Talk:EverQuest/Archive 1

Cheat site
Every link to mysupersales should be flushed ASAP. That is a cheat site where one buys money and players in violation of the EULA. Account that have been bought are routinly cancelled. I notice may one shot wonders add the offending link. Dominick 01:50, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Flowers of Happiness vandal
FoH is a guild on the PvP servers, known for pranks. Some call them griefers, but I don't agree. (How can you grief on a no-holds-barred server?) While these are not adverts, per se, they are vandalism. Perhaps we should have a entry for EQ guilds in general, and have entries off that about each guild. This is a fascinating social aspect of the game, that may be lost forever if not captured in a wiki. Dominick 13:11, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Structure of the article
section 2 and 3 has information that does not belong to Everquest. I suggest a reqrite and moving he info t0 MMORPG. SYSS Mouse 03:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * How do development and zones of EverQuest not fit? Elfguy 8 July 2005 14:12 (UTC)
 * I was wondering the same thing, Elf. --Nahallac Silverwinds July 8, 2005 14:59 (UTC)

subsites?
what about creating sub sites for e.g. abbreviations; list of game commands/emotes; class/race guides? esp. the abbreviations part on the mainpage can get messy quickly. --Kajolus 09:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

feel free to make one for commands, there already are tons for each expansion, for many zones, even for some gods Elfguy 12:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

just created EverQuest game commands - where should we link it? sorry, am not really the guy who can makes things nice...therefore could somebody please? thank you :) --Kajolus 6 July 2005 15:01 (UTC)


 * Comment the site I created is now up on "vote for deletion", please check and vote :) --Kajolus 8 July 2005 09:34 (UTC)

Good job Kaj! We should probably make a "See Also" section for Wiki articles that are not already linked in the main body of the EQ article. This section would be a good place to link your new list. [in fact I'll do that right now] Also, we should add a brief description off to the side of each command, identifying what it does for people not familiar with the game. Feel free to start on that ...lol :) --Nahallac Silverwinds July 6, 2005 15:12 (UTC)

While I don't have a problem with sites being linked that support ige, I went ahead and edited out rpgexpert.com, I feel at this point it has turned in to nothing but a billboard for IGE. I'll probably add something in later detailing RMTs a bit more, as I have some experience there. -- Czaemon 00:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

out of curiousity, what are the guidelines about culling old comments? (yeah, I know, they can't be -that- hard to find, but hey, it's 330 am...) Czaemon 07:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

EverQuest Slang, Acronyms, Lingo
I've started a Wiki named EverQuest Slang, Acronyms, Lingo.

Please contribute.


 * nice. could you please provide a link? can't seem to find it?--64.236.164.193 07:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

WIKIBOOKS
the work on the EQ wikibook (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/EverQuest) is progressing slowly but steadily. PLEASE all with ingame expertise, have a look and see if you can contribute. thanking you! --Kajolus 11:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Jargon
Added Game Play Jargon section, I will think of terms and add as needed. Please add more that I dont think of, and wikify them, I used EQ_CAMPING for camping in EQ, so we can talk about that in terms of EQ. Dominick 01:40, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Jargon: Where do you stop? I understand including terms that are specific to EverQuest and/or Online Gaming, or MMOs like "WTB" (Want to Buy), "WTS" (Want to Sell) etc. But come on ...WTF, WTH (What the f*ck, what the hell)? TY (thank you)? Those are straight up leet speak or Internet short hand that can be seen anywhere on the net and are not specific to gaming.  If we are going to add those 3 ..there should be about 50 more that I see every day when I play EQ....OMG, OMFG, PWNED, OWNED, PLZKTHX...I could go on :)  Comments? --Naha|(talk) 23:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Price
I would like to know the price of everquest. What is the initial cost? What is the monthly payment?--cattrain 13:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What a funny question. When I bought the original EQ, I dropped $30 for the CD, $10 for the subscription, and $100 on RAM. Clearly, that last part is optional. Now, for $30 you can get the original game with almost all the expansion packs (minus the most recent two), and the subscription is around $13. The game is definitely going to slow down now that EQ2 is out. Buy that at $30, the subscription at $15, and the price of the expansions as they come out (usually around $20-35 dollars). Then watch as you can get what you spend $200 dollars on for $30.


 * EQ2 slowing EQ? No a lot of people are returning, now that they see what EQ2 is about. Dominick (TALK) 20:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing my valid submissions?
Greetings, Twice now I have been attempting to add links and they are being removed almost instantaneously. Both are valid no-ad, non-commercial, non-supersale-type, 100% EQ-related with high daily traffic. www.khatnip.com (My site with Everquest equipment breakdowns and analysis) www.evilgamer.net (The Shadowknight class site. Was SKO.org -> shadowknight.org -> evilgamer.net) /Not mine. If contributions cannot be made then it defeats the purpose of the Wiki entirely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KhatNip (talk • contribs).


 * The Shadowknight link is probably ok, given that we have other class sites listed. However, the link to your site is probably being reverted as self-promotion.  Even though it's not a commercial site, it looks suspicious when the owner of a site adds a link to it on Wikipedia.  The reasoning is that Wikipedia is not here to provide free advertising.  We already have a LOT of EQ2-related links.  We need pretty good justification to add more.  If your site is popular enough, perhaps someone else will eventually add it.  Powers 20:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I myself pay for the domain and hosting and write the code for the site and receive nothing in return except that I believe it is useful to fellow players.
 * Self promotion to what end? It's free to anyone and I neither expect nor even have a means of receiving compensation in any way. (unless you mean an occasional Thank You ::from my users is a little over the top)
 * When I initially included the link in May I didn't have an account here so someone seeing it as Self-Promoting is moot since it wasn't under my name.
 * If `someone else` adds it any time in the future that is just going to look suspicious to you folks and the same type of back-and-forth would just happen again to another innocent.
 * Wikipedia was not designed to allow a select few to dictate to the masses what they might find useful and delete submissions accordingly. However, if it's deemed that my site should not be included then so be it, it doesn't affect anything other than someone that might benefit from the information might not know it's out there. KhatNip 21:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)KhatNip


 * I was just letting you know the reasoning; it may not necessarily be valid reasoning. =)  It's true that links that are simply added to an article without comment are usually assumed to be advertisement rather than actual useful links for readers of the article.  However, it's also true that such assumptions are almost always correct.  The ideal way to deal with this when it happens is to bring it up on the talk page, as you have done.  Now we're discussing it.  That's the way Wikipedia works.  Powers 02:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Category
This article is in the following categories: Category:EverQuest games and expansions and Category:Massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Isn't the latter redundant?

