Talk:Eve Online/Archive 21

Possible Source
Described in Matt Barton's Dungeons and Desktops: the History of Computer Role-playing Games (viewable at Amazon). Covered on pages 414-415 (at least). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Eve vs. EVE capitalization
I have to suspect I may be reopening a can of worms that's buried in the talk archives somewhere, but... if the official name of the game according to its developers and publishers is EVE Online, not Eve Online, shouldn't that be the name of the article? &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see if I can accomplish this. WP:BOLD, right?  Oy... &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: withdrawn by nominator 81.111.114.131 (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Eve Online → EVE Online — Correct capitalization of the name per the game's developers and publishers is EVE Online, not Eve Online. This is noted as the "official" capitalization in the article lead. Eve Online should be a redirect to EVE Online, not the other way around. (EVE Online needs to be deleted for the move, hence move request.) chaos5023 (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:MOSTM, unless of course the nominator can demonstrate that the name is an acronym.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. That policy seems to answer my previous "should this be like this?" question.  I actively believe EVE to not be an acronym, though if anyone has an indication otherwise that'd be interesting. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "EVE", in capitals, is written on the remains of the gate which gives its name to the game. It's a background story element CCP seem to want to keep vague so it is unclear whether it is supposed to be an acronym or not. Until they clarify (assuming they ever do), the article name has to conform to article naming policy. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'd like to withdraw this request, if I have the power to do so. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody else has stepped upto take it forward, there's no real point in keeping this open. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

How much
How much does it cost? I don't see this info anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.217.200.214 (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's $20 to buy and then $15 a month. But you can buy the PLEX through in game market if you have the ingame funds for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.65.68 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Dust 514
This is just something I've set up seeing as how Dust 514 will be tied into Eve Online. This is just a reminder to everyone that when Dust 514 is realeased to mention it on this page as well. If you feel that this article is just stupid... then could you delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.154.95 (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

2003 Championships
if one wanted to go back to the early post beta days, the first eve championship was in 2003. The winner was MASS, and the reward was Imperial Issue Apocalypses and Gold Magnates, finalist were awarded Silver Magnates. Source,. further info on Ecliptical and MASS as winners (albeit recoquiring deductive reasoning) is found here:

Rmorin (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

To Do list needs updating
"Update article to reflect Dominion expansion. Specifically "Developments > Planned Future Developments" as planetary flight, termed Planetary Interaction in the game, was added in the Dominion expansion.""

this has been fixed for a bit maybe remove it from the To do list?

The planetary flight mentioned under the development section is not a reference to dominion (dominion only added planetary interaction resource extraction, no player flying around on planets) the video mentioned with a crow flying over a planet surface is an idea for a future expansion.

10:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugottoknowme2 (talk • contribs)


 * Easy enough to remove.... ferret (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Need to add changes brought with Incarna, such as Captain's Quarters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.235.50 (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Incarna added but to the seperate page listing the eve expansions. Ugottoknowme2 (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Incarna
I have today reverted a number of very POV edits from a number of IP address-only users who are clearly unhappy about the upgrade. If they care to supply reputable sources for their suggested edits they can, of course, be added to the article, but in the absence of such they are just so much vandalism. I have closed the page to unregistered editors for the moment in the hope that such vandalism will now cease. --AlisonW (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Theres a ton of sources and info, but it's still unfolding, so probably not a good idea to just go adding stuff until it all is resolved but heres reputable sources for some of the events that occured: — raeky  T  14:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/06/22/eve-online-now-sells-70-monocles/
 * http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/06/25/eve-online-players-protest-against-monocle-pricesmicrotransactions-lasers-involved/
 * http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/06/22/eek-eves-clothing-and-cash-crisis/
 * http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/06/27/eek-online-ccp-apologises/
 * http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/06/24/eve-clothes-defense/
 * http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/06/24/eve-online-dev-responds-to-incarna-anger/
 * http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/06/21/controversy-brewing-over-eve-online-microtransactions/
 * http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/06/22/rumour-leaked-document-shows-ccps-microtransaction-plans/
 * http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/06/24/ccp-addresses-eve-controversies-in-new-dev-blog/
 * http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/06/25/eve-online-controversy-erupts-in-protests/
 * http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/06/26/ccp-issues-brief-mea-culpa-eve-csm-to-meet-with-devs/
 * http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/06/26/eve-evolved-the-day-that-eve-online-died/
 * http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/06/eve-online-is-selling-horse-armour-in-space/
 * http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/06/furious-over-microtransactions-eve-online-community-explodes-with-rioting/


 * I agree with User:Raeky, leave it blocked until the emergency CSM (Council of Stellar Management) meeting at least, seeing there will be some form of a resolution at that summit (hopefully). The fact that this summit is going to be happen due to "controversial" changes in eve online with Micro transactions might be something worth adding to the article though?

