that kind of info what makes Wikipedia thrive. The main reason the article points out more positive things than negative things is because there ARE more positives than negatives to the game.. even from a complete bystander viewpoint. I mean seriously, if i have to list as many negatives as positives as there are for something, then let me edit every page for every game. Certainly i think even the Mah-Jong page would seem more biased(especially toward the us version of the game) than this, and i don't see that page getting an NPOV anytime soon. It wouldn't deserve it.


 * Agreed. the only problems i find are ones that players caused. along with the occational explosion of bad code, like right after blood was released, except unlike other MMO's they fixed it within a few days.


 * Yeah, I'm no sycophantic supporter of Eve Online. It isn't my thing at all and, consequently, I don't currently play it, simply for lack of interest in the setting.  But I don't see that this article is substantially biased, so as to justify the tag and I've played AC1, DAOC, AC2, SWG, Eve, CoH and WoW so I'm not speaking from lack of familiarity with the genre.  There's just not that much that can be said about this game from an outright negative point of view that occurs to me.  If lack of outright negativity makes for an absence of neutrality in MMORPG articles, I suppose we're led to conclude that MMORPGs must simply have their own brand of neutrality, entirely unique to them and distinct from Wikipedia's, which necessitates 1) Neutral Statements and 2) Cynical Muckraking as crucial components to a balanced treatment --Yst 02:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of bad points/negative things about Eve, I personally just dont think a wikipedia article should be a critique(good or bad). This article used to be a mouthpiece for fans on eve, the current iteration is far far superior to what it used to be. --86.2.153.77 16:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you list good and bad things, is it a violation of NPOV because you listed them at all? Or is it a violation because you claimed that such and such was good or was bad?  These are some deep epistemological waters - especially with a game like EVE where, as it was mentioned earlier, the strong points of the game seem to be really controversial and polarizing.  But I think that the wikipedia article does its readers a disservice by completely failing to mention any of them.


 * Who mentioned POV? It's not meant as a review, it's meant as a encyclopedic article - as such things that differentiate eve should be listed, they just shouldnt be spun as to being a "good" or "bad" feature as they were in the criticism(and response to criticism) section. Look at the latest update I reverted for what I mean, someone posed two parts of eve as perhaps being negative - purely so they could spin them as a positive feature after all. --86.2.153.77 18:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's actually a good point that the article should mention the strong ponints and controversial and polarizing issues. It just doesn't need to group them into good or bad. A list of things that differentiate EVE from other games or make it unique would be good. --Sindri 16:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Split off Major Content Patches and Weapons?
A while back I split off the Ships section to Eve Online/Ships, since moved to Spaceships of EVE Online. It proved to be a very successful move that kept the page size down to reasonable levels without compromising depth. The Major Content Patches and Weapons headings are now starting to turn into elongated lists of their own: does anyone have an opinion on splitting them off too? --Tom Edwards 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this, perhaps split them off into Weapons of EVE Online and Patches and Expansions of EVE Online Richard Slater 22:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Those sections should be split off into separate entries. DJMalone 13:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)