EverQuest is in Category:EverQuest games and expansions, which is in Category:EverQuest, which is in ... Category:Massively multiplayer online role-playing games. I guess it COULD be in both, to simplify things, but I wanted to float a balloon on this. --Golbez 16:37, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Guilds have a short life-span? I agree that is true but there have been MANY long loved guilds, to the point where it is quite worthy of attention. Fires of Heaven being the main example (others being Triton, Legacy of Steel, Keepers of the Faith, Township Rebellion ,and mainly Talisman, the best guild in the game), FoH as main example have an extremely popular msgboard that became popular amoung even developers in Everquest....eventually the guild leader Furor was invited by Blizzard to work on World of Warcraft. Stories abound of guilds donating money to keep their guild leaders running the guild and out of fulltime work (Stasis on Prexus as an example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.142 (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Economy
On the remarks about the economy of EQ it would be good to get some references. The phrase, "and its GDP per capita is higher than that of China and India." is confusing. What does "its" refer to? EQ? If so better to say that. Also, do you really mean the GDP is higher than China and India combined? Using which conversion rate (you state that one plat > one Yen and that plat has devalued. At which point was the GDP of EQ higher (a date insertion would be good). What was the GDP per capita of EQ by comparison? Is that at nominal or PPP? It's a nice piece of trivia but needs clarifying. Candy 12:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Emotes
A section on emotes would be good. I quit playing EQ about 2 years ago and still find myself typing emotes. The / is stuck in my mind as much as anything from my thousands of hours of EQ.
 * Eh, no. A list of Everquest emotes does not belong in an encyclopedia. RobertM525 18:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

EQ RPG
Can someone who knows more about the table-top role-playing game add some information? Like, overview of the game, at least, maybe? Maybe a little blurb about how this or that was handled? Or at the least, pointing to an external source or other Wikipedia article that would have it? I've looked around for awhile but haven't found anything (though, I freely admit that my Google-Fu is weak). I'm sure even abit of information would be helpful.

-- Last Thylacine 00:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Uneditable Vandalism
At the end of the Development section I am seeing a sentence put on there how EverQuest is for losers, etc etc. But am unable to edit it out as the sentence does not appear on the edit page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.143.138.123 (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Escape to Norrath
What about Escape to Norrath? The free-and-limited version of EQ? --CrisDias 14:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... has anybody noticed this?
It comes to my attention that all this article contains is LOL repeated a few times... This is, of course, vandalism, and the article should be made an actual article again. I have no idea why nobody seems to notice this... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.69.247.192 (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Double post, sorry. 72.197.143.6 16:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?
I'm thinking of the line:


 * Emma Lewis and the Evil Jew Sand Crabs, by Richard Simmons (Jan. 2007)

I surely suspect it is, but since this is a game and all... Greswik 14:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A Google search turns up nothing. I'm willing to take the chance, and have reverted it.  JohnInDC 14:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Vanguard
Does the comment about Vanguard really belong in the "EverQuest expansions" section? It really has very little to do with EQ at all. I think it should be removed. If it is going to remain, it should be updated as the game has already been released (and bought by Sony). 65.216.189.2 12:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved it from "expansions" to "development" - it's related, and adds to knowledge (I didn't know it before I read it) and if it's limited to a single sentence I don't think it's a problem. I read it kind of like the little thing at the end of a movie that tells you how everyone fared later in life (a la Animal House).  JohnInDC 13:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

EverCrack
While computer addiction is not funny, the word "EverCrack" is never used as a serious name for this game. It's in the same satirical ballpark as "ProgressQuest". Also, would an example of Sony advertising this game as addictive be the slogan "You're in our world now."? --Mrwojo 21:07 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * In-game, we all use the term "EverCrack". Another is (among old flatuators like me) "Why do you think they call it drop" Dominick 18:18, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dominick. I would have to say that when talking to other gamers I always refer to it as EverCrack.  Only when talking to non gamers do I call it everquest.  (A recovered evercrack addict)--Drewlew 04:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For anyone still disputing this fact, I'm also confirming that users of the game and past players like myself did and do refer to the game as EverCrack. Sony's advertisement isn't really in dispute because that is factual.  EverQuest is an online "world" notated by different locations.  --Mnemnoch 02:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Server Architecture
What database and system software are the Everquest servers running? That would be interesting information for this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.91.209 (talk • contribs).

Yes, it would be. I seem to recall they use Linux and the software was based on the Unreal engine but I think my memory may be faulty. Will try to check it out. I do remember they have some big server farms. Candy 10:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be surprised if an operation this big was running on Linux, but it is possible. We should try to find out what OS it is running and what kind of data center.  There must also be a commerical database system behind it, for storing persistant changes.  For example, WoW uses Oracle servers for that.  DonPMitchell 20:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To the average player on a SoE Server, you're not going to get that kind of information out of a developer, 'Guide', or "GM". The information that you're looking for would be found from their servers in San Diego, California. --Mnemnoch 02:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fiery Avenger
New article at Fiery Avenger - unsure whether it warrants its own article, there's quite a few items in EverQuest, so creating wikipedia articles for them might not be a great idea. Anything in it worth salvaging and merging into this article? Appreciate any thoughts. --Oscarthecat 10:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to fall pretty far into the trivial. I don't think it deserves its own article and I don't think that the Everquest article needs to be cluttered up with what people happen to know about the thousands of weapons and items available in the game.  JohnInDC 11:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree fully with JohnInDC. I play EverQuest, and there is nothing about the Fiery Avenger (or any quest obtained item, for that matter) to make it notable. There is no point in merging it with the EverQuest main article, let alone having it's own separate article.  Delete it.


 * Another vote for simply deleting the Avenger article. Jeff Alexander 00:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's one of the epic quests isn't it? I don't think it's notable enough for an article by itself, but as an epic item it would seem one of the more notable items in the game. Mark Grant 02:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You folks may have a point. I simply added the article because, honestly, it was the most notable item from EverQuest that came to my mind.  I remember in my days playing EQ that for a long time during the first couple of years that the game was released it was the most talked about weapon in the game and I figured it deserved some kind of recognition on here.  I remember the first time I saw someone wielding it, it was very awe-inspiring.  To see a sword with flames covering the blade... I was impressed.  Not to mention the sword became something of a legend among first-generation EQers.  Just my 2 cents.  If you want it deleted that badly, I'm sure you can make it happen, but just so you know I am against it being deleted.  I think it's a valid article.  Thank you.  And sorry it took me so long to respond btw.  Still trying to get used to how wikipedia works.  :)  NeoBix 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe a more general article on epic quests in the game as a phenomenon with a few examples of end results would be more relevant? They were one of the main things that my guild did when we were playing, so they would appear to be a notable part of the game. Wasn't Everquest the first game to have these kind of quests? I know the epic quest concept has appeared in other MMOGs since. Mark Grant 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleted after expiry of prod. --Oscarthecat 15:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Paladin's Fiery Avenger epic item is, by even developer admission, the most strenuous "epic" to obtain...not to mention that it did include graphics that were particle graphics not seen by any online game prior to note. It took me, personally, almost a year of not really going directly towards achieving this item.  When I began playing for the item directly, I accomplished it with a few parties over the course of about 2 weeks.  This is prior to using 3rd Party Software.  --Mnemnoch 02:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Guilds Again
The article refers several times to guilds, but there is currently no explanation of what guilds within the game actually are. 207.69.137.23 02:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm removing my prior comment and replacing with this one: Guilds are defined in the article and there is a linking article to Everquest player guilds. --Mnemnoch 03:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Publishing Company Edits
Shouldn't these be immediately reverted due to lack of neutrality and POV?