Ugottoknowme2 (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I simply changed the A.D. in the reference to the era in which the game is set to the more academic "C.E."

Niapet (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Future Developments edit
My edit: It is also possible that these are just cinematics developed for the trailer. The actual amount of in-game interaction between consoles has not been fully defined.

is not NPOR. this is not research. it is another point of view to counter this one:

However it can be said that, with the recent trailers showcasing Dust 514, Dreadnaught siege ships will be able to perform orbital bombardments on Dust battlefields. And with the first reveal trailer of Dust 514, which ended with what looked like a playable ship blowing up in atmosphere, it cannot be ruled out that smaller ships could perform similar attacks in low orbit or even in atmosphere.

This view is unsubstantiated, as ALL previous eve trailers have been heavy on 'concept' visuals that never make it into the game. a trailer is not a 'credible source'.

Therefore, my edit is simply a counter-argument to remove the bias in the previous statement, but if you want to revert my edit, you must also remove these sentences referencing the trailer as that is simply not credible information, definitely as far as CCP/eve online are concerned. their game never looks like their trailers.

Just posting this here before i make the edit, or make the edit yourself, otherwise i will be taking this up with another admin as this section does not fit the spirit of an encyclopedia and seems written only to boost 'fuiture developments' which is the way that CCP/eve generate all their hype and future sales. its just wrong, and violates wikis promotion policies. Thanks. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If it is your opinion, then by definition it is original research. It is also in violation of WP:NPOV amd WP:V. All content must be verifiable to a published reliable source. Editors cannot enter their own personal opinions or add their own observation or analysts into an article. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is NOT my opinion. It is a counter argument that is used to remove biased from unsubstantiated claims. This is an accepted principle in editorial writing, and is necessary in essays, news articles, etc where there is doubt about the veracity of the claims: like in a 'trailer' which is NOT credible information. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If there are no published reliable sources to back up the "counter argument", then the "counter argument" is just your personal opinions and it doesn't belong in the article. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, I state that a 'trailer' is not a 'credible' source, it contains viewpoints that may be contested, according to NPOR, therefore a substantiated claim from the developer is needed to prove this point, which will not be forthcoming because CCP does not release info about future update for this very reason, because they rely on 'hype' for marketting. Now, if you can provide a verifiable source that ships will in fact be able to interact with ground forces in a FPS environment, then please, by all means cite this. All trailers should be classified under 'actual product may vary' because they are just commercials and rarely represent the actual product. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not concerned with preexisting content in the article. I was concerned about the large amounts of original research you were adding to multiple articles. —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How does the statement in question relate to original material. The other edit under Influences i made, sure, file that with the rest, but i just don't see how you can argue your way out of this one. The entire paragraph there is just worded incorrectly. It is not exactly clear that CCP has been promising this since even before 2005. There have been various trailers and tech demos, and 6-8 years later, atmospheric flight still hasn't made it into the game. Furthermore, it is contrary to CCP's current stance that atmospheric flight is not a priority and won't be addressed for a long time, which means several years down the road. This paragraph should be cleaned up to reflect this, because even though some of the facts are in the paragraph itself, the wording is biased to convey that this is an upcoming or imminent feature, whereas in reality it is an ignored feature. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In that case, permission to re-edit the paragraph, so that it starts with a refernce to the future vision video, but then cites videos/press releases that clearly explain this feature implementation has been attempted several times and always failed. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, this sentence 'The ability to enter a planet's atmosphere (planetary flight) and to interact with the surface is also mentioned as one of the future development plans.' is uncited, and is contentious as i stated, it contradicts CCP's stated goals. Also not mentioned is that CCP officially said the 2005 video was only a tech demo and will not make it into the game. This whole paragraph is an illusion. it is twisted and doesn't conform to good writing principles. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, stated here (http://www.eveonline.com/community/newsletters/vol004.asp) that atmospheric flight was planned for the Kali expansion, but if you check other forums it never made it. CCP dropped it completely, and there is nothing on their devblog citing any current/future work on atmospheric flight. This is simply an unsubstantiated claim from a trailer, just like the 2004/2005 atmos flight trailer than never materialized in game. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Copied from Farix's userpage, since it is a discussion regarding this article, which he just 'accidentally' happened to delete from his user page. Unacceptable behaviour. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Tomorrow I'll be posting my writeup/edit here with citations, as the paragraph should appear in the body of this article. This section is CLEARLY biased in favor of CCP and their marketting policy and is not acceptable as wikipedia material. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"Subsequently, it was stated that, until a proven in-game reason is found for planetary access, further work on this feature will not have a high priority." &lt;-- this is the sort of statement that needs a link to a devblog. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is linked in #84. Although the blog is kind of dated, however there has not been any new word from CCP on any work on this feature in Eve. Although there have been more recent videos and maybe some devblogs on the subject (CCP has commented on it several times), none of them has announced plans for such a feature at least in the near future. However, if you have a link to a devblog that clearly announces such plans, you are welcome to cite it. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for Future Development edit
Reworked first paragraph to better reflect the state of development and make it less ambiguous.