 * Which ones in particular? JohnInDC 11:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

New subsection needed: classes
A description of each of the classes seems to me to be the next logical addition to this wiki.

and races.--Late Leo 20:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Done now. Vranak 00:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for A Typical Raid section
I recently added the 'Typical EverQuest play session' section. However I didn't do a huge amount of raiding in EQ when I played, and I haven't played since 2003, so I thought it would be best if I left a description of the Raid phenonema to someone more up-to-date with the latest raiding practices and trends. Cheers — Vranak 00:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This was removed as Original Research without any cites. PLEASE PROVIDE CITATIONS when adding material to this encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.15 (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cruft Removal
I cut out much uncited cruft that would be appropriate and generally helpful on a fansite but is not an encyclopedia. Before returning any of it to the article IT NEEDS TO BE PROPERLY CITED FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE.207.69.137.15 04:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you're certainly good at stripping down an article – hopefully you'll be able to build it back up a bit now. Citations are important, yes, but mainly for debatable matters. If you know much about EverQuest, you might realize on second glance that a lot of what you just removed is either common knowledge or trivially-citable.


 * And if you have any interest in getting along with your fellow Wikipedians, you may want to lay off the SHOUTING, as well as refraining from labelling contributions of others pejoratively as 'cruft'. Best regards, Vranak 05:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See the recent Featured Article: Dungeons and Dragons for what a good gaming article would look like. Even if sourced, most of the stuff I removed doesn't really belong in an encylopedia at all (and most of the items are still referenced in other parts of the article anyway.) If there is anthing that qualifies as 'fancruft' the material removed from the article fits the definition. It may be fine and helpful on a fansite, but does not belong here.207.69.137.22 23:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright. I suppose maintaining an encyclopedic look & feel takes priority over providing comprehensive information. Vranak 00:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This being an encyclopedia, the answer to your questions is obviously and overwhlemingly: Yes, maintaining the directives of Wikipedia to provide sourced, NPOV articles is more important than being a fansite. See WP:ISNOT 207.69.137.36 02:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's exactly how I laid it out: directives versus being a fansite. Vranak 03:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Irony
I fully appreciate the sweeping misuse of the term "irony" but it is well applied to a situation in which a company's Official Support Forum for a particular flavor of its software is closed off to the users of the operating system for whom the Official Forum was ostensibly established. There are two messages here: 1)  We care so much about your kind of computer that we provide an Official Support Forum where you can come to us to ask us any kind of question you may have!  And 2) your computer OS is so marginalized and meaningless that we can't be bothered to tweak our Support Forum software to permit you to use it. Two messages, two audiences - irony. (See, e.g., "Situational irony" here: Irony, and later this quote from Fowler:  “[A]ny definition of irony—though hundreds might be given, and very few of them would be accepted—must include this, that the surface meaning and the underlying meaning of what is said are not the same.”)  It may be unintentional here but there it is.

I would go on to say that the substituted adverb "oddly" is even worse - there is nothing "odd" about the situation. It is kind of common in fact to see companies expressing support for Mac OS X which is in fact wholly lacking. For the same reason it is not "curious" (other than in an ironic sense of course). It is, perhaps, "appalling" or "disappointing" or "shameful" but I am sure that everyone can agree that such POV terms aren't appropriate. It may be "embarrassing" but that's an unsourced assertion if there ever were one - who knows if the company, is, in fact, embarrassed? Nor, finally, is this any kind of example of "sarcasm", which is the concept with which irony is most often confounded.

I suggest that we leave "irony" right where it was until an editor can both explain why this isn't ironic, and can supply an adjective that properly captures the dual messages emanating from SOE. (In fairness, "used to" emanate inasmuch as they have fixed it.) JohnInDC (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My mistake. I missed the detail that the forum in question was a new one created specifically for Macintosh users. The word "ironic" is appropriate. Jeff Alexander (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Development Hisory - entities
There are a number of different stories as to what companies actually developed EQ. 989 Studios, on somewhat-reputable game fan site evidence, was entirely owned by Sony. Its website 989studios.com now resolves to http://www.us.playstation.com/. Verant Interactive, again on somewhat-reputable game fan site evidence, was an actual spin-off of Sony, and was at least somewhat independent until it was aquired by Sony in 2000 http://www.station.sony.com/sonyonline/, and the www.verant.com name now resolves to that Sony link.

Based on this, I think there is a good bit of misleading information in the 1st paragraph, and in the development history section. There are also conflicting articles. Before I embark on any large edits, I would like to hear any comments. I expect to edit the 1st paragraph to match the above information, with a link to the "history" section, and to expand the "history" section to discuss the conflicting opinions. Sinneed (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that I purchased, and still have, a book on the history of Everquest - "Everquest Companion - The Inside Lore of a Game World" by Robert B. Marks, (c) 2003 - that covers a good deal of this territory (e.g., John Smedley was head of Sony Interactive Studios, which changed its name to 989 Studios and then was spun off to Verant in 1999). I can try to reconcile the article with what the book reports - or, someone else with the book can take a crack at it too.  The only qualification is that time is very short lately and I would not be getting to this any time soon.  Maybe easier would be to compare the book against whatever edits folks go ahead and make.  JohnInDC (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Checking through Amazon, I can see the key information to cite. http://www.amazon.com/Everquest-Companion-Inside-Lore-Gameworld/dp/0072229039/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product

While books can be just as wrong as Internet sources, they *TEND* to be a bit more formal. Page 36 talks about 1986 and refers to "...Sony's 989 Studios..." And on Page 38 "Smedley, the head of Sony Interactive Studios (which changed its name first to 989 Studios and then spun off into Verant in 1999)..." And on page 43 Smedley is quoted: "...had decided that the PC side of things was too risky and wasn't a good fit with the Playstation and Playstation 2 setup that the companyh was working on at the time... Brad McQuaid, Russell Shanks, and myself formed Verant." running onto page 44 "Verant Interactive was founded in January 1999, with Smedley at the helm and McQuaid serving as vice president."

Finally, from the Sony site at www.verant.com "SOE began operations in summer of 1995 as an online collaboration between Sony Pictures Entertainment and Sony Corporation of America. In May of 2000, SOE acquired and fully integrated Verant Interactive to further strengthen Sony’s position in multiplayer online gaming. In April of 2006, SOE became Sony Online Entertainment LLC, owned by Sony Pictures Digital and Sony Computer Entertainment America."