Reworked second paragraph to provide a counter argument to uncited references. Revised chronology and paragraph flow.

Revised grammar, terminology, redundancy, neutrality, citations.

Revised factuality of eve fanfest video regarding its contents.

Future Vision Trailer, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45mlVuLs_Nw, and Dust 514 Trailer, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzVjggarRns, not cited, not credible sources, trailers, advertising.

Not sure whether to include the Fanfest 2005 video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Pg1dzAvL2M, not a trailer, more of a tech demo but was abandoned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.81.218 (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

criticism in dev section
many criticisms/concerns have been directed at the eve development model. these mainly include poor quality assurance, testing, multithreading of the UI, slow performance and high GPU temps in CQ, increasingly random crashes, lag issues, etc. all of these can be referenced directly to CCP devblogs. Just posting this here before you freak out when i add this to the dev section in a week from now. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

'Engine' field in the infobox
Under 'Engine' in the infobox the information is listed as 'Carbon'. This is actually false, EVE Online is powered by the Trinity Graphics Engine and Ambulation Technology (an extension of Trinity) which is part of the Carbon Framework.

The Carbon Framework itself is a set of hardware and software components created by CCP Games to use on in-house projects such as EVE Online and Dust 514. Carbon is the combination of the Trinity Graphics Engine, Ambulation Technology, Carbon Cluster Technology, Carbon Database Technology, Carbon Technical Art Pipeline and the Carbon Build System.

Further information on Carbon and Trinity available here http://www.ccpgames.com/en/company/technology and here http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=788 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrel (talk • contribs) 09:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Edits on 06/01/2012
Added tooltip to the EVE Online: Crucible splash screen instead of a caption, couldn't figure out how to add caption.

Changed the version field in the infobox to reflect the current game version (Version: 7.20.329614) not the current expansion/deployment (Crucible). Added "EVE Online: Crucible" to the title section in the infobox.

The reason for calling the title "EVE Online: Crucible" instead of just "EVE Online" is that unlike other games such as World of Warcraft and Star Wars Galaxies, EVE Online's expansions are mandatory and the game changes title for the current deployment. EVE Online is a broad term that can mean the game or the franchise (board games, EVEGate, EoN magazine). As each expansion is released the title changes. I decided to just add it to the infobox instead of the beginning of the article because the infobox represents the current build of the game and the article represents the game as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrel (talk • contribs) 09:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

EVE Online is NOT simulation
Or a space simulation at that. The two facts that the hits and misses are calculated and that it uses "liquid vacuum movement physics" is not enough to count it as one. The ships are spherical (look at Drake from the front and compare the "signature" to it's top, then look at it's properties). The damage model is homogeneous sphere with 3 hitpoint bars. The electronics is not simulated either -- it's a standard range check and buff/debuff castings. Weapons are fired from a central point and do not have any firing arcs or deadzones (which in turn leads to 1/2 of ship's turrets to just not shoot - weapons depicted are "shooting" from another side through another set of turrets). There is no influence from celestial bodies: the battle near the star is the same as the one being fought in deep space, for example. Next, http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Falloff -- there is even no connection with gun target resolution and target distance! They are connected in the hit chance but do not influence each other (unlike Velocity/Tracking/TR/TS combo or it's counterpart Range/Optimal/Falloff). Etc, etc. There is nothing to call EVE a simulation inside, its an RPG. A complex one, yes, but still an RPG with elves and orks changed into spaceships and flat fields of (where is WoW taking place?) - whatever- replaced by 3D space with strange and totally unrealistic decorations.188.134.42.68 (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above statement, to put it simple. Objects in EVE Online decelerate and eventually come to a stop even when no opposite force is applied (there is no perpetual motion). Also the ability to travel faster than light is present and I assume that according to the current laws of physics that traveling faster than the speed of light without infinite energy is impossible. Will edit article. Astrel (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Reverted. Please read the Wikipage for "space simulation game" that the genre is tied too. EVE Online is repeatedly referenced as an example there, and based on how the genre is defined on Wiki, EVE is in the genre. The genre and it's article are clearly not tied to strict realism. This may stem from the fact that the genre was pointed at a bad redirect earlier which I have since fixed. -- ferret (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Eve Online is referenced there thrice, twice as an example (and without any grounds, BTW), the other mention of it being MMORPG, inspired by space sim. So I see controversy in the referred article itself. And yes, the space sims are not bound to strict realism (or any realism at all by that matter). But to be called "space simulator" the game must simulate at least anything. EVE Online doesn't. On the same grounds (which, BTW? any sources?) we can refer to WoW or Fallout as being simulators (which they clearly aren't). Just compare Wing Commander, Descent Freespace, X3 to Eve -- and find that the only things common are space and spaceships. --188.134.42.68 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My revert was on the basis of the genre being wikilinked wrong, which may have led to undue confusion. If you feel there's issue with the genre article as well, feel free to edit both. My initial attempt was simply to clear any confusion caused by the redirect. -- ferret (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There are a whole lot of ppl here who can do that way better than me. I have just pointed out the obvious thing. From some of my discussions though it appears that even some players think they are playing space sim -- with no good reason for that as well. --188.134.42.68 (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