This seems to make a coherent picture that matches pieces of each of the several stories. Sinneed (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Wording for lead-in/header text.
EverQuest, often called EQ, is a 3D fantasy-themed massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) that was released on March 16, 1999. The original design is credited to Brad McQuaid, Steve Clover, and Bill Trost. It was developed by Sony's 989 Studios(cite book), and its 1999 spin-off Verant Interactive (cite book). It was published by Sony Online Entertainment (SOE). Since its aquisition of Verant in 1999, SOE develops, runs and distributes EverQuest. (link to SOE/Verant page)

While there is no complete agreement on what constitutes a player (or subscriber), it is generally accepted that EverQuest was, from 2000 until 2004, the most popular MMORPG. EverQuest earned many awards, including GameSpot's Game of the Year Award for 1999.

A sequel, EverQuest II, was released in late 2004. The game has inspired a number of other spinoffs, as well.

OK I did it, and I think it worked. Sinneed (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Feedback?Sinneed (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Making 'Zones of EverQuest' pages
I've done two now, for Velk's lab, and Old Sebilis. Make some more, peoples! ChrisWright1979 17:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * added East Commonlands ChrisWright1979

Note to users: Chris and his various incarnations have been blocked indefinitely. I've proposed deletion of his three "Zones of EverQuest" pages as way too much detail for a general encyclopedia (an EQ wiki would be a better place for this information). Once those are gone, Category:Zones of EverQuest can go too. Powers T 15:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added an external link to the main article to a wiki devoted to EverQuest. I am not the owner, but I am a contributor.  It would welcome deteailed zone descriptions, among other entries. --Rcherrick 20:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I had a good look at the wiki linked to, but it's currently very brief in terms of EverQuest content, so I've removed it for now. Suggest it gets considered again when it's a larger and has more content. --Oscarthecat 21:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a size in mind? I am not aware of any wiki focused on EverQuest with siginificantly more content.  And I think you may not have gone deep enough into the content if you only found 20 pages.  There are double that just on raid and group missions, miniumum.  Also, perhaps replacing the link would provide some incentive for contributers?  --Rcherrick 23:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * From the statistics page of PaladinWiki. Not all of these pages are EQ pages, but most are.  Rcherrick 22:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * PaladinWiki statistics
 * There are 5,062 total pages in the database. This includes "talk" pages, pages about PaladinWiki, minimal "stub" pages, redirects, and others that probably don't qualify as content pages. Excluding those, there are 171 pages that are probably legitimate content pages.


 * There have been a total of 54,748 page views, and 2,938 page edits since the wiki was setup. That comes to 0.58 average edits per page, and 18.63 views per edit.


 * It's worth noting that my site, the EQ KnowledgePit is an EverQuest wiki with a decent base of content at this point (80k+ pages including the item/spell databases), and a handful of editors (see Special:ContributionScores; I do entirely too much editing for Special:Recentchanges to have much of a chance to show the others), looking for more. If someone wanted to add that link (the conflict of interest rule - total garbage in many cases - prevents me from doing so) I believe that it would provide the end user with another plug for information.  Not to mention I would appreciate it on a personal level.
 * This is a place that an article for each zone would be appropriate. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that I'm spending so much time competing with the big guys for market share on Secrets of Faydwer information, I'd have many more zone-specific articles written ;) ~ F loppie(talk • contribs) 07:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion, a month or so prior to this posting, the links to your wiki do not meet Wikipedia's external link guidelines and have been removed (again) from the article. Please do not repost them until such time as your site clearly meets the guidelines for external links. 144.15.255.227 (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no discussion about my site a month or so prior to this posting. My site was not the target of this discussion.  Additionally, since the last time my site was discussed, it has come to meet the guidelines.  Look before you remove it - contributor numbers are up, and the history has grown substantially. ~ F loppie(talk • contribs) 21:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So it was in October, not November. Your site still doesnt meet WP external link guidelines. Quit adding it. 144.15.255.227 (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was in October. October was three and a half months ago.  A lot changes in that time.
 * How does the site not meet the EL guidelines? The guidelines clearly state substantial history, and number of editors.  Both those conditions are met.  Oh yeah, and let's not forget (and I quote from WP:WIARM #7): Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate - the goal is to provide information to the end user.  That's what I'm doing. ~ F loppie(talk • contribs) 21:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your link does not meet WP:EL on grounds 4, 11, 12, and 13 as well as WP:EL. You have been told this before and your site has NOT changed enough to merit reconsideration. "Break all the Rules" applies IF YOU CAN PROVIDE VALID JUSTIFICATION that breaking the rules in this case makes sense, and you have not. Please remove the inappropriate link. 144.15.255.227 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It breaks none of those. It is not mainly intended to promote a website; it is intended to promote the availability of free information, including that of Wikipedia itself.  Wikipedia, however, by design does not contain the sort of fine-grained information that a more specific site such as mine does.  It is not a social networking site, and I really can't figure out how you would derive that.  It is also not a blog or personal webpage (unless you're talking about my userpage on the site, which is not what I'm linking to).  And, last but not least, it doesn't break 13 - it has a substantial history of stability and number of editors.  The only thing it breaks is the conflict of interest - and as I said when I first added it weeks ago, I made a post here suggesting it and no action was taken within a month.  Sitting around waiting for someone to notice it and say "hey that's a good idea" is no way to get something done.  A month is ample time.
 * Additionally, I was not citing WP:IAR as a reason to keep my link. I was citing that specific point in Wikipedia's policy; and again, I'll emphasize: less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate.  Your tone is way too hostile to keep a civil discussion with.  If you want the link removed so badly, bring in an administrator to support your decision who can speak civilly.
 * Oh yeah, and one last thing. Justification was provided.  The goal being to promote the free availability of information. ~ F loppie(talk • contribs) 22:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And one more idea. How about rather than simply starting an argument/edit war, you provide constructive criticism.  What, in your eyes, needs to change for the site to be added?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floppie (talk • contribs) 22:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow - for one thing, you need to listen to the point that has been told you a number of times and stop adding your own site due to violations of conflict of interest. Your initial posting of the site several months ago is understandable due to lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policies. But since you have been repeatedly told not to, and yet continue to do so, your actions smack of self-promotion. Secondly as a Wiki site, you need to have a 'substantial' editing base - a dozen editors in the period of a week does not qualify as substantial (sustained editing of hundreds of editors each week over periods of several months to a year would BEGIN to satisfy that requirement). Third, you would need to show that your site is somehow on the complete content level equivilent to material included the other sites listed (Allakazam and Lucy and EQtraders) (and I am not even sure they should be included). When you begin to get close to those requirements you could again ask to have your site considered for includion, BUT YOU should not be adding the site yourself. As asked above, you should take the initiative and remove the link. GundamsRus (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, I have not "continued to do so". I left it alone for several months, then made a post here.  After leaving that post to sit with not a single comment for a month, I went ahead and added it.  Read the revision comment when I added it on January 11.
 * Second of all, a dozen editors get quite a bit done. And finally, trying to talk to you people is like trying to talk to a fucking brick wall.  I'm done with this site - all the (rather ridiculously) hostile comments when I'm trying to have a fucking civil discussion have managed to alienate an editor.  Good job.  Remove it yourself, dickhead.  ~ F loppie(talk • contribs) 04:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and one last thing. If you people had been civil and asked me to remove it, I would have been happy to.  Instead, I was met with personal attacks and rude comments.  ~ F loppie(talk • contribs) 04:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "[I] made a post here. After leaving that post to sit with not a single comment" suggesting that the link should be readded; you "continued" to re-add a link to your own site in contravention to advice that you had recieved (several times) that it was inappropriate for you to add your own link.
 * If you people had been civil and asked me to remove it, I would have been happy to. I see that you were asked twice in this thread alone, along with being told previously that it was inappropriate for you to be adding a link to your site.
 * a dozen editors get quite a bit done.  I do not doubt that in the least. But a dozen editors does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for external links to Wiki sites.
 * I am sorry that you find application of WP guidelines to have been a 'personal attack'. It was not meant to be.GundamsRus (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Box Art Debate!
Ok, folks. The original box art is not what the innocent, who read this article and may be interested, will find in the stores. Today, if you want to buy EQ, complete, you need to buy the SoF box. If you want to buy it almost complete, you need the "Everquest I: The Anniversary Edition" at $35 or so. Key: If you go to a store to buy EQ you buy "EverQuest: Secrets of Faydwer" $40 or so. On the discount front, you can buy "Everquest: Titanium" at $10 or so.

Thus, if someone wants EQ, It appears they can either download from Sony or they can spring for SoF or look for the old software at discounters.

If you plan to kill my link, please update here, otherwise: Ping, pong, ping, pong, ping, pong. This would be rude and annoying. If you kill my link outright, it is really quite rude, since it becomes orphaned, and deleted. So please don't. I will leave the old image up, with this note in place, to encourage reasonable discussion. Thanks in advance. Sinneed (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not an advertisement or shopping guide, and so considerations for helping a current shopper really have no basis in discussion. I support the original box art as being a part of the historical record and thus more appropriate for this article. Keeping up with 'what is current' and not preserving the past is not always a good thing. The guidelines for limiting the use of copyright material would suggest that we do not use two covers in this article. The original cover here and the current cover on the current expansion's article page.GundamsRus (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is, however, a source of knowledge. We had the old box art in a historical section.  Today, EQ for PC is SoF.  The box art there does include the current expansion... OK that is part of EQ.  I see your point, but I don't agree. Sinneed (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Im leaning my support towards the original box art. A good example of original art being used is Donkey Kong (video game), were the arcade title screen is preffered over the NES box art because it was originally an arcade game. I also agree with GundamsRus, where original cover here and the current cover on the current expansion's article page, otherwise the expansion page would be pointless. Salavat (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I prefer the artwork that introduced the game. It seems a bit more encyclopedic and informative than a picture of a box that you can see by going to the store.  Also it spares editors the (admittedly modest) burden of keeping the box up to date as newer expansions come along.  JohnInDC (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I seem to be a minority of one here. :) While there is no tyranny like the majority... "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" seems appropriate.  I defer to you, group. :) Sinneed (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Twink" image
I've taken it out twice because there's nothing special or informative about it. To my eyes it's just one of the millions of screenshots that EQ players have on their hard drives of a toon taking on a mob - the (unsourced and unverifiable) claim about it portraying "one of the most powerful twinks ever" notwithstanding. JohnInDC (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree, in general, on the twink image thing. I wonder if more art really will add any value here, anyway.  Too... images add substantially to the "real" costs of Wikipedia, and I fear this magnificent tool may "collapse under its own weight"... too much data, too much traffic.   Sinneed (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

EQ Mac forum
I have added back in the link to the unofficial EQ Mac webiste, EQmac.com. The "official" Everquest for Macintosh forum is moribund and unused and, while "official", utterly useless as a resource for EQMac users. JohnInDC 22:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no other links to fan forums there. If there was a link to the IGN forums and other fan resources, I could see this, but the only link is to the official Sony site, so this really shouldn't be there. It's confusing and implies that the site is official, while regardless of its quality, it is not. -Mike Payne (talk - contribs) 23:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not a matter of quality but of utility. Indeed what is "confusing" is for a new Everquest for Macintosh player to arrive at the official Sony EQ Mac forum and see perhaps four entries over the space of a year.  Everquest for Macintosh is a different program than Everquest - billed and administered separately - and Sony's support is so indifferent that the *only* site for EQ Mac information is the site to which I am trying to link.  Indeed until recently, EQ Macintosh subscribers did not have posting access at *all* to the official site.  For nearly four years, EQ Mac users could read posts entered by others who happened to have access by virtue of separate EQ-PC accounts -- but couldn't post.  To the *official* forums!  The upshot is that virtually everyone who plays the game on the Macintosh side is also a member of the EQMac.com forum; that's where they go for infomation, that's where they go to talk to one another.
 * This forum needs to be linked. Any confusion is easily enough addressed by a tag that explains what the linked site is, as I did in my original edit.  JohnInDC 23:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Alternatively I'd be happy to add a link in the main text near the brief discussion of EQ for Mac OS X. I don't think it matters where the link is as long as it is somewhere.  Thoughts?  JohnInDC 00:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have edited the brief discussion of Everquest for Macintosh to include this link, as well as a brief explanation of how it came to pass that an unofficial site has become the de facto (indeed only) source of on-line information about this flavor of the game. That should cover both "appropriateness" and "confusion" concerns.  JohnInDC 13:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I can live with what's there now. -Mike Payne (talk - contribs) 13:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's good to find a middle ground. JohnInDC 13:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I still feel that this straight advertisement for the EQ Mac site is not appropriate. Individuals who use google to search for "everquest macintosh" will find EQMAC.COM at the top of the search list. Perhaps it should have its own page, if it seems appropriate to point people there. If it *DOES* belong here, then I think a section titled "EQ Macintosh Unofficial Forum" would be better. The section contains no information about EQ for Mac, only about "the only popular" Mac-specific web site. Sinneed (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really care for the particular formulation to which you objected, but I care even less for the (since reverted) revision.  The "original" version was, as this discussion makes clear, a compromise in the first place; if memory serves, the link to the EQMac site was further up in the body of the article, where EQ for Macintosh was actually discussed.  I don't care where or how the forum is mentioned here but for the reasons I've given above, I think it needs to be there.  Yes, it's a 3d party unofficial site, but as matters have evolved it is for all practical purposes the official Everquest for Macintosh site.  Indeed in the past it was common for Sony administrators to communicate with the EQ Mac community at EQMac and not bother with the official forums at all.


 * As for a page for EQMac itself - I dunno. There's really no more to be said about EQMac than "it's the same as Everquest for PC except that it stops at Planes of Power and suffers a few quirky support issues to which the PC side is not subject."  I don't know that there's really enough there to warrant an entire separate article.