security status
However, the UI does not display any security rating below 0.0 to the player, meaning other resources must be used to determine a systems True Security Rating.

Saw this added, currently on vacation so can anyone confirm they've changed this again? ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugottoknowme2 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Last time I was playing (Incarna), true security was shown in the HUD alongside the system info, but not on map labels. -- ferret (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Page Name! (Yes I brought this back up!)
Hello Rhys Kommins,

Thank you for contacting the EVE Community team.

The trademark name is EVE Online and EVE is not an acronym but rather named after the EVE gate which brought colonists to this universe. Yes, of course we care, especially if you do :)

Kind regards Pete 'Navigator' McKay Community Manager --- Sent - 1/12/2012 4:28:00 PM Hi there.

We can't create a link to this petition that's visible to others I'm afraid, but if you look at any news item, Facebook status, or article/dev blog that we put out, we always use "EVE Online", so it's the official way as far as we are concerned. And you can quote me on that anywhere you want :).

We don't mind you borrowing the Crucible picture at all. In fact, thank you for taking the trouble of caring for EVE's legacy on this venue.

Is there anything else that I can assist with in this regard or do you have any further questions?

Best regards, CCP Guard EVE Community Developer

Everyone thank CCP Guard and CCP Navigator!

So now we need an administrator to change the pages title. And as for what CCP Guard said here are some dev blogs:

EVE Dev Blog EVE Dev Blog EVE Dev Blog from 2003 :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrel (talk • contribs) 02:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe wiki policy is for article names to be mixed case, regardless of trademark or how it's stylized. Need input from someone more familiar with the exact policies to comment though. -- ferret (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

programming language
does anyone know the programming language used for this game ? It should be included in the infobox. --Johnny Bin (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Races? Species?
As you know, fantasy games usually mean "species" when they say "races". But in this game there is only one race, humans, right? (There are no playable alien races like in Star Trek for instance).

I find the subheader "Races" slightly misleading, since by the common definition (of the genre, not biologists), the alternatives offered by this game would be considered human "cultures" or "subraces" only. CapnZapp (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In EVE lore there are 12 distinct blood lines (races) in 4 player factions (Civilisations), the 12 races are separate Haplogroups and have their own cultures.

Griefing
Could someone please supply a definition of "griefting" for the entry? I'd never heard of this term until today and even though I read the section on griefting, I am still unclear as to what it means. Thank you.Risssa (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Griefing
Anyone care to weigh in on the appropriateness of the material that has been deleted from 'Griefing' in the 'Public Perception' section? It looks ok to me but some editors have claimed that it misrepresents the sources. Anyone who knows the specific topic better and who could help clear this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.179.12 (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

EVE not Eve
The EVE in title of the game is an acronym, carved on the EVE Gate. What it actually stands for is part of the mystery underlying the back story. (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/EVE_Gate). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.184.65 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2012 -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  02:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes but there's a couple naming rules we follow, EVE is a trademark, so MOS:TM which states we use "Eve" not "EVE." WP:TITLEFORMAT would indicate that since it's not really an acronym that it would be "Eve Online." Acronym actually has meanings, just because it's in the game's lore that it is an acronym doesn't mean it really is (See MOS:ACRO). It's also been brought up several times in the archives, 1, 2, 3. — raeky  T  03:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for intruding, but I have always understood that it was "EvE", standing for "Everyone versus Everyone" or "Environment versus Everyone", because in EvE there are only neutrals or enemies, no friendlies other than people you trust, and that only for as long as you can trust them. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * According to CCP Navigator it is not an acronym. See Archive 21. Binkyuk (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Player revolt?
Even as a complete outsider, I have seen many references to a significant phase of discontent amongst EVE players a few years ago, which manifested in activities within the game's virtual space - large protests, and a hacking of the economic system. This sounded interesting, so I came here hoping to discover more, was surprised to find nothing...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.18.75 (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)