 * This may be / is probably all water under the bridge inasmuch as you've reverted your edits (thank you for that), but I figure I may as well comment on them just for the record. JohnInDC (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed a "correction" today from someone who, like me, thought the problems with the official forum were due to the type of computer, rather than the type of account. I note that EQ Mac accounts now allow access to the EQ forums. I also changed the title of the section to reflect that the "problems" were with the forum, not the game. Sinneed (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good clarification on the title. Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"most popular" - header line.
After reviewing a comment by an anon poster, and again reviewing the "cleaned" numbers on the current MMOGCharts, I am dubious about the "most popular" statement in the header.

I propose to cut the line entirely:

While there is no complete agreement on what constitutes a player (or subscriber), it is generally accepted that EverQuest was, from 2000 until 2004, the most popular MMORPG.

Thoughts? Sinneed (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was against the removal until I went to the source - it does not appear to have an editorial board and I don't think it really qualifies as a WP:RS. But I do think there should be something added about the popularity or number of players during the early years. There should be something SOMEWHERE that would provide information - SOE shareholder reports providing #'s of accounts or PC Gamer article  talking about its place in the market. Anyone else have any ideas?GundamsЯus (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was against even CHANGING it. I reverted an edit that turned out to appear correct.  Then I went to the source and reviewed the counts for Lineage... the very old counts had not been restricted to subscriptions and were *VASTLY* inflated.  Finding that they were more reasonable, and not finding any creditable numbers readily available, I started digging a bit more seriously.  Part of the problem is that EQ was a *MINISCULE* part of Sony for a long time, so it got short shrift in terms of reporting... it wasn't a blip on the Sony income sheet.Sinneed (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Socialogical Aspects of MMORPGs
Doesn't this section belong in an MMORPG article? Sinneed (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Protests
I seem to recall a few other organised protests... Wizards in 2001... porting classes in general with the advent of PoK... others. If anyone has any links, I think they might be worth including. Sinneed (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new line in the lead-in/summary paragraph - which I removed.
" Its popularity, along with contemporaries Ultima Online and Dark Age of Camelot, may be credited with sparking the now-thriving MMORPG genre." ...was added to the lead in paragraph. I have removed it, since this is very VERY blurry opionion without any citations or factuality that I can see.

UO people would point out that UO was doing quite well when EQ went live.

EQ people will point out that DAoC came later.

Asheron's Call was more nearly a contemporary in terms of beginning date.

And there are many other "contemporaries" as they still exist today.

Sinneed (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC) changed title Sinneed (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Development History - has a lot of opinion.
Relying heavily on Marks, Robert (2003). Everquest Companion: The Inside Lore of a Gameworld. McGraw-Hill Osborne Media. ISBN 978-0072229035.

1st:

The success of EverQuest has triggered several corporate iterations of its publishing entity which has engendered a popular misconception among newer fans of the series that ownership and creative leadership of franchise passed somehow in 2000 from an independent entity known as Verant into Sony's hands. In reality, EverQuest from its inception has continually been owned by one or other subsidiary of Sony Corporation of America, with John Smedley retaining ultimate control of the product, from his creation of the concept in 1996, to this day. This confusion can be attributed to a shift in Sony's publishing priorities in the U.S. prior to the launch of its Playstation 2 product in 1999.


 * I propose to change it rather a lot. The spirit of the lead-in seems good. The author(s) seem to want to convey that while there were companies not fully owned by Sony developing EQ, that both Sony and John Smedley maintained control of EQ at all times.  This seems adequately supported by the reference.  It appears to me that it might be better to simply say so:

"From John Smedley's initial concept in 1996, throughout various corporate restructurings, Sony has been responsible for and John Smedley has guided the development of EverQuest."

This seems to be adequately addressed in the already-referenced book on this subject, which will need to be cited again. I cannot say the same of the original wording.

Done Sinneed (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

2nd: In anticipation of PlayStation's launch Sony Interactive Studios America had made the decision to focus primarily on console titles under the banner 989 Studios while spinning off its sole computer title, EverQuest, which was ready to launch, to a new computer game division named Redeye (renamed Verant Interactive). Executives initially had very low expectations for EverQuest but in 2000, following the surprising continued success and unparalleled profits of EverQuest, Sony reorganized Verant Interactive into Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) with Smedley retaining control of the company.

3rd: By 2002 however, a majority of the original EverQuest team, including Brad McQuaid, Steve Clover and Geoffrey Zatkin had left SOE and day-to-day development of new titles in the franchise continues largely in the hands of a new generation of Sony designers.

Sinneed (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC) I decided to shorten this up considerably, instead. Sinneed (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think probably leave this alone, unless someone can find some citations... or take out the "a majority" and substitute perhaps "key members". But it really needs some sourcing.  That may be in the cited book, but I don't have my own copy. :(

NO ONE has anything to say or change? Sinneed (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

System requirements need an update
This game seems to have had a massive graphical overhaul since its release; the system requirements should really be reflected in that. I'm not sure if it's restricted to expansion though. Can you play currently on EQ servers with just EQ?Zelphi (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, EQ classic will still run. You can also download additional zones without additional fees. Those zones have different requirements. Expansions also have different requirements. Sinneed (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that's good to know, but for some reason Sony are advocating system specs that match EQ2, it's not as simplistic as "windows" as we see here. They did nothing to EQ basic though?Zelphi (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Several things changed, but none that I can see needing to be in a Wikipedia article. I don't see a system requirements item in the article. I would be most tempted to remove it, if I did. Further, I don't see the requirement for EQ Classic at all, anywhere obvious on the web. Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia. I have some doubts about the sheer bulk that is devoted to gaming. On the other hand, computer gaming is, especially for the younger groups in our societies now a fairly major form of entertainment. Sinneed (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(minor) inaccuracy - PvP on "blue" servers
EQ only allows player versus player (PvP) combat on the PvP-specific server, in designated arenas, or in a consensual duel in a limited number of locations.

As far as I know, you can still "go PvP" on a "blue" server by turning in the Tome of Discord to a Priest of Discord... Of course, it doesn't happen very often, so this is probably nit-picking (which is why I didn't want to edit the article myself).

Kyrstellaine


 * Also, "limited number of locations" - What are the zones in which /duel does not work? I thought it worked everywhere. -- Mewcenary 08:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The wording implies that there are limited number of zones when not in a duel... meaning that there are a limited number of pvp enabled areas of the game (the arenas in each city and such).  /duel works in all zones as far as I know7 Psychobunny2412


 * Dueling is not allowed in the Guild Hall, Guild Lobby, Plane of Knowledge, or Bazaar. 63.88.67.230 (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

SMED, Sony, EQ, and Phil Sandifer
Phil Sandifer, your comment about the origin of the idea for EQ is not germane to the discussion of which company was responsible for EverQuest, nor who oversaw the design and development.

While neither the EQ page nor your talk page are really the right place to discuss the difference between "The original design is credited to Brad McQuaid, Steve Clover, and Bill Trost." and "From John Smedley's initial concept in 1996, throughout various corporate restructurings, Sony has directly or indirectly been responsible for, and John Smedley has guided, the development of EverQuest."

SMED's concept was for a Sony MMORPG. He then went off in search of some.

Brad McQuaid was perhaps the primary creative force behind the game/world that became "EverQuest". The difference between an artist/designer and someone who oversees a development corporation/division/department/etc. may not be immediately apparent, but is very important.

SMED then convinced Sony to fund, blah blah blah, please read the (yes) cited reference for information about the development of the concepts and corporate iterations of EverQuest.

Sinneed (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The separation of the initial sentence from the context and source gives disproportionate weight to Smedley's contributions in a way that is problematic under BLP. Perhaps if the information were merged so it all appeared in the history section and was clearly cited it would help, but the lone sentence isolated from context is a real problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"disproportionate weight"... source? It is hard to overstate the person who came up with the idea of having Sony do an online game, convinced a conservative corporation to implement it, found the creative talent, selected among a number of great ideas, led a series of corporate splits, mergers, buyouts, etc. Both good and bad. "unsourced" .... mmmmmkay, I will duplicate the sourcing Sinneed (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I duplicated (very ugly dupe, can't find the syntax I need) the source. Instead of simply deleting, how about you put in what you think is true, since you state this is not accurate. At this point, unless you have something to contribute, I will simply reverse your edits without comment. Further, if your objection is to the SMED reference, instead of sloppily deleting the entire section, perhaps you might simply take the SMED reference out. Sinneed (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As an example, perhaps:

"From John Smedley's initial concept in 1996, throughout various corporate restructurings, Sony has directly or indirectly been responsible for, and John Smedley has guided, the development of EverQuest."

should become

"From the initial concept in 1996, throughout various corporate restructurings, Sony has directly or indirectly been responsible for the development of EverQuest."

If so, however, I feel confident you can produce some source that indicates who Guided The Development of EQ...if there is one... before making such a change.

Sinneed (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mild humor. In reviewing my notes, above, I mentioned the need to cite the source again in this section. However, then, as now, I did not know how to re-cite something without duplicating the reference. I know it can be done... and I found it. In "<>"greater/less brackets, put:

ref name="whateverlinkname" /

Sinneed (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Everquest Classic
Has any mention been made about the concept, going along with the EQEmu software, of Everquest Classic? It's going to be "under the table" so to speak, and probably against the EULA. I cannot get to the site from work, as the firewall blocks things, but should this be mentioned as an active open beta "emulator" in the proper section? Sullivan.t (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well. Lost my edit.  Hmm.  Interesting idea.  Since the game would require the use of the Sony EQ client, it would violate the EULA.  Whether that is a problem or not is a different discussion.  I know this would not belong on the EQ page about the Sony game called EQ.  Maybe a page of its own?  I rather doubt that Wiki would carry such a page, though.  Sinneed (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source that talks about the emulator? Then we can include a reference to it. If all we have is the emulator itself, that is probably a violation of notability and creeping into WP:original research GundamsЯus (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I think that one of the Sony people addressed it on the Sony forums at one point, but this was long ago.Sinneed (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Check out EQClassic.org - I think that's it.Sullivan.t (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Subscription counts - digging for facts.
Sinneed (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Subscription History
Verant from 1999 to 2001 and SOE from 2001 to January 14, 2004 issued formal statements giving some indications of the number of EQ subscriptions and peak numbers of players online at any given moment. [put ref to Champions of Norrath announce here] However, most of these announcements have been archived and are available only by seeking historical copies through online "internet archives" or other sources.

Accepting both Sony's press releases and the internet archives available today as accurate, these records show a rapid rise in subscriptions to "...more than 225,000..." on November 1, 1999. Sony announced the achievement of 300,000 subscriptions on October 30, 2000. By October 2, 2001, Sony stated that there were "...over 410,000...". On July 29, 2002, Sony announced that there were "...over 430,000..." and that for the 1st time 100,000 had played simultaneously. In preparation for the Fan Faire of 2003, Sony announced on September 25, 2003, that there were "... more than 450,000..." subscriptions.

With that single exception, from March 13, 2003 until the final reference on January 14, 2004, Sony releases that contained numbers referred only to more than 430,000 subscriptions, and/or more than 118,000 simultaneous logins. This leaves the peak and current number of subscriptions for EQ to secondary sources.

The Facts As I Have Found Them
On January 14, 2004 - in the announcement of Champions of Norrath - at http://championsofnorrath.station.sony.com/headset.jsp Sony states "During peak periods, more than 118,000 simultaneous adventurers have explored the fully detailed world of Norrath, filled with monsters, magic, adventure and more. The active global EverQuest subscriber base of more than 430,000 players is comprised of people from 40 different countries." Sinneed (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The following are all at "sonyonline.com/corp/press_releases" (no longer available - see your favorite internet archive). Thank you to Bruce Sterling Woodcock MMOGCHARTS.COM for pointing me in the right direction.


 * A December 17, 2003 release uses the same footer as before, though.

(new data! emphasis mine)
 * On September 25, 2003 - In "*** MEDIA ADVISORY SEPTEMBER 26th & 27th***": "More than 450,000 gamers from United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, France, Italy, and Australia pay a monthly fee to play EverQuest, the blockbuster hit of the global online gaming world.� EverQuest reaches more than 118,000 simultaneous users during peak hours."

(at this point, the text in the releases appears to be fixed at 118k and 430k.)
 * On August 25, 2003 - In "SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT SHIPS EVERQUEST®: EVOLUTION™ TO RETAIL STORES": "During peak periods, more than 118,000 simultaneous adventurers have explored the fully detailed world of Norrath, filled with monsters, magic, adventure and more. The active global EverQuest subscriber base of more than 430,000 players is comprised of people from 40 different countries including North America, Europe, Asia and Australia."


 * On May 14, 2003 - In "SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT ANNOUNCES NEW $21.99 MONTHLY SOE ALL ACCESS™ SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE": "The active global EverQuest subscriber base of more than 430,000 players is comprised of people from 40 different countries including North America, Europe, Asia and Australia."


 * On March 5, 2003 - In "EVERQUEST CONTINUES EXPONENTIAL GROWTH AFTER FOUR YEARS WITH RECORD SETTING 118,000 SIMULTANEOUS USERS": "a new record of 118,000 simultaneous players" "With more than 430,000 active subscribers"


 * On February 12, 2003 - In "SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT BRINGS ONLINE FANTASY PHENOMENON, EVERQUEST, TO THOUSANDS OF EAGER PLAYSTATION®2 GAMERS": "as 430,000 subscribers to PC EverQuest"


 * On October 21, 2002 - In "SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT SHIPS EVERQUEST®: THE PLANES OF POWER™": "During peak periods, more than 100,000 simultaneous adventurers"

(I remember when this happened. Smed was blatting at us to get all our friends to log on so we could hit 100k. I also note that the 430k number is never increased... yet the simultaneous logins does.  I speculate wildly that 2 things were happening:  there were more subscribers, but Sony under-reported, and "multiboxing" was becoming more common.)
 * On July 29, 2002 - In "EVERQUEST® EXPERIENCES A RECORD NUMBER OF SIMULTANEOUS PLAYERS": "EverQuest currently has more than 430,000 active subscribers" "More than 100,000 EQ Players Swarm Norrath Over Weekend"


 * On July 17, 2002 - In "EVERQUEST IS COMING TO MAC OS X": "During peak periods, close to 100,000 adventurers and dragon slayers have explored the world of Norrath online, simultaneously."


 * On January 23, 2002 - In "Sony Online Entertainment And NCsoft Join Forces To Expand The World Of EverQuest® In Asia": "During peak periods, more than 98,000 adventurers and dragon slayers have explored the world of Norrath simultaneously. EverQuest currently has more than 410,000 subscribers."


 * On December 3, 2001 - In "Sony Online Entertainment Takes EverQuest® Players To The Moon With EverQuest: The Shadows Of Luclin™": "more than 400,000 current EverQuest players" "During peak periods, more than 98,000 adventurers and dragon slayers have explored the world of Norrath simultaneously."


 * On October 2, 2001 - In "SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT ANNOUNCES EVERQUEST® GAMECARDS NOW AVAILABLE": "over 410,000 subscribers"


 * On September 4, 2001 - In "Sony Online Entertainment to Introduce New EverQuest Servers in European Markets": "more than 400,000 members across the world"


 * On August 29, 2001 - In "Sony Online Entertainment Announces a New Playable Zone in the World of EverQuest": "During peak periods, more than 98,000 adventurers and dragon slayers have explored the world of Norrath simultaneously. The active global EverQuest subscriber base is comprised of players from various countries throughout the "real" world, including the U.S., England, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, France, Italy and Australia."


 * On June 26, 2001 - In "EverQuest®: The Shadows of Luclin™ Game Trailer Now Available at www.everquest.com": "The 400,000 active global EverQuest subscriber base is comprised of players from various countries throughout the "real" world, including the U.S., England, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, France, Italy and Australia." and "During peak periods, more than 96,000 adventurers and dragon slayers have explored the world of Norrath simultaneously."


 * On May 7, 2001 - In "Sony Online Entertainment Announces "EverQuest®: Trilogy™"-The First EverQuest® Anthology": "over 375,000 subscribers" and "During peak periods, more than 90,000 adventurers and dragon slayers have explored the world of Norrath simultaneously."


 * On April 23, 2001 - In "The Station Membership Base Soars to 10 Million": "more than 370,000 EverQuest subscribers"


 * On April 3, 2001 - In "Everquest® Goes Mass Market":"During peak periods, more than 88,000 adventurers and dragon slayers have explored the world of Norrath simultaneously."


 * On March 16, 2001 - In "Everquest® Turns Two!" "over 350,000 monthly subscribers" and "85,000 simultaneous users".

On the old Verant.com site at "/press_releases.html" (again, use your favorite internet archive):


 * On February 6, 2001 - "over 330,000 active subscribers" "During peak periods, over 86,000 adventurers and dragon slayers have explored the EverQuest world simultaneously. The active global EverQuest subscriber base is comprised of players from various countries throughout the real world, including the U.S., England, Canada, Singapore, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, France, Italy and New Zealand."


 * October 30, 2000 "EverQuest® Signs 300,000th Subscriber" "During peak periods over 68,000 simultaneous adventurers roam the continents and slay the dragons of Norrath. The active global EverQuest subscriber base is comprised of players from various countries throughout the real world, including the U.S., England, Canada, Singapore, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, France and New Zealand."


 * August 1, 2000 - "the more than 270,000 current EverQuest gamers"


 * May 1, 2000 - uses the 225K number


 * On Nov. 1, 1999 - "The expansion pack will provide the more than 225,000 current EverQuest gamers..."

(and pure hell it was, too, when there were ANYWHERE NEAR that 37,000 online - I am dubious of it - quite)
 * On Oct. 18, 1999 - "active subscriber base of more than 150,000 players" "During peak periods, EverQuest adventurers and dragon slayers can form alliances with up to 37,000 other players simultaneously."

Sinneed (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please contribute. :)


 * What are the player counts, or the _feel_ of the people playing, these days? I'm currently patching, after being away for a long time... for 20 bucks, you can't beat trying it at least for another month. Sullivan.t (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have been away a long time, you should not have to pay to play for June and July. They are having a freebie.
 * "feel" of people playing would be original research unless it was published in a formal way.

Sinneed (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Race and class table?
This seems to be far too much detail. How does this enhance a general-purpose encyclopedia entry? I am going to remove the section, which will need sourcing if it is to stay... and I can't really see the need. I do appreciate the neat table, I am sure that on a gaming wiki, or a "starting new eq characters" EQ fan-site it would be great. I am only dubious about whether it belongs here. I do understand how frustrating it is to enhance an article and have some other editor zap your hard work, and I apologize... but as it is I am sure it does not belong... and even sourced I am unsure it belongs. sinneed (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Bards, twisting, Melody, and a lot of unsourced statements.
...other movement buff. Bards "cast their spells" by playing a song, and can only play one song at a time. However, an unplanned side effect was that the song's effects lasted for a little while after the bard stopped playing. During this time, the bard could start playing another song, and thus place two effects simultaneously on nearby players. By switching back and forth, they can keep both effects active indefinitely, in a process dubbed "weaving". While unintentional, it turned out to be a popular and challenging skill to develop and thus was not nerfed. Skilled bards ...

I was tempted to just tag a lot of this for sourcing, but... it really needs some sources before it is added. The MELODY ability makes "twisting" (never heard a Bard mention "weaving", but I am old and not up on the newest slang) a great deal simpler. As did /stopsong. (ah the days of 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,1,1,2,2,2("O drat!!"),3,3,4,4,).

If there are sources for all that, my apologies for whacking it out... but... I don't think I am going to be embarrassed this time. Sinneed (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Further, I would like to hear from a current Bard... do Bards still solo-kite well? I knew it was nerfed, but that was after I had leveled out my Bard, and I haven't logged him in since. Sinneed (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A number of bard spells have been nerfed thus they're not really as strong soloers as they used to be.Most notably their area of effect damage spells (they don't affect moving targets only static) and charm ( the rang of charm was reduced to melee range of the mobs). Zmajc (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I also killed this addition because really, EQ is very old and additions should either be unneeded or have citations available:

"Bards can obtain the ability to move even quicker than their songs allow by synergizing the appropriate instrument with their songs. Percussion, wind, brass. Vocal abilities can only be "amplified" by a higher level song. The Fleet of foot ability allows bards to move even faster while synergizing their appropriate instrument,making them the masters of movement."

The wording needs work, once this is sourced. I do know how annoying it is to have a nice addition stricken just because of a lack of a source... especially with as much unsourced material as there is. But the problem must be kept the same or made better, not worse. Sorry. sinneed (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)